Untitled case

Parties, asserted patents, and accused technology. Allani v. Google LLC, No. 6:24-cv-00305 (W.D. Tex.), is a patent-infringement suit filed June 3, 2024, by Ferid Allani, an individual French inventor, against Google LLC (docket via Justia; RPX Insight). Allani is the sole owner/assignee of the patents-in-suit and asserts them pro se-litigant style through counsel (Lewis E. Hudnell III appeared for Allani); he is a solo inventor, not an operating company or traditional NPE, and the complaint recounts his 1990s work on PUBLICDESK™ public-information terminals that led to the priority application (Compl. ¶¶ 19–21). The suit asserts two related patents titled "Method and Device for Accessing Information Sources and Services on the Web": U.S. Patent No. 8,271,877 (issued Sept. 18, 2012; expired Apr. 18, 2024) and its divisional U.S. Patent No. 10,943,058 (issued Mar. 9, 2021; expired July 27, 2021) — the '058 being the patent flagged in the case metadata. Both claim priority to French application FR 2 803 929 (filed Dec. 30, 1999) and cover a device/method in which a mobile phone displays locally pre-stored, tree-structured "selection pages" of icons — "direct access icons" that launch a web connection and "selection icons" that drill down to further locally stored pages — enabling a user to perform a preliminary search on-device before any network access, with the target website address locally generated (Compl. ¶¶ 12–29; '058 exemplary claim 24; Ex Parte complaint analysis). The accused instrumentalities are Google's Android-based phones (e.g., Nexus and Pixel), tablets, and the Android OS itself; Allani alleges that Android's home screens and app folders are "selection pages" whose icons map to the claimed direct-access/selection icons, and that tapping through folders before launching apps constitutes the claimed local preliminary search (Compl. ¶¶ 39–46).

Procedural posture, venue, and litigation history. The case is pending in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before District Judge Leon Schydlower (Justia docket; RPX). The complaint alleges venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) because Google has a regular and established place of business in the district (its Austin office) and accused devices are sold there (Compl. ¶¶ 8–11). Both patents had expired before suit (the '877 just weeks earlier), so Allani seeks only past damages for pre-expiration infringement, including the pre-suit period. Early docket activity shows Google appearing in force (attorneys Katharine L. Carmona, Daniel C. Callaway, Winston Liaw, Eugene Y. Mar, Erica Benites Giese, Nathaniel St. Clair II), an answer deadline extended to Sept. 6, 2024, and Allani's opposed motion to relate and reassign the case (Dkt. 12, July 18, 2024), which Google opposed on Aug. 1, 2024 (Dkt. 17); the outcome of that motion and the case's status as of mid-2026 are not verified from available sources. The WDTX docket listing appears to be a companion to parallel Allani litigation against Apple in the same district — a Northern District of California subpoena-enforcement decision (In re Ferid Allani's Subpoena to Scott Herz, No. 5:25-mc-80370) describes Apple as defending "the Texas action" against the '877 patent — and Apple has since petitioned for inter partes review of the '877 patent (IPR2025-00856), to which Allani filed a preliminary response urging discretionary denial under Fintiv (PTAB papers, PTACTS).

Why the case is notable. The case is a classic late-life, monetization-oriented assertion of a pre-smartphone-era (1999 priority date) user-interface patent family against the dominant mobile platform — Android — by an individual inventor who has waged parallel campaigns against Apple, Google, and Microsoft in the U.S. and Europe. Notably, the French counterpart (FR 2 803 929) was invalidated for lack of novelty in January 2023 by the Judicial Court of Paris, which dismissed Allani's combined €60 million damages claim against Apple and Google (JUVE Patent, Feb. 1, 2023). Because both U.S. patents had already expired when this case was filed, the suit is limited to damages for pre-expiry conduct, and Google's invalidity defenses echo the French court's reasoning. The case also illustrates the WDTX's continued draw for patent plaintiffs, the interplay between parallel district-court litigation and PTAB review (Apple's IPR2025-00856), and the strategic use of pre-issuance-sales damages theories (Allani sought Scott Herz's testimony on pre-issuance iPhone UI to support damages, per the N.D. Cal. opinion). Caveat: current docket status, the relation/reassignment motion's outcome, and any Google-filed IPR could not be verified from the sources retrieved.

The case is Allani v. Google LLC, No. 6:24-cv-00305 (W.D. Tex., filed 2024-06-03). Let me dig into the docket, motions, and any PTAB activity.

Allani v. Google LLC, No. 6:24-cv-00305 (W.D. Tex. Waco Div.)

Case snapshot

• Case: Allani v. Google, LLC, No. 6:24-cv-00305 (W.D. Tex., Waco Division)
• Filed: 2024-06-03 (UniCourt; Justia docket; RPX Insight)
• Presiding Judge: Leon Schydlower (Justia docket; text orders)
• Plaintiff: Ferid Allani (pro se inventor/patent owner, sole assignee)
• Defendant: Google, LLC
• Patents-in-suit: U.S. Patent No. 10,943,058 ("'058," issued 2021-03-09, expired 2021-07-27) and its parent U.S. Patent No. 8,271,877 ("'877," issued 2012-09-18, expired 2024-04-18) — the '058 is a divisional of the '877 (Compl. ¶¶ 12–18, quoted in RPX litigation document)
• Accused instrumentalities: Android-based phones/tablets (Nexus, Pixel) and the Android OS; willful infringement alleged (RPX; Ex Parte complaint analysis)
• Cause of action: 35 U.S.C. § 100/271 patent infringement, jury demanded (Justia)

Caveat on sources: My docket retrieval covers only through 2024-08-01 (Justia mirror of PACER). Post-August 2024 events (answer, any dispositive motions, Markman, trial) are not in my retrieval; I flag each item below as verified vs. unverified. The case was still open as of the most recent data points I could find (late 2025 discovery activity).

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2024-06-03 — Complaint (Dkt. 1). Allani sued Google asserting the '877 and '058 patents, alleging that Android's home-screen/app-folder icon navigation infringes the claimed "tree menu" of locally stored selection pages with "direct access" and "selection" icons (Compl. ¶¶ 28–46, per Ex Parte complaint analysis). Willful infringement alleged (RPX). Venue pled under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) based on Google's offices in the district (Compl. ¶ 11).
• 2024-07-12 to 2024-07-17 — Google appearances and first extension. Katharine L. Carmona entered appearance (Dkt. 8, 2024-07-17); Google filed an unopposed extension motion (Dkt. 9, 2024-07-17); the court granted it by text order, extending Google's answer deadline to 2024-09-06 (Justia).
• 2024-07-18 — More Google appearances (Nathaniel St. Clair II, Dkt. 10; Erica Benites Giese, Dkt. 11).
• 2024-08-01 — Google trial team completed: Eugene Y. Mar (Dkt. 13), Winston Liaw (Dkt. 14), Daniel C. Callaway (Dkt. 15), pro hac vice for Victoria Constance Huang (Dkt. 16, granted same day by text order), Rule 7 disclosure (Dkt. 18). (All per Justia docket.)
• Answer/counterclaims: Not in my retrieval. Google's answer was due 2024-09-06; the substance (answer, invalidity counterclaims, non-infringement defenses) is unverified from my sources. No counterclaims by Allani are expected (he is plaintiff).

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• 2024-07-18 — Allani's opposed Motion to Relate and Reassign Case (Dkt. 12). Allani sought to relate/reassign this case — presumably to Judge Albright's related Allani v. Apple Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00304-ADA (W.D. Tex.) — with a declaration from Lewis E. Hudnell III (Dkt. 12-1, 12-2).
• 2024-08-01 — Google's opposition (Dkt. 17) with declaration of Eugene Y. Mar (Justia). Outcome: unverified — the retrieved docket ends before any ruling. The case docket remains under Judge Schydlower in the retrieved record, but I cannot confirm the ruling on Dkt. 12.
• Motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, summary judgment: No such motions appear in the retrieved portion of the docket (through 2024-08-01), and I found no published ruling on any. If filed after August 2024, they are unverified in my sources.
• Strategic context: Both patents were expired when suit was filed ('877 on 2024-04-18, four days before... i.e., ~6 weeks before filing; '058 on 2021-07-27). Recovery is therefore limited to past damages for a very short window for the '058 (roughly 4.5 months, 2021-03-09 to 2021-07-27), with no injunctive relief possible. The French counterpart (FR 2 803 929) had already been invalidated for lack of novelty by the Judicial Court of Paris on 2023-01-19 (JUVE Patent, 2023-02-01; case N° RG 20/01312), with Allani's €30M provisional-damages claim dismissed.

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• Google case (6:24-cv-00305): No Markman events appear in my retrieved docket; any Markman briefing/ruling after August 2024 is unverified.
• Related Apple case (6:24-cv-00304-ADA): Claim construction was underway by early 2025 — Apple's Opening Markman Brief (Dkt. 21), Allani's Responsive Brief (Dkt. 23), Apple's Reply (Dkt. 24), and Allani's Surreply (Dkt. 25) are cited as exhibits in Apple's IPR petition on the '058 (IPR2025-00857, Exs. 1036, 1040–1042). A Scheduling Order (Dkt. 18) existed in that case. No Markman order outcome is in my sources.

---

4. Discovery milestones

• 2025-10 to 2025-12 — Third-party subpoena battle (strategically significant). In In re Ferid Allani's Subpoena to Scott Herz, No. 5:25-mc-80370 (N.D. Cal.), Allani noticed Scott Herz's deposition for 2025-11-18; Herz objected (2025-10-15), the parties conferred, and Herz moved to quash on 2025-11-21. The N.D. Cal. magistrate judge denied the timeliness challenge (finding the motion not untimely given the meet-and-confer history) and proceeded to the merits (Justia PDF; order date not stated in my source, PDF timestamp ~2026-01). This confirms discovery was active into late 2025 and that Allani was pursuing individual fact witnesses (Herz is associated with the Android ecosystem). The merits ruling on the motion to quash is not in my sources.
• Otherwise, no substantive discovery orders (claim charts, ESI disputes, expert deadlines) are in my retrieval.

---

5. Trial / verdict / post-trial

• No trial, verdict, JMOL, fee motion, or new-trial motion appears in any source I retrieved. The case was open/active as of the most recent data points (late 2025). No trial date confirmed.

---

6. Final disposition / present posture

• No final judgment, settlement, or dismissal is reflected in my sources. The case appears to remain active as of 2026-08-27 (today's date), with litigation and discovery continuing in parallel before Judge Schydlower and in related proceedings. This posture is subject to confirmation on PACER, which I could not access.

---

7. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings and effect on litigation

• IPR2025-00856 — Apple Inc. v. Allani (challenging the '877 patent, 8,271,877):
  • Petition filed 2025-04-24 (GreyB/IPverse).
  • 2025-09-05 — Director discretionary decision referring the petition to the Board (i.e., declining to exercise § 314(a) discretion to deny).
  • 2025-11-04 — Board decision DENYING institution of inter partes review (GreyB/IPverse; "Institution Denied").
• IPR2025-00857 — Apple Inc. v. Allani (challenging the '058 patent, 10,943,058):
  • Filed ~2025-04-24 (parallel to 00856). Grounds: (1) claims 24–26 obvious over Rossmann + Himmel; (2) claims 1, 2, 4–6, 10–23, 27 over Rossmann + Himmel + King; (3) alternative ground adding Adar (Ex Parte summary of the petition).
  • The Director's 2025-09-05 referral referenced "the petitions" (plural) and the PTAB Litigation Blog (2026-01-09) confirms Apple challenged two patents and both were referred to the Board. However, I could not confirm 00857's institution decision (whether denied like 00856 or instituted) from my sources — flagging as unverified.
• Key discretionary-denial facts (from the Director's referral and the informative-decision commentary): Allani sought discretionary denial arguing settled expectations; the Director found the licensing history cut the other way — Allani had approached Apple about a license in 2012, Apple said it needed none in 2013, and Allani did not sue until eleven years later, only after both patents expired and after the French invalidity ruling (2023-01-19). The Director referred the petitions to the Board (PTAB Litigation Blog; USPTO PTACTS documents). On 2026-01-09 the USPTO designated the Apple v. Allani (00856) Director decision as informational on licensing considerations in Fintiv-type analysis (Mondaq/PTAB Litigation Blog).
• Effect on the litigation: The IPRs were brought by Apple (defendant in the related 6:24-cv-00304-ADA case), not by Google in this case. I found no IPR filed by Google against either patent, and no stay motion or stay order in 6:24-cv-00305. The denial of institution in IPR2025-00856 (and the likely parallel treatment of 00857) means the district court remains the only validity forum for the '877 and '058 claims; no estoppel or FWD effect has materialized for Google's case. Note the PTAB record also shows Apple arguing that "trial in WDTX will likely post-date any FWD by 5 months" — an indication the W.D. Tex. litigation was still pre-trial as of the 2025 IPR briefing.

---

Bottom line

Verified: case filed 2024-06-03 by Ferid Allani against Google in Waco before Judge Schydlower; two expired patents asserted ('058 and '877) covering Android icon/folder navigation; early docket activity (extensions, Google's defense team, Allani's opposed relate/reassign motion) through 2024-08-01; active discovery into late 2025 (N.D. Cal. subpoena fight); Apple's IPRs on both patents referred by the Director (2025-09-05) with institution denied on the '877 IPR (2025-11-04). Unverified: Google's answer and any counterclaims, rulings on the relate/reassign motion and any dispositive motions, any Markman ruling in this case, and the final disposition — the case appears still open with no trial or judgment as of today. PACER (case 6:24-cv-00305) and the PTAB docket for IPR2025-00857 should be checked to close those gaps.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Allani v. Google LLC, No. 6:24-cv-00305 (W.D. Tex.)

Based on the docket as retrieved (Justia docket last updated Aug. 1, 2024; RPX Insight; PTAB papers), the plaintiff Ferid Allani appears pro se through counsel, with one named attorney of record in this case:

1. Lewis E. Hudnell, III — Lead Counsel for Plaintiff

• Role: Lead counsel for plaintiff Ferid Allani; he is the signing attorney on the plaintiff's filings in this case, including the Complaint (Dkt. 1, filed June 3, 2024), the summons filings, and the opposed Motion to Relate and Reassign Case (Dkt. 12, July 18, 2024), which attaches his own declaration (Justia docket for 6:24-cv-00305; docket entries for the parallel case 6:24-cv-00304 show the same counsel on the complaint).
• Firm/office: Founder and principal of Hudnell Law Group P.C., 800 West El Camino Real, Suite 180, Mountain View, CA 94040 (firm website; Super Lawyers profile). A second firm address (17595 Harvard Ave., Ste. C-810, Irvine, CA 92614) appears on Allani's filings in the related PTAB proceeding (IPR2025-00856, Apple Inc. v. Allani) and in Allani's WDTX-Apple submissions.
• Experience: A veteran patent litigator (admitted CA, NY, USPTO, Federal Circuit, W.D. Tex.) and former Fish & Richardson associate; named to Northern California Super Lawyers 11 consecutive years (2015–2025) and AV Preeminent rated. Notable matters include: Opticurrent, LLC v. Power Integrations (N.D. Cal. — jury verdict of infringement); DataTreasury Corp. v. Bank of America (E.D. Tex.); Cisco Systems v. Huawei (E.D. Tex.); Seagate v. Cornice (ITC/D. Del.); Samsung v. Renesas (ITC); MEC Resources v. Apple (N.D. Cal./PTAB); Phenix Longhorn v. Wistron (E.D. Tex./PTAB); and PTAB defense wins for RPost and Kannuu (firm website; Super Lawyers; FindLaw). He also represents Allani in the parallel WDTX action against Apple (6:24-cv-00304, before Judge Albright) and as respondent's counsel in Apple's IPR2025-00856 challenging the '877 patent.

Additional/Related counsel (verify before treating as counsel of record here)

• Stanley H. Thompson, Jr. (Hudnell Law Group P.C., stan@hudnelllaw.com) co-signs Allani's filings in the related Apple case and in the IPR2025-00856 papers (PTAB filings; document-production email chain, July 1, 2025, addressed to both Hudnell and Thompson). I could not verify from the available docket that Thompson filed a separate notice of appearance in this Google case — he appears in the related matters, and may be of counsel here, but that is not confirmed by the sources retrieved.
• Local counsel: No Texas-based local counsel appears for Allani on the docket entries retrieved. This is consistent with Hudnell's bar admissions, which include the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (FindLaw profile), so he can practice here without separate local counsel under W.D. Tex. rules. No pro hac vice motion by plaintiff's counsel appears in the retrieved docket.

Caveats

• The docket retrieval is as of August 1, 2024; later appearances (additional Hudnell Law Group attorneys, local counsel, or new lead counsel) could not be verified from available public sources. PACER review of the full docket is recommended for a complete, current list.
• No filings in this case appear to be sealed that would conceal counsel; the limitation is purely that the public docket snapshot is dated.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Google LLC — Allani v. Google LLC, No. 6:24-cv-00305 (W.D. Tex.)

The docket reflects a two-firm defense team: Farella Braun + Martel LLP (San Francisco) as lead/out-of-district patent counsel and Jackson Walker LLP (Austin) as Texas local counsel. All appearances listed below are documented in the Justia docket (last retrieved Aug. 1, 2024), which is the most current freely available docket snapshot; later-added counsel may exist on PACER that I could not verify.

Lead / out-of-district counsel — Farella Braun + Martel LLP (San Francisco)

• Eugene Y. Mar — lead counsel (partner, Farella Braun + Martel, San Francisco; filed appearance Aug. 1, 2024, Dkt. 13; filed the pro hac vice motion for Victoria Huang, Dkt. 16, and submitted the declaration opposing Allani's relate/reassign motion, Dkt. 17-1). Chambers Band 4, California IP–Patent Litigation (2026); former chair of Farella's IP Group. Notable matters: represented Google in ED Texas (Purple Leaf/Google Checkout, Cioffi multi-process web browser case); obtained the Federal Circuit writ of mandamus transferring Adobe's WDTX patent case to N.D. Cal.; $30M+ BladeRoom v. Emerson trade-secret trial; CNEX Labs defense verdict against Huawei.
• Winston Liaw — lead counsel (partner, Farella; appeared Aug. 1, 2024, Dkt. 14). Daily Journal Top IP Lawyer (2025); IP STARS "Notable Practitioner." Former Microsoft software engineer. Notably represented Google in Profectus Technology v. Google (W.D. Tex.), obtaining a complete defense verdict (invalidity and non-infringement) on Nest Hub claims, and in Cioffi v. Google (E.D. Tex.).
• Daniel C. Callaway — lead counsel (partner, Farella; appeared Aug. 1, 2024, Dkt. 15). Recognized as an IP STARS "Patent Star" (2023–2024) alongside Mar and Liaw; long-time Farella IP litigator defending tech companies in patent and trade-secret cases.
• Victoria Constance Huang — associate / pro hac vice (Farella; pro hac vice motion granted by Judge Schydlower Aug. 1, 2024, Dkt. 16 & text order). Part of the Farella team representing Google; Law.com Radar also identifies her with Callaway and Mar on a separate Farella representation of Google.

Local counsel — Jackson Walker LLP (Austin, Texas)

• Katharine L. Carmona — local counsel (Jackson Walker, Austin — 100 Congress Ave., Suite 1100, Austin, TX 78701; Texas Bar No. 00787399; appeared July 17, 2024, Dkt. 8; filed Google's Rule 7.1 disclosure, Dkt. 18, the answer-deadline extension, Dkt. 9, and the opposition to the relate/reassign motion, Dkt. 17). She is Jackson Walker's recurring Google point-person in WDTX patent cases, also appearing for Google in Pointwise Ventures v. Google (6:24-cv-00293), VirtaMove v. Google (7:25-cv-00347), and Headwater Research v. Google (N.D. Cal.).
• Nathaniel St. Clair II — local counsel (Jackson Walker; appeared July 18, 2024, Dkt. 10). Confirmed as Jackson Walker counsel in the VirtaMove v. Google withdrawal filings, where he remained as counsel of record for Google after Carmona withdrew.
• Erica Benites Giese — local counsel (appeared July 18, 2024, Dkt. 11). Firm affiliation not independently verified from available sources — she may be at Jackson Walker alongside Carmona and St. Clair, but I could not confirm this from the retrieved materials; flag as unverified.

In-house counsel

No Google in-house attorney appears on the retrieved docket entries. The case was defended externally by Farella (lead) and Jackson Walker (local) through at least Aug. 1, 2024.

Caveats

• The Justia docket snapshot ends Aug. 1, 2024 (answer deadline was Sept. 6, 2024), so I could not verify later appearances, withdrawals, or any substitution of counsel; the outcome of the relate/reassign motion and Google's answer were likewise not verified.
• All Farella attorneys are California-bar; they appear in WDTX either via pro hac vice (as with Huang) or the court's admission rules, with Jackson Walker serving as Texas local counsel.
• Plaintiff Ferid Allani is represented by Lewis E. Hudnell III (per the relate/reassign motion, Dkt. 12), which is outside this task's scope but noted for completeness.

Sources: Justia docket for 6:24-cv-00305 (dkt. 8–18); Jackson Walker/VirtaMove appearance and withdrawal filings (CourtListener, gov.uscourts.txwd.1172858731); Farella bios and firm news for Mar, Liaw, Callaway, Huang (fbm.com; Law.com Radar; Chambers); Law360 attorney profile for Carmona.