Untitled case

Nobots LLC, an entity that appears to be a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Google LLC in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff, Nobots LLC, holds U.S. Patent No. 9,595,008, titled "Systems, methods, apparatus for evaluating status of computing device user," which broadly covers methods and systems for distinguishing between human operators and computer executable programs (bots) interacting with a server. An additional patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,423,885, was also asserted in the litigation, though a detailed technical sketch for this patent is not immediately available from the provided sources. Google, a major technology company, is accused of infringing these patents with its products or services related to user authentication and bot detection, although specific accused products were not explicitly detailed in the initial search results.

The case, assigned number 6:21-cv-01290, was initially filed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, a venue known for its patent-friendly reputation. It was later transferred to the Austin Division of the same court, where Judge Robert Pitman is currently overseeing motions, including a denied motion to lift a stay. The procedural posture is particularly notable due to significant activity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Federal Circuit. Google successfully petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of all twenty claims of the '008 patent, and the validity of this patent has been a central point of contention. On November 20, 2025, the Federal Circuit reversed an underlying patentability determination related to US 9,595,008 and remanded the case, signaling a significant appellate win for Google regarding the validity challenge, though not a final termination of the patent's enforceability. This remand means that patentability arguments will be reheard, and companies in bot-detection and user authentication should closely monitor the outcome.

This litigation is notable for several reasons, including the involvement of an NPE asserting patents against a major tech platform like Google, a common pattern in patent litigation. The case also highlights the interplay between district court litigation and PTAB proceedings, particularly the impact of IPRs on the overall trajectory of patent infringement suits. The Federal Circuit's reversal and remand regarding the patentability of US 9,595,008 underscore the heightened scrutiny applied to user-status evaluation patents and suggest elevated invalidity risk for similar patents under Federal Circuit doctrine. The duration of the Federal Circuit appeal (654 days) also points to the substantive complexity of the briefing involved.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcome for the patent infringement litigation of Nobots LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-01290 in the Texas Western District Court, concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,595,008:

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2021-12-13: Nobots LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Google LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
  • 2022-04-28: Google LLC filed its Answer to the Complaint with a Jury Demand. Google also filed a Motion to Withdraw a previous Answer to the Complaint.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • 2022-06-01: Google LLC filed a Joint Motion to Transfer Case to the Austin Division.
  • 2022-06-14: Judge Alan D. Albright granted Google's motion, ordering the case transferred in its entirety to the Austin Division.
  • 2022-06-15: The case was officially received and opened in the Texas Western District, Austin Division, as case number 1:22-cv-585.

• Claim Construction (Markman) & Scheduling:

  • 2022-04-19: An Order Granting Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order was issued. A Markman Hearing was set for August 18, 2022, before Judge Alan D. Albright. (The specific outcome of this Markman hearing is not detailed in the provided search results).

• Discovery Milestones:

  • The scheduling order also set deadlines for Joinder of Parties by September 29, 2022, Amended Pleadings by December 8, 2022, and Dispositive Motions by May 25, 2023. (Specific significant discovery events are not detailed in the provided search results beyond these scheduled dates).

• Appellate Proceedings & Patentability Ruling:

  • 2024-02-05: Google LLC filed an appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1432), challenging a patentability determination related to US 9,595,008 B1. The patent covers systems, methods, and apparatus for evaluating the status of computing device users.
  • 2025-11-20: The Federal Circuit issued its ruling, reversing the underlying patentability determination and remanding the case. This signifies a significant appellate win for Google, as the appellate court found reversible legal error in the lower tribunal's patentability analysis. The case was not terminated on the merits at the appellate level but returned for further proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit's reasoning.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • There is no specific information in the provided search results detailing any parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings specifically challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,595,008.

• Present Posture:

  • As of June 18, 2026, the case has been remanded by the Federal Circuit back to the lower tribunal (Texas Western District Court) for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling regarding the patentability of US 9,595,008. This means the dispute is not fully resolved, and Nobots LLC still has an opportunity to litigate patent validity at the district court level. The specific nature of the original patentability ruling (e.g., summary judgment of invalidity) and the precise grounds for reversal by the Federal Circuit (e.g., obviousness, anticipation, or subject-matter eligibility) are not specified in the public record provided.

Plaintiff Nobots LLC is represented by attorneys from Susman Godfrey L.L.P. and Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C. in the patent infringement case 6:21-cv-01290 in the Texas Western District Court.

The counsel of record for Nobots LLC includes:

Komal S. Patel

• Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from firm's prominence in patent litigation and her frequent appearances in similar cases for plaintiffs)
• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX
• Experience Note: Komal Patel is a partner at Susman Godfrey and has been recognized for her work in high-stakes intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement cases.

John E. Schiltz

• Role: Lead Counsel (inferred from firm's prominence in patent litigation and his frequent appearances in similar cases for plaintiffs)
• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX or Seattle, WA (firm has offices in both; specific office for this case would need further verification but typically lead counsel are from a firm's primary offices)
• Experience Note: John Schiltz is a partner at Susman Godfrey with a focus on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.

Matthew R. Berry

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX
• Experience Note: Matthew Berry is an attorney at Susman Godfrey, frequently involved in patent litigation and other complex civil disputes.

Andres Healy

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX
• Experience Note: Andres Healy is an attorney at Susman Godfrey, with experience in intellectual property and commercial litigation.

Charles L. Ainsworth

• Role: Local Counsel
• Firm: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C., Tyler, TX (firm is based in Tyler, making them suitable for local counsel roles in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas)
• Experience Note: Charles Ainsworth is a highly experienced patent litigator, often serving as local counsel in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, known for his deep knowledge of local court rules and procedures.

Robert Christopher Bunt

• Role: Local Counsel
• Firm: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C., Tyler, TX
• Experience Note: Robert Christopher Bunt is an attorney at Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C., with significant experience in patent litigation, frequently acting as local counsel in Texas federal courts.

The defendant, Google LLC, is represented by counsel from Susman Godfrey L.L.P. and Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.

Here is a breakdown of the identified attorneys:

From Susman Godfrey L.L.P.:

• Matthew R. Berry

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner and member of the firm's Executive Committee)
  • Firm & Office: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Seattle, WA
  • Experience: Mr. Berry handles a wide variety of complex commercial litigation, including patent infringement. He secured a $50.3 million jury verdict in a patent infringement lawsuit for Green Mountain Glass, a case that was profiled by Law360 and ranked among the National Law Journal's "Top 100 Verdicts." He was also a crucial member of the trial team representing Uber against Google's Waymo in a trade secrets case, where he successfully moved to exclude Waymo's $1.86 billion damages expert, leading to a favorable settlement. He has been recognized as a "Rising Star" in Trials and Intellectual Property by Law360 and listed among Lawdragon's 500 Leading Plaintiff Financial Lawyers. He is also recognized in the 2024 IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation.

• Andres Healy

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Seattle, WA
  • Experience: Mr. Healy focuses his practice on commercial and intellectual property litigation, with substantial experience in patent infringement actions. He successfully represented a Dutch telecommunications company against patent infringement claims and secured a $31.5 million jury victory for KPN against Ericsson in a patent infringement suit. He also secured a unanimous verdict finding HTC Corporation infringed two LTE wireless standard essential patents. Mr. Healy has been recognized as an IP Star by Managing IP for his patent litigation work and is listed in Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property Litigation, and Patent Litigation. He is also recognized in the 2024 IAM Patent 1000.

• John E. Schiltz

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Partner)
  • Firm & Office: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., (office not explicitly stated in snippets, but firm has offices in Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Seattle)
  • Experience: Mr. Schiltz represents both plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes commercial cases, including patent, trade secrets, and antitrust disputes. He was instrumental in securing a $50.3 million jury verdict for Green Mountain Glass in a patent infringement case and played a key role in an action against Apple regarding RF front-end semiconductor technology, which settled out of court.

• Komal S. Patel

  • Role: Attorney (Associate)
  • Firm & Office: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., New York, NY
  • Experience: Ms. Patel is a skilled lawyer with intellectual property listed among her practice areas. She has served as a mentor-coach for a high school moot court team.

From Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.:

• Charles L. Ainsworth

  • Role: Local Counsel (Principal Attorney, Shareholder)
  • Firm & Office: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C., Tyler, TX
  • Experience: Mr. Ainsworth's practice focuses on patent litigation, business litigation, and personal injury matters. He is a principal attorney with his firm, which is frequently retained to serve as local counsel in patent litigation matters in the Eastern District of Texas (and by extension the Western District of Texas). He has been selected to Super Lawyers for Intellectual Property in Texas.

• Robert Christopher Bunt

  • Role: Local Counsel (Principal Attorney, Shareholder)
  • Firm & Office: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C., Tyler, TX
  • Experience: Mr. Bunt has extensive trial experience, having served as lead trial counsel in over 24 jury trials and a trial attorney in more than 40 trials, including patent infringement actions. He is frequently retained to serve as local counsel in patent litigation matters pending in the Eastern District of Texas (and by extension the Western District of Texas). He is listed in The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation.