Advanced Coding Technologies LLC v. Google LLC

This patent infringement lawsuit, Advanced Coding Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, was filed by Advanced Coding Technologies LLC (ACT), identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) with a portfolio focused on digital video coding and communications technologies. The defendant, Google LLC, a major technology company, was accused of infringing through various products and services, including Pixel smartphones, Chromebook laptops, YouTube, Google Meet, Google Duo, Chromecast, Android/Google TV, Google Cloud CDN, and Google Smart Home. The alleged infringement centered on implementations of the AV1 codec, utilizing Tensor processors, software-based AV1 decoding, and 5G New Radio (NR) technology. The litigation involved six asserted U.S. patents: 7,804,891; 8,090,025; 8,230,101; 9,042,448; 9,986,303; and 10,218,995. These patents generally address digital video encoding and decoding methodologies relevant to the AV1 open-source video codec, with at least one patent also asserted against 5G NR functionality in Pixel smartphones.

The case was filed on May 10, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX), Marshall Division, and presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The Eastern District of Texas is a significant venue for patent litigation, known for handling a disproportionate share of U.S. patent cases, its plaintiff-friendly reputation, and judges experienced in complex patent matters committed to bringing cases to trial quickly. Early in the proceedings, Judge Gilstrap issued a ruling on December 13, 2024, partially granting and denying Google's motion to dismiss claims related to pre-suit indirect and willful infringement. The case ultimately settled via a negotiated private settlement on February 24, 2026, after approximately 655 days of litigation.

This case is notable due to ACT's status as a PAE, employing a strategy common among such entities by combining communications standard-related claims (5G NR) with codec claims to enhance settlement leverage. The target, Google's extensive ecosystem including the widely deployed AV1 codec, highlights the commercial significance of the dispute. Parallel inter partes review (IPR) challenges were filed by Google (IPR2025-00999) on May 11, 2025, and by Apple against patents from the same portfolio (e.g., IPR2025-01158), indicating a common defense strategy to invalidate asserted patents at the PTAB. ACT has also asserted patents from this portfolio, reportedly sourced from JVCKenwood, in ongoing litigation against other major technology companies such as Apple, Samsung, Bytedance, and LG Electronics, underscoring a broader assertion campaign in the video coding and 5G technology domains. The settlement carries implications for the landscape of video compression patent litigation and codec licensing strategies.

This patent infringement suit, Advanced Coding Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00353, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and ultimately settled.

Here is a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcome:

• 2024-05-10: Complaint Filed. Advanced Coding Technologies LLC (ACT) initiated the lawsuit against Google LLC for patent infringement. The initial complaint asserted three patents, though the specific patents are not detailed in this initial filing information.
• 2024-08-02: First Amended Complaint Filed. ACT filed an amended complaint, expanding the asserted patents to six, including U.S. Patent No. 7,804,891, 8,090,025, 9,986,303, 10,218,995, 9,042,448, and 8,230,101. The amended complaint also introduced allegations of indirect infringement and willful infringement.
• 2024-10-03: Google Files Motion to Dismiss. Google filed a motion seeking to dismiss ACT's allegations of indirect infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,230,101 and U.S. Patent No. 7,804,891, as well as willful infringement related to U.S. Patent No. 8,230,101.
• 2024-12-12: Order on Motion to Dismiss. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap signed a "MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER" (Dkt. No. 47) on December 12, 2024, which was entered on the docket on December 13, 2024. The motion was "GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART." This order addressed Google's motion to dismiss aspects of the First Amended Complaint, including allegations related to patent 7,804,891.
• 2025-02-20: Google's Answer to Second Amended Complaint. Google filed its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint (ECF 55).
• 2026-02-24: Case Terminated via Settlement. The case was closed on February 24, 2026, after Advanced Coding Technologies LLC and Google LLC reached a negotiated private settlement. A "Joint Motion to Extend Stay to finalize settlement terms (Dkt. No. 168)" was filed prior to the formal termination, indicating that settlement negotiations were well underway. The litigation lasted 655 days.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
While other IPR proceedings involving Advanced Coding Technologies LLC and some of the other patents initially asserted in this case (e.g., IPR2024-00374, IPR2024-00372, and IPR2025-00998 for U.S. Patent No. 8,090,025) were identified, no specific IPR or PGR proceedings were found in the search results directly related to the sole patent in the prompt, U.S. Patent No. 7,804,891, that impacted this particular litigation.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Advanced Coding Technologies LLC, in Advanced Coding Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00353:

Alfred Ross Fabricant

• Role: Lead Counsel (implied).
• Firm: Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York.
• Experience Note: Fabricant LLP is noted as a "specialist NPE litigation firm."

McKool Smith

• Role: Trial counsel / Local Counsel (implied due to firm's expertise and location).
• Firm: McKool Smith, P.C., Marshall, Texas.
• Experience Note: McKool Smith is described as a "prominent trial firm with deep E.D. Texas relationships" and has a strong track record in complex, high-stakes patent litigation, particularly for plaintiffs in the Eastern District of Texas. Key attorneys at the firm, such as Samuel F. Baxter and Jennifer Truelove, are known for their significant patent litigation experience in this court. While McKool Smith is explicitly identified as representing Advanced Coding Technologies LLC in this case, specific attorneys from the firm directly linked to an appearance on the docket for this particular case (2:24-cv-00353) were not explicitly named in the provided search results.

The defendant, Google LLC, was represented by a team of attorneys from prominent intellectual property litigation firms, including Sidley Austin LLP, and a local counsel firm, Gillam & Smith LLP, in addition to potentially in-house counsel.

Here is the identified counsel of record for Google LLC:

Sidley Austin LLP

• Julianne Campbell
  • Role: Lead Counsel (likely)
  • Firm & Office: Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX (often mentioned in the context of East Texas patent litigation) or Washington D.C.
  • Note: Sidley Austin has a highly regarded intellectual property litigation practice with a deep bench of trial lawyers handling high-stakes IP litigation, including patents. Julianne Campbell is listed as representing Google LLC in this case.
• Michelle Amber Chin
  • Role: Lead Counsel (likely)
  • Firm & Office: Sidley Austin LLP, likely Dallas, TX or another major office.
  • Note: Sidley Austin's patent litigation practice is consistently ranked among the top in the country, representing clients in diverse industries like technology. Michelle Amber Chin is listed as representing Google LLC.
• Shaun William Hassett
  • Role: Lead Counsel (likely)
  • Firm & Office: Sidley Austin LLP, likely Dallas, TX or another major office.
  • Note: Sidley's IP litigation team is noted for its strong advocacy and recognition in various legal directories. Shaun William Hassett is listed as representing Google LLC.
• Joseph H Lee
  • Role: Lead Counsel (likely)
  • Firm & Office: Sidley Austin LLP, likely Dallas, TX or another major office.
  • Note: Sidley Austin has over 100 lawyers actively involved in patent litigation and handles complex litigation matters for multinational corporations. Joseph H Lee is listed as representing Google LLC.
• Douglas E Lumish
  • Role: Lead Counsel (likely)
  • Firm & Office: Sidley Austin LLP, likely San Francisco, CA or another major office.
  • Note: Sidley is known for winning "bet-the-company" cases and has a strong IP litigation team. Douglas E Lumish is listed as representing Google LLC.
• Amit Makker
  • Role: Lead Counsel (likely)
  • Firm & Office: Sidley Austin LLP, likely Dallas, TX or another major office.
  • Note: Sidley's patent litigators are experienced in district court and PTAB proceedings, and coordinating multi-venue patent disputes. Amit Makker is listed as representing Google LLC.

Gillam & Smith LLP

• Robert P. Mahor (Note: A specific "Robert P. Mahor" with patent litigation experience was not definitively identified in search results, but "Robert Moore" and "Robert Maurer" appear in other contexts. However, the docket entry clearly lists "Robert Mahor" for Google LLC.)
  • Role: Local Counsel (likely)
  • Firm & Office: Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX or Tyler, TX.
  • Note: Gillam & Smith LLP is a prominent East Texas law firm with extensive experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in federal court patent infringement litigation throughout Texas. Robert Mahor is listed as representing Google LLC in the docket.

Other Counsel

• Michael E Jones
  • Role: Unspecified, potentially in-house counsel for Google or local counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Not definitively identified with an outside firm in the search results, but listed as representing Google LLC.

The search results also mention Jonathan C. Bond of Gibson Dunn as a partner with appellate litigation and patent experience in Supreme Court cases, including SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu (2017). However, his name was not explicitly linked to this specific case (2:24-cv-00353) in the provided docket calendar events, so he is not listed as counsel of record for this particular litigation.