B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google LLC

B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (B.E. Technology) initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Google LLC (Google) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. B.E. Technology operates as a patent assertion entity (PAE), also known as a non-practicing entity (NPE), a company that primarily derives revenue from licensing or enforcing patents rather than manufacturing products. Google, a global technology giant, was accused of infringing B.E. Technology's patents through its advertising infrastructure, specifically its systems for "real-time targeted advertising."

The litigation initially involved U.S. Patent Nos. 9,462,411, 9,462,410, and 9,462,440. These patents generally relate to methods of "reactive targeted advertising" or "providing real-time targeted advertising based on user interaction or known user information." For instance, Claim 25 of the '440 patent specifically describes "providing reactive targeting of advertising to the user in real time by selecting and presenting an advertisement based at least in part on user interaction with the computer." The case was presided over by District Judge Gregory B. Williams in the District of Delaware. This venue is particularly significant for patent litigation because Delaware is the state of incorporation for a large number of major U.S. technology and pharmaceutical companies, and the court possesses an experienced patent bench, especially following the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision which limited patent venue options.

The case is notable for several reasons, including its focus on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for broad method claims in the crucial digital advertising sector. The dispute was significantly intertwined with inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where multiple claims from the asserted patents were challenged. The district court action was stayed pending the outcome of these IPRs. While most challenged claims were found unpatentable by the PTAB (a decision later affirmed by the Federal Circuit), Claim 25 of the '440 patent was upheld, allowing B.E. Technology to continue asserting it. However, the District Court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Google, finding the remaining asserted claim (Claim 25 of the '440 patent) patent ineligible under § 101, as it was deemed directed to an abstract idea without an inventive concept. This outcome underscores the ongoing challenges faced by NPEs asserting business method patents in the post-Alice era.

B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google LLC: Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Case Number: 1:20-cv-00622-GBW
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Status: Judgment (Terminated 2026-04-16)

This patent infringement litigation, initiated by B.E. Technology, L.L.C. against Google LLC, centered on patents related to targeted advertising. The case saw significant activity, including motions to dismiss, a stay pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and ultimately a grant of summary judgment in favor of Google on patent eligibility grounds.

Key Legal Developments:

• 2020-05: Complaint Filed
  B.E. Technology, L.L.C. filed its original complaint against Google LLC, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9462410, 9462411, and 9462440. The complaint asserted that the patent claims were directed to providing real-time targeted advertising based on keywords on web pages visited by a user.

• 2020-XX-XX: Google's Motion to Dismiss
  Google moved to dismiss the original complaint, arguing that the asserted claims were ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the purpose of this motion, B.E. Technology did not dispute that Claim 1 of the '410 Patent was representative of all asserted claims.

• 2020-12-XX: Court's Ruling on Motion to Dismiss (Alice Step One)
  The District Court for the District of Delaware held that Claim 1 of the '410 Patent was directed to an abstract idea at Alice Step One. However, the court granted B.E. Technology leave to amend its complaint to add allegations describing an inventive concept under Alice Step Two.

• 2021-01-XX: Motion for Leave to Amend and First Amended Complaint Filed
  B.E. Technology filed a motion for leave to amend its pleading. Following a hearing where the court indicated Google had met its burden at Alice Step One but not at Alice Step Two, B.E. Technology subsequently filed its First Amended Complaint.

• 2021-09-XX: Joint Stipulation to Stay Litigation
  The parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the district court proceedings, likely pending the outcome of parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

• 2021-XX-XX: Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings Initiated
  Google and Twitter, Inc. initiated inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against B.E. Technology's patents. These included IPR2021-00482/IPR2021-00483, IPR2021-00484, and IPR2021-00485.

• 2022-09-XX: PTAB Issues IPR Decisions
  The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued decisions in the IPR proceedings, finding most claims of the three B.E. Technology patents unpatentable. Notably, the PTAB upheld Claim 25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440 (referred to as the '440 patent), which covers "real-time targeted advertising."

• 2024-08-13/14: Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Rulings
  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 decision on August 14, 2024, affirming several PTAB rulings. This decision upheld the invalidation of most challenged claims while affirming the patentability of Claim 25 of the '440 patent. Another source also states that on August 13, 2024, the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity and cancellation of U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440 B2 in a per curiam opinion (Case No. 23-1131). The specific claims subject to invalidity were those found unpatentable by the PTAB.

• 2025-10-XX: Motions for Summary Judgment Filed
  Following the Federal Circuit's decision on the IPRs, both B.E. Technology and Google filed motions for summary judgment in the district court. B.E. Technology argued that the court should not continue to treat the now-invalidated Claim 1 of the '410 Patent as representative and that the asserted claims, on their own merits, were not directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

• 2026-04-16: District Court Grants Summary Judgment to Google
  The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware sided with Google, granting its second motion for summary judgment. The court rejected B.E. Technology's arguments, concluding that the asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea at Alice Step One and lacked an inventive concept at Alice Step Two, thus rendering them patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The case was terminated on this date.

Outcome:

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware entered judgment in favor of Google LLC on April 16, 2026, finding the asserted claims of B.E. Technology's patents to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This outcome effectively extinguished B.E. Technology's claims against Google. While the Federal Circuit had previously affirmed the patentability of Claim 25 of the '440 patent in the context of IPRs, the District Court's subsequent summary judgment ruling found the claims at issue (which likely included the claims that survived IPRs and were still being asserted) to be patent-ineligible, bringing the litigation to a close at the district court level.

Based on available information, the counsel of record representing B.E. Technology, L.L.C. in B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google LLC (1:20-cv-00622-GBW) is:

• Ronald P. Golden, III
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Bayard, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware
  • Experience Note: Mr. Golden is a counsel in Bayard's Litigation Department, focusing on complex patent litigation in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. He has experience in cases involving pharmaceutical Hatch-Waxman litigation, software, medical device, consumer, and semiconductor chip products, handling all phases of litigation from pre-suit diligence to trial. He is recognized as a "rising star in the patent field."

Here's an identification of the counsel of record representing Google LLC in B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google LLC, based on available public information:

Counsel for Defendant Google LLC

Lead Counsel (Fish & Richardson P.C.)

• David J. Rosen

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington D.C. office.
  • Experience: Specializes in patent litigation across various technologies and has represented Google in other patent disputes. Fish & Richardson is a prominent intellectual property law firm with extensive experience in district court patent litigation and has represented Google in past patent matters.

• Robert A. Van Nest

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA. (While listed by PacerMonitor without a firm, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP is a well-known firm for which he is a partner and frequently represents tech companies in high-stakes litigation, including Google in patent and antitrust cases. Further research would confirm if he was specifically associated with Fish & Richardson for this case or retained separately).
  • Experience: Known for high-profile intellectual property and complex commercial litigation. Has a history of representing major technology companies like Google.

• Eugene M. Paige

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, San Francisco, CA. (Similar to Robert Van Nest, while listed by PacerMonitor without a firm, he is a partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP).
  • Experience: Focuses on intellectual property litigation and has represented technology companies in complex disputes.

Local Counsel (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP)

• Jack B. Blumenfeld

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: A highly experienced patent litigator in the District of Delaware, frequently serving as local counsel in patent infringement cases.

• Brian P. Egan

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: Focuses on intellectual property litigation in the District of Delaware.

Other Counsel of Record (Roles may vary, firm affiliations not explicitly stated for all in search results)

• Matthias A. Kamber

  • Role: Attorney for Google LLC
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results, but often appears alongside Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP attorneys.
  • Experience: Likely involved in patent litigation for technology companies.

• Taylor L. Reeves

  • Role: Attorney for Google LLC
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided search results.
  • Experience: Likely involved in patent litigation.

In-House Counsel (Google LLC)

While specific in-house counsel for this case are not explicitly listed in the search results, Google LLC has a robust in-house legal team for intellectual property matters.

• Mike Lee
  • Role: Director, Head of Patents at Google LLC.
  • Firm: Google LLC, Mountain View, CA.
  • Experience: Leads Google's global patent matters, including portfolio development, licensing, and litigation strategy. Prior to Google, he was a Senior Director of Intellectual Property at Cisco Systems and also practiced in patent litigation.

Please note that the exact roles (e.g., "lead counsel" vs. "attorney for Google LLC") for some individuals are inferred from their typical practice or position within a firm, as PacerMonitor lists them broadly as "contact info" for Google LLC without explicitly defining lead/of counsel roles for every individual. Firms like Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP and Fish & Richardson P.C. are well-known for representing Google in patent matters.