Brodti Inc. v. Google LLC

Brodti Inc. v. Google LLC involves a patent validity challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), stemming from a prior patent infringement lawsuit. Brodti Inc. is identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), focused on monetizing intellectual property within the digital advertising and data analytics sector. The plaintiff describes itself as the owner of foundational architecture for the modern creator economy. Google LLC, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., is a major operating company known for its vast digital advertising platforms, including Google Ads and Google AdSense.

The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898, which Brodti Inc. describes as foundational architecture for "predetermined-impression, content-integrated advertising that helped enable the modern creator economy." Technically, the patent broadly covers methods, systems, and apparatus for digital advertising and data processing, specifically detailing five layers: user-generated content, advertising placed within content, predetermined impressions, tracking & monetization, and revenue at scale. Google is accused of infringing this patent through the provision of its Google Ads and Google AdSense platforms across its various services, such as Google Search and YouTube.

The current procedural posture is an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00472) initiated by Google before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This IPR was filed on January 17, 2025, and instituted on July 24, 2025, challenging all claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898 on obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The IPR follows a patent infringement suit initially filed by Brodti Inc. against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:24-cv-00058) on January 29, 2024, which was quickly dismissed without prejudice. Brodti subsequently refiled the infringement action in the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:24-cv-00173) on February 9, 2024. That Delaware case was administratively closed and stayed on August 15, 2025, pending the resolution of the IPR at the PTAB, highlighting the PTAB's significance as a venue for challenging patent validity with a typically faster timeline and a lower evidentiary standard for invalidity compared to district courts.

This case is notable for several reasons, primarily illustrating the common pattern of NPEs asserting patents against major operating companies in high-value technology areas like ad tech. The quick administrative stay of the district court litigation after the IPR institution demonstrates the effectiveness of IPRs as a defensive strategy for accused infringers. The PTAB's decision to institute review on all challenged claims based on obviousness grounds further underscores the vulnerability of certain digital advertising patents to post-grant validity challenges, especially for innovations perceived as incremental. Brodti Inc. frames the dispute as crucial for the modern patent system's ability to defend inventors who build foundational infrastructure.

The patent litigation involving Brodti Inc. and Google LLC for U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898 has seen developments across both district court and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings.

Here is a chronological list of the key legal developments and outcomes:

• January 29, 2024: Initial Patent Infringement Complaint Filed (W.D. Tex.)
  Brodti Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Google LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:24-cv-00058), asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Robert Pitman.
• January 30, 2024: Voluntary Dismissal of W.D. Texas Case
  Just one day after filing, Brodti Inc. filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Google had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, making the dismissal self-effectuating.
• January 31, 2024: W.D. Texas Case Administratively Closed
  The court formally closed the case, noting that nothing remained to be resolved. This early dismissal meant no substantive pre-trial motions, claim construction, or discovery milestones occurred in this action.
• February 9, 2024: Second Patent Infringement Complaint Filed (D. Del.)
  Brodti Inc. refiled its patent infringement claims against Google LLC, asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898, this time in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:24-cv-00173). The case was later assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews on February 14, 2024.
• January 17, 2025: IPR Petition Filed
  Google LLC filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-00472, with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging all claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898 on obviousness grounds.
• July 24, 2025: IPR Instituted
  The PTAB instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood that all claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898 were unpatentable on obviousness grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
• August 14, 2025: Stipulated Stay Filed (D. Del.)
  A stipulated stay was filed in the District of Delaware case (1:24-cv-00173), pending the resolution of the IPR at the PTAB.
• August 15, 2025: D. Delaware Case Administratively Closed
  The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware administratively closed the infringement case (1:24-cv-00173) pursuant to the stipulated stay. This meant the case did not reach a merits verdict, and no damages, injunctions, or claim construction rulings were issued by the district court. The case remains dormant pending the outcome of IPR2025-00472.
• July 30, 2026: Projected Final Written Decision Due Date for IPR
  As of the current date, the IPR is active, with a projected due date for the Final Written Decision on July 30, 2026.

Press coverage of Brodti Inc. v. Google LLC, specifically IPR2025-00472, is limited in widely known legal and technology news outlets. The primary reporting identified focuses on the initial district court filings rather than the ongoing PTAB review.

PatSnap Insights Team, in a May 19, 2026 article, covered Brodti's initial patent infringement lawsuit against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:24-cv-00058), highlighting its exceptionally brief, two-day duration before voluntary dismissal without prejudice. PatSnap noted that the patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898, covers "methods, systems, and apparatus for financing projects" and that the swift dismissal occurred before Google served any response. The article emphasized that a dismissal "without prejudice" means Brodti retains the right to refile the same claims, but the public record is silent on any settlement or agreement.

RPX Empower also reported on Brodti Inc.'s re-filing of the patent infringement suit against Google in the District of Delaware (1:24-cv-00173) on February 9, 2024, after the quick dismissal of the Texas case. RPX stated that Brodti, identified as an "inventor-controlled" plaintiff, asserts a single patent "broadly directed to an advertisement management system," with Google's Ads and AdSense platforms accused of infringement. Additionally, PatSnap Eureka published an analysis on August 15, 2025, detailing the Delaware case's administrative closure and stay pending the IPR (IPR2025-00472) resolution. This analysis underscored the PTAB's institution of IPR on all claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898 on obviousness grounds, calling it an illustration of "IPR stay stipulation as mutual risk management" and noting the vulnerability of ad-tech patents to post-grant challenges.

Brodti Inc.'s own website, "The Architecture Behind the Creator Economy," frames the dispute as a fight for whether the "modern patent system can still defend the inventors who build the infrastructure others later run on." It describes U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898 as "foundational architecture for predetermined-impression, content-integrated advertising that helped enable the modern creator economy" and positions its technology at the "inflection point between the flat web and the internet that pays its creators." While this is a party's perspective rather than independent reporting, it provides insight into the plaintiff's view of the patent's significance and the broader implications of the litigation for the creator economy and foundational infrastructure.

Sources

• patsnap.com
• rpxcorp.com
• patsnap.com
• brodti.com

Due to the limitations of publicly available web search results, the specific counsel of record representing Brodti Inc. as the Patent Owner in IPR2025-00472 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has not been definitively identified. While the PTAB generally requires parties to designate lead and back-up counsel, the names of Brodti Inc.'s attorneys for this particular IPR were not explicitly found in the provided search results.

However, Brodti Inc. has been represented by counsel in parallel patent infringement cases related to the same patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898) in district courts. It is common for patent owners to utilize the same or related legal teams across various venues.

In the district court case Brodti, Inc. v. Google LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00058, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Brodti Inc. was represented by:

• Lisa Paulson
  • Role: Not explicitly specified, likely lead counsel in that district court action.
  • Firm: Davis, Gerald & Cremer, PC
  • Office Location: Tyler, TX
  • Note: Davis, Gerald & Cremer, PC is a Texas-based firm with experience in patent litigation.

In the district court case BrodTi Inc. v. Google LLC, Case No. 1:2024cv00173, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Brodti Inc. was represented by:

• Steven J. Balick
  • Role: Not explicitly specified, likely lead counsel in that district court action.
  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Ashby & Geddes is a prominent Delaware firm frequently serving as local counsel in intellectual property litigation.
• Andrew Colin Mayo
  • Role: Not explicitly specified, likely local or supporting counsel in that district court action.
  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Also associated with Ashby & Geddes in the Delaware district court case.

Here is the identified counsel of record representing Google LLC in IPR2025-00472:

For Google LLC (Petitioner):

• Mark R. Weinstein

  • Role: Likely counsel, potentially lead or backup, as indicated by a declaration for "Notice of Intent to Designate a Provisionally Recognized PTAB Attorney as Back-Up Counsel".
  • Firm & Office Location: To be determined via further search, as this information is not explicitly provided in the initial search results.
  • Relevant Experience: The declaration suggests experience with PTAB proceedings.

• Reuben Chen

  • Role: Likely counsel, potentially lead or backup, as indicated by a declaration for "Notice of Intent to Designate a Provisionally Recognized PTAB Attorney as Back-Up Counsel".
  • Firm & Office Location: To be determined via further search.
  • Relevant Experience: The declaration suggests experience with PTAB proceedings.

• Laura Sheridan

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, in-house at Google LLC.
  • Firm & Office Location: Google LLC. Based in Mountain View, California (Google's headquarters).
  • Relevant Experience: Focuses on patent policy and strategy, manages a team focused on patent strategy, and has experience in patent prosecution, litigation, IP due diligence, and post-grant practice before the Patent Office (PTAB). Regularly speaks on patent challenges under the AIA and defensive strategies against non-practicing entities.

Further specific details regarding Mark R. Weinstein's and Reuben Chen's firms, office locations, and more detailed experience, as well as identification of lead counsel if different from above, would typically be found in the PTAB's institution decision or other docket entries, which are not fully accessible through the provided search snippets without direct PACER access. Google LLC, as a frequent petitioner in IPRs, often utilizes a combination of in-house and outside counsel for such proceedings.Google LLC, as the petitioner in IPR2025-00472, is represented by both outside counsel from Cooley LLP and likely in-house counsel.

Here is the identified counsel of record for Google LLC:

• Reuben Chen

  • Role: Partner, Lead Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, California.
  • Relevant Experience: Reuben Chen is a leading intellectual property lawyer who litigates patent and trade secret cases across various technologies, including artificial intelligence, communications, mobile and web technologies. He has a proven record of success in U.S. district courts, the Federal Circuit, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including Patent Office Litigation. He has been repeatedly recognized as a top-rated intellectual property litigation attorney and has represented Google, among other clients.

• Mark R. Weinstein

  • Role: Partner, likely counsel involved in PTAB proceedings, as indicated by a declaration to designate a provisionally recognized PTAB attorney.
  • Firm & Office Location: Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, California.
  • Relevant Experience: Mark Weinstein's practice focuses on patent and complex technology-related disputes, encompassing high-stakes litigations across the U.S. in areas such as computer software and hardware, Internet applications, e-commerce, and medical devices. He has extensive experience with Patent Office Litigation, including Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) and Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs), and has successfully represented clients like NeuroDerm and Facebook in PTAB cases. He is an experienced litigation attorney familiar with PTAB rules and has made numerous pro hac vice appearances in IPR proceedings.

• Laura Sheridan

  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel, In-House.
  • Firm & Office Location: Google LLC.
  • Relevant Experience: Laura Sheridan focuses on patent policy and manages a team dedicated to patent strategy at Google. A registered patent attorney, her background includes private practice specializing in patent prosecution, litigation, IP due diligence, and post-grant practice before the Patent Office. She frequently speaks on patent challenges under the AIA and defensive strategies against non-practicing entities.