Defendant
18 cases as defendant.
Meta Platforms, Inc., commonly known as Meta, is a publicly traded technology conglomerate headquartered in Menlo Park, California. Founded in 2004 as Facebook, Inc., it rebranded in 2021 to reflect its focus on building the metaverse. Meta trades on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbol META. As of early 2026, the company reported having over 78,000 employees and a market capitalization of approximately $1.57 trillion. For the twelve months ending March 31, 2026, Meta's revenue was approximately $215 billion.
Meta's operations are divided into two main segments: Family of Apps (FoA) and Reality Labs (RL). The FoA segment includes its core social media and messaging platforms: Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Threads. This segment generates the vast majority of the company's revenue, primarily through selling advertising space to marketers. The Reality Labs segment focuses on augmented and virtual reality hardware, software, and content. Key products include Meta Quest virtual reality headsets and Ray-Ban Meta smart glasses. The company is also making significant investments in artificial intelligence, developing its Llama AI model and other AI-powered services.
As a major operating company, Meta's patent litigation posture is primarily defensive. The provided case list shows Meta as a defendant in three of four tracked cases, a common position for a large technology firm facing infringement claims. The single case where Meta is a plaintiff is an appeal, indicating a possible defensive origin or a dispute with a competitor. The defendants' cases are filed in the Northern and Western Districts of Texas and the District of Massachusetts.
The tracked cases highlight disputes in different technological areas. The litigation with Gaea, LLC in the Northern District of Texas likely pertains to software or network technologies common in patent assertion campaigns. The suits involving Solos Technology Ltd., both an appeal where Meta is a plaintiff and an initial case where Meta is a defendant, suggest a more direct conflict over technologies related to its hardware products, potentially its smart glasses or augmented reality devices. These cases reflect the patent challenges Meta faces as it defends its established social media empire and expands into new hardware categories.
CurioXR alleges Meta's Quest 2, Quest Pro, Quest 3, and Quest 3S VR headsets infringe the '448 patent when running the Direct Touch hand-interaction feature. The complaint asserts claims 1 and 12 of the '448 patent and claim 1 of the continuation patent. The case is active with no substantive rulings identified as of the search date.
Patent infringement lawsuit filed by Gaea, LLC against Meta Platforms, Inc. The case is currently open and in its early stages.
Solos Technology Limited alleges that the defendants' 'Meta Ray-Ban' and 'Oakley Meta' smart glasses infringe on a portfolio of patents related to smart eyewear technology, including beamforming and audio processing. The case is in its early stages, with defendants having filed a motion to dismiss.
Solos Technology Ltd. accuses the defendants of willful direct and indirect patent infringement related to smart-glasses technologies. The plaintiff seeks damages in the multiple billions of dollars and an injunction, asserting that patent 10306389 covers inventive acoustic and microphone-geometry systems designed for head-worn devices.
Solos Technology Limited alleges infringement of five "smart eyewear" patents, including US11082055, by products marketed under the 'Meta RayBan' and 'Oakley Meta' brands. The case is active and involves a motion to disqualify defense counsel due to a conflict of interest.
SitNet LLC filed a second complaint against Meta Platforms, Inc. in the New York Southern District Court, alleging infringement of US patent 12256463 and five other patents from the same family related to Facebook's Crisis Response feature and Ad platform.
The lawsuit targets Meta's Facebook Crisis Response feature and Facebook Ad platform, asserting six patents from the same family. Discovery of electronically stored information has been ordered. Settlement discussions had not taken place as of November 4, 2025.
Patent Owner VL Collective IP, LLC appealed the PTAB Final Written Decision in IPR2023-00924 concerning U.S. 7,436,980. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed by order dated Aug. 11, 2025, without a merits ruling.
Appeal from IPR2023-00923 concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,266,682. The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal by order dated August 7, 2025.
Similar to the case against Apple, this litigation is in its initial phases.
AlmondNet appealed the PTAB's Nov. 28, 2023 final written decisions in IPR2022-01064 and IPR2023-00384 concerning U.S. 9,830,615. The Federal Circuit appeal was voluntarily dismissed by joint stipulation under FRAP 42(b), with mandate issued July 15, 2024, and no merits ruling.
The Stanford NPE Litigation Database lists US 8,775,249 among the patents asserted, along with US 10,715,878, 7,747,745, 7,979,307, 8,204,783, and 8,959,146. The case is related to W.D. Tex. 6:22-cv-01205 (transferred); a final disposition could not be confirmed.
VideoLabs asserted five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,970,059, against Meta and related subsidiaries. Law360 reported in October 2025 that Meta and VideoLabs resolved the dispute.
VideoLabs and VL Collective IP asserted five patents, including U.S. 7,436,980, against Meta entities. The court denied Meta's § 101 motion as to the '980 patent on April 22, 2024, and granted it as to U.S. 7,266,682. The Delaware dispute was resolved/settled in October 2025.
AlmondNet and Intent IQ sued Facebook/Meta initially in W.D. Tex., asserting U.S. 9,830,615. The case was transferred to N.D. Cal. as 4:22-cv-08911-JST, related to a Samsung action, and on April 12, 2023 certain patents were dismissed with prejudice by stipulation and the cases were stayed pending IPR.
Mirror Worlds sued Facebook/Meta asserting 6,006,227, 7,865,538, and 8,255,439 over News Feed, Timeline, and Activity Log. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement; after a Federal Circuit reversal and remand, the district court again granted non-infringement, and the Federal Circuit affirmed on December 4, 2024.
This case is currently active and is part of a broader assertion campaign by Gaea LLC. Unified Patents has initiated a contest seeking prior art to challenge the validity of the patent.
Second appeal in the Meta case; the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment of non-infringement, declining to reach invalidity because the patents had expired.