B.E. Technology, L.L.C. is a privately held patent assertion entity (PAE) that does not produce goods or services. The company is associated with inventor David Hoyle, who founded "Big Easy Technology" in Destrehan, Louisiana, in 1996 and obtained patents related to targeted online advertising. While some sources refer to it as a "Tennessee-based patent assertion entity," specific headquarters, founding year for the LLC, or size metrics like employee count or revenue range are not publicly disclosed.
As a non-practicing entity, B.E. Technology's operations center on asserting its intellectual property portfolio. Its patents broadly cover methods of reactive targeted advertising and user interface technologies. Specifically, its assertions have involved U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440 B2, which claims a "method of reactive targeted advertising," as well as U.S. Patent Nos. 8,549,410 and 8,549,411, also related to digital advertising methodologies.
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. maintains an active patent litigation posture as a plaintiff, with its sole tracked case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Google LLC. This aligns with its characterization as a patent assertion entity, initiating lawsuits rather than defending against infringement claims. Its litigation strategy has focused on major digital advertising platforms.
The most prominent tracked case, B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google LLC, filed in May 2020 in the District of Delaware, involved the assertion of patents related to targeted advertising. This case, along with others against Twitter (now X Corp.) and Facebook, led to challenges of the asserted patents' validity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed the invalidity and cancellation of B.E. Technology's U.S. Patent No. 8,769,440 B2 in an August 2024 ruling, extinguishing the enforceability of claims against Google and Twitter. Earlier litigation against Facebook, Microsoft, and Google also resulted in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) holding B.E. Technology's claims unpatentable, which the Federal Circuit affirmed.