Google LLC v. K. Mizra LLC

Case Overview and Background

Parties and Accused Technology

This declaratory judgment action represents a strategic move by operating company Google LLC against K. Mizra LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) that acquires and asserts patents. K. Mizra is a well-known patent assertion entity, reported to be backed by litigation funder Parabellum Capital. The dispute centers on Google's enterprise security infrastructure, with court filings in related proceedings identifying Google's "Context-Aware Access," "Endpoint Verification," and "Mutual TLS" at Google Cloud as the accused technologies. These services are designed to allow enterprises to enforce granular access control policies for applications and resources based on user identity and device context, a key component of modern "zero trust" security architectures.

Asserted Patent and Procedural Posture

The sole patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 8,438,120, which generally relates to a method for "machine learning hyperparameter estimation." Google filed this action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking a declaration that it does not infringe the '120 patent. The case is assigned to Judge Trina L. Thompson. This venue is significant as it is Google's home forum and is perceived as a more neutral ground for patent disputes compared to other venues favored by patent plaintiffs. The filing appears to be a preemptive measure, following K. Mizra's broader assertion campaign against other technology companies and licensing discussions with Google.

Notability and Industry Context

The case is notable for its tactical "venue battle" and its connection to parallel administrative challenges. After Google filed this suit in California, K. Mizra filed its own infringement action in the Western District of Texas, a venue known for being plaintiff-friendly in patent cases. This procedural maneuvering is characteristic of modern, high-stakes patent litigation. The dispute is also marked by Google's aggressive use of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge the validity of the '120 patent. This multi-front strategy, combining district court litigation with PTAB challenges, highlights a common pattern in disputes between large technology companies and NPEs, reflecting a broader industry trend of fighting patent assertions on all available fronts.

Key Legal Developments and Case Outcome

This declaratory judgment action, part of a broader strategic conflict between Google and K. Mizra, saw significant procedural maneuvering across multiple venues before its resolution. The timeline below captures the key events in the Northern District of California case and the parallel proceedings that influenced its outcome.

---

2025-12-05: Declaratory Judgment Complaint Filed by Google

Google initiated this action by filing a complaint for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,438,120 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA). The case was assigned to Judge Trina L. Thompson. This preemptive filing followed licensing discussions and K. Mizra's litigation campaign against other technology companies.

2026-02-10: K. Mizra's Motion to Dismiss

Instead of filing an answer, K. Mizra LLC moved to dismiss Google's complaint. The motion, docketed as entry 24, argued that the NDCA lacked personal jurisdiction over K. Mizra and that Google's filing was an improper anticipatory suit designed to deprive K. Mizra of its preferred forum.

2026-03-24: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss

Judge Thompson held a hearing on K. Mizra's motion to dismiss. Following arguments from both parties, the Court took the matter under submission without issuing an immediate ruling.

2026-03-27: K. Mizra Files Infringement Suit in W.D. Texas

Three days after the hearing in California, K. Mizra filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX), asserting the same '120 patent along with U.S. Patent No. 8,144,717. This action, docketed as K. Mizra LLC v. Google LLC, 1:26-cv-00754, was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, a venue widely seen as favorable to patent holders. This created a classic "race to the courthouse" scenario, raising questions of which case should proceed first.

2026-03-30: Voluntary Dismissal of NDCA Action

In a decisive strategic shift, Google filed a stipulation to voluntarily dismiss its own declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California without prejudice. This dismissal effectively ended the California case and ceded the venue battle to K. Mizra. Legal commentary suggests this move was likely tactical, possibly reflecting a calculation that challenging venue in Texas or focusing resources on the PTAB proceedings was a more efficient path forward.

2026-03-31: Google Files IPR Petition Against the '120 Patent

Contemporaneous with the conclusion of the district court skirmish, Google escalated its validity challenge at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Google filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against the '120 patent. The petition, identified as IPR2026-00321, argues that the patent's claims are obvious in light of prior art and should be canceled. This proceeding is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Final Disposition and Current Posture

The Northern District of California case, Google LLC v. K. Mizra LLC, 3:25-cv-08107, was formally closed on 2026-03-30 following Google's voluntary dismissal.

The legal battle over the '120 patent continues on two main fronts:

1. District Court Litigation: The infringement case now proceeds in the Western District of Texas (K. Mizra LLC v. Google LLC, 1:26-cv-00754), where the parties will litigate infringement and validity.
2. PTAB Proceeding: Google's IPR petition (IPR2026-00321) challenging the validity of the '120 patent is pending. K. Mizra has accused Google of using its superior resources and parallel proceedings to apply unfair pressure, an argument aimed at persuading the PTAB to use its discretion to deny institution of the IPR.

As of May 1, 2026, there has been no claim construction, trial, or final judgment on the merits in either court. The focus remains on the early procedural stages in the Texas litigation and the pending IPR at the PTAB.

Counsel for Plaintiff Google LLC

Based on a review of the docket, including the notice of voluntary dismissal filed on March 27, 2026, Google LLC was represented by a team from the law firm Jones Day.

• Tharan Gregory Lanier (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Jones Day, Silicon Valley office.
  • Note: Lanier is a seasoned patent litigator who has represented Google in other high-stakes patent disputes, including securing a trial victory for Google against WSOU Investments in the Western District of Texas.

• Michael A. Lavine

  • Firm: Jones Day, San Francisco office.
  • Note: Lavine's practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, and he was part of the counsel team present at the motion to dismiss hearing in this case.

• Evan M. McLean

  • Firm: Jones Day, Silicon Valley office.
  • Note: McLean also appeared on behalf of Google at the March 24, 2026, motion hearing before Judge Thompson.

• Sachin M. Patel

  • Firm: Jones Day, Chicago office.
  • Note: Patel's appearance, noted as pro hac vice in court filings, indicates his involvement from outside California, a common practice for national litigation teams.

• Peter Young Kim

  • Firm: Jones Day, Washington, D.C. office.
  • Note: Kim, also appearing pro hac vice, is part of the broader national team Jones Day assembled to represent Google in this declaratory judgment action.

Counsel for Defendant K. Mizra LLC

Based on court filings in the Northern District of California, including the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24) and the transcript order for the motion hearing (ECF No. 44), K. Mizra LLC was represented by attorneys from the national litigation boutique Susman Godfrey L.L.P.

• Shawn L. Blackburn (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston office.
  • Note: Blackburn is a seasoned patent litigator who has previously represented clients against Google, including in a case for Rockstar Consortium that resulted in a $900 million patent portfolio sale.

• Max R. Silvestri (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles office.
  • Note: While his specific patent litigation experience is not detailed in the search results, his firm is a well-known litigation powerhouse.

• Armond A. Vo (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston office.
  • Note: Public records do not provide extensive details on his specific litigation history, but he is an associate at a top-tier litigation firm.

• Matthew C. Holohan (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Seattle office.
  • Note: Holohan's name appears on a transcript order from the motion hearing, indicating his active participation in the case. Additional counsel from Sheridan Ross are noted as representing K. Mizra in the parallel Texas case.