Google LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

Case Overview & Background

A note on posture: Although framed as "infringement litigation," the docket at issue here — IPR2025-00061, Google LLC et al. v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. — is an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a district court case. It is the PTAB validity challenge that Google and Motorola Mobility filed (Oct. 17, 2024) to attack U.S. Patent No. 9,792,007, and it is paired with the actual infringement suits: Multifold Int'l Inc. Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01323-UNA (D. Del., filed Nov. 17, 2023, initially assigned to Judge Richard G. Andrews per Justia docket), and Multifold v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01173-UNA (D. Del., filed Oct. 17, 2023) — both identified as related matters in the IPR petition (Pet. 1-2; Paper 5, 1, cited in the May 21, 2025 institution decision on PTACTS).

Parties & asserted technology. Petitioner Google LLC (Alphabet subsidiary; real party in interest alongside Motorola Mobility LLC) is a major operating company whose Android/Pixel platform is the target. Patent owner Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. (MII) is a Singapore Pte. Ltd. entity whose corporate parent is Hong Kong Technologies Group Limited (D. Del. Rule 7.1 disclosure), and which RPX identifies as running a funded, third-party-litigation-financed campaign: MII is successor-in-interest to Flextronics International Ltd., which launched the "Imerj" foldable-smartphone project in 2009 and obtained a portfolio of patents on multi-display/foldable hardware and UI (Joint Claim Construction Brief, 1:23-cv-01173/01323, filed May 15, 2025). MII first asserted the portfolio against Samsung in 2021 (confidential settlement in 2022 after the pleadings stage), then reopened the campaign against Motorola (Oct. 2023) and Google (Nov. 2023) (RPX News, "Funded Multifold Reopens Campaign…" Oct. 21, 2023; "Google Added to Funded Campaign…" Nov. 22, 2023). The accused products are Google's Pixel Fold (foldable, with inner and outer screens) and flat-screen Pixel models (Pixel 8/8 Pro/7/7 Pro/7a/6/6 Pro/6a/5/5a), with infringement theories centered on multi-screen application focus, configurable input areas, and app display across dual displays (Ex Parte complaint analysis of 1:23-cv-01323). The '007 patent, "User interface for a multi-display device" (issued Oct. 17, 2017; app. 14/523,069 filed Oct. 24, 2014, a continuation of a Sept. 29, 2011 application claiming priority to four provisionals, earliest Oct. 1, 2010 — all Flextronics-era), claims a method/CRM for dual-display focus management: displaying a first application image in focus on a first display, launching a second application on a second display, shifting focus, and reconfiguring "configurable areas" (soft-input regions that don't display app content) so input options move with the newly focused application (claims 1-5, 9, 10, 16, per the petition exhibit on PTACTS).

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. The PTAB panel comprised APJs Brian P. Murphy, Hyun J. Jung, and Kristen L. Droesch (per Ex Parte database). The petition (Paul Hastings, lead counsel Naveen Modi for petitioners; patent owner represented by James Carmichael and, in district court, McCarter & English's Daniel Silver team) asserted invalidity of the '007 claims over Purcell in view of Nicholas and related references, relying on the declaration of Dr. Sandeep Chatterjee (Ex. 1003). The Board instituted review on all challenged claims and all grounds on May 21, 2025 (PTACTS institution decision), rejecting discretionary-denial arguments because district-court trial dates were set for late 2026, after a final written decision would issue. The proceeding was then terminated effective Oct. 27, 2025 due to settlement (GreyB/PTAB docket), so no final written decision issued on the '007 patent. The case is notable for several reasons: (1) it is part of a coordinated Google/Motorola IPR wave (IPR2025-00058 through -00061, including the '080 patent in IPR2025-00060 and the '756 "Dual Screen Application Visual Indicator" patent in a sister case that went to a final written decision in May 2026, per Bloomberg Law — a different proceeding from this one); (2) it exemplifies the funded-NPE playbook of monetizing legacy OEM R&D (Flextronics/Imerj) against Android device makers in Delaware, the leading U.S. patent venue, at the moment foldable phones (Pixel Fold, Galaxy Fold) finally commercialized the technology; and (3) its quiet settlement — matching MII's earlier Samsung resolution — left the validity questions unresolved, a recurring pattern in this campaign. Caveat: panel composition, the exact challenged-claim set, and settlement terms derive from PTAB/PTACTS and secondary sources (GreyB, Ex Parte, RPX); settlement terms are confidential and the "JCG" designation on the May 2025 joint claim construction filings (C.A. No. 23-1323-JCG, D.I. 78) was not independently verified as to the presiding judge.

Key Legal Developments — Google LLC et al. v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

A note on case posture

The case in the metadata — IPR2025-00061 — is a PTAB inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,792,007 (the "'007 patent"), not a standalone district-court infringement case. The underlying infringement litigation is Multifold Int'l Inc. Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, C.A. No. 1:23-cv-01323-JLH (D. Del.), with a parallel sibling action Multifold Int'l Inc. Pte. Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, C.A. No. 23-1173-JLH (D. Del.) (same judge, Judge Jennifer L. Hall). Google and Motorola jointly petitioned for IPR, so the PTAB caption is "Google LLC and Motorola Mobility LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd." Below I cover the district-court litigation and the IPR chronologically, since they moved in tandem and ended in the same patent-specific settlement.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2023-10 (approx.) — Multifold sued Motorola Mobility LLC in Delaware (C.A. No. 23-1173-JLH), the first in a new, reportedly third-party-funded campaign (RPX described it as "Funded Multifold Reopens Campaign with Motorola Mobility Suit"). Motorola's response deadline was set for 2023-12-08.
• 2023-11 (approx.) — Multifold filed the parallel case against Google, 1:23-cv-01323-JLH, accusing Alphabet/Google of infringing "the same 16 patents already in suit" against Motorola (RPX, 2023-11-22). The complaint (D.I. 1) identifies accused products including the Google Pixel Fold (foldable) and flat Pixel 5–8 series phones, and alleges infringement of former Flextronics International patents — Multifold is successor-in-interest to Flextronics, whose "Imerj" foldable-smartphone project dates to 2009 (Joint Claim Construction Brief, D. Del., 2025-05-15, citing D.I. 1 ¶¶ 58–62).
• The asserted patents cover multi-display device UI and hardware (foldable/hinge, gesture regions, focus/configurable areas). Eight patents remained asserted by the claim-construction stage (Joint Claim Construction Brief, 2025-05-15), including the '007 patent and siblings ('842, '053, '080, '494, '135, '756, etc.).
• Answer/counterclaims: I did not locate the specific answer or counterclaim docket entries; the procedural record I found (scheduling order, election letter, claim-construction brief) does not disclose counterclaims. Not independently confirmed whether Google/Motorola filed counterclaims.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• 2024-04-29 — Scheduling order entered in both Delaware actions (cited as Ex. 1007 in the IPR petitions).
• 2024-09-27 — Multifold elected asserted claims per scheduling order ¶ 8 (email from plaintiff's counsel, Ex. 1008 in the IPR record).
• 2024-10-17 — Instead of (or in addition to) district-court motions, Google and Motorola filed a coordinated wave of IPR petitions on multiple asserted patents, including IPR2025-00061 on the '007 patent (also IPR2025-00040, -00058, -00059, -00060, and a petition on the '842 patent). The petitions invoked the parallel Delaware cases and argued against Fintiv discretionary denial, noting district-court trial dates were far out (August and November 2026) and that claim construction had not begun — factors favoring PTAB institution (see, e.g., the IPR2025-00058 petition analysis).
• Motions to dismiss / transfer / stay pending IPR / summary judgment: I found no evidence of such motions or rulings in the public record I reviewed. Not confirmed whether any stay motion was filed post-institution.

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2025-05-15 — The parties filed a Joint Claim Construction Brief in the consolidated Delaware actions (Multifold v. Google, 1:23-cv-01323-JLH, and Multifold v. Motorola, 23-1173-JLH). Plaintiff was represented by McCarter & English (Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, Maliheh Zare); Google by Richards, Layton & Finger (Kelly E. Farnan). The brief covers construction of terms in the asserted patents, citing Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc., 92 F.4th 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2024), GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC.
• Markman ruling: I found no public record of a post-briefing claim-construction order — the case settled before any decision on the brief. Claim construction had not concluded when the parties settled.

4. Discovery milestones

• District-court discovery was underway under the April 29, 2024 scheduling order (election of asserted claims on 2024-09-27; joint claim-construction briefing May 2025).
• In the parallel IPRs, expert discovery had begun in sibling cases (e.g., expert declarations of Dr. Jeffrey Rodriguez for petitioners and Dr. Rajeev Surati for patent owner in IPR2025-00040; deposition notices in IPR2025-00059). For IPR2025-00061 specifically, the case terminated before the Patent Owner Response was due, so no substantive IPR discovery phase occurred there (Joint Motion to Terminate, ¶: "Patent Owner has not yet filed its Patent Owner Response").

5. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

• None. No trial occurred. The Delaware actions had trial dates scheduled for August and November 2026 (referenced in the IPR petitions' Fintiv analysis), but the parties settled the '007 patent dispute in October 2025, before Markman resolution or trial. No verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion exists in this matter.

6. Settlement, dismissal, judgment — final disposition

• 2025-09-29 — The PTAB panel (APJs Kristen L. Droesch, Hyun J. Jung, Brian P. Murphy) authorized the parties to file a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00061.
• 2025-10-07 — Google, Motorola, and Multifold filed the Joint Motion to Terminate under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74. The parties represented that they had "resolved their dispute regarding the '007 patent, including both this proceeding and Patent Owner's assertion of the '007 patent in the related district court litigations" (1:23-cv-01323-JLH and 23-1173-JLH), and that they "do not anticipate further litigation between them concerning the '007 patent." Confidential covenants not to sue were filed Board-only as Exhibits 2001 (Google–Multifold) and 2002 (Motorola–Multifold), with a joint request to treat them as business confidential; the parties confirmed no other collateral agreements.
• 2025-10-27 — The Board terminated IPR2025-00061 (Terminated–Settled), effective that date (PTAB docket; GreyB/ipVerse status "Terminated-Settled"; termination date 2025-10-27).
• District court disposition: The settlement resolved Multifold's assertion of the '007 patent against both Google and Motorola in the Delaware actions. The broader Delaware cases (involving the other asserted Flextronics patents) continued separately — as shown by the ongoing sibling IPRs and the continuing claim-construction phase for the remaining patents. I did not locate a docket entry showing full dismissal of the Delaware cases, so the record supports only a patent-specific resolution of '007. No appeal was filed (no merits decision existed to appeal).

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

Google and Motorola filed a coordinated IPR wave on 2024-10-17 against the Flextronics/Multifold patent portfolio:

Effect on the litigation: The IPR wave pressured the asserted portfolio while the Delaware cases were in pre-Markman stages with trials set for late 2026. For the '007 patent specifically, the IPR was instituted on 2025-05-21 (institution decision and scheduling order issued same day), but the proceeding was cut short — at the petition-instituted, pre-response stage — by the global patent-specific settlement reached by October 2025. The Board granted termination because "the proceeding is still at an early stage," serving judicial economy. Meanwhile, sibling IPRs on other asserted patents continued (e.g., IPR2025-00059 reached a Final Written Decision on 2026-04-07), confirming the settlement was limited to the '007 patent rather than the entire portfolio.

---

Bottom line

• Filing: Multifold (Flextronics successor) sued Google (1:23-cv-01323-JLH) and Motorola (23-1173-JLH) in Delaware in late 2023 over foldable/multi-display Pixel phones, asserting multiple patents including the '007 patent.
• IPR: Google/Motorola petitioned IPR2025-00061 on 2024-10-17; the Board instituted on 2025-05-21.
• Claim construction was briefed in Delaware on 2025-05-15 but never decided.
• Final disposition: The parties settled the '007 dispute; the Board terminated the IPR effective 2025-10-27 (settlement), with covenants not to sue filed confidentially. No trial, verdict, or appeal occurred; the Delaware litigation continued as to the remaining non-'007 patents.

Source reliability notes: Dates and procedural facts for the IPR are well-grounded in the PTAB record (Joint Motion to Terminate, IPR dockets via DocketAlarm/GreyB/ai-lab; institution date 2025-05-21; termination 2025-10-27). The Delaware complaint/scheduling/claim-construction facts come from the joint claim-construction brief and IPR exhibits (scheduling order 2024-04-29; election email 2024-09-27; joint brief 2025-05-15) and RPX reporting (2023-11-22). Specifics I could not verify from the available record: the Google answer/counterclaims, any motions to dismiss/stay/summary judgment, the Markman ruling (none found), and the final docket disposition of the Delaware actions.

Important framing note

IPR2025-00061 is not a patent infringement case. It is an inter partes review before the PTAB, in which Google LLC (together with co-petitioner Motorola Mobility LLC) is the petitioner and Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. is the patent owner. There is no "plaintiff" in an IPR; the case metadata's "plaintiff: Google LLC" maps to Google's role as petitioner. The underlying infringement suits referenced in the IPR are Multifold Int'l Inc. Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, 1:23-cv-01323-JLH (D. Del.) and Multifold v. Motorola Mobility LLC, C.A. No. 23-1173-JLH (D. Del.), in which Multifold (not Google) is the plaintiff. Below is the counsel of record for Google LLC in the IPR (the petitioner side).

Counsel of record for Google LLC (petitioner) — IPR2025-00061

All six attorneys are from Paul Hastings LLP, 2050 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036, and service was directed to PH-Google-Multifold-IPR@paulhastings.com. The roster is confirmed by the October 7, 2025 Joint Motion to Terminate (filed under 37 C.F.R. § 42.74) and by third-party PTAB trackers listing petitioner counsel as "Modi, Naveen et al."

Sourcing and caveats

• The complete Google counsel roster above is directly sourced from the certificate of service in the Joint Motion to Terminate (Oct. 7, 2025), available via the USPTO PTACTS system (PTAB IPR2025-00061, U.S. Patent No. 9,792,007).
• The lead vs. backup designation (Naveen Modi as lead, with the others as backup) reflects Paul Hastings' consistent designation pattern in Google IPR matters and the ipverse/greyb tracker, but I could not retrieve the case-specific Mandatory Notices (Paper 2) to confirm the exact designations in this particular proceeding. Treat the individual lead/backup labels as highly probable but not independently verified from Paper 2.
• I found no Google in-house counsel of record for this IPR in the retrieved filings. (In prior Google IPRs, the power of attorney has been signed by Google's in-house litigation directors, but I did not find the POA for this case to confirm who signed.)
• The respondent/patent owner's counsel was Minghui Yang of Carmichael IP, PLLC, Tysons, VA, who signed the Joint Motion to Terminate (Reg. No. 71,989); James Carmichael also appears on the tracker. Not relevant to your question, but useful context.
• Disposition: The parties settled; the Board authorized the joint motion to terminate on September 29, 2025, the joint motion was filed October 7, 2025, and the proceeding was terminated effective October 27, 2025 — before any Patent Owner Response was filed.
• If you actually wanted the Delaware district court defense counsel for Google/Motorola in the parallel infringement actions (1:23-cv-01323-JLH; C.A. No. 23-1173-JLH), I did not locate or verify those appearances in this search and cannot name them without additional docket review.

Important framing note on "defendant(s)"

The docket in the metadata (IPR2025-00061) is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court infringement action. The parallel infringement suits are Multifold International Inc. Pte. Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01323 (D. Del.) and Multifold International Inc. Pte. Ltd. v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01173 (D. Del.), in which Google (and Motorola) are the defendants and Multifold is the plaintiff. In the IPR, the labels flip: Google is the petitioner and Multifold is the patent owner/respondent. I list counsel for both sides below so the roles are unambiguous.

Google LLC (petitioner in IPR2025-00061; defendant in the D. Del. cases)

Lead counsel (PTAB):

• Naveen Modi — Lead counsel, Paul Hastings LLP, 2050 M Street NW, Washington, DC. Reg. No. 46,224. Widely recognized as one of the most active and prominent PTAB/IPR practitioners in the country (long track record leading high-stakes IPRs for Google, Samsung, and other tech clients). (Source: PTAB mandatory notices/POA, Nov. 27, 2024, PTACTS; IPverse IPR2025-00061 case page.)

Backup counsel (PTAB):

• Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508), Daniel Zellberger (Reg. No. 65,349), Howard Herr (pro hac vice), Quadeer Ahmed (Reg. No. 60,835), David Valente (Reg. No. 76,287) — all Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC. (Source: PTACTS download of IPR2025-00061 notices and joint termination papers, listing the full Paul Hastings Google-Multifold team at PH-Google-Multifold-IPR@paulhastings.com.)

Delaware local counsel (D. Del. infringement action):

• Kelly E. Farnan — Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., One Rodney Square, 920 North King Street, Wilmington, DE. Identified as "Attorneys for Defendant Google LLC" in the May 15, 2025 joint filing in the D. Del. cases. (Source: PTACTS filing artifact, D. Del. stipulation dated May 15, 2025.)

In-house:

• Patrick Weston — Senior Litigation Counsel, Google LLC; signed the corporate Power of Attorney appointing the Paul Hastings team for the Multifold IPR campaign. (Source: IPR2025-00040 POA, Oct. 17, 2024, Docket Alarm/PTACTS.)

Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. (patent owner/respondent in IPR2025-00061; plaintiff in the D. Del. cases)

Lead counsel (PTAB):

• James T. Carmichael (Reg. No. 45,306) — Lead counsel, Carmichael IP, PLLC, 8607 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 270, Tysons, VA. IPverse lists "Carmichael, James et al" as respondent counsel for IPR2025-00061. (Source: PTAB mandatory notices dated Nov. 27, 2024, PTACTS; IPverse.)

Backup/other counsel (PTAB):

• Stephen Schreiner (Reg. No. 43,097), Minghui Yang (Reg. No. 71,989), Stephen McBride (Reg. No. 78,396), Christopher R. Abidin (Reg. No. 74,742) — all Carmichael IP, PLLC, Tysons, VA. (Source: same Nov. 27, 2024 PTACTS mandatory-notice filing.)

Delaware counsel (plaintiff's side in D. Del.):

• Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce, Maliheh Zare — McCarter & English, LLP, Renaissance Centre, 405 N. King Street, 8th Floor, Wilmington, DE. (Source: May 15, 2025 D. Del. joint filing via PTACTS; Justia docket for 1:23-cv-01323.)

Cautions and gaps

• Termination posture: The IPR was terminated by settlement effective October 27, 2025 (joint request to terminate; institution decision May 21, 2025). Counsel designations above are from the pre-termination record (mandatory notices dated Nov. 27, 2024).
• District-court lead counsel for Google beyond Delaware local counsel: I could not verify from public sources whether additional lead/out-of-state counsel (beyond Paul Hastings in the IPR and RLF in Delaware) entered appearances in 1:23-cv-01323; the snippet of the Justia docket only surfaced plaintiff-side counsel names. If you need the complete D. Del. appearance list, PACER for 1:23-cv-01323 (Judge Richard G. Andrews) would be the authoritative source — I did not fabricate any additional names.
• Experience notes: The Paul Hastings team's collective PTAB prominence is well documented; for the Carmichael IP attorneys, I only verified their role as counsel of record here — I did not find reliable sources on their notable past cases, so I did not embellish.
• No filings in this IPR were sealed so far as the public record shows; the termination papers are available through PTACTS.