Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al.

I'll research this case and the underlying parties, patents, and any parallel litigation or PTAB proceedings.

Significant material is surfacing. Let me dig into the specific complaint, the four patents, and the parallel PTAB/other litigation.

Case overview and background

Parties. Google LLC is the plaintiff — the Mountain View‑based operating company whose cloud platform is the accused technology here. Valtrus Innovations Ltd. is a patent‑assertion entity (PAE) that describes itself as "the successor in interest to a substantial portion of the Hewlett Packard Enterprise patent portfolio," and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. ("KPI") is its parent/holding company (correspondence with Google has come from a "Managing Director of both Valtrus and KPI," with a @keypatentinnovations.ie address). Related monetization players in the record include Valinvest LLC (a disclosed financial‑interest holder) and Patent Platform Services, LLC, a licensing/monetization agent that participated in Valtrus's 2021–22 licensing communications with Google. Valtrus's corporate structure has been litigated: N.D. Cal. and other courts have examined whether Valtrus actually holds enforceable rights, given a declaration of trust by which it allegedly transferred beneficial ownership to KPI on the same day it acquired the HPE portfolio — a defect that already produced dismissals for lack of constitutional standing (see MLex, "Google win exposes limits of patent‑rights splitting strategy," Mar. 17, 2026, https://www.mlex.com/mlex/intellectual-property/articles/[2454266](/patent/2454266)).

The accused technology and the four patents. Google seeks declarations that its managed cloud services do not infringe (and, in Valtrus's counterclaims, that the patents are not infringed/invalid). Per the complaint analysis of the operative pleading, the accused instrumentalities are Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) — specifically the Horizontal Pod Autoscaler and rolling‑update mechanism — Managed Service for Hadoop (HDFS/NameNode block placement), and Managed Service for Kafka (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/cand/3:26-cv-00363/doc/analysis/28). The four patents are all HPE‑provenance, distributed‑computing‑era filings: (1) U.S. 7,936,738 — "providing fault tolerance in message‑based communication systems" by inserting "context information" (e.g., a SIP tag/extension header) into an outgoing message so a response carries it back for protocol‑stack state restoration; mapped against Kafka's addition of protocol header information to API messages; (2) U.S. 8,379,538 — a machine‑readable "monitoring model" that updates when the monitoring environment's configuration changes and is read by an element that autonomously adapts (mapped against GKE's HPA); (3) U.S. 7,640,332 — "hot deploy/redeploy an application release bundle" in a grid computing environment via a repository server, discovery services module, client application manager and plug‑in (mapped against GKE rolling updates of container images); and (4) U.S. 7,904,686 — the complaint's Hadoop/HDFS theory (NameNode determining where data blocks are stored) appears tied to this patent, though I could not independently verify the '686 specification's title and claim scope from the sources retrieved; treat that one‑line sketch as provisional. Notably, these four are different patents from those Valtrus previously asserted against Google ('704/'764/'809/'604/'454/'005 in N.D. Tex. No. 3:22‑cv‑00066 and '967 in No. 3:24‑cv‑03249), so this DJ action represents a new front in an existing campaign rather than a re‑run.

Posture, venue and why it matters. The action is pending in the N.D. Cal., San Francisco Division, before Judge Trina L. Thompson (No. 3:26‑cv‑00363; 28 U.S.C. § 2201). Note a discrepancy worth flagging: PACER/Justia list the filing date as January 13, 2026 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2026cv00363/[462536](/patent/462536)), while the case metadata you provided says May 4, 2026 — I have used the metadata's court, case number and patents as authoritative, but the date conflict is unresolved in the sources I reviewed. The case is active: Valtrus answered and counterclaimed (Dkt. 36), the court dismissed an infringement claim on U.S. 7,057,509 (Dkt. 56, Sept. 9, 2026), and on Sept. 11, 2026 Judge Thompson extended case deadlines, setting infringement contentions for Sept. 21, 2026 and invalidity contentions for Dec. 7, 2026 (Dkt. 58). Venue is the strategic heart of the case: Google filed first in its home district to pre‑empt Texas litigation, in a forum with deep § 101/Alice experience — the same district (Judge P. Casey Pitts) dismissed Valtrus's consolidated infringement suits against Google with prejudice on standing, claim‑splitting and patent‑eligibility grounds, and the Federal Circuit appeal captioned Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd., No. 2024‑1945, was argued March 4, 2026 (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/03-04-2026-2024-1945-google-llc-v-valtrus-innovations-ltd-audio-uploaded/) — I could not confirm from the sources reviewed which underlying judgment is on appeal. The case is notable for three reasons: it is a reverse NPE dynamic (the operating company using the DJ Act to seize forum from a PAE that had been running a broad licensing campaign against Google, Google's customers, and peers such as SAP, FedEx, NetApp, TierPoint, DataBank and Vertiv); it carries a live ownership/standing vulnerability that has already been fatal to Valtrus elsewhere; and it is tightly linked to parallel PTAB proceedings — SAP's IPR2025‑00418/‑00419 on the '738 patent and FedEx's IPR2026‑00039 on the '332 patent, plus Google's earlier IPR2022‑01408 — meaning the validity of at least two of these four patents may be resolved by the Board before trial (see, e.g., https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1557221](/patent/1557221) and .../1558602).

Caveats: The non‑Google‑hosted items above (Exparte AI complaint analysis, PTAB petition PDFs on USPTO PTAB‑CTS) are accurate as retrieved but are secondary/party‑generated for infringement mapping; I found no Reuters/Law360/IPWatchdog/RPX/Unified Patents coverage of this specific docket number, and no order or claim‑construction ruling in 3:26‑cv‑00363 yet — so the infringement theories described reflect the pleadings, not any court finding.

I'll research the docket, rulings, and parallel PTAB proceedings for this case.

Significant findings. Let me dig into the docket beyond entry 21, the parallel N.D. Cal. case, and the PTAB proceedings.

Let me pin down the specific docket entries and the parallel PTAB/I PR proceedings on these four patents.

Key legal developments — Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd., No. 3:26-cv-00363 (N.D. Cal.)

Search-budget note: I was cut off before completing verification of several docket entries and PTAB outcomes. Items I could not independently re-confirm in this pass are marked [unverified]; corrections to the earlier sections are flagged immediately below.

Corrections / conflicts to flag first

1. Filing date — metadata vs. docket. The case metadata says filed 2026-05-04, but the Justia docket for 3:26-cv-00363 lists Filed: January 13, 2026, with active filings on Jan. 27–29, 2026 (service stipulation, reassignment to Judge Thompson, defense appearances) (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2026cv00363/462536). A May 4, 2026 filing date is irreconcilable with a January docket. I have kept the metadata's case number/parties/patents as authoritative per my instructions, but the docket evidence strongly favors the January 13, 2026 filing date and the earlier section's "May 4, 2026" flag is, in my view, resolved against the metadata.
2. PTAB correction. The earlier section described "SAP's IPR2025-00418/-00419 on the '738 patent." That is partially wrong: IPR2025-00418 is on U.S. 6,871,264; the '738 IPR is IPR2025-00419 (SAP America/SAP SE v. Valtrus, filed 2025-01-15) (https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2025-00419). The two proceedings are separate and had different dispositions.
3. Likely docket conflation. The prior section's Dkt. 56 (Sept. 9, 2026 dismissal of a claim on U.S. 7,057,509) and Dkt. 58 (Sept. 11, 2026 scheduling order) are [unverified] here; a '509 patent appears nowhere in the patents-at-issue metadata, so I would treat those entries as needing confirmation against PACER before relying on them.
4. Possible broader DJ complaint. Excerpts of a Google DJ complaint appearing as an exhibit in a Hogan Lovells PTAB petition assert non-infringement counts on the '538, '416, '953 and '332 patents (and reference GKE and Valtrus's 2021 licensing letters), which does not match the four-patent metadata set. This may indicate an earlier Google DJ action (likely No. 5:25-cv-07063-PCP, the case Judge Pitts held "NOT related" to our case on 2026-01-27) rather than the operative 3:26-cv-00363 complaint. Not resolved.

---

Chronology of substantive developments

Pre-suit campaign (context, same patent portfolio): 2021-04-14 demand letter from the Managing Director of Valtrus/KPI to Google's Mountain View HQ (14–18 patents over several 2021 letters, via @keypatentinnovations.ie); Google–Valtrus NDA 2021-06-09; 2022-01-10 Valtrus sues Google in N.D. Tex. (3:22-cv-00066, the '704/'764/'809/'604/'454/'005 patents); later Valtrus II (3:24-cv-03249) (see PTAB Exs. and petition text at https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558602/).

2025-01-15 — SAP petitions for IPR of the '738. IPR2025-00419 challenged claims 1–10 and 33 as obvious over Forissier (U.S. 7,936,763); SAP's parallel E.D. Tex. case was Valtrus v. SAP, No. 2:24-cv-00021-JRG. The petition's Fintiv briefing noted Valtrus's parallel-litigation standing motion was pending.
2025-06-25 → 2025-07-01 — IPR2025-00419 terminated pre-institution. With Board authorization SAP filed an unopposed motion to terminate; the Board dismissed the petition and terminated the proceeding (Paper 11), expressly stating the paper "does not constitute a final written decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)." No institution, no FWD on the '738 (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1557221/).
2025-07-10 — Acting Director denies institution in SAP's companion IPRs (IPR2025-00414/-415/-416/-417/-418/-420) under §314(a)/Fintiv + the March 26, 2025 Interim Process Memo, citing settled expectations and patents dropped from the district court case (https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/IPR2025-00417.pdf). No PTAB validity trial on any Valtrus HPE-portfolio patent has been instituted.

2025-05-09 — Valtrus sues FedEx (E.D. Tex.) on the '332 patent, accusing Kubernetes use; FedEx responded with IPR2026-00039 (FedEx Corp./FedEx Office), which relies on Home Depot v. H2 Intellect, IPR2025-00480, Paper 11 (Director Sept. 4, 2025) (informative), arguing firm expectations outweigh discretionary denial (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558602/). Institution status of IPR2026-00039 not confirmed [unverified] — this is the most consequential open PTAB item on the four patents in our case.

2026-01-13 — Google's DJ complaint filed in N.D. Cal. (28 U.S.C. § 2201), assigned initially to Magistrate Judge Cisneros.
2026-01-27 — Dkt. 14 joint stipulation on service and the answer deadline; Dkt. 15 Related Case Order: Judge P. Casey Pitts holds 5:25-cv-07063-PCP and this case are NOT related — an early signal that the court will not fold this DJ action into Google's other Valtrus litigation.
2026-01-28 — Dkts. 16–17: case reassigned to Judge Trina L. Thompson; "[a]ll hearing and trial dates presently scheduled are vacated."
2026-01-28/29 — Dkts. 18–21: appearances for Valtrus/KPI by Andrew J. Strabone, Lucas S. Oxenford, Jason G. Sheasby and Steven Marshack.

2026-03-17 — MLex reports "Google win exposes limits of patent-rights splitting strategy" (https://www.mlex.com/mlex/intellectual-property/articles/2454266) — the standing/Declaration-of-Trust problem continues to dog Valtrus (see below).
2026-03-18 — Parallel infringement case filed: Valtrus Innovations Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 5:26-cv-02379-PCP (N.D. Cal., Judge Pitts) — distinct from our DJ action, but it generated the only merits ruling to date in the Google–Valtrus dispute.

• 2026-04-02/04-06: stipulation extending Google's response deadline to 2026-04-30 (Dkt. 18, order Dkt. 20).
• 2026-04-30: Google's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss (Dkt. 23), hearing set 2026-07-16.
• 2026-08-10: MTD GRANTED (Dkt. 37 ruling). Judge Pitts held the asserted claims of the '704 and '604 patents ineligible under §101/Alice and dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend, applying Simio, Sanderling, and TJTM Techs. v. Google (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2026) (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_26-cv-02379/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_26-cv-02379-1.pdf).

Standing/§281 threat (parallel, directly relevant): In the E.D. Tex. SAP case, the court found Valtrus lacks "all substantial rights" and fails 35 U.S.C. § 281 because its Declaration of Trust transferred enforcement and alienation rights to KPI (KPI holds first refusal and directs enforcement) — while Article III standing existed; Valtrus's Rule 20 motion to join KPI was met with futility arguments (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1557218](/patent/1557218)/). In the Google track, an N.D. Cal. order (5:25-cv-07063-PCP) dismissed "Valtrus II" without leave to amend for impermissible claim-splitting, finding Valtrus/KPI filed it to "circumvent the impending dismissal of Valtrus I for lack of standing" (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-07063/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_25-cv-07063-1.pdf). A *Federal Circuit appeal, Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd., No. 2024-1945, was argued 2026-03-04* (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/03-04-2026-2024-1945-google-llc-v-valtrus-innovations-ltd-audio-uploaded/); decision not found [unverified], and which underlying judgment is on appeal remains unresolved in the sources I retrieved.

2026-07-10 — Unified Patents' PATROLL contest ($3,000) seeking prior art on claim 1 of the '538 patent expires; the post confirms Valtrus is asserting the '538 against Kubernetes implementations and that "both Starbucks and Google have filed declaratory judgment actions against the '538 patent" (https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/tag/CNCF). A parallel Starbucks DJ complaint maps '538 claim 13, '332 claim 1 and '953 claim 1 to Kafka/Kubernetes and pleads Washington PTPA bad-faith demand-letter claims — a useful read-through on Valtrus's "all offerings using Kubernetes/Kafka/Hadoop" theory (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558437](/patent/1558437)/).

2026-09-09 / 2026-09-11 — Per the earlier section: dismissal of a Valtrus counterclaim on U.S. 7,057,509 (Dkt. 56) and a scheduling order (Dkt. 58) setting infringement contentions for 2026-09-21 and invalidity contentions for 2026-12-07. [unverified — confirm on PACER.]

What has not happened (important negatives)

• No motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR is confirmed in 3:26-cv-00363 itself; the closest substantive event is the 2026-01-27 non-relation order (Dkt. 15). Because Google filed first in its home district, a §1404/§1406 transfer motion is unlikely.
• No Markman proceeding or claim-construction ruling in our case. The only claim-construction activity in the record is Valtrus's E.D. Tex. opening brief against SAP disputing indefiniteness of "context information" and "potentially inaccurate or incomplete" in the '738 (Claim 10) — no construction order found.
• No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion, and no settlement or judgment in 3:26-cv-00363. No institution decision on any of the four patents ('738, '538, '332, '686). I found nothing on the '686 patent (validity, PTAB, or construction) beyond the prior section's provisional Hadoop mapping.

Present posture and effect of parallel PTAB work

The case is early-stage and active as of 2026-09-26: pleadings closed (Valtrus answer/counterclaims), contentions due/being served through December 2026, and no dispositive or claim-construction ruling on the four DJ patents. The PTAB front has been a net negative for the PTAB clearing function here: the '738 IPR terminated pre-institution (2025-07-01), the SAP companion IPRs were discretionarily denied (2025-07-10), and the FedEx '332 IPR (IPR2026-00039) is the only live vehicle that could resolve validity of an asserted patent before trial. The most likely near-term movers are (i) a §101/§112 attack on the four DJ patents modeled on the successful Valtrus v. Google MTD ruling of 2026-08-10, and (ii) a renewed standing/§281 challenge built on the Declaration of Trust — the theory that has already produced dismissals and a pending Federal Circuit appeal.

I can run further targeted searches (IPR2026-00039 institution status, the 2024-1945 appeal outcome, and PACER entries 22–58 in 3:26-cv-00363) on request.

I'll research counsel of record for Google LLC in this docket.

Good — I have initial notice-of-appearance entries for Google. Let me verify each attorney's firm and role, and check for later appearances.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Google LLC (No. 3:26-cv-00363, N.D. Cal.)

Bottom line: Every Google appearance of record retrieved is from Hogan Lovells US LLP (branded on some third‑party dockets as "Hogan Lovells Cadwalader US LLP" following the firms' 2025 combination), San Francisco office, plus one attorney whose current affiliation I could not verify. No Google in‑house counsel had entered an appearance as of the last docket snapshot available to me.

Appearances on the docket (Dkt. 5–8)

Docket source: Justia docket sheet, Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al, No. 3:2026cv00363 (last retrieved 1/29/2026), https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2026cv00363/462536; see also the PacerMonitor case page listing "Hogan Lovells Cadwalader Us LLP" and Isabella Bosetti for plaintiff (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/62460975/Google_LLC_v_Valtrus_Innovations_Ltd_et_al).

Caveats and things I could not verify — flagging explicitly

1. Staleness of the docket snapshot. The public docket I retrieved shows appearances only through January 29, 2026. The existing case summary references later events (Dkt. 36 answer/counterclaims, Dkt. 56, Dkt. 58 of Sept. 2026). Those entries post‑date my snapshot, so it is likely that additional Google counsel — including pro hac vice counsel and possibly in‑house counsel — have appeared since late January 2026 and are not captured here. Any additional name would need a fresh PACER pull of the Dkt. 59+ range.
2. Date contradiction, now sharpened. The case metadata gives a filing date of May 4, 2026, but Google's notices of appearance are dated January 13–14, 2026 and the Justia/PACER filing date is January 13, 2026. Counsel cannot appear four months before a complaint is filed, so the docket evidence corroborates the January 13, 2026 date and conflicts with the metadata. I have kept the metadata's court/case number/patents as authoritative per instructions, but the filing‑date discrepancy should be treated as an open, probably metadata‑error issue.
3. Christine Pinnkathok (Hogan Lovells, SBN 353430) appears with Perlson/Singh/Bosetti on other Google matters and is a plausible member of this trial team, but I found no notice of appearance for her on this specific docket — do not list her as counsel of record without confirmation.
4. PTAB counsel are different attorneys. Google's lead PTAB counsel against the Valtrus portfolio is Matthew A. Smith (Reg. No. 49,003) with Andrew S. Baluch (Reg. No. 57,503) and Elizabeth A. Laughton of Smith Baluch LLP, Washington, D.C., plus Adam Wichman and Richard Giunta of Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Boston (per Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices in IPR2022‑01497, served 5/20/2024). These are not district‑court counsel of record in 3:26‑cv‑00363, but they are the attorneys handling the parallel validity challenges to the same Valtrus patents.
5. No in‑house Google attorney identified. Nothing in the retrieved docket shows a Google legal‑department appearance; if one exists it would appear on the later docket entries I could not retrieve.
6. For contrast only (defendants' side, not the subject of this task): Valtrus/KPI are represented by Irell & Manella — Jason G. Sheasby, Lucas S. Oxenford, Andrew J. Strabone, Steven Marshack (Notices of Appearance, Dkt. 18–21, Jan. 28–29, 2026).

I'll research defense counsel in this docket. Let me run several targeted searches.

Key leads found. Let me verify the defense appearances on the docket and identify the full Irell & Manella team.

Defense counsel of record — Dkt. 3:26-cv-00363 (N.D. Cal.)

Bottom line: Both defendants — Valtrus Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. — are represented jointly by Irell & Manella LLP (Los Angeles). There is no separate local-counsel firm of record and no in-house counsel appearing for either defendant. This is the same firm that has represented Valtrus/KPI as plaintiffs against Google, SAP, Cloudflare, Starbucks and others since at least 2022, and the same team that has defended the Valtrus patents in the parallel IPRs.

Confirmed appearances on the docket

Source for the four appearances: Justia docket sheet for Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd. et al, No. 3:26-cv-00363 (N.D. Cal.) — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2026cv00363/462536 (Dkts. 18–21). Justia's snapshot was last retrieved January 29, 2026, so it captures the initial defense appearances but not anything filed later.

Likely additional Irell personnel (NOT confirmed as appearances in this docket)

I want to be explicit that the following names appear as Valtrus/KPI counsel in adjacent matters, not (per the sources I could retrieve) as of-record counsel in 3:26-cv-00363:

• Connor R. He-Schaefer (CA SBN 341545) — Irell, Los Angeles; filed the "Notice of Pendency of Other Action" in 5:25-cv-07179.
• Erick R. Franklund (CA SBN 348400) — Irell, Los Angeles; notice of appearance in 5:25-cv-07179.
• Amy E. Proctor (CA SBN 283845) — Irell, Los Angeles; pro hac vice in the N.D. Tex. Valtrus cases.
• Blair Silver — Irell, Washington, D.C. office (750 17th St. NW); "pro hac vice forthcoming" in the N.D. Cal. Valtrus-side filings.
• Megan Dieffenbach — Irell; admitted pro hac vice with Sheasby/Strabone/Oxenford in Starbucks Corp. v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd., W.D. Wash. 2:25-cv-01859.

Signature blocks confirming this roster appear in Valtrus/KPI's N.D. Cal. pleadings (e.g., the Irell block naming Sheasby, Strabone, He-Schaefer, Franklund and Silver as "Attorneys for Plaintiffs Valtrus Innovations Limited and Key Patent Innovations Limited" — https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-cand-5_26-cv-02379/pdf/USCOURTS-cand-5_26-cv-02379-0.pdf; complaint caption in Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. et al. v. Google LLC, 5:25-cv-07179) and in the PTAB service lists for the Valtrus patents (IPR2022-01497 Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices served on hzhong@irell.com, aproctor@irell.com, bsilver@irell.com, jsheasby@irell.com, ValtrusIPR@irell.com). Treat these five as a probable bench extension for the DJ case, not as confirmed of-record counsel.

Local counsel question

Irell & Manella is a California firm and Sheasby, Strabone, Oxenford and Marshack are all California-barred, so the firm can (and does) appear in N.D. Cal. without a separate local-counsel firm — no local counsel has entered an appearance in this docket as of the Jan. 29, 2026 snapshot. Note the contrast with other forums where Valtrus has had to retain local counsel: Steven Fogg filed the pro hac vice applications in the W.D. Wash. Starbucks action, and a Texas local attorney (Gregory Love) was the ECF filer on Valtrus/KPI's filings in N.D. Tex. 3:24-cv-01795. In the E.D. Tex. SAP litigation, docket entries also show attorneys Claire Henry and Rikesh Patel appearing for Valtrus/KPI, but I could not verify their firms from the sources retrieved and will not attribute one.

Gaps and caveats

1. Docket coverage limit. The publicly indexed docket I could retrieve for 3:26-cv-00363 stops at Jan. 29, 2026 (the "last retrieved" date), even though the case has since seen an answer/counterclaims (Dkt. 36), a dismissal order (Dkt. 56) and a scheduling order (Dkt. 58). Additional or substitute counsel could have appeared between January and September 2026; I found no source showing any. If you need certainty, pull the current PACER docket report for appearances (Exhibit A / "Notice of Appearance" entries).
2. No lead-counsel designation in the filings. The notices of appearance do not designate lead vs. of counsel. My characterization of Sheasby as lead rests on his role across the related Valtrus matters, not on a court order or a filed designation in this case.
3. Date conflict (already flagged in the case summary). The metadata says the case was filed 2026-05-04, but the defense appearances are dated Jan. 28–29, 2026 and the Justia docket lists filing on Jan. 13, 2026 — a further signal the metadata filing date is unreliable for this docket.
4. Do not confuse the sides. The Hogan Lovells (San Francisco) attorneys whose names surface in searches — David Perlson, Antonio Sistos, Gurtej Singh, Isabella Bosetti, Jiaxing Xu, Christine Pinnkathok — are Google's counsel (they filed Dkts. 5–8 in this case), not defense counsel. Google's side is Hogan Lovells; Valtrus/KPI's side is Irell & Manella. Some aggregators list the Google-side firm as "Hogan Lovells Cadwalader US LLP."
5. No party-generated sources were used to identify counsel other than as noted; the attorney identities, bar numbers and firm addresses above come from the docket entries, firm bios (irell.com/professionals-steven-marshack; irell.com bio PDF for Lucas Oxenford), the State Bar of California license records, and court filings hosted on govinfo/CourtListener.