Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C.

Case Overview: Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. (IPR2022-01413)

Parties and posture

A threshold point on posture: the docket at issue, IPR2022-01413, is not itself a district-court infringement suit but a petition for inter partes review filed by Google LLC (Petitioner) against WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. (Patent Owner) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636. It sits atop a parallel infringement campaign: WAG sued Google and YouTube in WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC et al., No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., filed Aug. 6, 2021), assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright (DocketAlarm; Unified Patents litigation portal). Google is the operating company behind the YouTube streaming platform. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. is a non-practicing/litigation-funding vehicle: RPX and IPWatchdog identify it as backed by litigation funder Woodsford Litigation Funding Ltd., describing it as a "litigation-funded vehicle" that escalated a decade-plus streaming-patent campaign (in litigation since roughly 2007) from small and mid-sized targets to Amazon, Google/YouTube, Disney, Hulu, and Netflix (RPX, Aug. 8, 2021; IPWatchdog, Aug. 11, 2021). WAG has been represented in the IPR and appeals by Ronald Abramson of Liston Abramson LLP, with Google represented by Eamonn Gardner of Cooley LLP (Fed. Cir. judgment).

Patent, accused technology, and grounds

The sole patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 ("Streaming Media Delivery System," issued Sept. 12, 2017), is a server-side method for distributing live audio/video over the Internet in which media is divided into serially identified "media data elements" stored in a server data structure and sent to users in response to client requests that specify the elements by serial identifier — a client-driven "pull" streaming model in which the server need not track the last element sent per user (claim 1, as summarized in Google's petition and WAG's response, PTACTS). It is a sibling of the '824 and '594 patents in the same family asserted against Google; the accused instrumentality is "YouTube Streaming Services" — YouTube's delivery of pre-recorded and live programming to browsers, smart TVs, and streaming devices, which WAG alleged employs serial chunk identifiers (e.g., "rn"/"sq") and HTTP GET requests to pull media segments (RPX; N.D. Cal. complaint analysis, 3:22-cv-05772). Google's August 12, 2022 petition challenged all twelve claims on obviousness grounds over a principal reference, Carmel, alone and in combination with Narayan and/or Ravi (PTACTS petition). The Board (APJs Hubert C. Lorin (author), John A. Hudalla, and Steven M. Amundson) instituted review on March 23, 2023, held oral argument February 9, 2024, and on March 20, 2024 issued its Final Written Decision (Paper 34) determining all challenged claims unpatentable and dismissing Google's motion to exclude (DocketAlarm; Patexia).

Why the case matters

The matter is notable as the coordinated-defense counterpart to a litigation-financed NPE streaming campaign targeting the largest U.S. video platforms at once. Google, Amazon, Disney, Hulu, and Netflix each filed IPRs against the '636/'824/'594 family (at least nine petitions, per the W.D. Wash. stay order in WAG v. Amazon, 2:22-cv-01424, which Judge Robert S. Lasnik stayed pending the IPRs), and the PTAB invalidated all challenged claims of these streaming patents in a cluster of Final Written Decisions issued in early 2024 (IPWatchdog, Mar. 7, 2024). The W.D. Tex. venue under Judge Albright was part of the campaign's high-profile NPE forum strategy, though Google's and others' IPRs effectively neutralized the assertions. WAG appealed the '636 decision to the Federal Circuit (Appeal No. 2024-1632), and on March 9, 2026, a per curiam panel (Lourie, Wallach, and Chen) affirmed the PTAB in consolidated appeals spanning the Google, Amazon, and Disney IPRs on the streaming family (Fed. Cir. Nos. 2024-1627/28/31/32/33; CourtListener opinion 10805629). Broader context: the disputes test how far pull-based media-chunking claims from the early-2000s prior art can reach modern adaptive-bitrate streaming infrastructure — a question with obvious stakes for YouTube, Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, and AWS Elemental/CloudFront. One caveat: I could not confirm from available sources the final disposition (e.g., dismissal or stipulation) of the underlying W.D. Tex. infringement case after the IPR affirmance, so its ultimate termination should be verified against PACER.

Key Legal Developments — WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC / Google LLC v. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. (U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636)

A framing note on the record. The captioned matter (IPR2022-01413) is itself the PTAB inter partes review Google filed against WAG on the '636 patent. The parallel patent-infringement litigation is WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC et al., No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.), later transferred to 3:22-cv-05772-JD (N.D. Cal.). No infringement trial ever occurred; the litigation was stayed administratively closed pending the IPRs, and the PTAB's invalidation of all challenged claims was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Below is the chronological development, with a caveat where a specific docket event could not be independently verified in the sources retrieved.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (district court)

• 2021-08-06 — Complaint filed. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. sued Google LLC and YouTube, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division (No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright), alleging infringement of three streaming-media patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,762,636, 9,742,824, and 9,729,594 (IPWatchdog, 2021-08-11; Unified Patents docket portal; DocketAlarm).
• Service: Google was served 2021-08-12 and YouTube on 2021-08-26; answer deadlines were extended to 2021-11-01 (Justia docket entries 13–15, 3:22-cv-05772 transfer docket reflecting W.D. Tex. history).
• 2021-11-01 — Google's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Google moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim (Filing 17, W.D. Tex.; preserved on the N.D. Cal. docket). I could not verify the outcome of this motion from the sources retrieved; it was likely mooted or superseded by the subsequent transfer.
• No answer/counterclaims were filed in W.D. Tex. The case transferred before any answer. Google and YouTube filed their Answer with Jury Demand only after transfer, on 2022-12-27 in the N.D. Cal. case (Filing 89) (UniCourt; Bloomberg Law docket).

2. Venue / transfer

• The case was transferred from W.D. Tex. to the Northern District of California, where it was docketed 2022-10-05 as No. 3:22-cv-05772-JD (Judge James Donato), with the W.D. Tex. case 6:21-cv-00816 noted as the originating case (Bloomberg Law; UniCourt). The specific transfer motion and order (likely Google's § 1404(a) motion) were not retrieved in the available search results; the transfer itself is well documented by the N.D. Cal. docket and "Case in other court" notations.

3. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings (the captioned matter and related cases)

• 2022-08-12 — Google petitioned for IPR of the '636 patent (IPR2022-01413), challenging claims 1–12 on obviousness grounds over the "Carmel" reference alone and in combination with Narayan and/or Ravi (USPTO PTAB petition; Patexia).
• The petition identified W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00816 (this case), C.D. Cal. 2:21-cv-08230 (WAG v. Disney, filed 2021-10-18), and W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00815 (WAG v. Amazon) as related litigations, and noted the earlier WebPower Inc. v. WAG Acquisition, IPR2016-01238 final written decision finding a family patent unpatentable over related art (PTAB petition papers).
• Related IPRs filed by Google/Amazon/Disney around the same window (e.g., IPR2022-01227, -01228, -01412, -01430, -01433, and IPR2022-01411/IPR2023-00813) challenged the companion '824 and '594 patents across the various WAG lawsuits (Fed. Cir. judgments, 2026-03-09).
• 2023-03-23 — Institution decision in IPR2022-01413 (Patexia).
• 2024-03-20 — Final Written Decision. The Board (Administrative Judges Hubert C. Lorin [author], John A. Hudalla, Steven M. Amundson) determined that all challenged claims (1–12) of the '636 patent are unpatentable, consistent with the case-status metadata (Patexia; case metadata).
• WAG's Patent Owner Response argued, inter alia, that Carmel did not disclose the claimed "pull" streaming model and that Google failed to show a reasonable expectation of success (USPTO PTAB papers) — arguments rejected by the Board.

4. Claim construction (Markman) — district court track

• The parties exchanged preliminary infringement contentions (WAG's served around 2022-02-08, including YouTube-amended contentions) and proceeded through claim construction briefing in W.D. Tex. (WAG's proposed constructions dated 2022-02-18; Google's opening brief ~2022-03-11 [Dkt. 35]; responsive briefs ~2022-04-01; reply briefs Dkts. 43/45) (Google IPR petition exhibit list; Patexia exhibit entries).
• Google's briefing sought construction of "the media source," "a predetermined number of media data elements," and argued terms such as "approximately/about a predetermined number" were indefinite (Google reply-construction brief, W.D. Tex. Dkt. 45). No Markman order was identified; the case transferred (2022-10-05) and was stayed (2023-03-22) before a construed-claim trial track could conclude.

5. Stay of the district court litigation

• 2023-02-14 (related case context): The Western District of Washington stayed WAG v. Amazon (No. C22-1424JLR) pending the nine related IPR petitions filed by Amazon, Google, and Disney, finding it "far more likely" the IPRs would simplify the cases (Casetext opinion, W.D. Wash. 2023-02-14).
• 2023-03-22 — Stay and administrative closure of the Google case. Judge Donato ordered: "In light of the institution of IPR review for the patents-in-suit … the case is stayed and administratively closed pending further order. The parties are directed to promptly advise the Court of the disposition of the IPR review." (Docket #98, 3:22-cv-05772, signed 2023-03-22; UniCourt/Bloomberg Law docket.) The case was terminated/closed on that date and, per available records, was never reopened after the PTAB invalidated the claims.

6. Appeal to the Federal Circuit and final disposition

• WAG appealed the IPR2022-01413 Final Written Decision to the Federal Circuit as Appeal No. 2024-1632 (Patexia), one of a set of consolidated WAG appeals (24-1627, -1628, -1631, -1632, -1633, -1634) arising from IPRs IPR2022-01227, -01228, -01412, -01413, -01430, and -01433, argued by Ronald Abramson (Liston Abramson LLP) for WAG against Google (Cooley LLP), Amazon (Fenwick & West LLP), and Disney/Hulu/Netflix (DLA Piper) (Fed. Cir. dockets/judgments; CourtListener).
• 2026-03-09 — Federal Circuit judgment. A per curiam panel (Judges Lourie, Wallach, and Chen) entered judgment AFFIRMED under Fed. Cir. R. 36 in the consolidated appeals including No. 2024-1632 (the '636 IPR), and in companion Appeal No. 24-1630 (IPR2022-01411 / IPR2023-00813) (CourtListener; Justia; iipla.org, 2026-03-09).

7. Net outcome

• PTAB: All challenged claims (1–12) of U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636 held unpatentable (2024-03-20 FWD); affirmed by the Federal Circuit (2026-03-09).
• District court: The WAG v. Google infringement action was stayed and administratively closed on 2023-03-22 pending IPR and, on the record retrieved, was never reactivated — the PTAB invalidation and affirmance left Google/YouTube with a complete defense. No verdict, JMOL, fee motion, or damages award exists because the case never reached trial.
• Related fronts: WAG's parallel suits against Amazon (W.D. Wash., stayed 2023-02-14; W.D. Tex. 6:21-cv-00815) and Disney/Hulu/Netflix (C.D. Cal. 2:21-cv-08230 and related) were pursued against the same three-patent family, with the same IPR-institution-based stays and the same consolidated Federal Circuit affirmance.

---

Sourcing caveats

Dates and events are drawn from the PTAB petition and response papers (USPTO), Patexia case summaries (institution 2023-03-23; FWD 2024-03-20; appeal 2024-1632), UniCourt/Bloomberg Law N.D. Cal. dockets (answer 2022-12-27; stay order 2023-03-22), the Justia transfer docket (W.D. Tex. pleadings, 12(b)(6) motion 2021-11-01), Casetext (W.D. Wash. stay opinion 2023-02-14), and the Federal Circuit judgments entered 2026-03-09 (CourtListener/Justia). I could not verify from the sources retrieved: (i) the disposition of Google's 12(b)(6) motion; (ii) the specifics/order granting transfer to N.D. Cal.; (iii) any substantive claim-construction ruling (none appears to have issued); and (iv) whether WAG sought rehearing or a writ of certiorari after the 2026-03-09 affirmance — as of today's date (2026-09-07), no such filing was identified.

Threshold framing (important)

IPR2022-01413 is not an infringement case and has no "plaintiff." It is an inter partes review before the PTAB in which the parties are Petitioner Google LLC and Patent Owner WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. The case metadata's labels ("Plaintiff: Google / Defendant: WAG") transplant district-court terminology onto an IPR docket and are inaccurate; Google is the petitioner, WAG is the patent owner. If the question instead targets the underlying patent infringement suit that triggered the IPR — WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC et al., No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex., Judge Albright, filed Aug. 6, 2021) — then WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. is the plaintiff, and its counsel of record are identified below. That is how I have read the task. (A related refiled N.D. Cal. case, No. 3:22-cv-05772-JD, was terminated March 22, 2023.)

Plaintiff WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. — counsel of record

Sources: W.D. Tex. docket entries 5–9 and PHV text orders (Unified Patents docket portal for 6:21-cv-00816); Bloomberg Law party/attorney list for the related N.D. Cal. matter; UniCourt party list for 3:22-cv-05772; CAFC Rule 36 judgment, WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Walt Disney Co., Nos. 2024-1627/-28/-31/-32/-33 (Mar. 9, 2026) (appealing IPR2022-01413 among others).

Caveats on "lead counsel" designations

• In the district court dockets, the CM/ECF "lead attorney" flag appears on the local counsel (Brandon Oates, Haley & Olson) as well as on Liston Abramson attorneys; substantive strategy and advocacy were run by Abramson/Liston Abramson, who are the only WAG counsel identified in the merits-level advocacy record (PHV orders; Federal Circuit opinion listing Abramson as arguing counsel).
• For the IPR itself, WAG's § 42.8 mandatory-notice designation of lead/back-up counsel is in the PTAB record (Patent Owner's mandatory notices / response signature block). I could confirm from the public record that Liston Abramson LLP attorneys (Abramson, with Jaffess) represented WAG before the Board and on appeal, but I could not pull the specific IPR paper naming WAG's designated "lead counsel" versus "back-up counsel" — if you need that exact designation, check PTACTS/PTAB Paper 3 (Patent Owner's mandatory notices) for IPR2022-01413.
• YouTube, LLC was a co-defendant with Google in the underlying W.D. Tex./N.D. Cal. suits; Google's defense-side counsel (Cooley LLP — Eamonn Gardner, lead in the IPR; Orion Armon, Joseph Drayton, Sravan Tumuluri as back-up; Cameron Vanderwall, Chih-Yun Wu, Heidi Keefe; with local counsel Paige Amstutz of Scott Douglass and Naina Soni of Paul Hastings in the district court) are the opposing side, not the plaintiff's counsel.

Counsel of Record — Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, Inc.

Framing note on the docket. The captioned matter (IPR2022-01413) is Google's inter partes review petition, in which the parties are Petitioner Google LLC and Patent Owner WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. — there are no "defendants" in the PTAB posture. The "defendants" in the parallel infringement action (the case the IPR was designed to kill) are Google LLC and YouTube, Inc. in WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC et al., No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.), transferred to No. 3:22-cv-05772-JD (N.D. Cal.). The answer below covers that defense team, which is the same Cooley LLP group that litigated the IPR and the Federal Circuit appeal. No defendant ever appeared separately; Google and YouTube were jointly represented.

Lead / argued-counsel level

• Eamonn Gardner — Cooley LLP, Denver, CO. Lead counsel for Google/YouTube across the IPR, the district-court stay litigation, and the Federal Circuit appeal. He was the attorney of record who argued for appellee Google before the Federal Circuit in the consolidated WAG appeals (Fed. Cir. Nos. 24-1627/28/31/32/33/34; Rule 36 affirmance, Mar. 9, 2026), and is listed on the N.D. Cal. docket as a defendant attorney for Google. (CAFC Rule 36 judgment, 24-1627, filed 3/9/2026; CourtListener docket 68912097.)
• Heidi Lyn Keefe — Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA. Co-lead/senior member of the Google team; appears on the Federal Circuit briefs and judgments ("Also represented by Heidi Lyn Keefe, Palo Alto, CA") and on the district-court representation record. (CourtListener, Fed. Cir. docket 68912097; CAFC judgment.)
• Orion Armon — Cooley LLP, Denver, CO (the CourtListener contact listing shows Cooley LLP at 720-566-4000). Long-time Google patent litigator at Cooley; on the briefs and judgments in the Federal Circuit appeal and part of the coordinated defense across the WAG streaming-patent campaign. (CourtListener docket 68912097; CAFC judgment 24-1627.)

District-court trial team (appearances of record)

• Paige Arnette Amstutz — appearing for defendants Google LLC and YouTube, Inc. in the W.D. Tex. action; she is the filing attorney on the defendants' Sept. 3, 2021 notice regarding the answer deadline (W.D. Tex. docket 6:21-cv-00816; Unified Patents portal). UniCourt's N.D. Cal. docket lists her first among defendant attorneys. Firm not verifiable from the retrieved sources — consistent with a Cooley trial-team role, but I could not confirm her firm or office from available snippets.
• Naina Soni — admitted pro hac vice in the N.D. Cal. action by Judge Donato (Order granting PHV, Dkt. #94/#97, 3:22-cv-05772; UniCourt docket). Firm/office not independently confirmed in retrieved records.
• Cameron C. Vanderwall — listed as a defendant attorney on the N.D. Cal. UniCourt docket. Firm/office not independently confirmed in retrieved records.
• Chih-Yun Wu — Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA. Appears on the case as defense counsel in both the N.D. Cal. action (3:22-cv-05772) and the originating W.D. Tex. action (6:21-cv-00816) per Cooley/Ex Parte court-role records. (Ex Parte/Cooley attorney record; Law360 attorney page.)

Additional defense-team note (IPR record)

In the IPR itself (the captioned matter), the Board's papers and the Federal Circuit briefs reflect Google appearing through the same Cooley team (Gardner as lead with Armon and Keefe), against Patent Owner WAG's counsel Ronald Abramson of Liston Abramson LLP. (CAFC Rule 36 judgment, 24-1630.)

Sourcing caveats — read carefully

• The UniCourt docket summary for 3:22-cv-05772 lists the above-named defendant attorneys plus "27 More Attorneys Available," but the full attorney roster (including any local Waco counsel, in-house Google counsel, or additional Cooley associates) was not retrievable from the available sources. In particular:
  • I could not confirm the firm/office of Amstutz, Soni, or Vanderwall from the snippets retrieved.
  • I could not confirm any designated "lead trial counsel" or "local counsel" labels on the district-court docket (the case transferred before trial and was administratively closed on 2023-03-22, so no final pretrial order designating lead trial counsel ever issued).
• Google/YouTube may also have had Google in-house counsel of record on filings; no in-house name surfaced in the retrieved records.
• No opposing counsel caveat applies to WAG's side: for completeness, WAG's plaintiff counsel in the W.D. Tex./N.D. Cal. actions was led by Brandon Rhodes Oates (local W.D. Tex. counsel) with Ronald Abramson, David G. Liston, Ari J. Jaffess, Mord Michael Lewis, and Alex G. Patchen admitted pro hac vice (W.D. Tex. PHV orders, Unified Patents docket), later joined by Gina Kyungjin Kim (UniCourt).
• A full, verified roster for both sides is available only from PACER/CM/ECF for 3:22-cv-05772 (N.D. Cal.) and the closed 6:21-cv-00816 (W.D. Tex.); because the case files are not paywalled-free in the sources I used, the "27 More Attorneys" remain unidentified here rather than characterized.