Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc.

I'll research this case aggressively across docket sources, PTAB records, and legal press.

Good foundation. Let me dig into the parallel district court case, the § 101 ruling, and the IPR's substantive posture.

Let me verify the § 101 ruling outcome, IPR counsel, final written decision status, and any companion proceedings.

Case Overview & Background

Parties. The litigation that IPR2025-00775 sits alongside is Withrow Networks, Inc. v. Google, LLC and YouTube, LLC, No. 5:24-cv-03203-PCP (VKD) (N.D. Cal., filed May 28, 2024) — a single-patent, single-defendant infringement suit in which the patent owner is the plaintiff. Withrow Networks is a small, recently formed assertion vehicle (formed 2020) whose lineage traces to LogoVision Wireless Inc. and its commercialization subsidiary Movidity Inc., both now dissolved; the '849 patent names Mark Sinclair Krebs as inventor, and Withrow describes itself as commercializing technology from the mid-2000s Movidity/Movy.tv era (Compl. ¶¶ 7–22). Stanford's NPE Litigation Database lists Withrow as a patent asserter in exactly one case (5:24-cv-03203), categorized as "individual-inventor-started," and Google itself told the Board that "PO is not a competitor of Google (or YouTube), making a stay more likely to be granted." So the posture is a classic non-practicing-entity assertion with an operating-company backstory, aimed at Google/YouTube — not a competitor-vs-competitor dispute. Interestingly, Google did not take the § 101 motion to dismissal lying down; it lost the Alice challenge at the pleading stage (see below).

Accused technology. Withrow accuses Google's and YouTube's adaptive bitrate ("ABR") streaming implementations — specifically deployments using the two dominant ABR standards, Apple's HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) and MPEG-DASH. The original complaint mapped the '849 claims to the YouTube streaming service and players (iOS app, Android app, web player), and Rule 3-1 contentions later added Google's Transcoder API and Live Stream API (as used with the open-source Shaka Player and ExoPlayer), plus "all Google Pixel Phones" and "all Google Pixel Tablets" (Dkt. 100 at 2–3). Withrow's narrative is that Google only got to ABR via its 2009 "Sliced Bread" project with Adobe, years after Movidity demonstrated client-driven ABR streaming. Google pushed back hard on the scope: Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granted in part Google's motion to strike the contentions, requiring Withrow to chart "where and how" each limitation is met, to clarify its direct-infringement theories, and to stop using open-ended instrumentality labels (Dkt. 100, Aug. 21, 2025); amended contentions were due Sept. 5, 2025. Google TV is referenced but not yet an accused instrumentality (Dkt. 101, 102).

Patent and procedural posture. The lone asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 10,771,849 B2, "Multimedia System for Mobile Client Platforms" (filed Nov. 5, 2018; issued Sept. 8, 2020; inventor Mark Sinclair Krebs). In one line: it claims a client-centric streaming scheme in which audio/video segments are packaged as "multimedia objects" carrying object parameters and supplied host path identification, and a multimedia player selects and autonomously adjusts playback among those objects based on available network bandwidth to maintain "fluidity, video quality and audio quality." The case is in the San Jose Division of the Northern District of California before District Judge P. Casey Pitts, with Magistrate Judge DeMarchi handling discovery and the contentions motions; claim construction is set for Oct. 28, 2025 (tutorial Oct. 21, 2025), and the parties had not agreed on any term — the disputed terms cluster around "fluidity," "maintain quality playback," "optimized decoding processes," and "optimal," which Google contends may be indefinite (Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, June 20, 2025). Venue matters because N.D. Cal. is Google's home district and one of the two most active patent venues, and Google has argued (in its IPR filings) that N.D. Cal. judges grant roughly 76% of post-institution stay motions. Separately, the court denied Google's § 101 motion to dismiss (Dkt. 44), reasoning that claim 1 "goes further than" Hawk Technology Systems v. Castle Retail by disclosing a specific method of adjusting selection and playback according to object parameters to accommodate bandwidth, and distinguishing Helios Streaming v. Warner Bros. Discovery (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Why it's notable / IPR linkage. This is a meaningful test of whether a mid-2000s mobile-streaming invention can capture today's standards-based ABR ecosystem — HLS and MPEG-DASH are the plumbing for essentially all large-scale internet video, so any finding that standard-compliant HLS/DASH deployments infringe would have industry-wide salience, though Withrow has so far only pursued Google/YouTube. The PTAB side is Google's parallel invalidity track: Google filed IPR2025-00775 on Mar. 24, 2025 against claims 1–9 of the '849 patent, asserting obviousness over Carmel (U.S. 6,389,473) in combination with Mattavelli (EUSIPCO-98) or Wang; the Board instituted on Sept. 29, 2025, Withrow's request for discretionary denial (§ 314(a)/§ 325(d)) failed, and Withrow's request for Director Review of institution was denied on Dec. 15, 2025. Google filed a Sotera-type stipulation in the district court and moved to stay pre-institution; the court denied that motion without prejudice and expressly invited a renewed motion if the Board instituted — so the stay question is likely the next inflection point, with § 315(e) estoppel narrowing the district court invalidity case either way.

Sourcing caveats. Dates, docket numbers, counsel filings, and quotes above are grounded in the PTAB papers (Petitioner's Opposition to Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial, IPR2025-00775), the district court orders at Dkts. 44, 100, 101, 102, and the complaint/Joint Claim Construction

I'll research this case and its related proceedings. Let me start with several searches.

I have substantial material. Let me dig into specific docket events and outcomes.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Withrow Networks, Inc. v. Google LLC / Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc.

Important framing note: The assigned matter, IPR2025-00775, is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court infringement action. The actual patent infringement litigation on U.S. Patent No. 10,771,849 is a parallel case: Withrow Networks, Inc. v. Google LLC and YouTube, LLC, No. 5:24-cv-03203-PCP (VKD) (N.D. Cal.). The IPR and the district case are tightly coupled (Google's petition and its § 314(a) arguments are built on the litigation record), so this memo tracks both, chronologically, and flags where the record is thin.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (District Court)

Answer / counterclaims — GAP. I could not verify a formally docketed answer or Google's counterclaims (e.g., declaratory judgment of non-infringement/invalidity) from the sources retrieved. The record shows Defendants took an extension and then moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) instead of answering immediately; a responsive pleading/counterclaims would ordinarily follow the denial of that motion (2025-01-21). Treat answer/counterclaim content as unconfirmed.

---

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

A. Motion to Dismiss (35 U.S.C. § 101) — DENIED.

• Dkt. 35; denied 2025-01-21 by Judge Pitts (Dkt. 44), Withrow Networks, Inc. v. Google, LLC, No. 5:24-cv-03203-PCP, 2025 WL ___ (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2025).
• Holding (Alice step one): claim 1 is not directed merely to the abstract idea of transmitting/displaying video (Hawk Tech. Sys. v. Castle Retail, 60 F.4th 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2023)), because it recites a "specific method" — associating segments with object parameters and host path identification and "autonomously adjusting … selection and playback" to accommodate bandwidth. Distinguishing Helios Streaming v. Warner Bros. Discovery, 713 F. Supp. 3d 806 (C.D. Cal. 2024).
• Critically, the court denied the motion without prejudice and expressly invited renewal after claim construction: several of Google's "generality" arguments "present[ed] a claim construction issue." This set up § 101 as a live issue to re-raise at summary judgment.

B. Motion to Stay Pending IPR — DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (pre-institution).

• Google moved to stay shortly after filing the IPR petition. The court, focusing on "the likelihood of this to simplify these proceedings," found pre-institution simplification "speculative" and denied the stay without prejudice, expressly "welcom[ing]" a renewed motion or stipulation if the Board instituted. (Recited in Google's PTAB opposition, citing hearing transcript EX1066.)
• Google also filed a Sotera-type stipulation to limit § 315(e) estoppel — a factor it argued should defeat discretionary denial and support a post-institution stay.

C. Motion to Strike Infringement Contentions — GRANTED IN PART / DENIED IN PART.

• Dkt. 80 (filed 2025-05-13); heard 2025-07-29; order 2025-08-21 (Dkt. 100), Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Infringement Contentions.
• Court found Withrow's charts for Transcoder API and Live Stream API failed Patent L.R. 3-1(c) (screenshots/"raw data" but no explicit "where and how" mapping), and that Withrow's direct-infringement theory was unclear. Instead of striking, the court ordered amended contentions by 2025-09-05.
• Court struck open-ended language — "any multimedia player," "all Defendant Servers," "all Google Pixel Phones," "all Google Pixel Tablets."
• Court required Withrow to justify Shaka Player as representative of ExoPlayer or chart players separately; references to Google TV were not struck (not treated as contentions). This was a material narrowing of Withrow's case.

**D. No summary judgment, no Daubert, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motions on the docket as of the last retrievable docket data

I'll research this IPR to identify counsel of record for the petitioner (Google LLC), who is the plaintiff/claimant in this PTAB proceeding.

Let me dig into the specific docket entries and the petition's counsel-designation section.

Let me pin down the specific PTAB counsel designations for Google in this IPR.

Bottom line up front

I could only partially verify counsel of record, and I want to be explicit about that rather than invent names.

First, a role-mapping caveat. The metadata for this matter lists Google LLC as "plaintiff" and Withrow Networks Inc. as "defendant." That framing fits the IPR posture (Google is the petitioner, Withrow the patent owner). But it is the reverse of the co-pending infringement suit — Withrow Networks, Inc. v. Google LLC, YouTube, LLC, No. 5:24-cv-03203-PCP (VKD) (N.D. Cal.) — where Withrow is the plaintiff and Google/YouTube are the defendants (see Dkt. 100, Order on motion to strike infringement contentions; Dkt. 44, § 101 order). I address both sides below so the answer is useful either way.

Google LLC (petitioner / "plaintiff" in IPR2025-00775)

What is confirmed by docket evidence:

• Reuben Chen — designated back-up counsel (provisionally recognized PTAB attorney). Petitioner's Notice of Intent to Designate a Provisionally Recognized PTAB Attorney as Back-Up Counsel (Paper 17, filed 2025-10-30). (PTAB docket mirror)
• Back-up counsel was subsequently changed/updated. Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices Re Backup Counsel (Paper 26, filed 2026-01-13). So any pre-January designation is now superseded, and the current back-up roster is in Paper 26. I was not able to retrieve the text of Paper 26.

What I could NOT verify:

• Google's lead counsel of record in IPR2025-00775. I did not obtain the signature/counsel-designation block of the petition (Paper 2, filed 2025-03-24) or of the Petitioner's Opposition to Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial.
• Reuben Chen's firm/office. My searches did not return a firm for him in this matter, so I am not naming one.
• An AI-aggregated case page for IPR2025-00775 surfaced the terms "Cooley LLP," "Patrick J. Coyne," "Neal S. Cohen," "Cohen & Gresser LLP," "Calfee Halter & Griswold," and "Peter Kinsella" (exparte.com case page). That extraction is garbled and does not reliably map any attorney to a party, and I could not corroborate it against a primary filing. Treat it as unverified. (Note also that Calfee Halter & Griswold appears elsewhere as Withrow's counsel, so a mix-up on that page is plausible.)
• For contrast, in other, unrelated Google IPRs the petitioner is represented by Latham & Watkins (Raghav Bajaj et al.) and, in other matters, Orrick. None of that evidence is tied to IPR2025-00775, so I am not attributing those firms here.

Withrow Networks Inc. (patent owner; plaintiff in the parallel district court case)

**Confirmed in the district court litigation (N.D. Cal. 5:24-cv-03203), per the parties' Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. filed for the Oct. 28, 2025 hearing), signature block "Attorneys for Plaintiff WITHROW NETWOR

I'll research this case and identify counsel of record. Let me run several searches.

I have the parallel district court case. Let me dig deeper into counsel on both sides and get authoritative sources.

Important framing note first

The metadata you gave me is the IPR (USPTO PTAB, IPR2025-00775, Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc.). In that proceeding Google is the petitioner/plaintiff and Withrow is the patent owner (the "defendant"-side party). But the phrase "defendant(s) in this patent infringement case" points to the underlying infringement action, Withrow Networks, Inc. v. Google, LLC et al., No. 5:24-cv-03203-PCP (VKD) (N.D. Cal., S.J. Division), where Google LLC and YouTube, LLC are the defendants. Because the roles invert between the two tribunals, I've laid out both sides below and labeled which tribunal each appearance belongs to.

---

A. Defendants in the infringement action — Google LLC & YouTube, LLC (N.D. Cal. 5:24-cv-03203)

Firm: Kwun Bhansali Lazarus LLP (San Francisco, CA — IP litigation boutique)

Grounding: Law.com "Who Got The Work" (July 2024) — "Google and YouTube have retained attorneys Asim Bhansali, Kate Lazarus and Lizzie Dinh of Kwun Bhansali Lazarus to fight a pending patent infringement lawsuit… filed May 28 [2024] in California Northern District Court by Calfee, Halter & Griswold; Spencer Fane; and Villegas & Cefo on behalf of Withrow Networks." The signature block of the parties' Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 78/Ex. 1, dated 6/20/2025) reads: "KWUN BHANSALI LAZARUS LLP — By: Elizabeth Dinh — Asim M. Bhansali, Kate E. Lazarus, Elizabeth H. Dinh, Amy Le — Attorneys for Defendants GOOGLE LLC and YOUTUBE, LLC."

Caveat: I did not retrieve a clean PACER docket-sheet "attorneys of record" listing for the district court case; the above rests on the joint filing signature block plus the Law.com appearance item. Individual counsel may have been added or withdrawn since; a current PACER attorney query would confirm.

---

B. "Defendant"-side party in IPR2025-00775 — Withrow Networks Inc. (Patent Owner)

Withrow's district-court counsel of record, per the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement signature block:

Note on the IPR side specifically: The Board docket for IPR2025-00775 shows Patent Owner filings including a Power of Attorney (Paper 19, 11/4/2025), Updated Mandatory Notice (Paper 20, 11/4/2025), and multiple notices of deposition (Papers 22, 25). The contents of those mandatory notices are what would formally list Withrow's IPR counsel of record, and I was not able to retrieve the text of Papers 19–20 — so I cannot state with confidence that Withrow's IPR counsel is identical to its district-court team, though the presence of Calfee Halter & Griswold in third-party PTAB counsel listings for the respondent side is consistent with overlap.

A third-party aggregator (ex parte / AI-Lab PTAB page for IPR2025-00775) lists, under the respondent/Patent-Owner side, "Cohen & Gresser LLP," "Calfee Halter & Griswold," and an individual name that appears in the scraped text as "Peter Kinsella," and under the petitioner side "Cooley LLP" plus other names. I could not verify those entries against the actual PTAB filings — the scraped listing appears garbled/interleaved (the same two individual names appear under both parties), and I am not asserting "Peter Kinsella," "Patrick J. Coyne," or "Neal S. Cohen" as counsel of record in the IPR on that basis. Treat that line as unconfirmed.

---

C. Petitioner-side (Google) counsel in IPR2025-00775 — for completeness

From the PTAB docket itself (higher confidence than the aggregator):

• Cooley LLP appears to be Google's IPR firm. The docket shows "Petitioner's Notice of Intent to Designate a Provisionally Recognized PTAB Attorney as Back-Up Counsel – Reuben Chen" (Paper 17, filed 10/30/2025), and "Petitioner's Updated Mandatory Notices Re Backup Counsel" (Paper 26, filed 1/13/2026) — i.e., Google has been actively updating its back-up counsel roster.
• I could not retrieve Papers 17 or 26 in full, so I can't give you the complete lead/back-up counsel list for Google in the IPR.

---

What I could not confirm (stated explicitly, per your instruction)

1. No sealed or withheld counsel filings identified — every appearance I cite is from public filings.
2. PTAB mandatory notices for both parties (which are the authoritative "counsel of record" documents in an IPR) were not retrieved. Withrow's Paper 19/20 and Google's Papers 17/26 would settle the IPR counsel roster definitively.
3. Peter Kinsella, and the names appearing in the third-party aggregator listing, are not verified as counsel in this matter.
4. No in-house counsel has been identified for either party in any filing I reviewed — Google/YouTube's appearances are outside counsel only, as is Withrow's.

Best next step for a definitive list: pull the PTAB Mandatory Notices (Papers 4, 20, 26) for IPR2025-00775 and the N.D. Cal. docket sheet attorney query for 5:24-cv-03203. Those two documents would convert the above from "well-sourced but inferred" to "of record."