Meta Platforms, Inc. v. SITNETLLC

Meta Platforms, Inc. is a major American multinational technology company known for its social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. The company is a prominent operating entity that has increasingly focused on artificial intelligence and the metaverse. On the other side, SITNETLLC is identified as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), also known as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). This classification indicates that SITNETLLC primarily acquires patents to assert them against alleged infringers, generating revenue through licensing or litigation rather than producing its own products or services. RPX data suggests SITNETLLC was formed by the principal of CAsE Analysis and launched its first campaign over social networking technologies with litigation funding.

The patent at issue in this Inter Partes Review (IPR) is U.S. Patent No. 12,336,052, titled "Method And System For Using A Situational Network." This patent broadly relates to the field of situational awareness networks, specifically concerning the creation and management of such networks within a larger, multi-dimensional information network. It describes a system and method for dynamically creating a targeted communication channel in response to an event, such as emergencies or disasters, by leveraging existing network infrastructure and user data to facilitate efficient information sharing and coordination among affected individuals. While an IPR challenges patentability rather than directly accusing a product, related district court litigation between these parties has targeted Meta's "Crisis Response feature" on Facebook, suggesting this is the type of technology SITNETLLC alleges infringes its patents.

This case, IPR2026-00113, was filed by Meta Platforms, Inc. at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The procedural posture is particularly notable as the PTAB did not institute the review, citing "procedural" reasons. This means the Board did not reach the merits of whether the patent claims were unpatentable, likely due to a defect in Meta's petition itself, rather than an assessment of the patent's validity. The PTAB is a significant venue for patent challenges, offering a potentially faster and less costly alternative to district court litigation for operating companies like Meta to defend against patent assertions, especially from NPEs. The "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome highlights the strict procedural requirements of IPR proceedings. This case is part of a broader pattern of disputes, as Meta and SITNETLLC have been involved in other IPRs (e.g., IPR2026-00100 concerning patent 10,117,290) and a district court patent infringement lawsuit, indicating ongoing contention over SITNETLLC's "situational network" patent portfolio.

Patent Infringement Litigation: SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 23-cv-6389) and Related PTAB Proceedings

This summary addresses legal developments for the patent infringement litigation identified as SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-6389, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It also covers the Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding IPR2026-00113, as specified in the prompt, and another related IPR, IPR2024-00530. It is important to note that the district court case (23-cv-6389) involves U.S. Patent Nos. 9,877,345, 8,332,454, 8,249,932, and 11,470,682, and not patent 12336052, which is the subject of IPR2026-00113. No district court patent infringement litigation specifically asserting patent 12336052 has been identified in the available search results.

District Court Litigation: SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-6389 (S.D.N.Y.)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: SitNet LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. in the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit alleges that Meta's "Crisis Response feature" on Facebook infringes on SitNet's patented methods and systems for situational networking. The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,877,345, 8,332,454, 8,249,932, and 11,470,682. The complaint, identified as Dkt. 1, was filed by SitNet.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance – Motion to Dismiss: Meta Platforms, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the patent infringement lawsuit, challenging the eligibility of SitNet's asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On March 21, 2024 (with an opinion issued March 19, 2024), the court issued a mixed verdict on Meta's motion. The court granted the motion to dismiss regarding claims based on Patent No. 11,470,682, finding it directed to abstract ideas without an inventive concept. However, the court denied Meta's motion to dismiss for Patent Nos. 9,877,345, 8,332,454, and 8,249,932, concluding that dismissing these patents at the pleading stage was inappropriate given their plausible inventiveness.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: A Markman hearing was held on July 1, 2024, to resolve disputes regarding the scope of claim terms for the remaining patents (9,877,345, 8,332,454, and 8,249,932). The court issued an opinion and order construing the disputed claim terms on July 16, 2024.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

• IPR2026-00113 (Regarding Patent 12336052): Meta Platforms, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review petition against SITNETLLC concerning patent 12336052. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) did not institute this IPR due to procedural reasons. No specific district court litigation asserting patent 12336052 has been identified in the available information.

• IPR2024-00530 (Related to SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. litigation): A separate IPR proceeding, IPR2024-00530, involving SITNET LLC and Meta Platforms, Inc., reached the Federal Circuit. This appeal (Federal Circuit Case No. 26-1158) was dismissed on April 27, 2026, by agreement of the parties, with each side bearing their own costs. The specific patent(s) at issue in IPR2024-00530 were not detailed in the available search snippets beyond being related to the broader SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. dispute. This IPR is distinct from IPR2026-00113 and does not directly concern patent 12336052.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2026-00113 Meta Platforms v. SITNETLLC counsel", "Meta Platforms IPR counsel SITNETLLC 12336052", "Meta Platforms patent litigation counsel", "SITNETLLC patent litigation counsel", "PTAB IPR2026-00113 docket", "PTAB IPR2026-00113 decision"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the plaintiff, Meta Platforms, Inc., in IPR2026-00113. I need to find the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for these attorneys. I will use web search, focusing on PTAB dockets, firm websites, and legal news sources. Since the case was not instituted, the initial petition should still be publicly available and list counsel.While specific counsel of record for IPR2026-00113 has not been explicitly identified in publicly available PTAB docket information, an inference can be made based on Meta Platforms, Inc.'s representation in related patent litigation against SITNETLLC.

In the district court case SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2024), Ashok Ramani of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP is listed as an attorney for Meta Platforms, Inc.. It is common practice for large operating companies like Meta to use the same, or closely affiliated, outside counsel for both district court litigation and parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings challenging the same patent owner's portfolio. Meta Platforms, Inc. also has robust in-house legal teams for intellectual property.

Based on available information from related proceedings, the likely counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc. in IPR2026-00113 includes:

• Ashok Ramani
  • Role: Likely lead or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (office location not specified in search results, but the firm has multiple offices including New York and California).
  • Experience: Mr. Ramani is a partner at Davis Polk and is known for his work in intellectual property litigation, particularly for technology companies. He has represented Meta Platforms, Inc. in other patent infringement suits brought by SITNETLLC.

Meta also employs several in-house intellectual property counsel who would oversee and coordinate with external counsel on such matters:

• Katie Brockway
  • Role: Associate General Counsel of IP Litigation (in-house).
  • Firm: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Menlo Park, CA).
  • Experience: Manages domestic and international patent and trade secret litigation matters for Meta's family of apps.
• Charu Kurani
  • Role: Associate General Counsel of Patents (in-house).
  • Firm: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Menlo Park, CA).
  • Experience: Manages a team responsible for developing internal and external best practices across patent, licensing, and open-source functions, and previously managed Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and monetization patent portfolios.
• Allen Lo
  • Role: Vice President and Deputy General Counsel for Product, IP, and Legal Operations (in-house).
  • Firm: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Menlo Park, CA).
  • Experience: Leads a large legal team supporting product development and managing intellectual property for Meta's various platforms, including virtual and augmented reality initiatives, and previously helped Google defend Android from patent challenges.

Given that the IPR was "Not Instituted - Procedural," the formal decision would not delve into the merits, but the initial petition filed by Meta would have named the attorneys of record. Without direct access to that specific filing for IPR2026-00113, the identification of counsel relies on these strong inferences from closely related cases and general legal practices.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2026-00113 SITNETLLC counsel", "SITNETLLC patent litigation counsel", "SITNETLLC IPR attorneys", "attorneys representing SITNETLLC in patent cases"]))
thought
The user is asking me to identify the counsel of record for SITNETLLC in IPR2026-00113. I need to find their names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience. I will use web search with the provided queries, focusing on PTAB dockets, legal news sites, and firm websites.

Given that the IPR was filed in 2026, it's very recent. It's possible that detailed information on counsel may be limited or still developing. The PTAB database is the most reliable source for counsel information in IPRs. I will prioritize results that link directly to the IPR docket or official PTAB documents.The counsel of record representing SITNETLLC in IPR2026-00113 could not be identified with the provided search results. While Meta Platforms, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review petition against SITNETLLC concerning patent 12336052, and the PTAB did not institute the review due to procedural reasons, specific attorney names for SITNETLLC in this particular IPR are not explicitly listed in the search outcomes. Information regarding counsel for SITNETLLC in related district court litigation (Case 1:25-cv-06185-JAV) was also not readily available. Due to the procedural non-institution of the IPR, it is possible that formal appearances by SITNETLLC's counsel were not prominently recorded or widely publicized.