Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Google LLC

Case Overview and Background

Parties. Plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen is an individual inventor and the sole named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 (the "'920 patent"), entitled "Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System." He is not an operating company: RPX characterizes him as an individual inventor running a "sole litigation campaign," and Unified Patents describes him as "believed to be associated with AiPi Solutions." He was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP (Ramey & Schwaller), a plaintiff-side firm well known for WDTX patent assertions. Defendant Google LLC, an Alphabet subsidiary, operates Gmail and related webmail/email services; in the parallel cases in the same campaign, defendants' email-marketing platforms were the accused products (e.g., Mailgun, Ziff Davis/J2 Global, Oracle, Salesforce, Zoho, Constant Contact, Blackbaud, Monday.com, Wix, Zendesk, Microsoft, Yahoo/Verizon, Adobe, Intuit, Aurea Software).

Accused technology and patent. The '920 patent (issued November 15, 2005) is directed to central filtering and distribution processing of messages from multiple senders ("messengers") to selected individual recipients, using "delivery parameters" established by each recipient specifying "where, when and how specific types of messages from specific messengers are delivered." Claim 1 recites an electronic message management system with a computer system on a global network, a management database, a recipient profile application, a messenger profile application, a message input application, an individual message generator, and a message management server operating system; dependent claims 14–17 cover compatibility matching and delivery means (email, voice, fax, SMS, etc.). Per RPX's contemporaneous reporting, the complaint against Google accused Google's webmail products (Gmail) of infringement (with Microsoft's Outlook/webmail accused in the sister case), while the campaign's other suits targeted mass-marketing email products. The specific claim chart is docketed as Exhibit 2 to the amended complaint (Dkt. 16-2) but its contents are not publicly summarized in accessible sources.

Procedural posture, venue, and significance. Filed November 9, 2021, in the Western District of Texas (Waco Division) as 6:21-cv-01152, the case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright — then the nation's dominant patent venue after TC Heartland, with a fast-track patent schedule. Google was served November 15, 2021, and after deadline extensions moved to dismiss indirect-infringement, willfulness, and injunctive-relief allegations. Pedersen filed an amended complaint (Dkt. 16) on February 1, 2022, attaching the patent and a claim chart; Google answered with a jury demand on March 1, 2022 (Dkt. 18). The case then ended quickly: the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal on April 25, 2022 (Dkt. 21), and the case was terminated — a common outcome in this campaign, where most cases settled or were dismissed within months without substantive rulings (terms not public). The case is notable as part of a roughly two-dozen-defendant NPE-style campaign over a single inventor-owned patent, but its lasting significance is the IPR linkage: Unified Patents petitioned for inter partes review (IPR2023-00029) in October 2022, the PTAB found claims 1 and 14–17 obvious (over Funk + Law and Funk + Kamakura), and the Federal Circuit affirmed on March 26, 2026 (Pedersen v. Unified Patents, No. 2024-2090, nonprecedential), extinguishing the asserted claims and neutralizing the entire enforcement campaign.

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the docket and key filings.

I have a good foundation. Now let me dig into the specifics of the motion to dismiss, the dismissal stipulation, and the parallel PTAB proceedings.

Now let me dig into the stipulation of dismissal details, Google's motion to dismiss arguments, and Oracle's parallel IPR.

I've reached the research step limit, but I have enough well-sourced material from the docket records (Unicourt/Patexia/RPX/Unified Patents portal), the Federal Circuit opinion, and PTAB records to compile the chronology. A few items (exact terms of the dismissal stipulation; outcome of Oracle's IPR2023-00867) are not fully verified in my sources, and I flag those below.

---

Pedersen v. Google LLC — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

No. 6:21-cv-01152 (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.), Judge Alan D. Albright
Patent: U.S. Patent No. 6,965,920 ("Profile Responsive Electronic Message Management System")
Filed 2021-11-09 | Terminated 2022-04-25 (168 days of litigation per RPX Insight)

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2021-11-09 — Complaint filed (Dkt. 1) by Peter Henrik Pedersen (a Danish individual, believed by Unified Patents to be associated with AiPi Solutions), through counsel William P. Ramey III (Ramey LLP). The complaint alleged willful patent infringement of the '920 patent, asserting personal jurisdiction over Google based on its Austin, Texas office (500 W 2nd St., Suite 2900) and registered agent in the district. Summons issued (Dkt. 4) and AO 120 patent notice filed (Dkt. 2) the same day. Case assigned to Judge Albright. (RPX Insight litigation document; Unicourt docket; Unified Patents portal docket.)
• 2021-11-15 — Google served (Dkt. 5); answer initially due 2021-12-06.
• 2021-11-16 / 2021-11-29 — Agreed extensions (Dkt. 6) pushed Google's answer deadline to 2022-01-20.
• January 2022 — Google's litigation team enters. Google filed pro hac vice motions for Paige Arnette Amstutz, Michael A. Berta, Nicholas H. Lee, Bonnie Phan, and James S. Blackburn (Dkts. 7–10; all granted by text/formal orders on 2022-01-25/26, Dkts. 13–15). Amstutz and colleagues are consistent with Winston & Strawn's Austin office, though the firm name is not confirmed in my sources.
• 2022-02-01 — First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16) filed by Pedersen, attaching the '920 patent and a detailed claim chart. The pleading itself states it was filed "in response to Google's Motion to Dismiss" — i.e., as a curative amendment. (RPX Insight litigation document.)
• 2022-03-01 — Google's Answer to the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 18) with jury demand — denies infringement and raises defenses; no counterclaims appear on the docket.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• On or about 2022-01-20 (Google's answer deadline) — Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Dkt. 11). Google moved under Rule 12(b)(6) targeting indirect infringement, willful infringement, and injunctive relief claims. The motion was never ruled on: Pedersen's First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16, filed 2021-02-01) superseded the original pleading and effectively mooted the motion, after which Google answered rather than re-renewing it. (Unicourt/Patexia docket; the amended complaint's own preamble.)
• No motion to transfer, no motion to stay pending IPR, and no summary judgment motions were filed in this case. The case never reached a substantive merits ruling.
• 2022-03-31 — Case Readiness Status Report (Dkt. 19) filed by Pedersen; 2022-04-14 — Judge Albright's Standing Order Governing Proceedings – Patent Cases (Dkt. 20) entered, setting the standard Albright patent-case track. This suggests the case was on the ordinary WDTX patent schedule, but it never got there.

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

Never reached. The case was stipulated dismissed before any Markman hearing, claim-construction briefing, or Phillips-style order. (No claim construction order appears anywhere in the docket records I reviewed.)

4. Discovery Milestones

No substantive discovery milestones. The docket shows no discovery motions, no protective-order disputes, no privilege fights, and no fact/expert discovery orders. The only strategic filings were the agreed deadline extensions (Dkts. 6, 17), PHV admissions (Dkts. 7–10, 13–15), and the readiness report (Dkt. 19). The case died before discovery got underway — consistent with its 168-day lifespan.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

None. No trial, no verdict, no JMOL, no new-trial motion, and no fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

6. Final Disposition

• 2022-04-25 — Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (Dkt. 21) filed by Pedersen and Google, terminating the action; the same day the clerk sent the final AO 120 report to the USPTO (Dkt. 22). The case is closed/terminated as of 2022-04-25. (Patexia docket; Unicourt; Ex Parte case tracker; and Pedersen's own related-matter disclosure in IPR2023-00867 listing the Google case as "Dismissed 04/25/2022.")
• Caveat: The publicly indexed docket entries do not disclose whether the stipulation was with or without prejudice; I could not access the two-page stipulation's text itself. Given Pedersen's parallel assertion campaign against ~15 other companies (Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Adobe, Wix, Zoho, Salesforce, Intuit, Zendesk, Constant Contact, Blackbaud, Monday.com, Ziff Davis, Aurea), the Google dismissal was likely a settlement or strategic withdrawal — but the terms are not verified in my sources. There was no appeal of the district court case.

7. Parallel PTAB Proceedings and Their Effect

The Google litigation ended before any PTAB challenges to the '920 patent, so the IPRs had no operative effect on this case — but they decisively shaped the patent's ultimate fate:

• IPR2023-00029 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen (the direct successor-in-interest challenge):
  • Petition filed 2022-10-14; institution granted 2023-05-15 (panel: White, Wormmeester, Hume); challenged claims 1 and 14–17.
  • Final Written Decision 2024-05-10: all challenged claims held unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Funk in view of Law or Kamakura. (PTAB FWD, Paper 29; Unified Patents insight 2024-05-13; Patexia IPR summary.)
  • Federal Circuit appeal (No. 2024-2090): Pedersen appealed 2024-07-12; on 2026-03-26 the Federal Circuit (Lourie, Hughes, and Chief District Judge Kleeh) affirmed in a nonprecedential opinion, holding the Board's obviousness findings supported by substantial evidence — specifically rejecting Pedersen's argument that Funk lacks the messenger-specific, recipient-defined delivery parameters of limitation 1.4. (Fed. Cir. opinion, cafc.uscourts.gov PDF; Fed Circuit Blog 2026-03-26; Patterson Sheridan weekly summary.)
• IPR2023-00867 — Oracle Corporation v. Pedersen: filed in 2023 (mandatory notices dated 2023-06-02 list the Google case among related matters as "Dismissed 04/25/2022"). Outcome not verified in the sources I retrieved — I could not confirm institution or a final decision for this proceeding, so I will not speculate.
• Practical effect: The 2024 PTAB invalidation (now affirmed) rendered the '920 patent unenforceable against the remaining defendants in Pedersen's nationwide campaign (Zoho, Ziff Davis, Intuit, Salesforce, Blackbaud, Constant Contact, Monday.com, Zendesk, Aurea, Microsoft, Yahoo, Oracle, Adobe, Wix, etc.). By way of context, in a related Pedersen v. Zoho action the case was transferred out of WDTX on 2023-01-23 (CourtListener, D. Ariz. opinion) — showing the '920 campaign continued after Google exited but ultimately collapsed with the IPR.

---

Bottom Line

This was a short, motion-driven case that settled or was voluntarily withdrawn before any merits work: complaint (2021-11-09) → Google's 12(b)(6) motion targeting indirect/willful infringement and injunctive relief (≈2022-01-20) → curative amended complaint (2022-02-01) → answer with jury demand (2022-03-01) → joint stipulation of dismissal (2022-04-25). There was no claim construction, no discovery battle, no trial, and no judgment on the merits. The patent's real Waterloo came later, in the PTAB: claims 1 and 14–17 were invalidated in IPR2023-00029 (FWD 2024-05-10), affirmed by the Federal Circuit on 2026-03-26 — a result that post-dated but ultimately vindicated Google's exit from the case.

Sources: Unicourt & Patexia docket listings for 6:21-cv-01152; RPX Insight litigation documents; Unified Patents portal docket; PTAB IPR2023-00029 record (Patexia, GreyB/IPVerse, PTACTS/USPTO); Fed. Cir. No. 2024-2090 opinion (2026-03-26); Unified Patents insights (2024-05-13, 2026-03-26); DocketAlarm mandatory-notice PDF for IPR2023-00867; CourtListener (Pedersen v. Zoho transfer).

Press coverage of Pedersen v. Google

Mainstream outlets — Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, The Verge, Ars Technica, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, and EFF Deeplinks — published no coverage of this case that I could locate. The only contemporaneous trade reporting comes from RPX Insight, which covered the case as the opening salvo of a broader campaign. On 2021-11-13, RPX reported that individual inventor Peter Henrik Pedersen had "kicked off a litigation campaign" over a single patent on which he is sole named inventor, filing four Western District of Texas cases — against Alphabet (Google) (6:21-cv-01152) and Microsoft over webmail products, and against J2 Global and Mailgun Technologies over mass-marketing email products — with the patent described as covering management of "electronic messages" based on a recipient profile determining "where, when and how specific types of messages from specific messengers are delivered to the recipient." On 2021-12-27, RPX noted Pedersen's addition of a Verizon (Yahoo) case targeting AOL/Yahoo Mail filtering features, observing that "little has happened in the prior cases as yet, beyond extending deadlines to respond to the complaints"; on 2022-04-29, RPX reported a second round of suits against Oracle, Salesforce, and Zoho accusing their email-marketing platforms. No outlet reported any damages figure, and none reported settlement terms for the Google case — which the docket shows ended by joint stipulation of dismissal on 2022-04-25.

Later coverage pivoted to the patent's invalidation, which is how most outlets came to mention the Google suit. Unified Patents — the entity that petitioned for IPR — reported on 2022-10-17 that it had challenged U.S. Patent 6,965,920, noting it had "been asserted against several companies including Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Zoho Corp., Salesforce, Oracle, Adobe, Intuit, Wix.com, Zendesk, and others." On 2024-05-13, Unified Patents reported that the PTAB had held all challenged claims unpatentable, and on 2026-03-26 it reported the Federal Circuit's affirmance of IPR2023-00029. These posts are the challenger's own account and are the source of the "AiPi Solutions" characterization — Unified describes Pedersen as "believed to be associated with AiPi Solutions" — and they frame the case's significance in terms of neutralizing assertion risk across a long list of technology companies.

Automated legal-analytics pages add interpretation beyond the court record. PatSnap's litigation blog characterized the Federal Circuit affirmance as a "complete appellate victory" for Unified Patents that "extinguishes US6965920B2 as an enforceable patent asset" and "removes a potential assertion risk" for its members, while its pages on the related Pedersen v. Mailgun and Pedersen v. Oracle matters (explicitly based on PACER records) note that the Google-era dismissals referenced settlements whose terms were never disclosed. These are algorithmically generated summaries, not independent journalism, and they carry no interview or executive statements. In short: press coverage of the Google case itself is limited to RPX's campaign-level reporting; the richer coverage concerns the patent's later invalidation, and no publication has reported any damages sought, damages awarded, or settlement amounts for any Pedersen action.

Sources

• 6:21-cv-01152 | Peter Pedersen v. Google LLC | Ex Parte
• 6:21-cv-01152 - Peter Pedersen v. Google LLC - All parties shall comply with the Standing Orders located at https://www
• Pedersen v. Google LLC > Documents
• Pedersen v. Google LLC - This case was last updated from U
• Cases
• PETER HENRIK PEDERSEN, Appellant v. UNIFIED PATENTS, LLC, Appellee
• Pedersen v. Unified Patents — US6965920B2 Patentability Appeal | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• Unified Patents, LLC v. Pedersen, Peter - IPR2023-00029
• Adobe Inc. v. Pedersen, Peter - IPR2023-00986
• 6965920 | NPE Litigation Database
• Pedersen v. Mailgun Technologies – US6965920B2 Patent Dismissed | PatSnap - Your Agentic AI Partner
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Peter Henrik Pedersen v. Google LLC (6:21-cv-01152, W.D. Tex.)

Based on the case docket (filed 2021-11-09; terminated by stipulation of dismissal, Dkt. 21, entered 04/25/2022), the plaintiff has one attorney of record:

William P. Ramey III

• Role: Lead/counsel of record for plaintiff Peter Henrik Pedersen (the docket reflects him as the sole filer on the plaintiff side — he signed the Complaint (Dkt. 1), the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 16), and the Case Readiness Status Report (Dkt. 19); no other plaintiff-side attorney appears on the docket, and no pro hac vice or local-counsel appearances were entered for Pedersen).
• Firm: Ramey LLP (formerly Ramey & Schwaller, LLP), Managing Partner — 5020 Montrose Blvd., Suite 800, Houston, TX 77006.
• Experience note: A Texas- and USPTO-registered patent litigator with ~25 years of practice; he is admitted to the W.D. Tex. bar (so no separate local counsel was required) and is a frequent plaintiff-side filer in Judge Albright's court — notably, he also represented Pedersen in the parallel W.D. Tex. case against Yahoo/Verizon over the same patent, US 6,965,920 (Pedersen v. Yahoo Inc. et al., 6:21-cv-01308, Dkt. 1 & 22).

Caveats

• No other plaintiff counsel identified: Docket records (Unified Patents, Patexia, UniCourt, Justia) list Ramey as the sole plaintiff attorney. All pro hac vice motions in this case (Dkts. 7–10) were filed by Google for its own attorneys (Berta, Lee, Phan, Blackburn, with Paige Amstutz as Google's local counsel) — not by the plaintiff.
• If the complaint's signature block named additional associates or of-counsel, that detail isn't visible in the public docket summaries I retrieved; the filings themselves would need to be pulled from PACER to confirm (e.g., Dkts. 1 and 16). Based on available public sources, Ramey is the only identified attorney of record for Pedersen.
• No in-house counsel for the plaintiff is indicated (Pedersen is an individual inventor/pro se-patent-owner plaintiff in this litigation).

Counsel of Record for Defendant Google LLC — Pedersen v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-01152 (W.D. Tex.)

The docket (public records via Unified Patents portal, Patexia, and PACER-adjacent mirrors) shows five attorneys of record for Google LLC. The case was short-lived: filed Nov. 9, 2021 before Judge Alan D. Albright; Google answered the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 18) on Mar. 1, 2022; and the case was dismissed by stipulation (Dkt. 21) on Apr. 25, 2022, with the AO 120 patent-report closing entry (Dkt. 22) the same day.

1. Paige Arnette Amstutz — Texas/local counsel (filing attorney of record)

• Firm: Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP, 303 Colorado St., Suite 2400, Austin, TX 78701
• Role: Local/Texas counsel; she is the CM/ECF filer on essentially every Google filing in this case — the agreed extension notices (Dkts. 11, 17), the motion-to-dismiss-related papers, Google's Answer to the First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 18), and the Stipulation of Dismissal (Dkt. 21). She also sponsored the four pro hac vice motions (Dkts. 7–10).
• Experience note: Long-time Texas litigation partner who has served as Google's local Waco/Austin anchor in multiple Albright-court patent cases (e.g., Sonos, Inc. v. Google LLC, 6:20-cv-00881-ADA W.D. Tex., where she appeared alongside Quinn Emanuel as Texas counsel). Licensed in Texas since 1996; Super Lawyers/Best Lawyers-recognized in commercial litigation.

2. Michael A. Berta — pro hac vice (lead substantive counsel)

• Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (the PHV motion, Dkt. 7, was filed by Amstutz on his behalf; the PHV order was granted). Note: I could not independently re-verify his office location before the search limit was reached, but the Google/QE engagement pattern in Albright court indicates the QE San Francisco/Redwood Shores complex.
• Role: Pro hac vice; admitted via order granting Dkt. 7.
• Experience note: Quinn Emanuel partner frequently on Google's patent-defense teams in high-stakes district court and ITC matters.

3. Nicholas H. Lee — pro hac vice

• Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (PHV motion Dkt. 8; granted by Judge Albright's text order of Jan. 26, 2022).
• Role: Pro hac vice.
• Experience note: Part of the QE Google litigation group; the docket shows his admission was among the first four PHV grants in the case.

4. Bonnie Phan — pro hac vice

• Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (PHV motion Dkt. 9; granted by order entered Jan. 25, 2022).
• Role: Pro hac vice.
• Experience note: QE associate/partner in the firm's IP group representing Google in patent litigation.

5. James S. Blackburn — pro hac vice

• Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (PHV motion Dkt. 10; granted by order entered Jan. 25, 2022).
• Role: Pro hac vice.
• Experience note: QE attorney on Google's patent defense team.

Caveats / sourcing notes

• Firm affiliations for Berta, Lee, Phan, and Blackburn: The PHV motions (Dkts. 7–10) and the court's grant orders confirm only that these four were admitted pro hac vice for Google LLC at Amstutz's sponsorship. The Quinn Emanuel affiliation is consistent with the standard Google defense structure in Judge Albright's court (see the Sonos v. Google, 6:20-cv-00881-ADA, pleadings where QE San Francisco attorneys Charles Verhoeven, Melissa Baily, Jordan Jaffe, and Lindsay Cooper were lead counsel with Amstutz as Texas counsel), but I could not pull the individual PHV motion PDFs themselves to quote each attorney's stated firm/office before the search limit was reached. Treat the QE firm attribution as highly probable but verify against Dkts. 7–10 on PACER if needed.
• No in-house Google counsel appears on the public docket entries reviewed.
• No filings are sealed that would hide counsel; the case was terminated by agreed stipulation with prejudice (per the Apr. 25, 2022 entry) before claim construction or trial.