Security First Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me research the IPR outcomes, post-stay status, and notability factors.

Let me get the remaining IPR outcomes, the continued-stay order, and the appeal details.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. Security First Innovations, LLC ("SFI") is a Virginia limited liability company based in Ashburn, Virginia, formed in 2022 by the longtime former chairman of Security First Corporation ("SFC") for the express purpose of holding and asserting the "Secure Data Parser" patent family; the court characterized SFI as "a non-producing entity that does not directly compete with Google" (stay opinion, ECF 313). SFC itself was a genuine operating company founded in 2002 in Rancho Santa Margarita, California, which began in biometrics and later built data-security products (the SPxSHARC, SPxGateway, and SPxClient lines) and licensed technology to Unisys and IBM; it collapsed, filed Chapter 11 in 2020 (In re Security First Corp., No. 20-12053 (BLS) (Bankr. D. Del.)), and its portfolio was sold on (Complaint ¶¶ 14–17; bankruptcy reference in IBM IPR2025-01202 petition, Ex. 1041). So on the NPE/PAE spectrum, SFI is best described as a litigation-focused assertion vehicle holding patents originally developed by an operating company — not a university or a practicing cloud vendor. Google LLC is the accused defendant, a Delaware corporation with a substantial Reston, Virginia presence used to support E.D. Va. venue (Complaint ¶ 3). Counsel reflects the case's high-profile posture: SFI is represented by Sullivan & Cromwell (including former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu, Stephen J. Elliott, Dustin Guzior, Haley Sanders) plus Lowenstein & Weatherwax (Nathan Lowenstein, Kenneth Weatherwax, Colette Woo); Google by Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks (Elisabeth H. Hunt, Richard F. Giunta, Marc Johannes, Gregory Nieberg) with local counsel Stephen E. Noona (PTAB hearing transcript).

Accused technology and asserted patents. The complaint targets Google Cloud broadly — specifically Google Cloud Storage and its "Encryption At-Rest" functionality — alleging that Google's system chunks customer data, encrypts each chunk with a distinct Data Encryption Key (DEK), "wraps" (encrypts) those DEKs with a Key Encryption Key (KEK) held in Google's "Keystore," and distributes chunks across storage infrastructure; SFI maps the Keystore/KEK to the claimed "external key," and the wrapped-DEK-with-chunk storage to the claimed co-located key data (Complaint ¶¶ 1, 33, 39–42). For the '140 patent specifically, the accused instrumentality is Google Drive, framed as the claimed "virtual disk" that hides underlying storage locations from the client (id.). Four patents were asserted, all in the same "Secure Data Parser Method and System" family (priority to provisional 60/622,146, filed Oct. 25, 2004; the '609 is a continuation of the '854, and the '116 is a grandchild of the '140): (1) U.S. 9,338,140 — a "secure storage network" that presents a client a virtual disk mapping a directory to physical storage devices, hides the shares' physical locations, includes session-key data with each share, and reconstitutes the dataset on request; (2) U.S. 10,452,854 — a method of receiving an external key, generating data chunks/shares, encrypting each share with a distinct key, performing an encryption operation with the external key, and storing key-indicative data with the chunks across different storage devices; (3) U.S. 11,068,609 — the '854's continuation, reciting chunk generation, per-chunk distinct encryption keys, a cryptographic operation using a first key, and storing a chunk with key-indicative data; and (4) U.S. 11,178,116 — distributing a dataset into chunks, encrypting each with a distinct key, "obfuscating" the keys, and separately storing each chunk with its obfuscated key on different storage devices (MTD opinion, ECF 125). Note a metadata wrinkle: your case metadata lists only the '140 patent as "at issue," but the complaint, the docket, and the court's opinions all confirm four asserted patents — the discrepancy likely reflects that the '140 is the only patent whose PTAB challenge was denied institution, and thus the only one arguably still live. Also relevant to value: the family's October 2004 priority means these patents expire around October 2025; Unified Patents lists the '140 expiration as 2025-10-24 (Unified Patents), so as of today all four asserted patents have run out.

Procedural posture and why it matters. SFI filed in the Alexandria Division on March 10, 2023 (No. 1:23-cv-329), the case was reassigned from Judge Elizabeth W. Hanes to District Judge Jamar K. Walker and transferred intradistrict to the Norfolk Division (No. 2:23-cv-97, with Magistrate Judge Robert J. Krask) (Justia docket). Google's § 101 motion to dismiss was denied on Nov. 15, 2023 (ECF 125), the court finding "[t]he 'purportedly innovative technological solution' of these claims is rooted in the particular sequence of parsing, encrypting, and storing steps they describe," and SFI was allowed to add a willfulness claim only as to the '140 patent (ECF 125). Google then filed four IPR petitions between Nov. 22–27, 2023 (IPR2024-00212 = '116; -00213 = '140; -00214 = '609; -00215 = '854), and the court stayed the case on Jan. 19, 2024, expressly rejecting the argument that a stay is premature before institution and declining to apply Fintiv to its own stay analysis (ECF 313); the stay was continued on Dec. 10, 2024 (VLW 024-3-650). The PTAB denied institution on the '140 (IPR2024-00213, June 6, 2024; rehearing denied July 30, 2024) (IP Verse), but instituted on the other three, and on May 16, 2025 issued final written decisions holding the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (Bloomberg Law, May 19, 2025); Director Review was denied July 18, 2025, and the parties have cross-appealed to the Federal Circuit (No. 25-2092, notices filed Aug. 27 and Sept. 8, 2025) (IP Verse; RPX Empower). Venue matters here because E.D. Va. is a famously fast "rocket docket," and the stay opinion is a useful data point on how that court weighs stays versus Fintiv.

Why the case is notable. Several threads make it worth tracking: (a) NPE assertion against core cloud infrastructure — SFI is asserting a legacy enterprise-security patent family against Google Cloud's foundational encryption/key-management design, a pattern RPX and Unified Patents actively monitor; (b) high-profile defense/plaintiff counsel — former USPTO Director (and former Irell & Manella name partner) Andrei Iancu leading the patent-owner side is unusual and draws bar attention to the PTAB advocacy; (c) IPR linkage driving the litigation — the district case has been stayed for over two years while validity is resolved at the PTAB and now the Federal Circuit, with three of the four patents invalidated on obviousness and only the '140 surviving institution (itself the subject of a granted ex parte reexamination, Control No. 90/019,836, per IBM's later IPR exhibit list); (d) late-life patent enforcement — the family was asserted close to its October 2025 expiration, and SFI has separately sued IBM (No. 1:25-cv-00514, E.D. Va., filed March 2025), prompting IBM IPRs (IPR2025-01200/01201/01202) that drew discretionary denials, with IBM arguing SFI's prior owner assured it in 2016 that it would not be sued; and (e) the PTAB decisions turned in part on the contested role of a POSITA's background knowledge (Philips v. Google), an obviousness issue with broader implications (IBM petition; hearing transcript).

Verification caveats. The facts above are grounded in the court's opinions, the PTAB records, and secondary reporting cited inline. Two things I could not fully verify and would flag rather than assert: (1) the precise claim-level outcomes in the -00214 ('609) and -00215 ('854) final written decisions and whether all or only some challenged claims were invalidated (Bloomberg Law's automated summary says "some challenged claims" for one decision); and (2) the current status of the district court case — whether the stay remains in place, whether it has been lifted or the case administratively closed, and any final merits disposition. The case metadata itself notes the final disposition is "unverified," and the most recent confirmed district-court event I found is the December 10, 2024 continuation of the stay, with all subsequent activity centered at the PTAB and Federal Circuit.

I'll research the docket, opinions, and PTAB/Federal Circuit proceedings to build the chronological development list.

Key Legal Developments & Litigation Outcome — Chronological

Built on the case overview above. Where the earlier section and my research diverge, I flag it inline.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings (2023)

Discrepancy flag (defense counsel). The case overview above lists Google's district-court representation as Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks. That is accurate for the PTAB proceedings (Hunt, Giunta, Johannes, Nieberg), but the district-court pro hac vice attorneys named in April 2023 (Nelson, Perlson, David, Acharya, Dawson, Hardy, Caspers) are Quinn Emanuel lawyers — confirmed by the 2023-11-10 claim-construction letter in the IPR record addressed to David Perlson, Quinn Emanuel (Ex. 1043, IPR2024-00212). So the two-track defense split should read: Quinn Emanuel (district court) + Wolf Greenfield (PTAB), with Noona as local counsel. Treat the earlier single-firm characterization as imprecise.

Answer / counterclaims — not verified. I could not confirm any docketed answer or counterclaim. Google's first substantive response was a Rule 12(b)(6) motion (below), and the case was stayed before any answer deadline that would produce counterclaims became operative in the public record. I flag this as unverified rather than assert that none exists.

---

2. Scheduling, protective order, and the pre-stay merits phase (mid-2023)

• 2023-07-20 — Scheduling Order (ECF 54). Capped claim-construction at ten disputed terms and set the parties' disclosure exchange; this order is the basis for the later construction correspondence (Ex. 1043, IPR2024-00212).
• 2023-07-21 — Joint Motion for Interim Protective Order (ECF 55). Parties stipulated to a highly-confidential/outside-counsel-eyes-only interim order while negotiating a full-term protective order (CourtListener ECF 55).
• 2023-09-30 / 2023-11-03 / 2023-11-10 — discovery and construction exchanges. Google served a supplemental interrogatory response on invalidity contentions (SFI's constructions were keyed to it), the parties agreed a ten-term set on 2023-11-03, and exchanged preliminary proposed constructions on 2023-11-10 — covering '140 terms including "virtual disk," "external key," "directory mapped to the plurality of physical storage devices," and "physical locations of the shares are hidden" (Ex. 1043).

Strategic significance: this is the only substantive discovery milestone in the case. Interrogatory No. 2 (invalidity contentions) and the ten-term construction scoping were the levers that would have driven Markman — but the stay froze them before any construction ruling.

---

3. Dispositive motion practice (pre-stay)

• 2023-04-28 — Google's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 37; brief ECF 38) for failure to state a claim — a § 101 Alice/Mayo attack aimed at all four asserted claims, with the '609 claim 1 as the focus (Justia docket).
• 2023-11-15 — Opinion, ECF 125: motion DENIED. The court treated the motion as directed to the amended complaint, held the asserted claims (substantially similar, same family) recited an inventive sequence of parsing/encrypting/storing steps rather than an abstract idea, and permitted SFI's willfulness claim only as to the '140 patent (ECF 125, 50 pp.).

No transfer motion of substance on the merits — the only "transfer" was the sua sponte/administrative intradistrict reassignment from Alexandria to Norfolk in March 2023 (the metadata's "transferred to 2:23-cv-00097" refers to this intradistrict move, not a § 1404 venue fight). Any UniCourt "Disposed – Other Disposed" status pertains to the closed Alexandria docket, not a merits disposition.

---

4. Parallel PTAB proceedings and the stay (late 2023 – 2024)

---

5. Claim construction (Markman) — never reached

No Markman hearing or claim construction order issued. The case was stayed on 2024-01-19 before construction. The only construction activity is the 2023 preliminary exchange of ten agreed terms and the parties' competing proposals (see §2), and the court's 2024-12-10 acknowledgment that a construction list existed for '140 (ECF 326, at 5–6). The December 2024 stay decision effectively made the IPR record a substitute path for construing family terms — a notable procedural feature of this case.

---

6. Summary judgment / trial / post-trial — none

• No summary judgment motion was adjudicated. ECF 325 (2024-08-20) denied certain motions without prejudice, but no SJ ruling appears in the sourced record.
• No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion. The docket's last substantive merits activity predates the stay; the case's "final disposition" language in the metadata reflects that no merits endpoint occurred.

---

7. PTAB final written decisions and Federal Circuit appeal (2025)

Related proceeding to note: a granted ex parte reexamination of the '140, Control No. 90/019,836, surfaced in IBM's later IPR exhibit list — worth verifying separately since the '140 is the one patent that survived institution.

---

8. Current posture and outcome

• District court (2:23-cv-00097): stayed since 2024-01-19 and re-affirmed 2024-12-10; no claim construction, no SJ, no trial, no judgment, no settlement, no dismissal. The docket's last merits-side activity is counsel withdrawals/address changes (ECF 327–330, Jan.–Feb. 2025) (CourtListener feed). The metadata's "final disposition unverified" is correct.
• PTAB: three of four asserted patents invalidated at the Board ('854, '609, '116); the '140's challenge was not instituted and its claims remain standing (subject to the reexam).
• Federal Circuit: No. 25-2092 pending, briefing on the consolidated cross-appeals; no merits decision found as of 2026-09-12.
• Net effect of the IPRs on the litigation: the parallel proceedings stayed the entire case for 2+ years, eliminated 3 of 4 asserted patents, and — per the court's own reasoning (ECF 326) — were expected to simplify the case via claim-construction spillover on the surviving '140. With the patents now expired and an appeal pending, the practical outcome is that the district case never reached the merits.

Unverified / flagged items

1. Claim-level outcomes in -00214 ('609) and -00215 ('854) FWDs (all vs. some challenged claims) — Bloomberg's automated summary is ambiguous.
2. Answer/counterclaims — not found in the public docket.
3. ECF 325's subject motions (2024-08-20) — content not visible in the source snippet.
4. District-court defense counsel firm — Quinn Emanuel (not Wolf Greenfield) appears on the district docket; Wolf Greenfield is PTAB-only.
5. Reexam 90/019,836 status — verified only indirectly through IBM's IPR exhibit list.

Correction to cross-references: the earlier overview's "Sullivan & Cromwell including former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu … plus Lowenstein & Weatherwax" is corroborated by L&W's own press release naming Iancu, Elliott (S&C) and Lowenstein, Weatherwax, Pistone (L&W) — good. Its Google-counsel line should be split as noted in item 4.

I'll research press coverage of this case from multiple angles.

Press and analyst coverage of Security First Innovations v. Google

Genuine news coverage of this case is thin. I searched the case caption, the party names, the four asserted patent numbers, the IPR numbers, and the Federal Circuit appeal, and found no reporting from Reuters, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O, EFF, or JD Supra that addresses this litigation directly. What exists falls into two buckets: a handful of short trade/legal-news items, and litigation-analytics database pages that track the docket without doing journalism. The most substantive press item I located is a Virginia Lawyers Weekly summary, "Patent and trademark: Suit alleges Google's cloud service infringes four patents" (VLW 024-3-650, posted Dec. 23, 2024), which reports only that "[w]here a company alleged that Google's cloud service infringes four patents, the court continued the stay it previously imposed pending inter partes review," citing the Dec. 10, 2024 order by Judge Walker in EDVA at Norfolk. That is consistent with the stay-continuation event already documented in the case overview and adds no facts beyond the order itself. On the PTAB side, Bloomberg Law ran a May 19, 2025 item ("Case: Patents/Obviousness (P.T.A.B.)") stating that "[t]he Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that challenged claims of Security First Innovations LLC's patent that relates to securing data from unauthorized access or use are unpatentable as obvious over prior art, in an inter partes review by Google LLC," and that the Board relied on prior art "that discloses a system that encrypts streaming content before transmitting it." This is the automated Bloomberg Law docket-summary format, and it corroborates the May 16, 2025 final written decisions on the instituted IPRs (the '116, '609, and '854 patents). Note a citation wrinkle versus the earlier-generated section: that section linked this same May 19, 2025 Bloomberg item to a different Bloomberg URL (...case-patents-obviousness-p-t-a-b-51-64-65-71-83-87); both appear to be auto-generated Bloomberg "Case" pages, so the date is reliable but the URL should be treated as interchangeable.

Beyond those two items, coverage is essentially database-driven. RPX Insight maintains IPR pages for the Google challenges (e.g., IPR2024‑00213, filed 11/27/2023, institution 06/06/2024, i.e., denied institution on the '140 patent), and RPX Empower tracks the Federal Circuit appeal (No. 25‑2092, filed 09/10/2025), but these are structured records rather than reported analysis. Similar non-journalistic entries appear at Unified Patents, Patexia (which lists IPR2024‑00212 status as "Pending Director Review"), and IP Verse/GreyB. One law-firm announcement is worth noting because it is often mistaken for press: Lowenstein & Weatherwax posted "L&W Obtains Three Non-institutions on Behalf of Security First" (Nov. 21, 2025), but that concerns the parallel IBM IPRs (petitions against US 8,271,802; 8,904,194; and 9,135,456), not the Google case, and it is client-relations marketing rather than independent reporting.

On the substance the task asks about, I found no reported damages figure, no settlement, no verdict, and no disclosed license terms for this case — unsurprising given that it was stayed in January 2024 before any trial date and the asserted family expired around October 2025. No outlet I found quotes Google or SFI executives, and I found no industry-reaction or market-impact pieces tying the litigation to Google Cloud's encryption architecture. In short, this case is visible in the litigation-data ecosystem (RPX, Unified, Patexia, lawyers' blogs) but has generated almost no explanatory journalism. I would flag that the "no coverage from major outlets" finding is a negative result from several searches, not proof of absence, and that the real evidentiary record here remains the court opinions/PTAB papers rather than any news article.

Sources

• Cases
• United States Patent and Trademark Office Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Security First Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC, 2:23-cv-00097 - CourtListener.com - Security First Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC (2:23-cv-00097)
• Filed on behalf of Google LLC by: Elisabeth H
• Complaint analysis | 2:23-cv-00097 | Security First Innovations LLC v. Google LLC | Ex Parte
• IPR2024-00213 - Google LLC v. Security First Innovations LLC IPR of US9338140B2 | RPX Insight
• Patent Cases, Dockets and Filings in Virginia

• Exhibit No

• GOOGLE LLC, Petitioner,
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Google LLC v. Security First Innovations, LLC, IPR2024-00213 (P.T.A.B.) - Track Docket

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel of record through the docket, firm sites, and secondary sources.

Good foundation. Now let me pin down the district-court appearances and local counsel.

Let me pull the docket-level counsel list and identify the local-counsel firm.

Plaintiff-Side Counsel of Record — Security First Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC

Bottom line: SFI's legal team is a two-firm structure — Sullivan & Cromwell LLP (lead, with former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu) working with Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP (PTAB-focused) — plus Virginia local counsel, historically William Rueger Poynter in the E.D. Va. district case. The district-court appearances are all from spring–summer 2023; the later, better-documented roster comes from the parallel IPRs and the 2025 SFI v. IBM case. Below I separate what the record confirms from what I could not verify.

---

1. Confirmed roster

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP — lead counsel

Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP — PTAB co-counsel (Santa Monica)

Virginia local counsel (district court)

---

2. What this means for the counsel picture

• One unified team across forums. The same core lawyers (Elliott, Iancu, Weatherwax, Lowenstein, Woo) appear in the IPRs; Elliott/Iancu/Guzior/Sanders are the S&C bridge to the district case. SFI uses a shared team inbox, SFI_PTAB@sullcrom.com, for PTAB service (IPR2024-00214 notices).
• S&C is the lead and the public face; L&W supplies the PTAB-specialist muscle. That two-tier arrangement (general-IP litigation powerhouse + boutique PTAB firm) is unusual for a small NPE plaintiff and is consistent with the case's litigation-funding-era economics.
• Local counsel is the continuity anchor. Every SFI filing in the E.D. Va. docket that I located was signed by Poynter, which is normal for that court's local-counsel practice.
• No in-house counsel identified. One PO power of attorney is signed "/Keith Moore/" as "the individual signing below has the authority to execute this document on behalf of Patent Owner" (IPR2024-00213 POA). That is an authorized signatory for SFI, not a lawyer of record — I found no evidence he is an attorney, so don't list him as in-house counsel.

---

3. Explicit caveats — what I could not verify

1. No sealed-counsel issue, but a stale docket. The Google docket I could retrieve was last refreshed December 10, 2024. Given the stay and the shift to the PTAB/Federal Circuit, I found no post-2024 district-court appearance for SFI, and I cannot confirm who (if anyone) has entered or withdrawn since. Treat the district roster as current-as-of-late-2024 only.
2. Withdrawal motion target unknown. The docket shows a MOTION to Withdraw as Counsel (ECF 57) with supporting memorandum (ECF 58) filed by SFI in summer 2023. I could not determine which attorney(s) sought to withdraw — likely candidates are the initial filers or laterals, but do not guess. If counsel composition matters, pull ECF 57/58 from PACER.
3. Iancu's "change of law firm" notice. A July 17, 2023 docket notice by SFI regarding "Change of Law Firm of Andrei Iancu" exists; I did not retrieve its contents. It may reflect an administrative update to his pro hac vice record rather than a move away from S&C (he was still S&C in the Feb. 2025 PTAB filings). Flagged as unexplained.
4. L&W's district-court status is unconfirmed. L&W appears throughout the IPR record and in its own press release, but I did not find district-court pro hac vice admissions or notices of appearance for Lowenstein, Weatherwax, Woo, or Pistone in the E.D. Va. Google case. They may be PTAB-only; verify before stating otherwise.
5. Federal Circuit appeal counsel (No. 25-2092) unverified. Given the S&C/L&W PTAB roles, the cross-appeal is almost certainly handled by the same teams, but I found no appearance-of-counsel filing confirming who signed the Federal Circuit notices (Aug. 27 / Sept. 8, 2025). Flag rather than assert.
6. Firm affiliation of local counsel at filing time is unresolved — "Williams Mullen" vs. "Kaleo Legal" depends on timing; his F.D. Va. appearances span 2023–2025 across both SFI matters.

---

4. Cross-check against the earlier section

The previously generated overview named the SFI side as Sullivan & Cromwell (Iancu, Elliott, Guzior, Sanders) plus Lowenstein & Weatherwax (Lowenstein, Weatherwax, Woo). That is consistent with everything I found, but it was drawn largely from the PTAB record. This analysis adds the district-court layer: local counsel William Rueger Poynter (whose name was missing) and S&C district practitioners Alexander Nourse Gross, Austin Philip Mayron, Garrard Russ Beeney, and Alan John Heinrich — i.e., the actual appearances of record in 2:23-cv-00097. I found no contradiction with the prior section's roster; the only nuance is that the prior section's list maps more precisely to the IPR counsel designations than to the district docket.

I'll research Google's counsel of record through the docket and firm sources.

Now let me dig into the specific appearances and firm affiliations.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Google LLC

Security First Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00097-JKW-RJK (E.D. Va.) (transferred from 1:23-cv-00329)

Bottom line: Google's defense is staffed in three tiers — (1) Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP as national trial counsel in the district court (admitted pro hac vice), (2) Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. (Norfolk) as local counsel of record who signed every substantive filing, and (3) Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. (Boston) as separate PTAB counsel in the four IPRs. This refines the earlier case-overview section, which named only the Wolf Greenfield/Noona pairing; the district-court docket shows Quinn Emanuel driving the litigation.

---

1. Local counsel of record — Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.

2. National trial counsel — Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (pro hac vice)

Google moved for pro hac vice admission of seven attorneys on April 25, 2023, all certified by Noona; the court granted them April 27, 2023 (ECF 30–36) (Justia docket). The Quinn Emanuel affiliation is confirmed by the firm's e-mail domain in the parties' ESI/protective order (ECF 80, filed Sept. 1, 2023, bearing hannahdawson@quinnemanuel.com and a Salt Lake City 801 area code) (ECF 80) and by Law360 firm pages.

3. PTAB counsel (same defendant, separate firm) — Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

Google retained a distinct Boston firm for IPR2024-00212/213/214/215, which are the proceedings driving the district-case stay:

---

4. Docket anchors and verification gaps

Anchors. All pro hac vice motions were certified by Noona (ECF 23–29) and granted Apr. 27, 2023 (ECF 30–36); Google's motion to dismiss, signed by Noona, is ECF 37–38 (Justia docket). The most recent counsel-related entries I could confirm are two "Notice of Change of Law Firm Affiliation and Address" filings by Google (ECF 327, Jan. 10, 2025; ECF 328, Jan. 24, 2025, both signed by Noona) (CourtListener feed). Note that a parallel Law.com item showing "Stephen E. Noona of Kaufman & Canoles has entered an appearance for Google" with a Date Filed: October 3, 2025 is a different Google patent case, not this one.

What I could not verify — flagged, not asserted:

1. Content of ECF 327/328. The two January 2025 "Change of Law Firm Affiliation and Address" notices imply a change in counsel's firm or office (possibly a Kaufman & Canoles move or a local-counsel change), but I could not retrieve the text. Chambers still lists Noona at Kaufman & Canoles for the 2026 guide, so nothing suggests he left the firm — but the filings should be pulled directly.
2. Firm affiliations of Kevin Hardy and Nicholas D. Caspers — inferred, not confirmed.
3. No formal "lead counsel" designation exists on a civil docket; my labeling of Nelson as lead rests on filing order, seniority, and Chambers commentary, not a court order.
4. Current appearance status post-stay. The case has been stayed since Jan. 22, 2024 (ECF 313) and maintained on Dec. 10, 2024 (ECF 326); the last docket activity I can confirm is Feb. 5, 2025 (ECF 330, unrelated — plaintiff-side withdrawal of Austin Mayron). Any substitutions, withdrawals, or Federal Circuit appellate appearances in No. 25-2092 (cross-appeals noticed Aug. 27/Sept. 8, 2025) are unverified — appellate counsel of record in particular should be checked on the CAFC docket.
5. No sealed appearances were found, and nothing in the record suggests any counsel appeared under seal; the attorney list above is drawn from public docket entries, the ESI order, and PTAB filings.