SITNETLLC v. META PLATFORMS, INC.

SITNETLLC, identified as a third-party funded patent assertion entity (PAE), initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc., a major operating technology company and the parent of Facebook. The litigation centers on Meta's widely used platforms, specifically accusing features like Facebook's "Crisis Response" (formerly "Safety Check") and the Facebook Ad platform/Marketing API of infringing SITNETLLC's intellectual property. These Meta services are alleged to utilize methods related to situational networks and targeted advertising derived from such networks.

The primary patent at issue in this specific case (1:25-cv-06185-JAV) is U.S. Patent No. 12,336,052, titled "Method and system for using a situational network." This patent generally describes a network system designed to access situation-related information, form a "situational network" in response to an event (e.g., a disaster), connect participant devices within that network, and then query these devices for status updates via a "roll call" before aggregating the responses. The case is being heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over by Judge Jeannette A. Vargas. The Southern District of New York is known for a relatively efficient median time-to-trial for patent cases, which can influence venue choice for plaintiffs seeking quicker resolutions.

This litigation is notable for several reasons, including SITNETLLC's pattern as a patent assertion entity. It represents a second, distinct lawsuit filed by SITNETLLC against Meta, following an earlier 2023 case (1:23-cv-06389) that also involved patents from the same family related to situational networks and targeted advertising and was stayed pending inter partes review (IPR) outcomes. Meta has aggressively leveraged the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge SITNETLLC's patents, securing final written decisions finding all challenged claims unpatentable in four IPRs against patents from the earlier litigation. Additionally, Meta has continued this strategy by filing new IPRs, such as IPR2026-00100, which challenges Patent 10,117,290, a related patent concerning network systems for accessing situation-related information. This ongoing dispute highlights the strategic interplay between district court litigation and PTAB challenges in patent enforcement against major technology companies.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for SITNETLLC v. META PLATFORMS, INC. (1:25-cv-06185-JAV)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, concerns U.S. Patent No. 12,336,052, among others. The case remains active as of May 29, 2026.

Chronological Summary of Legal Developments:

• Filing of Complaint: SITNETLLC initiated the lawsuit against META PLATFORMS, INC. on July 28, 2025. The complaint asserts six patents from the same family, including U.S. Patent No. 12,336,052, targeting Meta's Facebook Crisis Response feature and Facebook Ad platform.

• Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order: A Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order was filed on November 4, 2025.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding and Denial of Institution: Meta Platforms, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00113, against U.S. Patent No. 12,336,052 on November 12, 2025. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) subsequently issued a discretionary denial of institution for this IPR on May 13, 2026. The denial was based on Fintiv factors, citing the advanced stage of the parallel district court litigation, meaning the PTAB did not evaluate the claims on their merits.

• Discovery Milestones: Discovery of electronically stored information has been ordered in the district court case.

• Settlement Discussions: As of November 4, 2025, settlement discussions had not yet taken place.

The case is currently ongoing, with the district court proceedings continuing following the PTAB's denial of institution for the IPR. No trial events, verdicts, or appeals specific to this case (1:25-cv-06185-JAV) or patent (12,336,052) have been reported beyond the IPR denial.

I'll research counsel of record for SITNETLLC in this case and the related prior litigation.

Now let me pull the docket for the 2025 case specifically.

Let me pull the actual docket entries for the 2025 case and any notice of appearance.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — SITNETLLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-06185-JAV

Verification status (read this first)

I was not able to retrieve the actual docket sheet for 1:25-cv-06185 (notices of appearance, complaint signature block) in this session. PACER is paywalled and no free RECAP/CourtListener docket page for the 2025 case surfaced; the only 2025-case page I could open was a PACER-derived index (Ex Parte) confirming filing date (07/28/2025), NOS 830, and "Open" status, with no party-counsel table.

Accordingly, the roster below is reconstructed from primary documents that are available and is highly reliable as to who SitNet's counsel are, but each entry is flagged as to whether the appearance is confirmed for the 2025 case or confirmed only in the companion 2023 case (No. 1:23-cv-06389, now also before Judge Vargas) and the parallel PTAB proceedings. You should confirm against Dkt. 1 and any Dkt. 5–10 notices of appearance before publishing.

---

1. Hecht Partners LLP — lead / principal patent counsel

Grounding: SitNet's Power of Attorney, IPR2024-00612 (Mar. 29, 2024) (Hecht and Zak appointed); Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices, IPR2024-00530 (Mar. 29, 2024) (Hecht lead, Zak back-up); Oral Hearing Transcript, IPR2024-00530 (June 10, 2025) ("DAVID HECHT, ESQUIRE, Hecht Partners LLP … on behalf of the Patent Owner"). Hecht also signed the Joint Status Report filed Aug. 14, 2026 (Dkt. 142) in No. 1:23-cv-06389-JAV.

2. Barclay Damon LLP — local / co-counsel

Grounding: CourtListener parties page for SitNet LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-06389 (listing Nash, Cook, Sullivan, Kannan for Plaintiff); Dkt. 13 (Barclay Damon letter, Aug. 16, 2023) ("We, along with co-counsel DiCello Levitt LLC, represent plaintiff SitNet LLC"); Joint Status Report, No. 1:23-cv-06389-JAV, Dkt. 142 (Aug. 14, 2026).

3. DiCello Levitt LLP — co-counsel

4. Appellate counsel (separate proceeding — not district-court counsel of record)

Third-party litigation database PatSnap lists Cora Renae Holt and Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP alongside David Hecht as counsel for SitNet in the Federal Circuit appeal arising from IPR2024-00530 (No. 26-1158, dismissed). I could not corroborate the Finnegan entry against a Federal Circuit appearance form or order, so treat it as secondary-sourced only and unrelated to appearances in 1:25-cv-06185. (CAFC orders: 26-1158 order posted 04/27/2026.)

5. In-house / party representatives (not counsel)

• No in-house counsel — SitNet LLC is a non-practicing entity with a principal place of business at 413 W 14th St., Suite 231, New York, NY 10014 (per its PTAB mandatory notices).
• Charles Eldering signed the PTAB power of attorney as SitNet's representative (inventor/principal), not as counsel. Do not list him as an attorney.

---

Practical notes for the write-up

1. Same team, two cases. Every attorney confirmed above appears on filings in No. 1:23-cv-06389, which has itself been reassigned to Judge Jeannette A. Vargas (captioned "1:23-cv-06389-JAV" by 2026). The shared judge, shared plaintiff, and shared PTAB representation make it near-certain the 2025 case carries the same lineup — but that is an inference, not a docket citation.
2. Structural read: Hecht Partners (N.Y. IP boutique) leads on patent substance and PTAB; Barclay Damon supplies the upstate-New York/admitted-in-SDNY local presence; DiCello Levitt supplies plaintiffs'-side complex-litigation capacity (consistent with the case's third-party-funding profile noted in the earlier section). This is a three-firm co-counsel structure rather than a single lead firm with local counsel.
3. Contradiction to flag in the existing "Key legal developments" section: it states the PTAB issued a Fintiv discretionary denial in IPR2026-00113 on May 13, 2026. The Docket Alarm docket for IPR2026-00113 shows the case terminated March 17, 2026, with a "Board Director Discretionary Decision: Deny." The substantive description (discretionary, non-merits denial; Fintiv-type advanced-stage reasoning, supported by exhibits EX1055 "SitNet II Scheduling Order" and EX1056

Meta Platforms, Inc. is represented by a team of experienced patent litigation attorneys from prominent law firms, along with in-house counsel.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for the defendant:

Winston & Strawn LLP

• Krishnan Padmanabhan (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Winston & Strawn LLP, New York.
  • Note: Krishnan Padmanabhan is recognized for developing "winning arguments" and finding case-dispositive threads that others overlook, with strong technological expertise in district courts. Winston & Strawn's patent litigation practice is highly regarded, noted for its extensive courtroom experience and consistently ranking among the top national patent defense firms. The firm has a strong track record in high-tech, biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and medical device sectors, including cases involving AI.
• Other notable patent litigators at Winston & Strawn with relevant experience:
  • George Lombardi (Chicago) is a leading patent litigator for cases involving telephone and computer technology.
  • David Enzminger (Los Angeles) is well-regarded for his work on complex hardware and software patent infringement cases.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

• Brian Rosenthal (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York.
  • Note: Brian Rosenthal is praised as "one of the best trial lawyers" and is known for his sharp intellect and ability to grasp technical details, having litigated over 120 patent cases, mostly as lead counsel. His representative clients include major technology companies such as Cisco, AT&T, Google, and NXP Semiconductors. Gibson Dunn's patent litigation practice has a national reputation for excellence in high-stakes patent litigation, with a distinguished track record of trial victories for leading tech and telecom companies. They are adept at defending clients against non-practicing entities (NPEs).
• Other notable patent litigators at Gibson Dunn with relevant experience:
  • Josh Krevitt focuses on high-stakes patent litigation across wireless technologies, ANDA litigation, telecommunications hardware, and semiconductors.
  • Jane Love specializes in pharmaceutical and biotechnology patents and is known for her compelling and persuasive legal analysis.
  • Charlotte Jacobsen (New York) has over two decades of experience representing life sciences clients and combines legal expertise with advanced scientific degrees.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

• Doug Lumish (Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, California.
  • Note: Doug Lumish co-heads IP, Technology & Science Litigation and is recognized for his work in high-exposure patent litigation for technology companies. He has recently represented Meta Platforms and Google and secured the reversal of a $600 million patent verdict at the Federal Circuit.

In-House Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.

• Katie Brockway (Associate General Counsel of IP Litigation)
  • Role: In-house counsel managing domestic and international patent and trade secret litigation for Meta's family of apps.
  • Note: Prior to joining Meta, Ms. Brockway was an associate at Latham & Watkins LLP, focusing on patent and trade secret litigation across various technologies.
• Tolani Akinkuotu (Lead Counsel on the patent team)
  • Role: In-house counsel, working with various engineering and product teams, including the Advertising and Business Platform team, providing counsel on protecting Meta's intellectual property, portfolio management, IP strategy, and risk mitigation.
• Amanda Do Couto (Lead Patent Counsel)
  • Role: In-house counsel responsible for the global patent strategy for various Meta products and tech areas, including WhatsApp, Instagram, Threads, and virtual reality.
  • Note: Ms. Do Couto previously practiced patent litigation at a leading global law firm and served as a federal clerk for the U.S. District Courts.