Voxer, Inc. et al. v. Google, LLC

This patent infringement litigation, Voxer, Inc. et al. v. Google, LLC, was filed on July 14, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and is currently assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams. The plaintiffs are Voxer, Inc., a mobile app development company known for its "Voxer Walkie Talkie" app which offers live push-to-talk and voice messaging, and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Voxer IP LLC, which holds the legal ownership of the asserted patents. Voxer, Inc. is an operating company that provides real-time voice and multimedia communication services. The defendant, Google, LLC, is a global technology company. The lawsuit alleges that Google infringes on Voxer's patents through its "systems, devices, and servers used for streaming video services, such as its YouTube Live video service."

The specific patent listed in this case is U.S. Patent No. 11,777,883, titled "Telecommunication and multimedia management method and apparatus." This patent broadly describes an apparatus and method that supports voice and other media communications, enabling users to engage in various conversation modes (e.g., live calls, instant messaging), review messages in real-time or time-shifted playback, participate in multiple conversations, archive messages, and persistently store media on communication devices. While the prompt specified this patent, public records indicate that Voxer has asserted a total of five patents, all broadly directed to video communications over a network, against Google and its subsidiary YouTube, LLC, in this case, and against Amazon and Twitch Interactive in a related, parallel lawsuit (1:25-cv-00872).

This case is notable given Voxer's prior success in similar litigation. Voxer previously sued [Meta Platforms Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Meta%20Platforms%20Inc.) (formerly Facebook) for patent infringement in the Western District of Texas, winning a $206 million damages award and ongoing royalties in July 2023 before the parties settled. During the Meta litigation, two of the patents asserted (though not specifically 11,777,883) underwent inter partes review (IPR) petitions at the PTAB, which were denied institution, and ex parte reexaminations by the USPTO upheld their validity, bolstering Voxer's claims regarding patentability. The choice of the District of Delaware as the venue is common for patent cases, as it is a leading forum for such litigation, especially for operating companies, known for its expertise and efficient docket management.

Key Legal Developments in Voxer, Inc. et al. v. Google, LLC

This patent infringement litigation, Voxer, Inc. et al. v. Google, LLC, Case No. 1:2025cv00873, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on July 14, 2025, by Plaintiffs Voxer, Inc. and Voxer IP LLC against Defendant Google, LLC. The case is currently active and is associated with another action, Voxer, Inc. et al v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:25-cv-00872-GBW.

Given the case's filing date of July 14, 2025, and the current date of July 14, 2026, the litigation is still in its relatively early stages, with significant pre-trial events scheduled.

Chronological Summary of Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2025-07-14):

  • Plaintiffs Voxer, Inc. and Voxer IP LLC filed their complaint against Google, LLC on July 14, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Details regarding Google's answer or any counterclaims are not available in the provided public docket snippets but would typically follow the complaint.

• Pre-Trial Motions & Scheduling (2026-01-08):

  • On January 8, 2026, a comprehensive Scheduling Order was issued by Judge Gregory B. Williams, which applies to both this case and the associated case, 1:25-cv-00872-GBW.
  • Key deadlines established by this order include:
    • Joinder of Parties: by September 7, 2026.
    • Fact Discovery to be completed by November 4, 2027.
    • Opening Expert Reports due by December 1, 2027.
    • Rebuttal Expert Reports due by January 26, 2028.
    • Reply Expert Reports due by February 23, 2028.
    • Expert Discovery to be completed by April 5, 2028.
    • Dispositive Motions due by May 4, 2028, with an answering brief due by June 1, 2028, and a reply brief due by June 22, 2028.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Schedule:

  • The scheduling order also set specific deadlines for claim construction briefing and the Markman hearing:
    • Claim Construction Opening Brief: due by January 7, 2027.
    • Claim Construction Answering Brief: due by December 10, 2026.
    • Claim Construction Reply Brief: due by January 7, 2027.
    • Claim Construction Sur-reply Brief: due by January 28, 2027.
    • Joint Claim Construction Brief: due by February 11, 2027.
    • A Markman Hearing is set for April 8, 2027, at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 6B before Judge Gregory B. Williams.

• Trial Events & Final Disposition:

  • A Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for November 21, 2028, at 3:00 PM.
  • A five-day Jury Trial is set to commence on November 27, 2028, at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 6B before Judge Gregory B. Williams.
  • As the trial is scheduled for late 2028, there has been no final disposition, verdict, settlement, or appeal in this case to date.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically targeting U.S. Patent No. 11,777,883 (the patent at issue in this litigation, as per the case metadata) in the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database did not yield any active or completed IPR/PGR proceedings for this specific patent.
  • However, Voxer IP LLC has been involved in other IPR proceedings for different patents. For instance, IPR2021-00115, initiated by Facebook Inc. against Voxer IP LLC concerning U.S. Patent Nos. 10,142,270 and 10,109,028, resulted in a denial of institution on May 7, 2021. This particular IPR does not directly affect the '883 patent at issue in the Voxer v. Google litigation.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s) Voxer, Inc. and Voxer IP LLC in Voxer, Inc. et al. v. Google, LLC:

Local Counsel (Delaware)

• Brian E. Farnan (Partner)
  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience: Mr. Farnan regularly serves as Delaware counsel for patent holders in federal court and has extensive experience in complex patent, trade secret, mass tort, shareholder, and bankruptcy litigation. He has been recognized by publications like IAM Patent 1000 and Chambers USA for his work in patent litigation.
• Michael J. Farnan (Partner)
  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience: Michael Farnan's experience includes patent litigation, and he has been recognized as a Super Lawyer.
• Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. (Founder)
  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience: A former United States District Judge for the District of Delaware, Mr. Farnan presided over numerous patent trials during his 25 years on the bench and now focuses his practice on patent litigation, complex commercial matters, and Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

Pro Hac Vice Counsel (Lead Counsel)

The following attorneys filed a motion for pro hac vice appearance in the associated case 1:25-cv-00872-GBW, which typically indicates they are lead counsel from out-of-state firms. Given the cases are associated, it is highly probable they also represent the plaintiffs in 1:25-cv-00873-GBW:

• Warren H. Lipschitz
  • Firm: (Information not explicitly provided in snippets; typically, these would be from the lead counsel firm)
  • Experience: Voxer has a history of litigation, including a significant win against Facebook, where Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP was lead counsel. It is highly probable Mr. Lipschitz is associated with Quinn Emanuel or another firm specializing in plaintiff-side patent litigation.
• Kyle A. Lonergan
  • Firm: (Information not explicitly provided in snippets)
  • Experience: (Specific experience for Mr. Lonergan not found in provided snippets. Generally, pro hac vice attorneys in patent cases have substantial patent litigation experience.)
• James Quigley
  • Firm: (Information not explicitly provided in snippets)
  • Experience: (Specific experience for Mr. Quigley not found in provided snippets. Generally, pro hac vice attorneys in patent cases have substantial patent litigation experience.)
• Nicholas Mathews
  • Firm: (Information not explicitly provided in snippets)
  • Experience: (Specific experience for Mr. Mathews not found in provided snippets. Generally, pro hac vice attorneys in patent cases have substantial patent litigation experience.)
• Eliza Beeney
  • Firm: (Information not explicitly provided in snippets)
  • Experience: (Specific experience for Ms. Beeney not found in provided snippets. Generally, pro hac vice attorneys in patent cases have substantial patent litigation experience.)
• Clara Bourget
  • Firm: (Information not explicitly provided in snippets)
  • Experience: (Specific experience for Ms. Bourget not found in provided snippets. Generally, pro hac vice attorneys in patent cases have substantial patent litigation experience.)

I'll research the defense counsel of record for Google in this case.

Good leads. Let me verify the defense firms and attorneys.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant(s) — Voxer, Inc. et al. v. Google, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-00873-GBW (D. Del.)

Threshold correction to the case metadata: the metadata caption names only "Google, LLC," but the operative docket and complaint name two defendants — Google, LLC and YouTube, LLC — and both are represented by the same defense team. The Report to the Commissioner (D.I. 3) also lists five asserted patents (U.S. 10,142,270; 10,511,557; 11,146,516; 11,777,883; 11,658,929), not just the '883 patent. Citations below are to the CourtListener/RECAP docket for No. 1:25-cv-00873 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70800252/voxer-inc-v-google-llc/) and the Justia docket mirror (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2025cv00873/89913).

---

1. Local Counsel (Delaware) — Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.

Kelly E. Farnan — Local counsel of record (partner)

• Firm/Office: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., One Rodney Square, 920 N. King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801; (302) 651-7700; farnan@rlf.com (Del. Bar No. 4395).
• Docket basis: Ms. Farnan is the Delaware filer for every Google/YouTube submission in this case — the three stipulations extending the defendants' response date (D.I. entered 7/24/2025, 8/28/2025, and the page-limit stipulation of 9/19/2025), the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (D.I. 13) and its Opening Brief (D.I. 14) filed 9/24/2025, and the pro hac vice fee payments (D.I. 17, 18, 20).
• Experience note: Long-time Delaware patent/IP litigator; Best Lawyers in America since 2017 (Litigation–Patent, Litigation–IP); Super Lawyers 2017–2026. She has served as Delaware counsel for Google in prior Delaware matters (e.g., the Netlist/Samsung–Netlist litigation in C.A. No. 21-1453, where she appeared for Google LLC and Alphabet) and for defendants such as Wiz and Netflix. Former Delaware counsel rosters in other cases pair her with Williams & Connolly — the same pairing here.

Note: Do not confuse Kelly E. Farnan (Richards, Layton & Finger — defense side here) with Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan of Farnan LLP, who are plaintiffs' Delaware counsel in this same case. The surname overlap is coincidental to the litigation but not to the Delaware bar.

---

2. Lead / Trial Counsel — Williams & Connolly LLP (Washington, DC)

The following were admitted pro hac vice on the defendants' motion at D.I. 16 (filed late September/early October 2025), with fees paid at D.I. 17–18:

Caveat on firm attribution: The docket confirms the names of all seven pro hac vice attorneys from the text of D.I. 16 and D.I. 19. Firm affiliation is confirmed by firm/third-party sources only for Harber and Trask (Williams & Connolly). For Yeager, Pan, Searle, and Beaton I am inferring Williams & Connolly from the fact that they were moved together with Harber and Trask on a single motion — I did not locate an independent firm-page or docket confirmation for each. Edward J. Bennett's affiliation is genuinely unresolved; I would not attribute him to Williams & Connolly without checking the D.I. 19 motion papers on PACER.

---

3. In-house counsel

No Google in-house counsel has appeared on the docket under the name "Google LLC." If Mr. Bennett or another PHV admittee is Google Legal Department personnel, that would not be apparent from the docket text alone. I found no public filing identifying a Google in-house attorney of record.

---

4. Procedural posture relevant to the defense team (for cross-reference)

• Google and YouTube were served 7/15/2025 (D.I. 6). Their response deadline was extended twice by stipulation (to 9/19/2025, then to 9/24/2025), and they filed a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 13) with opening brief (D.I. 14) on 9/24/2025 rather than answering.
• Voxer's opposition was filed ~10/15/2025 (D.I. 21), supported by the Declaration of James Quigley (D.I. 22); Google's reply was due 10/22/2025 under the Local Rules, with the parties having stipulated to a 10/29/2025 reply date.
• Judge Williams entered an oral order on 10/27/2025 stating that, notwithstanding the pending motion to dismiss, "the case needs to move forward" — signaling the court will not stay discovery/scheduling pending the Rule 12 motion. A stipulation to submit a proposed scheduling order followed (deadline extended to 12/5/2025), and a scheduling conference/teleconference order issued 12/22/2025. This is consistent with (and slightly precedes) the January 8, 2026 scheduling order described in the earlier "Key legal developments" section.
• The Rule 12 motion is therefore still pending/undecided on the public record I could access as of the latest docket text retrieved; I did not find a ruling granting or denying D.I. 13.

---

5. Flags / open items

1. Defendant list mismatch with metadata — YouTube, LLC is a named defendant and is represented by the same team (all filings are styled "Google, LLC, YouTube, LLC"). The metadata should be updated.
2. Contradiction with the earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section — that section speculated that Warren Lipschitz and colleagues were "highly probable[d] … associated with Quinn Emanuel." That is incorrect: the complaint's signature block (D.I. 1) identifies all six out-of-state plaintiff attorneys as McKool Smith, P.C. — Lonergan and Beeney (New York), Mathews and Lipschitz (Dallas), Quigley (Austin), Bourget (Los Angeles). The Quinn Emanuel reference properly belongs to the Meta case (Robert Stone / Ogi Zivojnovic), not this one. Please correct that section.
3. Kevin/other counsel: I did not verify whether additional Delaware counsel (e.g., a second RLF attorney such as Sara M. Metzler) has appeared; only Kelly Farnan's name appears in the docket text retrieved.
4. Sources not consulted for lack of access: PACER itself (paywalled), Law360 case page, and Reuters Legal. Where docket text above comes from CourtListener/RECAP and Justia mirrors, it may lag PACER by some days.