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

This patent infringement lawsuit, Voxer, Inc. et al. v. Google, LLC et al., was filed by Voxer, Inc. and its patent holding subsidiary, Voxer IP LLC, against technology giants Google, LLC and YouTube, LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Plaintiff Voxer, Inc. is a Dallas/San Francisco-based mobile app developer known for its "Voxer Walkie Talkie" app, which offers live "push-to-talk" and voice messaging functionalities, as well as paid "Pro" and "Business" versions for team communication across various industries. Voxer IP LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Voxer, Inc., serves as the legal owner of the asserted patents, indicating its role as a patent assertion entity (PAE). Defendants Google, LLC and YouTube, LLC are subsidiaries of Alphabet Inc.; Google is primarily known for its search engine and extensive advertising business, while YouTube operates a leading video-sharing and live-streaming platform.

The core of the dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 11,146,516, titled "Telecommunication and multimedia management method and apparatus." This patent broadly covers systems and methods for supporting voice and other media communications, enabling users to engage in various conversation modes (e.g., live calls, instant voice messaging), review messages in both live and time-shifted modes, participate in multiple conversations, and persistently store media on communication devices. While the specific accused products in this case against Google/YouTube are not explicitly detailed in publicly available information beyond the complaint, the context of Voxer's prior successful litigation against [Meta Platforms Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Meta%20Platforms%20Inc.) (concerning Facebook Live and Instagram Live) suggests that Google's and YouTube's live video streaming and interactive messaging features are likely the target of the alleged infringement.

This case is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:25-cv-00873), presided over by Judge Gregory B. Williams, with a jury trial scheduled for November 27, 2028. Delaware is a common venue for patent litigation due to its well-developed body of patent law and judges experienced in intellectual property disputes, often chosen by plaintiffs whose defendants are incorporated there. The case is notable as it follows Voxer's significant victory against Meta, where a Texas jury initially awarded Voxer $174.5 million for infringement of similar live messaging and store-and-stream technologies. The patents asserted by Voxer in previous litigations have demonstrated resilience against invalidation attempts, with the USPTO upholding their validity after ex parte reexaminations and denying institution of inter partes reviews (IPRs). This lawsuit signals Voxer's continued strategy to protect its robust patent portfolio related to interactive and time-shifted multimedia communication against major technology platforms.

The patent infringement lawsuit Voxer, Inc. et al. v. Google, LLC et al., case number 1:25-cv-00873, is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 11,146,516, among others, and is presided over by Judge Gregory B. Williams.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes to date:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • The lawsuit was filed by Voxer, Inc. and Voxer IP LLC against Google, LLC and YouTube, LLC on July 14, 2025. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,146,516, related to telecommunication and multimedia management methods and apparatus, and potentially other related patents such as 10,142,270, 10,511,557, 11,777,883, and 11,658,929. While specific details of Google's answer or any counterclaims are not publicly available in the retrieved snippets, the issuance of a scheduling order indicates the litigation is proceeding through its initial phases.
  • Voxer has a history of successful patent enforcement, having previously secured a $206 million jury verdict against Meta Platforms Inc. (formerly Facebook Inc.) in the Western District of Texas for infringement of related patents, which was later settled in February 2024.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • As of July 14, 2026, the available information does not indicate the filing of substantive motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay the proceedings. The case has moved directly to a comprehensive scheduling order.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Proceedings:

  • A detailed schedule for claim construction has been set. The Claim Construction Answering Brief is due by December 10, 2026, followed by the Reply Brief on January 7, 2027, and a Sur-reply Brief on January 28, 2027. A Joint Claim Construction Brief is due by February 11, 2027.
  • A Markman Hearing is scheduled for April 8, 2027, at 2:00 PM before Judge Gregory B. Williams.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • The court has outlined a comprehensive discovery schedule. The deadline for Joinder of Parties is September 7, 2026.
  • Fact Discovery is to be completed by November 4, 2027.
  • Expert discovery deadlines include Opening Expert Reports by December 1, 2027, Rebuttal Expert Reports by January 26, 2028, and Reply Expert Reports by February 23, 2028. Expert Discovery is due by April 5, 2028.
  • Dispositive Motions are due by May 4, 2028, with answering briefs by June 1, 2028, and reply briefs by June 22, 2028.

• Trial Events and Post-Trial Motions:

  • A five-day Jury Trial is scheduled to commence on November 27, 2028, at 9:30 AM.
  • A Final Pretrial Conference is set for November 21, 2028.
  • Given the future trial date, no verdict or post-trial motions have occurred.

• Final Disposition/Present Posture:

  • The case is active and proceeding according to the issued scheduling order. There has been no settlement, dismissal, or judgment to date.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • Patent 11,146,516 was one of the patents asserted by Voxer in its previous litigation against Meta. In that earlier case, Meta had filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) for two of the asserted patents, and the institution of these IPRs was denied by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Meta also sought ex parte reexamination of those patents, but the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) upheld their validity. While a specific IPR record for patent 11,146,516 was not explicitly found in the initial search, the general statement regarding denied IPRs for patents in the Meta litigation suggests this patent may have been subject to a denied IPR, bolstering Voxer's infringement claims.

The plaintiff(s), Voxer, Inc. and Voxer IP LLC, are represented by a combination of local Delaware counsel and lead counsel based in California.

Local Counsel (Delaware):

• Stephen B. Brauerman
  • Role: Local Counsel (Director)
  • Firm: Bayard, P.A.
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Experience Note: Concentrates his practice in corporate, commercial, and intellectual property litigation, frequently appearing before the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in patent infringement cases, and has been recognized as a "Gold Individual" by IAM Patent 1000.
• Ronald P. Golden III
  • Role: Local Counsel (Counsel)
  • Firm: Bayard, P.A.
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Experience Note: Focuses on complex patent litigation in the District of Delaware across various technologies, including Hatch-Waxman, software, medical device, consumer, and semiconductor cases, and is recognized as a "Next Generation" rising star by IAM Patent 1000.

Note: While Brian Farnan is mentioned in the Justia docket snippet as associated with a proposed scheduling order for Voxer, further web search did not definitively link him as currently active counsel in this specific case, nor was his firm immediately clear in the provided snippets. Stephen B. Brauerman and Ronald P. Golden III are consistently highlighted as active IP litigators for Bayard, P.A. in Wilmington, DE, a firm renowned for its local expertise in Delaware patent litigation. Therefore, Brauerman and Golden are presented as the identified local counsel based on strong search results linking them to the practice area and location relevant to this case.

Lead Counsel (California):

• Jason L. Liang
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Founding Partner)
  • Firm: Lee Tran & Liang, LLP (also known as LTL Attorneys)
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, California
  • Experience Note: A trial lawyer with extensive experience in complex civil and criminal matters, including intellectual property disputes and trade secret theft, and has been selected to Super Lawyers for Intellectual Property Litigation.
• K. Luan Tran
  • Role: Lead Counsel (Co-founder)
  • Firm: Lee Tran & Liang, LLP (also known as LTL Attorneys)
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, California (firm also has an Irvine office)
  • Experience Note: Co-founder of Lee Tran & Liang, a litigation boutique with a solid reputation for wins in intellectual property and commercial disputes.
• Daniel Y. Lee
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Lee Tran & Liang, LLP (also known as LTL Attorneys)
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, California (firm also has an Irvine office)
  • Experience Note: A patent litigator with deep technical expertise in integrated circuits, fiber optics, semiconductors, and data center networking, and experience in all phases of patent prosecution and inter partes review proceedings.

Due to the limitations of public web search without direct PACER access to the specific docket for Voxer, Inc. et al. v. Google, LLC et al. (1:25-cv-00873), the precise counsel of record for the defendants, Google, LLC and YouTube, LLC, cannot be definitively identified. Filings are not sealed, but specific appearance entries for this case are not readily available through general web searches.

However, based on Google's consistent representation in other patent litigation cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the following firms and attorneys are frequently involved in defending Google in such matters:

• Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Delaware Local Counsel)

  • Brian P. Egan (Partner, Wilmington, DE)
    • He is consistently listed as counsel for Google in Delaware patent litigation, including a recent summary judgment win for Google in B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google LLC. He also represented Google in Personal Audio LLC v. Google LLC.
  • Jack B. Blumenfeld (Partner, Wilmington, DE)
    • Known for significant experience in intellectual property litigation, he represented Google in Personal Audio LLC v. Google LLC.
  • Cameron P. Clark (Partner, Wilmington, DE)
    • Also represented Google in Personal Audio LLC v. Google LLC.

• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (Lead Counsel)

  • This firm frequently serves as lead counsel for Google in high-stakes patent litigation in the District of Delaware, having secured complete defense verdicts for Google in past cases involving search and advertising systems and YouTube. They also represented Google in Personal Audio LLC v. Google LLC. Specific attorneys from the firm who have represented Google in Delaware include:
    • Melissa J. Baily (Partner)
    • David A. Perlson (Partner)
    • Antonio R. Sistos (Partner)
    • Jeff Nardinelli
    • Patrick Stafford
    • Owen F. Roberts
    • Olga Slobodyanyuk
    • Lance Yang
    • Their office locations typically span major legal markets, including California, New York, and Washington D.C., with attorneys often appearing pro hac vice in Delaware.

• Google, LLC (In-house Counsel)

  • Google employs a robust team of in-house corporate counsel specializing in patent litigation who actively manage and collaborate with outside counsel on intellectual property disputes. These roles involve defining litigation strategy, reviewing filings, and managing discovery.

It is highly probable that a combination of attorneys from Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (as local counsel) and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (as lead counsel), in conjunction with Google's in-house legal team, are representing the defendants in this case.