WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC et al.

Case Overview & Background: WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC et al., No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Parties, technology, and patents. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. is a patent-assertion entity in substance, though it describes itself as owned by the patents' inventors; it has run a Woodsford Litigation Funding Ltd.–backed campaign on a streaming-media patent family since 2007, first against smaller (including adult-streaming) operators and, by 2021, against major platforms (RPX: "WAG Acquisition Extends Scattered Streaming Campaign, Suing Alphabet and Amazon in West Texas," Aug. 8, 2021; IPWatchdog, "Litigation Funding WAGs the Dog," Aug. 11, 2021; WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Multi Media LLC, No. 2:14-cv-02340 (D.N.J.)—the standing decision that confirmed Woodsford's funding agreement did not strip WAG of standing). The defendants are Google LLC and YouTube, Inc., sued over the YouTube streaming service—delivery of pre-recorded and live video to desktops, mobiles, smart TVs and streaming devices. WAG alleged that YouTube's server-and-client architecture practices the asserted claims: the server stores programs as media "chunks" with serial identifiers (e.g., "rn"/"sq" query parameters), serves them in response to client HTTP "GET" requests over connections faster than playback rate, while client-side JavaScript requests chunks and manages a local buffer to maintain "about a predetermined number" of elements during playback (RPX, supra; complaint analysis of the related N.D. Cal. action, 3:22-cv-05772). The three asserted patents—U.S. Patent Nos. 9,762,636, 9,742,824, and 9,729,594—relate to fast-startup/buffer-management streaming (IPWatchdog, supra). The '636 and '824 patents are server-side method claims covering supplying serially identified media data elements from a data structure in response to requests and sending each element "at a transmission rate as fast as the data connection … allows," where the connection is faster than playback (Google's claim-construction briefing, IPR exhibits; the '636 patent's challenged claims 1–12 and '824's overlapping claims). The '594 patent is client/media-player directed: instructions causing a media player to request serially identified elements, store and play them in series, and automatically send additional requests to keep about a predetermined number buffered during playback (Ex Parte complaint analysis, 3:22-cv-05772). Inventor Harold Edward Price is listed on the family (DocketAlarm, IPR2022-01412).

Procedural posture and venue. WAG filed suit on August 6, 2021, in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas; the case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright (Docket No. 1, filed Aug. 6, 2021; assignment order, Docket Aug. 9, 2021, Unified Patents docket portal). Venue in Waco mattered because Judge Albright's court was then the country's most patent-plaintiff-friendly and busiest patent venue post-TC Heartland, with fast "rocket docket"-style scheduling—and WAG used it repeatedly, filing parallel W.D. Tex. suits against Amazon (6:21-cv-00815) and Netflix (6:21-cv-01083) and C.D. Cal. suits against Disney+/Hulu (IPWatchdog, supra). Google and YouTube answered by November 1, 2021, and the case proceeded into claim construction in early 2022 (Google's opening/responsive Markman briefs, filed spring 2022, arguing indefiniteness of "about a predetermined number," "predetermined," and "transmission rate as fast as the data connection … allows"). On August 12, 2022, Google petitioned for inter partes review of the '824 patent (IPR2022-01412) and the '636 patent (IPR2022-01413) (DocketAlarm patent searches); the district court case was stayed pending the IPRs. The PTAB instituted review and, on March 20, 2024, issued final written decisions invalidating the challenged claims as obvious over prior art including "Carmel" (Patexia/DocketAlarm, IPR2022-01412, FWD Mar. 20, 2024; see also the '636 IPR petition's Carmel-based obviousness grounds). WAG appealed the Board decisions to the Federal Circuit, and on March 9, 2026, a per curiam panel (Lourie, Wallach, Chen) affirmed the PTAB's invalidations in the consolidated appeals arising from IPRs IPR2022-01227, -01228, -01412, -01413, -01430, and -01433—covering WAG's litigation against Disney/Hulu/Netflix, Google, and Amazon (WAG Acquisition, LLC v. The Walt Disney Co., Nos. 2024-1627, -1628, -1630, -1631, -1632, -1633 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2026) (nonprecedential judgment); CourtListener Docket 24-1630 documents). With the asserted claims dead, the district court case resolved in Google's favor and the matter is closed (case status per court-docket aggregators; the specific final judgment/dismissal docket entry was not independently verified from PACER in this research).

Why the case is notable. This case is a textbook illustration of the third-party-litigation-funding (TPLF) NPE playbook colliding with the IPR defense: a litigation-financed, inventor-owned entity with a decade-plus streaming-claim campaign finally "broke through to sue the tech giants" (IPWatchdog's phrasing) in Judge Albright's Waco forum, targeting YouTube, Amazon, Netflix, Disney+, and Hulu on HTTP chunked-streaming/buffering methods that underpin mainstream over-the-top video delivery. Its significance is twofold. First, the campaign surfaced recurring questions about litigation-funding agreements and standing (the 2019 Multi Media decision) and about PAE concentration in W.D. Tex. Second, the merits outcome shows the IPR pathway working as designed for accused tech companies: Google's (and co-defendants') IPRs invalidated the asserted claims on obviousness grounds, the district court stay proved dispositive, and the Federal Circuit's consolidated March 2026 affirmance ended the campaign against these platforms without a merits trial on infringement or damages. One caution: while the IPR numbers, Board decisions, and Federal Circuit affirmance are well documented, I could not verify from public sources the precise final district-court entry (e.g., stipulated dismissal versus judgment on the papers) or which specific IPR covered the '594 patent, so those particulars should be confirmed against PACER before publication.

WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC et al., No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.), transferred to No. 3:22-cv-05772-JD (N.D. Cal.)

Below is a chronology of the key developments. A threshold structural point: the case began before Judge Alan D. Albright in Waco but was transferred to the Northern District of California in October 2022, where it was re-docketed as 3:22-cv-05772-JD (Judge James Donato) and later stayed pending IPR. The W.D. Tex. docket (entries 1–~90) was carried into the N.D. Cal. docket on transfer.

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2021-08-06 – WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. filed its complaint (Dkt. 1) in the W.D. Tex. (Waco Division) against Google LLC and YouTube, Inc., asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 9,762,636, 9,742,824, and 9,729,594 (a "streaming media delivery" family) and accusing Google's YouTube streaming services. Case assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. (Unified Patents docket portal; IPWatchdog, "Patent Filings Roundup," 2021-08-11; RPX, 2021-08-08.)
• 2021-08-10 – Summons issued; the court granted WAG counsel's pro hac vice motions (Dkts. 5–9), including Ronald Abramson, Mord Michael Lewis, Ari Jaffess, David G. Liston, and Alex G. Patchen. (Unified Patents / transferred N.D. Cal. docket.)
• 2021-08-12 / 2021-08-26 – Google and YouTube were served respectively; returns executed and filed 2021-09-02 (Dkts. 13–14). (Transferred docket; IPR petition EX1066 noting "Service of Complaint on Google LLC.")
• 2021-09-03 – Answer deadline extended to 2021-11-01 (Dkt. 15). (Transferred docket.)
• 2021-11-01 – Google filed its Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (Dkt. 17), together with pro hac vice applications for Cooley/King & Spalding counsel (Eamonn Gardner, Naina Soni, Sravan Tumuluri, Cameron Vanderwall, Chih-Yun Wu; local counsel Paige Amstutz of Scott Douglass) and a corporate disclosure statement (Dkt. 18). (Justia transferred docket.) I could not confirm from available sources whether this motion was denied, granted, or mooted before transfer; because the case proceeded to claim-construction briefing and venue transfer, it was evidently not dispositive.
• No substantive counterclaims by Google are evident in the sources reviewed (Google's answer was never due to be filed before the 12(b)(6) motion; the case was transferred and then stayed before an answer/counterclaim cycle completed).

2. Venue/transfer

• 2022 (mid-year) – Google moved to transfer the case to the N.D. Cal. under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (the precise motion and order dates were not retrievable in my searches).
• 2022-10-05 – The case was transferred and opened in the N.D. Cal. as 3:22-cv-05772-JD (Judge James Donato); the N.D. Cal. docket expressly identifies "Case in other court: Texas Western, 6:21-cv-00816" and carries over the original W.D. Tex. entries from August–November 2021. (Bloomberg Law docket; Justia docket for 3:22-cv-05772.) A related Google DJ action against WAG in the N.D. Cal. (No. 3:22-cv-05003) is referenced in later stay orders.

3. Claim construction (Markman) phase

The case reached full Markman briefing before transfer, driven by Google's indefiniteness challenges:

• 2022-02-18 – WAG served its proposed claim constructions (IPR exhibit EX1033). (Patexia IPR exhibit list.)
• 2022-03-14 – Google and YouTube filed their opening claim construction brief (Dkt. 37 in the W.D. Tex. case). (Patexia/IPR exhibit EX1040; the brief is quoted in later IPR filings.)
• 2022-04-01 – WAG filed its responsive claim construction brief (EX1043). (Patexia.)
• Disputed terms included "approximately/about a predetermined number," "a predetermined number of media data elements," "the media source," and "each sending is at a transmission rate as fast as the data connection … allows"; Google argued indefiniteness, while the parties disputed whether "predetermined" meant "prior to the start of playback" (Google) or could vary during playback (WAG). (Google's sur-reply, reproduced in PTAB petition papers, PTACTS doc.)
• No final claim-construction order has been confirmed in the sources I found; the case was transferred before a Markman ruling, and the N.D. Cal. action was stayed before any new Markman schedule produced a ruling.

4. Discovery milestones

• 2021-11-05 – WAG served Preliminary Infringement Contentions (IPR exhibit EX1047). (Patexia.)
• Fact discovery was underway through mid-2022 (claim-construction and infringement-contentions stages were reached), but the case was stayed and administratively closed before completion of fact discovery, expert discovery, or any merits summary-judgment motion. No strategic discovery orders (sanctions, compelled production, etc.) surfaced in my searches.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR proceedings and their effect

• 2022-08-12 – Google (with Cooley as lead counsel) filed IPR petitions against the WAG patents. Confirmed proceedings include IPR2022-01413 (challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,762,636) and IPR2022-01412, both filed 2022-08-12. (DocketAlarm for the '636 patent; Cooley firm profile listing IPR2022-01412 and IPR2022-01413 dated 2022-08-12.) The petitions cited the W.D. Tex. litigation, service of the complaint, and the parties' Markman filings as supporting exhibits. I could not confirm from my searches the exact IPR docket numbers for the '824 and '594 patents (sibling Amazon/Disney IPRs on the same family also existed), but the Federal Circuit appeal record confirms Google challenged "all twelve claims of both patents" in its IPRs.
• 2023-03-22 – After IPR institution, Judge Donato stayed and administratively closed the case (N.D. Cal. Dkt. 98), citing the institution of IPR review and directing the parties to advise the court of the IPR disposition. (Unicourt docket entry quoting Dkt. 98; Bloomberg Law shows date of termination 2023-03-22.)
• 2024-02-09 – Oral argument was held before the PTAB in IPR2022-01413 (hearing transcript, Doc. 33).
• 2024 (spring, approximate) – The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision (Doc. 34) determining all challenged claims unpatentable and dismissing the petitioner's motion to exclude. (DocketAlarm.)
• 2024 – WAG appealed the Google IPR final decisions to the Federal Circuit (No. 24-1630, WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC; CourtListener docket exists showing WAG's merits briefing contesting the obviousness/reasonable-expectation-of-success findings). Related WAG appeals from the Amazon/Disney IPRs (e.g., 24-1627) were consolidated or coordinated with it.
• 2026-03-09 – The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed under Rule 36, upholding the PTAB's invalidation of the asserted claims across the streaming-media patents. (ScaleJuris, 2026-03; IIPLA, "Federal Circuit Upholds Google and Amazon's Wins in Streaming IP Case," 2026-03-09.)

6. Final disposition / present posture

• There was no trial, jury verdict, or post-trial motion practice. The case never reached merits summary judgment because the district court action was stayed (2023-03-22) pending the Google IPRs.
• The PTAB's final written decisions invalidated all challenged claims of the asserted patents, and the Federal Circuit's 2026-03-09 Rule 36 affirmance made that outcome final.
• With all asserted claims invalid, WAG's infringement claims were extinguished and the case resolved in Google's favor; the N.D. Cal. docket is closed/terminated (Ex Parte/Unicourt status "Closed"; Bloomberg Law termination date 2023-03-22 for the stay-closure entry). Whether the parties filed a formal stipulation of dismissal or judgment after the 2026 affirmance is not confirmed in the sources I located; the operative end result is that Google prevailed through invalidity.

Caveats on sourcing

• The specific order granting the § 1404(a) transfer (date and docket number) and the ruling on Google's Rule 12(b)(6) motion were not directly retrievable in my searches; the transfer is confirmed by the N.D. Cal. docket metadata ("Case in other court: Texas Western, 6:21-cv-00816," opened 2022-10-05) and by the carryover of the W.D. Tex. docket entries into the N.D. Cal. record.
• The exact IPR numbers for the '824 and '594 patents (as opposed to IPR2022-01413 for the '636 patent) and the precise FWD dates were not all confirmed; treat those specific identifiers as partially unverified.
• No attorney-fee award, costs award, or other post-judgment financial disposition was found in the available sources.

I'll search for news coverage of this case from multiple angles.

Let me search more specific news angles.

Let me look for more coverage from additional outlets and angles.

News & Analysis Coverage of WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC

Coverage of the filing (2021). The case's August 2021 filing drew immediate trade-press attention focused almost entirely on the third-party-litigation-funding and patent-assertion-entity angle. RPX, reporting on 2021-08-08, framed the Google/YouTube suit (6:21-cv-00816) as the latest escalation of a "long-running litigation campaign" on a patent family "in litigation (at least some of it funded by the litigation finance firm Woodsford Litigation Funding Limited) since February 2007," and was the most granular outlet on the accused technology: YouTube on one track, and Amazon's CloudFront CDN and AWS Elemental MediaConvert/MediaStore/MediaPackage on the parallel 6:21-cv-00815 case. IPWatchdog, in its 2021-08-11 "Patent Filings Roundup," used the memorable headline "Litigation Funding WAGs the Dog," reporting that the "litigation-funded vehicle WAG Acquisitions [Woodsford Litigation Funding Ltd.], after more than 20 suits against small and medium-sized companies, has finally broken through to sue the tech giants," and identifying the three asserted patents (U.S. 9,762,636; 9,742,824; 9,729,594) as "relat[ing] to fast-startup of streaming services." Neither outlet reported any damages figure; the coverage's significance frame was WAG's Woodsford-funded campaign finally reaching Google/Amazon in Judge Albright's Waco forum, not the merits of any specific damages demand.

Coverage of the outcome (2026). The decisive endgame was reported by Law360, whose Theresa Schliep reported on 2026-03-09 that "The Federal Circuit on Monday let stand decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to invalidate claims across three streaming patents owned by WAG Acquisition LLC, which had accused Google, Amazon, Netflix and other companies of infringement in numerous cases." Follow-on analysis appeared on aggregator/legal-blog sites. ScaleJuris characterized the Rule 36 summary affirmance as a "significant victory for a consortium of technology and media companies, including Google, Amazon, The Walt Disney Company, Hulu, and Netflix," and added practitioner commentary — that defendants "pooling resources to launch robust IPR challenges" efficiently invalidated the claims and that the outcome "effectively ends WAG's litigation campaign against these major streaming providers concerning the invalidated patent claims." IIPLA likewise posted a same-day item calling the rulings a solidification of "victories for Google and Amazon," naming the three patents and the involved law firms (Cooley, DLA Piper, Fenwick & West, Liston Abramson). None of the outcome coverage reported settlement terms, damages awarded, or market impact — consistent with the case ending on validity, not through any paid resolution.

Where accounts differ or go beyond the court record. The reporting divides cleanly into two phases and two frames: the 2021 coverage is analyst-driven (RPX is a patent-risk/intelligence firm) and emphasizes the litigation-funding and campaign-scope story — RPX's technical specificity on the AWS/CloudFront infrastructure and the "since 2007/family of over a dozen patents" history goes well beyond the docket, as does IPWatchdog's "more than 20 suits" tally — while the 2026 coverage is outcome-driven. The aggregator pieces add interpretive gloss not present in the court record itself, particularly ScaleJuris's claim that the defendants operated a coordinated "pooling" strategy and its characterization of the affirmance as exposing a "straightforward and convincing case of obviousness." One caution: an IPWatchdog article from 2026-08-10 and a parallel LegalEra piece with near-identical headlines concern a different WAG Federal Circuit appeal — the ex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,327,011 (the '011 buffering patent) brought by Friendfinder Networks/Steamray, not the Google/YouTube litigation — so they should not be cited as coverage of this case.

Coverage gaps. Press coverage of this case is thin outside patent-specialist outlets: I found no editorial reporting from Reuters, Bloomberg Law (only a raw docket page surfaced), Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, or JD Supra. The substantive reporting consists essentially of the two 2021 filing items (RPX, IPWatchdog) and the March 2026 Law360 article plus aggregator rewrites of it; no outlet reported on the intermediate PTAB final written decisions of March 2024 at the time they issued, on the district court's stay, or on the final district-court disposition, and none reported any damages or settlement figures.

Sources

• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• Oral Argument for WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC – CourtListener.com - 🚀 Limited-time offer
• #23 in WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC (Fed. Cir., 24-1630) – CourtListener.com - “tools and mechanisms for transmitting data over the Internet
• NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential
• Wag Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC – CourtListener.com
• Media & Entertainment : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Cases
• WAG ACQUISITION, LLC v. GOOGLE LLC , No. 24-1630 (Fed. Cir. 2026)
• Intellectual Property : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• 6:21-cv-00816 | WAG Acquisition LLC v. Google LLC | Ex Parte
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
• 6:21-cv-00816 - WAG Acquisition LLC v. Google LLC et al. - 6:21-cv-00816 - WAG Acquisition LLC v. Google LLC et al.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. — WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC et al., No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

The plaintiff was represented by a two-tier team: a Waco-based local counsel (required by Judge Albright's court for out-of-district parties) plus five pro hac vice attorneys from Liston Abramson LLP (New York), whose motion practice and filings were sponsored by the local counsel. All five PHV motions (Dkt. 5–9) were granted by Judge Albright in August 2021 (text orders entered Aug. 10, 2021, per the Unified Patents docket portal). No in-house counsel for WAG appeared of record; WAG is a litigation vehicle whose litigation counsel of record was entirely outside counsel. There is no indication any filings or appearances were sealed.

Local counsel (lead local counsel of record)

Brandon Rhodes Oates — Haley & Olson, P.C., Waco, TX.
Filed the complaint (Dkt. 1, Aug. 6, 2021), the Rule 7.1 disclosure statement, the AO 120 patent form, and sponsored all five PHV motions on behalf of WAG (Dkt. 5–9). Haley & Olson is the standard Waco local-counsel firm for out-of-state patent plaintiffs in Albright's court. Caveat: a Bloomberg Law docket page for the related N.D. Cal. case (3:22-cv-05772, consolidated with this W.D. Tex. action) marks Oates as "TERMINATED: 01/04/2023 — LEAD ATTORNEY"; I could not confirm from public sources whether his appearance was likewise withdrawn in the W.D. Tex. case, which was stayed pending IPR from late 2022 onward.

Out-of-district counsel (Liston Abramson LLP, New York, NY — pro hac vice)

Ronald Abramson — Partner, Liston Abramson LLP (The Chrysler Building, 405 Lexington Ave., 46th Fl., New York). Lead PHV counsel (Dkt. 5). Effectively WAG's lead counsel across the streaming campaign: he argued the consolidated Federal Circuit appeal (Nos. 24-1627/-1630) that affirmed the PTAB's invalidation of the asserted '636/'824/'594 claims, and his firm bio lists "SurferNETWORK/WAG Acquisition, LLC (patent litigation—streaming media)" among his representations. A veteran IP litigator (J.D. Rutgers 1976; registered patent attorney; Federal Circuit and Supreme Court bars; Super Lawyers IP litigation).

David G. Liston — Founding partner, Liston Abramson LLP, New York. PHV counsel (Dkt. 8). Name partner of the boutique that ran WAG's district-court campaign; designated an attorney-to-be-noticed in the related N.D. Cal. case docket.

Mord Michael Lewis — Liston Abramson LLP, New York. PHV counsel (Dkt. 6). Partner-level litigator at the firm handling the WAG docket.

Ari Jason Jaffess — Liston Abramson LLP, New York. PHV counsel (Dkt. 7). Continued as WAG's appellate counsel on the Federal Circuit appeal (24-1630): the March 9, 2026 judgment lists WAG as "represented by ARI JASON JAFFESS," and the CourtListener parties page shows him retained for WAG alongside Abramson.

Alex G. Patchen — Liston Abramson LLP, New York. PHV counsel (Dkt. 9).

Attorneys appearing in related WAG/Google matters — not confirmed in this case's docket

The Bloomberg Law attorney list for the related N.D. Cal. action (3:22-cv-05772-JD, transferred/coordinated with this case) also shows Gina Kyungjin Kim (Liston Abramson) and, at various dates, Daniel Alexander Corren and Robert James Muller (Cypress LLP, Los Angeles), Rustin Kent Mangum (Mangum Ririe LLP), and Spencer Winston Ririe (Armond Wilson LLP) in WAG-side roles. I found no evidence in the public W.D. Tex. docket that those attorneys entered appearances in 6:21-cv-00816 itself, so they should not be listed as counsel of record here without PACER confirmation.

Sources

• Unified Patents docket portal for 6:21-cv-00816 (Dkt. 1 complaint filed by Oates; Dkt. 5–9 PHV motions by Oates for Abramson, Lewis, Jaffess, Liston, Patchen; text orders granting, entered Aug. 10, 2021).
• Bloomberg Law public docket, WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC et al., No. 3:22-cv-05772 (N.D. Cal.) (related-case attorney/party list, including Oates termination notation).
• Federal Circuit judgment, WAG Acquisition, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 24-1630 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2026) (Abramson argued; Jaffess also of counsel for WAG); CourtListener parties page for 24-1630.
• Liston Abramson LLP attorney bio for Ronald Abramson (listonabramson.com).

Bottom line: Plaintiff's counsel of record = Brandon R. Oates (Haley & Olson, Waco — local counsel) and Liston Abramson LLP's Ronald Abramson, David G. Liston, Mord Michael Lewis, Ari Jason Jaffess, and Alex G. Patchen (New York — pro hac vice), with Abramson as the principal lead. If you need the final docket's counsel list (e.g., to confirm whether Oates or any Liston Abramson attorney formally withdrew after the stay), that requires a PACER look at the closing entries, which were not publicly verified in this research.

Counsel of Record for Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, Inc. — WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC et al., No. 6:21-cv-00816-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

Defense team at a glance. Google and YouTube were represented by Cooley LLP (national lead/patent counsel) with Scott, Douglass & McConnico, LLP (Austin) as Texas local counsel. The same core Cooley team carried the related N.D. Cal. WAG case (3:22-cv-05772) and the Federal Circuit appeals (Nos. 24-1630–24-1633). No Google in-house counsel appeared of record in the public filings I could verify.

District-court counsel of record (per defense filings in 6:21-cv-00816-ADA)

The most complete public signature block appears on Google's Reply Claim Construction Brief (Dkt. 43, filed Apr. 15, 2022), which is reproduced in IPR petition exhibits hosted on the USPTO's PTACTS system and states: "Counsel for Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, [Inc.]" (PTACTS doc., artifactId cL8hSnGLAXpfBVHwNM9tQvsRo5wPXFHd_Xwyrlh3Ypez8iSrqnRmSnw).

• Paige Arnette Amstutz — Local counsel / Texas counsel of record — Scott, Douglass & McConnico, LLP, Austin, TX (Texas State Bar No. 00796136). Patent-litigation local counsel for out-of-state defendants in Judge Albright's Waco court; also listed on the team in the related N.D. Cal. WAG case docket (Bloomberg Law docket, 3:22-cv-05772).
• Eamonn Gardner — Lead/pro hac vice counsel — Cooley LLP, Denver, CO. Signed the district-court claim-construction briefing; later entered as Google's principal counsel on the Federal Circuit appeal (24-1630, Docket Entry 2, Apr. 12, 2024). Longtime Cooley patent litigator handling Google's streaming/YouTube patent defenses.
• Joseph Drayton — Pro hac vice counsel — Cooley LLP, New York, NY (55 Hudson Yards). Named on the district-court defense signature block.
• Cameron C. Vanderwall — Pro hac vice counsel — Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA. On the district-court briefing; also appeared for Google in the parallel N.D. Cal. WAG suit (3:22-cv-05772) per its docket.
• Naina Soni — Pro hac vice counsel — Cooley LLP, Washington, D.C. (1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW).
• Sravan K. Tumuluri — Pro hac vice counsel — Cooley LLP, Washington, D.C.

Federal Circuit counsel for Google (consolidated appeals, Nos. 24-1630 et seq.)

Because the district case resolved through the PTAB/Federal Circuit path, the appellate appearances are the best-documented record of who led the defense:

• Eamonn Gardner (Cooley, Denver) — Principal counsel for Appellee Google LLC (CourtListener, Fed. Cir. docket 24-1630, Entry 2, entry of appearance dated Apr. 12, 2024).
• Heidi Lyn Keefe (Cooley, Palo Alto) — Other counsel for Google on appeal (same appearance). A well-known Google patent-litigation partner with a long history defending Google/YouTube in district-court and IPR matters.
• Orion Armon (Cooley, Denver) — Other counsel for Google on appeal (same appearance); Cooley appellate/IPR practitioner.

Other associated attorneys

• Chih-Yun Wu — Cooley LLP (Palo Alto). Docket-aggregator records (Ex Parte; Law360 attorney profile) tie Wu to 6:21-cv-00816 from the 08/06/2021 filing date and to the N.D. Cal. WAG v. Google case (3:22-cv-05772), suggesting an associate/back-room role on the same Google defense team; not verified as a signatory on a specific public docket entry in this case.

Caveats and verification notes

• Source of the district-court list. I verified the defense counsel roster from the April 15, 2022 claim-construction reply signature block (USPTO PTACTS exhibit) and from the Federal Circuit appearances, not from the initial Answer (due Nov. 1, 2021) itself, which I could not pull directly from PACER. The answer-docket entry almost certainly lists the same or a superset of these attorneys.
• YouTube, Inc. naming. The April 2022 signature block labels the client "YouTube, LLC"; the case caption defendant is YouTube, Inc. — a scrivener's inconsistency in the filing, not a separate entity.
• Post-stay activity. The case was stayed pending IPR (IPR2022-01412/-01413) and closed after the Federal Circuit's March 9, 2026 affirmance; I found no public record of additional counsel entering after the stay, and no in-house Google attorney appearing of record.
• Titles (partner vs. counsel vs. associate) for Soni, Tumuluri, Drayton, Vanderwall, and Wu were not independently verified against Cooley bios in this research; role designations above reflect their signing/appearance categories in the filings (lead, pro hac vice, local, appellate counsel).