Withrow Networks, Inc. v. Google LLC et al.

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

Good initial results. Let me dig deeper on the parties, the IPR, and recent developments.

I'll research the docket, PTAB proceedings, and any outcomes for this case.

Key findings: a parallel IPR (IPR2025-00775) and a PTAB ruling against Withrow. Let me pin down dates and the docket sequence.

I'll search across multiple angles for press coverage of this case.

Initial results are all primary court/PTAB documents rather than press. Let me search press-specific angles.

Still mostly primary documents. Let me target press outlets and news aggregators directly.

News and analysis coverage: little to no press reporting found

I was unable to locate any published news or analyst coverage of Withrow Networks, Inc. v. Google LLC et al., No. 5:24-cv-03203-PCP (VKD) (N.D. Cal.). Searches run across the case caption, the party names ("Withrow Networks" + Google/YouTube), the asserted patent number (10,771,849), the accused technology (HLS / MPEG-DASH adaptive bitrate streaming), and the parallel PTAB proceeding (IPR2025-00775) returned no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, JD Supra, or trade-press articles about this case. Every substantive result was a primary source or a litigation database entry, not journalism:

• The complaint (RPX Insight, Doc. 1, filed 2024-05-28);
• The court's Alice ruling denying dismissal (Justia, Doc. 44; CourtListener);
• The magistrate judge's infringement-contentions and discovery orders (Justia, Docs. 100–102);
• The parties' Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (filed 2025-06-20, hearing set 2025-10-28), reproduced in the PTAB record for IPR2025-00775;
• Google's IPR petition papers; and
• Directory-style entries in the Stanford NPE litigation database and Justia/CourtListener dockets.

The closest things to "coverage" are automated court-records aggregators that summarize rulings without analysis — Justia, CourtListener, Vitallaw, and Docket Alarm/Justia dockets — and the Stanford NPE database, which classifies Withrow as an "individual-inventor-started" patent asserter. None of these is press reporting, none reports damages figures or settlement terms, and none includes executive statements or industry reaction.

Caveats. This is a negative finding, and I want to be candid about its limits: my search budget for this task was exhausted before I could run several additional angles (e.g., site-restricted queries on law360.com, bloomberglaw.com, ipwatchdog.com; searches on the inventor name Mark Sinclair Krebs; and queries on the predecessor entities LogoVision Wireless / Movidity, which the complaint says are dissolved). The absence of results in those queries could not be verified. If a subsequent pass is possible, the most promising leads are the precursor companies' 2006–2007 press materials (referenced in the complaint as Exhibits 4–8) and any Law360 "Case Watch"/docket coverage of the August 2025 claim-construction and discovery orders. I found no evidence of any damages award, settlement, or verdict reporting, consistent with the case still being in the claim-construction phase with no final judgment.

Sources

• Francisco A
• Case 5:24-cv-03203-PCP Document 80 Filed 05/13/25 Page 1 of 24 1 Asim M
• Therefore, the Court should strike Withrow's Contentions, except as to the YouTube system and service with HLS or MPEG- DASH, th...
• Case 5:24- cv- 03203- PCP Document 102 Filed 08/22/25 Page 1 of 3
• WITHROW NETWORKS, INC
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
• ORDER granting in part and denying in part 80 Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Infringement Contentions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi on 8/21/2025. (vkdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2025)
• Withrow Networks, Inc. v. Google, LLC – CourtListener.com - Trial Court Document
• Intellectual Property Cases containing Opinions or Orders filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California matching "google"
• Google LLC - Google LLC
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• WITHROW NETWORKS, INC., Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE, LLC, et al., Defendants.

I'll research plaintiff's counsel of record for this case.

I have the signature blocks. Let me verify each attorney's role and background, and check for the PTAB-side counsel and any later appearances.

Now let me check the docket sheet directly and verify the remaining counsel plus PTAB-side representation.

Counsel of record for Plaintiff Withrow Networks, Inc.

Sourcing note / caveat up front: I was not able to pull the live PACER docket sheet directly for this task (search budget exhausted mid-research), so this list is reconstructed from four primary/authoritative sources that agree with one another: (1) the complaint caption and signature block (RPX, Doc. 1, filed 2024-05-28); (2) the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, filed 2025-06-20 (reproduced in the PTAB record for IPR2025-00775, PTAB/PTACTS document download); (3) the Justia docket's attorney-of-record list (Justia docket 430146); and (4) the pro hac vice motion filed 2024-05-31 (Doc. 13). No filing appears to be sealed as to plaintiff's counsel, and plaintiff's counsel have appeared.

Plaintiff's counsel (all identify as "Attorneys for Plaintiff Withrow Networks, Inc.")

Firm-level summary: plaintiff is represented by a three-firm team — a New York patent-litigation boutique (Villegas & Cefo) leading, an Ohio IP firm (Calfee Halter & Griswold) co-counseling, and a San Jose firm (Spencer Fane) acting as local counsel. This is corroborated by ALM/Law.com's "Who Got the Work" item, which reported the suit "was filed May 28 in California Northern District Court by Calfee, Halter & Griswold; Spencer Fane; and Villegas & Cefo on behalf of Withrow Networks." The Justia docket's attorney-of-record list shows exactly three names — McDougall, Villegas, and Picone — consistent with these firms.

Things I could not verify (flagged, not guessed)

• I did not confirm whether any additional plaintiff-side attorneys have since appeared (e.g., new associates or an added firm). Given the case has continued into 2026, later filings could add names; confirming that requires a live PACER attorney list, which I could not retrieve here.
• PTAB-side (IPR2025-00775) counsel for Withrow is uncertain. The PTAB/IPR listing for Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc., IPR2025-00775, shows Cooley LLP (Patrick J. Coyne, Neal S. Cohen) and Calfee Halter & Griswold (Peter Kinsella), plus a reference to Cohen & Gresser LLP (exparte IPR page). Google's petitioner-side team is almost certainly Cooley; Calfee (Kinsella) is plausibly Withrow's patent-owner counsel in the IPR, which would dovetail with Calfee's district-court role here — but I could not confirm the party-to-counsel mapping from the sources available to me, so treat the IPR attribution as unverified.
• I found no indication that any plaintiff-side counsel is in-house to Withrow Networks (Withrow is described in the complaint as a 2020-founded entity tracing to the dissolved LogoVision Wireless / Movidity businesses), and no indication any plaintiff attorney is representing Withrow in a personal/inventor capacity rather than through the corporation.

For context (defense side, not the question asked)

Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, LLC are represented by Asim M. Bhansali, Kate E. Lazarus, and Elizabeth ("Lizzie") H. Dinh of Kwun Bhansali Lazarus LLP, who appear in the signature blocks on the defense motions (e.g., Doc. 80, the motion to strike infringement contentions) and in the ALM "Who Got the Work" coverage.

Bottom line: plaintiff's counsel of record are Francisco A. Villegas (lead), Damir Cefo, Mark W. Halderman, and Evan M. Rosenbaum of Villegas & Cefo LLP (New York); Mark W. McDougall of Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP (Cleveland); and John V. Picone III of Spencer Fane LLP (San Jose, local counsel). The first two categories are pro hac vice; Villegas, Rosenbaum, and Picone are California-barred.

I'll research counsel of record for Google LLC and YouTube, LLC in this case, starting with the docket and the IPR papers already identified.

Good initial hits. Let me pin down the full docket appearances and the IPR counsel, and verify firm details.

Let me verify the individual attorneys and the IPR-side counsel.

Counsel of record for Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, LLC

Bottom line: The public record identifies one defense firm of record — Kwun Bhansali Lazarus LLP ("KBL") of San Francisco — appearing for both Google LLC and YouTube, LLC. Three KBL attorneys are named in the reporting/docket record: Asim M. Bhansali (lead), Kate E. Lazarus, and Lizzie Dinh. I found no in-house Google/YouTube attorney named on the docket, and I could not fully verify the PTAB-side counsel roster before my search budget ran out. Details and caveats below.

District court (N.D. Cal.) — defense counsel of record

Docket evidence for Bhansali's appearance:

• Doc. 22, Notice of Appearance by Asim M. Bhansali, filed 2024-06-14 (Justia/CourtListener docket sheet, Case No. 5:24-cv-03203, Dkt. 430146).
• Doc. 25, Stipulation Extending Defendants' Time to Respond to Complaint, filed by Google, LLC and YouTube, LLC, signed "(Bhansali, Asim)," filed 2024-06-14.

Reporting evidence for the full team: Law.com's "Who Got the Work" column states: "Google and YouTube have retained attorneys Asim Bhansali, Kate Lazarus and Lizzie Dinh of Kwun Bhansali Lazarus to fight a pending patent infringement lawsuit… The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge P. Casey Pitts, is 5:24-cv-03203, Withrow Networks, Inc. v. Google, LLC et al."

Possible additional appearance (unverified): A Trellis.law docket entry captured a "Notice of Appearance of Andrew T. Kramer for Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, LLC" dated January 14, 2025. However, the retrieved snippet's case caption was that of an unrelated TikTok personal-injury action, so the attribution is unreliable — do not treat Kramer as confirmed defense counsel in Withrow without checking the docket. (For context, Andrew T. Kramer has appeared in other Google matters in this district as a KBL attorney.)

PTAB — IPR2025-00775 (Google LLC v. Withrow Networks Inc.)

Google's separate IPR petition against the '849 patent is a distinct representation. The PTAB-information page I retrieved for IPR2025-00775 lists Cooley LLP with Patrick J. Coyne and Neal S. Cohen, alongside Cohen & Gresser LLP, Calfee Halter & Griswold, and Peter Kinsella. I flag this as partially unreliable: Calfee, Halter & Griswold (with Spencer Fane and Villegas & Cefo) are plaintiff Withrow's district-court counsel, so that PTAB listing appears to mix petitioner-side and patent-owner-side firms, and I could not disentangle which names belong to Google's IPR team. Do not attribute any of these individuals to Google without confirming from the IPR power-of-attorney or the Board's Notice of Filing Date Accorded.

Caveats and limits

• No in-house counsel identified. Google LLC is headquartered in Mountain View, CA, and typically has in-house litigation counsel supervising outside counsel; no Google in-house attorney name appears in any public filing I retrieved.
• Docket currency. The Justia docket sheet I retrieved states it was "last retrieved on March 28, 2025," and the latest filings I could confirm are the magistrate judge's August 2025 orders (Docs. 100–102). Later 2025 appearances, pro hac vice admissions, or substitutions would not appear in that snapshot. The N.D. Cal. docket is the authoritative source for a current counsel list.
• Local counsel. Because KBL is itself San Francisco-based, the same firm satisfies the N.D. Cal. local-counsel requirement; no separate local-counsel firm was identified.
• Date anomaly, flagged. The Law.com "Who Got the Work" text describing the 2024 Withrow retention is also syndicated on Law.com pages bearing 2017–2018 timestamps and titles (e.g., Connolly Gallagher Attorney Picked as District Court Mentor, Skilled in the Art: Neither Snow Nor Rain…). The URL dates are clearly unreliable aggregator artifacts, but the substance of the item (the KBL team for this 2024 case) is consistent with the docket. Treat the column's byline/date as unreliable, the content as corroborated.
• Nothing sealed. I found no indication that the appearances in this case are sealed; the limitation is search coverage, not sealing.

Sources

• Justia/CourtListener docket sheet, Withrow Networks, Inc. v. Google, LLC et al, No. 5:2024-cv-03203 (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 430146 — dockets.justia.com (Docs. 22, 25).
• Law.com, "Who Got the Work" item on the Withrow retention — law.com (syndicated; see date caveat).
• KBL firm/attorney details and Google representation history — Asim Bhansali appearance, In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig.; Asim Bhansali notice, OpenAI MDL; Kate E. Lazarus bar no. 268242, KBL; KBL as Google's PTAB counsel, Power of Attorney.
• IPR2025-00775 counsel listing (mixed/unverified) — PTAB case page.
• Trellis.law "Notice of Appearance of Andrew T. Kramer" (mis-captioned; unverified) — trellis.law.