Patent 6314420

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-pro

No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged through Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review at the USPTO. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs.

Cases on file (1)

Group view →

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6314420. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.

  • I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al.filed Sep 15, 2011
    2:2011cv00512U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of VirginiaReversed on appeal

    Defendants: AOL, Inc., Google, Inc., IAC Search & Media, Inc., and 2 others

    Other patents asserted: 6775664

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

✓ Generated

Litigation Involving US Patent 6,314,420

As of April 26, 2026, US Patent 6,314,420, titled "Collaborative/adaptive search engine," has been the subject of significant litigation. The primary case involving this patent is detailed below:

I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc., et al.

Outcome and Status:

The litigation went through several stages with differing outcomes:

  1. District Court Verdict: On November 6, 2012, a jury found that the defendants had infringed upon the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,314,420 and 6,775,664. The jury awarded I/P Engine approximately $30.5 million in damages and set a running royalty rate of 3.5% for future infringement.

  2. Post-Trial Motions and Additional Awards: Following the verdict, the District Court entered final judgment on November 20, 2012. In subsequent rulings, the court awarded I/P Engine additional supplemental damages and prejudgment interest, and also determined an ongoing royalty rate for continued infringement.

  3. Appeal to the Federal Circuit: The defendants appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In a split decision on August 15, 2014, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's judgment. The majority opinion held that the asserted claims of the '420 patent were invalid for obviousness.

  4. Subsequent Actions: As a result of the Federal Circuit's reversal, the previous judgments and orders regarding damages and ongoing royalties were vacated by the District Court in January 2016. I/P Engine's petition for a rehearing en banc at the Federal Circuit was also addressed. The case was also appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This case was highly publicized and is a notable example of the complexities and potential for reversal in patent litigation.

Generated 5/11/2026, 12:45:31 PM