Patent 9269097
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 (4)
Group view →Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 9269097. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
- VB Assets LLC v. Android International Inc et al.filed Apr 17, 20261:26-cv-00443Delaware District CourtOpen
Defendants: Android International Inc, Google LLC, Xxvi Holdings Inc, and 2 others
Other patents asserted: 10510341, 12236456, 8527274, 8515765, 10755699, 8073681, 10297249, 8886536, 7818176, 11087385
The infringement claim covers Google's AI assistants, like Gemini and Google Assistant, and voice search features in Google and YouTube. The accusation extends to the entire ecosystem supporting these services, including the hardware, operating systems, apps, and AI models that run them.
- VB Assets, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al.filed Nov 22, 20241:24-cv-01368U.S. District Court for the District of DelawareActive
Defendants: Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
- VB Assets, LLC v. General Motors Holdings LLC et al.filed Oct 31, 20241:24-cv-01279U.S. District Court for the District of DelawareActive
Defendants: General Motors Holdings LLC, General Motors Company, and Onstar, LLC
- VB ASSETS, LLC v. Apple Inc.filed Jul 26, 20191:19-cv-01410U.S. District Court for the District of DelawareActive
Defendants: Apple Inc.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Here are the known litigation cases involving U.S. Patent 9,269,097.
Litigation Summary
As a senior patent analyst, my review of court records and patent litigation databases confirms that U.S. Patent 9,269,097 is actively being litigated. The current assignee, VB Assets LLC, has asserted this patent in multiple infringement lawsuits against major technology companies. Details of these cases are provided below.
Active Litigation
Plaintiff(s): VB Assets, LLC
Defendant(s): Samsung Electronics Co., LTD.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Case Number: 1:24-cv-01368
Filing Date: November 22, 2024
Current Status: Active. This case appears to be in its early stages.
Plaintiff(s): VB Assets, LLC
Defendant(s): General Motors Holdings LLC; General Motors Company; Onstar, LLC
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Case Number: 1:24-cv-01279
Filing Date: October 31, 2024
Current Status: Active. This case is in its early stages.
Plaintiff(s): VB ASSETS, LLC
Defendant(s): Apple Inc.
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Case Number: 1:19-cv-01410
Filing Date: July 26, 2019
Current Status: Active. This case has a long and complex history, including appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The litigation is ongoing at the district court level following decisions from the appellate court.
Appellate Litigation
The cases in the district courts have resulted in related appellate proceedings.
- Plaintiff(s): VB ASSETS, LLC
- Defendant(s): Apple Inc.
- Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- Case Number: 25-1113, 25-1142, 25-1357, 25-1854
- Status: These represent various appeals related to the district court case 1:19-cv-01410. The dockets indicate ongoing proceedings at the appellate level, which often run in parallel with or in response to actions in the district court.
Post-Grant Proceedings
In addition to court litigation, the patent has been challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
- Proceeding Type: Inter Partes Review (IPR)
- PTAB Case Number: IPR2020-01388
- Filing Date: July 28, 2020
- Petitioner: Apple Inc.
- Outcome: The PTAB did not institute a trial on the merits for this petition. This means the challenge was denied at the preliminary stage, and the patent claims were not reviewed for patentability in this specific proceeding.
Generated 5/1/2026, 10:35:05 PM