Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 05-16-2023

Case Style:

B.E. Technology, LLC v. Twitter, Inc. and Google, LLC

Case Number: 20-CV-621 and 622

Judge: Gregory B. Williams

Court: United States District Court for the District of Delaware (New Castle County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Plaintiff Patent Law Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney:

Description: Wilmington, Delaware patent infringement lawyer represented Plaintiff, which sued Defendants claiming that they were violating "United States Patent Nos, 8,549,410 (“the '410 patent”), 8,549,411 (“the '411 patent”), and 8,769,440 (“the '440 patent”) (collectively “the Asserted Patents”). D.1.1. All of the /Asserted Patents expired in 2018. D.I. 67 at 2.

The PT AB issued Final Written Decisions in IPR2021-00482 and 1PR2021-00483 on September 1, 2022. D.I. 69 at 5. In those decisions, the PT AB determined that Defendants had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-24 and 26-37 of the '440 patent are unpatentable but had not shown that claim 25 of the '440 patent is unpatentable. D.I. 62. On September 7,2022, the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2021 -00484 and found claims 1-19 of the '410 patent are unpatentable. Id. On September 9, 2022, the PT AB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2021-00485, which held that claims 1-19 of the '411 patent are unpatentable. Id.

The stay of these cases was lifted upon the issuance of the Final Written Decision in IPR2021- 00485 on September 9,2022. D.I. 62; D.L 69 at 4-5. On November 2,2022, B.E. filed notices of appeal of the PTAB's Final Written Decisions in all four IPR proceedings. D.L 67 at 3. One day later, Defendants filed notices of cross-appeal concerning IPR2021-00482, in which the PT AB found that claim 25 of the '440 patent was not unpatentable. Id. On December 1, 2022, Defendants moved to stay these cases pending the parties' appeals (D.I. 66 in C. A. No. 20-621-GBW; D.I. 64 in C. A. No. 20-622-GBW), which B.E. opposed (D.I. 69 in C. A. No. 20-621-GBW; D.I. 66 in C. A. No. 20-622-GBW). Notably, B.E. has explained that, if Defendants' stay requests are denied, ‘'these cases [would] proceed only with respect to claim 25 of the '440 Patent, and that any later-revived patent claims would not be asserted against Defendants” regardless of a successful outcome of B.E.'s appeals concerning the other claims of the Asserted Patents. D.I. 69 at 3,7; see also D.I. 72-2 at 1.

Defendants both moved dismiss.

Outcome: 1. Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (D.I. 66 in C. A. No. 20-621-GBW) is DENIED;

2. Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (D.I. 64 in C. A. No. 20-622-GBW) is DENIED; and

3. Within seven (7) days of entering this Order, B.E. shall take all appropriate actions to limit its asserted claims in these actions to only assert claim 25 of the '440 patent against the Defendants, including ensuring that any other later-revived claims, including but not limited to claim 1 of the '440 patent, will not be asserted against Defendants in these or any other cases. See D.I. 72-2.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case