DCT
2:25-cv-01089
Fec IP LLC v. Google LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Fec IP LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01089, E.D. Tex., 10/30/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas on the basis that Google maintains "regular and established places of business" within the district. The complaint provides extensive detail on these alleged places of business, including Google Global Cache (GGC) servers housed in facilities in Sherman, Tyler, and Texarkana; Google Wi-Fi infrastructure at Starbucks locations; Google Fi cellular network infrastructure; and Google Cloud Interconnect and Direct Peering equipment located at Megaport facilities in Denton County. The complaint further cites prior judicial determinations from the district to support these assertions.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s ecosystem of streaming devices, mobile products, and associated software applications infringes five patents related to remote device control, content streaming, and peer-to-peer content sharing.
- Technical Context: The technologies at issue involve coordinating operations between consumer electronic devices, such as using a smartphone to control a television media streamer or sharing files wirelessly between mobile phones.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint makes no mention of prior licensing history or administrative challenges (e.g., IPRs) to the patents-in-suit. However, it extensively cites previous rulings in the Eastern District of Texas, including Seven Networks, LLC v. Google LLC and AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, to argue that Google’s GGC servers and other infrastructure constitute a regular and established place of business for venue purposes.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-11-02 | ’192 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-06-19 | ’187 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-12-08 | ’192 Patent Issued |
| 2011-05-02 | ’106 Patent Priority Date |
| 2011-11-08 | ’187 Patent Issued |
| 2014-12-09 | ’106 Patent Issued |
| 2015-09-08 | ’847 Patent Priority Date |
| 2016-03-18 | ’254 Patent Priority Date |
| 2019-01-01 | ’847 Patent Issued |
| 2022-06-28 | ’254 Patent Issued |
| 2025-10-30 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,631,192 - “Network Apparatus for Accessing Services Over a Network,” issued December 8, 2009 (’192 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the security risk that arises when private information obtained from a network, such as the content of an email, is displayed on a shared screen like a television, making it visible to anyone nearby (ʼ192 Patent, col. 1:11-20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a portable remote controller sends its unique ID code along with a request for information to a main device connected to the network. The main device retrieves the information, attaches the remote's ID code to it, and sends it back to the remote. The remote controller is configured to only display the information if the received data is appended with its own ID code, thereby preventing unauthorized viewing (ʼ192 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:4-14).
- Technical Importance: This method provided a mechanism for secure, private interaction with network services through a shared hub device, addressing privacy concerns in a multi-user environment.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 17 (Compl. ¶91).
- Essential elements of Claim 17 include:
- sending a request for information from a portable remote controller device having a first display to a main device configured to be connected to a second display;
- obtaining the requested information from the network;
- providing the obtained information from the main device to the remote controller device;
- displaying the sent information on the first display of the remote controller device;
- sending a display switching signal from the remote controller device to the main device; and
- determining whether the second display of the main device displays the obtained information based on the display switching signal sent from the remote controller device.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’192 Patent.
U.S. Patent No. 8,908,106 - “Mobile Terminal,” issued December 9, 2014 (’106 Patent)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the user-perceived delay when starting a remote control application on a mobile device to operate an external device like a TV. The conventional process required the application to fully load before the user could send a command to turn on the TV, resulting in a cumulative waiting period (ʼ106 Patent, col. 1:21-34; FIG. 7).
- The Patented Solution: The invention reduces this waiting time by having the mobile terminal transmit the "turning-on control signal" to the external device before the process of starting the control application is completed. This parallelization allows the external device to begin its own power-on sequence while the mobile application is still loading, making the system ready for user control more quickly (ʼ106 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:17-24; FIG. 5).
- Technical Importance: This approach improves user experience by minimizing latency in multi-device interactions, a key consideration in the design of responsive consumer electronics systems.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent apparatus claim 1 (Compl. ¶103).
- Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- A mobile terminal comprising: a signal transmission unit which transmits control signals to an external device;
- an operation unit for a user to perform various actions; and
- a microprocessor that starts a control application for control of the external device, and transmits, to the external device, an operation control signal based on remote control function of the control application, in response to a user action on the operation unit by using the signal transmission unit,
- wherein when starting the control application, the microprocessor transmits, to the external device, a turning-on control signal to turn on the external device by using the signal transmission unit before the process of starting the control application is completed.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ’106 Patent.
U.S. Patent No. 8,055,187 - “Communication Terminal and Communication Method for Exchanging Contents,” issued November 8, 2011 (’187 Patent)
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for exchanging digital content between nearby communication terminals (Compl. ¶82). The method involves a multi-step protocol where devices repeatedly transmit request information, receive responses, transmit determination information to negotiate the transfer, and then transmit the content data itself once an agreement is reached (Compl. ¶115).
- Asserted Claims: At least method claim 15 (Compl. ¶115).
- Accused Features: The complaint accuses Google's "Quick Share" (formerly "nearby share") functionality, as implemented on devices like the Google Pixel 10, of infringing the ’187 Patent by performing the claimed steps of discovery, negotiation, and data transfer between nearby devices (Compl. ¶116).
U.S. Patent No. 11,375,254 - “Control Apparatus,” issued June 28, 2022 (’254 Patent)
- Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to a control apparatus (e.g., a smartphone app) that manages content playback on a separate playback device (e.g., a smart TV) (Compl. ¶83). The system involves the control apparatus receiving content from a server, analyzing it to identify "chapters" (such as the start and end of credits), and transmitting information about a "first playback position" (e.g., the position after the credits) to the playback device. The technology allows for features like automatically skipping commercials or credits (Compl. ¶131).
- Asserted Claims: At least apparatus claim 1 (Compl. ¶131).
- Accused Features: The infringement allegations target Google's streaming ecosystem, including Google Cast and the YouTube TV app (Compl. ¶132). The accused functionality is the "Up Next" feature that analyzes television show content to identify the credits segment and provides the user an option to skip directly to the next episode (Compl. ¶134, 142).
U.S. Patent No. 10,171,847 - “Information Device and Distribution Device,” issued January 1, 2019 (’847 Patent)
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an information device that downloads video data by sequentially requesting "divided video data" files (i.e., chunks) from an external device (Compl. ¶84). The controller processes these chunks to convert them into a playable format and produces a playlist file to instruct playback. This process is characteristic of modern adaptive bitrate streaming technologies like HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) (ʼ847 Patent, col. 6:1-15).
- Asserted Claims: At least device claim 1 (Compl. ¶150).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Google Meet application and its underlying infrastructure, including Google's GGC servers, infringe the ’847 Patent. The accused functionality is the delivery of livestream and recorded video content, which is allegedly encoded into small "chunks" that are sequentially downloaded and assembled for playback (Compl. ¶151, 154).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies a broad ecosystem of accused products, including hardware such as Google’s mobile phones (e.g., Google Pixel 10), tablets, smart watches, and streamers (e.g., Chromecast, Google TV Streamer), as well as software including the Google Cast app, Google Home app, Google TV app, Google Meet app, and YouTube TV app (Compl. ¶85).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused instrumentalities collectively enable Google's content streaming and device interoperability ecosystem. The relevant functionalities include: using a mobile device as a remote to initiate and control video playback on a TV-connected streamer (Compl. ¶92); sharing files between devices using the "Quick Share" protocol (Compl. ¶116); automatically detecting and enabling users to skip credits in episodic content via "Up Next" features in apps like YouTube TV (Compl. ¶134); and delivering live and recorded video for services like Google Meet (Compl. ¶151). The complaint positions these features as central to Google's business of making information accessible (Compl. ¶7-8). The complaint includes a screenshot from a YouTube video demonstrating a phone being used to cast content to a Chromecast, illustrating the core remote-control functionality (Compl. p. 39).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’192 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| sending a request for information from a portable remote controller device having a first display to a main device... | A Google Pixel 10 phone (portable remote controller) sends a request for streaming data over a network to a Google TV Streamer (main device) (Compl. ¶92). | ¶92 | col. 4:45-53 |
| obtaining the requested information from the network | The Google Chromecast obtains the requested online content, such as video data, from the network (e.g., GGC, Wi-Fi, internet) (Compl. ¶93). | ¶93 | col. 4:54-61 |
| providing the obtained information from the main device to the remote controller device | The Google Pixel 10 receives information from the Google Streamer, such as via stream switching or screen mirroring (Compl. ¶94). | ¶94 | col. 4:62-65 |
| displaying the sent information on the first display of the remote controller device | The information from the main device is displayed on the touch screen of the Google Pixel 10 (Compl. ¶94). A screenshot in the complaint shows a phone displaying a YouTube TV interface that is controlling a program being cast (Compl. p. 41). | ¶94 | col. 3:24-25 |
| sending a display switching signal from the remote controller device to the main device | The Google Pixel 10 sends a signal (e.g., a "Cast" command) to the Google Streamer to initiate streaming or mirroring on the main device (Compl. ¶95). | ¶95 | col. 5:1-5 |
| determining whether the second display of the main device displays the obtained information based on the display switching signal... | The Google Pixel 10 determines whether the smart television (second display) connected to the Google Streamer displays the content based on the "Cast" signal sent from the Pixel 10 (Compl. ¶96). | ¶96 | col. 5:2-10 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether initiating a "cast" session, where a streaming device is instructed to pull content directly from the internet, constitutes "providing the obtained information from the main device to the remote controller device" as required by the claim. The defense may argue that in Google's architecture, the information flows from the network to the streamer, not from the streamer back to the phone in the manner contemplated by the patent.
- Technical Questions: The complaint’s theory for the "display switching signal" appears to be the user's initial "Cast" command (Compl. ¶95). A potential point of dispute could be whether this command, which initiates a streaming session, functions as a "display switching" signal in the context of the patent, which describes switching the output of already-obtained information between two displays (ʼ192 Patent, col. 5:1-10).
’106 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A mobile terminal comprising: a signal transmission unit which transmits control signals to an external device; | The Google Pixel 10 comprises a Wi-Fi and Bluetooth transceiver that transmits control signals (e.g., power on/off, play, pause) to an external device like a Google Streamer or Chromecast (Compl. ¶104). | ¶104 | col. 3:8-12 |
| an operation unit for a user to perform various actions; | The Google Pixel 10 comprises a touch screen and volume buttons, which serve as an operation unit for user actions like swiping or selecting options (Compl. ¶105). | ¶105 | col. 3:13-14 |
| and a microprocessor that starts a control application for control of the external device, and transmits, to the external device, an operation control signal... in response to a user action... | The Google Pixel 10's microprocessor (e.g., Google Tensor G5) starts a control application (e.g., Google TV app) and transmits a Wi-Fi signal to control the external device in response to user actions on the touch screen (Compl. ¶106). | ¶106 | col. 3:15-22 |
| wherein when starting the control application, the microprocessor transmits, to the external device, a turning-on control signal... before the process of starting the control application is completed. | When a user starts the Google TV or Google Home app, the Google Pixel 10 allegedly transmits a "turning-on control signal" (e.g., a screensaver wake signal) to the Chromecast or smart TV before the startup process of the control application is completed (Compl. ¶107). A screenshot in the complaint shows a phone displaying the Google TV remote interface controlling a TV in the background (Compl. p. 50). | ¶107 | col. 2:17-24 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely focus on the factual timing of events. The core of the claim is the transmission of a "turning-on control signal" before the control application's startup is "completed." The case may turn on evidence demonstrating the precise sequence of network signals and software states during the launch of an app like Google Home to control a Chromecast.
- Scope Questions: The parties may dispute what constitutes a "turning-on control signal." The complaint alleges this could be a "screensaver wake signal" (Compl. ¶107). The question will be whether waking a device from a low-power ambient mode is equivalent to "turn[ing] on the external device" as required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
’192 Patent
- The Term: "display switching signal"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the plaintiff's infringement theory maps it to the "Cast" command that initiates a streaming session on a Chromecast or Google TV (Compl. ¶95). The viability of the infringement claim for the '192 Patent may depend on whether this construction is adopted. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a potential mismatch between the patent's original context (switching the display location of already-held data) and the accused functionality (initiating a cloud-based stream on a separate device).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not appear to provide a specific, narrow definition. The term could be argued to cover any signal that causes a change in which display is presenting the primary information to the user.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowchart in Figure 4 shows the step "switch output signal" (n10) occurring after information has already been obtained (n5) and outputted to the remote (n6). This may support an interpretation that the signal's purpose is to switch the output location of existing information, not to initiate a new data retrieval process on a different device.
’106 Patent
- The Term: "before the process of starting the control application is completed"
- Context and Importance: This temporal limitation is the central inventive concept of claim 1. The infringement determination will be binary: either the "turning-on" signal is sent before this point, or it is not. The definition of when the startup process is "completed" is therefore dispositive.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (i.e., later in time): The patent contrasts its invention with the prior art, where the application start process finishes at time "t102", after which the user can operate it (ʼ106 Patent, FIG. 7). The invention's timing diagram shows the application start process finishing at time "t3", after which the user can control the TV (ʼ106 Patent, FIG. 6). This suggests "completed" means the point at which the application is fully loaded and ready to accept user commands, which would favor the plaintiff's infringement theory.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (i.e., earlier in time): A defendant could argue that "completed" refers to an earlier milestone in the application lifecycle, such as when the main process is initialized but before the full UI is rendered. The specification states that after the process is completed, "the mobile device 2 can control the TV receiver 1" (ʼ106 Patent, col. 4:15-17), which tends to support the interpretation that "completed" means fully operational.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: For all five patents-in-suit, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegations are based on Google providing instructions, user manuals, online documentation, marketing, and technical support that allegedly encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶97, 108, 124, 143, 156).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Google has had "actual notice of the Asserted Patents, at least as of the filing date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶86). This forms the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement, supporting the prayer for treble damages (Compl. p. 93, ¶d). No facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge of the patents are alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical and definitional scope: Can claim terms drafted in the context of earlier device-to-device interaction models (e.g., the '192 Patent's "display switching signal" or the '254 Patent's "control apparatus [that] receives the content") be construed to cover Google’s modern, cloud-centric architecture where a phone acts as a remote to direct a separate streaming device to fetch content from the internet?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational timing: For the '106 Patent, does Google's system, as a matter of technical fact, transmit a "turning-on control signal" to an external streamer before the controlling application on a smartphone has fully completed its startup process? This will likely require detailed expert analysis of the software and network traffic.
- A significant procedural question will be one of venue: The complaint dedicates substantial effort to establishing that Google's network infrastructure within the Eastern District of Texas constitutes a "regular and established place of business." An early and heavily contested battle over a motion to dismiss for improper venue appears likely.