IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Google wins summary judgment motion in patent suit over targeted ads, (Apr 17, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

The court agreed with Google that the asserted claim is patent ineligible because there is no inventive concept.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware sided with Google in years-long litigation over whether the search giant infringed on patents for real-time targeted advertising. Google argued that there was no inventive concept to save the asserted claim. The argument was made that questions of material fact precluded summary judgment, and that several steps of the asserted claim, considered individually and, as an ordered combination, provide inventive concepts but the court disagreed (B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-00622-GBW (D. Del. Apr. 16, 2026)).

Background. In May 2020, Plaintiff, B.E. Technology, L.L.C., sued Defendant, Google LLC, alleging infringement of three patents: the ’410 Patent, ‘411 Patent, and ‘440 Patent. Plaintiff’s Original Complaint alleged that the claims of the patents were “expressly directed to providing real-time targeted advertising based on keywords contained on web pages visited by a user.” Defendant moved to dismiss the Original Complaint on the basis that the asserted claims of the patents claimed ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101. Plaintiff did not dispute that for purposes of the motion, Claim 1 of the ‘410 Patent was representative of all claims asserted. In December 2020, the court held that Claim 1 of the ‘410 Patent was directed at an abstract idea at Alice Step One, but the court permitted Plaintiff to file a motion for leave to amend its Original Complaint to add allegations describing inventiveness under Alice Step Two. In January 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend its pleading. At a hearing on the motion, the court said that Defendant had met its burden at Alice Step One but not at Alice Step Two. Plaintiff subsequently filed its First Amended Complaint.

In September 2021, the parties filed a joint stipulation to stay the action pending resolution of inter partes review proceedings (IPR) challenging the validity of the three patents at issue. In October 2022, the parties filed a joint status report, which explained that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had issued final written decisions in the IPRs, in which the following claims were deemed to be unpatentable: Claims 1-19 of the ‘410 Patent, Claims 1-24 and 26-37 of the ‘440 Patent, and Claims 1-19 of the ‘411 Patent. In August 2024, the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO. In October 2025, the parties each filed two motions for summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s First Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff asserted that the court should not continue to treat the now-invalidated Claim 1 of the ‘410 Patent as representative of the asserted claim, and that the asserted claim, when assessed on its own merits, is not directed to an abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court rejected Plaintiff’s arguments and concluded that at Alice Step One, the asserted claim is directed to an abstract idea. The court also denied as moot Defendant’s Motion for Leave.

Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment. The court denied Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to the court’s summary judgment ranking procedures, citing the court’s denial of Plaintiff’s First Motion for Summary Judgment.

Defendant’s First Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant moved for summary judgment that the asserted claim is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court granted the motion. Because the court previously addressed Alice Step One, the court here focused its analysis on Alice Step Two. The defendant argued that there is no inventive concept to save the asserted claim. Plaintiff argued that questions of material fact preclude summary judgment, and that several steps of the asserted claim, considered individually and, as an ordered combination, provide inventive concepts.

Defendant’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment. Because the court granted Defendant’s First Motion for Summary Judgment, the court said there was no longer any valid asserted claim and denied Defendant’s Second Motion for Summary Judgment as moot.

The Case is No. 1:20-cv-00622-GBW.

Judge: Williams, G.

Attorneys: Ronald P. Golden, III (Bayard, P.A.) for B.E. Technology, L.L.C. Brian P. Egan (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP) and Robert A. Van Nest (Keker, Van Nest Peters) for Google LLC.

Companies: B.E. Technology, L.L.C.; Google LLC

Cases: Patent DelawareNews USPTO