IP Law Daily, PATENT—N.D.: Dismissal granted in trustee’s standing dispute, (Mar 20, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims for infringement were dismissed because they were brought by a trustee without joining the beneficial owner, and the trustee lacked any proprietary rights and therefore could not show an injury in fact as was required for constitutional standing.

Google was entitled to dismissal of patent claims asserted against it by a trustee, the U.S. District Court in San Jose has held. Despite holding legal title, the trustee had no proprietary interest in the asserted patents and therefore lacked constitutional standing (Valtrus Innovations Ltd v. Google LLC, No. 5:25-cv-07063-PCP (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2026)).

Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. (Valtrus) was the owner of six patents obtained from Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company which it asserted against Google, LLC in two separate suits. Due to inter partes review proceedings which occurred during the pendency of the litigation, only U.S. Patents Nos. 6,728,704 (the ’704 patent) and 6,816,809 (the ’809 patent) remained in dispute. The first infringement suit, Valtrus I, was brought by Valtrus alone against Google. In the second, Valtrus II, filed while the first remained pending, Valtrus joined as co-plaintiff Key Patent, an entity on behalf of which Valtrus held legal title to the asserted patents in trust. Both cases were consolidated and transferred to the Northern District of California, after which Google moved to dismiss Valtrus I for lack of constitutional or statutory standing and for failure to state a claim. Google also moved to supplement claim construction based on subsequent developments, and to dismiss Valtrus II for claim splitting. Valtrus moved for leave to amend its complaint in Valtrus I to cure any standing deficiency.

Standing. The court reviewed the trust agreement between Valtrus and Key Patent and found that Valtrus had, despite retaining legal title, given up all proprietary or beneficiary rights in the patents. Key Patent had been granted functionally exclusive authority over the alienation, enforcement, and monetization of the patents, so Valtrus lacked any injury in fact and therefore lacked constitutional standing. Because constitutional standing was a jurisdictional defect at the time of filing, it could not be cured by amendment.

Claim splitting. It was undisputed that both cases concerned the same claims between the same parties, the only difference being the addition of Key Patent, with whom Valtrus was in privity, as a co-plaintiff in Valtrus II. The court found that the prior order of consolidation did not remedy the issue, and that allowing Valtrus II to continue would force Google to continue litigating a duplicative action.

The court granted the motions to dismiss based on lack of standing and claim splitting, rendering the remaining motions moot.

The Case is No. 5:25-cv-07063-PCP.

Judge: Pitts, P.

Attorneys: Gregory P. Love (Steckler Wayne & Love PLLC) for Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. Michael K. Hurst (Gruber Hurst Elrod Johansen Hail Shank LLP) for Google LLC.

Companies: Valtrus Innovations, Ltd.; Google LLC

Cases: Patent CaliforniaNews