Novacloud Licensing LLC v. Google LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: NovaCloud Licensing LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 7:26-cv-00035, W.D. Tex., 02/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Google has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business, including an Austin campus and network edge locations in Austin and San Antonio.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud computing platforms, security hardware, database services, and advertising systems infringe five patents related to cloud network management, data security, database architecture, and advertising technology.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue cover fundamental aspects of modern cloud infrastructure, including load balancing, secure boot processes, distributed databases, and dynamic ad insertion, which are foundational to large-scale internet services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Google was aware of the asserted patents since at least February 2024 due to interactions with the original patent owner, Ericsson. It also alleges that the parties engaged in unsuccessful licensing discussions from June 2024 through November 2025. One of the asserted patents, the RE’612 Patent, is a reissue patent that was reissued on September 17, 2019.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,401,028 - "Selection of an edge node in a fixed access communication network"

• Issued: March 19, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem that static or simple DNS-based methods for selecting a network gateway or server for a user are inefficient because they cannot account for real-time network conditions, such as transport network load or the operational status of server "pool elements" (’028 Patent, col. 2:25-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized "selection logic" entity that receives a service request from a user's host. This logic then obtains data from a "dynamically updated database" containing information on the status and capabilities of various edge nodes and selects the most appropriate node based on this data. It then sends a response to the host containing information, such as an IP address, that identifies the selected node ’028 Patent, Abstract col. 3:4-10
• Technical Importance: This approach enables more intelligent, real-time load balancing and traffic management in large-scale networks, a critical function for cloud computing and content delivery networks (CDNs).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶25
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • At a selection node, receiving from a host entity a request for a network service;
  • obtaining, from a dynamically updated database, data comprising information relating to the status and capabilities of each edge node of the plurality of edge nodes;
  • on the basis of the retrieved data, selecting an edge node from the plurality of edge nodes, the selected edge node providing a path between the host entity and the requested network service; and
  • sending a response to the host entity, the response including information identifying the selected edge node.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,627,086 - "Secure loading and storing of data in a data processing device"

• Issued: January 7, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need to protect the core software of embedded systems, like mobile phones, from unauthorized manipulation both during the initial loading process and while the software is stored on the device, particularly given the increasing need for frequent software updates (’086 Patent, col. 1:8-33).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method where a device receives a "payload data item" (e.g., software). It performs a cryptographic authentication by calculating an "audit hash value" of the received data. After successfully storing the data, it generates and stores a "reference message authentication code (MAC)" value. This MAC is calculated from a "combined data item" derived from the audit hash and another value (like a random number or version data), using a secret key stored on the device itself. This process creates a hardware-based root of trust for subsequent integrity checks ’086 Patent, Abstract col. 2:1-13
• Technical Importance: This method provides a computationally efficient way to ensure software integrity, forming the basis for secure boot and trusted execution environments in modern processors and security chips.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶38
• Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • receiving a payload data item by the data processing device;
  • performing a cryptographic authentication process to ensure the authenticity of the payload data item by calculating an audit hash value of at least the received data item;
  • storing the authenticated received payload data item in the data processing device; and
  • integrity protecting the stored payload data item, the integrity protecting comprising calculating a reference message authentication code value of a combined data item derived from at least the audit hash value and a random number or at least the audit hash value and a version control data item, wherein the calculating uses a secret key stored in the data processing device as an input.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,201,747 - "Real time database system"

• Issued: December 1, 2015
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inefficiency of traditional database replication models, where idle replica servers consume resources while waiting for a failure. The invention describes a distributed database system that partitions data into master partitions and further divides those into "subpartitions," with replicas of these subpartitions distributed across multiple active servers, allowing for shared load during normal operations and failures (’747 Patent, col. 2:16-32, 50-61).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 12 Compl. ¶51
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the infrastructure used to operate Google Cloud, including Google Spanner Compl. ¶46

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE47,612 - "Adaptive ads with advertising markers"

• Reissued: September 17, 2019
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the incompatibility of traditional broadcast advertising markers (e.g., SCTE 35) with modern HTTP-based adaptive streaming. The invention proposes a streaming server that identifies these markers in a content stream, queries an advertisement management system to select targeted ads, and then generates a manifest file that instructs the client's video player to request and play the content and ad segments in a seamless sequence RE’612 Patent, Abstract
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 27 Compl. ¶64
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the infrastructure for Google Ad Manager, including Google's Full Service DAI and Video Stitcher Compl. ¶59

U.S. Patent No. 9,491,063 - "Method and apparatus for providing network services orchestration"

• Issued: November 8, 2016
• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the challenge of managing and routing packet flows through complex chains of network services (e.g., firewalls, load balancers) in a cloud environment. The solution is a "network services orchestration module" that manages the lifecycle of service instances (which can be virtual or hardware-based) and a "steering module" that uses policies to route traffic through the appropriate service chains (’063 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:31-67).
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 10 Compl. ¶77
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Google Cloud Platform, including Andromeda SDN, Borg, Compute Engine, and Cloud Service Mesh Compl. ¶72

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint identifies several accused instrumentalities across Google's cloud and hardware offerings. For the '028 Patent, the accused instrumentality is the infrastructure for Google Cloud, including its software-defined network "Andromeda," used for selecting network edge nodes Compl. ¶20 For the ’086 Patent, the accused instrumentality is the "Titan chip, along with the software and hardware components used to operate the Titan chip including smartphones and cloud servers using a Titan Chip" Compl. ¶33
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused Google Cloud infrastructure operates a global network of over 200 edge locations to deliver cloud services Compl. ¶16 This infrastructure is alleged to perform dynamic selection of edge nodes for user traffic. The Titan chip is identified as a security component used in Google's hardware (smartphones, servers) to provide a hardware root of trust and secure data processing Compl. ¶33 The complaint alleges these products are central to Google's extensive cloud computing business Compl. ¶¶3, 14 No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent (Compl. ¶¶25, 38) but does not include these exhibits in the filing. The following is a prose summary of the infringement theories for the lead patents.

• ’028 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The complaint alleges that Google's Cloud infrastructure directly infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’028 Patent (Compl. ¶24, 25). The infringement theory suggests that when a user or service requests access to a Google Cloud resource, Google's network management system acts as the claimed "selection node." This system allegedly receives the request and obtains data from a "dynamically updated database" which contains real-time or near-real-time information about the status, load, and capabilities of its various edge nodes worldwide. Based on this dynamic data, the system selects an optimal edge node to service the request and responds to the user's host with information (like an IP address) identifying that selected node, thereby establishing a communication path as required by the claim.

• ’086 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The complaint alleges that Google's use of the Titan chip infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’086 Patent Compl. ¶¶37, 38 The theory centers on the secure loading and storage processes managed by the Titan chip. It is alleged that when software or data is loaded onto a device with a Titan chip, the chip acts as the "data processing device." It receives the "payload data item," performs a "cryptographic authentication" by calculating an "audit hash value," and stores the authenticated data. Crucially, the theory alleges that the chip then performs the "integrity protecting" step by calculating a "reference message authentication code" using a "secret key" stored on the chip. This calculation is allegedly performed on a "combined data item" derived from the audit hash and other data like a random number or version information, directly corresponding to the specific structure recited in the claim.

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions ('028 Patent): A potential point of contention for the ’028 Patent is the interpretation of "selection node" and "dynamically updated database." The case may turn on whether Google's architecture has a single, centralized "selection logic" entity as depicted in the patent's figures ’028 Patent, Fig. 1, or a more distributed control plane. Further, the scope of "dynamically updated" will be critical: the court will have to determine what frequency and type of updates are required to meet this limitation and whether Google's system, which monitors network status, qualifies.
  • Technical Questions ('086 Patent): For the ’086 Patent, the dispute may focus on the specific method of calculating the integrity-checking code. The claim requires calculating a MAC from a "combined data item" derived from the audit hash and either a random number or version control data. A key factual question will be whether the accused Titan chip's process matches this specific cryptographic construction, or if it uses an alternative, albeit functionally similar, method for generating its integrity codes. Evidence will be needed to show that the MAC input is specifically a combination of the audit hash and the other specified data.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• For the ’028 Patent:

  • The Term: "dynamically updated database" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's departure from prior art static pooling. The infringement analysis will depend on whether Google's system for tracking edge node status qualifies as a "dynamically updated database." Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's own description contrasts its dynamic approach with prior art that "cannot take account of changes in the network without being reconfigured" ’028 Patent, col. 2:25-27
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the database is updated when the "capabilities and status of each edge node... change" ’028 Patent, col. 3:8-10 This could support a view that any non-static, periodically updated system that reflects changes falls within the scope.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "Database synchronization function" that actively "retrieves routing topology and link/router status information" and "is responsible for obtaining the status, capability... and load information" ’028 Patent, col. 9:6-21, Fig. 4 This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific, active monitoring and synchronization function, rather than any system that is merely updated from time to time.

• For the ’086 Patent:

  • The Term: "a combined data item derived from at least the audit hash value and a random number or at least the audit hash value and a version control data item" (Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the specific input for the final integrity calculation. Infringement will hinge on whether the Titan chip's MAC calculation uses this precise input structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because it recites a specific cryptographic construction, and any deviation by the accused product could be a basis for a non-infringement argument.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that using a combined item increases security because "the input to the MAC is not entirely dependant on the result of the authentication process" ’086 Patent, col. 4:1-6 This purpose-oriented language could support an argument that other methods of combining the hash with additional secret data achieve the same goal and should be covered.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly illustrates an embodiment where the MAC computation is performed on a "four-tuple (rand, h, cnt, back_cnt)" which includes a random value, the hash, and version control counters ’086 Patent, Fig. 8; col. 14:1-4 This specific embodiment may be used to argue for a narrower construction requiring the input to be a concatenated data structure or tuple containing these exact elements, not just any function that uses them as inputs.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for inducement is that Google allegedly provides "information and instructions on the use of the Accused Instrumentalities" to its customers, encouraging them to use the products in an infringing manner Compl. ¶¶27, 40, 53, 66, 79
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges Google knew of the patents and their infringement since at least February 2024 from interactions with the prior owner, Ericsson, and no later than June 2024 from direct contact with NovaCloud, which was followed by extensive licensing discussions Compl. ¶¶10, 11, 26, 39, 52, 65, 78

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A central issue will be one of architectural correspondence: Does the architecture of Google's cloud services, particularly its load balancing and traffic management systems, map onto the centralized "selection logic" and "dynamically updated database" structure required by the '028 patent, or does it operate on a different, non-infringing paradigm?
• A key technical question will be one of cryptographic specificity: Does the secure boot and data storage process implemented in Google's Titan chip calculate its message authentication code using the specific "combined data item" (hash plus random/version data) recited in claim 1 of the '086 patent, or does it employ a functionally similar but structurally different cryptographic method?
• A significant procedural and strategic question will be one of portfolio coherence: Given that the five asserted patents cover disparate technologies—from network-level node selection and service orchestration to hardware-level security, database partitioning, and ad-tech video streaming—the case may turn on whether these distinct infringement allegations against a wide range of Google products can be effectively litigated as a single, unified action.