Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Cellular South v. Google: Video Intelligence Patent Transfer | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID6:24-cv-00245
FiledMay 2024
ClosedFeb 2025
Patent Litigation

Cellular South v. Google: Three-Patent Video Intelligence Dispute Transferred

Cellular South, Inc. filed suit against Google, LLC in the Western District of Texas asserting three patents against Google’s Cloud Video Intelligence platform. After 279 days of litigation, Judge David Alan Ezra ordered the case transferred before any merits ruling was issued.

Resolution time
279days
279 days in W.D. Texas before transfer — typical patent transfers in this district occur within 6–18 months of filing
Patents asserted
3
US9940972B2, US10218954B2, and US11126853B2 — three patents covering video intelligence and analysis technology
Outcome
Case Transferred
Case transferred to a new venue; no merits ruling issued in W.D. Texas
Cost ruling
No award
No costs or fees awarded at transfer stage; merits and fee issues follow to receiving court
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Video intelligence patent dispute moves venue before merits are tested

Cellular South, Inc. initiated this infringement action on May 9, 2024, in the Western District of Texas, asserting three patents — US9940972B2, US10218954B2, and US11126853B2 — against Google, LLC’s Cloud Video Intelligence platform. Judge David Alan Ezra presided. Holland & Knight LLP and The Dacus Firm PC represented Cellular South, while Cooley LLP and Scott, Douglass & McConnico LLP defended Google.

The case closed on February 12, 2025 — 279 days after filing — on a transfer order. A transfer at the district court level moves the entire action to a new forum without adjudicating any substantive patent claims. No finding of infringement, invalidity, or non-infringement was made. The case schedule, including Markman proceedings and expert discovery, had been set through late 2026, suggesting the transfer cut across a fully mapped litigation roadmap.

The transfer after under nine months is consistent with the broader trend of W.D. Texas cases being transferred following the Federal Circuit’s scrutiny of venue practices in that district. The scheduling order filed October 31, 2024 contemplated mediation by July 2025 and claim construction briefing through September 2025, indicating both parties were preparing for a substantive fight. The public record does not disclose the destination venue or the precise legal basis for transfer, leaving open questions about whether transfer was consent-based or compelled.

Case at a glance
Case no.6:24-cv-00245
DefendantGoogle, LLC
CourtTexas Western
JudgeDavid Alan Ezra
FiledMay 9, 2024
ClosedFebruary 12, 2025
Duration279 days
OutcomeCase Transferred
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisCase Transferred
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Western District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Case Transferred in 279 days

279 days in W.D. Texas before transfer — typical patent transfers in this district occur within 6–18 months of filing

Case timeline: Complaint filed MAY 9 2024, SEP–OCT — 279 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Cellular South, Inc. v Google, LLC from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Western District Court. MAY 9 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings FEB 12 2025 Case Transferred 279 DAYS TOTAL
Transfer terms

Case transferred: what a venue change means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Transfer moves the case, not the claims

A case transfer under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 or 1406 relocates the entire action to a new district court. No claim is dismissed; no merits are decided. All asserted patents, accused products, and pending motions travel to the receiving court. The transferring court’s scheduling orders typically lapse, and the new court issues its own case management schedule. This outcome is procedural, not substantive.

Venue change — no merits ruling
Plaintiff outlook

Cellular South must rebuild momentum in a new forum

A transfer resets procedural timelines and may require new local counsel, fresh scheduling negotiations, and adaptation to the receiving court’s patent local rules. For Cellular South, the investment made in W.D. Texas — including the detailed scheduling order and preliminary contentions deadline of December 2024 — does not automatically translate. However, all three patents remain fully asserted and no claims have been invalidated or found non-infringing.

Claims survive transfer intact
Defendant outlook

Google gains a potential venue advantage

Transfers out of W.D. Texas frequently favour defendants, particularly large technology companies who sought transfer on convenience or proper venue grounds. If Google successfully argued for transfer, the receiving venue — likely in California or another jurisdiction where Google is headquartered — may present a more favourable judge pool, local rules, and timeline. Google’s invalidity and §101 defences remain live in the new forum.

Potential home-court advantage
Commercial implications

Cloud video intelligence patents remain contested

The three asserted patents span a family covering video intelligence and analysis technology, which sits at the core of Google’s Cloud AI services. No licence, no settlement, and no invalidity finding has been recorded. Companies operating in the cloud video analytics, computer vision, or AI-driven media processing space should treat these patents as active litigation risk. The receiving court’s approach to claim construction will be the next critical inflection point.

Active risk for cloud video AI sector
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 6:24-cv-00245 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffCellular South, Inc.CompanyTelecommunications company — holder of US9940972B2, US10218954B2, and US11126853B2Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantGoogle, LLCCompanyGoogle, LLC — developer and operator of the Cloud Video Intelligence platformSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAllison M. LucierAttorneyCounsel for Cellular South, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAnthony J. FugaAttorneyCounsel for Cellular South, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDavid C. SchulteAttorneyCounsel for Cellular South, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDeron R. DacusAttorneyCounsel for Cellular South, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJacob W. S. SchneiderAttorneyCounsel for Cellular South, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMorgan DelabarAttorneyCounsel for Cellular South, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRobert Kumar JainAttorneyCounsel for Cellular South, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRobert S. HillAttorneyCounsel for Cellular South, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSara Schretenthaler StahaAttorneyCounsel for Cellular South, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselTiffany LeeAttorneyCounsel for Cellular South, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmHolland & Knight LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Cellular South, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmThe Dacus Firm PCLaw FirmRepresenting Cellular South, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAlexandra LeeperAttorneyCounsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAndrew C. MaceAttorneyCounsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDustin M. KnightAttorneyCounsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselEamonn GardnerAttorneyCounsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselHeidi L. KeefeAttorneyCounsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMatthew J. BrighamAttorneyCounsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselPaige Arnette AmstutzAttorneyCounsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselReuben H. ChenAttorneyCounsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmCooley LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmScott, Douglass & McConnico LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge David Alan EzraJudgeTexas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, the Court ORDERS that the following schedule will govern deadlines of this case: 1. The parties must mediate this case on or before July 11, 2025, and file a report in compliance with Local Rule CV-88 after the mediation is completed. 2. The parties asserting claims for relief shall submit a written offer of settlement to opposing parties on or before May 2, 2025, and each opposing party shall respond, in writing, on or before May 30, 2025. All offers of settlement are to be private, not filed. The parties are ordered to retain the written offers of settlement and responses so the Court may use them in assessing attorney’s fees and costs at the conclusion of the trial. 3. Each party shall complete and file the “Notice Concerning Reference to United States Magistrate Judge” on or before July 1, 2025. Case 6:24-cv-00245-DAE Document 50 Filed 10/31/24 Page 1 of 5 3 4. On or before December 13, 2024, Plaintiff shall serve its preliminary patent infringement contentions in the form of claim charts setting forth where in the accused product(s) each element of the asserted claim(s) are found. Plaintiff shall also identify the earliest priority date (i.e. the earliest date of invention) for each asserted claim and produce: (1) all documents evidencing conception and reduction to practice for each claimed invention, and (2) a copy of the file history for each patent in suit. 5. On or before March 6, 2025, Defendant shall serve its preliminary invalidity contentions in the form of (1) a chart setting forth where in the prior art references each element of the asserted claim(s) are found, (2) an identification of any limitations that Defendant contends are indefinite or lack written description under section 112, and (3) an identification of any claims the Defendant contends are directed to ineligible subject matter under section 101. Defendant shall also produce (1) all prior art referenced in the invalidity contentions, (2) financial data relating to the accused instrumentalities, and (3) technical documents, including software where applicable, sufficient to show the operation of the accused product(s). 6. The following deadlines shall apply to claim construction proceedings in this case: a. On June 2, 2025, the parties shall concurrently exchange a list of claim terms a party believes should be construed by the Court and identify any claim element a party contends should be governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). b. On July 2, 2025, the parties shall concurrently exchange proposed constructions. c. On August 7, 2025, Defendant shall file their Opening Claim Construction Brief, with supporting evidence, including any declarations of expert witnesses in support of claim construction. The page limit for the Opening Case 6:24-cv-00245-DAE Document 50 Filed 10/31/24 Page 2 of 5 4 Claim Construction Brief shall be 20 pages, exclusive of the caption, signature block, any certificate, and exhibits. d. On August 28, 2025, Plaintiff shall file their Responsive Claim Construction Brief with supporting evidence, including any responsive declarations of expert witnesses in support of its responsive positions. The page limit for the Responsive Claim Construction Brief shall be 20 pages, exclusive of the caption, signature block, any certificate, and exhibits. e. On September 18, 2025, Defendant shall file their Reply Claim Construction Brief. The page limit for this brief shall be 10 pages, exclusive of the caption, signature block, any certificate, and exhibits. f. On September 25, 2025, the parties shall submit a Joint Claim Construction Statement. The Joint Claim Construction Statement shall include: (1) the construction of those claim terms, phrases, or clauses on which the parties agree; (2) each party’s proposed claim construction or indefiniteness position for each disputed claim term, phrase, or clause, together with an identification of all references from the specification or prosecution history that support that position, and an identification of any extrinsic evidence known to the party on which it intends to rely either to support its position or to oppose any other party’s position, including, but not limited to, as permitted by law, dictionary definitions, citations to learned treatises and prior art, and any witnesses (including experts) required to be disclosed pursuant to Section 6.c. or 6.d.; (3) the anticipated length of time necessary for the Claim Construction Hearing; (4) whether any party proposes to call Case 6:24-cv-00245-DAE Document 50 Filed 10/31/24 Page 3 of 5 5 one or more witnesses, including experts, at the Claim Construction Hearing and the identity of each such witness; and (5) a list of any other issues which might appropriately be taken up at a prehearing conference prior to the Claim Construction Hearing, and proposed dates, if not previously set, for any such prehearing conference. 7. The Markman hearing is to be set after claim construction briefing is complete. 8. The deadline to serve Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions is six weeks after the Markman order. 9. The parties shall file all motions to amend or supplement pleadings or to join additional parties on or before January 9, 2026. 10. Except with regard to the discovery permitted under paragraphs 4, 5, and 6, all other discovery is stayed until after the Markman hearing. The parties shall complete all fact discovery on or before June 5, 2026. 11. All parties with the initial burden of proof shall exchange opening expert reports (all materials required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)) on or before July 1, 2026. The parties exchange rebuttal expert reports (all materials required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B)) on or before August 31, 2026. 12. An objection to the reliability of an expert’s proposed testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 shall be made by motion, specifically stating the basis for the objection and identifying the objectionable testimony. 13. The parties shall complete all expert discovery on or before October 16, 2026. 14. All dispositive and Daubert motions shall be filed on or before November 19, 2026 and shall be limited to 20 pages. Responses shall be filed and served on all other parties not later Case 6:24-cv-00245-DAE Document 50 Filed 10/31/24 Page 4 of 5 6 than 21 days after the service of the motion and shall be limited to 20 pages. Any replies shall be filed and served on all other parties no later than 7 days after the service of the response and shall be limited to 10 pages, but the Court need not wait for the reply before ruling on the motion. 15. The Court will set this case for final pretrial conference and trial at a later time. The final pretrial conference shall be attended by at least one of the attorneys who will conduct the trial for each of the parties and by any unrepresented parties. The parties should consult Local Rule CV-16(e) regarding matters to be filed in advance of the final pretrial conference. 16. The parties may request that this Court extend any deadline set in this Order by filing a motion on the docket. The Court may impose sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(f) if the parties do not make timely submissions under this Order”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 6:24-cv-00245, Texas Western District Court

The court order recorded as the verdict is a scheduling order issued October 31, 2024, governing pretrial deadlines through late 2026. It does not reflect a final adjudication on infringement or validity. The case’s closure on transfer means no substantive ruling was issued. The detailed schedule — including mediation, claim construction, and expert discovery — signals that both parties were engaged in active litigation before the transfer terminated W.D. Texas jurisdiction. All claims travel intact to the receiving court.

PACER case 6:24-cv-00245 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US9940972B2, US10218954B2 & US11126853B2 — Cloud Video Intelligence Technology

Publication No.US9940972B2
Application No.US14/175741
Patent details
Productcloud-based video content analysis and intelligence methods
Cited in actionMay 9, 2024

Publication No.US10218954B2
Application No.US14/910698
Patent details
Productvideo processing and intelligence systems for cloud platforms
Cited in actionMay 9, 2024

Publication No.US11126853B2
Application No.US16/271773
Patent details
Productmachine learning-based video recognition and analysis systems
Cited in actionMay 9, 2024

The three asserted patents — US9940972B2 (application US14/175741), US10218954B2 (application US14/910698), and US11126853B2 (application US16/271773) — form a family covering video intelligence and analysis technology. The family progresses from earlier filing dates through to US11126853B2, whose application was filed in 2019 and which carries a later priority date. Collectively, the patents appear to cover methods and systems for processing, analysing, and extracting intelligence from video content in cloud environments — the core function of Google’s accused Cloud Video Intelligence platform.

Cloud video intelligence sits at the intersection of computer vision, AI inference, and cloud infrastructure — a high-value segment where Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are all active. A patent family covering core analytical methods in this space carries significant licensing leverage against hyperscalers and enterprise software vendors alike. The three-patent structure of this assertion suggests a layered enforcement strategy designed to survive invalidity attacks on any single claim set. Companies building cloud video analytics pipelines, content moderation tools, or AI-driven media search products face direct exposure if these patents are construed broadly by the receiving court.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against US9940972B2, US10218954B2, and US11126853B2?

Any company commercialising cloud-based video analysis, AI-powered video search, computer vision APIs, or automated content tagging should assess freedom-to-operate against this three-patent family. The litigation against Google’s Cloud Video Intelligence platform signals active enforcement intent by Cellular South. The receiving court’s claim construction will be the defining moment — but FTO analysis should not wait for that ruling, as product launches and investment decisions operate on shorter timescales than litigation.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map their technology against each claim in US9940972B2, US10218954B2, and US11126853B2 simultaneously. Eureka identifies claim elements, surfaces prior art, and flags design-around opportunities — providing a structured FTO report that in-house counsel can use directly in risk assessments and investment committee submissions. With these patents still in active litigation, an up-to-date FTO is a commercial necessity, not a precaution.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9940972B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar cloud video AI patent cases in U.S. district courts

Cases involving cloud video intelligence and computer vision patent assertions in U.S. district courts, with a focus on W.D. Texas and transfer patterns.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Cellular South, Inc. patent enforcement history, Texas Western case history, Cellular South, Inc.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Cloud AI patent assertionsW.D. Texas transfer trendsGoogle patent litigation historyVideo analytics patent families
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this transfer signals for the cloud video intelligence IP landscape

A venue transfer before Markman keeps all substantive questions open — and raises the stakes for the receiving court.

W.D. Texas transfers continue to reshape patent plaintiff strategy

The Federal Circuit’s ongoing scrutiny of W.D. Texas venue decisions has made transfer orders more common in large technology cases. Plaintiffs filing there against major tech defendants should model transfer risk into their litigation budget and timeline from day one.

Three-patent families in cloud AI demand proactive FTO review

With US9940972B2, US10218954B2, and US11126853B2 all still active in litigation, any company building on or competing with cloud video intelligence infrastructure should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis across this family before product launch or investment decisions.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock venue-specific risk scoring and IPR timing analysis for this cloud video intelligence district court transfer.
Receiving venue risk profileIPR petition timing analysisClaim construction vulnerability map
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Cellular v Google — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Track this cloud video intelligence patent dispute in real time

With three patents still in active litigation and a venue change pending, the risk profile for cloud video AI products is evolving. Use PatSnap Eureka to monitor case developments, run FTO analysis, and benchmark your portfolio against the asserted claims.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.