Flick Intelligence v. Google: W.D. Texas Case Transferred to N.D. California
Flick Intelligence, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Google, LLC in the Western District of Texas, asserting two patents covering supplemental movie/show data display and bidirectional communications. After 232 days, Judge Alan D. Albright granted Google's unopposed motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Venue battle ends before merits: Flick Intelligence v. Google
On January 26, 2023, Flick Intelligence, LLC filed suit against Google, LLC in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00051), before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted two patents: US9465451B2, covering methods and systems for obtaining and displaying supplemental data about movies, shows, events, or video games; and US9965237B2, covering methods, systems, and processor-readable media for bidirectional communications and data sharing.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Transferred.' The docket order states that Judge Albright granted Google's Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), noting Flick Intelligence's non-opposition to the motion (ECF No. 45) and finding good cause to grant it. The case closed in the W.D. Texas docket on September 15, 2023.
The transfer was resolved 232 days after filing, before any merits adjudication. Plaintiff's non-opposition to the transfer motion is notable: it suggests no contested venue fight was waged, though the underlying reasons for that position are not disclosed in the available record. The case is expected to continue in the Northern District of California.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Transferred in 232 days
232 days from filing to transfer order — resolved at venue stage before merits
US9465451B2 & US9965237B2 — supplemental media display and bidirectional data sharing
Product and engineering teams building second-screen applications, interactive media overlays, live event companion apps, or real-time data-sharing APIs should treat these two patents as active FTO considerations. The case has transferred to N.D. California but remains live — no invalidity finding has been made, and the claim scope has not been adjudicated. Platforms integrating supplemental content display alongside video or broadcast media are squarely within the asserted technology domain.
Official order — verbatim text
The transfer order confirms the W.D. Texas court found good cause under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), supported by Flick Intelligence's recorded non-opposition (ECF No. 45). No infringement, validity, or damages findings were made; the order is purely procedural, and all substantive patent claims remain to be adjudicated in the Northern District of California.
Case transferred under § 1404(a): no merits ruling issued
A transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) moves the case to a more convenient or appropriate venue. It does not decide infringement, validity, or damages. The W.D. Texas court found good cause to transfer; all substantive issues travel with the case to the Northern District of California, where litigation will continue.
Venue transfer — no merits decisionN.D. California: a markedly different patent litigation environment
The Northern District of California, where this case now resides, is Google's home district and one of the most active patent venues in the US. Local patent rules, judicial assignment, and jury pool composition differ materially from W.D. Texas. Plaintiffs asserting patents in N.D. Cal. face a jurisdiction known for robust invalidity challenges and experienced patent juries.
N.D. Cal. — Google home districtLitigation continues in N.D. California under new rules
Following transfer, the case is reassigned to an N.D. California judge and proceeds under that court's local patent rules, including potentially different claim construction and discovery schedules. Parties typically resubmit scheduling orders. Any prior W.D. Texas orders may carry persuasive but not binding effect. The substantive patent claims remain live.
Case live in N.D. Cal.Plaintiff's non-opposition signals a tactical recalibration
Flick Intelligence filed in the historically plaintiff-friendly W.D. Texas but did not oppose Google's transfer motion, as noted in ECF No. 45. This non-opposition — rather than a contested venue fight — suggests a deliberate or pragmatic choice. The specific reasons are not disclosed in the available public record.
Non-opposed transferFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Flick Intelligence, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Google, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak | Attorney | Counsel for Flick Intelligence, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Flick Intelligence, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Flick Intelligence, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bill Trac | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Christopher Banner | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Darin W. Snyder | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Luann L. Simmons | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Liang | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathaniel Legum | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O'Melveny & Myers LLP | Law Firm | Representing Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in supplemental media display and bidirectional communications IP
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence across the supplemental media data, interactive content, and real-time data-sharing technology space — relevant to Google, Flick Intelligence, and adjacent platform players.
Flick Intelligence's patent footprint in supplemental media display
Flick Intelligence asserted two patents in this action. Monitoring their broader portfolio — including any continuations or divisionals from the US13/413859 and US15/189315 application families — can reveal whether additional claim scope is being built out and whether further assertion campaigns in this technology domain are likely.
Portfolio monitoring signalFiling trends in second-screen and supplemental content delivery patents
The supplemental media data space — covering context-aware overlays, second-screen sync, and companion app APIs — has attracted growing patent filing activity from streaming platforms, broadcasters, and interactive media startups. Understanding filing velocity and key assignees in this cluster helps map assertion and collaboration risk for product teams in the space.
Filing trend — media techGoogle's patent coverage in interactive media and real-time data sharing
Google holds an extensive patent portfolio in interactive media, YouTube-adjacent technologies, and real-time communications infrastructure. Analysing Google's own filings in the bidirectional data-sharing and supplemental content space helps identify whether they hold defensive or cross-licensing assets that could shape the N.D. California proceedings or future licensing discussions.
Google defensive portfolioAdjacent R&D space: AI-driven contextual content overlays
The claims of US9465451B2 focus on rule-based supplemental data retrieval for displayed media. Emerging AI-driven contextual overlay systems — using on-device inference or large language models to generate real-time supplemental content — may represent a white-space opportunity adjacent to but potentially outside the asserted claim scope, warranting targeted R&D and IP filing.
AI overlay white spaceSimilar patent cases: supplemental media display and data-sharing IP in federal courts
Browse related infringement actions involving supplemental media, interactive content, and bidirectional data-sharing patents in W.D. Texas and N.D. California federal courts.
What this case signals for the interactive media and data-sharing IP landscape
A quick venue concession in W.D. Texas hints at shifting litigation calculus for patent holders asserting media-tech IP against platform giants.
Patent holders face a harder venue calculus post-transfer reforms
Flick Intelligence's non-opposition to Google's § 1404(a) motion illustrates the diminished leverage of W.D. Texas filings when a defendant can demonstrate strong ties to N.D. California. Companies asserting media display and communication patents against platform defendants should pressure-test venue choice before filing.
Two patents covering supplemental media data remain active and asserted
US9465451B2 and US9965237B2 survive the venue transfer with all claims intact. Any product team building features that retrieve, display, or synchronise supplemental content alongside video or interactive media should assess FTO exposure against these two patents now that the case has moved to N.D. California.
Flick v Google — key questions answered
Flick Intelligence, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Google, LLC in the Western District of Texas on January 26, 2023. Judge Alan D. Albright granted Google's motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Flick Intelligence did not oppose the motion. The W.D. Texas case closed on September 15, 2023 after 232 days.
Flick Intelligence asserted two patents: US9465451B2 (Application No. US13/413859), covering methods and systems for obtaining and displaying supplemental data about movies, shows, events, or video games; and US9965237B2 (Application No. US15/189315), covering methods, systems, and processor-readable media for bidirectional communications and data sharing.
Judge Albright granted Google's motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), finding good cause for the transfer. The court noted that Flick Intelligence did not oppose the motion (ECF No. 45). The specific factual basis for the transfer finding — such as convenience of witnesses or connection to the district — is not detailed in the available public record beyond the court's good cause finding.
No. The transfer order is purely procedural. No findings were made on infringement, patent validity, or damages. All substantive claims under US9465451B2 and US9965237B2 remain live and travel with the case to the Northern District of California.
The two asserted patents remain active and unresolved on the merits. Product teams building supplemental content display, second-screen, or real-time bidirectional data-sharing features should conduct FTO analysis against US9465451B2 and US9965237B2. Monitoring the N.D. California proceedings for claim construction orders will be important for understanding the practical scope of these patents.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.