Flypsi v. Google (25-1010): Federal Circuit Affirms Patent Unpatentable
Flypsi, Inc. (dba Flyp) appealed a patentability ruling against Google LLC at the Federal Circuit over US11218585B2, a patent covering a telephone network system and method. The court issued a Rule 36 affirmance — the lower decision stands — closing the appeal after 588 days.
Flypsi's telephone network patent falls at the Federal Circuit
Flypsi, Inc., operating as Flyp, brought appeal No. 25-1010 before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against Google LLC, docketed 2 October 2024. The case centred on US11218585B2 (application no. US17/243401), a patent covering a telephone network system and method. The verdict cause is recorded as patentability, specifically an invalidity/cancellation action, indicating the patent's validity had been challenged in a prior proceeding before the appeal was filed.
The Federal Circuit disposed of the appeal on 13 May 2026 with a per curiam Rule 36 judgement: 'AFFIRMED.' The recorded basis of termination is 'Unpatentable', confirming that the court found no reversible error in the underlying determination that US11218585B2 does not meet the requirements for patentability. The affirmance is binding and final at this appellate level. The specific terms and findings from the lower proceeding are not further elaborated in the available Rule 36 order.
A Rule 36 affirmance — issued without a written opinion — signals the Federal Circuit considered the lower tribunal's reasoning sufficient on its face and saw no need for further elaboration. For Flypsi, the path to further review narrows significantly: options would be limited to a petition for rehearing en banc or a petition for certiorari to the US Supreme Court. What drove the underlying unpatentability finding, and whether the claims faced prior art, obviousness, or eligibility grounds, is not disclosed in the available appellate record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Unpatentable in 588 days
588 days from filing to close — consistent with Federal Circuit appeal timelines for patent validity disputes
US11218585B2 — Telephone network system and method
Developers and product teams building telephone network systems, multi-number telephony applications, or VoIP call-routing infrastructure should be aware that US11218585B2 has been confirmed unpatentable by the Federal Circuit. While this specific patent no longer presents an enforcement risk, related Flypsi family patents or co-pending applications may cover similar claim scope and warrant independent review before product launch or market entry.
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit's order — 'AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.' — disposes of the appeal summarily, indicating the panel found the lower tribunal's unpatentability determination free from reversible error. Rule 36 affirmances do not produce a written opinion and therefore generate no binding precedent, but they are legally equivalent to a full reasoned affirmance. The underlying basis of unpatentability governs the patent's status going forward.
Federal Circuit affirms: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 36 affirmance: the lower decision stands without written opinion
A Federal Circuit Rule 36 judgement affirms the decision below without a written opinion when the court determines that no reversible error occurred and that a full written disposition is unnecessary. 'AFFIRMED' under Rule 36 carries the same legal weight as a reasoned opinion — the unpatentability determination is upheld in full. It does not, however, create binding precedent on the legal questions involved.
No reversible error foundUS11218585B2 confirmed unpatentable — enforcement rights extinguished
For Flypsi, the affirmance is a terminal ruling at the Federal Circuit level. With US11218585B2 confirmed unpatentable, Flypsi cannot enforce the patent against Google or any third party. Any licensing programme or infringement claims built around this patent are effectively foreclosed unless a higher court overturns the ruling. Further appeal would require en banc rehearing or Supreme Court certiorari — both statistically unlikely paths.
Patent rights extinguishedGoogle secures freedom to operate without the shadow of US11218585B2
Google's successful defence of the unpatentability challenge removes US11218585B2 as a potential enforcement risk. With the Federal Circuit's affirmance, Google and the broader market gain certainty that this telephone network patent cannot be asserted. The Rule 36 disposition means no new precedent is created, but the practical outcome — patent invalidated — is identical to a reasoned opinion.
FTO confirmed for GoogleTelephone network patent space: reduced assertion risk from this family
The invalidation of US11218585B2 removes one patent asset from the telephone network system and method domain. Competitors and technology developers operating in VoIP, multi-number telephony, and related spaces face reduced assertion risk from this specific patent. However, Flypsi's broader portfolio position is not disclosed in the available record — related family members or continuation patents may remain in force and should be independently monitored.
Monitor related family membersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | FLYPSI, INC., dba Flyp | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Google, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin S. Richards | Attorney | Counsel for FLYPSI, INC., dba FlypSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eimeric ReigPlessis | Attorney | Counsel for FLYPSI, INC., dba FlypSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Winston & Strawn, LLP | Law Firm | Representing FLYPSI, INC., dba FlypSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel Zeilberger | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Palys | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Wolfe | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Naveen Modi | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Paul Hastings, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the telephone network and multi-line app space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence surfaced from the Flypsi v. Google Federal Circuit appeal — relevant to telephony, VoIP, and multi-number application developers.
Flypsi/Flyp patent family: what remains after US11218585B2?
With US11218585B2 invalidated, the live scope of Flypsi's IP position depends on continuation patents, divisional applications, or related filings under the same technology family. Mapping the full Flyp portfolio — including any pending applications — is essential for competitors and potential acquirers to understand residual assertion risk in the multi-number telephony space.
Monitor Flyp patent familyFiling trends in multi-number telephony and VoIP call routing
The multi-number mobile telephony space — enabling separate lines on a single device — has attracted growing patent activity from both established carriers and app-layer startups. Analysing filing trends around call routing, number provisioning, and SIP-based telephony methods can identify emerging competitors and white-space claim areas before they become enforcement risks.
VoIP + multi-line filing trendsGoogle's telephony and communication infrastructure patent position
Google's successful defence in this appeal is consistent with a broad IP portfolio in communications infrastructure, VoIP, and mobile telephony. Reviewing Google's granted patents and recent filings in telephone network systems can reveal the defensive and offensive scope of its IP position — informative for companies developing competing telephony products or seeking partnership and licensing opportunities.
Google telephony IP landscapeAdjacent claim space in number management and telephony provisioning
The invalidation of US11218585B2 may create claim-space opportunities in telephone number provisioning, dynamic number assignment, and app-layer call management — areas adjacent to the invalidated claims. R&D teams exploring novel approaches in these sub-domains should assess whether differentiated claim strategies can establish protectable positions where prior art has eroded existing patents.
Telephony claim white spaceSimilar Federal Circuit telephony patent validity appeals
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving telephone network and VoIP patent validity challenges — cases with comparable PTAB origins and Rule 36 dispositions in the communications technology sector.
What this case signals for the telephony patent IP landscape
A Rule 36 affirmance of unpatentability at the Federal Circuit sends a clear signal about assertion risk and patent quality in the telephone network space.
Rule 36 dispositions offer no written precedent but do close enforcement paths
A Federal Circuit Rule 36 affirmance is legally final but creates no citable precedent. For IP teams, this means the specific grounds of unpatentability remain opaque from the appellate order alone — practitioners should review the lower tribunal's record to understand what claim elements or prior art drove the invalidity finding before drawing broader conclusions.
Telephony and multi-number app patents face sustained validity scrutiny
The invalidation of a telephone network system and method patent in a Google-defended proceeding is consistent with broader pressure on software-implemented communication patents at the USPTO and PTAB. Companies holding or acquiring patents in this space should conduct rigorous claim-by-claim validity assessments before committing to enforcement or licensing strategies.
FLYPSI v Google — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the lower unpatentability determination concerning US11218585B2, issuing a Rule 36 judgement on 13 May 2026. The order — 'AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.' — confirms the patent is unpatentable. No written opinion was issued. The recorded basis of termination is 'Unpatentable'.
US11218585B2 (application no. US17/243401) is a patent held by Flypsi, Inc. dba Flyp covering a telephone network system and method. The patent relates to telephony infrastructure consistent with Flyp's multi-number mobile application service. It was the subject of an invalidity/cancellation action that ultimately resulted in a Federal Circuit affirmance of unpatentability.
A Rule 36 affirmance means the Federal Circuit found no reversible error in the lower decision and declined to issue a written opinion. It carries full legal weight — the unpatentability determination is final at this level. Importantly, Rule 36 orders do not create binding precedent, so the specific legal reasoning remains confined to the lower tribunal's record. The patent cannot be enforced following this ruling.
Following a Federal Circuit affirmance, Flypsi's options are limited to petitioning for rehearing en banc before the Federal Circuit or seeking a writ of certiorari from the US Supreme Court. Both are discretionary review mechanisms with low grant rates. No further appeal route is disclosed in the available public record.
The Federal Circuit's ruling in Case 25-1010 applies specifically to US11218585B2. The status of other Flypsi patents, continuation applications, or related family members is not determined by this ruling. Competitors and licensees should independently review the Flypsi/Flyp patent family to assess whether other patents in the same technology domain remain in force.
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.