Flypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC
Patentability filed 3 Oct 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 13 May 2026, with US10051105B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US10051105B2
- Application no.
- US15/582091
- Case no.
- 25-1020
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 3 Oct 2024 – 13 May 2026
- Duration
- 587 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- Telephone network system and method
- Validity challenges
- 2 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Telephone network system and method
Systems for and methods of delivering telephone calls using the combination of a data channel and a voice channel are disclosed. A data channel connection with the telephone handset may provide pre-call information used to set up incoming and outgoing calls which are ultimately connected using a voice channel. Use of the pre-call information may permit the same handset to be associated with multiple secondary telephone numbers from which calls appear to have been made and to which calls appear to have been placed.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 14 Aug 2018
- Est. expiry
- 17 Jul 2033
- Validity challenges
- 2 on recordIPR2022-01049 · filed by Dialpad, Inc.IPR2023-00361 · Patentability · filed by GOOGLE LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- ZHIDOV, IVAN · RINFRET, PETER A. · KOCHHAR, SUNIR
- Classification
- H04M1/725H04M3/42H04M3/56H04L29/06H04M3/436H04W76/10H04M1/7243
- Prosecution counsel
- COOLEY LLP
- Examiner
- HUYNH, NAM
Parties of record
Flypsi, Inc.
- Core tech
- H04M1/725H04M3/42H04M3/56H04L29/06
- Counsel
- Louis Campbell
- Firm
- Orbit IP
Google, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Naveen Modi
- Firm
- Paul Hastings, LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Louis Campbell | Flypsi, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Naveen Modi | Google, LLC | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED : AFFIRMED.”
Case 25-1020 · Fed. Cir. · closed 13 May 2026
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 25-1020?
25-1020 is a patent patentability brought by Flypsi, Inc. against Google, LLC, filed on 3 Oct 2024 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 13 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 25-1020?
US10051105B2 (“Telephone network system and method”), assigned to FLYPSI, INC., currently active. The record also lists Telephone network system and method.
How was case 25-1020 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED : AFFIRMED.”
How long did case 25-1020 take?
587 calendar days, from filing on 3 Oct 2024 to closure on 13 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 25-1020?
Louis Campbell is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Flypsi. Naveen Modi appears for defendant Google.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 25-1020 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.