Google v. Vidal: Federal Circuit Appeal Over Wait Time Prediction Patent Dismissed in 85 Days
Google challenged USPTO Director Katherine K. Vidal at the Federal Circuit over the patentability of a wait time prediction patent application (US15/800787). The parties agreed to dismiss the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) within 85 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
Fast-exit Federal Circuit appeal in AI wait-time prediction patent dispute
Google, LLC filed this appeal on 16 October 2023 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 24-1044), challenging a decision by USPTO Director Katherine K. Vidal on the patentability of US Application No. 15/800787, which covers a wait time prediction system. The appeal arose from an invalidity or cancellation action at the patent office level, with Google represented by Williams & Connolly LLP.
The case concluded on 9 January 2024 when the Federal Circuit entered a dismissal order under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), the appellate rule governing voluntary dismissals by agreement of the parties. The order specified that each side shall bear its own costs, meaning neither party was awarded attorney fees or court costs from the other.
At 85 days, the resolution is notably swift for a Federal Circuit patent appeal, suggesting the parties reached an agreement — possibly through settlement, abandonment of the application, or a procedural resolution — shortly after filing. The public record does not disclose what drove the early exit or whether any licensing arrangement or prosecution strategy change underlies the dismissal.
Filing to dismissal in 85 days
Resolved in 85 days — well below the median Federal Circuit appeal duration
Appeal dismissed by party agreement — no merits ruling issued
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): Dismissal by Agreement
Rule 42(b) allows an appellant to voluntarily dismiss an appeal by filing a signed agreement of the parties. Unlike a unilateral withdrawal, a Rule 42(b) dismissal requires consent from all parties, suggesting Google and the USPTO Director reached a mutual understanding. The court does not evaluate the merits — it simply closes the docket as directed.
Consensual procedural exitWith or Without Prejudice? The Record Is Silent
The dismissal order does not expressly specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. In Federal Circuit practice, a Rule 42(b) dismissal on agreed terms typically leaves the underlying patent prosecution or PTAB proceeding in whatever state it was — but does not itself bar refiling unless the parties agreed otherwise. The public record does not clarify this, and the practical effect depends on any private agreement between Google and the USPTO.
Prejudice status unclearEach Side Bears Its Own Costs — A Neutral Signal
The court ordered that each side bear its own costs, a standard feature of agreed dismissals where neither party concedes fault. This cost-neutral outcome is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a clear-cut win for either side. It does not indicate bad faith or exceptional case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would trigger attorney fee awards.
No fee-shiftingPatent Application May Still Be in Play via Prosecution
Because this was an appeal of a patentability determination — not a district court infringement case — dismissal of the appeal does not necessarily mean the invention is abandoned. Google may have elected to pursue the claims through continued examination, a continuation application, or amended claims at the USPTO, rather than litigating patentability at the Federal Circuit.
Prosecution path remains openFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Google, LLC | Company | Google, LLC — technology company and appellant challenging patentability ruling on US15/800787Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Katherine K. Vidal | Company | Katherine K. Vidal — USPTO Director, defending the agency’s patentability determinationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew V. Trask | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kimberly Broecker | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amy J. Nelson Acting | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Farheena Yasmeen Rasheed | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin Richards | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael S. Forman | Attorney | Counsel for Katherine K. VidalSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal order — entered by agreement under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) with each side bearing its own costs — contains no ruling on the merits of patentability. This means the Federal Circuit issued no precedential or persuasive guidance on whether the wait time prediction claims of US15/800787 satisfy patentability requirements. For Google, the door to prosecution remains open; for the USPTO, the underlying rejection stands unless Google pursues further examination. The cost-neutral terms suggest neither side viewed continued litigation as commercially worthwhile at this stage.
US15/800787 — AI-Based Wait Time Prediction System
US Application No. 15/800787 (published as US20190130322A1) covers a wait time prediction system, a technology domain that applies machine-learning or algorithmic modelling to forecast queue lengths, service durations, or availability windows. The application was filed in the period consistent with Google’s broader push into applied AI and real-world prediction services. The patentability dispute — escalated to Federal Circuit level — suggests the USPTO raised substantive objections, likely under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patent-eligible subject matter) or §§ 102/103, which are common rejection grounds for AI-adjacent applications.
Wait time prediction technology is commercially significant across logistics, healthcare scheduling, ride-hailing, retail, and customer service automation. A granted patent in this space by a company of Google’s scale would carry meaningful defensive and offensive value. Competitors developing similar queue-prediction or ETA-estimation features should monitor this application’s prosecution status and any continuation filings that may emerge from the same priority chain.
Should your team run an FTO against US15/800787?
Any R&D or product team building AI-driven wait time estimation, queue prediction, or service availability forecasting tools should assess freedom-to-operate against US15/800787 and its related family. Although the Federal Circuit appeal was dismissed without a merits ruling, the application remains in prosecution — meaning claims could still be granted, potentially in amended form. The earlier you assess exposure, the more design-around options remain open.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US15/800787, identify related continuation and divisional filings, flag overlapping patents from other applicants in the wait time prediction space, and alert your team to prosecution status changes. Setting a claim monitoring alert on this application family is a low-effort, high-value step for any team with products in scheduling or queue-management AI.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US20190130322A1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals involving AI patentability and USPTO Director
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for AI-patent prosecution and USPTO appeal strategy
Fast-exit Federal Circuit appeals against the USPTO Director reveal how major tech companies calibrate the cost-benefit of patent prosecution versus appellate litigation.
Agreed dismissals at the Federal Circuit often mask prosecution pivots
When a major applicant like Google drops a Federal Circuit appeal in under 90 days, it frequently signals a strategic shift — filing a continuation, amending claims, or pursuing a different prosecution path — rather than abandoning the underlying technology. IP teams monitoring competitors should check continuation filing activity in related patent families after such dismissals.
USPTO Director appeals are a niche but growing challenge mechanism
Appeals directly naming the USPTO Director — rather than challenging a PTAB decision inter partes — are relatively uncommon and typically arise from ex parte prosecution disputes. This case is a reminder that patentability rejections on AI-related applications, such as wait time prediction systems, can escalate to Federal Circuit level before being resolved through negotiation.
Google v Katherine — key questions answered
Google, LLC appealed a USPTO patentability determination by Director Katherine K. Vidal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, concerning US Application No. 15/800787, which covers a wait time prediction system. The appeal was filed 16 October 2023 and dismissed by agreement on 9 January 2024.
Rule 42(b) permits voluntary dismissal of an appeal by signed agreement of all parties. The court issues no ruling on the merits. In Google v. Vidal, both parties consented to dismissal with each side bearing its own costs, meaning the Federal Circuit never evaluated the underlying patentability question.
The dismissal order does not specify with or without prejudice. The public record is silent on this point. The practical effect depends on any private agreement between Google and the USPTO. Google may retain the option to continue prosecution of the underlying application through the USPTO.
US15/800787, published as US20190130322A1, covers a wait time prediction system — an AI or algorithmic technology for forecasting queue durations, service wait times, or availability windows. It falls within Google’s broader portfolio of applied machine-learning and real-world prediction services.
A dismissal of the Federal Circuit appeal does not extinguish the underlying application. Google may pursue continued examination, file continuation or divisional applications, or amend claims at the USPTO. Competitors should monitor the prosecution status of US15/800787 and related family members for any newly granted claims.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.