Jenam Tech v. Google — Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed After 334 Days
Jenam Tech, LLC appealed a patentability ruling against Google over three patents covering methods and systems for detecting idle TCP connections. The Federal Circuit proceeding was voluntarily dismissed by agreement, with each party bearing its own costs, leaving the underlying validity questions unresolved on appeal.
Federal Circuit TCP patent appeal ends by agreement — validity unresolved
Jenam Tech, LLC brought this appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 23-1480), challenging a patentability determination connected to three patents: US10075565, US10075564, and US10375215. All three patents relate to methods, systems, and computer program products for sharing information to detect idle TCP connections — a networking infrastructure technology with broad relevance to cloud and communications platforms. Google, LLC was the respondent, defended by the Paul Hastings team including Naveen Modi and Stephen Blake Kinnaird.
The proceeding was terminated on 9 January 2024, approximately eleven months after it was filed on 9 February 2023. Dismissal was entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), which governs voluntary dismissal by agreement of the parties. The court’s order confirmed that each side shall bear its own costs, meaning no fee-shifting was imposed on either party. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The 334-day duration and voluntary nature of the dismissal are consistent with the parties having reached a private resolution — whether a licensing arrangement, a covenant not to sue, or simply a mutual decision to cease litigation — though none of this is confirmed in the public record. The underlying validity of the three asserted patents was not adjudicated by the Federal Circuit, leaving their enforceability formally undecided at the appellate level. What drove the agreement, and on what terms, remains unknown from public filings.
Filing to resolution in 334 days
334 days from filing to voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit
What the voluntary Federal Circuit dismissal means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): dismissal by party agreement
Rule 42(b) allows parties to jointly stipulate to dismiss an appeal without requiring the court to reach the merits. Here, both Jenam Tech and Google agreed to terminate the proceeding. This procedural route is commonly used when parties have resolved their dispute privately, or have simply decided further appellate litigation is not commercially justified. The court accepted the stipulation and entered the formal dismissal order.
Agreed dismissal — no merits rulingWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
Voluntary dismissals can be entered with prejudice — permanently barring refiling — or without prejudice, which preserves the right to bring the same claims again. The court order in this case does not specify either form. This distinction matters significantly for Jenam Tech’s future enforcement options against Google on these patents. Until clarified, practitioners should treat the prejudice status as undetermined from publicly available filings alone.
Prejudice status: unconfirmedEach side bears own costs — no fee-shifting signal
The order expressly provides that each side shall bear its own costs. In Federal Circuit appeals, an ‘own costs’ outcome typically reflects a negotiated exit rather than a win for either party. Had the court found the appeal frivolous or exceptional, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or Rule 38 sanctions could have been considered. The absence of any cost award is consistent with a clean, bilateral resolution rather than a concession by one side.
No fee-shifting orderedThree TCP patents remain unadjudicated at appellate level
Because the Federal Circuit did not reach the merits, the patentability of US10075565, US10075564, and US10375215 was not affirmed or invalidated by the appellate court. Any validity findings from the lower proceeding — likely an inter partes review or similar PTAB proceeding given the ‘Invalidity/Cancellation’ cause — stand as the last formal record. Third parties assessing freedom-to-operate should review the PTAB record, not assume final invalidity.
Validity: not decided on appealFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Jenam Tech, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10075565, US10075564 & US10375215 (TCP idle connection detection)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Google, LLC | Company | Google, LLC — global technology company and cloud platform operator defended by Paul Hastings, LLPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Derek Dahlgren | Attorney | Counsel for Jenam Tech, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexa Lowman | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chetan Bansal | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Palys | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Naveen Modi | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Quadeer Ahmed | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephen Blake Kinnaird | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The order records a joint stipulation under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) — the parties agreed to dismiss, and the court gave effect to that agreement without ruling on the merits of the patentability challenge. The ‘each side bears own costs’ clause reinforces the bilateral, negotiated character of the exit. Critically, this order does not validate or invalidate any of the three asserted patents; it simply closes this appellate chapter. The verdict cause of ‘Invalidity/Cancellation’ reflects the underlying PTAB proceeding being appealed, not a finding made by the Federal Circuit itself.
US10075565, US10075564 & US10375215 — Idle TCP Connection Detection
The three patents-in-suit — US10075565 (App. No. 15/915,052), US10075564 (App. No. 15/915,047), and US10375215 (App. No. 16/040,522) — all address methods, systems, and computer program products for sharing information to detect idle TCP connections. Idle TCP connection detection is a foundational concern in networked systems: undetected stale connections consume server resources, degrade performance, and can create security exposure. These patents appear to cover specific signalling or information-sharing approaches within the TCP stack to identify when a connection has become dormant, a technically specific claim space within broader networking IP.
For a platform of Google’s scale — operating one of the world’s largest cloud and networking infrastructures — TCP connection management at the application and transport layer is commercially significant. The assertion of three co-pending patents from the same family suggests Jenam Tech pursued a structured, layered claim strategy designed to maximise coverage across method, system, and software product claim types. Competitors and cloud infrastructure operators should treat this family as a live risk: the dismissed appeal does not constitute invalidity, and continuation applications in this family may introduce additional claim variants.
Should your product team run an FTO against US10075565 and its family?
Any engineering team building or deploying TCP connection management features — including keep-alive mechanisms, load balancers, connection-state monitors, or session persistence layers in cloud, CDN, or enterprise networking products — should treat this patent family as a relevant FTO target. The fact that Google was drawn into multi-patent, multi-proceeding litigation signals that the claims are broad enough to reach large-scale infrastructure deployments, not just niche implementations.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US10075565, US10075564, and US10375215 against your product’s TCP handling logic, flagging overlap risk before you ship or scale. Eureka also supports claim-change monitoring across this patent family — critical given the continuation filing strategy evident here — so your team is alerted if new claims emerge that could affect products already in market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10075565 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit patent appeals in TCP and networking technology
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 the networking and cloud IP landscape
A voluntarily dismissed Federal Circuit appeal over TCP stack patents raises enforcement and validity monitoring questions for any company running cloud or networking infrastructure.
PTAB record is the operative validity record — not this appeal
With the Federal Circuit declining to rule, the patentability record for US10075565, US10075564, and US10375215 sits at the PTAB level. Companies operating TCP/IP networking infrastructure should verify whether those proceedings cancelled, confirmed, or partially upheld the claims before drawing any freedom-to-operate conclusions.
Own-costs dismissals often signal private resolution — watch for licensing activity
When both parties agree to dismiss and split costs, it typically suggests a commercial resolution rather than abandonment. For competitors in the cloud networking space, monitoring Jenam Tech’s licensing activity and subsequent assertion behaviour against other defendants may reveal the scope of any deal reached with Google.
Jenam v Google — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal was voluntarily dismissed by agreement of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on 9 January 2024, approximately 334 days after filing. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs. The court did not rule on the merits of the patentability challenge to US10075565, US10075564, or US10375215.
Jenam Tech asserted three patents: US10075565 (App. No. 15/915,052), US10075564 (App. No. 15/915,047), and US10375215 (App. No. 16/040,522). All three cover methods, systems, and computer program products for sharing information to detect idle TCP connections.
No. A voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) is not a ruling on the merits. The Federal Circuit did not adjudicate the validity of the three patents. Any validity determinations from the underlying PTAB proceeding remain as the operative record. Third parties should review the PTAB docket directly before drawing invalidity conclusions.
It means neither party was awarded litigation costs against the other. In Federal Circuit appeals, a mutual cost-bearing outcome is consistent with a negotiated or bilateral exit. It also indicates the court did not find the appeal frivolous or exceptional, which would typically trigger fee-shifting or Rule 38 sanctions.
The public record does not specify. The dismissal order references Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) and records agreement by both parties, but does not state whether it is with or without prejudice. This distinction — which affects Jenam Tech’s ability to refile on the same claims — is not determinable from publicly available court documents alone.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.