McLellan v. Google — Case Transferred to N.D. California After 197 Days
Mark McLellan brought a patent infringement action against Google, LLC in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting US8849807B2 against Google's search engine ranking system. After 197 days, Judge Kennelly granted Google's transfer motion, sending the case to the Northern District of California.
Website Ranking Patent Claim Against Google Moves to Silicon Valley
On October 19, 2025, Mark McLellan filed a patent infringement action against Google, LLC in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:25-cv-12761), asserting US8849807B2, which covers a system and method for ranking websites. The accused product is Google's search engine, which McLellan alleged incorporates the patented ranking technology. The case was assigned to Judge Matthew F. Kennelly.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Transferred.' On May 4, 2026, the Court granted Google's motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The docket order states that Google's separate motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was expressly left unresolved and carried over for the transferee court to decide. All further dates and deadlines before the Illinois court were vacated.
The transfer was resolved without any merits adjudication after fewer than seven months. What drove the Court's venue analysis — whether convenience, the location of Google's principal place of business, or related proceedings in California — is not disclosed in the available record. The dismissal motion remains pending and will be the next critical procedural juncture in the Northern District of California.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Transferred in 197 days
Days from filing to transfer order — resolved at venue stage, before merits
US8849807B2 — System and Method for Ranking Websites
Any company developing or deploying website ranking, search result ordering, or algorithmic content discovery systems should assess exposure to US8849807B2. The patent is now before the Northern District of California, and Google's pending motion to dismiss will likely clarify whether the claims survive at the pleading stage. Until that ruling, the patent's enforceability remains uncertain — but that uncertainty itself creates risk for product teams shipping ranking-related features.
Official order — verbatim text
The Court's transfer order resolves only the venue question, explicitly reserving Google's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for the Northern District of California. The order vacates all Illinois deadlines, meaning no infringement, validity, or damages analysis has been conducted. The substantive viability of McLellan's claims under US8849807B2 remains entirely open.
Case transfer: what the venue change means for both parties
What a case transfer means — and what it does not
A transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) moves the entire proceeding to a different federal district court. It is not a dismissal and does not resolve the merits. All claims, pending motions, and the full record travel to the transferee court. Here, Google's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was explicitly preserved for the Northern District of California to decide.
Venue change, no merits rulingMcLellan must now litigate in Google's home district
The Northern District of California — where Google is headquartered — is widely regarded as one of the most defendant-friendly venues for technology patent cases. McLellan will need to survive Google's pending motion to dismiss before any infringement analysis begins. Litigating in California also typically increases cost and logistical burden for a non-resident individual plaintiff.
Higher burden in transferee courtGoogle secures preferred venue and preserves dismissal motion
By obtaining the transfer, Google moved the dispute to a court geographically and institutionally closer to its operations. Critically, the Illinois court left Google's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim intact for the N.D. California court, giving Google an early opportunity to end the case on the pleadings before substantive patent analysis is required.
Dismissal motion still liveSearch engine ranking IP: venue selection shapes litigation risk
Cases asserting search-ranking patents against major technology companies are particularly sensitive to venue. The Northern District of California's familiarity with complex software and algorithmic patent claims, combined with its caseload of Google-related litigation, suggests the transferee court is well-positioned to resolve the pending dismissal motion efficiently. Companies holding search-related patents should factor venue strategy into enforcement planning.
Venue risk for search IP holdersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Mark McLellan | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Google, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Anthony E. Dowell | Attorney | Counsel for Mark McLellanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dowell Commercial Litigation | Law Firm | Representing Mark McLellanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David J. Silbert | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Emily A. Hasselberg | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erin Elizabeth Meyer | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey M. Barron | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mariah Anne Whitner | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Olivia Caroline Malone | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rylee Kercher Olm | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephanie J Goldberg | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Barnes & Thornburg LLP | Law Firm | Representing Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP | Law Firm | Representing Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Matthew F. Kennelly | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the website ranking and search IP space
This case spotlights active patenting around search engine ranking systems — here is what the innovation landscape around US8849807B2 and Google's search IP looks like today.
McLellan's patent holdings in search ranking technology
US8849807B2 is the asserted patent in this action. Understanding whether McLellan holds additional patents in adjacent search, ranking, or algorithmic discovery domains is critical for assessing the broader enforcement risk and whether a patent family strategy is in play.
Portfolio depth signalFiling trends in search engine ranking systems
Patenting activity in search ranking, result ordering, and machine-learning-driven discovery has intensified over the past decade. Tracking filing trends around website ranking methodologies — particularly those claiming technical improvements to algorithmic specificity — reveals where the next wave of enforcement or licensing activity may emerge.
Ranking IP filing trendsGoogle's own search ranking patent portfolio
Google holds an extensive portfolio of patents covering search ranking, query understanding, and result quality systems. Mapping Google's filing activity in the website-ranking domain provides competitive intelligence for R&D teams building search or discovery products and helps identify where Google's IP boundaries are densest.
Google search IP densityAdjacent R&D opportunities near website ranking claims
Claims covering website ranking systems may leave white space in adjacent areas such as personalised ranking, multimodal search result ordering, or privacy-preserving ranking architectures. Teams innovating in these sub-domains should map claim boundaries to identify patentable differentiation and freedom to operate.
Adjacent ranking white spaceSimilar Patent Cases: Search Engine & Website Ranking IP Disputes
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting search-ranking and algorithmic discovery technologies in the Northern District of Illinois and Northern District of California.
What this case signals for the search engine IP landscape
McLellan v. Google illustrates how venue strategy can front-load risk for individual patent holders asserting claims against major platform operators.
Transfer motions are a first-line defense for Big Tech in patent suits
Google secured a transfer to the Northern District of California before any substantive ruling, demonstrating that venue challenges can effectively reset the litigation geography early. Patent holders filing outside California against Google should model transfer probability into their enforcement strategy from day one.
A pending dismissal motion signals the merits battle is still ahead
The Illinois court expressly deferred Google's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. This means US8849807B2's infringement theory has not been tested. Competitors and licensees should monitor the N.D. California docket for the outcome of that motion, which will be the next material indicator of the patent's enforceability.
McLellan v Google — key questions answered
Mark McLellan filed a patent infringement action against Google, LLC in the Northern District of Illinois on October 19, 2025, asserting US8849807B2 against Google's search engine ranking system. On May 4, 2026, Judge Kennelly granted Google's motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. Google's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was preserved for the transferee court.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Transferred,' and the docket order states the Court granted Google's motion to transfer to the Northern District of California. The specific grounds for the transfer — such as convenience, Google's principal place of business, or related proceedings — are not disclosed in the available public record beyond the transfer order itself.
US8849807B2 (application US13/114774) is a patent covering a system and method for ranking websites. In this action, McLellan asserted it against Google's search engine, alleging the search product incorporates the patented ranking methodology. The patent's claim scope and validity have not yet been adjudicated.
Google filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (dkt. 28) in the Northern District of Illinois. The Illinois court explicitly left that motion undecided when transferring the case, directing the Northern District of California to resolve it. As of the Illinois court's closure of the case on May 4, 2026, the dismissal motion remains pending before the transferee court.
A transfer does not dismiss or resolve McLellan's claims — the case continues in the Northern District of California. However, McLellan must now litigate in Google's home district, where Google will likely pursue its pending motion to dismiss. No merits ruling has been made on infringement or validity of US8849807B2, and all substantive issues remain open before the California court.
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.