Mark McLellan v. Google, LLC
Infringement action filed 19 Oct 2025 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and closed 4 May 2026, with US8849807B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case transferred.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US8849807B2
- Application no.
- US13/114774
- Case no.
- 1:25-cv-12761
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- N.D. Ill.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Illinois
- Chief judge
- Matthew F. Kennelly
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 19 Oct 2025 – 4 May 2026
- Duration
- 197 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Transferred
- Products & marks
- search engine incorporates a system and method for ranking websites
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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
Active search results page ranking technology
Systems and methods for storing data regarding activities of a person and/or people associated with a website that is indexed in a search engine. Data regarding such activities is used to calculate a weighting factor that is combined with a relevance score for the website. The combined weighting factor and relevance score influences the relative position of the website among other websites in search results.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 30 Sep 2014
- Earliest priority
- 25 May 2010
- Est. expiry
- 19 Jan 2033
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MCLELLAN, MARK, F.
- Classification
- G06F17/30
- Prosecution counsel
- Elman Technology Law, P.C.
- Examiner
- SHMATOV, ALEXEY
Parties of record
Mark McLellan
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Anthony E. Dowell
- Firm
- Dowell Commercial Litigation
Google, LLC
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- David J. Silbert · Emily A. Hasselberg · Erin Elizabeth Meyer · Jeffrey M. Barron · Mariah Anne Whitner · Olivia Caroline Malone · Rylee Kercher Olm · Stephanie J Goldberg
- Firm
- Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Anthony E. Dowell | Mark McLellan | Plaintiff |
| David J. Silbert | Google, LLC | Defendant |
| Emily A. Hasselberg | Google, LLC | Defendant |
| Erin Elizabeth Meyer | Google, LLC | Defendant |
| Jeffrey M. Barron | Google, LLC | Defendant |
| Mariah Anne Whitner | Google, LLC | Defendant |
| Olivia Caroline Malone | Google, LLC | Defendant |
| Rylee Kercher Olm | Google, LLC | Defendant |
| Stephanie J Goldberg | Google, LLC | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Google’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California [dkt. 29] and leaves for the transferee court Google’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim [dkt. 28]. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case forthwith to the Northern District of California. Any further dates and deadlines before this Court are vacated.”
Case 1:25-cv-12761 · N.D. Ill. · closed 4 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 1:25-cv-12761?
1:25-cv-12761 is a patent infringement action brought by Mark McLellan against Google, LLC, filed on 19 Oct 2025 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case closed on 4 May 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 1:25-cv-12761?
US8849807B2 (“Active search results page ranking technology”), assigned to MCLELLAN, MARK F., currently active. The record also lists search engine incorporates a system and method for ranking websites.
How was case 1:25-cv-12761 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case transferred. The termination text reads: “For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Google’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California [dkt. 29] and leaves for the transferee court Google’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim [dkt. 28]. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case forthwith to the Northern District of California. Any further dates and deadlines before this Court are vacated.”
What does transfer mean?
A transfer moves the case to another district rather than deciding it. The action continues there under a new case number.
How long did case 1:25-cv-12761 take?
197 calendar days, from filing on 19 Oct 2025 to closure on 4 May 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:25-cv-12761?
Chief Judge Matthew F. Kennelly presided. Anthony E. Dowell is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Mark McLellan. David J. Silbert, Emily A. Hasselberg, Erin Elizabeth Meyer, Jeffrey M. Barron, Mariah Anne Whitner, Olivia Caroline Malone, Rylee Kercher Olm and Stephanie J Goldberg appear for defendant Google.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:25-cv-12761 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.