TJTM Technologies v. Google: Infringement Suit Over Android DND Features Dismissed
TJTM Technologies, LLC filed suit against Google, LLC in the Eastern District of California alleging infringement of US8958853B1 — a patent covering mobile notification management features mirrored in Google’s Do Not Disturb and Driving Mode functionality. The court granted Google’s motion to dismiss on the merits in just 244 days, delivering a full judgment in Google’s favour.
Android DND patent suit ends at motion to dismiss stage
TJTM Technologies, LLC filed this patent infringement action on 29 February 2024 in the Eastern District of California before Judge Trina L. Thompson. The single patent asserted — US8958853B1 (application no. US14/515477) — covers mobile notification management technology. The accused products include Google’s Message+ app, the Do Not Disturb app, the Driving Mode and Add Mode features, and the Android 13 operating system as implemented on smartphones with those features.
On 22 October 2024, Judge Thompson granted Google’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF 51), and judgment was entered in favour of Google on the merits. The case was formally closed on 30 October 2024. A merits-based dismissal at this stage typically means the court found the complaint legally insufficient — most commonly because the asserted claims failed to state a plausible infringement theory or because the patent claims were found invalid on their face, though the specific legal basis is not detailed in the public record.
At 244 days from filing to closure, the case resolved substantially faster than a full patent trial — consistent with Google’s litigation posture of seeking early dispositive relief on pleading or validity grounds. What drove the dismissal — whether claim mapping deficiencies, Section 101 eligibility, or another ground — is not specified in the available public record. TJTM’s next step would be to appeal to the Ninth Circuit or Federal Circuit depending on jurisdiction, or to refile with an amended complaint if permitted.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Defendant in 244 days
244 days — resolved faster than the median E.D. Cal. patent case
Motion to dismiss granted: what the merits judgment means for both parties
Dismissal on the merits — stronger than a procedural exit
A motion to dismiss granted ‘on the merits’ results in a judgment — not merely a procedural termination. Unlike a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, a merits judgment typically carries preclusive effect, meaning TJTM cannot re-file the same infringement theory against Google on this patent in most circumstances. The exact legal ground (e.g. Rule 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim, or § 101 patent-ineligibility) is not specified in the public docket entry.
Judgment entered for defendantTJTM faces preclusion risk on US8958853B1 against Google
With judgment entered against TJTM on the merits, the patent holder’s enforcement options against Google on these accused products are significantly constrained. Appeal to the Federal Circuit is the primary avenue. If the dismissal was grounded in § 101 ineligibility, the patent’s broader assertion value against other defendants may also be weakened — though that risk depends on the specific rationale, which the public record does not disclose.
Enforcement constrainedGoogle secures full merits judgment before discovery
Google obtained a complete judgment in its favour at the motion to dismiss stage — avoiding the significant cost and exposure of claim construction, discovery, and trial. This outcome is consistent with Google’s documented strategy of challenging patent pleadings early. The judgment protects Android 13, Do Not Disturb, Driving Mode, and Add Mode features from this specific infringement claim by TJTM, absent a successful appeal.
Pre-discovery win for GoogleEarly dismissals set a high pleading bar for Android-focused PAEs
This outcome signals that patent assertion entities targeting Google’s core Android features face a demanding pleading standard in the Eastern District of California. A merits-based dismissal at this stage — without discovery — suggests courts will scrutinise the technical specificity and legal sufficiency of infringement allegations against platform-level OS features. Companies holding similar notification-management patents should review claim mapping rigour before filing.
High pleading bar for OS patent suitsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | TJTM Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8958853B1 (mobile notification management)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Google, LLC | Company | Google, LLC — developer of Android OS, Do Not Disturb, and Driving Mode featuresSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Blair V. Kittle | Attorney | Counsel for TJTM Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph W. Cotchett | Attorney | Counsel for TJTM Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kevin Jones Boutin | Attorney | Counsel for TJTM Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul William Reidl | Attorney | Counsel for TJTM Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tamarah P. Prevost | Attorney | Counsel for TJTM Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vasti S Montiel | Attorney | Counsel for TJTM Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP | Law Firm | Representing TJTM Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dickenson Peatman & Fogarty | Law Firm | Representing TJTM Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel Chilton Callaway | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eugene Y. Mar | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | MaryJo Lopez-Oneal | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Winston Liaw | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Farella Braun & Martel, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Trina L Thompson | Judge | California Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is terse but consequential: judgment is ‘entered in favor of the Defendant’ on the merits following a granted motion to dismiss — not a procedural or voluntary exit. This phrasing indicates the court made a substantive legal determination adverse to TJTM’s infringement theory. The absence of a written opinion in the available record means the specific legal ground remains unconfirmed publicly, but the merits character of the judgment raises the preclusion bar for any future TJTM action against Google on US8958853B1.
US8958853B1 — mobile notification and Do Not Disturb management technology
US8958853B1, filed under application number US14/515477, covers technology in the domain of mobile notification management — the systems and methods by which a device suppresses, filters, or manages incoming alerts based on user-defined or contextual rules. This encompasses functionality commercially recognisable as Do Not Disturb modes, driving-context awareness, and add/overlay mode management on smartphones. The patent’s B1 designation indicates it issued without pre-issuance publication, suggesting a relatively direct prosecution path.
Notification and DND management has become core infrastructure in every major mobile OS, making patents in this space strategically significant and frequently contested. Google’s Android 13 and its Driving Mode feature are precisely the kind of platform-level implementations that can touch multiple claims across such a patent. For competitors and Android OEM partners, this case illustrates that assertion risk around notification-management IP remains active — even if this particular action was resolved in favour of Google at the pleading stage.
Should you run an FTO against US8958853B1?
Any company developing or licensing mobile notification management features — including Do Not Disturb modes, driving-context suppression, or contextual alert filtering on Android or competing platforms — should assess their exposure to US8958853B1. While Google secured a dismissal, the patent remains in force unless separately invalidated. OEMs, app developers building notification-layer products, and MDM software vendors all face potential assertion risk from this or related TJTM patents.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US8958853B1 against your product’s feature set, identify prosecution history estoppel, surface prior art that may support an IPR challenge, and flag related continuation or family patents that TJTM may control. This is particularly valuable for teams designing Android-compatible notification or focus-mode features who need to document design-around options before product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8958853B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile OS patent infringement cases in E.D. California
Explore comparable patent infringement actions targeting Android OS features and mobile notification technology litigated in California federal district courts.
What this case signals for the Android OS and mobile patent IP landscape
Google’s early dismissal win reinforces the difficulty of sustaining PAE suits against Android platform features in California federal courts.
Merits dismissals at pleading stage are a real risk for mobile patent suits
TJTM’s case was terminated before discovery opened, suggesting the complaint did not satisfy the pleading threshold for patent infringement — whether on claim mapping, patent eligibility, or another ground. Patent holders asserting against OS-level features like DND or Driving Mode must invest in granular, claim-by-claim technical allegations before filing.
US8958853B1’s enforceability may now be questioned by other targets
A merits judgment, even at the pleading stage, creates a public record that other potential defendants can cite. Any company that has received a demand letter from TJTM based on US8958853B1 should monitor this outcome closely — it may materially affect the licensing leverage TJTM can assert against non-Google targets.
TJTM v Google — key questions answered
The court granted Google’s Motion to Dismiss on 22 October 2024 and entered judgment in favour of Google on the merits. The case was closed on 30 October 2024, 244 days after filing. The dismissal was on the merits, not a procedural or voluntary exit, meaning it carries potential preclusive effect against TJTM re-filing the same claims against Google.
TJTM asserted US8958853B1 (application no. US14/515477), a patent covering mobile notification and Do Not Disturb management technology. The accused products included Google’s Message+ app, the Do Not Disturb app, Android 13, and the Driving Mode and Add Mode features on Google smartphones.
A merits judgment for the defendant means the court made a substantive legal determination — not just a procedural dismissal — that TJTM’s claims against Google could not stand. This is typically more final than a voluntary dismissal, and may preclude TJTM from re-filing the same infringement theory against Google on US8958853B1 absent a successful appeal.
Yes. With a final judgment entered by the district court, TJTM may appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over patent cases. The success of any appeal would depend on whether TJTM can demonstrate reversible legal error in the district court’s dismissal ruling.
Potentially. A merits-based dismissal creates a public record that other defendants can reference in their own defence against TJTM. If the dismissal was grounded in patent-ineligibility under § 101, it may signal broader enforceability risk for US8958853B1 across all potential targets — though the specific basis for the dismissal is not confirmed in the publicly available docket.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.