Patent Case Watch

Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Virentem Ventures, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 21-1764 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2022)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 21-1764
Decided
November 21, 2022
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit VIRENTEM VENTURES, LLC,

Appellant

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Appellee

2021-1764, 2021-1765, 2021-1804, 2021-1822 Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2019-01237, IPR2019-01239, IPR2019-01241, IPR2019-01243.

JUDGMENT

DENISE MARIE DE MORY, Bunsow De Mory LLP, Redwood City, CA, argued for appellant. DANIEL ZEILBERGER, Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by NAVEEN MODI, STEPHEN BLAKE KINNAIRD, JOSEPH PALYS. THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

2ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

November 21, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Virentem Ventures, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 21-1764 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2022).

Record ID
CAFC-21-1764-20221121
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-21-1764-20221121

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 15, 2026 · Report an error