Impact Engine v. Google, LLC

24-836 U.S. Supreme Court Closed 7 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 3 Feb 2025 in the U.S. Supreme Court and closed 3 Mar 2025, with 7 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: petition dismissed.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
24-836
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Court level
Supreme Court
Case region
District of Columbia
Judge
None recorded
Trial level
Judicial review
Filed – Closed
3 Feb 2025 – 3 Mar 2025
Duration
28 days
Basis of termination
Petition Dismissed
Products & marks
Google Ads · Google Display & Video 360 · YouTube Video Builder
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 24-836, U.S. Supreme Court. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

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
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US8356253B2 Inactive App. US13/004862

Multimedia communication system and method

Systems and methods are disclosed for creating, editing, sharing and distributing high-quality, media-rich web-based communications. The communications are created in a layered fashion that integrates user-selected text, colors, background patterns, images, sound, music, video, or other media. The systems and methods are used to generate, edit, broadcast, and track electronic presentations, brochures, advertisements (such as banner advertisements on highly trafficked media websites), announcements, and interactive web pages, without the need for the user to understand complex programming languages.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
15 Jan 2013
Earliest priority
13 Apr 2005
Est. expiry
13 Apr 2026
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F3/048G06F17/00
Prosecution counsel
Mintz Levin
US8356253B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1 · US8356253B2, from the published patent document
US8356253B2 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2 · US8356253B2, from the published patent document
US9361632B2 Inactive App. US14/590881

Multimedia communication system and method

Systems and methods are disclosed for creating, editing, sharing and distributing high-quality, media-rich web-based communications. The communications are created in a layered fashion that integrates user-selected text, colors, background patterns, images, sound, music, video, or other media. The systems and methods are used to generate, edit, broadcast, and track electronic presentations, brochures, advertisements (such as banner advertisements on highly trafficked media websites), announcements, and interactive web pages, without the need for the user to understand complex programming languages.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
7 Jun 2016
Earliest priority
13 Apr 2005
Est. expiry
13 Apr 2026
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
G06F3/0481G06Q30/02G06F17/30H04L12/24
Prosecution counsel
Mintz Levin

Also asserted in this case

5 more

The docket lists 7 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 5 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.

Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Counsel of record

Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

"Petition DENIED."

Case 24-836 · U.S. Supreme Court · closed 3 March 2025
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 24-836?

24-836 is a patent infringement action brought by Impact Engine against Google, LLC, filed on 3 Feb 2025 in the U.S. Supreme Court. The case closed on 3 March 2025.

Which patents were asserted in 24-836?

US8356253B2 (“Multimedia communication system and method”), assigned to IMPACT ENGINE, INC., currently inactive; US9361632B2 (“Multimedia communication system and method”), assigned to IMPACT ENGINE, INC., currently inactive; US10572898B2 (“Multimedia communication system and method”), assigned to IMPACT ENGINE, INC.; US7870497B2 (“Multimedia communication system and method”), assigned to IMPACT ENGINE, INC.; US8930832B2 (“Multimedia communication system and method”), assigned to IMPACT ENGINE, INC.; US10068253B2 (“Multimedia communication system and method”), assigned to IMPACT ENGINE, INC.; US10565618B2 (“Multimedia communication system and method”), assigned to IMPACT ENGINE, INC.. The record also lists Google Ads, Google Display & Video 360 and YouTube Video Builder.

How was case 24-836 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is petition dismissed. The termination text reads: "Petition DENIED."

How long did case 24-836 take?

28 calendar days, from filing on 3 Feb 2025 to closure on 3 March 2025.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 24-836?

Jason Michael Wilcox is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Impact Engine. Andrew Thomas Dufresne appears for defendant Google.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 24-836 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

General information only. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 24-836 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. It does not create an attorney-client relationship.

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. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

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.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Patent figures. Any patent drawings shown are reproduced from the identified patent publications to illustrate the cited documents, and do not establish the scope, validity or enforceability of any patent.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information — including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing — use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.