The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a brief affirmation in favor of Google LLC on January 12, 2026, in a patent dispute with WSOU Investments LLC, also known as Brazos Licensing and Development. The Federal Circuit's nonprecedential ruling under Rule 36 upheld a lower court decision from the Western District of Texas.
The case, *WSOU Investments LLC v. Google LLC* (Fed. Cir. 2026), originated in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under Judge Alan D. Albright. The district court case, filed as No. 6:20-cv-00585-ADA, began in 2020 and proceeded through the trial court before WSOU appealed the adverse ruling to the Federal Circuit.
WSOU Investments operates as a patent licensing entity, pursuing intellectual property litigation against major technology companies. The company conducts business under the name Brazos Licensing and Development, reflecting its role in monetizing patent portfolios through licensing agreements and enforcement actions.
The Federal Circuit's ruling came in the form of a per curiam judgment by Circuit Judges Dyk, Stoll, and Cunningham. The court's decision to affirm under Federal Circuit Rule 36 indicates the appeals court found no reversible error in the district court's ruling. Rule 36 affirmances typically occur when the Federal Circuit determines the lower court's decision was correct and requires no detailed written opinion explaining the reasoning.
The nonprecedential nature of the disposition means the ruling cannot be cited as binding precedent in future cases. However, the decision still resolves the dispute between the parties and prevents WSOU from pursuing its patent claims against Google in this matter.
Representing WSOU Investments on appeal, attorney Joseph Abraham of Folio Law Group PLLC in Austin argued before the Federal Circuit panel. The plaintiff-appellant's legal team also included attorneys Timothy Dewberry, Alden Kwong Wei Lee, and Cliff Win II from Seattle.
Google's defense team was led by Israel Sasha Mayergoyz from Jones Day's Chicago office, who presented oral arguments for the defendant-appellee. Google's representation included a substantial legal team from Jones Day's offices across multiple cities: John R. Boule III from Los Angeles, Edwin Garcia, Tracy A. Stitt, and Jennifer L. Swize from Washington, D.C., and Tharan Gregory Lanier from Palo Alto.
The case emerged from the Western District of Texas, which has become a prominent venue for patent litigation in recent years. Judge Alan D. Albright, who presided over the district court proceedings, has handled numerous high-profile patent disputes involving major technology companies. The Western District of Texas has attracted significant patent litigation due to its procedures and scheduling practices that many patent holders find favorable.
This ruling adds to Google's track record of successfully defending against patent assertion entities in federal court. Technology companies like Google frequently face patent litigation from licensing entities that acquire intellectual property rights and pursue enforcement actions rather than developing products or services based on the patents.
The timeline of the case spans more than four years, from the initial 2020 filing in district court through the 2026 Federal Circuit affirmance. This duration reflects the complex nature of patent litigation, which often involves extensive discovery, claim construction proceedings, and substantive motion practice before reaching resolution.
For WSOU Investments, the Federal Circuit's affirmance represents the conclusion of its patent enforcement effort against Google. Patent assertion entities like WSOU typically pursue multiple cases simultaneously, so this single adverse ruling may not significantly impact the company's overall litigation strategy.
The per curiam nature of the Federal Circuit's decision provides limited insight into the specific legal issues that led to Google's victory in the district court. Patent cases can be resolved on various grounds, including claim invalidity, non-infringement, or procedural issues. Without a detailed written opinion, the specific basis for the ruling remains unclear from the public record.
Google's successful defense in this matter continues the company's pattern of vigorously contesting patent litigation. Major technology companies have increasingly invested in robust patent defense strategies, including challenging patent validity and building comprehensive prior art databases to support non-infringement arguments.
The case represents one of many patent disputes resolved in federal court during 2026, reflecting the ongoing tension between patent holders seeking to monetize intellectual property rights and technology companies defending against assertion actions. The Federal Circuit's decision to issue a Rule 36 affirmance suggests the legal issues presented were sufficiently straightforward that detailed appellate analysis was unnecessary.