The opinion
IPA Technologies Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 1:18-cv-00318-RGA-SRF (D. Del.), is captioned Civil Action No. 18-318-RGA. On November 9, 2026, Judge Richard G. Andrews signed a memorandum opinion on claim construction, D.I. 184, filed the same day. The signature block identifies the author as Andrews, U.S. District Judge. The docket text for D.I. 184 states that the opinion was signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on November 9, 2026, and that within five days the parties shall submit a proposed order consistent with the opinion.
The opinion states that on February 26, 2018, IPA Technologies Inc. filed a complaint against Google LLC alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,851,115 (the '115 patent), 7,069,560 (the '560 patent), and 7,036,128 (the '128 patent), and of three other patents no longer at issue. It states that the case was stayed on January 10, 2020, pending inter partes review of the three remaining patents-in-suit, D.I. 77, and that the stay was lifted on March 16, 2026, D.I. 100. It states that the currently asserted claims are claims 9-10 and 29-45 of the '115 patent, claims 50-51 and 53-55 of the '560 patent, and claims 23-27 and 40 of the '128 patent, citing D.I. 93 at 2. The court heard argument on October 14, 2026. The opinion states that the parties agree independent claim 29 of the '115 patent is representative for claim construction.
The patents
U.S. Patent 6,851,115 B1 is titled "Software-Based Architecture for Communication and Cooperation Among Distributed Electronic Agents" and issued February 1, 2005. Its face lists application No. 09/225,198, filed January 5, 1999, and lists SRI International, of Menlo Park, California, as assignee. U.S. Patent 7,069,560 B1 is titled "Highly Scalable Software-Based Architecture for Communication and Cooperation Among Distributed Electronic Agents" and issued June 27, 2006. Its face states that it is a continuation of application No. 09/225,198, filed January 5, 1999, now the '115 patent, and lists SRI International, of Menlo Park, California, as assignee. U.S. Patent 7,036,128 B1 is titled "Using a Community of Distributed Electronic Agents to Support a Highly Mobile, Ambient Computing Environment" and issued April 25, 2006. Its face states that it is a continuation-in-part of application No. 09/225,198, filed January 5, 1999, now the '115 patent, and lists SRI International Offices, of Menlo Park, California, as assignee. The opinion states that the three patents each claim a priority date of January 5, 1999, that the '560 patent is a continuation of the '115 patent, and that the '128 patent is a continuation-in-part of the '115 patent.
Preambles
The court's construction is that "cooperative task completion" is not limiting and that "dynamically expandable" is limiting. "Cooperative task completion" appears in the preambles of claims 1 and 29 of the '115 patent and claims 50 and 53 of the '560 patent. The opinion states that the term does not provide an antecedent basis for the claim bodies and does not recite essential structure or steps. "Dynamically expandable" appears in the preamble of claim 53 of the '560 patent, in the phrase "a dynamically expandable Interagent Communication Language ('ICL')." The opinion states that the body of claim 53 then refers to "the ICL," so "dynamically expandable" is part of the antecedent basis for that term and is limiting.
Order of steps
The opinion states that the parties agreed on numerous constructions, which the court adopts without setting them out, and that the court adopts the later agreed constructions in the table below. Separately, on the disputed order-of-steps question, the court's construction is: "The method steps need to be performed in the order listed." The opinion states that the parties agreed generally that the method steps must be performed in the order listed, and disagreed about the "interpreting" and "constructing," or "determining," steps in claims 1 and 29 of the '115 patent and claims 50 and 53 of the '560 patent. The court concluded that those steps must be performed in the order written, because later steps use "the" to refer back to antecedents introduced in earlier steps.
| Term | Claims | Construction the court adopted |
|---|---|---|
| "mobile, ambient computing environment" | '128 patent, preamble of claim 22 | Preamble is limiting. |
| "request for a service" / "service request" | '115 patent, claims 9, 10, and 29-45; '560 patent, claims 50, 51, and 53-55 | "a user request that is recited in the claimed ICL and must meet every requirement of the claimed ICL" |
| "registering . . ." limitation | '128 patent, claim 22 | The steps must be performed in the order written. |
| "registering a description . . ." step | '115 patent, claim 1 | The step can be performed at any point in the method (including in parallel with other steps) up until the "a suitable delegation . . ." step. |
| "providing an agent registry . . ." step | '115 patent, claim 29 | The step can be performed at any point in the method (including in parallel with other steps) up until the "selecting service-providing electronic agents . . ." step. |
| "providing a plurality of synchronized agent registries . . ." step | '560 patent, claim 50 | The step can be performed at any point in the method (including in parallel with other steps) up until the "using said reasoning to coordinate and schedule efforts by the service-providing electronic agents . . ." step. |
| "providing a plurality of synchronized agent registries . . ." step | '560 patent, claim 53 | The step can be performed at any point in the method (including in parallel with other steps) up until the "using said reasoning to coordinate and schedule efforts by the service-providing electronic agents . . ." step. |
| "determining any task completion advice . . ." step | '115 patent, claim 29 | This step can be performed in parallel/overlap with or in reverse order from the "determining any task completion constraints . . ." step, and vice versa. |
| "determining whether the request service . . ." step | '115 patent, claim 29 | This step can be performed in parallel/overlap with or in reverse order from the "determining sub-goals required . . ." step, and vice versa. |
Registering an agent, and the agent registry
For "registering a description of each active client agent's functional capabilities as corresponding registered functional capabilities" in claim 1 of the '115 patent, "registering the specific agent together with the new agent profile within the agent registry" in claim 30 of the '115 patent, and "registering one or more capabilities for each of the electronic agents" in claim 22 of the '128 patent, the court's construction is plain and ordinary meaning. The opinion states that the terms do not require transmission of the agent's capabilities to a facilitator.
For the "providing an agent registry" terms, including "providing an agent registry data structure" in claims 9 and 10 of the '115 patent by dependency on claim 5, the agent-registry limitation in claim 29 of the '115 patent, and the synchronized-agent-registry limitations in claims 50 and 53 of the '560 patent, the court's construction is again plain and ordinary meaning. The opinion states that there is no requirement of transmission of the agents' capabilities to a facilitator.
Active agent
For "active client agent," "active agent," and "agent currently active," in claims 1, 9-10, 29, 33, and 35-36 of the '115 patent and claim 50 of the '560 patent, the court's construction is "Agent that is available to receive requests." The opinion states, "I adopt IPA's alternative proposal," and rejects a construction that would require the agent to maintain a communication link with a facilitator agent controlling the agent registry. The opinion later states that those words are well understood, that the court adopts IPA's proposed construction, and that no construction is necessary.
The inter-agent communication language
For "ICL," "inter-agent communication language," and "inter-agent language," which the opinion identifies as terms in all claims, the court's construction line is "TBD." IPA proposed "An interface, communication, and task coordination language." Google proposed "A non-RPC interface, communication, and task coordination language." Remote procedure call is the opinion's expansion of RPC. In the same section the opinion states: "I find that the patents do not disavow RPC and adopt IPA's proposed construction." The opinion also states that, while the specification disparages RPC, it only disavows the version of RPC as understood by a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention, that Google is wrong in arguing that adding "non-RPC" to IPA's proposed construction would capture what was disavowed, and that the nature and uses of RPCs at the relevant time need to be based on evidence rather than attorney argument. The opinion states, "I need evidence to be able to resolve this issue," and directs the parties to meet and confer and to propose an exchange of expert reports, with an evidentiary hearing to follow.
The proposed order
The opinion's conclusion states: "Within five days the parties shall submit a proposed order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion." The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.