The parties and posture
The case is University of Southern California v. Google LLC, originally No. 1:25-cv-01734 (W.D. Tex., Austin Division), filed October 27, 2025, with a jury demand. The case was transferred in and docketed in the Northern District of California on October 15, 2026 as No. 3:26-cv-11704-LJC, assigned to Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros. USC is pleaded as a private, nonprofit institution of higher education organized under California law. Google is pleaded as a Delaware LLC. The complaint says USC owns all right, title, and interest in the asserted patents. On October 6, 2026, the Federal Circuit in In re Google LLC, No. 2026-157, directed transfer to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a); that mandamus order is covered separately on this site. This page describes the original complaint, ECF No. 1. USC filed a First Amended Complaint on January 26, 2026 (W.D. Tex. ECF No. 23), and the court then denied Google's first motion to dismiss as moot. A copy of the amended complaint was not available for review in this update, so any changes it made to the claims, products, or allegations are not reflected here.
The patents and accused products
U.S. Patent 8,026,929, titled Seamlessly Overlaying 2D Images In 3D Model, names inventor Michael Naimark and is based on an application filed June 26, 2007, claiming priority to a June 26, 2006 provisional. U.S. Patent 8,264,504 carries the same title, is a continuation of the '929 patent, and names the same inventor. The complaint says both patents are assigned to USC.
The accused products are Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Street View. The complaint alleges that those products let users explore interactive 3D landscapes, zoom from outer space to ground level, navigate streets through panoramic imagery, and upload images that are integrated into the 3D model.
Claim 3 of the '929 patent, as quoted in the complaint, covers a system for allowing a user to freely navigate through a 3D model to view 2D images of scenes posed within the 3D model. The system includes a computer storage system containing a plurality of 2D images of scenes and a pre-existing 3D model that includes the environment of each scene and is not constructed using the 2D images; a computer system configured to let a user navigate to different locations throughout the 3D model, see a visual indicator of each 2D image at a corresponding location that changes in viewpoint as the user navigates, take action on each visual indicator, and in response snap the 3D model rendering to the pose of the scene and present the 2D image as a substantially-aligned overlay without alteration; plus a display system and a user interface that show the model, indicators, and overlays.
Claim 5 of the '504 patent, as quoted in the complaint, covers a related system in which, after the user acts on a visual indicator, the user sees the 2D image posed as a substantially-aligned overlay within an environment of the scene as depicted by an environment image associated with the 3D model, again presenting the original 2D images without alteration. The storage and navigation elements track the same pre-existing 3D model and 2D-image structure.
The complaint is not limited to the quoted claims. It alleges that the accused products infringe claims 1-14 of the '929 patent and claims 1-17 of the '504 patent, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (paras. 44 and 60), which is every claim of each patent as listed on Google Patents. For each patent it pleads direct infringement, active inducement, and contributory infringement, and alleges that Google acted with knowledge of the patent and with intent or willful blindness (paras. 51 to 55 and 65 to 69).
Willfulness and notice
The complaint alleges willful infringement. It says Google has long been aware of the asserted patents, including through an August 2007 Google research award for USC's and Mr. Naimark's View Finder project, granted after USC had filed the provisional and nonprovisional applications that led to the patents (para. 39). The complaint also alleges that Google patents, including U.S. Patents 8,487,957 and 8,884,950, cite the asserted patents or their applications on their face (para. 40), and that Google has been on notice since at least April 14, 2024, when USC reached out to Google to propose a potential licensing agreement (para. 41). The prayer seeks a judgment of infringement; a permanent injunction against making, importing, using, offering for sale, or selling products within the claims, naming Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Street View; alternatively, if no injunction issues, a compulsory ongoing royalty; damages including lost profits and not less than a reasonable royalty, with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; a declaration of willfulness and increased damages of not less than three times the damages assessed under 35 U.S.C. 284; a judgment that the case is exceptional with attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. 285; costs and expenses; and other relief.
What to watch next
The transfer was docketed in the Northern District of California on October 15, 2026, before Magistrate Judge Lisa J. Cisneros. The initial scheduling order sets a case management statement due December 31, 2026 and an initial case management conference on January 7, 2027, by videoconference. Watch how the court handles Google's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which was fully briefed in the Western District of Texas before transfer (ECF Nos. 25, 28, and 30). Claim construction was also fully briefed there, with a joint claim construction statement filed July 20, 2026, and the Markman hearing was cancelled on July 22, 2026. Watch whether the Northern District of California sets its own claim construction schedule or hearing on that briefing. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.