However, Google vehemently denied the allegations, contending that Bates’ patents were erroneously granted. Google argued that the technology in question differed fundamentally from Singular’s, stating that Singular’s approach, involving approximate math, was unsuitable for their needs.
BREAKING: Google $1.6B AI Patent Claim: The Trial Dynamics
At the heart of the trial was the clash of narratives. Singular portrayed Bates as an aggrieved inventor whose ideas were allegedly co-opted by Google, while Google painted Bates as a disappointed investor with impractical proposals.
The jury was tantalized with the prospect of uncovering how Google purportedly saved $1.6 billion by incorporating Bates’ technology. This figure was calculated based on the assumption that Google would have had to purchase a million off-the-shelf computer chips to achieve similar output.
Dueling Claims and Counterclaims
In response, Google disclosed investing $143 million over five years with a team of 25 engineers to develop the chips powering its machine-learning and AI applications. Singular, not to be outdone, challenged the validity of Bates’ patents through an inter partes review process, alleging his invention was obvious.
