Ah, right you are. Google was a non-party, but was named and served:
"Non-parties affected by Mareva injunctions are not normally before the Court, because applications of that kind are brought without notice. Google was named in this application, served with materials, and attended the hearing."
So the rest of the comment stands, but you are correct that they were not a defendant.
No they weren't. In fact, the decision linked at the top of the thread specifically refers to Google and Google Canada as "non-parties".