US PTAB IP Litigation

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 11, 2025

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,995,685, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Mgrdechian and obvious in view of Kulakowski. The petition argues against discretionary denial and seeks institution of the trial.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 11, 2025

Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based e‑commerce patent resulted in a final written decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable for obviousness over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

The PTAB held that all challenged claims of the ’359 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over Perttila and, for certain claims, over the Perttila‑Swartz combination. The decision resolves the IPR filed by Google against Secure Communication Technologies.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 11, 2025

Google has filed an IPR petition against Secure Communication Technologies' e‑commerce server patent, challenging 19 claims as obvious over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia. The petition argues a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability and urges the Board not to deny institution under discretionary standards.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 11, 2025

Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’129 patent in IPR2020‑00903. The Board found all fifteen challenged claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103, based on the Eagle prior art.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent terminated or settled · Nov 11, 2025

Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies' 7,936,736 B2 patent, leading the PTAB to find all challenged claims unpatentable on anticipation and obviousness grounds.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies settled their IPR disputes, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before any trial was instituted.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Nov 11, 2025

Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’913 patent, asserting that prior art Mgrdechian and related references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims covering wireless device identifier exchange.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent denied · Nov 11, 2025

Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, leading the PTAB to deem all eight claims unpatentable.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google’s IPR petition challenging a proximity‑based wireless communication patent was denied, leaving the patent intact. The Board found the prior‑art arguments insufficiently particularized.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Nov 11, 2025

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of a patent covering server‑mediated, location‑based transactions between wireless devices, arguing the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of the claims.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

The PTAB held that five claims of the ’592 patent covering proximity‑based information exchange were obvious over Perttila and Insolia, rendering them unpatentable, while four other claims were upheld.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering server‑mediated exchange of information between wireless devices, asserting obviousness over Perttila combined with Insolia or Davis.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google files an IPR petition against Secure Communication’s ’359 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Perttila and obvious in view of Swartz. The petition seeks institution of the review under §§102 and 103.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent covering server‑mediated data exchange between wireless devices, relying on Eagle and Mgrdechian prior art.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Nov 11, 2025

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of U.S. Patent 11,995,685, asserting that the Eagle reference anticipates or makes the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues no discretionary denial applies.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based coupon patent resulted in 20 of 22 challenged claims being found unpatentable, with only two claims surviving.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google petitions to invalidate 22 claims of the ’359 patent, arguing that the invention is anticipated by Perttila and obvious when combined with Insolia. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and a finding of unpatentability.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent denied · Nov 11, 2025

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 62 claims of Secure Communication Technologies' Bluetooth‑beacon patent, asserting that each claim is anticipated or obvious over Eagle, Behrens, Olkkonen, Kallio and Jones. The petition cites prior PTAB findings and collateral estoppel to bolster its request for institution.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

The PTAB denied institution for Google LLC's IPR against Secure Communication Technologies regarding patent 11995685. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.

Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01260

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’922 patent covering mobile‑device presence monitoring, asserting that all 16 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art location‑service references.

Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01258

Apple Inc. filed an IPR petition challenging all six claims of Avant's ’032 patent covering location‑based presence services. The petition alleges obviousness over a suite of prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the claims.

Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01261

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of Avant’s ’910 patent covering mobile‑device presence monitoring. The challenger relies on prior art in the form of Kraufvelin, Hashimoto, Huomo and Andersson to argue obviousness under §103.