US PTAB IP Litigation

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.

Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01262

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’621 patent covering mobile‑presence monitoring, arguing that all 18 claims are obvious over prior art such as Putkiranta, Kraufvelin, Granberg, and Rachabathuni.

Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01257

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant Location Technologies' ’030 patent covering mobile‑device presence monitoring. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and requests cancellation of all claims.

Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01259

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’720 patent covering location‑based tariffs and services, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Apple Inc. v.Avant Location Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01256

Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 14 claims of Avant’s ’040 patent covering mobile‑station presence monitoring, arguing the invention is obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation

patent instituted · Nov 8, 2025

Haemonetics seeks Director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR filed by Terumo BCT over its plasma‑apheresis patent. The request hinges on alleged inconsistent claim‑construction positions and procedural violations.

Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation

Terumo BCT submits an authorized response defending the institution of its IPR against Haemonetics’ request to vacate it. The petitioner argues the term “controller” is undisputed and that prior‑art references disclose the claimed device, rendering the Patent Owner’s objections meritless.

Cruzr Saddles LLC v.Tethrd LLC

· IPR2025-01407

Cruzr Saddles LLC petitions the PTAB to invalidate Tethrd's saddle‑hunting rope‑splice patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious based on publicly available YouTube videos and forum posts. The petition also challenges the patent’s priority date, arguing a break in continuity.

Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation

Terumo BCT petitions the PTAB to invalidate all 20 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details claim‑by‑claim comparisons to Takagi, Lavender, Min and others.

Terumo BCT, Inc. v.Haemonetics Corporation

Terumo BCT has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all twenty claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent, alleging anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition relies on §§ 102 and 103 and requests that the PTAB institute the review.