US PTAB IP Litigation

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’913 patent on proximity‑based wireless communication, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious.

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-01308

Maxell’s preliminary sur‑reply rebuts Samsung’s IPR petition, asserting that the patent’s “association information” requirement is not satisfied by Samsung’s prior‑art references. The patent owner emphasizes the need for a storage element that actually stores the association data, which Samsung’s citations lack.

patent denied

Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-01307

Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response urging the PTAB to deny Samsung's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 11,026,088. The owner contends the petitioner’s obviousness arguments are unsupported and misinterpret prior art. The Board is asked to refuse institution.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google’s IPR against Target’s ’842 patent resulted in the PTAB finding all challenged claims unpatentable. The Board relied on Mgrdechian, Swartz, and Kulakowski as prior art to establish anticipation and obviousness. The decision underscores the vulnerability of proximity‑based transaction patents.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate a mobile e‑commerce patent, arguing that the claimed server‑mediated exchange is obvious over existing Bluetooth coupon systems and related e‑commerce implementations.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based 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

Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a proximity‑based loyalty patent, arguing that the invention is obvious over Perttila combined with either Insolia or Davis. The petition stresses that the prior art was never considered during prosecution and requests the Board not to deny institution on discretionary grounds.

Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-01307

Samsung successfully challenged Maxell’s ’086 patent, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious. The Board relied on a combination of prior‑art references covering touch‑screen input methods.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent covering server‑mediated data exchange between wireless devices. The petition relies on Eagle and Mgrdechian as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.

Samsung Electronic Co. Ltd. et al. v.Maxell, LTD.

· IPR2025-01307

The PTAB held that Samsung’s challenge to Maxell’s 10,176,848 patent succeeded. All seven challenged claims—including those covering face‑recognition‑based chapter selection and a recording‑reproducing mode—were found obvious over Nozaki, Haitani, Graham and Kim.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google’s IPR challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB instituted the review and ultimately held all nine challenged claims unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over Perttila and Swartz references.

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld

Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Dynamic Mesh Networks, Inc.

· IPR2025-01304

Dynamic Mesh Networks seeks a discretionary denial of institution for Cisco’s IPR challenging its 2011 mesh‑network patent. The owner argues settled expectations, Fintiv factors, and weak obviousness grounds relying on multiple prior‑art references and extensive expert testimony.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based wireless patent resulted in the Board finding 20 of 22 challenged claims unpatentable, leaving only claims 37 and 43 intact.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. v.Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

· IPR2025-01302

Taiwan Semiconductor and Advanced Integrated Circuit Process settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,884,373 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board has not decided the merits, and the motion cites statutory authority for termination.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01181

The PTAB held that all eight claims of the ’164 patent are unpatentable, finding that the prior art Mgrdechian and secondary references anticipate or render obvious each claim element. The decision resolves Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

· IPR2025-01190

Samsung and Hannibal IP have filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01190 over U.S. Patent 11,641,661, citing a settlement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet issued a final decision, and the parties seek to end the proceeding and keep the agreement confidential.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent on proximity‑based wireless exchange, leading the PTAB to find all challenged claims unpatentable.

Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01283

Sandisk and Longitude Flash Memory Solutions settled their IPRs (IPR2025-01281 and IPR2025-01283) before institution. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.

Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al. v.Longitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.

· IPR2025-01283

SanDisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to dismiss an IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240 covering NAND flash memory after settling their dispute. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek termination under statutory settlement provisions.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01181

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,334,918 covering proximity‑beacon communications. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness of claims 1‑8.

patent denied

Google LLC v.Advanced Coding Technologies LLC

· IPR2025-01277

The USPTO denied Google LLC's request for Director Review of the institution denial in three IPRs involving Advanced Coding Technologies' patents. The order confirms the original institution decisions remain in effect.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of a wireless‑communication patent, asserting that the prior‑art Eagle anticipates and makes the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of the trial to invalidate the claims.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Hannibal IP LLC

· IPR2025-01189

Samsung Electronics and Hannibal IP entered a settlement that led to the joint termination of IPR2025-01189 concerning patent 11,368,911. The Board granted the motion and kept the settlement agreement confidential.