US PTAB IP Litigation

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,443,344 covering server‑mediated, location‑based transactions between wireless devices. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references (Mgrdechian, Swartz, Kulakowski) under §§102 and 103. Google seeks institution of the review.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01051

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR on patent 11,443,344 after reaching a license agreement that resolves all disputes. The Board has not yet instituted the review, so termination is permissible under 35 U.S.C. § 317.

patent denied

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google’s IPR petition challenging a proximity‑detection patent was denied. The Board concluded the petition lacked sufficient particularity and did not show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the nine challenged claims.

Wise PLC et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01045

Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC entered a settlement that grants Wise a royalty‑free license to several patents, includes a covenant not to sue, and results in the dismissal of both the related lawsuit and the IPR proceeding.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al. v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

· IPR2025-01049

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies reached a settlement, prompting the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-01049 before trial. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.

FreightCar America, Inc. v.National Steel Car Limited

· IPR2025-01047

National Steel Car seeks director review to vacate the PTAB’s institution of an IPR against its freight‑car patent, arguing the petitioner lacks a reasonable likelihood of success and that continuing would waste Board resources.

Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. et al. v.MOSAID Technologies Inc.

· IPR2025-01171

The PTAB notified the parties that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01171 over patent 7,051,306. The petitioner has five business days to submit a limited response; no new evidence is allowed.

Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.

· IPR2025-01178

Starbucks and Pi‑Design settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,695,486 before the trial was instituted. The Board granted the parties’ joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement agreement confidential.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition against Secure Communication Technologies’ ‘359 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Perttila and Swartz. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of nine claims.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate a suite of claims of U.S. Patent 11,443,344 covering server‑mediated exchange of loyalty and coupon data between wireless devices. The petition relies on the Perttila and Insolia references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.

patent instituted

Wise PLC et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01045

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Intercurrency Software’s 10,062,107 patent covering a consolidated multi‑currency trading platform after Wise PLC showed a reasonable likelihood of success on obviousness grounds.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’129 patent, proving that the Eagle prior art anticipates and renders obvious all asserted claims. The PTAB declared every challenged claim unpatentable.

patent denied

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01044

The PTAB denied Samsung’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including IPR2025‑01044 covering patent 11,516,879.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies entered a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate three pending IPRs before any trial was instituted. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’913 patent, leading the PTAB to deem all 18 challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over multiple prior‑art references.

Starbucks Corporation et al. v.Pi-Design AG et al.

· IPR2025-01178

Starbucks and Pi‑Design have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,695,486 and jointly seek to keep the settlement confidential under statutory provisions.

patent denied

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. et al. v.Champion Power Equipment, Inc.

· IPR2025-01121

The USPTO denied Generac's request for Director Review of the institution denial in IPR2025-01121, leaving the decision not to institute the IPR intact.

patent instituted

Wise PLC et al. v.--

· IPR2025-01045

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Intercurrency Software’s ’930 patent covering cross‑currency trading platforms, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on at least one of the 15 challenged claims.

patent instituted

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Wilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.

· IPR2025-01044

Samsung’s IPR against Wilus’s 802.11ax‑related patent remains alive after the Patent Owner’s request for discretionary denial was rebutted. The response highlights material examiner errors and the case’s technical diversity, urging the Director to deny the review request.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a proximity‑based loyalty patent, arguing obviousness over Perttila combined with Insolia or Davis. The petition cites lack of examiner consideration and no secondary considerations.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable

Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering server‑mediated, location‑based transactions between wireless devices. The petition relies on Mgrdechian, Swartz, and Kulakowski prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google successfully challenged Target’s ’896 patent covering proximity‑based information exchange, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art.

Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC

· IPR2025-01041

Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition on the basis of a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, violates the APA, and is arbitrary and capricious. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC