US PTAB IP Litigation
8,722 annotated decisions
Page 8 of 364 · 8,722 total
patent · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,369,842 patent, arguing that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior art references Mgrdechian, Swartz, and Kulakowski.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,385,896 patent resulted in all challenged claims being found unpatentable for obviousness over Perttila, Emmons, and Insolia.
patent · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 8,116,749, arguing that the claims are obvious over existing e‑commerce server technologies. The petition seeks institution of the review under §103.
patent · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate a proximity‑marketing patent, arguing that its claims are obvious over prior‑art systems like Perttila, Insolia and Davis. The petition seeks institution of the IPR on claims 19‑23, 25‑26 and 28‑29.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google secured a mixed victory in IPR2020-00931, with the PTAB finding 20 of the 22 challenged claims of the ’359 patent unpatentable while leaving two claims intact.
patent · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Proxicom Wireless’s ’359 patent covering server‑mediated exchange of information between wireless devices, citing Perttila and Insolia as anticipatory and obvious prior art.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based data‑exchange patent resulted in a Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over the Eagle reference and, for three claims, the combination of Eagle with Mgrdechian.
patent · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' ’129 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Eagle prior art. The petition seeks institution of the trial and cancellation of fifteen claims.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,385,913 patent was decided with all challenged claims found unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art systems.
patent denied · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google’s petition to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,116,749 patent was denied. The Board found the petition’s anticipation and obviousness arguments based on Mgrdechian and Kulakowski insufficiently particularized, especially regarding dynamic identifiers and predetermined events.
patent · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, arguing anticipation and obviousness over Mgrdechian and related references.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies' 8,369,842 patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable on anticipation and obviousness grounds.
patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google’s IPR against patent 8116749 resulted in a mixed decision: five claims were held unpatentable over Perttila and Insolia, while four claims remained patentable because the obviousness challenge failed.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google successfully challenged Target’s ’359 patent covering proximity‑based wireless transactions. The PTAB found all nine challenged claims unpatentable, citing anticipation and obviousness over Perttila and the Perttila‑Swartz combination.
patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent covering proximity‑based wireless information exchange. The PTAB found all fifteen challenged claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103, based on the Eagle prior art.
patent · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate a wireless‑communication patent, arguing that its claims are anticipated or obvious over earlier Bluetooth‑based systems such as Eagle and Mgrdechian.
patent · Jan 9, 2026
Citadel Securities LLC v.HFT Solutions, LLC
· IPR2026-00212
Citadel Securities petitions the PTAB to invalidate six claims of HFT Solutions’ ’286 patent, alleging that the FPGA‑PLL synchronization method is fully disclosed in Altera’s white paper, the Stratix Handbook, the Si5345 manual, and a 2012 Lockwood paper.
patent · Jan 9, 2026
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. et al.
· IPR2026-00193
Amazon has filed an IPR petition challenging InterDigital’s ’876 patent covering large‑block intra‑prediction in video codecs. The petition asserts obviousness over Xiong, VCEG‑AJ21, and H.264, seeking cancellation of claims 1‑18.
patent · Jan 9, 2026
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
· IPR2026-00099
Google LLC petitions the PTAB to institute an IPR and cancel all 26 claims of Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 8,116,749, arguing that prior art (Bucuk, Nordman, Kallio, Perttila) anticipates or makes the claims obvious.
patent · Jan 9, 2026
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS et al.
· IPR2026-00195
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of four claims of InterDigital’s HEVC‑related ’877 patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references under 35 U.S.C. §103.
patent · Dec 31, 2025
Google LLC v.Gamba Group Holdings LLC
· IPR2026-00156
Google LLC filed an IPR petition against Gamba Group Holdings LLC’s 9,772,193 patent covering Bluetooth and GPS‑based parking‑location methods. The petition asserts anticipation by Baese and Phillips and obviousness with Phillips and Soliman, seeking cancellation of claims 12, 13, and 15‑18. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
patent · Dec 30, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
· IPR2026-00184
Microsoft has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Qomplx’s multi-factor authentication patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over the Kirti patent and the Coffin textbook. The petition seeks institution of IPR on claims 1‑21, 23‑28, and 30.
patent · Dec 30, 2025
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Tempus AI, Inc.
· IPR2026-00185
Guardant Health filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 18 claims of Tempus AI’s 10,991,097 patent, asserting anticipation by Chukka and obviousness over Chukka combined with Jones, Sebastiao, and Gallas. The petition argues the prior art was not considered during prosecution.
patent · Dec 30, 2025
Microsoft Corporation v.Qomplx LLC
· IPR2026-00182
Microsoft has filed a petition for inter partes review of Qomplx’s U.S. Patent 12,218,934 covering contextual, risk‑based multi‑factor authentication. The petition asserts that claims 1‑30 are obvious over prior art including the Kirti patent, the Coffin textbook, and Vemulapalli’s virtual‑machine teachings. No objective evidence of non‑obviousness is presented.
