US PTAB IP Litigation

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Feb 7, 2025

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’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

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Feb 7, 2025

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.

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.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Feb 7, 2025

Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a wireless‑device patent, arguing anticipation by Mgrdechian and obviousness in view of Kulakowski. The petition stresses that the prior art was never considered during prosecution and urges the Board not to deny institution.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ ’736 patent, with the Board finding all 13 challenged claims unpatentable for lack of novelty and obviousness over Eagle and Mgrdechian references.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Feb 7, 2025

Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of a wireless‑device patent owned by Secure Communication Technologies. The petition relies on the Eagle prior‑art system to argue anticipation and obviousness, and urges the Board to institute the review.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent denied · Feb 7, 2025

The PTAB held that claims 19‑23 of the ’592 patent were obvious over Perttila and Insolia and thus unpatentable, while claims 25, 26, 28, 29 remained patentable. The decision reflects a mixed outcome for the parties.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Feb 7, 2025

Google’s IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based device‑identification patent was denied. The Board found the petition lacked sufficient evidence to show a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for the asserted claims.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies, leading the PTAB to find all eight claims of the challenged patent unpatentable. The Board held that the prior‑art references Mgrdechian and secondary references anticipate or render obvious each claim limitation.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent all challenged claims unpatentable · Feb 7, 2025

Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of the ’896 patent owned by Secure Communication Technologies, arguing that prior‑art systems (Perttila, Emmons, Insolia, etc.) make the claims obvious under §103. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues against discretionary denial.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent mixed - some claims cancelled, some upheld · Feb 7, 2025

Google successfully challenged U.S. Patent 11,687,971, a proximity‑based wireless communication system, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all fifteen challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board found the Eagle reference anticipates and renders obvious each claim limitation.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based wireless transaction patent resulted in the Board finding 20 of the 22 challenged claims unpatentable, while two claims remained upheld.

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.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

patent terminated or settled · Feb 7, 2025

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.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

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 petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over the Eagle and Mgrdechian references. The petition argues the prior art was never considered during prosecution and requests institution of the IPR.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of Secure Communication Technologies’ ’344 Bluetooth beacon patent, alleging obviousness over Eagle, Behrens, and Olkkonen. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and invalidate the challenged claims.

patent denied · Feb 7, 2025

Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÃ‰TÃ‰ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÃ‰DÃ‰S GEORGES CLAUDE

· IPR2025-01173

Topsoe has filed an IPR petition challenging Air Liquide’s 2023 hydrogen‑production patent (US 11,673,805). The challenger alleges anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6, 11 and 12.

Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC