Charles J. Boudreau
86 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
86 cases indexed | Page 1 of 3
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over U.S. Patent 7,519,814. The parties filed a joint motion to terminate, and the Board dismissed the petitions and kept the settlement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over patent 7,784,058. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and cloud‑migration startup VirtaMove settled their IPR dispute, leading the Board to terminate the proceedings before trial.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute before trial. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the IPRs and ordered the settlement agreement to be kept confidential.
Microsoft Corp. v.VirtaMove, Corp.
Microsoft and VirtaMove settled their inter partes review dispute over Patent 7,784,058. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions and keeping the settlement confidential.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent covering proximity‑based data exchange, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all fifteen challenged claims are unpatentable.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Proxicom Wireless’s proximity‑based transaction patent, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all nine challenged claims are unpatentable. The Board found the claims anticipated or obvious over prior art references Perttila and Swartz.
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.
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.
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.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent. The PTAB found all eight claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based advertising patent resulted in five of the nine challenged claims being found unpatentable, while the remaining four claims were upheld.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB held that claims 19‑23 of the ’592 patent are unpatentable over Perttila and Insolia, while claims 25,26,28,29 remain patentable. The decision reflects a mixed outcome for the challenged patent.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
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
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ patent on proximity‑based wireless exchange, leading the PTAB to find all challenged claims unpatentable.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
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.
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.
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
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’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 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.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
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.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
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.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
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.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
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.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
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.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding that claims 1-18 of the patent were unpatentable on grounds of obviousness over Kovvali and Kalman. The Board rejected the Petitioner's arguments, agreeing with the Patent Owner that there was no valid motivation to combine the references for resource allocation in ring topology data flow.
Cisco Systems Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB found that a large group of claims (15) were unpatentable over the prior art reference Gai under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board relied on Petitioner's '1B' theory, which successfully demonstrated obviousness by showing Gai disclosed all limitations of the claimed network topology and dummy traffic function. Claims 11, 12, 23, and 24 survived the challenge.
Cisco Systems, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB found the patent claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on various combinations of prior art references. The Petitioner successfully demonstrated that combining existing network technologies taught or rendered obvious the claimed limitations, particularly in multicast routing and packet processing.
Juniper Networks, Inc. v.Portsmouth Network Corporation
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding several claims of the '986 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The Board concluded that the combination of prior art references, including Gai and an IEEE publication, taught the full scope of the claimed network failure recovery method.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.