Sean P. O’Hanlon
118 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
118 cases indexed | Page 1 of 4
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, with the PTAB finding all eight claims unpatentable based on multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
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.
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’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 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.
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 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.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ ’913 patent, with the Board finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Target’s proximity‑based transaction patent resulted in the Board finding all nine challenged claims unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over prior‑art wireless messaging systems.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ proximity‑based e‑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
The PTAB held that all challenged claims of the ’359 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over Perttila and, for certain claims, over the Perttila‑Swartz combination. The decision resolves the IPR filed by Google against Secure Communication Technologies.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’129 patent in IPR2020‑00903. The Board found all fifteen challenged claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103, based on the Eagle prior art.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR petition challenging a proximity‑based wireless communication patent was denied, leaving the patent intact. The Board found the prior‑art arguments insufficiently particularized.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB held that five claims of the ’592 patent covering proximity‑based information exchange were obvious over Perttila and Insolia, rendering them unpatentable, while four other claims were upheld.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against a proximity‑based coupon patent resulted in 20 of 22 challenged claims being found unpatentable, with only two claims surviving.
Airwallex Pty. Ltd. et al. v.--
Airwallex and Intercurrency Software settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 11,620,701 before the PTAB could institute an inter partes review. The Board granted the petitioner's motion to withdraw and dismissed the proceeding, keeping the settlement agreement confidential.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
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.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR on Intercurrency Software’s 10,776,863 patent covering a consolidated trading platform, finding a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑12 based on obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Wise PLC et al. v.--
Wise PLC and Intercurrency Software LLC settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,620,701, leading the PTAB to dismiss the case before a trial was instituted. The settlement resolved all claims and the proceeding was terminated.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC et al.
Liberty Energy and Liberty Oilfield Services terminated an IPR against U.S. Well Services after a Covenant Not to Sue was executed, leading the Board to dismiss the case before any claims were instituted.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their IPR dispute over a GPU patent, filing a joint motion that led the Board to terminate the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Pat. No. 8,676,877 B2. The parties filed a joint motion, and the PTAB terminated the inter partes review.
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
AMD and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their GPU‑related patent dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.
Mobileye Global successfully convinced the PTAB that several claims of Facet Technology's patent were obvious in light of prior art references Gallagher and Schofield. The Board found Claims 1-4, 8-13 unpatentable based on a combination of these references, while upholding the validity of other claims (5-7, 14-16).
ZF Active Safety and Electronics US LLC v.Facet Technology Corp.
Mobileye Global's challenge to Facet Technology Corp.'s road sign recognition patent failed before the PTAB, upholding claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 9335255. The Board found insufficient evidence that combining prior art references would render the claimed method obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
United Services Automobile Association v.Auto Telematics Ltd.
USAA successfully petitioned to institute IPR proceedings against Auto Telematics Ltd.'s patent covering driver behavior monitoring and accident detection technology. The Board found the claims were reasonably likely to be obvious over combinations of prior art references, moving the case toward trial.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over a GPU clustering patent and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review, leading the Board to end the proceeding.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
Intel and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute, filing a joint motion that led the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 10333768.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,676,877 B2 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The PTAB granted the motion, ending the proceeding without a merits decision.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute, leading the PTAB to terminate the inter partes review of patent 8,140,612 B2.
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.