Sean P. O’Hanlon
118 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
118 cases indexed | Page 1 of 4
Liberty Energy, Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over Patent 11,091,992. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding and kept the settlement confidential.
Liberty Energy Inc. et al. v.U.S. Well Services, LLC
Liberty Energy and U.S. Well Services settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,208,878, resulting in a joint motion to terminate the proceeding. The Board granted termination and kept the settlement confidential.
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 8,140,612 B2, leading to a joint motion that terminated the inter partes review after it had been instituted.
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.
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.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple successfully obtained a PTAB institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s massive‑MIMO patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for claims 1‑20 based on Liu and Jover references and declined discretionary denial despite related district court suits.
Apple Inc. v.Apex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple’s petition led the PTAB to institute an inter partes review of Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent covering massive‑MIMO beam recovery. The board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability based on Xia and a Xia‑Jover combination. No final patentability decision has been made yet.
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.
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 Target’s ’896 patent covering proximity‑based information exchange, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious over prior art.
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.
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’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.
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
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
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
Google’s IPR petition challenging nine claims of the ’749 patent was denied. The Board concluded the petition lacked sufficient particularity and did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on anticipation or obviousness grounds.
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 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’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.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding all 12 challenged claims of the '863 patent unpatentable. The petitioner successfully demonstrated obviousness over various combinations of prior art references in the field of Electronic Trading Platforms.
Askeladden L.L.C. v.Intercurrency Software LLC
The Board issued a Final Written Decision finding that all 18 claims of the '107 patent were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art. Petitioner successfully argued obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103) based on references like Calo, Rude, and Sellberg in the field of Electronic Trading/Currency Exchange.
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.