Sean P. O’Hanlon
118 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
118 cases indexed | Page 2 of 4
Intel Corporation v.Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc.
NVIDIA and Advanced Cluster Systems jointly moved to terminate IPR2020-01608 concerning patent 8,082,289 B2 after the Board had instituted the review. The Board granted the motion, ending the proceeding without a final written decision.
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.
Anthony Inc. v.ControlTec, LLC
Anthony Inc. successfully moved forward in its IPR against ControlTec, LLC's patent (7421847), leading to institution on all 20 challenged claims. The Board found sufficient evidence of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, specifically finding the prior art reference 'Carter' analogous to condensation control in refrigerated cases.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies' ’913 patent, finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google’s IPR against Secure Communication Technologies’ 8,369,842 patent resulted in all nine challenged claims being found unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over Mgrdechian and related references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Target’s proximity‑based coupon patent in IPR2020‑00932. The Board held all nine challenged claims unpatentable, finding them anticipated or obvious over Perttila and the Perttila‑Swartz combination.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google won an IPR against Secure Communication Technologies, finding all 13 challenged claims of the ’736 patent unpatentable for anticipation or obviousness over prior art Eagle (and Eagle + Mgrdechian).
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies’ ’913 patent on proximity‑based wireless communication, leading the PTAB to find all asserted claims unpatentable as obvious.
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’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 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 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
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 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
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
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
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 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’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 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
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’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 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’ ’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 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’ patent covering proximity‑based data exchange, resulting in a Final Written Decision that all fifteen challenged claims are unpatentable.
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.
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
The PTAB granted institution of an IPR against Apex Beam’s 10,568,113 patent, finding Samsung has shown a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim based on obviousness over Xia and Xia + Jover.
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.