Wireless communications — US PTAB Patent Cases
1,362 decisions indexed
Page 17 of 46 · 1,362 total
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering a server‑mediated exchange of information between wireless devices. The petition relies on Perttila and Swartz as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness of the asserted claims.
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 has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering server‑mediated data exchange between wireless devices, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Perttila and Insolia references.
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 has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of a wireless‑device patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Eagle prior‑art reference. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering dynamic device identifier exchange via a central server. The petition argues the claims are anticipated and obvious over the Mgrdechian and Kulakowski references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate eight claims of a proximity‑beacon patent owned by Secure Communication Technologies, arguing that the claims are anticipated or obvious over prior‑art references such as Mgrdechian and its combinations with Kaplan, Kulakowski, Eagle, and Behrens.
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 petitions the PTAB to invalidate a mobile e‑commerce patent, arguing that the claimed server‑mediated exchange is obvious over existing Bluetooth coupon systems and related e‑commerce implementations.
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 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 has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent covering server‑mediated data exchange between wireless devices. The petition relies on Eagle and Mgrdechian as prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
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 has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,334,918 covering proximity‑beacon communications. The petition relies on five prior‑art references to argue anticipation and obviousness of claims 1‑8.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging 15 claims of a wireless‑communication patent, asserting that the prior‑art Eagle anticipates and makes the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of the trial to invalidate the claims.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
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’s IPR against the ’842 patent resulted in all challenged claims being found unpatentable, based on anticipation and obviousness over Mgrdechian and related references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' ’896 patent covering server‑mediated exchanges between wireless devices. The petition argues the claims are obvious over Perttila, Emmons and Insolia, and seeks institution of the review.
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 against a proximity‑based commerce patent resulted in 20 of 22 challenged claims being found unpatentable, with two claims surviving.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition challenging a server‑mediated e‑commerce patent, arguing that the claims are anticipated by Perttila and obvious when combined with Insolia. The petition seeks institution of the review and argues against discretionary denial.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
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
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 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
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.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.