Executive Summary
The PTAB denied institution of the IPR challenge brought by Google LLC against Secure Communication Technologies' patent 11334918.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Google LLC vs Secure Communication Technologies, LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Belden Inc. et al.vsCommScope Technologies LLC
The PTAB denied institution for the IPR challenge against CommScope's patent 10996417.
Roku, Inc.vsVideoLabs, Inc.
Roku successfully petitioned for the institution of IPR against VideoLabs regarding claims related to Conditional Access and Digital Rights Management. The Board found that Petitioner's evidence sufficiently supported unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, advancing the dispute into the review phase.
Hoymiles USA, Inc. et al.vsCyboEnergy, Inc.
Hoymiles USA challenges CyboEnergy’s grid-connected inverter patents under 35 U.S.C. § 103, arguing the claimed technology is obvious.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al.vsHeadwater Research LLC
Petitioner Cellco/Verizon Wireless has filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,924,543 concerning network service plan provisioning. The challenge asserts that the claims are obvious over prior art references Poh and Maes under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Given the strong merits demonstrated by the petition, the PTAB has instituted the review proceedings.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.vsMHL Custom, Inc.
Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. filed a Petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,359,044 related to hydrofoil watercraft. The petitioner asserts that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art references. This challenge targets core features including passive stability and propulsion systems.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.