Short Summary
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Telcom Ventures' smartphone payment patent, alleging obviousness over four prior art references.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review (IPR2025-01349), Google LLC challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,924,743 owned by Telcom Ventures LLC. The petitioner requests cancellation of claims 1‑14 on the ground that they are obvious under pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. §103 in view of Barnett, Waters, White, and, for claims 5 and 12, Smith. The petition also argues that discretionary denial is inappropriate and provides a declaration from expert Sandeep Chatterjee. Related district‑court litigation and other IPRs involving the same patent family are cited. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
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 Telcom Ventures LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Terumo BCT, IncvsHaemonetics Corporation
Terumo BCT has filed a Post‑Grant Review petition challenging all 30 claims of Haemonetics’ plasma‑collection patent. The challenger asserts anticipation, obviousness, lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, and multiple §112 deficiencies. The petition is pending PTAB institution.
Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II LLC
Tesla has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate five claims of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Pat. 7,181,743. The challenger argues the claims are obvious over the Welch whitepaper and related publications, and disputes any discretionary denial.
Apple Inc.vsIngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging all 47 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’104 patent covering hands‑free audio messaging. The petition alleges obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Kingston Technology Company, Inc., Kingston Technology Corporation, and Kingston Digital, Inc.vsVervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Kingston Technology’s request to institute a post‑grant review of six claims of a NAND‑flash patent, finding the challenger’s arguments on written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness insufficient.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. et al.vsGenzyme Corporation et al.
Sarepta filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Genzyme’s ’313 AAV detection patent. The petition asserts that all 27 claims are obvious in view of earlier publications on LC‑MS and RP‑HPLC analysis of viral proteins. No secondary considerations are believed to overcome the obviousness argument.
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.