IP Cases — 2025
4,175 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 125 of 140 · 4,175 total
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Proxicom's 8,385,913 patent, asserting that the claimed server‑mediated device‑identifier exchange is fully anticipated or obvious over earlier patents. The petition lists multiple grounds under §§102 and 103 and argues against discretionary denial.
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 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’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’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 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 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 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
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
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 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 has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate 19 claims of the ’896 patent owned by Secure Communication Technologies, arguing that prior‑art systems (Perttila, Emmons, Insolia, etc.) make the claims obvious under §103. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and argues against discretionary denial.
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 has filed an IPR petition challenging Secure Communication Technologies' U.S. Patent 11,443,344 covering server‑mediated, location‑based transactions between wireless devices. The petition argues anticipation and obviousness over three prior‑art references (Mgrdechian, Swartz, Kulakowski) under §§102 and 103. Google seeks institution of the review.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate a suite of claims of U.S. Patent 11,443,344 covering server‑mediated exchange of loyalty and coupon data between wireless devices. The petition relies on the Perttila and Insolia references to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies entered a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate three pending IPRs before any trial was instituted. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over the Eagle and Mgrdechian references. The petition argues the prior art was never considered during prosecution and requests institution of the IPR.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 23 claims of Secure Communication Technologies’ ’344 Bluetooth beacon patent, alleging obviousness over Eagle, Behrens, and Olkkonen. The petition requests the PTAB to institute review and invalidate the challenged claims.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE
Topsoe has filed an IPR petition challenging Air Liquide’s 2023 hydrogen‑production patent (US 11,673,805). The challenger alleges anticipation and obviousness over four prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of claims 1‑6, 11 and 12.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied Google LLC's request to institute inter partes review against Secure Communication Technologies, LLC regarding patent 11687971.
Topsoe, Inc. et al. v.L'AIR LIQUIDE, SOCIÉTÉ ANONYME POUR L'ETUDE ET L'EXPLOITATION DES PROCÉDÉS GEORGES CLAUDE
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2025-01173, allowing the challenger to proceed to trial. However, all proceedings are currently stayed pending a Director Review of related decisions.
M/S Aravind Laboratories v.Payal Novelty Private Limited
In this trademark dispute concerning the 'Pearl Eyeflax Kum Kum Bindi,' the Calcutta High Court issued an interim order. The court directed the respondents to attempt modifications to their product's get-up and trade dress. Furthermore, they must submit copies of these proposed changes to the petitioner's advocates by March 13, 2025, allowing the litigation to proceed while addressing potential infringement concerns.
M/S.Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India & Sakthi Sai Glass Traders (Appellants) v.Compagnie De Saint-Gobain & Saint-Gobain India Private Limited (Respondents/Plaintiffs)
The Madras High Court dismissed appeals challenging an interim injunction granted to Saint-Gobain against Sakthi Sai Safety Glass India. The court found that the appellants, despite their contract with Saint-Gobain expiring, were infringing the 'Saint-Gobain' trademark by using it in connection with toughened glass products. Given the prima facie evidence of consumer confusion and dilution, the balance of convenience favored the trademark owner, upholding the injunction while allowing the main suit to proceed.
Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited v.Friends Inc & Anr.
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Aditya Birla Fashion And Retail Limited, granting permanent injunctions against Friends Inc for infringing the 'PETER ENGLAND' trademark. Furthermore, the court declared 'PETER ENGLAND' as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The judgment emphasized that compliance with initial restraining orders was sufficient to proceed toward final decree and recognition of brand reputation.
M/S. Arvind Laboratories v.Mr. Pawan Kumar Singhania And Anr
In this trademark dispute, the Calcutta High Court issued an interim direction requiring the respondents to modify the get-up and trade dress of their product, 'Pearl Eyeflax Kum Kum Bindi.' The respondents were mandated to forward copies of these proposed changes to the petitioner's advocates by March 13, 2025. This order allows both parties time to adjust the disputed branding while keeping the litigation moving toward a resolution.
M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt Ltd v.M/S Kaveri Polymers
The Karnataka High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Kaveri Plasto Containers Pvt Ltd, setting aside a lower court's decision that had barred them from filing a trademark infringement suit without first undergoing pre-institution mediation. The High Court held that because the appellant sought urgent interim reliefs, such as temporary injunction and appointment of a court commissioner, the mandatory requirement of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act did not apply. Consequently, the original suit and all related applications were restored for trial.
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.