IP Cases — 2025
5,670 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 167 of 189 · 5,670 total
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.
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
Samsung and Secure Communication Technologies entered a settlement that led to the termination of three IPRs before any trial was instituted. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR on claims 1‑8 under §§102 and 103.
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 filed an IPR petition challenging nine claims of a proximity‑based loyalty‑coupon patent, arguing that the invention is obvious in view of Perttila combined with either Insolia or Davis. The petition seeks institution of the review under §103.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google succeeded in an IPR, leading the PTAB to find all challenged claims of the ’896 patent unpatentable as obvious over existing short‑range ID and e‑commerce technologies.
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 petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' ’736 patent covering server‑mediated Bluetooth communications, asserting anticipation and obviousness over Eagle and Mgrdechian references.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies’ ’913 patent, asserting that prior art Mgrdechian and secondary references anticipate or render obvious all challenged claims covering server‑mediated wireless device interactions.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent. The PTAB found all eight claims unpatentable based on anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
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’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 has filed an IPR petition against Secure Communication Technologies’ ‘359 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated or obvious over Perttila and Swartz. The petition seeks institution of the review and cancellation of nine claims.
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
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
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 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 petitions the PTAB to invalidate claims of a proximity‑based loyalty patent, arguing obviousness over Perttila combined with Insolia or Davis. The petition cites lack of examiner consideration and no secondary considerations.
Google LLC v.Secure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google petitions the PTAB to invalidate Secure Communication Technologies' patent covering server‑mediated, location‑based transactions between wireless devices. The petition relies on Mgrdechian, Swartz, and Kulakowski prior art to argue anticipation and obviousness under §§102 and 103.
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 has filed an IPR petition against Secure Communication’s ’359 patent, asserting that the claims are anticipated by Perttila and obvious in view of Swartz. The petition seeks institution and cancellation of nine claims under §§102 and 103.
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.
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.