Untitled case

Secure Communication Technologies, LLC (SCT), a patent assertion entity (PAE), has filed a critical patent infringement lawsuit against Alphabet (Google) in the Western District of Texas. SCT's business model appears to be centered around monetizing its patent portfolio, as evidenced by its recent acquisition of numerous wireless communications patents and its litigation against major tech companies. Alphabet (Google) is a multinational technology conglomerate whose core business revolves around internet-related services and products, primarily advertising through its Google platform, alongside other ventures in cloud computing, hardware, and various "moonshot" projects. The plaintiff targets Google's provision of various devices, including Chromebooks, laptops, smartphones, and tablets, that incorporate Google features such as Nearby Share/Quick Share, Fast Pair, and/or Find Hub (formerly Find My), alleging infringement of its wireless communications patents.

The asserted patent in this case is US Patent 11334918. A technical sketch of patent 11334918 describes it as generally related to wireless communication systems, particularly concerning methods and devices for managing and facilitating communication between electronic devices within a wireless network environment. The case, 1:25-cv-01207, is proceeding in the Western District of Texas and has been assigned to District Judge David A. Ezra. While the specific division within the Western District of Texas for Judge Ezra is not explicitly stated in all search results, he is known to preside in the San Antonio Division, although he also handles cases in the Austin Division. The Western District of Texas, particularly under certain judges, has been a prominent venue for patent litigation, often seen as favorable to patent owners, making the venue selection notable.

This litigation is part of a broader patent assertion campaign by SCT. The firm previously filed a complaint against Samsung in July 2024 involving the same wireless communications patents, a case that was dismissed with prejudice following a notice of settlement. Both Samsung and Google have filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against the asserted patents, indicating a parallel challenge to the patents' validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which is a significant development in the procedural posture of these cases. The patents asserted by SCT originated from Proxicom Wireless, LLC, another entity controlled by the same individuals (James A. Proctor, III and James A. Proctor, Jr.) who previously litigated parts of this portfolio focusing on "beacon technology" systems.

Patent Infringement Litigation: Secure Communication Technologies, LLC v. Alphabet (Google)

Case Number: 1:25-cv-01207
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,334,918; 11,443,344; and 11,687,971
Parties: Plaintiff: Secure Communication Technologies, LLC (SCT); Defendant: Alphabet (Google)
Presiding Judge: District Judge David A. Ezra

This report details the known legal developments and current posture of the patent infringement case filed by Secure Communication Technologies, LLC (SCT) against Alphabet (Google) in the Western District of Texas, concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,334,918 and two related patents.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filing: Secure Communication Technologies, LLC (SCT) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Alphabet (Google) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, case number 1:25-cv-01207. The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,334,918, 11,443,344, and 11,687,971. The case was assigned to District Judge David A. Ezra. While a Mondaq article published on August 27, 2025, notes that SCT "has filed separate lawsuits against Alphabet (Google) (1:25-cv-01207)," and mentions "8/4, Alphabet (Google), Western District of Texas", implying an August 4, 2025, filing date, generic searches for "1:25-cv-01207 Western District of Texas" also reveal unrelated habeas corpus cases in October 2025 and a contract case in January 2026. This suggests that the case number may have been reused or that the patent infringement case has a different, more specific identifier in the court's system. Without direct access to the official docket for the patent infringement case, the precise filing date and details of initial pleadings (answer, counterclaims) for this specific patent infringement matter remain unconfirmed.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• Google's IPR Filings: Google LLC filed three Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against the patents asserted by SCT, notably before the reported district court filing against Google. These IPRs were:
  • IPR2025-01181 against U.S. Patent No. 11,334,918B2, filed on July 2, 2025.
  • IPR2025-01182 against U.S. Patent No. 11,443,344B2, filed on July 2, 2025.
  • IPR2025-01183 against U.S. Patent No. 11,687,971B2, filed on July 2, 2025.
• IPR Outcomes/Status: All three IPRs (IPR2025-01181, IPR2025-01182, IPR2025-01183) are recorded as having an "Institution: 12/23/2025" and "terminated on 12/23/2025". The simultaneous institution and termination date is unusual. For comparison, parallel IPRs filed by Samsung against the same patents (e.g., IPR2025-01050 against US11443344, filed May 29, 2025) were explicitly terminated as "Terminated-Settled" on August 26, 2025, with a "Termination Decision: Pre-DI settlement" (pre-Decision on Institution settlement). The absence of such explicit detail for Google's IPRs suggests that institution was likely denied, or the proceedings were terminated for another reason on the day institution was to be decided, rather than a settlement leading to a pre-institution decision termination as seen in the Samsung IPRs. Without further official PTAB decision documents, the exact reason for the concurrent institution and termination date remains unclear, but it indicates that a full IPR trial on the merits did not proceed.

3. Other Pre-trial Motions, Claim Construction, Discovery, Trial, and Outcome:

• No specific information regarding substantive pre-trial motions (e.g., motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR outcomes), Markman hearings, claim construction orders, summary judgment motions, discovery milestones, trial events, or a verdict for the patent infringement case 1:25-cv-01207 could be found in the available public records.
• The overall status and final disposition (settlement, dismissal, or judgment) of Secure Communication Technologies, LLC v. Alphabet (Google), case 1:25-cv-01207, could not be definitively determined from the public information, mainly due to the ambiguity surrounding the case number and the lack of specific docket entries for the patent infringement matter.

It is important to distinguish this case from other Google-related patent litigation and IPRs, such as Google's IPRs against Sovereign Peak Ventures, LLC, which resulted in patent invalidation through claim disclaimer, or Google's petition to the Supreme Court challenging "settled expectations" denials by the PTAB in a case involving VirtaMove, Corp.. These are separate proceedings and do not relate to Secure Communication Technologies, LLC.

Here is the identified counsel of record representing the plaintiff, Secure Communication Technologies, LLC (SCT), in the patent infringement case 1:25-cv-01207 in the Western District of Texas:

• Brent Bumgardner
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C., Fort Worth, Texas
  • Experience Note: Brent Bumgardner is a Principal at Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C. and is explicitly identified as Lead Counsel for Secure Communication Technologies LLC in this case and related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,334,918. His firm specializes in various types of litigation, including patent enforcement, and has a team with technical and legal expertise in a wide array of technologies.

In the patent infringement case 1:25-cv-01207, Secure Communication Technologies, LLC v. Alphabet (Google), the counsel of record for the defendant, Alphabet (Google), can be identified through a review of relevant legal filings and news.

Defendant's Counsel:

While a comprehensive list of all appearing counsel and their specific roles (lead, local, in-house) would typically be found on the case docket, which is not directly accessible through the provided search results, general information about Google's patent litigation counsel and related cases provides insight. Based on the available information, the following may be involved:

• Robert Van Nest (Lead Counsel - potential)
  • Firm: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP (Likely San Francisco, CA)
  • Note: Robert Van Nest has previously represented Google in significant patent infringement cases, notably defending Google in a $1.67 billion patent infringement lawsuit concerning AI technology brought by Singular Computing. In that case, he asserted that Google's designs were independently conceived and that the Google team responsible for designing the Tensor Processing Units (TPUs) had no direct interaction with the plaintiff's computer scientist.
• Kasowitz LLP (Outside Counsel - potential)
  • Note: Kasowitz LLP's Intellectual Property Litigation group has a history of representing Google as trial counsel in patent infringement actions in the Eastern District of Texas, including against Eolas and the University of California, securing favorable verdicts for Google. They are known for handling matters for large technology companies and have experience in various federal patent venues.
• Alphabet Inc. (In-house Counsel - potential)
  • Note: Alphabet (Google) has an in-house legal team that would be involved in managing and coordinating their defense. Kent Walker is the Chief Legal Officer for Google.

It's important to note that the specific attorneys appearing in this particular case (1:25-cv-01207) would be formally listed on the docket sheet for the Western District of Texas. The provided search results mention Secure Communication Technologies, LLC (SCT) filing against Alphabet (Google) in the Western District of Texas, case number 1:25-cv-01207. Without direct access to the specific docket entries for this case, identifying all counsel of record with their precise roles and office locations remains somewhat inferential based on Google's known litigation practices and other related filings.