Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 6:24-cv-00283, is currently ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, before District Judge Alan D. Albright. The plaintiff is Proxense, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) that emphasizes its history of technology development and the biography of its founder and CEO, John J. Giobbi, a prolific inventor. Proxense has been actively litigating its patents since 2019, initially in the Northern District of Illinois, but later shifting to the Western District of Texas, where it has an ongoing campaign against several major technology companies. The defendant is Intel Corporation, a multinational corporation and technology company known for manufacturing semiconductor computer circuits.

Proxense accuses Intel of infringing US Patent 8,457,672, along with several other patents (including 8,219,129; 9,265,043; and 8,036,152), through the provision of devices such as processors and wireless adapters that support Wi-Fi 6 and later standards, as well as those that incorporate Trusted Platform Module (TPM) functionality as required by Microsoft Windows 11 operating systems. A technical sketch of U.S. Patent 8,457,672, titled "System and method for secure communication and authentication utilizing a secure element," broadly describes a system designed for secure communication and authentication. While the detailed technical claims require further examination, its inclusion alongside patents related to secure elements, biometrics, token passing, and mobile payment transactions in Proxense's campaign suggests a focus on secure transaction and communication technologies.

The case's procedural posture in the Western District of Texas is notable. This district, particularly the Waco Division under Judge Alan D. Albright, became a leading venue for patent litigation due to Judge Albright's efforts to attract such cases, often seen as a plaintiff-friendly forum. Although an order in July 2022 implemented random assignment of patent cases among the district's judges, Judge Albright's impact and the significant backlog of cases he oversees mean the court remains a prominent, albeit evolving, battleground for patent disputes. This case is part of Proxense's broader patent enforcement campaign, which includes ongoing suits against other major tech companies like Alphabet (Google), Apple, and Microsoft, highlighting an NPE's strategic assertion pattern against industry giants. There is no specific information available from web searches about parallel PTAB IPRs directly linked to patent 8,457,672 in this particular case, though claim construction orders have been issued in related cases within Proxense's campaign.This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 6:24-cv-00283, is currently ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, before District Judge Alan D. Albright. The plaintiff is Proxense, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) that emphasizes its history of technology development and the biography of its founder and CEO, John J. Giobbi, a prolific inventor. Proxense has been actively litigating its patents since 2019, initially in the Northern District of Illinois, but later shifting to the Western District of Texas, where it has an ongoing campaign against several major technology companies. The defendant is Intel Corporation, a multinational corporation and technology company known for manufacturing semiconductor computer circuits.

Proxense accuses Intel of infringing US Patent 8,457,672, along with several other patents (including 8,219,129; 9,265,043; and 8,036,152), through the provision of devices such as processors and wireless adapters that support Wi-Fi 6 and later standards, as well as those that incorporate Trusted Platform Module (TPM) functionality as required by Microsoft Windows 11 operating systems. U.S. Patent 8,457,672, titled "System and method for secure communication and authentication utilizing a secure element," generally describes a system and method for enabling secure communication and authentication processes by leveraging a secure element. This patent's involvement, alongside others in Proxense's portfolio, suggests the litigation focuses on technologies related to secure data handling, biometrics, token management, and mobile payment transactions.

The case's procedural posture in the Western District of Texas is particularly significant. This district, especially the Waco Division under Judge Alan D. Albright, became a highly active and often plaintiff-friendly venue for patent litigation due to Judge Albright's efforts to streamline patent cases. Although a July 2022 order introduced random assignment of patent cases among the district's judges, thereby reducing the certainty of appearing before Judge Albright, his substantial backlog and influence mean the Western District of Texas remains a key forum for patent disputes. This specific lawsuit is part of Proxense's broader patent enforcement strategy, which extends to other major technology companies such as Alphabet (Google), Apple, and Microsoft, underscoring a consistent pattern of NPE assertions against prominent industry players. While claim construction orders have been issued in related cases within Proxense's campaign, specific information regarding parallel PTAB IPRs for patent 8,457,672 in this lawsuit against Intel was not found in the search results.

This patent infringement litigation, Proxense LLC v. Intel Corp., Case No. 6:24-cv-00283, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, before Judge Alan D. Albright. The case involved U.S. Patent 8,457,672, among others. The litigation concluded with a settlement and dismissal.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2024-05-23: Plaintiff Proxense, LLC filed its initial complaint against Intel Corp., alleging patent infringement.
  • 2024-09-02: An amended complaint was filed by Proxense, LLC.
  • Intel Corp. subsequently filed counterclaims against Proxense, LLC.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • 2024-12-23: A PTAB Petition was filed, indicating that a challenge to the validity of the asserted patent(s) was initiated before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • 2025-03-27: The Court provided preliminary claim constructions for the patents at issue, including U.S. Patent 8,457,672, along with 8,219,129, 9,265,043, and 8,036,152.
  • 2025-03-28: A Markman (claim construction) hearing was held.
  • 2025-05-08: The Court issued its final claim constructions for the asserted patents.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

  • Specific strategic discovery milestones were not detailed in the available information.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • The case did not proceed to trial.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition:

  • 2025-10-17: A Consent Judgment of Non-Infringement was entered in the case.
  • 2026-03-23: The case reached a settlement.
  • 2026-03-23: An Order Dismissing Case was issued, formally closing the litigation. The case status is recorded as "Closed" or "Terminated" as of this date.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • 2024-12-23: A PTAB Petition was filed. Further details regarding the specific IPR or PGR proceedings initiated for US Patent 8457672 by Intel, including institution decisions or final written decisions, are not available in the provided search results. These proceedings typically challenge patent validity and can influence district court litigation, often leading to a stay or settlement.

The patent infringement case Proxense LLC v. Intel Corp (6:24-cv-00283), filed in the Texas Western District Court, is now closed. The case was filed on May 23, 2024, and reached a settlement on March 23, 2026, following a consent judgment of non-infringement on October 17, 2025.

The following counsel represented the plaintiff, Proxense LLC:

David L. Hecht

• Role: Partner, likely Lead Counsel
• Firm: Hecht Partners LLP, New York, NY
• Experience: Founder and co-managing partner of Hecht Partners LLP. Recognized as one of the world's leading patent professionals by IAM Patent 1000. Experienced in dozens of patent-related matters, including inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, and has tried numerous District Court and International Trade Commission (ITC) cases to verdict, including involvement in Apple v. Samsung. He successfully represented Proxense LLC in a mobile payment patent suit against Samsung that settled days before trial.

Brian D. Melton

• Role: Partner, Lead Trial Lawyer
• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Houston, TX
• Experience: Nationally recognized lead trial lawyer who regularly tries and wins high-stakes cases for both plaintiffs and defendants. He has been explicitly identified as "Lead Counsel for Proxense in three cases against Apple, Google and Microsoft" involving biometric authentication patents in the Western District of Texas. Notable wins include a $25.25 million jury verdict (later settled for a confidential amount after being valued at $52 million) for the designer of Beats headphones and a $166.3 million jury verdict in a patent infringement case against AT&T and Nokia.

Lear Jiang

• Role: Attorney, actively involved in litigation for Proxense
• Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA
• Experience: Represents Proxense, LLC against Google, Microsoft, and Apple in separate patent infringement litigations in the Western District of Texas concerning "passwordless" sign-in technology and biometric authentication. He helped secure favorable judgments for Proxense in litigation against Samsung that settled on the first day of jury selection and has achieved a 100% favorable ruling on patent claim construction in related cases.

The defendant in Proxense, LLC v. Intel Corp. (6:24-cv-00283) is Intel Corporation.

Counsel of record representing Intel Corporation include attorneys from two law firms: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, and Morrison & Foerster LLP.

The identified attorneys and their details are as follows:

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

• Brittany Blueitt Amadi
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Washington D.C. (based on typical firm profiles for patent litigation)
  • Experience Note: Amadi's practice focuses on patent litigation, particularly in district courts and at the PTAB.
• Jordan L. Hirsch
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated, but typically New York or Washington D.C. for a firm of this size with patent practices.
  • Experience Note: Hirsch is an experienced patent litigator involved in various technology sectors.
• Michaela P. Sewall
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated, but often in the firm's major patent hubs like Washington D.C. or Palo Alto.
  • Experience Note: Sewall focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement defense.
• Makenzi G. Herbst
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated.
  • Experience Note: Herbst's practice includes patent litigation in federal courts.
• Alex Nemtzow
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated.
  • Experience Note: Nemtzow works on complex patent litigation matters.
• Natalie M. Morrissey
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated.
  • Experience Note: Morrissey's experience includes patent litigation.

Morrison & Foerster LLP

• Brian Christopher Nash
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated, but the firm has a strong presence in intellectual property in various tech hubs.
  • Experience Note: Nash is an experienced litigator focusing on intellectual property, particularly patent infringement disputes.
• Austin Michael Schnell
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Morrison & Foerster LLP
  • Office Location: Not explicitly stated.
  • Experience Note: Schnell focuses on patent litigation and intellectual property disputes.