Litigation

Google LLC et al. v. Proxense, LLC

instituted; Google terminated on settlement; final written decision; on appeal

IPR2024-00233

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
Filed: 2024-01-17

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (2)

Defendants (1)

Δ Proxense, LLC

Summary

Inter partes review of U.S. 8,886,954 filed by Google LLC (caption also names [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.)). Instituted July 24, 2024; Google terminated on settlement Feb. 5, 2025; listed as a final written decision. It is among the originating PTAB cases in Proxense's Federal Circuit appeal.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 8886954-ipr2024-00233 · edit in Admin

Further reading

What it costs to get a patent (AIPLA Economic Survey)
A US utility patent costs a median of $8,000-$12,000 in attorney fees to draft and file, depending on the technology — before USPTO fees, before drawings, and before the first office action. Here's the full bill, and why it's a rounding error next to enforcing the thing.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (2014)
Bolting 'on a computer' onto an abstract business process doesn't make it patentable. Most software and business-method patents that look like 'doing X on a computer' don't survive when seriously challenged under Alice.
IPR estoppel: the trade-off behind the cheapest invalidity tool
File your strongest art, file it well — or don't file at all if your strongest grounds aren't patents and publications. Estoppel is what makes IPR powerful for the system and dangerous for the defendant who underprepares.
Patent reviews: IPR, PGR, and reexamination
Suing in district court to invalidate a patent costs $3-5M and takes years. The USPTO's post-grant review system does it for $200-500k and 12-18 months. For a defendant facing a weak patent, the choice is usually obvious.
Obviousness under § 103
Most patented inventions are combinations of existing ideas. The modern KSR standard makes those combinations easier to attack than they used to be.

All resources →