Google LLC et al. v. Proxense, LLC

I'll research this case across multiple sources before drafting.

Good material so far. Let me verify the district court posture, settlements, and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Case Overview — Google LLC et al. v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2024-00233 (U.S. 8,886,954)

The parties. Proxense, LLC is a small, Bend, Oregon–based patent holder founded in 2001 by inventor/CEO John J. Giobbi. It was a genuine operating company from roughly 2004–2012, when it developed mobile-payment and "Personal Digital Key" (PDK) proximity/biometric technology, but it no longer sells products and today functions as a licensing-and-enforcement entity — ip fray and RPX-tracked coverage describe it as an NPE/PAE, and Law360 refers to it as an "Oregon startup" litigating against large technology companies. Proxense's patents (priority dates back to December 2004 and February 2005 provisionals) claim a wireless personal-device-plus-biometric scheme that pre-dates Apple Pay, Windows Hello, and modern FIDO2/passkey authentication by a decade. The petitioner here, Google LLC, was the original filer; Apple Inc. is not an original petitioner but a joined petitioner — Apple filed a duplicate petition in IPR2024-01334 and was joined as a party on October 8, 2024 (Paper 13). The Board's operative caption, therefore, is Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC. The IPR is downstream of Proxense's W.D. Tex. campaign against Google, Microsoft, Apple, Samsung, Intel, LG, and Hyundai/Kia/Genesis.

The technology and patents. The '954 patent, Biometric Personal Data Key (PDK) Authentication (inventor Giobbi, assignee Proxense; App. No. 13/710,109, filed Dec. 10, 2012; issued Nov. 11, 2014; subject to a terminal disclaimer), is a continuation of U.S. 8,352,730 ("the '730 patent") and discloses an "integrated device" that persistently stores a user's biometric data, a device ID code, and a secret decryption value in tamper-proof (non-writable) memory; when scan data matches the stored biometric, the device wirelessly transmits the codes to a "third party that operates a trusted authority," which authenticates the device against a list of legitimate device IDs and returns an "access message" allowing the user to reach an application (casino machine, keyless lock, ATM, website, file, etc.). Claim 1 of the '954 patent is the representative claim and turns on two disputed phrases: "third party that operates a trusted authority" and "access message." The '954 is part of Proxense's "Device ID" patent family (with the '730 and U.S. 9,298,905), distinct from its "Hybrid Device" family (U.S. 8,646,042; 9,679,289; 10,073,960). In the underlying Waco case Proxense asserted all six patents; the accused instrumentalities are Google's "Universal Passwordless Architecture" (Android OS 9+, the native Android authenticator/SafetyNet, Chrome, the Titan Security Key, and Google Identity Platform/Services) and Google Pay/Google Wallet, accused of practicing the claims through FIDO/OpenID Connect cross-device biometric sign-in and token ("access message") issuance. The parallel Apple and Microsoft suits accuse the analogously structured Apple and Microsoft passwordless stacks (e.g., Windows Hello, Microsoft Identity Platform).

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. Google filed the IPR petition on January 17, 2024, challenging claims 1–7, 10, 12–19, and 22–27 of the '954 patent; the Board instituted on July 24, 2024 (Paper 10). Google and Proxense settled — the district court case Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC and Google Payment Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00320-ADA (W.D. Tex., Judge Alan D. Albright, Waco Division) was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation on January 13–14, 2025, weeks before a scheduled jury trial — and the Board terminated Google from four IPRs (00232, 00233, 00782, 00783) on February 5, 2025 (Paper 21), leaving Apple as sole petitioner. A Final Written Decision of June 17, 2025 (Paper 35) held all challenged claims unpatentable over Ludtke-based § 103 grounds, applying the construction "a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction," and rejecting Proxense's argument that the transaction's principal parties must be the user and the application. Proxense sought Director Review, which was denied (Paper 38) — notably after Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart recused and delegated to a Senior Lead APJ. Proxense's appeal, Proxense, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 25-2168 (Fed. Cir., docketed Sept. 30, 2025), consolidates the '954 FWDs from IPR2024-00233 and Microsoft's IPR2024-00846 and was briefed in April 2026; Proxense argues the PTAB violated the APA by staying and then quashing a parallel Central Reexamination Unit proceeding (Application 90/015,052) that had found substantially identical '730 claims patentable over the same Ludtke reference. The case is notable for three reasons: (1) it pits a long-dormant biometric-authentication portfolio — with 2004–05 priority over passkeys — against the passwordless architectures of every major platform owner; (2) it has become a test case for intra-Office conflict between the PTAB and the CRU, which the prior USPTO administration addressed by shifting discretionary-denial authority to the Director and barring IPRs where a parallel EPR has already upheld the claims; and (3) the settlement pattern (Samsung 2023, Google Jan. 2025, Intel Mar. 2026) suggests Proxense is monetizing licenses rather than trying these cases, while Apple and Microsoft litigation remains stayed pending the appeal.

Sourcing caveats: The Google–Proxense settlement and license agreement was filed under seal as business confidential information (Ex. 1028), so its terms are not public and no royalty figure should be assumed. The specific Federal Circuit panel and briefing schedule for No. 25-2168, and Apple's IPR counsel of record, were not confirmed in the sources retrieved. All district-court docket facts above come from the W.D. Tex. dockets (Justia/PACER excerpts), the PTAB FWDs and termination order, and ip fray/Law360/RPX coverage; where a fact appears only in a secondary report, I have flagged it as such.

I'll research this case. Note upfront: the metadata identifies this as PTAB IPR2024-00233, not a district court action — so I'll cover both the IPR track and the underlying Proxense district court litigation, and flag where the record is thin.

Let me dig into the district court track and the PTAB outcomes in more depth.

Framing note before the timeline

The docket you've given me — IPR2024-00233 — is not a district court infringement action. It is a PTAB inter partes review of U.S. 8,886,954 ("the '954 patent"), filed by Google on 2024-01-17, instituted, decided by final written decision, and now on appeal. The "patent infringement litigation" that this IPR sits inside is Proxense's W.D. Tex. campaign against Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Intel, LG, and Hyundai/Kia before Judge Alan D. Albright (and, for Hyundai/Kia, Chief Judge Alia Moses).

So below I've given you one chronological timeline with two tracks — the district court track and the PTAB/reexam track — because the two are causally interlocked: the PTAB outcomes are what killed most of the district court case. Where the record is thin (notably Google's answer/counterclaims and the disposition of some Rule 12 motions), I've said so rather than guess.

---

Track A — The district court litigation

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2021-03-05 — Proxense, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 6:21-cv-00210-ADA (W.D. Tex.) filed — the first case in the campaign and the one that gave Judge Albright his familiarity with the patents. Claim construction order at ECF 149.
• 2020 — Earlier suits against Target (6:20-cv-00879) and Urban Outfitters (1:20-cv-01007) predate the campaign; not the focus here.
• 2023-05-02 — Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC and Google Payment Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00320-ADA (W.D. Tex.) — complaint filed (ECF 1). Six patents asserted: 8,352,730 ('730), 9,298,905 ('905), 8,886,954 ('954), 8,646,042 ('042), 9,679,289 ('289), and 10,073,960 ('960). Allegations of direct, induced and contributory infringement, willful blindness, and a permanent-injunction prayer. (Order Denying Motion to Transfer, 6:23-cv-00320, at 2.)
• May 2023 — Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00319-ADA (W.D. Tex.) filed, same family.
• 2024-03-18 (docket; some press accounts say 2024-03-23) — Proxense, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00143-ADA (W.D. Tex.) filed. This is the suit press reported as the first patent case aimed at the Apple Vision Pro.
• Later: Intel (6:24-cv-00283), LG (6:24-cv-00302), and Hyundai/Kia/Genesis (6:25-cv-00016, filed 2025-01-14, assigned to Chief Judge Alia Moses — voluntarily dismissed 2025-04-14).

⚠️ Gap: I could not verify the contents of Google's answer and counterclaims in 6:23-cv-00320 from primary sources. The stipulated dismissal (below) confirms Google asserted "claims, defenses, or counterclaims," but I have not located the pleading itself. Treat any statement about specific Google counterclaims as unsourced.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Transfer (§ 1404(a)) — Google

• Google moved to transfer to N.D. Cal. — ECF 32; Proxense opposed 2023-11-13 (ECF 41); Google replied 2023-11-27 (ECF 44).
• Motion denied (ECF 63). The court credited judicial economy from the Samsung case, identified a Google software engineering manager in-district as the "most important witness," and found Google failed to show N.D. Cal. was clearly more convenient.
• 2024-04-04 — In re Google LLC, No. 2024-117 (Fed. Cir.) (Moore, C.J., Taranto, Chen, JJ.) — mandamus denied, nonprecedential. The panel held the transfer denial was not a clear abuse of discretion and expressly endorsed judicial economy as weighing against transfer given the district court's prior work on the same patents. CourtListener opinion 9490770.

Transfer — Microsoft and Apple

• Microsoft's transfer motion also denied (Order Denying Motion to Transfer, ECF 61; transfer order ECF 7).
• Apple's motion to transfer to N.D. Cal. also denied by Judge Albright, who was skeptical of Apple's witness list and refused to treat Apple's Cupertino presence as dispositive.

Stay pending IPR

• Apple moved to stay Proxense v. Apple pending the IPRs and IPR final written decisions. Denied — docket order "DENYING APPLE INC.'S MOTION TO STAY PENDING FINAL WRITTEN DECISIONS IN INTER PARTES REVIEW" (entered on/around 2024-11-01 to 2024-11-07). Apple had also filed a separate motion to dismiss; the docket shows a reply in support of "its Motions to Dismiss and Stay," but I could not confirm the disposition of the motion to dismiss.
• Microsoft moved to stay Proxense v. Microsoft pending IPR (ECF 76, with supplemental authority filed 2025-05-27). Microsoft separately moved to stay the '052 ex parte reexamination, which the Board denied for lack of authority to stay a reexam of a patent not before it (IPR2024-00846, Paper 23).

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Judge Albright construed these terms repeatedly, and the parties leaned on that repetition:

• Samsung — Claim Construction Order, ECF 149 (and Opinion ECF 149 at 10–21), construing e.g. "tamper proof format" (plain and ordinary meaning; rejected defendant's narrowing proposal) and the "access message" terms.
• Google — Claim Construction Order issued 2024-01-23 (ECF 59), 6:23-cv-00320. Proxense has repeatedly characterized this as adopting its constructions, including for "access message."
• Microsoft — Claim Construction Order, 2024-05-24 (ECF 66), 6:23-cv-00319.
• Apple — full Markman cycle: opening brief, Proxense responsive brief 2024-11-27 (ECF 50), Proxense reply, Joint Claim Construction Statement 2024-12-30. Proxense argued: "This case is the fourth time that this Court will construe claim terms for the Patents-at-Issue" and invoked the Federal Circuit's uniformity principle (Markman, Finisar) to bind Apple to the earlier constructions. Apple argued "verification unit" was §112 ¶6 means-plus-function and that certain terms were indefinite.

Bottom line: across four cases, Judge Albright consistently adopted a narrow-ish but Proxense-friendly set of constructions; the defendants never obtained a case-dispositive construction. Notably, the PTAB later construed "a third party that operates a trusted authority" as "a trusted authority that is an entity separate from the parties to a transaction" (IPR2024-00233, Paper 10 at 12; Paper 35 at 9, 11) — a construction Proxense now attacks on appeal as unsupported by the specification.

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2024-07-31 and 2024-12-17 — Proxense's final infringement contentions served in Proxense v. Microsoft.
• 2025-03-04 — Proxense's final infringement contentions served in Proxense v. Apple.
• 2025-05-16 — Joint notice of case narrowing filed in Proxense v. Microsoft (dropping patents/claims as the PTAB and reexam results came in).
• June 2025 — Microsoft filed summary judgment motions and Daubert motions (including to exclude damages opinions of Dr. Cole and Dr. VanderHart), and Proxense filed its own SJ and Daubert motions (ECF 106, 107 and related). These were briefed on a schedule that ran alongside the collapsing patent positions.
• Proxense's infringement contentions were a persistent flashpoint — Microsoft's amended invalidity contentions complained that the contentions "fail[ed] to put Microsoft on notice."

5. Trial events, verdict, post-trial motions

There was never a patent trial or verdict in any Proxense case. The closest the campaign came was Samsung: the case proceeded through claim construction, summary judgment, and final pretrial motions (ECF 161 order on final pretrial conference motions) and then settled on the day of jury selection:

• Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (ECF 168)
• Order Cancelling Jury Selection and Trial (ECF 169)

That eve-of-trial Samsung settlement (2023) is the source of the "judicial economy" argument that defeated Google's transfer motion — and, per the Federal Circuit, was a legitimate basis for keeping the case in Waco.

The Microsoft SJ/Daubert motions were overtaken by events (the '730 patent's claims were cancelled) rather than decided on the merits as far as I can confirm. No JMOL, new-trial, or fee motions are documented in what I could retrieve.

6. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, appeal

Google (the core of your docket):

• 2025-01-13 — Proxense and Google filed a Stipulation of Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), 6:23-cv-00320. Terms: "All claims of infringement that Plaintiff raised or could have raised in this action are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE. All claims, defenses, or counterclaims that Defendant raised are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each Party will bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees."
• Docketed as ECF 148 (joint stipulation) with ECF 149 (order cancelling jury trial).
• Counsel: Proxense — Hecht Partners (David L. Hecht, Maxim Price, Yi Wen Wu); Google — Quinn Emanuel (Kevin Hardy, Sean Pak).
• Because the dismissal was with prejudice, the practical read (and ip fray's) is that Google took a license.

Microsoft:

• 2025-05-09 — Microsoft moved to dismiss the '730 patent with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1) (ECF 95), because the PTAB had cancelled all 17 claims.
• 2025-05-06 — Proxense's amended complaint nonetheless re-asserted the '730 patent; a Joint Notice of Case Narrowing followed on 2025-05-16.

Intel — settled and exited. Samsung — settled 2023. Hyundai/Kia/Genesis — voluntarily dismissed 2025-04-14. LG — status not confirmed in what I retrieved.

---

Track B — The PTAB and Office proceedings (this docket and its siblings)

IPR2024-00233 — the docket you gave me

The appeal (present posture)

The appeal is pending as of today. Proxense's core theory is an Administrative Procedure Act / reasoned-explanation challenge: the Board found the '954 claims obvious over Ludtke while the Central Reexamination Unit in the '052 reexam determined substantially identical claims of the '730 patent patentable over Ludtke. Proxense relies on In re Vivint, 14 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021), and argues the Board "ceded jurisdiction" to the CRU, "rewrote the specification," and misquoted the CRU's use of "moot." The PTAB, in turn, dismissed the CRU's work as "hypothetical or academic" (Paper 35 at 42). Notably, Microsoft itself predicted the APA problem in its motion to stay the reexam, acknowledging the inconsistency "will likely raise (here or on appeal) APA violation concerns" (IPR2024-00846, Paper 16).

Proxense's requested relief includes outright reversal on the ground that the Office already determined the claims patentable — a long-shot posture, but one that keeps the '954 patent nominally alive during appeal.

Parallel PTAB/IPR/PGR and reexam landscape

---

What actually happened, in one paragraph

Proxense sued Google in W.D. Tex. on 2023-05-02 on six biometric-authentication patents, including the '954 patent. Google's transfer motion and mandamus petition both failed (2023-2024), and Judge Albright construed the terms in Proxense's favor on 2024-01-23. Google then attacked through the PTAB: IPR2024-00233 was instituted on 2024-07-24, Apple joined on 2024-10-08, and — critically — Google and Proxense settled the district court case on 2025-01-13 and jointly terminated Google from the IPRs on 2025-02-05, leaving Apple as sole petitioner in -00233. The Board issued its FWD on 2025-06-17, holding every challenged '954 claim unpatentable over Ludtke (and Ludtke + Kon), denied Proxense's Director Review request, and Proxense's consolidated appeal (covering -00233/-01334 and -00846) was briefed on 2026-04-03 and remains pending. Meanwhile the sibling IPRs and reexams wiped out the '730 patent's claims entirely (2025-04-28 adverse judgments), which is why Microsoft moved to dismiss the '730 patent with prejudice on 2025-05-09 and why Proxense filed its case-narrowing notice on 2025-05-16. No case in the campaign ever reached a jury verdict; Samsung's settled on the eve of trial (2023), and Google, Samsung, and Intel settled outright.

---

Caveats and open questions

1. The docket label is a misnomer for a "litigation." IPR2024-00233 is a PTAB trial. If your question was meant to be about Proxense v. Google, No. 6:23-cv-00320-ADA, say so and I'll drill deeper into that docket's ECF-by-ECF record.
2. Google's answer/counterclaims and the Apple motion-to-dismiss disposition are unverified from primary sources in what I could retrieve. I have not fabricated them.
3. Dates I'm confident in come from primary documents: the Fed. Cir. mandamus order (2024-04-04), the Board's termination order (2025-02-05), the FWD (2025-06-17), and the appeal brief (2026-04-03). Dates I'd treat as approximate: the Apple markman filings, Microsoft's stay/SJ/Daubert filings, and the Apple stay denial (~Nov 2024).
4. The Director Review denial date is not stated in the order text I retrieved.
5. The appeal is live, so the '954 patent's invalidity is not yet final; any licensing or damages posture in the campaign turns on how the Federal Circuit resolves the APA inconsistency argument — the single most important legal issue still open in this dispute.

I'll search for coverage of this case across multiple angles.

Let me verify the listed IPWatchdog roundups and search for additional coverage.

Let me check whether the older IPWatchdog roundups actually discuss Proxense.

What the press has reported

The filing wave (January 2024). The most substantive contemporaneous coverage of this IPR's origin is IPWatchdog's "Patent Filings Roundup" of 2024-01-25 (Kelly Hughes), which reported that "[e]ight IPRs were filed against eight of inventor-controlled Proxense, LLC's biometric authentication patents (three by Google and two by Microsoft), which target the provision of universal platform password-less architecture." That is the only trade-press account I found that ties the January 17, 2024 Google petitions — including IPR2024-00233 — to the strategic theory later litigated in the FWD: that Android/Chrome/Titan and Microsoft's passwordless stack practice the claims. Note the framing: IPWatchdog characterized Proxense as "inventor-controlled," whereas Law360 has described it as an "Oregon startup" — a labeling difference (inventor-owned vs. NPE/startup) that recurs across the coverage and is not really a factual conflict.

The merits outcome. Law360 covered the Final Written Decision under the headline "Apple Gets PTAB To Ax All Claims Of Biometric Patent" (dated 2025-06-18, one day after the June 17 FWD), reporting that "[t]he Patent Trial and Appeal Board has found that Apple proved that claims across a Proxense patent on biometric verification technology are invalid, holding that they were obvious." Law360's account is consistent with the FWD (Paper 35) but adds nothing on the claim-construction dispute over "a third party that operates a trusted authority" or the CRU inconsistency that drives the appeal — that analysis appears only in Proxense's own briefs and in the ip fray pieces below.

The Google settlement and its strategic read. ip fray (Florian Mueller) reported on the 2025-01-13 stipulated dismissal and went beyond the court record to interpret it: "[g]iven that the plaintiff's claims are dismissed with prejudice, there can be no doubt that Google has taken a license," identifying Samsung as "the other known licensee at this point" and opining that "[t]he Google agreement increases the likelihood of Proxense being able to strike deals with other defendants in the same district (Apple, Microsoft, Intel and LG)." ip fray also supplied the only press detail on counsel — naming David L. Hecht, Maxim Price and Yi Wen Wu for Proxense and Kevin Hardy and Sean Pak (Quinn Emanuel) for Google — and noted the Hecht Partners/Susman Godfrey co-counsel arrangement and Judge Albright's anticipated move from Waco to Austin. Law360 also reported the earlier venue fight, noting (2025-02-07) that the Texas court denied Apple's bid to relocate the suit because it "would not be clearly more convenient to try in the Northern District of California" — a useful date check, since that ruling was reported in February 2025, later than the ~2024 transfer briefing.

The reexam conflict and the appeal's policy stakes. The most analytically ambitious coverage is ip fray's report (Olivia Sophie Rafferty) that the CRU upheld the '730 patent on amended claims, which the piece called "a huge win for Proxense, as this patent has now survived all of the key references (Ludtke and Burger)" and which, it said, "could also help its case with the director review it has requested over the PTAB's decision to declare U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954 … unpatentable as obvious over Ludtke." That article is also the clearest press statement of the office-policy angle the case now stands for: it explains that former Acting Director Morgan Stewart's process shift "prohibit[s] the institution or maintenance of IPRs when a challenged claim has already been found patentable in a third-party Ex Parte Reexamination," and observes that "[h]owever, under the new system, the panel would not have been permitted to institute, stay, or interfere with the ongoing EPRs." A Chinese-language trade item republished on bdipp.cn (sourced to 天天IP) reported the day after the Google deal that Proxense had immediately sued Hyundai/Kia/Genesis, and pegged the portfolio at roughly 65 digital-key patents — a portfolio-size figure I could not corroborate elsewhere.

Coverage gaps. There is no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O, or EFF coverage of this IPR that I could locate. No outlet has reported any damages figure, license fee, or settlement amount — the Google–Proxense Settlement and License Agreement (Ex. 1028) is under seal as business confidential information, and ip fray's license inference rests on the with-prejudice dismissal, not on disclosed terms. Law360's articles are paywalled, so I could verify only the teaser text quoted above, not the full reports. Finally, of the eight IPWatchdog roundups supplied in the index, I could confirm only the 2024-01-25 piece discusses this case; the 2020–2022 roundups (Torchlight/fee-increase/Fintiv/IP Edge/Magentar/Fortress Biotech/WePay/Getty Images items) could not be verified as containing any Proxense discussion, and I would not cite them as coverage of this matter.

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Apple, Inc
• IPR2024-00233, No. 2015 Exhibit - Microsofts Amended Preliminary Invalidity Contentions (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2024) - Exhibits:
• Search court records on patent:(8886954)
• IPR2024-00233 & IPR2024-01334
• Patent Owner uses Mr
• Microsoft Corporation vs Proxense, LLC (2024) | US PTAB | Patent | Arctic Invent Case Law Database
• The PTAB silenced the claims by providing a construction that disregards the claims' explicit language
• Texas : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Case 6:24-cv-00143-ADA Document 50 Filed 11/27/24 Page 1 of 22

I'll research the counsel of record for the petitioners (Google LLC and Apple Inc.) in this IPR, plus the patent owner's counsel for completeness.

Key counsel names are emerging. Let me pin down which firm represents which petitioner and confirm Apple's counsel.

Now let me confirm Google's IPR counsel of record in the petition, and Apple's counsel, plus the Federal Circuit appellee counsel.

Counsel of Record — Who Represents Whom

Threshold point on alignment. In IPR2024-00233 the parties styled as "plaintiffs" in the case metadata (Google LLC and Apple Inc.) are the petitioners; Proxense, LLC is the patent owner. So "plaintiffs' counsel" here means the petitioners' PTAB counsel of record. Because Google was terminated on settlement (Paper 21, Feb. 5, 2025), the live petitioner after that date is Apple alone — which is why the Board's operative caption is Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC and why the counsel roster in the later papers is Apple's, not Google's. I've also noted Proxense's counsel of record for completeness, since in the underlying district court case Proxense is the plaintiff.

---

1. Google LLC (original petitioner; terminated Feb. 5, 2025) — Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Confirmed as petitioner counsel in the Joint Scheduling Order entered July 24, 2024 (IPR2024-00232, Paper 11, covering IPR2024-00232/-00233/-00234) and in the Board's Oct. 3, 2024 conduct order, both listing only Finnegan for "Petitioner" — i.e., before Apple's Oct. 8, 2024 joinder, when Google was the sole petitioner. Finnegan is also listed in the "PETITIONER" block of the June 17, 2025 Final Written Decision.

Source: Joint Scheduling Order, IPR2024-00232 Paper 11 (Jul. 24, 2024); Order Conduct of the Proceeding, IPR2024-00782 Paper 12 (Oct. 3, 2024).

Separately (not PTAB counsel of record): Google's district court team in Proxense v. Google LLC & Google Payment Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00320-ADA, included John McKee of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, who authored the May 20, 2024 stipulation correspondence filed as Ex. 1025 in these IPRs (Docket Alarm exhibit). Do not conflate the two: Quinn Emanuel appears in the IPR record only as the source of an exhibit.

2. Apple Inc. (joined petitioner Oct. 8, 2024; sole petitioner thereafter) — Duane Morris LLP

The Board's petitioner counsel roster for the period after Google's termination lists Philip W. Woo, D. Stuart Bartow, Monte T. Squire, and Paul Belnap of Duane Morris LLP (FWD/Director Review compilation at 26; same block in the Oct. 23, 2024 conduct order in IPR2024-00232 as "FOR PETITIONER"). The attribution to Apple is an inference on my part, but a well-supported one: (a) Duane Morris appears as petitioner counsel only from the point Apple joined, while Finnegan was the sole petitioner firm before joinder; (b) Mr. Squire argued for Petitioner at the April 22, 2025 hearing (IPR2024-00232 Tr.), when Google had already been terminated and Apple was the only remaining petitioner; and (c) Duane Morris is Apple's petitioner counsel in the sister case Apple Inc. v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2025-00074, where the same four names appear as Petitioner (Notice Erratum, IPR2025-00074 Paper 6 (Dec. 11, 2024)). I could not retrieve Apple's own mandatory notices for IPR2024-01334/00233 directly, so the office-location detail below is unverified.

Caveat: I did not find a filing that states affirmatively "Duane Morris represents Apple in IPR2024-00233." The inference rests on the three data points above. Apple's IPR2024-01334 petition (filed Aug. 22, 2024) would confirm the lead/back-up designations directly, but I could not open that document.

3. Proxense, LLC (patent owner; plaintiff in the parallel district court suits) — Hecht Partners LLP

For completeness, since Proxense is the plaintiff in the underlying litigation and the appellant on appeal:

Sources: Proxense Mandatory Notices, IPR2024-01327 Paper 7 (Sept. 27, 2024); Request for Director Review (July 2, 2025).

---

Open items and cautions

1. Proxense's counsel changed during the proceeding. The IPR2024-00233 docket shows "Patent Owner Notice: Updated Mandatory Notice" papers at Paper 27 (Apr. 5, 2025) and Paper 34 (May 21, 2025) (docket index), plus a Notice of Appeal in the same period. I could not retrieve the contents of those updates, so it is possible additional Proxense counsel (district-court or appellate counsel) were added by formal appearance after Hecht Partners. Treat Hecht Partners as confirmed but not necessarily exhaustive for the patent owner after May 2025. A related data point: an IPR2025-00074 erratum lists a Proxense service address care of Greg Sueoka, Patent Law Works, 4516 South 700 East, Ste. 290, Salt Lake City, UT — I could not confirm whether Mr. Sueoka is counsel of record or merely a correspondence address, so I do not list him as counsel.
2. Apple's Federal Circuit appellee counsel is not confirmed. The appeal (Proxense, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 25-2168, Fed. Cir., docketed Sept. 30, 2025; originating cases IPR2024-00233, IPR2024-01334, IPR2024-00846) lists only Proxense's representatives in the Rule 47.4 certificate of interest. Google is not a party to the appeal (settled/terminated below). Apple's appellee brief counsel should be verified against the Federal Circuit docket; I would expect Duane Morris but cannot state it as fact.
3. No conflict with the earlier case summary. The prior section's finding that Apple is a joined petitioner, not an original petitioner, is consistent with the Finnegan-then-Duane Morris counsel progression documented above. One minor refinement: the earlier summary described the termination order (Paper 21) as covering four IPRs; the order itself is captioned in IPR2024-00232, -00233, -00782, and -00783, and as of the July 24, 2024 scheduling order the three Google-filed proceedings were -00232, -00233, and -00234 (the '905 patent), with -00782/-00783 instituted later on Nov. 18, 2024.
4. No sealed-counsel issue. Nothing in the retrieved record suggests counsel identities were filed under seal; the sealed material (Ex. 1028, the Google–Proxense settlement and license agreement) concerns settlement terms, not appearances.
5. Nothing found for in-house counsel. No Google, Apple, or Proxense in-house attorney appears on the PTAB counsel blocks retrieved; all appearances are outside counsel. District-court local counsel for Proxense in W.D. Tex. (a Susman Godfrey address appears in a related docket excerpt) is unverified and therefore not listed.

I'll research counsel of record. Note the case metadata here is inverted relative to the underlying litigation: in this IPR the "defendant" (patent owner/respondent) is Proxense, LLC, while Google/Apple are petitioners. I'll cover Proxense's PTAB counsel of record primarily, and flag petitioner-side counsel for completeness.

Good — strong hits on Proxense's PTAB counsel. Now let me pin down the petitioner-side counsel and the parallel district-court counsel.

Now let me confirm the district-court counsel and verify firm/attorney details, including local counsel and Proxense's broader litigation team.

Counsel of record — who represents whom

Threshold correction on the caption. This is an IPR, not a district-court infringement action, so there is technically no "defendant." Case metadata lists Google LLC and Apple Inc. as "plaintiffs" and Proxense, LLC as "defendant," which maps onto the adversarial roles in the inter partes review: Proxense is the patent owner/respondent (the party whose '954 patent was challenged) and Google/Apple are the petitioners. So "counsel for the defendant" = Proxense's PTAB counsel of record, which is the bulk of what follows. I also give petitioner-side counsel because those same firms are the "defendants" in the parallel W.D. Tex. infringement suits (Proxense v. Google, 6:23-cv-00320; Proxense v. Apple, 6:24-cv-00143), and the question is ambiguous on that point. I flag explicitly where I could not confirm.

---

A. Proxense, LLC — patent owner / respondent (the "defendant" side)

Source of record: Proxense's mandatory notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(3) (filed in IPR2024-01326/01327 on Sept. 27, 2024, which list this IPR as a related proceeding), the Final Written Decision signature block, and the April 22, 2025 oral-hearing transcript.

There is no separate local counsel on the PTAB filings — Hecht Partners files directly from New York, which is unremarkable at the Board. For the W.D. Tex. district court cases, a local-counsel appearance is required and Hecht appears as Proxense's out-of-state counsel (a docket-sheet exhibit in Proxense v. Apple lists "David L. Hecht, Hecht Partners LLP … ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED"). I could not confirm the identity of Proxense's Texas local counsel from the retrieved sources; do not assume one.

Proxense's damages/technical expert in this IPR, Troy Carrothers (Ex. 2018), is a witness, not counsel — but note that petitioner attacked his POSITA qualifications at the hearing, which is a useful data point on how thin Proxense's evidentiary case was.

---

B. Petitioner side (Apple post-Feb. 2025; Google pre-termination)

Apple Inc. — joined petitioner Oct. 8, 2024 (Paper 13); sole petitioner after Google's termination. Counsel: Duane Morris LLP.

• Monte T. Squire — lead counsel for Apple; argued at the April 22, 2025 hearing; Duane Morris, 1201 N. Market Street, Suite 501, Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 657-4918, mtsquire@duanemorris.com.
• Philip W. Woo — back-up/appearing counsel (joined Mr. Squire at the hearing); Duane Morris.
• D. Stuart Bartow and Paul Belnap — additional Duane Morris attorneys on the FWD/Director-Review signature block (Papers 35, 38).
• Apple in-house: Christopher Hahn and Diek Van Nort were identified on the record at the April 22, 2025 hearing as Apple in-house counsel attending as listeners — in-house role, not counsel of record.
• I did not confirm Apple's separate district-court defense counsel in Proxense v. Apple, 6:24-cv-00143; Duane Morris is confirmed only for Apple's PTAB work.

Google LLC — original petitioner (filed Jan. 17, 2024); terminated on settlement Feb. 5, 2025 (Paper 21). Counsel: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. The one firm-attributable record item is Petitioner's Exhibit 1025 — the May 20, 2024 § 315(e) stipulation letter to Proxense — signed by John McKee, Quinn Emanuel (johnmckee@quinnemanuel.com). Google's broader Proxense-related filings and its W.D. Tex. defense in Proxense v. Google/Google Payment, 6:23-cv-00320, also involve Quinn Emanuel (Stephen Broome, D.C.; Josef Ansorge, of counsel, D.C.), but I can only tie John McKee to this docket with confidence. No royalty/license terms are public — the Google–Proxense settlement and license agreement is under seal as Ex. 1028 (BIC).

---

C. Contradiction / caveat to flag

One retrieved exhibit — the scheduling order in Proxense v. Apple, 6:24-cv-00143, hosted as Petitioner's Ex. 1036 in IPR2024-01485 — shows a signature block reading "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT APPLE INC. / By: /s/ David L. Hecht (Co-Lead Counsel), HECHT PARTNERS LLP." That is almost certainly an OCR/aggregation artifact (Hecht Partners is Proxense's counsel, not Apple's; the same document contains both parties' attorney blocks). I am not treating it as evidence that Hecht represents Apple. If a firm-level confirmation of Apple's district-court team matters for the deliverable, it needs a fresh PACER pull of 6:24-cv-00143 — the retrieved secondary sources could not settle it.