Google LLC v. Secure Communication Technologies, LLC

Google LLC, a major technology operating company, initiated an inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against U.S. Patent 11334918, owned by Secure Communication Technologies, LLC (SCT). SCT is identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), having acquired a portfolio of wireless communication patents and asserting them in litigation rather than practicing the technology. The challenged patent, U.S. Patent 11334918, titled "Wireless communication using service identifiers," generally relates to systems and methods for wireless communication through the use of wireless service identifiers. This IPR was filed in the context of a broader patent infringement campaign by SCT, which separately sued Google in the Western District of Texas (1:25-cv-01207) and Apple in the Eastern District of Texas for infringement of patents from the same family.

The underlying district court litigation against Google targets various Google devices, including Chromebooks, laptops, smartphones, and tablets, specifically citing Google features such as Nearby Share/Quick Share, Fast Pair, and Find Hub (formerly Find My) as the allegedly infringing technologies. This IPR (IPR2025-01181) was filed on July 2, 2025, and terminated on December 23, 2025, with a "Not Instituted - Merits" status. This procedural posture indicates that the PTAB, or more specifically the USPTO Director following policy changes in 2025, declined to initiate a trial, determining that Google did not meet the merits threshold for patentability challenges. The district court case against Google has been assigned to District Judge David A. Ezra.

This case is notable for several reasons, reflecting current trends in patent litigation and PTAB practice. It highlights the continued assertion of wireless communication patents by NPEs against large operating companies like Google, often involving widely used features on consumer electronics. Furthermore, the "Not Instituted - Merits" decision for this IPR is significant given the substantial changes at the PTAB in 2025, where the USPTO Director centralized institution decisions, including denials based on discretionary factors and on the merits, which has made it materially harder for petitioners to institute IPRs. Google filed a trio of petitions against SCT's patents, indicating a concerted effort to challenge the validity of these patents at the PTAB.

The provided case, IPR2025-01181, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a district court patent infringement litigation. Therefore, the "legal developments" will focus on the IPR process.

Here are the key legal developments and outcome for IPR2025-01181:

• Filing of IPR Petition (2025-07-02): Google LLC, as the petitioner, filed a petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,334,918. The patent owner is Secure Communication Technologies, LLC. The petition challenged the patentability of claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,334,918.
• PTAB Decision to Not Institute (2025-12-23): The PTAB issued a decision declining to institute an Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 11,334,918. The petition was "Not Instituted - Merits," meaning the Board determined that Google LLC did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on at least one claim challenged in the petition.
• Outcome: The IPR proceeding terminated on 2025-12-23 with the PTAB's decision not to institute review on the merits. This means the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,334,918 challenged by Google LLC in this IPR remain intact as originally issued by the USPTO, as they were not subjected to further review by the PTAB.

Parallel Litigation:
A search for district court litigation involving Secure Communication Technologies, LLC asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,334,918 against Google LLC did not yield specific results indicating an active or concluded infringement case that directly prompted this IPR at the time of this analysis. IPRs are often filed in response to patent infringement allegations, but the specific underlying district court case, if any, is not immediately apparent from publicly available information related to this IPR.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2025-01181 Google LLC counsel of record", "Google LLC patent litigation counsel", "Secure Communication Technologies, LLC patent litigation counsel", "Fish & Richardson Google LLC IPR counsel", "Finnegan Henderson Google LLC IPR counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the plaintiff (Petitioner, Google LLC) in IPR2025-01181. I need to identify the attorneys, their roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience.

My previous search for "IPR2025-01181 Google LLC v. Secure Communication Technologies, LLC counsel" was not fruitful in directly identifying the counsel of record. I need to refine my search to focus on PTAB IPR proceedings and look for specific docket entries if possible, or common firms that represent Google in IPRs.

Since the IPR is terminated, the counsel information should be publicly available in the PTAB's records. I will try searching for the IPR number directly on the PTAB's website or using more specific search terms including "PTAB counsel" or "attorney" for IPR2025-01181.

I will also broaden my search to common firms known to represent Google in patent matters, as a cross-reference.

Let's break down the approach:

1. Search PTAB records for IPR2025-01181 counsel: Look for the public docket for this IPR to identify the attorneys who entered an appearance for Google.
2. Identify attorney roles: Determine if they were lead counsel, of counsel, etc., based on their filing roles in the IPR.
3. Identify firms and office locations: Obtain this information from the PTAB filings or firm websites.
4. Research attorney experience: Conduct separate searches for each identified attorney to find their relevant patent litigation experience or notable cases.

Given the previous general search didn't yield specific counsel, I will try more targeted PTAB-specific searches.I was unable to identify the specific counsel of record representing Google LLC in IPR2025-01181 based on the provided search results. While several prominent firms (e.g., WilmerHale, Fish & Richardson, Kasowitz LLP, Quinn Emanuel, Williams & Connolly) are known to represent Google in patent litigation and PTAB proceedings, the search did not yield a direct list of attorneys who appeared for Google in this particular IPR.

A "Patent Owner's Brief in Support of Discretionary Denial" from Secure Communication Technologies, LLC was found, which mentions IPR2025-01181, IPR2025-01182, and IPR2025-01183, confirming Google LLC as the petitioner in these cases. However, the snippet did not list Google's legal representation.

To definitively identify the counsel of record, access to the official PTAB docket for IPR2025-01181 would be necessary to review appearance entries and filings. Without direct access to these specific docket entries, a precise list of attorneys, their roles, and firms for this case cannot be provided.

The counsel of record representing Secure Communication Technologies, LLC (the Patent Owner) in IPR2025-01181 could not be definitively identified from the provided search results. PTAB docket information or the specific "Decision Denying Institution" document, which would typically list counsel for both parties, was not directly accessible or detailed in the search snippets for this particular IPR.

However, Secure Communication Technologies, LLC has been involved in related patent infringement litigation asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,334,918 (the patent at issue in this IPR) and other patents from the same family. In a district court case, Secure Communication Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. et al. (E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:24-cv-00484), which involved some of the same patents, the following attorneys and firms represented Secure Communication Technologies, LLC:

• Charles Austin Ginnings

  • Role: Likely lead or significant counsel.
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
  • Office Location: Not specified in snippets, but the firm has offices in Texas.
  • Note: Eric M. Albritton, who manages Secure Communication Technologies, LLC, was a former named partner with Nelson Bumgardner Albritton P.C. (now Nelson Bumgardner Conroy P.C.).

• Timothy E Grochocinski

  • Role: Likely counsel.
  • Firm: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
  • Office Location: Not specified in snippets.

• Samuel Franklin Baxter

  • Role: Likely lead or significant counsel.
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C. - Marshall
  • Office Location: Marshall, Texas.
  • Note: McKool Smith is a prominent firm in patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Jennifer Leigh Truelove

  • Role: Likely counsel.
  • Firm: McKool Smith, P.C. - Marshall
  • Office Location: Marshall, Texas.

While these attorneys represented Secure Communication Technologies, LLC in district court litigation concerning the same patent family, it is not confirmed that they were the specific counsel of record for the IPR2025-01181 proceeding before the PTAB. It is common, though not universally true, for patent owners to use the same or closely affiliated legal teams for both district court litigation and related PTAB challenges.