Microsoft Corp. v. Proxense, LLC

I'll research this case across dockets, PTAB records, and legal press before drafting.

Good foundation. Now let me verify the companion IPRs, the FWD details, and Proxense's corporate background.

Let me pin down the accused products, the district court stay posture, and the companion IPRs.

Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. — Case Overview

Parties. Proxense, LLC is a small, Bend, Oregon-based entity founded in 2001 by John J. Giobbi, who is the named inventor across the core patents in the portfolio. The complaint describes a genuine operating history: from roughly 2004–2012 Proxense developed mobile-payment and wireless "Personal Digital Key" (PDK) authentication technology, and the technology drew press and deployments (e.g., a university card program cited in the record at Ex. 1038). Proxense is now characterized by press and by its own briefing as a former operating company / non-practicing entity that monetizes the portfolio through licensing and litigation rather than product sales. See Am. Compl. ¶ 34, Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00319-ADA (W.D. Tex.), https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.[1217252](/patent/1217252)/gov.uscourts.txwd.1217252.93.0.pdf; ip fray, "PTAB abused discretion by staying reexamination that favored patentee, Proxense tells Federal Circuit," https://ipfray.com/ptab-abused-discretion-by-staying-reexamination-that-favored-patentee-proxense-tells-federal-circuit/. Microsoft Corp. is the accused operating company; it petitioned for the IPR at issue (real party-in-interest: Microsoft only, per the Final Written Decision) and defended in district court alongside parallel actions against Apple and (until settlement) Google and Samsung.

Accused technology and asserted patents. Proxense's Final Infringement Contentions (served July 24, 2024; final Dec. 17, 2024, lodged in the IPR record as Exs. 2017–2020) accuse "Microsoft's Universal Passwordless Architecture," specifically: the Microsoft Authenticator app, Platform Credential for macOS, Windows Hello, Microsoft-certified/compatible FIDO2 security keys, Windows 10/11 (CloudAP and Web Account Manager), Edge/Chrome passkey support, and Microsoft Identity (formerly Azure Active Directory, now Entra ID). The theory maps FIDO2/WebAuthn elements onto the claims — credential IDs as "device ID codes," private keys as "secret decryption values," ID/bearer tokens as the "access message," and the Microsoft Identity Platform as the "third-party trusted authority." The six district-court patents split into two families: Family A (biometric PDK authentication) — U.S. 8,352,730 (biometric data stored in tamper-proof form; scan-data comparison triggers wireless transmission of codes to a trusted authority); U.S. 8,886,954 (same core with device ID code + secret decryption value sent to an agent); U.S. 9,298,905 (multi-level biometric authentication via an access instrumentality). Family B (PDK/receiver-decoder arrangements) — U.S. 8,646,042 ("Hybrid Device Having a Personal Digital Key and Receiver-Decoder Circuit and Methods of Use," issued Feb. 4, 2014 from App. No. 13/445,825): a single hybrid device integrating both a PDK and an RDC, wirelessly bridging an external PDK in its proximity zone to an external RDC, with an "enablement signal" unlocking an application/service; U.S. 9,679,289 (related multi-instrumentality access arrangements); U.S. 10,073,960 (same family). In the district court, Proxense asserted claims 1–3, 5, 15–17 of the '730; 1–3, 5–7 of the '954; 1–2, 15 of the '905; claim 1 only of the '042; and claims 14, 16 of the '289 and '960. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00573/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Proxense_LLC/docs/03-11-2025-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2017-Final_Infringement_Contentions___Microsoft.pdf

Procedural posture and venue. The infringement suit was filed May 2, 2023 in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright (No. 6:23-cv-00319-ADA), with a companion case against Google (No. 6:23-cv-00320) and a later Apple case (No. 6:24-cv-00143-ADA). Microsoft moved to transfer to the Western District of Washington (Dkt. 29, Aug. 21, 2023), arguing that all three implicated teams (Entra ID, Windows Hello, Authenticator) are Washington-based; Judge Albright denied the motion, and the denial is publicly reproduced in the IPR record (Microsoft Ex. 1027). The court issued a claim construction order on May 24, 2024 (Dkt. 66), adopting prior Proxense v. Samsung constructions, and Proxense pressed Microsoft to follow its infringement contentions rather than re-litigate those terms in the IPR (PO Sur-reply, IPR2024-00573). Microsoft then moved to stay the case pending IPR (Dkt. 76); the '730 patent was separately knocked out via Proxense's own requests for adverse judgment in IPR2024-00775 and IPR2024-00232 (April 28, 2025), prompting Microsoft's opposed motion to dismiss the '730 with prejudice (Dkt. 95, May 9, 2025) — Proxense filed an amended complaint on May 6, 2025 that still asserted the '730, and a joint case-narrowing notice followed (Dkt. 104–105, May 16–30, 2025). Per ip fray's reporting, the Microsoft and Apple litigations "remain stayed" as of 2026. Venue matters here for the usual reasons: WDTX/Waco was the highest-volume patent venue in the country at filing, and Proxense had already litigated the same terms there against Samsung, so the court's prior constructions were strategically central.

Why it is notable / IPR linkage. Four things stand out. (1) It is a textbook NPE campaign against four of the largest technology companies — Samsung (settled 2023), Google (settled Jan. 2025, days before trial), Intel (settled Mar. 2026), with Apple and Microsoft still in stayed litigation. (2) The patents sit underneath the modern passkey/FIDO2/WebAuthn standard, with priority dates (2004–2006) well before the FIDO Alliance's formation — the classic "small inventor ahead of the standard" narrative Proxense trades on. (3) In IPR2024-00573 (filed Feb. 15, 2024; instituted Aug. 13, 2024, Paper 11; hearing May 13, 2025), the Board found claims 1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, and 14 of the '042 obvious under § 103 over Giobbi '157 (US 2007/0245157) in view of Giobbi '139 (US 2004/0255139), with Dua for one ground and Broadcom for the claim-10 group — i.e., Proxense's own founder's earlier published applications supplied the invalidating art (Paper 27, Aug. 4, 2025; caption lists both Microsoft and Apple as petitioners, reflecting the parallel Apple petition/joinder). (4) The case has become a forum for a live USPTO-internal conflict: the Board's unpatentability findings ran head-on into Central Reexamination Unit determinations favoring Proxense (including a Dec. 3, 2025 decision upholding amended '730 claims), producing Proxense's APA-based appeal and a Director-review request; Proxense noticed appeal from IPR2024-00573 on Oct. 6, 2025, docketed at the Federal Circuit as No. 26-1025 (also originating from IPR2024-01398), https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/[3015522](/patent/3015522)-proxense-v-microsoft. That appeal, and the 2025 Director guidance on discretionary denial where a claim has already survived an ex parte reexamination, give the case significance beyond the parties.

Sourcing caveats. The docket entries, claim constructions, FWD reasoning, IPR exhibit citations, accused-product list, and counsel (Microsoft: Fish & Richardson — W. Karl Renner, Roberto J. Devoto, Usman Khan; Proxense: Hecht Partners LLP — David L. Hecht, James Zak, Conor McDonough) are grounded in the court and PTAB records linked above. I did not independently open PACER to confirm the current live docket state or the exact terms of any stay order, and the patent-by-patent IPR case numbers other than those cited above (e.g., which Microsoft IPR corresponds to the '954 vs. the '289) are only partially verified — treat those as unconfirmed. Proxense's current corporate status and the characterization as an NPE come from secondary reporting (ip fray) plus its own pleadings, not from a court finding.

I'll research the docket, PTAB record, and parallel proceedings before drafting the timeline.

Good detail. Now let me pin down the district court stay posture, the companion IPRs, and the appeal.

Framing note

The case in the metadata (IPR2024-00573) is the PTAB proceeding, not the district court case. Because you asked for the "litigation" timeline, I've run the chronology of the parallel W.D. Tex. action (Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00319-ADA) in parallel with the IPR, and flagged where they interlock. Every date below is sourced to a docket entry, a filed paper, or contemporaneous legal-press coverage; items I could not ground are explicitly marked unconfirmed.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2023)

I did not find a separately docketed Microsoft answer/counterclaims (invalidity and unenforceability contentions appear to have been handled through the case schedule rather than a counterclaim-heavy pleading). Treat "no counterclaims" as an inference, not a confirmed fact.

IPR track begins: 2024-02-15 — Microsoft files the IPR2024-00573 petition against the '042 patent. 2024-06-10 — Proxense's Patent Owner Preliminary Response (docketed as Paper 7, a shorter version of its '289 POPR). https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00573/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Proxense_LLC/docs/06-10-2024-Patent_Owner/POPR_filed-7-Patent_Owners_Preliminary_Response.pdf

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance and Markman (2023–2024)

• 2023-11-11 / 2023-11-27 / 2023-12-11 / 2023-12-27 — Markman briefing: Microsoft opening (Dkt. 31), Proxense response (Dkt. 42), Microsoft reply (Dkt. 46), Proxense sur-reply (Dkt. 49). 2024-01-10 — Joint Claim Construction Statement (Dkt. 51). The parties rested on the briefs in lieu of a Markman hearing.
• 2024-04-26 (Dkt. 61) — Judge Albright denies Microsoft's motion to transfer. The opinion is reproduced in PTAB records (e.g., Exhibit 2012 in IPR2024-00232, https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00232/Google_LLC_v._Proxense_LLC/05-06-2024-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2012-Order_re_Microsofts_Motion_to_Transfer/), and Law360 dates it: "U.S. District Judge Alan Albright rejected efforts by Microsoft to send an infringement lawsuit over its cloud software to its home in Washington state." https://www.law360.com/cases/64518097aa4b0301ed3f2480/articles The court weighed the sources of proof ("mostly, if not entirely, accessible electronically"), Microsoft's WDTX-resident security-cleared employee, and the competing unwilling third-party witnesses (Microsoft's Perla and OpenID/FIDO-standards author Jones in WDWA vs. Dell and Edgile in WDTX).
• 2024-05-24 (Dkt. 66) — Claim Construction Order (date per the prior section; the docket confirms Dkt. 66 is the CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER, and I could not independently re-confirm the exact day). Outcomes:
  • "access message" ('730 cls. 1, 15; '954 cl. 1; '905 cl. 1) — no construction necessary; plain and ordinary meaning (Microsoft sought "a message enabling access"; Proxense sought the Proxense v. Samsung construction "a signal or notification enabling or announcing access"). Proxense won.
  • "personal digital key" ('042 cl. 10) — court adopted Proxense's Samsung construction: "an operably connected collection of elements including an antenna and a transceiver for communicating with a RDC and a controller and memory for storing information particular to a user." Proxense won; Microsoft's "a device that includes…" formulation rejected (the PDK "need not be a stand-alone device").
  • "receiver-decoder circuit" — Proxense's "component or collection of components…" construction adopted over Microsoft's narrower formulation.
  • Agreed terms: "hybrid device" = "a device comprising an integrated personal digital key (PDK) and an integrated receiver-decoder circuit"; "ID code"/"device ID code" = "a unique code identifying a device."
  • Microsoft's § 112 indefiniteness attacks (e.g., the '730 claim 5 fingerprint term; "palm print" in the '954) were rejected. Proxense's sur-reply brief is at https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00782/Google_LLC_v._Proxense_LLC/05-05-2025-Petitioner/Exhibit-1049-Sur_reply_Claim_Construction_Brief_in_Proxense,_LLC_v_Microsoft_Corporation,_No_623_cv_00319_ADA/
• 2024-08-20 — Microsoft files a Sotera stipulation in the district court: if the Board institutes IPR2024-01326 (and IPR2024-00775), Microsoft will not pursue in the district court the grounds raised or reasonably raisable against all claims of the '730. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-01326/Microsoft_Corporation/docs/08-20-2024-Petitioner/Exhibit-1024-Microsoft_Stipulation_dated_August_20,_2024.pdf
• Dkt. 76 — Microsoft's Opposed Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review of the Patents-At-Issue. This is the single most consequential district-court motion in the case; it was still pending as of May 2025 (Microsoft filed a May 2025 "Notice of Supplemental Authority in support of" Dkt. 76). I could not confirm its exact filing date (docket numbering places it between the May 2024 Markman order and the 2025 adverse-judgment events, i.e. likely Q1–Q2 2025).

---

3. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2024-07-24 — Proxense serves Final Infringement Contentions against Microsoft, asserting claims 1–3, 5, 15–17 ('730); 1–3, 5–7 ('954); 1–2, 15 ('905); claim 1 only ('042); and 14, 16 ('289 and '960). Accused: Microsoft's Universal Passwordless Architecture (Authenticator, Windows Hello, Platform Credential for macOS, FIDO2 keys, Windows 10/11 CloudAP/WAM, Edge/Chrome passkeys, Microsoft Entra ID). https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00573/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Proxense_LLC/docs/03-11-2025-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2017-Final_Infringement_Contentions___Microsoft.pdf
• 2024-12-17 — A second/served final version of infringement contentions (Petitioner Ex. 1036). The overlapping July/December sets matter because the accused-product map became the framework both sides used in the IPR to argue "enablement signal" and "third-party trusted authority" constructions.
• IPR-side discovery: 2024-12-16 Petitioner's notice of deposition of Proxense's expert Dr. Markus Jakobsson; deposition taken 2024-12-20 (Ex. 1030).
• The district court docket (CourtListener, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67312721/proxense-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/) shows the case reached a mature fact-discovery posture before the stay: fact/venue discovery closed 2023-10-30, and by mid-2025 the parties were at expert/dispositive-motion stage.

---

4. The IPR2024-00573 merits track (2024–2025)

• 2024-08-13 — Institution Decision (Paper 11). Board institutes on all challenged claims and all grounds. On the disputed "enabling … application, function, and service" limitation, the panel rejected Proxense's narrowing construction (that information must be received from a PDK "in exchange for an access key"), reading the plain language and specification not to impose it. https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00573/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Proxense_LLC/08-13-2024-Board/Institution_Decision__Grant-11-Institution_Decision__Grant/
• Grounds: Ground 1A — claims 1, 5–6, 8–11, 13, 14 obvious over Giobbi '157 + Giobbi '139; Ground 1B — same claims over Giobbi '157 + Giobbi '139 + Dua; Ground 2 — claims 10–11, 13–14 over Broadcom. Petitioner's expert: Dr. Patrick Traynor; Patent Owner's: Dr. Markus Jakobsson. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00573/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Proxense_LLC/docs/05-09-2025-Petitioner/Exhibit-1039-Petitioners_Demonstratives.pdf
• 2024-10-16 (approx.) — Proxense's Patent Owner Response (Paper 15); 2025-01-28 — Petitioner's Reply (Paper 18); 2024-12-16/20 — Jakobsson deposition; 2025-03-11 — Patent Owner Sur-reply (Paper 19), which argued that the district court's constructions had rendered the "enabling" limitation a means/step-plus-function term lacking a disclosed algorithm (Williamson, Aristocrat, Rain Computing). https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00573/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Proxense_LLC/03-11-2025-Patent_Owner/Other__other-19-Patent_Owners_Sur_Reply/
• 2025-03-18 — Petitioner's objections to evidence (Paper 20); 2025-04-01 — both sides' requests for oral argument (Papers 21–22); 2025-05-08/09 — updated exhibit lists and demonstratives (Petitioner Ex. 1039; Patent Owner demonstratives).
• 2025-05-13 — oral hearing; transcript entered 2025-06-05 (Paper 26).
• 2025-08-04 — Final Written Decision (Paper 27). All challenged claims (1, 5, 6, 8–11, 13, 14) unpatentable under § 103 by a preponderance. Caption: "MICROSOFT CORPORATION and APPLE INC., Petitioner v. PROXENSE, LLC" — i.e., Apple was a joined petitioner. Real party-in-interest identified as Microsoft only. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00573/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Proxense_LLC/docs/08-04-2025-Board/Final_Written_Decision__original-27-Judgment_Final_Written_Decision.pdf ; Bloomberg Law summary, 2025-08-05: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/case-patents-obviousness-p-t-a-b-602
• 2025-10-06 — Proxense files its Notice of Appeal (Paper 28). PTAB status: "Final Written Decision – Appealed"; metadata "Terminated 2025-08-04" refers only to the Board's side. https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00573/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Proxense_LLC/

---

5. The district court unravels the '730 patent (March–June 2025)

This is where the IPR and the reexamination tracks collided with the Texas case:

• 2025-03-27 — The PTAB stays ex parte reexamination 90/015,052 (the '730 reexam, filed 2022-06-08) pending termination of IPR2024-00232, noting Proxense's failure to identify the reexam as a related matter and to update its mandatory notices (district court Dkt. 86-9).
• 2025-04-15 — Proxense requests adverse judgment in IPR2024-00775 and IPR2024-00232, conceding unpatentability of the '730 claims (Dkt. 86-11, 86-12).
• 2025-04-28 — PTAB enters adverse judgment: claims 1–17 of the '730 cancelled (IPR2024-00775) and claims 1–6, 8–17 cancelled (IPR2024-00232); the '232 order lifts the reexam stay and raises § 42.73(d)(3)(i) estoppel (Dkt. 90-1, 90-2).
• 2025-05-06 — Amended Complaint (Dkt. 93) still asserts the '730 ("at least claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 15, 16, and 17").
• 2025-05-09 — Microsoft's Opposed Motion to Dismiss the '730 Patent with Prejudice (Dkt. 95), arguing Rule 12(b)(1) mootness (Fresenius, Sanofi, Purdue v. STMicroelectronics). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1217252/gov.uscourts.txwd.1217252.95.0.pdf
• 2025-05-16–05-30 — Joint Notice of Case Narrowing; Proxense's opposition (Dkt. 103, 2025-05-23); Microsoft's supplemental authority attaching the PTAB office action rejecting Proxense's amended '730 claims (Dkt. 104-1, 2025-05-27); Microsoft's reply (Dkt. 105, 2025-05-30). https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67312721/105/proxense-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/
• 2025-06-03 — Dispositive and Daubert motions filed under seal: Microsoft's motion for summary judgment and its Daubert motion to exclude damages opinions of Dr. Cole and Dr. Vanderhart; Proxense's motion for summary judgment and its motion to exclude opinions of Vincent Thomas (Dkt. 106–109 et seq.). The case was therefore on a trial-ready path when it stopped.

No verdict, no damages award, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motions — the case was stayed before trial. Per ip fray's later reporting, the Microsoft and Apple litigations "remain stayed" into 2026. https://ipfray.com/ptab-abused-discretion-by-staying-reexamination-that-favored-patentee-proxense-tells-federal-circuit/

---

6. Appeal and present posture (2025–2026)

• 2025-10-08 — Federal Circuit No. 26-1025, Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (Appellees: Microsoft Corp. and Apple Inc.); originating PTAB cases IPR2024-00573 and IPR2024-01398. https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/26-1025 ; https://litigation.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/3015522-proxense-v-microsoft
• 2025-11-07 — The court designates 25-2130 and 26-1025 companion cases to be heard by the same merits panel (25-2130 relates to the '954 IPRs).
• 2025-11-20 — Certified list received; briefs run from that service date.
• 2026-04-03 — Proxense files its opening brief (appellate docket 26-04-03). The brief argues the PTAB violated the APA by (i) staying the '052 ex parte reexamination just as the CRU was about to issue a reexamination certificate, then (ii) dismissing the examiner's withdrawal of the Ludtke rejection as "moot" rather than a merits determination, and (iii) misconstruing "a third party that operates a trusted authority." https://ipfray.com/ptab-abused-discretion-by-staying-reexamination-that-favored-patentee-proxense-tells-federal-circuit/ (brief PDF hosted at ipfray.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/26-04-03-Proxense-v.-Apple-Microsoft-appellate-opening-brief-1.pdf)
• Practical effect: if the Federal Circuit vacates, the '042 claims could be restored and the stayed Apple/Microsoft cases revived; ip fray frames this as potential settlement pressure on Microsoft and Apple, given Samsung (2023), Google (2025-01-24) and Intel (2026-03-24) have settled.

Current posture (as of 2026-09-25): IPR2024-00573 is final and on appeal (Fed. Cir. 26-1025, Proxense's opening brief filed 2026-04-03, Microsoft/Apple response and reply briefing to follow); the underlying W.D. Tex. case remains stayed with Microsoft's Dkt. 76 stay motion and Dkt. 95 '730 dismissal motion apparently unresolved.

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents and their effect

Mapping (from mandatory notices and petition papers; the patent-to-IPR mapping for several numbers is only partially verified):

Cross-cutting effect on the litigation: the IPRs (a) gutted the '730, forcing Microsoft's Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal motion; (b) generated the stay of the district case; and (c) produced the PTAB-vs-CRU conflict now before the Federal Circuit — Proxense argues the Board stayed the '052 reexam to prevent a certificate confirming patentability, while the Board characterized the examiner's withdrawal of the Ludtke rejection as "moot." USPTO-internal decisions reportedly upheld core Proxense patents on 2025-12-03 (I could not independently verify the specifics of those decisions).

---

8. Verification notes and contradictions with the prior section

1. Transfer-motion date conflicts with the prior section. The prior section places Microsoft's motion to transfer at "Dkt. 29, Aug. 21, 2023." Microsoft's own briefing states it "timely filed a motion to transfer on October 10, 2023, Dkt. 29." I'd treat 2023-10-10 as better sourced (party admission in a filed paper) and the August date as likely erroneous or referring to a different filing.
2. Complaint date. The district court and Microsoft both use 2023-05-02; the AO-120 form in the file wrapper shows 4/28/2023. Minor; likely a form/clerical discrepancy.
3. Claim-construction order date (2024-05-24) is carried over from the prior section — I confirmed Dkt. 66 is the Claim Construction Order and confirmed its substantive rulings, but not the exact signature date in this pass.
4. Case-narrowing docket numbers. The prior section cites "Dkt. 104–105, May 16–30, 2025" for the joint case-narrowing notice. On the docket, Dkt. 105 is Microsoft's reply ISO the '730 dismissal motion (2025-05-30), and Dkt. 104-1 is the attached PTAB office action. The joint case-narrowing notice exists but its number is unconfirmed.
5. "IPR2024-01333" vs. "IPR2024-013331" appears in Microsoft's motion; the correct number is IPR2024-01333 (joined with IPR2024-00232 on 2024-10-08).
6. Apple's joinder to IPR2024-00573 is confirmed by the FWD caption; the date joinder was granted is unconfirmed (Apple's IPR2024-01398/01399 petitions and ranking notice were filed 2024-09-13).
7. Unverified items I did not assert as fact: the exact filing date of Dkt. 76; whether Microsoft filed an answer/counterclaims; the outcome of IPR2024-00405/00407; the content of the 2025-12-03 USPTO decisions; and the prior section's reference to "2025 Director guidance on discretionary denial where a claim has already survived an ex parte reexamination."
8. No trial occurred, so there is no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial ruling, and no fee award in this case to date.

I'll research press coverage from multiple angles before drafting.

Let me verify the provided articles and search for additional coverage.

Let me look for the specific ip fray articles and other coverage.

Press and analyst coverage of Microsoft v. Proxense (IPR2024-00573 and the parallel W.D. Tex. case)

Dedicated news coverage is thin, and it clusters on outcomes rather than the merits. The most substantive piece is Law360, which on 2025-07-21 (by Adam Lidgett) reported that "the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has found that Microsoft was able to prove that all the claims across two patents owned by an Oregon startup that has sued the technology giant for infringement were invalid." That story is framed around the PTAB win, not the '042 in particular — and given its July 21 date it cannot be describing the '042 FWD, which issued 2025-08-04, so it almost certainly covers the companion '289/'960 decisions. Law360's case page for the underlying Texas suit (Law360) records the venue fight, noting that "U.S. District Judge Alan Albright rejected efforts by Microsoft to send an infringement lawsuit over its cloud software to its home in Washington state." Practitioner-facing databases have also picked up the FWD itself: Arctic Invent's case-law database summarizes IPR2024-00573 as finding "all nine challenged claims unpatentable over the combination of Giobbi '157, Giobbi '139, and Dua," calls the Board's rejection of means-plus-function argument a win for Microsoft, and characterizes the decision as "a significant win for the Petitioner" (Arctic Invent). Bloomberg Law also ran a short case summary on the FWD (dated 2025-08-05 in earlier research for this case); I did not re-verify that item in this pass.

The appeal has generated the most substantive legal-press analysis. ip fray (by Mehnaz Khatoon) covered Proxense's Federal Circuit opening brief, reporting that Proxense argues "the PTAB violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by staying a parallel ex parte reexamination (EPR) that was about to affirm patentability and then quashing the positive determination of the examiner," and that the appeal "centers on what it calls a pattern of 'outcome control' by the PTAB." The piece reports the second issue as claim construction of "a third party that operates a trusted authority," with Proxense arguing the claims make the user and the application the principal parties, "leaving any other entity as a third party." On significance, ip fray states that if the Federal Circuit concurs, "the unpatentability decisions of the PTAB may be set aside, and the patent claims of Proxense restored," which "would greatly bolster the case that Proxense has against Apple and Microsoft in stayed litigation and may put more pressure on the two companies to settle, as Samsung, Google and Intel have already done" — while cautioning that "the APA-based part of the appeal faces a high standard of review." Flagged discrepancy: ip fray describes this appeal as relating to IPRs of the '954 patent, whereas RPX Empower's docket entry for Fed. Cir. No. 26-1025 lists the originating PTAB cases as IPR2024-01398 and IPR2024-00573 — i.e., the '042 proceedings (RPX Empower). Prior research for this case separately noted a companion appeal (25-2130) tied to the '954 IPRs, so the two may have been conflated in one account or consolidated; treat which patent the 26-1025 appeal squarely governs as contested between sources.

Industry reaction and executive statements. Proxense CEO John Giobbi gave ip fray an exclusive interview pitched as the story of "the former operating company (now patent assertion entity)," in which he said: "Litigation has been the path we've had to take because the tech giants today just aren't willing to license patents that they infringe unless you sue them and take them to the mat" (ip fray; the quote surfaced in ip fray's category index and I could not pin the exact article URL). ip fray also reported that "Intel joins Google, Samsung in settling patent dispute with biometrics firm Proxense," while "Proxense's patent infringement suits against Apple, Microsoft, and LG are still pending." RPX's New Patent Litigation items frame the campaign similarly, describing Proxense as "inventor-controlled" and characterizing the Microsoft/Google suits as targeting "the provision of 'universal platform password-less architecture[s]'" — "Microsoft Identity Platform (also known as Azure Active Directory)" (RPX News; these are RPX news blurbs surfaced via RPX's news search, so the specific article permalinks were not recoverable). A Chinese-language compilation of an ip fray report notes that Acting Director Stewart's discretionary-denial guidance cited Proxense patents challenged by Intel for more than nine years as creating "settled expectations" for the patentee, and attributes to Proxense counsel David L. Hecht the statement that Proxense's portfolio contains 34 patents issued eight or more years ago (IPR MOFCOM compilation, 2025-07-18) — a translated secondary source, so treat the figures as reported rather than verified.

On the five IPWatchdog roundups supplied with this assignment: I was unable to open and verify them in this research pass, and their headlines and dates suggest they are general PTAB/district-court roundups rather than dedicated treatment of this case — the 2024-01-25 roundup predates the 2024-02-15 filing of IPR2024-00573, and the 2023-03-03, 2023-01-20, 2022-03-17 and 2021-09-01 items predate even the W.D. Tex. complaint. I therefore cannot report what, if anything, they say about Microsoft v. Proxense without fabricating, and have not attributed any claim to them.

Sources

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Microsoft Corporation v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2024-00573 | P.T.A.B., Judgment, Law, casemine.com - Translate

• SERIAL NUMBER

  FILING or 371(c) DATE

  CLASS

  GROUP ART UNIT

  ATTORNEY DOCKET NO

• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IPR2024-00573, No. 11 Institution Decision Grant - Institution Decision Grant (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2024)
• Wireless communications Patent Cases | US PTAB | Arctic Invent Case Law Database
• US-8646042-B1 - Hybrid Device Having a Personal Digital Key and Receiver-decoder Circuit and Methods of Use - US-8646042-B1 - Hybrid Device Having a Personal Digital Key and Receiver-decoder Circuit and Methods of UseReport ErrorAsk Patty...
• IPR2024-00573, No. 1036 Exhibit - Final Infringement Contentions, served December 17, 2024 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2025)
• 26-1025 - Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation | RPX Empower
• Proxense v. Google et al. | Patent Lawsuit 6:23-cv-00320 - Proxense, LLC v. Google, LLC et al.
• Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, 6:23-cv-00319 - CourtListener.com - Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (6:23-cv-00319)
• 6:23-cv-00319 | Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation | RPX Insight

I'll research counsel on both sides, starting with the IPR petitioner-side (Microsoft, listed as "Plaintiff" in the case metadata) and then the patent-owner/district-court-plaintiff side.

Now let me pull the hearing transcript and the powers of attorney to confirm each attorney's role, and research the Patent Owner's IPR and district-court counsel.

Now let me verify the additional attorneys' firms/roles and the district-court counsel on both sides.

Threshold point: who is the "plaintiff" here

The case in the metadata is the PTAB proceeding, and the metadata designates Microsoft Corp. as "Plaintiff(s)" only because PTAB matters are sometimes docketed petitioner-first. In the underlying patent infringement suit, Proxense, LLC is the plaintiff and Microsoft is the defendant (Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00319-ADA, W.D. Tex.). I have therefore listed counsel for both parties, leading with the party the metadata styles as plaintiff (Microsoft, the petitioner) and then the actual infringement plaintiff (Proxense), plus the joined petitioner's counsel. Where a name appears only in a disclosure/signature block and not in a formal appearance block, I say so.

---

1. Petitioner / metadata-designated "Plaintiff" — MICROSOFT CORP.

All IPR2024-00573 substantive papers (petition through FWD) are signed by the same four-attorney Fish & Richardson P.C. team, with the signature block at Fish's Minneapolis office. The Board's Final Written Decision appearance block (Paper 27) lists exactly these four; the hearing transcript appearance block lists only Mr. Devoto as arguing.

• In-house counsel: none identified in the IPR record (no Microsoft in-house attorney appears in any appearance or signature block). The FWD identifies Microsoft Corporation as the sole real party-in-interest.
• Service/correspondence addresses of record: axf-ptab@fr.com, devoto@fr.com, khan@fr.com, driesslein@fr.com (attorney docket 42342-0134IP1).
• Microsoft's district-court (W.D. Tex.) counsel — partially confirmed: Benjamin Elacqua (Fish & Richardson) is recorded as attending the May 5, 2025 meet-and-confer on Microsoft's behalf in Microsoft's motion to dismiss the '730 patent (Dkt. 95). Separately, the Microsoft Sotera stipulations served in the W.D. Tex. case (June 21 and August 20, 2024) were signed by Betty H. Chen, Desmarais LLP, San Francisco (bchen@desmaraisllp.com), "Attorney for Microsoft." That suggests Desmarais was also on Microsoft's district-court team, but I could not verify her formal docket appearance — and Desmarais is also publicly associated with Apple's side of the Proxense campaign, so treat this attribution as unconfirmed.

2. Joined Petitioner in IPR2024-00573 — APPLE INC.

3. Patent Owner in the IPR and Plaintiff in the infringement suit — PROXENSE, LLC

IPR2024-00573 counsel of record (per the FWD appearance block and every Patent Owner signature block):

W.D. Tex. plaintiff-side co-counsel — Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (co-lead with Hecht Partners; signature blocks in the complaint (Dkt. 1), the claim construction sur-reply (Dkt. 49), and the joint claim construction statement (Dkt. 51)):

The Proxense-side service address of record in the IPR is proxense@hechtpartners.com (with cc to Hecht Partners and Susman Godfrey on district-court correspondence). Susman Godfrey L.L.P. serves as the Texas counsel satisfying the W.D. Tex. local-counsel requirement for the Hecht Partners lawyers appearing pro hac vice — the pleadings also reference a Susman Godfrey Los Angeles office (1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400).

---

Caveats and open items

1. Formal appearances vs. signature blocks. For the IPR, the authoritative lists are the Paper 27 (FWD) appearance block — Microsoft: Renner, Driesslein, Khan, Devoto; Proxense: Hecht, Zak — and the hearing transcript appearance blocks (Devoto for Petitioner; Zak for Patent Owner; Woo for Apple). Attorneys named only in certificates of service or mandatory notices (von Gunten, McDonough, Price, Wu, Kyle) may not be formally of record in IPR2024-00573.
2. Plaintiff/Petitioner mismatch. If your question was aimed at the infringement plaintiff, the answer is Proxense's team (Hecht Partners + Susman Godfrey); if aimed at the metadata's "Plaintiff(s)" field, the answer is Microsoft's Fish & Richardson team. I covered both rather than guess.
3. Not verified: Apple's/Philip Woo's firm; Betty H. Chen's formal docket appearance for Microsoft; whether the Desmarais firm (vs. Fish & Richardson) was Microsoft's W.D. Tex. trial counsel alongside Fish; any Federal Circuit counsel of record for Proxense in the appeal (Fed. Cir. No. 26-1025 — the opening brief was reported by ip fray, but I did not confirm the signing attorneys); and whether additional counsel appeared in the district court in the sealed June 2025 dispositive-motion filings (Dkts. 106–109).
4. No sealed-counsel problem: counsel identity here comes from public PTAB papers and public district-court filings; nothing about the identity of counsel appears to be under seal. I did not open PACER/PTAB E2E directly for this pass, so a current docket pull could reveal later-appearing counsel (e.g., for the appeal).
5. This section supersedes the shorter counsel list in the earlier case overview: the Fish & Richardson team is four named attorneys (Renner, Devoto, Khan, Driesslein) plus von Gunten; the Proxense team is Hecht Partners (Hecht, Zak, plus Price, Wu, McDonough) co-led in the district court by Susman Godfrey (Melton, Harrison, Xi, Barcelo, Jiang) — the Susman Godfrey co-lead role was not reflected previously.

I'll research counsel on both sides — the infringement-suit defendant (Microsoft, and Apple in the parallel case) and the PTAB respondent/patent owner (Proxense) — since the metadata's party labels and the underlying posture point in opposite directions.

Let me dig into the specific appearance filings and firm rosters on both sides.

Two name-collision issues to resolve (Betty Chen at Desmarais vs. Fish & Richardson; Proxense's Texas local counsel). Let me verify.

Framing: who is the "defendant" here?

The metadata's party labels are inverted relative to the underlying litigation, because the metadata caption is the PTAB caption (Microsoft = plaintiff/petitioner; Proxense = defendant/patent owner). In the underlying infringement suit — Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:23-cv-00319-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., Judge Alan D. Albright) — Proxense is the plaintiff and Microsoft Corporation is the defendant. I've therefore set out counsel for both sides: (A) Microsoft, the infringement defendant, and (B) Proxense, which the case metadata labels "Defendant" and which is the patent owner/respondent in IPR2024-00573. I also flag Apple, a joined petitioner in the IPR and a defendant in the parallel case.

---

A. Microsoft Corporation — defendant in the infringement suit

Signature-block sourcing for all of the above: Microsoft's Reply ISO the '730 dismissal motion, Dkt. 105 (filed 5/30/2025), https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67312721/105/proxense-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/ and https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1217252/gov.uscourts.txwd.1217252.105.0.pdf; and Dkt. 95 (5/9/2025), https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67312721/95/proxense-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/.

PTAB-side Microsoft counsel (IPR2024-00573). Per the prior sections, Microsoft's IPR team is Fish & Richardson — W. Karl Renner, Roberto J. Devoto (Washington, D.C.), and Usman Khan, consistent with Fish/Desmarais serving as Microsoft's national patent-defense bench (indeed, the IPR stipulation letters in the sister IPRs are signed by Betty H. Chen of Desmarais, e.g., Ex. 1018 in IPR2024-00407, https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00407/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Proxense_LLC/06-21-2024-Petitioner/Exhibit-1018-Microsoft_Stipulation_dated_June_21,_2024/, and Ex. 1024 in IPR2024-01326).

No in-house counsel appears of record in the W.D. Tex. docket or the PTAB papers I reviewed; Microsoft's defense is run through outside counsel.

---

B. Proxense, LLC — "Defendant" per the case metadata; patent owner/respondent in IPR2024-00573 and plaintiff in the district court

Sources: Joint Claim Construction Statement, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00573/Microsoft_Corporation_v._Proxense_LLC/docs/06-10-2024-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2011-Joint_Claim_Construction_Statement.pdf; docket appearance entries at https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txwdce/6:2023cv00319/1217252; ip fray, https://ipfray.com/google-follows-samsung-in-settling-patent-dispute-with-biometrics-firm-proxense-in-western-district-of-texas-apple-microsoft-intel-lg-cases-still-pending/ (noting Hecht Partners with Susman Godfrey as co-counsel "on some of those cases").

---

C. Apple Inc. — joined petitioner in IPR2024-00573 and defendant in the parallel W.D. Tex. case

Apple appears in the FWD caption as a co-petitioner (via IPR2024-01398 joinder) and was sued separately in Proxense, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00143-ADA (W.D. Tex.). I could not verify Apple's counsel of record in either matter in this research pass — I am not naming any Apple attorneys to avoid fabrication.

---

Caveats and unresolved points

1. The two "Betty Chen" entries. The W.D. Tex. docket shows a June 20, 2023 appearance by "Betty H. Chen" for Microsoft (CM/ECF user "Chen, Betty"), while the 2024–2025 signature blocks give that attorney as Betty Chen, Desmarais LLP (bchen@desmaraisllp.com, TX Bar 24056720). Separately, an attorney Betty H. Chen (SBN 290588, bchen@fr.com) appears for Microsoft at Fish & Richardson in older N.D. Cal. matters. It is possible these are the same person who moved from Fish to Desmarais, but I could not confirm that from the record; treat the identity of the original June 2023 filer as unconfirmed. What is confirmed is that by 2024–2025 Microsoft's W.D. Tex. defense was jointly staffed by Desmarais LLP (Chen) + Fish & Richardson + Gillam & Smith as Texas local counsel.
2. A pro hac vice motion by an attorney with the first name "Jeanel" appears in the CourtListener docket index for this case (surname truncated in the index). I could not retrieve the full entry and am not listing that attorney.
3. Desmarais attorneys Jeffrey S. Seddon, II and Caitrianne Feddeler appear as Microsoft counsel alongside Betty Chen and Gillam & Smith in ParTec AG v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex. 2:24-cv-00433); I did not confirm their appearance in Proxense v. Microsoft. Do not treat their presence here as verified.
4. District-court counsel ≠ PTAB counsel. For IPR2024-00573 itself, the papers are signed by Fish & Richardson (Renner, Devoto, Khan) for Microsoft and Hecht Partners (Hecht, Zak, McDonough) for Proxense per the prior sections; the Desmarais/Susman Godfrey teams are the district-court teams.
5. No sealed-appearance issue found: Microsoft's and Proxense's appearances in the W.D. Tex. case are public. Several merits filings (summary judgment and Daubert motions, Dkt. 106–109, June 3, 2025) are sealed, but the counsel listings are not.
6. I did not open PACER directly; all docket citations above are from CourtListener/dockets.justia, the filed PDFs themselves, or PTAB exhibits. If you need the definitive current appearance list (e.g., after any post-stay withdrawals), a PACER docket-sheet pull on 6:23-cv-00319-ADA is the authoritative check.