Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC

Proxense, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) and former operating company focused on biometric authentication and wireless communication technology, sued Google LLC, a major technology operating company, for patent infringement. The litigation was part of a broader enforcement campaign by Proxense against several large technology companies, including Samsung, Apple, Microsoft, Intel, and LG.

In the case against Google (6:23-cv-00320), Proxense accused Google's "universal platform passwordless products," specifically "Google Identity (also known as Google Identity Services)" and FIDO passkeys, of infringing its patents. The asserted patents included US10073960B1, US8352730B2, US8886954B1, US9298905B1, US8646042B1, and US9679289B1, which collectively cover architecture enabling users to authenticate without traditional passwords. Notably, while the case metadata provided lists US Patent 8,036,152 as at issue, this patent was primarily asserted by Proxense in separate litigation against Intel and LG Electronics, not against Google in this specific action.

The case was filed on May 2, 2023, in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue is significant as Judge Albright is known for his substantial patent docket, and the Federal Circuit affirmed his denial of Google's motion to transfer the case, citing judicial economy due to his existing familiarity with Proxense's patents from prior related litigation, such as against Samsung. The litigation concluded on January 13, 2025, when Proxense and Google filed a stipulation of dismissal. The court formally closed the case on September 23, 2025, with a stipulated dismissal order. This dismissal was "with prejudice" for Proxense's infringement claims against Google, while Google's defenses and counterclaims were dismissed "without prejudice," strongly indicating that Google took a license to Proxense's patents. This settlement followed a similar outcome with Samsung in 2023. The case is notable for demonstrating an NPE's successful enforcement campaign against major tech companies in the strategically important Western District of Texas, even amidst parallel inter partes review (IPR) challenges at the USPTO against some of Proxense's patents.

Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC: Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement litigation between Proxense, LLC and Google LLC in the Western District of Texas (6:23-cv-00078) concluded with a dismissal with prejudice in January 2025. This outcome, involving a stipulation between the parties, suggests a licensing agreement was reached. The case involved six patents related to passwordless authentication and personal digital key architecture, including U.S. Patent No. 8,036,152.

Chronological Legal Developments:

• Filing of Complaint (2023-05-02): Proxense, LLC initiated the lawsuit against Google LLC and Google Payment Corp. in the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of six U.S. patents. The patents asserted covered technologies for passwordless authentication and personal digital key systems, directly implicating Google's universal platform passwordless products. The original prompt mentioned only patent 8,036,152, but the case actually involved U.S. Patent Nos. 10,073,960, 8,352,730, 8,886,954, 9,298,905, 8,646,042, and 9,679,289. Patent 8,036,152 was also identified as one of the patents asserted by Proxense in a separate campaign against Intel.

• Motion to Transfer Venue (Denied 2024-03-05): Google filed a motion to transfer the case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California, Google's home turf. This motion was denied by Judge Alan D. Albright. The Federal Circuit later refused to reverse Judge Albright's decision in early April 2024, citing the trial court's familiarity with the patents and technology from substantial involvement with prior litigation as a factor disfavoring transfer.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Order (around July 2024): Judge Albright issued a claim construction order in the case against Google, among others. Specifically, disputed claim terms for U.S. Patent No. 8,352,730, one of the patents asserted against Google, were construed. This patent is broadly directed to biometric authentication on an "integrated device."

• Dismissal with Prejudice (2025-01-13): The case was dismissed with prejudice via a stipulation filed by Proxense and Google. The court signed a stipulated dismissal order on September 23, 2025, which finalized the closure of the case after 875 days of litigation. This dismissal was "with prejudice" for all of Proxense's infringement claims, meaning they cannot be refiled against Google for the same accused products under these patents. Google's defenses and counterclaims, however, were dismissed "without prejudice," preserving Google's ability to assert them in future proceedings if necessary. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. This outcome strongly suggests that Google took a license to the asserted patents.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

While the immediate litigation against Google did not involve parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings for the patent 8,036,152 mentioned in the prompt, other patents within Proxense's portfolio have been subject to such proceedings. For instance, U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954, which was also asserted against Google, was involved in inter partes reviews (IPRs) and an ex parte reexamination (EPR). Proxense later appealed a PTAB decision regarding this patent to the Federal Circuit, arguing that the PTAB improperly stayed the EPR that was close to affirming patentability and subsequently quashed the examiner's positive determination. There is no public record found of IPRs specifically targeting U.S. Patent No. 8,036,152.

Proxense, LLC's patent infringement lawsuit against Google LLC, concerning patent 8036152 related to biometrics and payment processing, was dismissed with prejudice on January 13, 2025. This dismissal followed a stipulation between the parties, indicating that Google has taken a license to the asserted patent, as reported by ip fray on January 14, 2025. The settlement with Google followed a similar agreement with Samsung in 2023, and it is viewed as increasing the likelihood of Proxense securing deals with other defendants, including Apple, Microsoft, Intel, and LG, in related litigation campaigns.

Proxense, described as a non-practising entity (NPE) and former operating company, has been actively enforcing its biometric authentication and wireless communication patents against major technology companies. The litigation against Google, filed in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, involved claims related to biometrics and payment processing. While specific financial terms of the Google settlement were not disclosed, the dismissal with prejudice clearly signals a licensing agreement.

The broader context of Proxense's enforcement efforts, highlighted by ip fray, includes ongoing disputes and appeals related to the patentability of its core patents, particularly U.S. Patent No. 8,886,954, which covers "Biometric personal data key (PDK) authentication." These efforts have seen some of Proxense's patents upheld by the USPTO, even as the company navigates challenges and inconsistencies between different USPTO divisions. The resolution with Google is a significant development in Proxense's broader campaign to monetize its patent portfolio.

Sources

• ipfray.com
• ipfray.com
• uspto.gov
• pauldmartin.phd
• ipfray.com

Plaintiff's Counsel Identified in Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC

In the patent infringement case Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC, filed in the Western District of Texas and dismissed with prejudice in January 2025, the plaintiff, Proxense, LLC, was represented by attorneys from Hecht Partners LLP and Susman Godfrey LLP as co-counsel.

The following attorneys were identified as counsel of record for Proxense, LLC:

From Hecht Partners LLP:

• David L. Hecht (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Hecht Partners LLP, New York, NY (Primary office relevant to patent litigation, though other locations may exist).
  • Experience: Known for his work in intellectual property litigation, including patent and copyright cases. He was previously at Quinn Emanuel during the "Smartphone Patent Wars" and has successfully appealed on behalf of choreographer Kyle Hanagami against Epic Games.
• Conor McDonough (Counsel)
  • Firm: Hecht Partners LLP
  • Experience: Appeared as counsel for Proxense.
• Yi Wen Wu (Counsel)
  • Firm: Hecht Partners LLP
  • Experience: Appeared as counsel for Proxense.
• Maxim Price (Counsel)
  • Firm: Hecht Partners LLP
  • Experience: Appeared as counsel for Proxense.

From Susman Godfrey LLP (Co-counsel):

• Brian D. Melton (Lead Counsel/Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Experience: Experienced in intellectual property litigation, with Susman Godfrey often co-counseling on Proxense's cases.
• Bryce T. Barcelo (Counsel)
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP
  • Experience: Appeared as counsel for Proxense.
• Meng Xi (Counsel)
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP
  • Experience: Appeared as counsel for Proxense.
• Geoffrey L. Harrison (Counsel)
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP
  • Experience: Appeared as counsel for Proxense.
• Lear Jiang (Counsel)
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP
  • Experience: Appeared as counsel for Proxense.

While McKool Smith has a strong presence in patent litigation in the Western District of Texas, including attorneys with extensive experience in the Austin office such as Steven J. Pollinger, John Campbell, and Joshua Budwin, the available search results for this specific case, Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC (6:23-cv-00320), do not explicitly list McKool Smith attorneys as counsel of record for Proxense. The identified firms for Proxense in this particular litigation were Hecht Partners and Susman Godfrey. There were also no direct and unambiguous links found for "James G. Nevin" or "Matthew R. Harris" representing Proxense, LLC in this specific patent case.

In the patent infringement case Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC, the defendant, Google LLC, was primarily represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, with local counsel from Mann, Tindel, Thompson.

The counsel of record for Google LLC included:

• Kevin Hardy

  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied, as a primary attorney listed for Quinn Emanuel)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Specific office location not immediately available in the provided snippets, but Quinn Emanuel has multiple offices, including in California.
  • Experience: Further details on specific patent litigation experience for Kevin Hardy were not detailed in the provided sources, beyond his role as counsel for Google in this matter.

• Sean San-Chul Pak

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Specific office location not immediately available in the provided snippets, but he is noted for having engineering degrees from MIT and a Harvard J.D.
  • Experience: Known for notable successes on behalf of Google, Qualcomm (against Apple in 2019), and Samsung.

• Iman Lordgooei

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Experience: Specific patent litigation experience for Iman Lordgooei was not detailed in the provided sources.

• John T. McKee

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Experience: Specific patent litigation experience for John T. McKee was not detailed in the provided sources.

• G. Blake Thompson

  • Role: Local Counsel (implied by affiliation with a separate Texas-based firm)
  • Firm: Mann, Tindel, Thompson
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results, but the firm's presence suggests a Texas location.
  • Experience: Specific patent litigation experience for G. Blake Thompson was not detailed in the provided sources.