Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Key finding to verify: Law360 indicates the case may have been dropped in January 2025. Let me investigate the current status and other details.

Let me verify the dismissal, trial date, patent narrowing, and IPR outcomes.

Case Overview and Background — Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC et al., No. 6:23-cv-00320-ADA (W.D. Tex.)

The parties. Proxense, LLC is a Bend, Oregon company founded in 2001 by inventor John J. Giobbi — the named inventor on the patents-in-suit — that operated as a genuine technology developer for roughly a decade. Its complaint (and the parallel Microsoft complaint) states it was founded in 2001 and that from approximately 2004–2012 it developed mobile-payment and "personal digital key" (PDK) technology, raised outside capital, and was covered in the trade press before its commercial efforts wound down; every asserted patent still lists Proxense, LLC as assignee, and it continues to prosecute continuations (e.g., patents issuing in 2025). In current practice, however, Proxense is best characterized as a former operating company turned patent-assertion entity (the ip fray blog calls it a "former operating company"; Law360 and RPX describe an "Oregon startup" running a licensing campaign), enforcing the portfolio in the Western District of Texas against Samsung (settled on the eve of trial in 2023), Google, Microsoft, Apple, Intel, and LG, and filing the first patent suit over the Apple Vision Pro. Its counsel in this case is Hecht Partners LLP (David L. Hecht — formerly of Quinn Emanuel — Maxim Price, Yi Wen Wu, James Zak), with Susman Godfrey co-counseling some related matters. Defendants are Google LLC (a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.; its July 10, 2023 Rule 7 disclosure, Dkt. 22, identifies Alphabet Inc. and XXVI Holdings Inc. as corporate parents) and Google Payment Corp., the Google Pay entity. Per the parties' joint notice and stipulation, Dkt. 20 (July 10, 2023), Google Payment Corp. was dismissed without prejudice and Proxense abandoned its pre-suit indirect- and willful-infringement claims against Google LLC; Google then moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 21).

The accused technology and the asserted patent. The accused instrumentality is Google's "universal platform password-less architecture" — an integrated stack comprising Google Identity (a/k/a Google Identity Services / Cloud Identity Platform), the native Android OS authenticator (Android 9+), the Titan Security Key authenticator, the Chrome browser, and Google Pay/Wallet services (Proxense's Preliminary Infringement Contentions, served July 24, 2023). Proxense alleges the architecture uses FIDO and OpenID Connect to perform cross-device, passwordless login: a user initiates a login on a first device, Google Identity issues an authentication request to a registered authenticator device (e.g., the user's phone), the user biometrically verifies, the phone signs the challenge with a stored private key (passkey), and Google Identity returns an authorization code/token to the first device (Compl. ¶¶40–53, 67–85). The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 9,679,289 B1, "Hybrid Device Having a Personal Digital Key and Receiver-Decoder Circuit and Methods of Use," issued June 13, 2017 from Application No. 14/961,645 (filed December 7, 2015), inventor John J. Giobbi, assignee Proxense, LLC. In one line: it claims a "hybrid device" (illustrated as a cell phone) in which a personal digital key (PDK) is coupled to a receiver-decoder circuit (RDC) — the device stores biometric data plus a device ID code and a secret decryption value in tamperproof memory, locally verifies a biometric scan, and then wirelessly transmits code(s) to a third-party trusted authority for authentication (claims 14 and 16 asserted). It sits in Proxense's "Family B" (Hybrid Device Patents), alongside U.S. 8,646,042 and 10,073,960; the complaint as filed asserted six patents across Family A ("Device ID" patents: 8,352,730, 8,886,954, 9,298,905) and Family B, though this case file identifies the '289 as the patent at issue.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. The case was filed in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas in May 2023 and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright (6:23-cv-00320-ADA), with a jury demand and trial originally scheduled for early 2025. Venue is the headline story: Google moved to transfer to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and Judge Albright denied the motion. The Federal Circuit then denied Google's mandamus petition in In re Google LLC, No. 2024-117 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2024) (nonprecedential, Moore, C.J., Taranto and Chen, JJ.), holding the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion — crediting judicial economy from Judge Albright's substantial prior work on the same patents in Proxense v. Samsung, No. 6:21-cv-00210-ADA (claim construction and summary judgment before an eve-of-trial settlement), and the presence of a Google software engineering manager in-district whom the court called the most important witness on the accused functionality. That decision is notable because it is a relatively rare plaintiff-side win on transfer/mandamus in Albright's court post-2023, and it illustrates how a prior case before the same judge can anchor a later NPE suit in WDTX. The case did not reach trial: on January 13, 2025, the parties filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation dismissing all of Proxense's claims with prejudice and Google's defenses/counterclaims without prejudice, roughly a month before jury selection. Closely tracking that, Google's parallel IPRs — IPR2024-00232 ('730), -00233 ('954), -00234 ('905, which ended in an adverse judgment on November 1, 2024), -00782 ('042), and -00783 ('289, instituted November 18, 2024) — were terminated as to Google on February 5, 2025 after a confidential settlement and license agreement, and the Board treated the agreement as business-confidential information. Apple then stepped into the '289 fight, filing IPR2025-00075 (a substantively identical copy of Google's IPR2024-00783, with a granted motion for joinder) and IPR2025-00074 (a copy of Microsoft's IPR2024-00407 on the '289), while Proxense requested PTAB adverse judgment cancelling all claims of the '730 patent in April 2025. Law360 reported on July 21, 2025 that the PTAB found all claims of two Proxense patents invalid in Microsoft's IPRs. The case is notable on several axes: it shows a well-funded passwordless/FIDO2/passkey product (Google Identity + Android authenticator + Titan keys) colliding with a 2000s-era "biometric PDK" patent family; it demonstrates the NPE playbook of settling serially (Samsung, then Google) while keeping other defendants in the same district; and it shows how IPR linkage cuts both ways — Google's IPRs extracted a license, while the same '289 IPRs were then recycled by Apple and Microsoft to keep pressure on the patent.

Sourcing caveats. (1) Status discrepancy: this case file lists the matter as "pending," but public docket reporting and the parties' own filings show a stipulated dismissal with prejudice on January 13, 2025 — I am flagging the conflict rather than overriding the metadata. (2) I could not verify a formal order narrowing the six originally asserted patents down to the '289, so I describe the '289 as the patent identified in this case file rather than asserting the others were formally withdrawn. (3) I could not confirm from the sources retrieved which two Proxense patents the PTAB invalidated in the July 2025 Microsoft decisions; treat the Law360 headline as the source for the outcome, not the patent numbers. (4) The exact May 2023 complaint filing date is not confirmed in the excerpts I retrieved; the RPX item is dated May 6, 2023. Key sources: In re Google LLC, No. 2024-117 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2024) (courtlistener.com/opinion/9490770); IPR2024-00783 Paper 12 (institution decision, Nov. 18, 2024); IPR2024-00232/-00233/-00782/-00783, Order — Termination as to One Party (Feb. 5, 2025); Dkts. 19–22, 88 (6:23-cv-00320); Apple POPR in IPR2025-00074 (Feb. 26, 2025); Proxense Preliminary Infringement Contentions and Google Final Invalidity Contentions in 6:23-cv-00320; ip fray (Jan. 14, 2025); Law360 case page for 6:23-cv-00320; RPX Insight.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web searches. Let me start with several parallel queries.

Good foundation. Let me dig into specific events: filing date, motion to dismiss outcome, Markman order, the January 2025 dismissal, and the IPR final written decision.

Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC — Key Legal Developments & Outcome

Case: No. 6:23-cv-00320-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div., Judge Alan D. Albright) — Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC and Google Payment Corp.
Asserted patents (as filed): U.S. 8,352,730; 8,886,954; 9,298,905; 8,646,042; 9,679,289; 10,073,960
Accused products: Google's "universal platform password-less architecture" (Google Identity/Identity Services, the Android OS FIDO authenticator, Titan Security Key, and Google Pay/Wallet)

Note on sourcing: PACER itself is paywalled. The chronology below is grounded in docket text reproduced on aggregators (Docket Alarm, CourtListener, RPX, Justia), federal-court opinions (Fed. Cir. mandamus order), PTAB papers, and trade press (Law360). Where I could not confirm a fact, I say so explicitly rather than infer it.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Unverified: the outcome of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. I found the motion, opposition, and reply on the docket but no order granting or denying it. Because Proxense later filed amended pleadings and the case proceeded through claim construction toward trial, the MTD was most likely denied (or denied as moot following amendment) — but I cannot confirm that from a citable source. Google's invalidity contentions also record that Proxense served Final Invalidity Contentions covering both the "Device ID Patents" ('730, '954, '905) and "Hybrid Device Patents" ('042, '289, '960).

---

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Motion to transfer (denied; mandamus denied)

• Google moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer to the N.D. Cal., arguing its knowledgeable employees and documents were there. Judge Albright denied transfer, emphasizing (i) Google employees in the W.D. Tex. and (ii) judicial economy — the court's prior substantial involvement with the same patents in Proxense, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 6:21-cv-00210-ADA, where the judge had conducted claim construction and ruled on summary judgment before that case settled on the eve of trial.
• 2024-04-04: The Federal Circuit denied Google's petition for a writ of mandamus (In re Google LLC, No. 2024-117, nonprecedential; Moore, C.J., Taranto and Chen, JJ.), holding Google failed to show the denial was a clear abuse of discretion producing a patently erroneous result. This was a significant early win for Proxense on venue — the issue that has sunk many W.D. Tex. patent cases post-TC Heartland.

Motion to stay pending IPR

• No stay motion by Google appears in this docket. The parallel Proxense v. Microsoft case (6:23-cv-00319) did feature an opposed motion to stay pending IPR (Dkt. 76) plus supplemental-authority practice in May 2025 — but that is the Microsoft case, not this one. The Google case instead proceeded through claim construction and toward trial while Google's IPRs were pending.

Summary judgment

• None reached/resolved. The case resolved before dispositive motions were decided. (In the earlier Proxense v. Samsung case, Judge Albright did resolve SJ motions; that history is what drove the judicial-economy finding in the transfer ruling.)

---

3. Claim construction (Markman)

Disputed terms fell into two families:

• Family A ("Device ID Patents"): "integrated device" ('730 cl. 1, 15); "persistently storing … a plurality of codes and other data values … comprising a device ID code … and a secret decryption value" ('730 cl. 1, 15; '954 cl. 1, 22); the "access message" terms ('730; '954; '905); and the fingerprint limitation in '730 cl. 5. Google argued indefiniteness for "integrated device," "plurality of codes and other data values," and the '730 cl. 5 fingerprint limitation — noting that Proxense added an express definition of "integrated device" to later family members but not to the '730 patent itself.
• Family B ("Hybrid Device Patents") — directly relevant to the '289 patent at issue here: "receiver-decoder circuit" ('042 cl. 10; '289 cl. 14) and "personal digital key" ('042 cl. 10; '289 cl. 14). Both had been construed (at least in part) by the Court in Proxense v. Samsung.

Confidence: The date and the set of disputed terms are well documented. The court's specific constructions for each term are not fully sourced in the materials I could retrieve — I am not going to reconstruct them from inference. What is clear is that the Court's prior Samsung constructions heavily framed the dispute, and that the case survived Markman into trial-preparation posture with the '289 patent (claims 14 and 16) intact.

---

4. Discovery milestones of strategic significance

• 2023-07-24 — Preliminary Infringement Contentions accusing, for the '289 patent, Google's Android OS authenticator + Titan Security Key + Google Identity/Services under the coordination of Google Identity, on theories of direct, induced (§ 271(b)) and contributory (§ 271(c)) infringement, with DOE fallback.
• 2023-07-10 — Stipulated withdrawal of pre-suit indirect and willful infringement claims. Strategically this eliminated Proxense's "2008 and 2013 notice" willfulness theory (the complaint had alleged Google was given notice of Proxense's portfolio in 2008 and 2013) and mooted much of the Rule 12(b)(6) attack. This is a notable concession in a case where enhanced damages were a key leverage point.
• Google's Final Invalidity Contentions (served via a cover pleading in the litigation) confirmed Google's prior-art positions across both patent families, including the reservation of § 101, inequitable conduct, and other non-statutory defenses.
• Expert discovery: Proxense's expert deposition transcript is among the materials Google later lodged in its IPRs (IPR2024-00234, "Proxense's Expert Transcript"), confirming that infringement/invalidity expert discovery was well advanced before the case resolved.
• 2024-11-25 — Amended pleading narrowing the patent set (apparent drop of the '905 patent; approximately five patents remaining), a typical pre-trial case-narrowing step ahead of the February 2025 trial setting.
• The PTAB became a parallel discovery/disclosure channel: Google and Microsoft used the district-court PICs, claim construction briefs, the Court's Markman order, and the Samsung claim construction memorandum as IPR exhibits, effectively creating a two-front record.

---

5. Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions

• Trial setting: The case was set for jury trial in Waco in February 2025.
• No trial occurred. Law360 reported on 2025-01-14 that Proxense "agreed to drop its patent infringement case against Google, a month before the dispute was set to go before a jury in Waco." Reporting from Chinese IP media describes the parties reaching a resolution/settlement agreement on 2025-01-13.
• Therefore: no voir dire, no verdict, no JMOL, no Rule 50/Rule 59 motions, and no fee motion or § 285 ruling.
• Docket closure: A docket aggregator lists the case as Closed (2025-08-04), which likely reflects the date the formal dismissal/closure order was docketed rather than the January settlement notice. I cannot confirm the precise dismissal instrument (stipulated dismissal with or without prejudice) or whether the dismissal was conditioned on a license.

---

6. Final disposition / present posture

• Resolved by settlement and dismissal in January 2025, before trial. Terms are confidential. This fits a consistent pattern for Proxense: the earlier Proxense v. Samsung case settled on the eve of trial and was dismissed with prejudice, and the Proxense v. Microsoft case (6:23-cv-00319) was narrowed and then dismissed during 2025.
• Present posture: closed as to Google. Google Payment Corp. had already been dismissed without prejudice on 2023-07-10.
• Unverified: the exact dismissal document and whether dismissal was with or without prejudice. I would not represent either way without the PACER entry.

---

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

Google mounted a six-IPR campaign against the six patents-in-suit, in two waves:

Key developments and their litigation effect:

1. IPR2024-00783 (the '289 patent — the only patent in this case summary) was instituted 2024-11-18 (Panel: APJs Dang, McKone, Beamer; Paper 12). Google challenged claims 1–20. The Board authorized a pre-institution Preliminary Reply and Sur-reply to address Proxense's "means-plus-function" arguments, which Proxense raised for the first time in its Preliminary Response — the Board flagged the inconsistency with Proxense's position in district court. The Board applied § 314(a) and instituted on all challenged claims.
2. Parallel Microsoft IPRs on the same patents: Microsoft Corp. v. Proxense, LLC, IPR2024-00407 ('289), plus IPR2024-00775 ('730) and others. Notably, ex parte reexaminations were also filed (Reexam Control Nos. 90/015,052 ('730) and 90/015,053 ('905)).
3. 2025-04-15 — Proxense requested adverse judgment under 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b)(3) in IPR2024-00775 and IPR2024-00232, conceding unpatentability of the '730 claims.
4. 2025-04-28 — the PTAB entered adverse judgment and cancelled all '730 claims 1–17, holding the orders constitute Final Written Decisions under § 318(a) and triggering § 42.73(d)(3) estoppel.
5. Fallout in the sister case: Microsoft moved to dismiss all '730 claims with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (Dkt. 95, 2025-05-09), arguing no claims remained in the patent. Proxense tried to keep the '730 patent alive via reexam amendments, but the Examiner rejected the amended claims in a 2025-05-20 Office Action. (This is the Microsoft docket, cited here only to show the cross-case effect on the same patent family.)
6. 2025-07-21 — Law360: "Microsoft Gets PTAB To Knock Out 2 Proxense Patents" — PTAB final written decisions invalidating all claims of two Proxense patents (the '730 among them).
7. IPR2024-00783 ultimately terminated on 2025-11-12, and the PTAB docket aggregator lists its status as "Final Written Decision – Appealed," with APJ Kevin Turner appearing on the panel by that stage — indicating an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (likely by Proxense). I could not verify the merits outcome of the '289 final written decision, nor the Federal Circuit appeal number.
8. Effect on this litigation: the IPRs did not stay the Google case; the district court pressed ahead with Markman (2024-01-23) and a February 2025 trial setting. The parallel PTAB and reexam activity, however, systematically eroded Proxense's asserted portfolio — the '730 patent was fully cancelled in April 2025 — but by then the Google case had already settled. Given that the '289 patent was the patent at issue here, the institution of IPR2024-00783 on all 20 claims (2024-11-18) was almost certainly a material driver of the January 2025 resolution, though the settlement itself is confidential and no party has confirmed that link.

---

8. Wider campaign context (relevant to reading this case)

Proxense has run a coordinated campaign in W.D. Tex. on the same family of biometric/PDK patents: Samsung (6:21-cv-00210-ADA — settled/dismissed with prejudice on eve of trial), Microsoft (6:23-cv-00319-ADA — filed 2023-05-02, same day as this case), Apple (6:24-cv-00143-ADA, filed 2024-03-18), LG (WA-24-cv-302, reassigned to Judge Albright 2024-06-04), Hyundai/Kia/Genesis (filed January 2025, targeting the Car Connectivity Consortium digital-key standard), and Intel (7:25-cv-00531, filed November 2025). The Google case was the second of the big-tech filings and the one that produced the Federal Circuit venue win (In re Google LLC).

---

Summary of what is firmly documented vs. not

Firmly documented: 2023-05-02 complaint; dismissal of Google Payment Corp. and of pre-suit indirect/willful claims (2023-07-10, Dkt. 20); the Rule 12(b)(6) motion and its briefing; 2023-07-24 PICs; Markman briefing (2023-12-01 responsive brief, Dkt. 45; 2024-01-05 sur-reply); Claim Construction Order 2024-01-23; Federal Circuit mandamus denial, 2024-04-04, No. 2024-117; scheduling order 2024-03-18; IPR2024-00783 institution 2024-11-18 on claims 1–20; 2025-01-13/14 settlement and case-drop before the February 2025 trial; PTAB adverse judgment cancelling the '730 claims on 2025-04-28.

Not verified (do not treat as fact): the disposition of Google's Rule 12(b)(6) motion; the specific constructions adopted on 2024-01-23; the precise dismissal instrument/date in this case; the merits outcome of the IPR2024-00783 final written decision (2025-11-12) and the identity/number of the Federal Circuit appeal. These require direct PACER/PTAB docket confirmation.

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

Initial searches surfaced mostly docket records rather than press. Let me search targeted outlets and case-specific angles.

Press coverage: thin but real, and focused on the campaign rather than the '289 patent itself

Coverage of Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC is concentrated in specialist patent and biometrics trade press; I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Ars Technica, The Verge, EFF, or Patently-O reporting on this docket. The most directly on-point item is Law360, whose case page for Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC et al. carries a January 14, 2025 report headlined "Startup Drops Patent Case Against Google Ahead Of Trial," which states that an Oregon startup agreed to drop its patent infringement case against Google roughly a month before the dispute was set to go before a jury in Waco, Texas. That same Law360 case page carries a July 21, 2025 item, "Microsoft Gets PTAB To Knock Out 2 Proxense Patents," describing the PTAB finding all claims across two Proxense patents invalid at Microsoft's behest. Notably, the reporting frames this as a settlement/resolution — not a verdict — and no damages figure, settlement amount, or license term is disclosed in any account I found. The complaint itself sought only "no less than a reasonable royalty" plus injunctive relief, and no dollar demand has been reported in the press.

The most substantive analytical coverage comes from ip fray, which treats the Google suit as one strand of a multi-front enforcement campaign. ip fray reported that Proxense "settled its dispute with Proxense earlier this year," placing the Google resolution in January 2025 and noting that Samsung settled in 2023 while the IPRs continued notwithstanding settlement. A later ip fray piece describes Proxense as an NPE "and former operating company" that "previously settled its disputes with Samsung and later with Google," and cites a separate January 24, 2025 ip fray article for the Google settlement — a date that sits about ten days later than Law360's January 14, 2025 item, one of the few places where the accounts do not line up. ip fray also situates the case in the "Western District of Texas" campaign thread (ip fray WDTX archive), reporting that "Intel joins Google, Samsung in settling patent dispute with biometrics firm Proxense in Western District of Texas," with suits against Apple, Microsoft, and LG still pending there — i.e., treating Google's exit as the template for the campaign's broader unwind. Beyond the case-specific reporting, ip fray covers the parallel USPTO proceedings, including the Central Reexamination Unit's decision upholding Proxense's '730 patent and Proxense's Federal Circuit appeal arguing the PTAB abused its discretion by staying a parallel ex parte reexamination that was trending toward patentability — context that bears directly on how much leverage Proxense retained after settling with Google.

Two other trade outlets add venue- and strategy-level detail. Biometric Update covers the case under its Proxense tag with the items "Biometric patent lawsuit against Google stays in Texas" — reporting that Google lost its bid to move the biometrics patent fight from Waco to Northern California — and "Having slayed Samsung in patent dispute, biometrics firm targets Google, Microsoft," which frames the Google and Microsoft filings as follow-ons to the Samsung matter. RPX Insight reported the campaign mechanics, noting that "Proxense, LLC has added a Western District of Texas case against Intel (6:24-cv-00283) to a campaign with suits currently active against Alphabet (Google), Apple, and Microsoft there," and that the earlier Proxense action against Alphabet had drawn a Google mandamus petition to the Federal Circuit after Judge Albright denied transfer. RPX also analyzed Albright's transfer-denial reasoning in the related Proxense venue fight, including his skepticism of Apple's witness list — analysis that goes beyond the bare court record in this docket into the judge's reasoning style, though it is not framed as commentary on Google specifically.

Caveats. First, several of the items above are trade-press blurbs or tag-page summaries rather than full articles; I could not retrieve full-text bodies or bylines for the Law360 items or the Biometric Update items, so I have limited those claims to what the retrieved summaries actually state. Second, and importantly, the reporting indicates the Google dispute was dropped or settled in January 2025 — a fact in tension with the case-status metadata supplied for this analysis, which lists the action as pending. I could not resolve that discrepancy from the press alone; the Federal Circuit's April 4, 2024 denial of Google's transfer mandamus petition in In re Google LLC, No. 24-117 (a nonprecedential order arising from this same case number) is a matter of public record, but the settlement itself appears to rest on party filings rather than a published opinion. Third, no outlet I found reported any verdict, damages award, or settlement dollar figure for this case, so any such number would be unsourced; where reporting goes beyond the record, it is in the form of campaign-level framing (ip fray, RPX, Biometric Update) rather than executive statements or disclosed deal terms.

Sources

• Case 6:23-cv-00320-ADA Document 88 Filed 10/25/24 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISI...
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
• Complaint analysis | 6:23-cv-00320 | Proxense LLC v. Google LLC | Ex Parte
• Amended Complaint | 6:23-cv-00320 | Proxense LLC v. Google LLC | Ex Parte
• U.S. Pat. 2,400 - Google LLC vs Proxense, LLC - This case was last updated from Patent Trial and Appeal Board on 04/16/2025 at 05:00:18 (UTC)
• Cases
• In Re GOOGLE LLC – CourtListener.com - 🚀 CourtListener is now available in ChatGPT
• Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC et al
• IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Trials@uspto
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

I'll research the counsel of record for Proxense, LLC in this case.

Let me get the full docket sheet and confirm each attorney's current status.

Let me verify the current counsel list and firm affiliations.

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record for this case.

Let me dig into the specific attorneys and docket entries.

Let me pin down firm affiliations and any 2025–2026 changes in defense counsel.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant — Proxense, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:23-cv-00320-ADA (W.D. Tex., Waco Div.)

Bottom line

Google's defense has been a two-tier structure typical of Judge Albright's courtroom: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP as lead (pro hac vice) counsel out of San Francisco, and a West/East Texas firm, Mann Tindel & Thompson, as local counsel of record. All defense-side activity I could verify on the public docket runs through these two firms. Note that Google Payment Corp. was dismissed without prejudice on July 10, 2023 (ECF 20), so although several early filings name both defendants, the operative defense representation is for Google LLC only.

Caveat on currency: the most recent defense-side appearance I could verify is ECF 88 (Oct. 25, 2024). I found no withdrawal notices and no 2025–2026 substitution of counsel, but I could not retrieve a complete current docket sheet, so treat the list below as "last verified" rather than "confirmed current."

Google LLC — counsel of record

Notes / non-entries:

• No in-house Google attorney appears on the public docket as counsel of record.
• Google's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (ECF 21, July 10, 2023) and its § 1404(a) transfer motion (ECF 32, filed under seal Aug. 21, 2023) were both filed through the Quinn Emanuel/Mann Tindel team. The transfer denial was unsuccessfully challenged on mandamus: In re Google LLC, No. 24-117 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2024) (nonprecedential; petition denied).
• Google's opening Markman brief (ECF 40, Nov. 6, 2023) and the Jan. 23, 2024 claim-construction order (ECF 59) were litigated by this same team; the "Google-Proxense" Quinn Emanuel case mailbox (qe-google-proxense@quinnemanuel.com) appears on all defense-side correspondence in the IPR exhibits.

Important distinction — PTAB counsel is not district court counsel of record

Google's IPR counsel (separate appearances before the PTAB, not appearances in 6:23-cv-00320) includes:

• Quinn Emanuel — John T. McKee appears on the Google v. Proxense IPR papers (e.g., the May 20, 2024 stipulation letter, Ex. 1025 in IPR2024‑00233).
• Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP — Kara A. Specht (Reg. No. 69,560) signed as back-up counsel in IPR2024‑00784 (the '960 patent), with Daniel E. Doku listed as litigation legal assistant. This is PTAB-only representation and should not be listed as W.D. Tex. counsel of record.

Flags and open items

1. Patent-scope discrepancy: the case metadata lists only US 9,679,289 as the patent at issue, but as of the Jan. 19, 2024 Markman hearing the case covered six patents ('730, '954, '905, '042, '289, '960) across two families. A later amended pleading/contention narrowing to the '289 (the subject of instituted IPR2024‑00783) would explain the metadata, but I could not verify the narrowing document or its date. This matters because it changes which motion practice (and which counsel workstream) is live.
2. Unverified firm affiliation for Vincent Y. Ling — see table. The PHV order confirms he appeared for Google, not his firm.
3. Unverified firm for Kevin Hardy — the appearance notice is the only source I have; I found no firm website, opinion citation, or news item placing him.
4. No post-Oct. 2024 docket sheet retrieved — I cannot rule out later withdrawals, substitutions, or additional appearances (e.g., if the case narrowed to the '289 and the trial team was trimmed). If the defense team has changed in 2025–2026, that would not show in the material I could access.

Sources

• Docket entries via Docket Alarm / Justia / Patexia docket sheets for 6:23-cv-00320: ECF 17 (Hardy appearance), 18–19 & 23–24 (McKee, Lordgooei PHV), 20 (Google Payment dismissal), 21 (MTD), 28, 32/34 (transfer), 35–36 (Pak PHV), 88 (Ling PHV).
• ECF 59 (Claim Construction Order, Jan. 23, 2024), reproduced as Ex. 2004 in IPR2024‑00784.
• In re Google LLC, No. 24-117 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2024) (per curiam denial of mandamus).
• Quinn Emanuel attorney bios (Lordgooei; Pak/Sonos and SimpleAir representations) and Cal. Bar profile for Lordgooei (No. 251320).
• Finnegan signature block, Petitioner's Updated Exhibit List, IPR2024‑00784 (Sept. 10, 2024).
• Claim-construction correspondence exhibit (Ex. 1016, IPR2024‑00784) showing the Google-side cc list (Blake Thompson, Michelle Allred, Quinn Emanuel case mailbox).