Patent 8958853

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

Active provider: Google · gemini-2.5-pro

No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged through Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method review at the USPTO. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs.

Cases on file (0)

Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 8958853. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.

No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.

Litigation summary

Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.

✓ Generated

Litigation History of U.S. Patent 8,958,853

U.S. Patent 8,958,853, titled "Mobile device inactive mode and inactive mode verification," has been the subject of multiple patent infringement lawsuits filed by its owners, SMTM Technology, LLC, and its successor, TJTM Technologies, LLC. The patent, which covers technology for suppressing mobile device notifications to prevent distracted driving, has been asserted against several major technology companies.

A summary of the known litigation is as follows:

1. TJTM Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC

  • Plaintiff: TJTM Technologies, LLC
  • Defendant: Google LLC
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
  • Case Number: 3:24-cv-01232
  • Filing Date: September 3, 2024
  • Status/Outcome: The district court granted Google's motion to dismiss, finding the patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to the abstract idea of "screening notifications." TJTM Technologies appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). On May 5, 2026, the CAFC affirmed the district court's dismissal in a nonprecedential decision, agreeing that the patent claims were directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept.

2. TJTM Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC (CAFC Appeal)

  • Plaintiff: TJTM Technologies, LLC
  • Defendant: Google LLC
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Case Number: 25-1218
  • Filing Date: November 26, 2024
  • Status/Outcome: The CAFC affirmed the lower court's dismissal on May 5, 2026, ruling that the patent is invalid because it is directed to an abstract idea.

3. TJTM Technologies, LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.

  • Plaintiff: TJTM Technologies, LLC
  • Defendant: Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
  • Case Number: 4:21-cv-05500
  • Filing Date: July 16, 2021
  • Status/Outcome: This case was closed on January 25, 2022. The specific details of the resolution are not publicly available but the closure suggests a settlement or dismissal.

4. SMTM Technology, LLC v. Apple Inc.

  • Plaintiff: SMTM Technology, LLC
  • Defendant: Apple Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
  • Filing Date: July 10, 2018
  • Status/Outcome: SMTM Technology accused Apple's "Do Not Disturb While Driving" feature in iOS 11 of infringing the '853 patent. The complaint sought monetary damages and a permanent injunction. The precise outcome of this case is not detailed in the available results, but it is referenced as prior litigation in the later case against Google.

In addition to the district court litigation, the patent was also subject to an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding initiated by Google at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

5. Google LLC v. TJTM Technologies LLC (IPR)

  • Petitioner: Google LLC
  • Patent Owner: TJTM Technologies LLC
  • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  • Case Number: IPR2025-00586
  • Filing Date: March 5, 2025
  • Status/Outcome: The IPR was terminated on August 14, 2025. The complaint in the district court case against Google noted that a prior PTAB challenge concluded with a decision that the challenger "failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood" of unpatentability.

Generated 5/8/2026, 2:58:59 PM