Google did not own Motorola when the case was filed and Google is not a named defendant, contrary to the deliberately misleading headline.
The Reuters article doesn't say anything about what the six patents claim or even give their numbers. Those numbers are 7,810,144 (the '144 patent), 6,412,953 (the '953 patent), 7,409,450, 7,120,462, 6,557,054, and 6,658,464.
The Reuters article does mention that the accused devices are older Moto phones and accessories. Newer devices than 2011 are, of course, not in the original complaint and usually are not added at this late stage.
The '144 patent is for a "File Transfer System for Direct Transfer Between Computers" -- describing a subset of SMS or IRC style messaging -- filed in 1997 and repeatedly rejected until the PTO folded under seven continued amended petitions in 2010. There is no limit to the patent amendments an applicant can make and no such thing as a final rejection at the PTO. Applicants are encouraged to reword claims to cover technology invented by others since the original application. [1]
If you'd like to be infuriated about how the patent system abuses software and computer networks, read the linked [0] opinion starting on page 14 where claim construction begins.
The '953 patent was filed in 1998 vaguely describing long established LCD backlighting practice. The '054 patent, "Method and System for Distributing Updates by Presenting Directory of Software Available for User Installation That Is Not Already Installed on User Station," was filed in 2000. The '464 patent, "User Station Software That Controls Transport, Storage, and Presentation of Content from a Remote Source," is like iBooks or Archie and filed in 1994.
The '450 patent, "Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) Packet-Centric Wireless Point to Multi-Point (PTMP) Transmission System Architecture," was filed in 1998. It describes the use of any QoS scheme that includes packet inspection over a wireless network.
The '462 patent, "Portable Computing, Communication and Entertainment Device with Central Processor Carried in a Detachable Handset," filed in 1999 describes handheld computers with a docking station. It does not describe how to build such a device, of course, just that one could exist.
[0] Summary judgement motion here explains most of the issues http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/slr...
[1] http://www.patenthawk.com/blog_docs/2004_Continuations_Lemle...