Kalyan K. Deshpande
75 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
75 cases indexed | Page 3 of 3
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over patent 7,529,305 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petitions.
Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al. v.Malikie Innovations Ltd.
Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,542,571 B2 before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless et al. v.Fractus, S.A.
Verizon Wireless and Fractus settled their IPR dispute before the trial began. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, dismissing the petition.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.B.S.D. Crown, Ltd.
Amazon's request for Director Review regarding the institution denial of patent 8934887 was denied. Although the Board misapprehended one figure, the Panel upheld the conjunctive claim construction based on the full intrinsic record.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious or anticipated over prior art such as Strub, Nagai, Gleissner, Woo, and Wood, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with narrower substitute claims.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable for obviousness or anticipation, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26. The Board’s claim constructions favored the petitioner’s broader interpretations.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’307 patent are unpatentable. Rode Microphones successfully proved obviousness and anticipation over multiple prior‑art references. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB found all challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent unpatentable for obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that claims 7,8,11,12,14,15 of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable under §§103 and 102, finding the asserted prior art taught each limitation. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend, replacing the cancelled claims with narrower substitute claims 21‑26.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all of Rode Microphones’ challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent are unpatentable for obviousness and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 50‑65.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ‘307 patent are unpatentable, adopting broader claim constructions for “combined” and “wearable,” and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 15‑28.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. et al. v.Vasu Holdings, LLC
Vasu Holdings, LLC filed an authorized response opposing Samsung’s Director Review Request in IPR2025‑00447. The response argues Samsung introduced new, unauthorized arguments and lacks merit on due‑process and APA grounds. The Board’s institution decision is portrayed as consistent with USPTO guidance.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of the Director's discretionary denial and institution decision in IPR2025-00977 and related cases.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v.Telcom Ventures LLC
The USPTO denied Samsung's request for rehearing of a Director's discretionary denial in IPR2025-00973 involving patent 9,462,411. The Board affirmed its earlier decision not to institute the IPR.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.