US PTAB Patent Cases
8,722 decisions indexed
Page 251 of 291 · 8,722 total
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones filed an IPR petition challenging Zaxcom’s 9,336,307 patent. The petitioner contends that all 14 claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics filed a corrected request for Director Review to fix a citation error and seek dismissal of an IPR against Zaxcom’s patent. No substantive changes were made to the original arguments.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics argue the PTAB correctly instituted an IPR against Zaxcom and that the Board’s discretion was not abused, urging denial of the Patent Owner’s Director Review request.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Zaxcom has requested Director Review of three IPRs, including IPR2025-00231. The petitioner, Rode Microphones, is limited to a brief response on the raised issues and may not submit new evidence.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Zaxcom’s 9,336,307 patent, arguing that prior‑art systems render the claims anticipated or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB found all 16 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to replace those claims with new claims 50‑65.
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 and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend, replacing them with claims 21‑26.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones successfully invalidated Zaxcom’s 9,336,307 patent. The PTAB found all 14 challenged claims unpatentable under §§102 and 103, adopting broad claim constructions and rejecting Zaxcom’s arguments. Substitute claims 15‑28 were approved.
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 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.
Rode Microphones has filed an IPR petition against Zaxcom’s 9,336,307 patent, asserting that all 14 claims are obvious or anticipated by existing wireless audio recording technology.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison's post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger had not shown a more‑likely‑than‑not chance of unpatentability for any of the seven claims.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s ’612 NAND‑flash memory patent, finding the challenger’s unpatentability arguments unpersuasive.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash memory patent. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones challenges Zaxcom’s 7,711,443 patent, arguing that prior IPR invalidations render the claim unpatentable and that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors. The petition seeks denial of the patent owner’s request for Director review.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied Rode Microphones' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to Zaxcom's microphone patent (7,929,902). The institution rulings therefore remain in force.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied Rode Microphones' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the 7,711,443 patent owned by Zaxcom. The institution rulings therefore remain in effect.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The USPTO Director denied Rode Microphones' request to review the vacated institution decision in IPR2025-00231, keeping the proceeding dismissed.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Director Review requests have been filed for three IPRs involving Rode Microphones and Zaxcom’s wireless microphone patent. Rode must respond within five business days with a brief, issue‑limited filing.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied Rode Microphones’ request for Director Review of the vacated institution and dismissal of IPR2025‑00231 involving Zaxcom’s patent.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 14 claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent on obviousness grounds, citing prior‑art references and earlier PTAB findings.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 15 claims of Vervain’s ’385 patent on the basis that the hybrid SLC‑MLC flash architecture and its wear‑leveling features are obvious over prior art such as Gavens, Moshayedi and Sutardja.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 17 claims of Zaxcom’s ’443 patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of six prior‑art references and urging the PTAB to institute the review.
Embody, Inc. et al. v.LifeNet Health
Embody and Zimmer Biomet have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑8 of LifeNet Health’s 11,318,227 patent covering electrospun collagen scaffolds. They argue obviousness and anticipation based on Huang2, Kuo, and Lee, and request institution of the review.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.