Audio electronics — US PTAB Patent Cases
9 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 9 total
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa challenges Shenzhen Shokz’s headset patent in an IPR. The petitioner argues the Patent Owner’s Director Review request fails to show any erroneous findings of fact, and the Acting Director’s referral was proper. The Board is urged to deny the request.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
The PTAB denied a Director Review request, leaving the IPR against Shenzhen Shokz's bone‑conduction headphone patent instituted.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Shenzhen Shokz filed a Request for Director Review seeking to overturn the institution of an IPR that challenges its modular earphone patent. The owner argues the petition relies on prior art already considered by the examiner, making discretionary denial appropriate.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed a petition for IPR of IngenioSpec’s U.S. Patent 8,582,789 covering a hearing‑enhancement system, seeking cancellation of all 76 challenged claims as obvious over Anderson and other prior‑art patents.
Apple Inc. v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition challenging 92 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’355 patent covering wearable audio devices. The petition argues the claims are obvious over six prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of all challenged claims.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 18 claims of Shenzhen Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, arguing they are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of seven claims of SoundClear’s ’819 patent covering volume‑lock functionality in audio devices. The petition relies on prior‑art references Kajiyama, Shure, and Nelson to argue obviousness under §103.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman International and ST CasesTech settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,319,620 and jointly moved to terminate the proceeding, requesting the settlement be kept confidential under statutory authority.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the Board to terminate the proceeding and treat the settlement agreement as confidential.
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.