Audio processing — US PTAB Patent Cases
20 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 20 total
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial to institute an IPR on SoundClear’s decade‑old audio‑processing patent. The petitioner argues the Board misapplied settled‑expectations guidance, created an unlawful time bar, and ignored the merits and district‑court stays.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google has filed a petition for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against SoundClear’s decade‑old echo‑cancellation patent. The petitioner contends the Board improperly created a time‑based bar and ignored the district‑court stays and merits of the petition.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO Director denied Google’s request for review of the institution denial in IPR2025-00344, leaving the institution decision unchanged.
Google LLC v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Google seeks a PTAB Director Review of SoundClear’s echo‑cancellation patent; the Patent Owner has a five‑day window to respond without new evidence.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon challenged the denial of institution of SoundClear’s noise‑reduction patent, arguing the PTAB’s “settled expectations” standard violated the APA and due process. SoundClear’s response contends the Deputy Director acted within statutory authority and that Amazon had proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the case involving SoundClear’s patent 9,804,819. The denial leaves the original institution decisions, which denied institution, in place.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial, arguing that the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule unlawfully limits IPR filings. The petition contends the rule violates the APA, the AIA’s filing deadlines, and due‑process rights.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Deputy Director properly applied the settled‑expectations discretion and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs involving SoundClear Technologies' patents. The Board found the petitions did not meet the required standards.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
The USPTO denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the denial to institute three IPRs against SoundClear patents, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon seeks Director Review of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule to block its IPR against SoundClear’s audio‑processing patent. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑5 of U.S. Patent 11,069,337, asserting that the claims are anticipated and obvious over prior‑art references Shin, Shimomura, and Kristjansson.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung Electronics has filed a Petition challenging Staton Techiya's patent (11710473) on grounds of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103. The challenger argues that the claimed audio processing and ambient sound control features are merely combinations of prior art teachings from Kirsch, DiCenso, Goldstein, and Woodruff. This challenge targets a broad range of claims related to earpiece functionality.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,710,473 owned by Staton Techiya, LLC. The core argument asserts that the patent's claims related to ambient sound control are obvious based on combinations of various prior art references. This challenge is tied to ongoing district court litigation.
Roku, Inc. v.Dolby International AB
Roku, Inc.'s IPR challenge against Dolby International AB's audio signal coding patents was denied by the PTAB. The Board found that Roku failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any obviousness grounds (35 U.S.C. § 103).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC
Samsung Electronics filed an opening petition to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 11,610,587, challenging its validity under Section 103 (obviousness). The petitioner argues that the patent's claims are obvious when combining various prior art references like Fiedler and Broussard.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya LLC
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Samsung against Staton Techiya regarding U.S. Patent 11,610,587, focusing on audio management and sonic signature detection.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC et al.
Samsung Electronics filed a Petition challenging Patent No. 11659315 on grounds of obviousness (§ 103) related to active noise reduction and audio assistant devices. The petition asserts that various combinations of prior art references render multiple claims invalid.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung Electronics challenges Staton Techiya's patent claims regarding smart earphones, asserting that the core features are obvious combinations of existing prior art. The petition targets 30 claims related to ambient sound enhancement and acoustic noise cancellation.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB Institute Decision granted trial for Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics against Zaxcom regarding wireless audio recording systems. The Board found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite procedural hurdles related to parallel district court litigation.
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.