Audio technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
50 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 2 · 50 total
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya entered a joint settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate eight inter partes review proceedings without a final written decision.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC et al.
Samsung, its U.S. affiliate and Harman have reached a settlement with Staton Techiya over U.S. Patent 11,659,315 covering smart‑headphone technology. They jointly filed a motion to terminate the inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC et al.
Samsung Electronics, Harman International and Staton Techiya have settled their IPR over patent 11,659,315 and filed a joint motion to keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung, Harman and ST CasesTech entered a joint settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate eight related IPRs without a final decision. The Board granted confidentiality for the settlement agreement.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,683,643, filing a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung, Harman and Staton Techiya settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,750,965. The Board terminated the proceeding by joint motion and treated the settlement agreement as confidential.
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.
Zaxcom seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision for its 2019 microphone patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary considerations and ignored Guidance. The request targets claims 17‑19, 21‑23, 33‑34, 59‑60, and 66.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in several IPRs, including the one involving Audio Pod IP’s patent 8,738,740. The denial leaves the original institution outcomes intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review to overturn a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year ‘settled expectations’ rule to its IPR petition against Audio Pod’s patent. The petition argues the rule violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The Director denied Amazon's request to review the PTAB's denial to institute multiple IPRs against Audio Pod IP, leaving the institution decisions unchanged.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent was met with a detailed response asserting the denial was proper and that no APA or due‑process violations occurred.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year “settled expectations” bar on IPRs. They argue the standard exceeds statutory authority, conflicts with precedent, and violates the APA and due‑process rights.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review seeking reversal of a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year settled‑expectations standard to block their IPR petition against Audio Pod IP’s patent. They argue the standard violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights. The Board has not yet ruled on the merits.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and affiliates petition the PTAB to overturn a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year settled‑expectations rule to block their IPR on Patent 9,954,922. They argue the rule violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon sought Director Review of the PTAB’s denial to institute an IPR against Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. The patent owner argues the denial was proper under settled‑expectations and discretionary authority. The response urges the Director to reject Amazon’s review request.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO Director denied Amazon's request for review of the PTAB's institution decisions in multiple IPRs against Audio Pod IP, including the 9,954,922 patent. The denial leaves the institution decisions unchanged.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Audio Pod defends the PTAB Acting Director’s use of a settled‑expectations standard to deny institution of Amazon’s IPR. The patent owner argues Amazon’s APA and due‑process challenges lack merit, urging denial of the Director Review request.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has requested a Director Review of IPR2025-01003 concerning Audio Pod’s patent 9,729,907. The PTAB has limited the patent owner’s response to 15 pages and barred new evidence, setting a tight five‑day deadline.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” bar that denied institution of its IPR against patent 9,729,907. The petition argues the rule violates the AIA, APA, and established case law. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon’s request for Director Review, upholding the Deputy Director’s discretionary denial of institution for Audio Pod’s audio‑technology patent. The Board found Amazon’s APA and due‑process arguments unpersuasive.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s discretionary denial of its IPR petition on the basis of a new six‑year “settled expectations” rule. The petition argues the rule exceeds statutory authority, violates the APA, and is arbitrary and capricious. Amazon seeks reversal of the denial and institution of the IPR.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
The PTAB notified Google and Sonos that a Director Review request has been filed in IPR2025-01213. Sonos may file a limited response within five business days, with no new evidence allowed.
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s denial of its IPR petition against Sonos’s audio‑player patent, alleging procedural violations of the APA, improper delegation of authority, and fee‑setting misalignment.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corporation and IngenioSpec, LLC settled their IPR disputes, leading the PTAB to grant a joint motion to terminate the proceedings and keep the settlement confidential.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec jointly filed a motion asking the PTAB to treat their settlement agreement as confidential business information under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). The request seeks to keep the agreement separate from the patent file and limit its disclosure.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of Zaxcom’s ’207 patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier PTAB decisions.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 29 claims of Zophonos’ ’736 audio‑control patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition challenging 13 claims of Zophonos’s hearing‑protection patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references covering earpieces, wireless communication, and audio‑control interfaces.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Zophonos Inc.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 20 claims of Zophonos’s ’906 audio‑control patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition details how each claim is taught by combinations of DiCenso641, Smith, Holland, Warren, and Goldstein873.
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.