Audio technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
50 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 2 · 50 total
Google LLC v.Sonos, Inc.
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Sonos’s multi‑speaker audio patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over existing Bluetooth speaker technologies. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of all challenged claims.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose Corp. filed an IPR petition challenging all 82 claims of IngenioSpec’s ’789 hearing‑enhancement patent. The petition asserts lack of written‑description support and cites multiple prior‑art references to render the claims anticipated or obvious under §§102 and 103.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v.Staton Techiya, LLC
Samsung and Staton Techiya have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,710,473 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317(a).
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 proceedings and keep the settlement agreement confidential.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon seeks PTAB Director Review of several IPRs against Audio Pod’s patent; the owner must respond within five days without new evidence.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec have entered a settlement that resolves their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,829,518, prompting a joint motion to terminate the IPR. The motion cites early‑stage status and judicial economy as reasons to end the proceeding.
Suzhou Mojawa Intelligent Electronic Co., Ltd. v.Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd.
Suzhou Mojawa filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 19 claims of Shenzhou Shokz’s bone‑conduction headphone patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec filed a joint motion asking the PTAB to keep their settlement agreement confidential under statutory provisions, limiting public access to the terms.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,852,901 and jointly moved to terminate the IPR. The motion cites resolved issues and judicial economy as reasons for termination.
Bose Corporation v.IngenioSpec, LLC
Bose and IngenioSpec filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-01550 after reaching a settlement, ending the challenge to Bose’s audio‑technology patent.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech settled their IPR dispute, filing joint motions that led the Board to terminate the proceeding before trial. The settlement agreement was deemed confidential, and counsel withdrawals were approved.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 11,589,329 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential and to terminate the proceeding.
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. v.ST CasesTech, LLC et al.
Harman and CasesTech have settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 8,805,692 and jointly filed a motion to have the settlement agreement treated as confidential, seeking termination of the proceeding.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon and its affiliates have filed a Request for Director Review challenging the USPTO’s new six‑year “settled expectations” rule that led to a discretionary denial of institution for their IPR petition covering patent 10,091,266.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The USPTO denied Amazon’s request for Director Review of the decision denying institution of multiple IPRs involving Audio Pod IP’s patents. The denial applies to all listed proceedings.
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‑device patent was rejected. The Board affirmed that the Acting Director properly exercised discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
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” rule that barred its IPR petition on patent 9,319,720. The petition argues the rule violates the APA, the Constitution, and the AIA. The Board is asked to reverse the discretionary denial.
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. Audio Pod’s counsel argues the denial was proper under the settled‑expectations doctrine and that no APA or due‑process violations exist. The Board has yet to rule on the review request.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
The PTAB denied Amazon's request for Director Review of the institution decisions in IPR2025-01003 (patent 9,729,907) and IPR2025-01041, leaving the institution denials intact.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v.Audio Pod IP, LLC
Amazon’s request for Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of IPR 2025‑01003 was rejected. The Deputy Director’s use of the settled‑expectations standard and discretionary authority under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) was upheld, leaving Audio Pod’s patent in force.
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.