Electromechanical Devices — US PTAB Patent Cases
8 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 8 total
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment's IPR challenge against Resonant Systems was denied by the PTAB, finding that Sony failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on any challenged claim. The Board adopted the Patent Owner's view regarding the 'control component,' requiring an algorithmic structure for obviousness.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. successfully navigated the institution phase of an IPR against Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (8860337). The Board adopted specific claim constructions for 'driving' and 'control components,' setting the stage for a trial focused on obviousness over prior art combinations.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied Apple Inc.'s request to institute a parallel Inter Partes Review against Resonant Systems, Inc., finding that the existing IPR proceeding was sufficient despite arguments regarding priority date disputes.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB found that several claims of the '830 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness), while others survived. The Board adopted a narrow construction for the 'control component,' requiring an algorithmic structure capable of timing/flipping signals, but not necessarily specific hardware like an H-bridge switch. Claims related to complex vibration modes were found to be taught by prior art.
Apple Inc. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc.'s IPR challenge against Resonant Systems, Inc. was instituted after the Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim. The grounds for institution were multiple obviousness rejections (103) over various prior art combinations in electromechanical devices. This decision moves the dispute into trial phase proceedings.
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Sony Interactive Entertainment and Sony Group Corporation lost their IPR challenge against Resonant Systems, Inc., regarding vibration module technology. The PTAB denied the petition because the prior art did not teach the necessary algorithmic structure for the claimed control component.
Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
Apple Inc. successfully demonstrated obviousness against certain claims of Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (8860337) in a PTAB Final Written Decision. The Board found that Claims 2 and 3 were unpatentable over various combinations of prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v.Resonant Systems, Inc.
The PTAB denied institution for IPR2024-00569, finding that Sony Interactive Entertainment failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on its challenged claims regarding vibration modules and actuators. The Board sided with the Patent Owner (Resonant Systems) by upholding the requirement for an algorithmic step in the 'control component' structure.
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.