Short Summary
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).
Detailed Summary
In this IPR, the Petitioner (Apple Inc.) successfully demonstrated obviousness against claims 2 and 3 of Resonant Systems, Inc.'s patent (8860337) in a Final Written Decision. The Board adopted a high level of ordinary skill in the art for the POSITA and established specific means-plus-function constructions for key terms like 'control component,' defining it as an algorithmic structure capable of generating frequency and amplitude values based on user input. The Petitioner successfully argued that combining known techniques, such as H-bridge implementation (Rossi) with Gregorio's system, rendered the claimed haptic effects obvious over multiple combinations of prior art references, leading to the cancellation of these claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. vs Resonant Systems, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Juniper Networks, Inc.vsMonarch Networking Solutions LLC
Monarch’s response to Juniper’s IPR argues that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 8,130,775 are not obvious, emphasizing that prior‑art references do not disclose a shared link between two pseudo‑wires.
Fresenius Kabi SwissBioSim GmbH et al.vsRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Court decision.
Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAlmondNet, Inc.
Amazon and AlmondNet settled their IPR over patent 8,494,904 and jointly requested the Board keep the settlement agreement confidential and terminate the proceeding.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology has filed an IPR petition challenging Stratasys’s 3‑D‑printing patent (US 10,569,466), asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references. The petition argues that the Board should institute the review and reject discretionary denial arguments.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetlist, Inc.
The USPTO denied Samsung and Micron’s request for Director Review of two IPR decisions, leaving the Board’s final written decisions in place.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.