Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.

IPR2024-00568

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2024-00568
Filing Date
16 February 2024
Outcome
denied

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. et al. vs Resonant Systems, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-00580

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc et al.vsThe Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania et al.

The Board issued a Final Written Decision upholding the validity of claim 8 in this gene therapy IPR. The decision found that Petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient motivation or reasonable expectation of success to combine prior art references under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

patentIPR2024-00606

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsCobblestone Wireless LLC

Samsung Electronics America filed a petition challenging the validity of Cobblestone Wireless's '802 patent, asserting that its multi-carrier transmission claims are obvious in light of mid-2000s prior art. The petitioner argues that established technologies like Suzuki and Fernandez render the claimed methods predictable modifications to known systems.

patentIPR2024-00526

Bruker Spatial Biology, Inc.vs10x Genomics, Inc. et al.

Nanostring Technologies challenges U.S. Patent No. 11,542,554 in a PTAB Petition, arguing that numerous claims are obvious over combinations of prior art references like Zhuang, Cai, and Shen. The petitioner asserts the core technology for 3D positional information in nucleic acid imaging was already well-known in biological imaging.

patentIPR2024-01105

Dr. Squatch, LLCvsThe Procter & Gamble Company

Dr. Squatch challenged Procter & Gamble's deodorant patent (10,966,915) in an IPR petition, arguing that the claimed natural ingredient compositions are anticipated or obvious over existing prior art. The petitioner asserts that various combinations of references like Lesniak and Native render the claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.

patentIPR2024-00669

NEURENT MEDICAL INC. et al.vsThe Foundry, LLC et al.

NEURENT MEDICAL INC. successfully petitioned PTAB for institution of IPR against THE FOUNDRY, LLC's nasal cavity treatment patent (11679077). The Board found sufficient evidence across multiple grounds of anticipation and obviousness to proceed to trial.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call