Short Summary
The PTAB held that all 14 challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’307 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation and obviousness over multiple prior‑art references, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to replace the cancelled claims with narrower substitute claims.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2018-00972, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board reviewed claims 1‑14 of Zaxcom’s 9,336,307 B2 patent covering a wireless multitrack audio recording system. Rode Microphones, the petitioner, presented a comprehensive prior‑art matrix showing that the claims were either anticipated (under 35 U.S.C. § 102) or obvious (under § 103) in view of references such as Strub, Nagai, Wood, Gleissner, and Lee. The Board adopted the petitioner’s claim constructions—particularly that “combined” includes multitrack embodiments and that “wearable” means simply suitable to be worn—rejecting the patent owner’s narrower interpretations. Consequently, all 14 claims were found unpatentable, and the Board granted Zaxcom’s contingent motion to amend, substituting claims 15‑28 that narrow the scope without enlarging it.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Rode Microphones, LLC et al. vs Zaxcom, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Daifuku Co., Ltd. et al.vsCLX Engineering
Daifuku and CLX Engineering have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,386,602 and jointly moved to terminate the pending IPR. The Board is asked to dismiss the case on public‑policy grounds favoring settlement.
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
Petitioners and BirchTech filed a joint motion to have their settlement agreements sealed as business‑confidential information, invoking 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) and related Board rules.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully convinced the PTAB to institute an IPR against Wilus Institute, challenging 16 wireless communication claims based on obviousness over prior art references like Lee.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsRadian Memory Systems LLC
Samsung Electronics and Radian Memory Systems settled their IPR dispute over patent 11307995 before trial. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate, ending the proceedings.
RegenX Science Inc.vsNextgen Biologics, Inc.
RegenX Science has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 32 claims of Nextgen Biologics’ tissue‑engineered graft patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over a suite of prior‑art ECM references.
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.