Executive 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.
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
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.vsP2i Ltd.
JIANGSU FAVORED NANOTECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. successfully petitioned to overturn a discretionary denial of IPR for P2i Ltd.'s patent (11041087). The Board found that the prior art was sufficiently evaluated during prosecution, leading to the institution of the case on § 103 grounds.
NXTGEN TOYS, LLCvsZipString LLC
NXTGEN TOYS challenges ZipString LLC's string shooter patents (11674774) alleging infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103. The petitioner argues that the claimed features, particularly fibrous surface textures for drag generation, are anticipated or obvious based on prior art combining existing designs with known aerodynamic principles.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Google successfully challenged Secure Communication Technologies' proximity‑beacon patent, leading the PTAB to deem all eight claims unpatentable.
Krisp Technologies, Inc.vsSanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an IPR petition challenging Sanas.ai’s U.S. Patent No. 12,125,496 covering neural‑network‑based voice enhancement. The petition asserts that all 20 claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references and proposes a specific construction for the term “low‑dimensional representation.”
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsKannuu Pty. Ltd.
The PTAB granted institution for IPR2026-00072, allowing Samsung Electronics to challenge Kannuu's patent 11200252.
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.