Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v. Zaxcom, Inc.

IPR2025-00231

Rode Microphones filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Zaxcom’s 9,336,307 patent, arguing that prior‑art systems render the claims anticipated or obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00231
Decision Date
12 April 2024
Filing Date
12 April 2024

Detailed Summary

In the IPR2018‑00972 petition, Rode Microphones, LLC challenges Zaxcom, Inc.’s U.S. Patent 9,336,307 covering wireless audio recording systems. The petitioner contends that the patent’s sole novel feature—locally recording audio to repair transmission dropouts—has been known for years, citing a suite of prior‑art references (Strub, Nagai, Gleissner, Wood, Lee, among others). By combining these references, the petition asserts that each of the 14 claims is either anticipated or rendered obvious, and therefore unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The petition requests that the PTAB institute the IPR and cancel the 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

patentIPR2025-00771

Dentsply Sirona Inc.vsOsseo Imaging, LLC

Dentsply Sirona has filed a petition to institute an IPR against Osseo Imaging’s 6,381,301 patent covering dental and orthopedic CT densitometry. The challenger asserts the claims are anticipated or obvious over Arai and Pelc references, especially when combined with Cann and Rothman teachings. The petition seeks a finding that claims 1‑8 and 10‑20 are unpatentable.

patentIPR2025-00232

Rode Microphones, LLC et al.vsZaxcom, Inc.

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.

patentIPR2025-01033

REVELYST SALES LLC et al.vsBrainGuard Technologies Inc.

Revelyst Sales LLC has filed a petition to invalidate BrainGuard's 9,516,909 helmet patent, asserting that its layered, sliding‑helmet claims are anticipated or obvious in view of prior‑art helmets such as Weber, Von Holst, Kleiven, Madey, and Dotsuko.

patentIPR2025-01478

BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.

BOE Technology Group and Samsung Display settled their IPR dispute over patent 11,574,990, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding before trial.

patentIPR2026-00007

Nintendo Co., Ltd. et al.vsMalikie Innovations Ltd.

Nintendo and Malikie Innovations settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 9,542,571 B2 before trial, leading the Board to dismiss the petitions and terminate the proceedings.

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