Short Summary
The PTAB found all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent unpatentable, adopting broader claim constructions and granting Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025‑00232, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15 of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent were unpatentable. The Board adopted broader constructions for key terms such as “combined,” “wearable,” and “master timecode generator,” concluding that the prior‑art references Strub, Nagai, Gleissner, Woo, and Wood taught each limitation either as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 or anticipated under § 102. After finding the original claims unpatentable, the Board granted Zaxcom’s contingent motion to amend, replacing the cancelled claims with substitute claims 21‑26 that were found patent‑eligible.
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
PacifiCorp et al.vsMES, Inc.
Petitioners and the patent owner reached settlements with Interstate Power & Light and Wisconsin Power & Light, filing a joint motion to terminate the IPR for those parties. The Board is asked to dismiss the review under 35 U.S.C. §317, citing no merits decision and public‑policy benefits of settlement.
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsInfoExpress Inc.
Cisco and Fortinet successfully challenged InfoExpress's patent on obviousness grounds in the PTAB. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of prevailing, leading to institution on all 18 asserted claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 26 claims of U.S. Patent 11,443,344, which covers Bluetooth beacon‑based proximity services. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of Watanabe, Ribaudo, and Behrens references.
Apple Inc.vsAvant Location Technologies LLC
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Avant’s ’621 patent covering mobile‑presence monitoring, arguing that all 18 claims are obvious over prior art such as Putkiranta, Kraufvelin, Granberg, and Rachabathuni.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsNetwork-1 Technologies, Inc.
Network-1 Technologies opposes Samsung’s petition to institute an IPR on U.S. Patent 11,916,893 covering eSIM provisioning. The owner contends the Examiner already found the claims allowable and that Samsung’s prior‑art references do not disclose key claim limitations. The response seeks denial of the petition.
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.