Short Summary
The PTAB found all challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent unpatentable for obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2018-01130, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held that claims 1‑4, 9, 10, 12, 15, 31, 36, 37, and 41‑45 of Zaxcom’s ’814 patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over the Strub reference combined with Nagai, Gleissner, Woo, and Dwyer. The Board adopted broader claim constructions for terms such as “wearable” and “master timecode generator,” found the prior art taught each limitation, and concluded the petitioner met its burden of proof. The Board also granted Zaxcom’s contingent motion to amend, replacing the original claims with substitute claims 50‑65, and affirmed the unpatentability finding.
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
Jumio CorporationvsFaceTec, Inc.
FaceTec requests the PTAB Director to deny institution of Jumio’s IPR, arguing that all Fintiv factors favor denial due to overlapping litigation and ethical issues. The petition cites 35 U.S.C. §314(a) and highlights time‑bar concerns.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy group petitions the PTAB to institute IPR of U.S. Patent 10,668,430 covering mercury removal methods, arguing obviousness and lack of priority support.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited et al.vsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.
TSMC and Apple have filed a petition to invalidate Marlin Semiconductor's FinFET patent, arguing that the claims are obvious in view of multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks institution of an IPR covering claims 1‑12.
Apple Inc.vsWeCrevention, Inc.
Court decision.
Mercedes-Benz Group AG et al.vsPhelan Group, LLC
Mercedes‑Benz and Phelan Group settled their IPR dispute before trial, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement confidential.
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.