Executive 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.
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
Runergy Alabama Inc et al.vsTrina Solar Co. Ltd.
Runergy has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate all 11 claims of Trina Solar’s 9,722,104 patent, arguing obviousness over multiple prior‑art references. The petition seeks cancellation of the claims and argues discretionary denial does not apply.
Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.vsMES, Inc.
Berkshire Hathaway’s MidAmerican Energy and patent owner Birchtech have settled their dispute over a emissions‑control patent, prompting a joint motion to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to dismiss MidAmerican from the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. §317.
Orca Security Ltd.vsWiz, Inc.
Orca Security and Wiz have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 11,929,896 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding before a final written decision.
Target CorporationvsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC
The PTAB held that all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over the Rao reference and, for many claims, additional references.
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC et al.vsThe Johns Hopkins University
Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC successfully secured institution for its IPR challenge against The Johns Hopkins University regarding oncology/immunotherapy claims. The Board found sufficient evidence to proceed under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, despite procedural challenges from the Patent Owner.
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.