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
NVIDIA CorporationvsNeural AI, LLC
NVIDIA has filed a rehearing request challenging the PTAB Director’s denial of institution for its IPR against Neural AI’s GPU‑AI patent. The petitioner argues the Board ignored trial‑date timing data and the patent’s recent issuance, which should weigh against discretionary denial.
Jumio CorporationvsFaceTec, Inc.
Jumio Corporation successfully secured institution at the PTAB against FaceTec, Inc., establishing a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability for 24 claims related to facial recognition. The Board found that combinations of prior art references (Derakhshani/Tanii and Zhang/Tanii) rendered the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
GENERAC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. et al.vsChampion Power Equipment, Inc.
Generac and co‑petitioners have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate all 16 claims of Champion’s ’145 dual‑fuel generator patent, alleging obviousness over a suite of prior‑art engine manuals and patents.
Dentsply Sirona Inc.vsOsseo Imaging, LLC
Dentsply Sirona has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Osseo Imaging’s 8,498,374 patent covering dental CT densitometry. The petition relies on Arai and Pelc prior‑art references, arguing anticipation and obviousness for all 24 claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsEmpire Technology Development LLC
Empire Technology has filed a Director Review request in IPR2024‑00896. Samsung has five business days to submit a limited response, with no new evidence allowed.
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.