Short Summary
Nintendo has filed an IPR petition challenging claims 2 and 3 of Resonant Systems’ linear vibration module patent, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and seeking cancellation of the claims.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025-01098, Nintendo Co., Ltd. and Nintendo of America, Inc. request inter partes review of claims 2 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 8,860,337 owned by Resonant Systems, Inc. The petition alleges that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious in view of a combination of prior‑art references—including Wakuda, Ramsay, Rossi, Aldrich, Fukumoto, Saiki, and Masahiko—each of which teaches the individual claim limitations. Nintendo also argues that the PTAB has already instituted a related IPR on the same claims, invoking both statutory and common‑law estoppel to preclude the patent owner from contesting the same limitations. The petition further contends that the disputed terms are means‑plus‑function limitations, for which the prior art provides the requisite structure. The case is pending institution.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. vs Resonant Systems, Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
WIZ, Inc.vsOrca Security Ltd.
The USPTO denied WIZ, Inc.'s request for Director Review of the PTAB's final written decisions in IPR2024-00863 and a related IPR, upholding the decisions against Orca Security's patent.
Sony CorporationvsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Sony Corporation successfully navigated the PTAB process, leading to the institution of IPR on all 27 challenged claims related to digital camera aberration correction. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Sony's technology is unpatentable over prior art disclosures from Watanabe and others.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsBroadphone, LLC
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. initiated a Petition challenging Broadphone, LLC's patent 8594698 at the PTAB. The petitioner argues that claim 23 is obvious over Spain-I when combined with Hunzinger and Nanda. This challenge relates to mobile location determination technology in wireless communications.
Google LLC et al.vsEyesMatch Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision rejecting all claims (1-18) because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence. The Board adopted a nuanced claim construction from District Court, requiring specific elements like reversed reflection and double distance for 'mirror mimicking.'
Micron Technology, Inc. et al.vsYangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.
Micron Technology, Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Yangtze Memory Technologies Company, Ltd.'s semiconductor patent was obvious over prior art reference Toyama et al., leading to institution of the IPR. The Board found Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on all 8 claims at issue based on structural limitations taught by the prior art.
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.