Nintendo Co. Ltd. et al. v. Resonant Systems, Inc.

IPR2025-01098

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.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-01098
Decision Date
23 June 2025
Filing Date
23 June 2025

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

patentIPR2025-00769

Amazon.com, Inc. et al.vsAudio Pod IP, LLC

Amazon and affiliates petition the PTAB to overturn a discretionary denial that applied a new six‑year settled‑expectations rule to block their IPR on Patent 9,954,922. They argue the rule violates the AIA, the APA, and due‑process rights.

patentPGR2024-00025

Inari Agriculture, Inc.vsPioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

The PTAB denied Inari Agriculture's PGR challenge against Pioneer Hi-Bred International regarding maize breeding claims (1-20). The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate unpatentability on grounds of obviousness, utility, or indefiniteness.

patentIPR2025-01530

RJ Brands, LLC d/b/a ChefmanvsSharkNinja Operating LLC et al.

RJ Brands (Chefman) has filed an IPR petition challenging SharkNinja’s dual‑air‑fryer patent, arguing lack of priority support and obviousness over four prior‑art references. The petition targets claims 1‑4 and 7‑22 and seeks to have them declared unpatentable.

patentIPR2025-00786

American Airlines, Inc. et al.vsIntellectual Ventures I LLC

American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate key claims of Intellectual Ventures' virtual network patent, arguing obviousness over a combination of prior‑art references. The petition also challenges any discretionary denial by the Board.

patentIPR2026-00107

Apple Inc.vsHBCU Messaging US LP

Apple’s petition to invalidate a patent was denied by the PTAB because it failed to show a reasonable likelihood of success on any of the 14 challenged claims. The Board found the obviousness arguments lacked the required particularity and rationale.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call