Short Summary
Google filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of SoundClear's 9,031,259 patent covering noise‑reduction apparatuses, asserting obviousness over several prior‑art references and seeking institution of the review.
Detailed Summary
In a petition for inter partes review, Google LLC challenges the validity of every claim (1‑20) of SoundClear Technologies LLC’s U.S. Patent No. 9,031,259, which claims a noise‑reduction apparatus, audio input apparatus, wireless communication apparatus, and related methods. Google contends that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious in view of prior‑art references including Kale, Namba, Li‑638, Yamada, and Li‑730, and argues that discretionary denial under §§314(a) and 325(d) is unwarranted. The petition requests that the PTAB institute the IPR and cancel all challenged claims.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Google LLC vs SoundClear Technologies LLC et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
SK hynix Inc.vsAdvanced Memory Technologies LLC
SK hynix has filed a petition for inter partes review challenging U.S. Patent 8,400,835, asserting that its claims are anticipated or obvious over prior Japanese patents Murakami and Kobayashi, and U.S. patent Yu. The petition seeks to invalidate claims 1, 2, 4, and 5.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMobile Data Technologies LLC
Samsung has filed a petition for Director Review after the PTAB denied institution of an IPR against Mobile Data Technologies' patent 9,619,578. The petition argues the Board abused discretion by misapplying settled‑expectation doctrine and ignoring examiner error. Samsung seeks reversal and institution of the review.
Capital One, N.A. et al.vsWapp Tech Corp. et al.
Capital One seeks IPR of Wapp Tech’s 2014 patent covering mobile photo‑editing apps, arguing the ten claims are obvious over prior art such as Lee, Jiang, Tran, and Poulin‑910.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al.vsPictiva Displays International Limited et al.
Samsung Display has filed an IPR petition to invalidate all 16 claims of Pictiva's OLED patent, arguing that each claim is anticipated or obvious over prior art such as Suzuki, Diekmann, Ma, and Lee.
Krisp Technologies, Inc.vsSanas.AI, Inc.
Krisp Technologies has filed an Inter Partes Review petition challenging Sanas.AI’s U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550, which claims a machine‑learning system for real‑time accent conversion. The petitioner alleges obviousness over six prior‑art references and proposes a specific claim construction for “fourth audio data representative of.”
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.