Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v. Zaxcom, Inc.

IPR2025-00232

Zaxcom seeks Director Review of the PTAB’s institution decision for its 2019 microphone patent, arguing the Board misapplied discretionary considerations and ignored Guidance. The request targets claims 17‑19, 21‑23, 33‑34, 59‑60, and 66.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00232
Filing Date
12 April 2024
Status
ok

Related Cases

patentIPR2025-00864

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. et al.vsMarlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al.

The PTAB upheld its discretionary denial of an IPR petition against Marlin Semiconductor's FinFET patent, citing settled expectations and a parallel ITC investigation. The petitioner's request for Director review was rejected.

patentPGR2025-00002

Intelligent Wellhead Systems, Inc. et al.vsDowning Wellhead Equipment, LLC et al.

Downing Wellhead Equipment seeks Director Review to overturn the Board’s institution of a PGR covering 78 claims of its wellhead patent. The owner argues the proceeding is inefficient, cites misapplied prior‑art analysis, and alleges the Board ignored § 325(d) discretionary denial grounds.

patentIPR2025-00340

Tesla, Inc.vsIntellectual Ventures II LLC

Tesla filed a rehearing request challenging a Director Review order that it says ignored the new Revvo Techs. claim‑construction guidance and conflicted with Federal Circuit precedent on indefiniteness. The company seeks remand for additional briefing.

patentPGR2026-00009

Terumo BTC, IncvsHaemonetics Corporation

Terumo BCT has filed a corrected PGR petition challenging Haemonetics' plasma‑collection patent (US 12,324,873). The petition alleges anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description, and patent‑ineligible subject matter. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.

patentPGR2025-00040

AdvanCell Pty Ltd.vsSciencons AS et al.

AdvanCell Pty Ltd.'s PGR petition against Sciencons AS et al. was instituted by the PTAB, leading to a trial on grounds of anticipation and obviousness (102/103) and indefiniteness (112). The Board preliminarily adopted all three constructions proposed by the Petitioner for element [1.C], setting up complex claim construction issues for trial.

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