Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In IPR2025-00232, Zaxcom, Inc. files a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s decision to institute inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 10,276,207. The Patent Owner contends that the Board erred by focusing exclusively on Fintiv factors, failing to apply the Director’s March 2025 Guidance, and overlooking settled expectations arising from the patent’s six‑year term and prior notice to the petitioners. It further argues that the Board’s reliance on prior Lectrosonics IPRs is misplaced due to differing claim‑construction standards. The petition targets eleven claims covering microphone technology, and seeks reversal of the institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
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
Kangxi Communications Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.vsSkyworks Solutions, Inc.
Skyworks seeks affirmation of the PTAB Director's denial of institution for an IPR filed by Kangxi over a wireless front‑end patent. The Patent Owner emphasizes the six Fintib factors and its settled expectations of validity to argue against institution.
Webgroup Czech Republic, a.s. et al.vsDISH Technologies L.L.C. et al.
The USPTO denied Webgroup Czech Republic's request for Director Review of the Final Written Decisions in two IPRs challenging DISH Technologies patents.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. et al.vsPictiva Displays International Ltd. et al.
Samsung Display Co., Ltd. has filed an Inter Partes Review challenging U.S. Patent No. 6,949,389 related to OLED encapsulation technology. The petitioner asserts that the challenged claims are obvious over various combinations of prior art references involving selective deposition and barrier layer methods.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple and Apex Beam Technologies entered a settlement, leading the PTAB to terminate IPR2025-00895 covering U.S. Patent 10,568,113. The Board granted the joint motion to terminate and kept the settlement documents confidential.
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al.vsKoninklijke KPN N.V.
Court decision.
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.