IP Cases — 2024
4,764 decisions across all jurisdictions
Page 116 of 159 · 4,764 total
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics seek Director Review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR against Zaxcom’s 7,929,902 patent. They argue the Board ignored Guidance, settled expectations, and failed to rule on a motion to terminate, warranting denial of institution.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones files a Director Review petition challenging the PTAB’s finding of privity with its newly‑acquired subsidiary Lectrosonics, arguing the Board misapplied the Taylor exceptions and violated due‑process. The petition seeks vacatur of the institution and dismissal of the IPR against Zaxcom’s ’902 patent.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB found all of Rode Microphones’ challenged claims of Zaxcom’s 8,385,814 patent unpatentable as obvious over a combination of prior‑art references, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with new claims 50‑65.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones filed an IPR petition challenging Zaxcom’s 9,336,307 patent. The petitioner contends that all 14 claims are obvious or anticipated over multiple prior‑art references and seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics filed a corrected request for Director Review to fix a citation error and seek dismissal of an IPR against Zaxcom’s patent. No substantive changes were made to the original arguments.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable for obviousness or anticipation, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with substitute claims 21‑26. The Board’s claim constructions favored the petitioner’s broader interpretations.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB held that all six challenged claims of Zaxcom’s ’902 patent are unpatentable, finding them obvious or anticipated over prior art such as Strub, Nagai, Gleissner, Woo, and Wood, and granted Zaxcom’s motion to amend with narrower substitute claims.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison's post‑grant review petition against Vervain’s NAND‑flash storage patent, finding the challenger had not shown a more‑likely‑than‑not chance of unpatentability for any of the seven claims.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
The PTAB denied Phison Electronics’ request to institute a post‑grant review of Vervain’s ’612 NAND‑flash memory patent, finding the challenger’s unpatentability arguments unpersuasive.
Phison Electronics Corporation v.Vervain, LLC
Phison Electronics has filed a post‑grant review petition seeking cancellation of Vervain’s 11,830,546 NAND‑flash memory patent. The petition alleges lack of patent‑eligible subject matter, insufficient written description, indefiniteness, and obviousness over prior art. The Board must decide whether to institute the review.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones challenges Zaxcom’s 7,711,443 patent, arguing that prior IPR invalidations render the claim unpatentable and that the Board correctly applied the Fintiv factors. The petition seeks denial of the patent owner’s request for Director review.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied Rode Microphones' request for Director Review of the institution decisions in three IPRs, including the challenge to Zaxcom's microphone patent (7,929,902). The institution rulings therefore remain in force.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Director Review requests have been filed for three IPRs involving Rode Microphones and Zaxcom’s wireless microphone patent. Rode must respond within five business days with a brief, issue‑limited filing.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB denied Rode Microphones’ request for Director Review of the vacated institution and dismissal of IPR2025‑00231 involving Zaxcom’s patent.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Court decision.
Embody, Inc. et al. v.LifeNet Health
Embody and Zimmer Biomet have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of claims 1‑8 of LifeNet Health’s 11,318,227 patent covering electrospun collagen scaffolds. They argue obviousness and anticipation based on Huang2, Kuo, and Lee, and request institution of the review.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
RØDE Microphones and Freedman Electronics have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 11 claims of Zaxcom’s ’207 patent, arguing obviousness over four prior‑art references and invoking collateral estoppel from earlier PTAB decisions.
Embody, Inc. et al. v.LifeNet Health
Embody and Zimmer Biomet successfully secured institution in this IPR against LifeNet Health's '223 patent. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that claims related to collagen scaffolds with specific FFT analysis characteristics are unpatentable over prior art references like Huang2 and Lee.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
The PTAB Institute Decision granted trial for Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics against Zaxcom regarding wireless audio recording systems. The Board found that the Petitioner successfully demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim, despite procedural hurdles related to parallel district court litigation.
Rode Microphones, LLC et al. v.Zaxcom, Inc.
Rode Microphones and Freedman Electronics successfully petitioned for IPR institution against Zaxcom's audio recording patents, demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing. The Board found that the combination of Strub and Woo renders the claimed synchronization methods obvious under § 103.
Roche Diabetes Care GmbH, F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v.VitalAire GmbH, Air Liquide Healthcare Nederland B.V, Dinno Santé s.a.i.
This case concerns European Patent EP 1 970 677 B1 and was brought by F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against six defendants, including Tandem Diabetes Care entities and various healthcare distributors. The dispute centers on the language of proceedings, with the plaintiffs having chosen German. Defendants 2 and 6 filed an objection under Rule 19.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure, seeking a change to English, arguing that German is only the official language of one defendant and that English would be less burdensome for all parties. The order was issued by Judge Dr. Thom as Rapporteur of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf.
SVF Holdco v.ICPillar LLC
In the case of multiple defendants, if one of the defendants has its residence within the territory of the Local Division seized, Article 33(1)(b) UPCA must be applied, regardless of whether the other defendants are based inside or outside the Contracting Member States or inside or outside the EU. Hence the only requirements to be met are: 1) the multiple defendants have a commercial relationship, 2) the action relates to the same alleged infringement. The requirement of a “commercial relationsh
Neo Wireless GmbH & Co KG v.Toyota Motor Europe
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Toyota's request for a decision by default against Neo Wireless's appeal of an order rejecting Neo's preliminary objection to the UPC's jurisdiction. The court held that Neo had timely corrected formal deficiencies and that the 15-day deadline for filing a statement of appeal under R.224.1(b) RoP runs from the date of service of the decision granting leave to appeal, not from the date of the impugned order.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a preliminary response to TCL's IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,375,341, arguing that the petitioner’s obviousness ground based on the Acharya reference fails to disclose key claim elements and that discretionary factors favor denying institution.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell seeks denial of TCL’s IPR petition on U.S. Patent 10,650,780, arguing the petition lacks a reasonable likelihood of success, fails statutory particularity, and repeats arguments already considered by the USPTO.
Aardevo North America, LLC et al. v.Agventure B.V.
Aardevo North America petitions the PTAB Director to review the Board’s denial to institute an IPR on Agventure’s hybrid seed potato breeding patent. The petitioner contends the Board ignored printed‑publication anticipations, dismissed secondary‑consideration evidence, and misapplied the nexus requirement.
TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. (f/k/a TCL Multimedia Technology Holdings, Ltd.) v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell has filed a Request for Director Review seeking to vacate the institution of IPR2025‑00120, arguing that the Board misapplied the Fintiv factors and ignored the overlap with a parallel district‑court case. The petition emphasizes the imminent trial date and the limited benefit of the petitioner’s Sotera stipulation.
TCL Industries Holdings Co., Ltd. v.Maxell, Ltd.
Maxell, Ltd. filed a sur‑reply urging the PTAB to deny TCL's IPR petition. The owner argues the petition repeats previously presented art, shows no material error, and presents unsupported claim‑construction arguments. The board is asked to reject institution of the review.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.