Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`RØDE MICROPHONES, LLC AND
`FREEDMAN ELECTRONICS PTY LTD,
`Petitioners
`
`v.
`
`ZAXCOM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________________
`
`IPR2025-00230
`
`Patent 7,711,443
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`
`Table of Exhibits .................................................................................................... viii
`
`A.
`B.
`1.
`2.
`3.
`C.
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1)) ....................................... xi
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2)) ................................................... xi
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware ....................................... xi
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board—Co-Pending Matters ............................ xii
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board—Past Matters ........................................ xii
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R.
`§§42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4)) ......................................................................... xiii
`Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Certification of Grounds For Standing Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ............. 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Identification of Relief Requested and Grounds For Challenge Under 37
`
`C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b) ............................................................... 1
`
`IV. Background of the Technology ....................................................................... 2
`
`V.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................. 3
`
`VI.
`
`The ’443 Patent ................................................................................................ 4
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`Summary of the Specification .................................................................... 4
`Claims ......................................................................................................... 7
`Lectrosonics IPRs ....................................................................................... 9
`Collateral Estoppel Based on PTAB’s Findings Regarding Claim
`Elements in Prior Art and Obviousness of Combinations .................... 9
`Collateral Estoppel Based on PTAB’s Findings Regarding Zaxcom’s
`Purported Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness ................................ 14
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 15
`ii
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`VIII. Overview of the Prior Art .............................................................................. 15
`
`Strub .......................................................................................................... 15
`A.
`B. Woo .......................................................................................................... 17
`C.
`Nagai ......................................................................................................... 19
`D.
`Gleissner ................................................................................................... 22
`E. Winningstad .............................................................................................. 23
`F.
`Dwyer ....................................................................................................... 26
`IX.
`Specific Grounds for Invalidity ..................................................................... 27
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`X.
`
`D.
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23-27 are Rendered Obvious
`Under § 103 By the Combination of Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner . 27
`A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine Strub, Woo, Nagai,
`and Gleissner ....................................................................................... 27
`The Combination of Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner Meets All
`Elements of Challenged Claims 1-3, 7, 8, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23-27 ........ 32
`Ground 2: Claims 4 and 9 are Rendered Obvious Under § 103 By the
`Combination of Strub, Woo, Nagai, Gleissner, and Winningstad ........... 71
`A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine Strub, Woo, Nagai,
`Gleissner, and Winningstad ................................................................. 71
`The Combination of Strub, Woo, Nagai, Gleissner, and Winningstad
`Meets All Elements of Challenged Claims 4 and 9 ............................ 74
`Ground 3: Claim 22 is Rendered Obvious Under § 103 By the
`Combination of Strub, Woo, Nagai, Gleissner and Dwyer ...................... 75
`A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine Strub, Woo, Nagai,
`Gleissner and Dwyer ........................................................................... 75
`The Combination of Strub, Woo, Nagai, Gleissner, and Dwyer Meets
`All Elements of Challenged Claim 22 ................................................ 77
`No Relevant Secondary Considerations or Objective Indicia .................. 79
`Discretionary Denial IS Not Warranted ........................................................ 80
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`1.
`
`Section 325 (d).......................................................................................... 80
`Advanced Bionics Part One ................................................................. 80
`iii
`
`

`

`2.
`
`B.
`
`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`Advanced Bionics Part Two ................................................................ 81
`Section 314(a) ........................................................................................... 82
`Stay Potential ....................................................................................... 82
`1.
`Trial Timing and Diligence ................................................................. 83
`2.
`Litigation Investment .......................................................................... 83
`3.
`Issue Overlap ....................................................................................... 84
`4.
`Litigation Parties ................................................................................. 84
`5.
`Merits ................................................................................................... 85
`6.
`XI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 85
`
`XII. PAYMENT OF FEES ................................................................................... 85
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte
`GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) ................................................ 80
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) .................................................. 82-84
`Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc.,
`555 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................ 30, 73, 76
`In re Battiston,
`139 Fed.Appx. 281 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................... 8
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................... 80
`Bio-Rad Labs. Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc.,
`No. 18-1679-RGA, 2020 WL 2849989 (D. Del. June 2, 2020) ......................... 83
`Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,
`No. 17-871-LPS, 2019 WL 1276029 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2019) .......................... 83
`Google LLC v. Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc.,
`54 F.4th 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................... 10, 13, 15
`Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00279, Paper 16 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 18, 2023)......................................... 10
`Google v. Parus Holdings,
`IPR2020-00846, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 21, 2020) ................................................ 85
`KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) .....................................................................................passim
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 8
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`
`In re Metz,
`173 F.3d 433 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 8
`NEC Corp. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`No. 22-987-CJB, 2024 WL 1533952 (D. Del. Apr. 9, 2024) ............................. 83
`Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp.,
`Case IPR2012-00005, Paper 68 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2014) ................................... 8
`Sand Revolution II v. Continental Intermodal Group–Trucking,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ............................................. 82
`United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co.,
`384 U.S. 394 (1966) ............................................................................................ 10
`Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc.,
`Nos. 2020-1350, 2020-1405, 2022 WL 499843 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18,
`2022) ................................................................................................................... 13
`Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc.,
`Nos. 2020-1921, 2020-1922, 2020-1943, 2020-1944, 2022 WL
`499848 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2022) ........................................................................ 13
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 102 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .................................................................................................... 80
`Regulations
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1) ............................................................................................ 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104 ..................................................................................................... 1
`Other Authorities
`Director’s Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials (June 21,
`2022)) .................................................................................................................. 82
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`Patent 7,711,443
`
`vii
`Vil
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`Description
`
`United States Patent 7,711,443
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`1017
`
`Declaration of Professor Chris Kyriakakis
`
`United States Patent No. 6,825,875 (“Strub”)
`
`United States Patent No. 5,479,351 (“Woo”)
`
`United States Publication No. 2002/0159179 (“Nagai”)
`
`United States Patent Publication No. 2004/0028241 (“Gleissner”)
`
`[Reserved]
`
`United States Patent No. 7,483,485 (“Winningstad”)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,571,211 (“Dwyer”)
`
`[Reserved]
`
`[Reserved]
`
`[Reserved]
`
`[Reserved]
`
`IPR2018-00972 Paper 41 November 7, 2019 Final Written Decision
`
`United States Patent 9,336,307
`
`IPR2018-00972 Petition for Inter Partes Review
`
`IPR2018-01129 Paper 33 January 24, 2020 Final Written Decision
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`
`Description
`
`IPR2018-01130 Paper 32 January 24, 2020 Final Written Decision
`
`IPR2018-00972 Zaxcom, Inc’s Patent Owner Response
`
`IPR2018-01129 Zaxcom, Inc’s Patent Owner Response
`
`IPR2018-01130 Zaxcom, Inc’s Patent Owner Response
`
`[Reserved]
`
`United States Patent No 489,570
`
`Apple Be Damned: The Humble Headphone Jack Has Survived For
`More Than A Century by Jonathan Ore. Published September 10, 2016.
`IEC 61076-2-103:2004
`
`Wayback Machine Archived Copy of Sanken Catalogue
`
`Wayback Machine archived copy of Sanken Webpage
`
`United States Patent 8,385,814
`
`[Reserved]
`
`United States Patent 7,929,902
`
`November 13, 2024 Doc. 98 Order Revising Schedule in Zaxcom, Inc.
`
`v. Rode Microphones, LLC and Freedman Electronics PTY Ltd.
`
`October 28, 2024 Letter from Zaxcom counsel responding to RØDE’s
`request to reduce number of asserted claims
`[Reserved]
`
`[Reserved]
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1035
`
`Description
`
`[Reserved]
`
`1036
`
`United States Patent 7,711,443 Prosecution History Excerpts
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`MANDATORY NOTICES UNDER 37 C.F.R. §42.8
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.8, Petitioner states as follows:
`
`Real Parties-in-Interest (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1))
`A.
`The real parties-in-interest are RØDE Microphones, LLC and Freedman
`
`Electronics Pty Ltd.
`
`B.
`
`Related Matters (37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(2))
`1.
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`The following pending district court litigation may affect or be affected by
`
`this proceeding: Zaxcom, Inc. v. RODE Microphones, LLC, et al., No. 1:23-cv-
`
`01245-JFM (D. Del.), filed October 31, 2023 (“the Delaware Litigation”). Petitioner
`
`RØDE Microphones, LLC was served with the original Complaint on December 4,
`
`2023. Petitioner Freedman Electronics Pty Ltd was served with the original
`
`Complaint on April 12, 2004. On November 14, 2024, Zaxcom filed an Amended
`
`Complaint which alleges, among other things, that Petitioner has infringed certain
`
`claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443 (“the ’443 Patent”) and six other patents: U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 7,929,902 (“the ’902 Patent”), 8,385,814 (“the ’814 Patent”), 9,336,307
`
`(“the ’307 Patent”), 10,276,207 (“the ’207 Patent”), 11,610,605 (“the ’605 Patent”),
`
`and 12,051,444 (“the ’444 Patent”) (collectively, the “Delaware Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`The Delaware Patents-in-Suit are all related to each other through a chain of
`
`continuation and continuation-in-part applications.
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board—Co-Pending Matters
`2.
`Concurrently with the present Petition, Petitioner is filing Inter Partes Review
`
`(“IPR”) Petitions challenging the patentability of certain claims of the ’902 and ’207
`
`Patents. Those IPRs may affect indirectly or may be affected indirectly by the
`
`decision in this proceeding since all three patents are related and are involved in the
`
`Delaware Litigation.
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board—Past Matters
`3.
`The related ’902, ’814, and ’307 Patents were previously involved in the
`
`following IPRs filed by third party Lectrosonics:
`
` ’902 Patent: Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01129 (“the
`
`’1129 IPR”);
`
` ’814 Patent: Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-01130 (“the
`
`’1130 IPR); and
`
` ’307 Patent: Lectrosonics, Inc. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2018-00972 (“the
`
`’972 IPR)
`
`(collectively, “the Lectrosonics IPRs”).
`
`Since the presently challenged claims of the ’443 Patent share many elements
`
`with claims of the related ’902, ’814, and ’307 Patents that the PTAB previously
`
`found unpatentable in the Lectrosonics IPRs, and since the Lectrosonics IPRs were
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`based on several of the same prior-art references relied on here, the Lectrosonics
`
`IPRs may affect the decision in this proceeding.
`
`C.
`
`Lead and Backup Counsel and Service Information (37 C.F.R.
`§§42.8(b)(3) and (b)(4))
`Lead Counsel
`
`Backup Counsel
`
`Jeffrey B. Plies, Reg. No. 46,999
`Dechert LLP
`300 West 6th Street, Suite 1850
`Austin, Texas 78701
`jeffrey.plies@dechert.com
`Tel (512) 394-3012
`Fax (512) 394-3001
`
`Michael A. Fisher, Reg. No. 42,536
`Dechert LLP
`Cira Centre
`2929 Arch Street
`Philadelphia, PA 19104-2808
`michael.fisher@dechert.com
`Tel (215) 994-2079
`Fax (215) 655-2279
`
`Please send all correspondence to lead counsel at the address above.
`
`Petitioner consents to service by e-mail sent to all of the following addresses:
`
` jeffrey.plies@dechert.com,
`
` michael.fisher@dechert.com,
`
` greg.chuebon@dechert.com,
`
` megan.gentleman@dechert.com, and
`
` all-rode-dechert@dechert.com.
`
`xiii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`RØDE Microphones, LLC and Freedman Electronics Pty Ltd (collectively
`
`“RØDE” or “Petitioner”) requests IPR and cancellation of Claims 1-4, 7-9, 15, 17,
`
`19, 20, and 22-27 (“the Challenged Claims”) of the ’443 Patent (Ex. 1001). IPR of
`
`the Challenged Claims should be instituted and the claims found unpatentable.
`
`II.
`
`CERTIFICATION OF GROUNDS FOR STANDING UNDER 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.104(a)
`Petitioner certifies that the ’443 Patent is available for IPR and Petitioner is
`
`not barred or estopped from requesting IPR of the Challenged Claims.
`
`III.
`
`IDENTIFICATION OF RELIEF REQUESTED AND GROUNDS FOR
`CHALLENGE UNDER 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1) AND 42.104(b)
`Petitioner requests review and cancellation of Claims 1-4, 7-9, 15, 17, 19, 20,
`
`and 22-27 of the ’443 Patent on the following grounds:
`
`Ground Claims
`
`Basis
`
`Prior Art
`
`1
`
`1-3, 7, 8, 15,
`17, 19, 20,
`23-27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 U.S. Patent No. 6,825,875
`(“Strub”) (Ex. 1003), U.S. Patent
`No. 5,479,351 (“Woo”) (Ex.
`1004), U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`2002/0159179 (“Nagai”) (Ex.
`1005), U.S. Patent Pub. No.
`2004/0028241 (“Gleissner”) (Ex.
`1006)
`
`1
`
`

`

`2
`
`3
`
`4, 9
`
`22
`
`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Strub, Woo, Nagai, Gleissner, and
`U.S. Patent No. 7,483,485
`(“Winningstad”) (Ex. 1008)
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Strub, Woo, Nagai, Gleissner, and
`U.S. Patent No. 6,571,211
`(“Dwyer”) (Ex. 1009)
`
`For purposes of the district court litigation, Petitioner reserves the right to
`
`argue that one or more of the terms in the claims of the ’443 Patent are indefinite or
`
`require construction. Furthermore, Petitioner’s reading of the respective claim terms
`
`is based on Zaxcom’s reading of those terms in the Delaware Litigation, including
`
`Zaxcom’s application of the claim terms in its infringement contentions in that
`
`litigation.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`The ’443 Patent describes a system for recording locally generated audio in a
`
`wearable local device and wirelessly transmitting the audio to a remote device. Ex.
`
`1001, 1:15-47. The alleged invention is that the local device stores (i.e., records)
`
`local audio data, receives a master timecode from a master timecode generator and
`
`stamps the stored (recorded) local audio data with a timestamp referencing at least a
`
`portion of the local audio data to the master timecode. Id. 2:58-61, 3:28-41, 4:13-
`
`37, 8:57-9:12, 10:46-50, 12:56-64, 13:28-32, 14:39-42, 15:4-11, 21:51-22:12, Figs.
`
`4A, 4B, 5, 6.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`This purported innovation was not new, but existed in the prior art. As non-
`
`limiting examples, Strub, Woo, and Winningstad teach local devices which receive
`
`a master timecode from a master timecode generator and stamp the recorded audio
`
`data with a timestamp referencing at least a portion of the local audio data to the
`
`master timecode. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 62:26-63:50 (“A GPS receiver can also be
`
`used to receive a signal representing the current time that can be used as a clock to
`
`generate time-stamps for the recording data.”); Ex. 1004, Abstract, 1:60-2:9, 2:39-
`
`48, 3:3-24, 4:3-32, 5:5-67 (master timecodes used to “date and time tag[]”
`
`recordings), 7:26-50, 8:60-9:4, 9:56-62, 10:15-64, Figs. 1, 3-6; Ex. 1008, 2:30-31,
`
`7:18-21, 8:9-12, 8:17-22 (“GPS date [and] time…information can…be inserted into
`
`the audio data….”), 8:33-35, 9:17-18, 9:43-45, 10:58-65, Figs. 5, 6; Ex. 1002, ¶ 39.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`A person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSA”) as of the claimed priority date
`
`would have had at least a Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering or a related or
`
`equivalent field, and two or more years of experience working with audio systems.
`
`However, additional years of education in the above-referenced fields may
`
`compensate for fewer years of experience. Ex. 1002, ¶ 40.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`
`VI. THE ’443 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the Specification
`The ’443 Patent describes a recording system 100 which wirelessly records
`
`audio performances. Ex. 1001, 3:30-32, Fig. 1. The system 100 includes one or
`
`more wearable local audio devices 102, a remote receiver 106, a remote recorder
`
`108 connected to the receiver 106, and a remote control unit (“RCU”) capable of
`
`transmitting a time reference signal, digital commands, and/or audio to the other
`
`components, as depicted in Fig. 1:
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`See Id. 3:55-61, 21:56-57, Fig. 3B. The local audio devices 102 record audio from
`
`the performers and transmit audio wirelessly to the remote receiver 106. Id. 4:1-7.
`
`The audio received by the receiver 106 is recorded by the recorder 108. Id. 4:7-10.
`
`The components of the system 100 are synchronized to allow each component
`
`to timestamp its recorded audio. Id. 3:32-41. The timestamps allow the system to
`
`combine individual audio tracks into multi-track audio files, correct for lost audio
`
`data, and/or synchronize tracks in post-processing. Id. 3:41-54; 4:13-36.
`
`To synchronize its devices, the system can include a master timecode
`
`generator, which generates master timecodes and sends them wirelessly to the local
`
`audio devices 102. Id. 9:38-44, 15:4-6, Fig. 6 (step 604). Each local audio device
`
`102 can also have its own local timecode generator 304, as illustrated in Fig. 3A:
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`
`See id. 5:25-29, Fig. 3A.
`
`The local audio devices 102 can use the master timecodes to synchronize their
`
`local timecode generators 304 and/or timestamp the locally recorded audio. Id. 2:58-
`
`61, 3:32-41, 4:13-37, 5:25-31 (“This master time reference signal provides a time
`
`reference for all local audio devices 102, which may use this information
`
`for…synchronizing their respective local timecode generators 304…, timestamping
`
`locally recorded audio, etc.”), 8:65-9:12, 12:56-64, 13:28-32, 14:38-41, 15:4-16,
`
`Figs. 3A, 4A, 4B, 5, 6; see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 50.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`
`Claims
`B.
`The ’443 Patent has 28 claims, of which Claims 1-4, 7-9, 15, 17, 19, 20, and
`
`22-27 are challenged in this Petition. Claim 1 is independent. Each Challenged
`
`Claim refers to a wearable, local audio device which receives master timecodes,
`
`receives locally generated audio, creates local audio data from the locally generated
`
`audio, stores the audio in a memory, and wirelessly transmits the audio in real time,
`
`wherein the local audio data incudes stamped and unstamped local audio data, the
`
`stamped data includes at least one timestamp to reference at least a portion of the
`
`local audio data to at least one of the master timecodes, and the unstamped data does
`
`not include a reference to the master timecodes. See Ex. 1001, Claim 1. The ’443
`
`Patent acknowledges that all or most of those features were known in the prior art,
`
`since they are described in the patent’s Background section. Id. 1:15-17
`
`(“recording…audio received from…wireless devices”), 1:29-34 (“[T]he…audio is
`
`timestamped with a time reference signal….”), 1:38-45 (audio recorder and receiver
`
`“receive audio wirelessly from one or more wireless transmitters[, which are] body
`
`packs that are worn by each performer….”).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`Several of the challenged dependent claims add features that are part of the
`
`admitted prior art in the Background section of the ’443 Patent:1
`
`Location in ’443 Background
`1:15-17
`(“recording
`and
`processing audio received from
`one or more wireless devices”);
`1:38-42 (“[A] multi-track audio
`recorder and an associated audio
`receiver…receive audio wirelessly
`from one or more wireless
`transmitters,[ which] may take the
`form of body packs that are worn
`by each performer.”)
`Id.
`
`Claim(s) Feature
`the group
`7
`at
`least one of
`recorder, a
`consisting of a
`combinations
`receiver,
`and
`thereof, said at least one of the
`group
`consisting
`of
`said
`recorder, said
`receiver, and
`combinations
`thereof coupled
`wirelessly to said at least one
`local audio device;
`
`7
`
`wherein said at least one local
`audio device transmits said local
`audio data to said at least one of
`the group consisting of said
`recorder, said
`receiver, and
`combinations thereof wirelessly
`via said at least one local audio
`device wireless transmitter.
`
`1 See Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp., Case IPR2012-00005, Paper 68 at 20
`
`(P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2014) (“The Admitted Prior Art includes the background
`
`section…of the…patent….”); In re Metz, 173 F.3d 433, at *1 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
`
`(“The admitted prior art apparatus is set forth…in the ‘Background of the
`
`Invention’ section of the patent.”); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`
`837 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Battiston, 139 Fed.Appx. 281, 282
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`8
`
`

`

`15
`
`19
`
`24
`
`said local audio data is combined
`electronically to create a single
`multi-track data file.
`
`said at least one local audio
`device is a body pack.
`
`said at least one local audio
`device transmits said local audio
`data in digital form.
`
`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`1:23-29 (“Some [prior-art] systems
`include
`a multi-track
`audio
`recorder wired to one or more
`microphones. [Performances] are
`recorded by…microphones that are
`directly wired to the multi-track
`recorder[, which] combines the
`single track of audio received from
`each microphone to create one
`multi-track audio file.”)
`1:40-43 (“[Prior-art] wireless
`transmitters may take the form of
`body packs that are worn by each
`performer.”)
`1:42-45 (“[T]he audio receiver
`receives each performer's audio
`from the performer's respective
`body pack via an analog or digital
`and
`wireless
`transmission
`transmits it to the audio recorder.”)
`
`C.
`
`Lectrosonics IPRs
`Collateral Estoppel Based on PTAB’s Findings Regarding
`1.
`Claim Elements in Prior Art and Obviousness of
`Combinations
`In the Lectrosonics IPRs, the PTAB made numerous findings regarding the
`
`presence of claim elements in Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner, and regarding the
`
`obviousness of combining those references. Zaxcom is collaterally estopped from
`
`disputing those findings.
`
`Collateral estoppel, a/k/a issue preclusion, precludes a party from relitigating
`
`an issue if: “(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a
`
`final judgment in the first action; and (4) [the party against whom collateral estoppel
`
`is being asserted] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first
`
`action.” Google LLC v. Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc., 54 F.4th 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2022). “It is well established that collateral estoppel applies to IPR proceedings.”
`
`Id. Furthermore, “[i]t is well established that patent claims need not be identical for
`
`collateral estoppel to apply [provided] that the issues of patentability [are]
`
`identical….[C]ollateral estoppel may apply even if the patent claims ‘use slightly
`
`different language to describe substantially the same invention,’ so long as ‘the
`
`differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims
`
`do not materially alter the question of invalidity.’” Google v. Hammond, 54 F.4th
`
`at 1381; see also Google LLC v. Parus Holdings, Inc., IPR2022-00279, Paper 16 at
`
`17-21 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 18, 2023) (collateral estoppel where non-identical claim
`
`limitations were sufficiently similar that the issues were identical); Papst, 924 F.3d
`
`at 1250-53 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (issue preclusion based on prior PTAB decision); see
`
`also United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 421-22 (1966)
`
`(collateral estoppel can arise from an administrative decision).
`
`In the ’972 IPR, the PTAB found Claims 12-14 of the ’307 Patent anticipated
`
`by Strub. Ex. 1014 at 25-26. In doing so, the Board necessarily found all elements
`
`of those claims present in Strub, including the following:
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
` locally receiving local audio generated by at least one performer during
`
`an audio event;
`
` locally recording the local audio as local audio data in at least one
`
`memory of at least one local audio device wearable by a creator of said
`
`local audio;
`
` locally receiving or generating master time data including at least one
`
`of the group consisting of hour data, minute data, second data, and
`
`combinations thereof;
`
` wirelessly transmitting the locally generated audio to a remote recorder;
`
`and
`
` remotely recording the locally generated audio by the remote recorder
`
`as remotely recorded audio data.
`
`See Ex. 1015 Claims 12-14; see also Ex. 1014 at 21 (finding that Strub
`
`discloses “a local audio device that records local audio and transmits the local audio
`
`to other remote devices” and “that the same local audio is stored at both the wearable
`
`local audio device as local audio data and the remote receiver/recorder as remotely
`
`recorded audio data”), 22 (“Strub’s device is ‘wearable.’”);
`
`The PTAB found Claim 1 of the ’307 Patent obvious over Strub combined
`
`with Nagai or Gleissner, Ex. 1014 at 19, 25, thus necessarily finding that Strub,
`
`Nagai and/or Gleissner teach “at least one audio input port for receiving said locally
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`generated audio from an audio input device,” and that it would have been obvious
`
`to combine Strub with Nagai or Gleissner. Id. 16-19.
`
`In the ’1129 and ’1130 IPRs, the Board made similar findings regarding (1)
`
`the presence of the above-referenced limitations in Strub, Nagai, and Gleissner, and
`
`(2) the obviousness of combining those three references. See, e.g., Ex. 1017 at 25
`
`(finding Strub’s device “wearable by a creator of said locally generated audio”), 35
`
`(finding ’902 Claims 7, 8, and 11 obvious over Strub, Nagai or Gleissner, and Woo),
`
`41 (Strub teaches a local audio device that records and transmits local audio), 41
`
`(’902 Claims 12, 14, and 15 anticipated by Strub); Ex. 1018 at 21-22 (Strub’s device
`
`“wearable by a creator of said locally generated audio”), 32 (finding numerous ’902
`
`Claims obvious over Strub, Nagai or Gleissner, and Woo). The Board also found
`
`that Strub discloses “at least one control unit electrically coupled to said local audio
`
`device receiver, said audio input device, said memory, and said local timecode
`
`generator for creating stamped local audio data and storing said stamped local audio
`
`data in said memory,” that Woo discloses a “master timecode generator for
`
`generating a plurality of timecodes,” and that a POSA would have been motivated
`
`to combine Strub and Woo. Ex. 1017 at 25-31; Ex. 1018 at 22-28.
`
`In the ’1130 IPR, Lectrosonics’s grounds for unpatentability against Claim 45
`
`of the ’814 Patent included, among others, obviousness based on the combination of
`
`Strub, Woo, Dwyer, and Nagai or Gleissner. Ex. 1018 at 6, 32, 63. Lectrosonics
`12
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00230
`Patent 7,711,443
`relied on Dwyer to teach “storing a timestamped audio information in an audio file,
`
`and including timestamp information in the file’s header information.” Id. 33. The
`
`Board found Claim 45 of the ’814 Patent unpatentable over the combination of Strub,
`
`Woo, Dwyer, and Nagai or Gleissner. Ex. 1018 at 33, 63. In doing so, the Board
`
`necessarily found that: (1) Dwyer discloses storing timestamped audio information
`
`in an audio file, and including timestamp information in the file’s header
`
`information; and (2) a POSA would have considered it obvious to combine Strub,
`
`Woo, Dwyer, and Nagai or Gleissner. Id.
`
`Zaxcom appealed the Board’s decisions in all three Lectrosonics IPRs. The
`
`Federal Circuit affirmed each decision in its entirety. Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics,
`
`Inc., Nos. 2020-1350, 2020-1405, 2022 WL 499843, at *1-2 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18,
`
`2022); Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc., Nos. 2020-1921, 2020-1922, 2020-1943,
`
`2020-1944, 2022 WL 499848, at *1-2 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2022).
`
`Zaxcom is estopped from disputing (1) the presence in the cited references of
`
`any of the above-listed limitations—or any materially identical limitations, or (2) the
`
`obviousness of combining Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner, because: the issues
`
`are identical to those decided in the Lectrosonics IPRs; the issues