IPR2025-00230
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2025-00230
`
`U.S. Patent 7,711,443
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE
`
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a)
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
`
`RELATED LITIGATION AND IPRS................................................................ 2
`
`III. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND ................................................................... 3
`
`A. Prior Art Audio Systems ................................................................................... 3
`
`B. Mr. Sanders and Mr. Stark Invent a New Wireless Recording System to
`Address Interference and Dropout Problems. .................................................. 4
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART ............................................. 9
`
`DISCRETIONARY DENIAL OF THE PETITION IS WARRANTED .......... 9
`
`A. Institution Should Be Denied Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) Because the
`Same Parties, Patent, Claims, Invalidity References and Arguments Are
`Being Advanced in a Parallel Litigation. ......................................................... 9
`
`1. No Stay Has Been Granted and No Evidence Exists to Indicate That a Stay
`Will Be Granted. ...............................................................................................10
`
`2. The Proximity of the Court’s Trial Date to the Projected Statutory
`Deadline for a Final Written Decision is Narrow. .............................................15
`
`3. There Has Been Significant Investment in the Litigation by the Court and
`Parties. ...............................................................................................................16
`
`4. There is an Overlap Between Issues Raised in the Petition and in the
`Litigation. ..........................................................................................................17
`
`5. Petitioners and the Litigation Defendants Are the Same Parties. ..............18
`
`6. Other Circumstances Exist That Impact the PTAB’s Exercise of
`Discretion, Including the Merits. ......................................................................18
`
`VI. ZAXCOM IS NOT COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM DISPUTING
`THE PTAB’S PRIOR FINDINGS .............................................................................. 19
`
`VII. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ............................................................................. 21
`
`A. “locally generated audio” (All Challenged Claims).......................................21
`
`B. “local audio device wearable by a creator of said locally generated audio”
`(All Challenged Claims). ................................................................................24
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`C. “multi-track data file” (Claim 15). .................................................................25
`
`D. “local audio data is combined electronically to create a single multi-track
`data file” (Claim 15). ......................................................................................26
`
`E. “master timecode generator” and “master timecodes” (All Challenged
`Claims). ..........................................................................................................27
`
`F. “body pack” (Claim 19). ................................................................................29
`
`VIII. THE PETITION FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE A REASONABLE
`LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS ARE UNPATENTABLE .. 30
`
`A. Petitioners Fail to Demonstrate That Any Combination of the Cited
`References Renders the Challenged Claims Obvious Under § 103 (Grounds
`1-3). ................................................................................................................31
`
`1. Challenged Claim 1 Does Not Have “Mostly the Same Limitations” as
`Claim 1 of the ’814 Patent. ...............................................................................31
`
`2. Petitioners Do Not Demonstrate That a Combination of the Cited
`References Teaches Element 1[Pre] or Element 1[F] (All Challenged Claims).
`
`32
`
`3. Petitioners Fail to Demonstrate That Any Combination of the Cited
`References Teaches Element 1[B] (All Challenged Claims). ...........................36
`
`a) Petitioners Fail to State Any Support to Show a Strub Recording Unit
`Having the Features of All Challenged Claims is Wearable. ........................36
`
`b) The Strub Recording Unit is Portable, Not Wearable. ...........................39
`
`c) The Strub Recording Unit is Not Suitable to be Worn by a Performer. .40
`
`d) Strub Does Not Teach Wearing of the Local Audio Device by a
`Performer Who Creates the Audio Recorded by the Local Audio Device. ...42
`
`4. Petitioners Fail to Demonstrate That Any Combination of the Cited
`References Teaches Element 1[A] (All Challenged Claims). ...........................42
`
`5. Petitioners Fail to Demonstrate That Any Combination of Strub, Woo,
`Nagai, and Gleissner Teaches Claim 15. ...........................................................47
`
`6. Petitioners Fail to Demonstrate That a Combination of Strub, Woo, Nagai,
`and Gleissner Teaches Claim 19. ......................................................................52
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`IX. PETITIONERS FAIL TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A POSA WOULD BE
`MOTIVATED TO COMBINE THE CITED REFERENCES TO CREATE THE
`INVENTION OF THE CHALLENGED CLAIMS. .................................................. 55
`
`A. Petitioners Failed to Demonstrate That a POSA Would Have Been Motivated
`to Modify Strub with Woo, Nagai, Gleissner, Winningstad, or Dwyer to
`Achieve the Inventions Recited in the Challenged Claims with a Reasonable
`Expectation of Success. ..................................................................................55
`
`B. Strub, Woo, and Winningstad are Non-Analogous Art to the Claimed
`Invention. ........................................................................................................59
`
`C. Modifying Strub with Nagai or Gleissner Would Change the Principle
`Operation of Strub and Render it Unsuitable for its Intended Purpose of Low
`Attention, Social Recording. ..........................................................................60
`
`D. Zaxcom Can Swear Behind Winningstad. .....................................................62
`
`X.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 62
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Apple Inc., v. Fintiv Inc.,
` IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (PTAB March 20, 2020) ............................... 16, 17, 18
`
`Apple Inc., v. Fintiv Inc.,
` IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 (PTAB May 13, 2020) .................................... 9, 10, 17
`
`Belden Techs. Inc. v. Superior Essex Commc'ns LP,
` Civ. No. 08-63-SLR, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90960 (D. Del. Sept. 2, 2010) ......13
`
`Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, L.L.C. v. Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
` C.A. No. 12-cv-1107 (GMS), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47430 (D. Del. Apr. 7,
`2014) .....................................................................................................................15
`
`
`Copy Prot. LLC v. Netflix, Inc.,
` No. 14-365-LPS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78270 (D. Del. June 17, 2015) ... 12, 14
`
`Courtesy Prods., L.L.C. v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc.,
`No. 13-2012-SLR/SRF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116032 (D. Del. Sep. 1, 2015) .... 11
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com LLC,
`122 F.4th 911(Fed. Cir. 2024) ........................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Ebates Performance Marketing, Inc. dba Rakuten Rewards et al., v. International
`Business Machines Corp.,IPR2022-00646, Paper 56 (PTAB Oct. 11, 2023) ......20
`
`
`Graham v. John Deere Co.,
` 86 S. Ct. 684 (1966)....................................................................................... 20, 30
`
`In re Bigio,
` 381 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................58
`
`In re Clay,
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
` 966 F.2d 656,658, 23 USPQ2d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ..........................................58
`
`In re Gordon,
` 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ...............................................................................60
`
`In re Klein,
` 647 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................58
`
`In re Ratti,
` 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959) ...................................................................................60
`
`Invensas Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
` Civil Action No. 17-1363-MN-SRF, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169999 (D. Del.
`Oct. 2, 2018) .........................................................................................................12
`
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
` 550 U.S. 398 (2007) .............................................................................................30
`
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. Toshiba Samsung Storage Tech. Korea Corp.,
` Civil Action No. 12-1063-LPS-CJB, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167153 (D. Del.
`Dec. 11, 2015) ................................................................................................ 13, 15
`
`
`NHK Spring Co., LTD, v. Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc.,
` IPR2018-00752, Paper 8 (PTAB Sept. 12, 2018) .................................................17
`
`Novozymes N. Am. v. Danisco Us,
` No. 1:19-cv-01902-JDW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 261627 (D. Del. Mar. 31,
`2020) .....................................................................................................................14
`
`
`OSRAM Sylvania, Inc. v. Am. Induction Techs., Inc.,
` 701 F.3d 698 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................30
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
` 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ...................................................................... 17, 21
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`
`Plas-Pak Indus. v. Sulzer Mixpac AG,
` 600 F. App'x 755 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................. 60, 61
`
`SkyHawke Techs., LLC v. DECA Int'l Corp.,
` 828 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Toshiba Samsung Storage Tech. Korea Corp. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
` 193 F. Supp. 3d 345 (D. Del. 2016) ................................................................ 11, 13
`
`Twinstrand Biosciences, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc.,
` Civil Action No. 21-1126-GBW-SRF, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45701 (D. Del.
`Mar. 17, 2023) ......................................................................................................15
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(3) .................................................................................. 18, 36, 46
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) ..................................................................................................... 9
`35 U.S.C. § 316(e) ...................................................................................................18
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with
`Parallel District Litigation (June 21, 2022) ............................................................ 2
`
`
`UPSTO News & Updates, USPTO rescinds memorandum addressing discretionary
`denial procedures, https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-rescinds-
`memorandum-addressing-discretionary-denial-procedures (last visited March 7,
`2025) .....................................................................................................................19
`
`Regulations
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.4 ......................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`PATENT OWNER’S EXHIBIT LIST
`
`Exhibit Number Description
`
`2001
`
`2002
`
`2003
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`
`2008
`
`2009
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
` Filed Complaint (ECF No. 1)
`
` Filed Amended Complaint (ECF No. 99)
`
`Notice of Service of Claim Charts (ECF No. 79)
`
`Substantial Completion of Document Production (ECF No.
`120)
`Notice of Service of Invalidity Contentions (ECF No. 103)
`
`Joint Claim Construction Charts (ECF No. 127)
`
`Court Schedule and Order (ECF No. 98)
`
`Policies of Judge John F. Murphy
`
`March 26, 2021 Cease and Desist Letter and Exhibits
`
`Court Order for Alternative Service of Process (ECF No. 44)
`
`Federal Circuit Appeal Statistics
`
`Court Order Denying Narrowing of Asserted Claims (ECF
`No. 128)
`Federal Register, Vol. 83, No. 197
`
`Federal Agencies Digital Guidelines Initiative Defining
`“Multitrack Recording”
`Declaration of James M. DeFilippis
`
`Curriculum Vitae of James M. DeFilippis
`
`Notice of Allowance for the ’443 Patent
`
`Nagra V Non-Patent Literature
`
`American Heritage Dictionary, Definition of “Master”
`
`Electro-Voice, “Wireless Microphone Basics” Publication
`Defining “Body pack”
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`2021
`
`2022
`
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`2027
`
`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`
`Declaration of Jack Norflus
`
`Curriculum Vitae of Jack Norflus
`
`Stipulation to Amend the Scheduling Order (ECF No. 132)
`
`Zaxcom TRX900AA Data Sheet
`
`Sennheiser SK2000 Data Sheet
`
`Lectrosonics SM Series Data Sheet
`
`Chart Comparing Claim 1 of the ‘443 Patent to Claim 1 of the
`‘814 Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`
`GLOSSARY OF TERMS
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,276,207 issued April 30, 2019
`“’207 Patent”
`U.S. Patent No. 9,336,307 issued May 10, 2016
`“’307 Patent”
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443 issued May 4, 2010
`“’443 Patent”
`“’443 Specification” The specification of the ’443 Patent
`“’444 Patent”
`U.S. Patent No. 12,051,444 issued on July 30, 2024
`“’605 Patent”
`U.S. Patent No. 11,610,605 issued on March 21, 2023
`“’814 Patent”
`U.S. Patent No. 8,385,814 issued February 26, 2013
`“’902 Patent”
`U.S. Patent No. 7,929,902 issued April 19, 2011
`“Asserted Claims”
`Claims asserted in Zaxcom, Inc. v. RODE Microphones,
`LLC, et al., No. 1:23-cv-01245-JFM (D. Del.), as
`identified in Ex-2006.
`USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`Claims 1-4, 7-9, 15, 17, 19, 20, 22-27
`
`“Board”
`“CAFC”
`“Challenged
`Claims”
`Strub, Woo, Nagai, Gleissner, Winningstad, and Dwyer
`“Cited References”
`United States District Court for the District of Delaware
`“District Court”
`United States Patent No. 6,571,211
`“Dwyer”
`Electronic Case File
`“ECF”
`Freedman Electronics Pty Ltd
`“Freedman”
`Petitions filed in IPR2025-00230, IPR2025-00231,
`“Freedman/Rode
`IPR2025-00232, IPR2025-00557, collectively
`IPR Petitions”
`PTAB Final Written Decision
`“FWD”
`United States Patent Publication No. 2004/0028241
`“Gleissner”
`Inter Partes Review
`“IPR”
`“Lectrosonics IPRs” The Prior ’902 IPR, Prior ’814 IPR, and the Prior ’307
`IPR, collectively
`United States Publication No. 2006/0270465
`Zaxcom, Inc. v. RODE Microphones, LLC, et al., No.
`1:23-cv-01245-JFM (D. Del.)
`United States Publication No. 2002/0159179
`Patent Owner and Petitioners
`Zaxcom, Inc.
`
`“Lee”
`“Litigation”
`
`“Nagai”
`“Parties”
`“Patent Owner” or
`“Zaxcom”
`“Patents-in-Suit”
`
`Collectively, the following patents: (i) the ’443 Patent”;
`(ii) the ’902 Patent; (iii) the ’814 Patent (iv) the ’307
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`Patent; (v) the ’207 Patent; (vi) the ’605 Patent; and (vii)
`the ’444 Patent
`The Petition filed in IPR2025-00230
`Rode Microphones, LLC and Freedman Electronics Pty
`Ltd.
`Person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`invention
`USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`IPR2018-00972
`IPR2018-01130
`IPR2018-01129
`RØDE Microphones, LLC
`United States Patent No. 6,825,875
`Summary Judgement
`United States Patent No. 7,483,485
`United States Patent No. 5,479,351
`
`“Petition”
`“Petitioners”
`
`“POSA”
`
`“PTAB”
`“Prior ’307 IPR”
`“Prior ’814 IPR”
`“Prior ’902 IPR”
`“Rode”
`“Strub”
`“SJ”
`“Winningstad”
`“Woo”
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Petition attempts to invalidate the Challenged Claims under three
`
`obviousness grounds citing to various combinations of the Cited References but
`
`fails to make such arguments with sufficient particularity as required under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 312(a)(3). Further, the Petition fails to construe any terms of the
`
`Challenged Claims and analyzes them in direct contradiction to the language
`
`thereof and the ’443 Specification. Accordingly, it is left to the Board and Zaxcom
`
`to decipher the proper claim construction, how the Cited References are combined,
`
`and the motivation of a POSA to make such a combination.
`
`Instead, Petitioners repeatedly state that Zaxcom is collaterally estopped
`
`from making any arguments that differ from rulings of the Lectrosonics IPRs,
`
`despite CAFC case law that unequivocally states that collateral estoppel is not
`
`appropriate when a different claim construction standard is applied in the two
`
`proceedings, as is the case here. Petitioners fail to cite any case law supporting
`
`collateral estoppel in these circumstances, thereby ignoring clear and binding
`
`precedent. As such, the Petition fails to show a reasonable likelihood that the
`
`Petitioners would prevail at trial with respect to at least one Challenged Claim of
`
`the ’443 Patent.
`
`Further, the Parties have spent considerable resources litigating the validity
`
`of the ’443 Patent and six other patents in a parallel Litigation, and in accordance
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`with the Fintiv Factors (infra § V.A), the Board should deny institution under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a). Petitioners’ arguments against such a denial due to the USPTO
`
`memorandum entitled Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-
`
`Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Litigation (June 21, 2022) (the
`
`“Memorandum”), and corresponding case law relating to this Memorandum,
`
`should be ignored in light of the USPTO’s revocation of both on February 28,
`
`2025. Infra § V.A.6. For all the above reasons, the Board should deny institution of
`
`the Petition.
`
`II. RELATED LITIGATION AND IPRS
`
`On October 31, 2024, Zaxcom filed a complaint in Delaware District Court
`
`(Ex-2001, ECF1), which it amended on November 14, 2024, alleging Petitioners’
`
`infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. Ex-2002, ECF99. On August 30, 2024,
`
`Zaxcom provided Petitioners initial claim charts detailing the Asserted Claims in
`
`the Litigation. Ex-2003, ECF79.
`
`The Parties substantially completed document production on February 5,
`
`2025 (Ex-2004, ECF120), and over 350,000 documents have been produced by
`
`Petitioners. Invalidity contentions were served on December 6, 2024 (Ex-2005,
`
`ECF103), and a final joint claim construction chart was filed with the District
`
`Court on February 21, 2025. Ex-2006, ECF127. Fact discovery closes on August
`
`15, 2025, expert discovery closes on January 23, 2026, and all SJ and Daubert
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`briefing are scheduled to conclude by April 10, 2026. Ex-2007, ECF98. A trial date
`
`has not been set as the District Court’s Judge’s policy is to set a trial date “after the
`
`close of discovery … [or] after resolution of the summary judgment.” Ex-2008,
`
`Judge Murphy’s Policies and Procedures.
`
`IPR petitions directed toward the ’902 and ’207 Patents were filed by
`
`Petitioners on December 4, 2024, and an IPR petition directed toward the ’444
`
`Patent was filed on February 7, 2025, and are currently pending.
`
`The ’902, ’814, and ’307 Patents were involved in the Lectrosonics IPRs,
`
`and all challenged claims were held patentable after amendment. Ex-1014, p. 65;
`
`Ex-1017, p. 74; Ex-1018, p. 94.
`
`III. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art Audio Systems
`
`Prior art audio systems “include a multi-track audio recorder wired to one or
`
`more microphones.” Ex-1001, 1:23-24. “[O]ne or more performers performing on
`
`a sound stage are recorded by one or more microphones that are directly wired to
`
`the multi-track recorder. The multi-track recorder combines the single track of
`
`audio received from each microphone to create one multi-track audio file.” Id. at
`
`1:25-29.
`
`Other prior art systems “include a multi-track audio recorder and an
`
`associated audio receiver that receive audio wirelessly from one or more wireless
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`transmitters.” Id. at 1:38-40. An “audio receiver receives each performer’s audio
`
`from the performer’s respective body pack via an analog or digital wireless
`
`transmission and transmits it to the audio recorder.” Id. at 1:42-45. “The audio
`
`recorder than combines the wireless transmissions received from all body packs to
`
`create one multi-track audio file.” Id. at 1: 45-47.
`
`The ’443 Patent inventors recognized that the prior art systems had problems
`
`with “the occurrence of wireless transmission errors such as dropouts.” Id. at 1:48-
`
`49. Moreover, the use of redundant receivers in the prior art did “not prevent loss
`
`of data due to interference.” Id. at 1:57-58. “Upon the occurrence of interfering
`
`signals, audio created during a performance (e.g., a live performance) may simply
`
`be lost due to the inability of the receiver to receive a clean audio signal.” Id. at
`
`1:59-62.
`
`B. Mr. Sanders and Mr. Stark Invent a New Wireless Recording
`System to Address Interference and Dropout Problems.
`
`
`
`The ’443 Patent addresses the prior art’s deficiencies with a wireless
`
`recording system including wearable local audio devices 102, remote control unit
`
`104, remote receiver 106, and remote recorder 108 as shown in FIG. 1:
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`
`
`
`
`
`Each local audio device 102 is worn by a performer, and these components
`
`operate together to store local audio generated by each performer in the
`
`performer’s wearable local audio device 102 as local audio data, to create stamped
`
`and unstamped local audio data wherein the stamped local audio data includes at
`
`least one timestamp to reference at least a portion of the local audio data to one of
`
`the master timecodes, to transmit the same local audio from each local audio
`
`device 102 to a remote receiver 106/recorder 108, to record the same local audio at
`
`the remote receiver 106/recorder 108 received from each performer as remotely
`
`recorded audio data/remote audio data, to create a multi-track audio file at the
`
`receiver 106/recorder 108 that includes each performer’s local audio, and, when a
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`wireless transmission error causes a defect in the remotely recorded audio data or
`
`multi-track audio file, to combine the local audio data at the wearable local audio
`
`device 102 with the remotely recorded audio data at the remote receiver
`
`106/recorder 108 to replace or repair the data lost or corrupted due to the wireless
`
`transmission error. In this manner, segments of audio that were not received
`
`properly at the remote receiver 106/recorder 108 (e.g., dropouts) because of
`
`wireless transmission errors can be replaced with corresponding segments of local
`
`audio data retrieved from the respective local audio device 102 or such local audio
`
`data may be combined into the corrupted multi-track audio file to repair such file.
`
`This repair and replacement of data is facilitated via highly accurate
`
`timestamps on the local audio data and the remotely recorded audio data. FIG. 6
`
`“depicts a process for recording audio and for replaying and re-recording segments
`
`of missed audio.” Id. at 2:62-63:
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`
`
`
`
`
`In step 606, “local audio devices synchronize their clocks to the master time
`
`code reference.” In steps 616 and 618, the local audio devices may transmit audio
`
`for re-recording of missed audio by the receiving equipment. “FIG. 5 depicts a
`
`process for modifying the speed of a local timecode generator as necessary to
`
`maintain its synchronization with a master timecode generator.” Id. at 2:58-60:
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`
`Zaxcom has received significant industry praise for these inventions
`
`including an Emmy award and a Technical Achievement Award from the Academy
`
`of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. In the Lectrosonics IPRs, the Board evaluated
`
`this and other industry praise along with evidence of long-felt need for repairing
`
`dropouts and the failure of others to implement dropout repair and found a nexus
`
`between the evidence of secondary considerations and claims related to the
`
`Dropout Repair Embodiment. Ex-2017, pp. 61-65 (“[C]onsidering the totality of
`
`evidence before us, we determine that Patent Owner has established a nexus
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`between the evidence of industry praise and long-felt need and the “replacing”
`
`limitation of the proposed substitute claims.”); Ex-1014, p. 56; Ex-1018, p. 55.
`
`IV. PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`A POSA for the ’443 Patent would have a bachelor’s degree in electrical
`
`engineering or a related subject and two to five years’ experience working with
`
`multi-track audio and wireless communications systems in the professional
`
`performance industry. Less education may be compensated for by a higher level of
`
`work experience. See Ex-2015, ¶ 15; see also Ex-2021, ¶ 11.
`
`V. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL OF THE PETITION IS WARRANTED
`
`A.
`
`Institution Should Be Denied Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`Because the Same Parties, Patent, Claims, Invalidity References
`and Arguments Are Being Advanced in a Parallel Litigation.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.4, the Director has
`
`discretion to deny institution of an IPR that is an inefficient use of PTAB resources
`
`in view of a parallel district court proceeding in which Petitioner(s) have raised the
`
`same invalidity challenges for the same patent claims. See Apple Inc., v. Fintiv Inc.,
`
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 15 at 7 (PTAB May 13, 2020) (precedential). “[U]nder 35
`
`U.S.C. § 314(a), the Board may consider ‘events in other proceedings related to the
`
`same patent, either at the Office, in district courts, or the ITC.’” Apple Inc., Paper
`
`15 at 7 (quoting Consolidated Trial Practice Guide November 2019 (“TPG”) at 58).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`The PTAB may consider the following when considering a discretionary
`
`denial due to a parallel proceeding: (1) whether the court granted a stay or
`
`evidence exists that one may be granted if a proceeding is instituted; (2) proximity
`
`of the court’s trial date to the Board’s projected statutory deadline for a final
`
`written decision; (3) investment in the parallel proceeding by the court and parties;
`
`(4) overlap between issues raised in the petition and the parallel proceeding; (5)
`
`whether Petitioner(s) and the defendant in the parallel proceeding are the same
`
`party(ies); and (6) other circumstances that impact the Board’s exercise of
`
`discretion, including the merits (the “Fintiv Factors”). Apple Inc., Paper 15 at 5-6.
`
`Here, every Fintiv Factor favors discretionary denial of this Petition due to
`
`the parallel Litigation. Further, the USPTO’s revocation of the Memorandum, and
`
`its instruction that “[t]o the extent any other PTAB or Director Review decisions
`
`rely on the Memorandum, the portions of those decisions relying on the
`
`Memorandum shall not be binding or persuasive on the PTAB,” further weighs in
`
`favor of denial.
`
`1.
`
`No Stay Has Been Granted and No Evidence Exists to
`Indicate That a Stay Will Be Granted.
`
`A stay has not been requested in the Litigation, and, if requested, it’s
`
`unlikely to be granted. In Delaware, the following factors determine whether to
`
`grant a stay: “(1) whether granting the stay will simplify the issues for trial; (2) the
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`status of the litigation …; and (3) whether a stay would cause the non-movant to
`
`suffer undue prejudice from any delay or allow the movant to gain a clear tactical
`
`advantage.” Courtesy Prods., L.L.C. v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc., No. 13-2012-
`
`SLR/SRF, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116032, at *4 (D. Del. Sep. 1, 2015).
`
`Factor (1) weighs against a stay when the pending IPRs address only a
`
`portion of the claims at issue in the parallel proceeding. See Courtesy Prods.,
`
`L.L.C., at *1-2 (denying a motion to stay where, inter alia, the IPR proceedings
`
`only covered all asserted claims of one of three asserted patents, only two asserted
`
`claims of the second patent, and no asserted claims of the third, such that "the
`
`parties' dispute [would] not be fully resolved by the IPRs, regardless of the
`
`outcome of such”); see also Toshiba Samsung Storage Tech. Korea Corp. v. LG
`
`Elecs., Inc., 193 F. Supp. 3d 345, 348-49 (D. Del. 2016) (denying a stay and stating
`
`“it is important … that a much greater percentage of the '106 patent's claims that
`
`are now at issue here will not be at issue in the IPR proceeding … the PTAB could
`
`at most invalidate 50% of those claims … Thus, a PTAB decision that is totally
`
`favorable to LG will leave behind a lot to … be litigated here ....”).
`
`The Freedman/Rode IPR Petitions only seek review of 4 of 7 patents
`
`asserted in the Litigation, and 65 of the 131 Asserted Claims. Ex-2006, ECF127.
`
`Even if all Freedman/Rode IPR Petitions are instituted and decisions are issued
`
`completely favorable to Petitioners, the District Court must still assess the validity
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`of the remaining 3 patents and 66 claims in the Litigation. Accordingly, factor one
`
`weighs against a stay.
`
`The advanced status of the Litigation (supra § II) also weights against a stay.
`
`“[T]he status of the case weighs against a stay because fact discovery is
`
`substantially underway and claim construction briefing is complete.” Invensas
`
`Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Civil Action No. 17-1363-MN-SRF, 2018 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 169999 at *10 (D. Del. Oct. 2, 2018); see also Copy Prot. LLC v. Netflix,
`
`Inc., No. 14-365-LPS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78270 at *3 (D. Del. June 17, 2015)
`
`(denying a stay where the parties “engaged in a substantial amount of discovery
`
`and are set to complete claim construction briefing shortly.”). Here, the Parties
`
`substantially completed document production on February 5, 2025, Ex-2004,
`
`ECF120, during which over 350,000 documents were produced, and are set to
`
`complete claim construction briefing shortly on June 20, 2025. Ex-2023, ECF132.
`
`Fact discovery closes on August 15, 2025, expert discovery closes on January 23,
`
`2026, and all SJ and Daubert briefing is scheduled to conclude by April 10, 2026.
`
`Id. A trial date has not been set due to the Judge’s policy (Ex-2008 at 7), but trial is
`
`likely to occur in 2026. Since substantial work has been and will be completed
`
`prior to the resolution of the Freedman/Rode IPR Petitions, which will occur at
`
`earliest, September 2026, and at latest March 2028 (depending on extensions
`
`and/or appeals) (infra §V.A.2.), factor (2) weighs against granting a stay.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`IPR2025-00230
`U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443
`As to undue prejudice, Delaware courts consider three subfactors: (1) the
`
`timing of the request(s) for review and a stay; (2) the status of review proceedings;
`
`and (3) the relationship of the parties. See Toshiba Samsung Storage Tech. Korea
`
`Corp., at 350-352.
`
`The Petition was filed 14 months after the Complaint, Ex-2001, ECF1, was
`
`filed, and 44 months after Zaxcom notified Petitioners of its patent portfolio in a
`
`cease-and-desist letter. Ex-2009. A stay has not been requested. The District Court
`
`will likely rule that Petitioners’ delay in filing the Freedman/Rode IPR Petitions
`
`and a motion to stay is a strategy employed by Petitioners that is “less focused on
`
`facilitating an orderly review of patent claim validity, and more focused on simply
`
`disrupting the progression of the non-movant's case for disruption's sake.” LG
`
`Elecs., Inc. v. Toshiba Samsung Storage Tech. Korea Corp., Civil Action