Trials@uspto.gov Paper 37
`571-272-7822 Date: November 19, 2025
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`RODE MICROPHONES, LLC, and
`FREEDMAN ELECTRONICS PTY LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`V.
`
`ZAXCOM, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`[PR2025-00230 (Patent 7,711,443 B1)
`[PR2025-00231 (Patent 7,929,902 B1)
`IPR2025-00232 (Patent 10,276,207 B1)!
`
`Before JUSTIN T. ARBES, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
`STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`ORDER
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37CF.R §42.5
`
`! This Order addresses issues pertaining to all three cases. Therefore, we
`exercise our discretion to issue one Order to be filed in each case. Except as
`authorized herein, the parties are not authorized to use this style heading for
`
`any subsequent papers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[PR2025-00230 (Patent 7,711,443 B1)
`[PR2025-00231 (Patent 7,929,902 B1)
`[PR2025-00232 (Patent 10,276,207 B1)
`
`A conference call in the above proceedings was held on November 13,
`2025, among respective counsel for Petitioner and Patent Owner, and Judges
`Arbes, Quinn, and Belisle. The purpose of the call was to discuss Patent
`Owner’s request for authorization to file a motion to terminate and for
`sanctions in IPR2025-00230 and IPR2025-00232, and a motion for sanctions
`in [PR2025-00231. See Ex. 3004.
`
`IPR2025-00230 and IPR2025-00232
`
`Patent Owner argued during the call that it is in possession of
`evidence, including a press release from Petitioner, allegedly showing that
`Lectrosonics, Inc. (“Lectrosonics”) is an unnamed real party-in-interest in
`the instant proceedings. Specifically, Patent Owner asserted that Petitioner
`RODE Microphones, LLC acquired Lectrosonics as a wholly-owned
`subsidiary in May 2025, and Lectrosonics became a real party-in-interest at
`some point between the filing of the Petitions (on December 4, 2024) and
`the Board’s decisions on institution (on June 16, 2025), but Petitioner failed
`to update its mandatory notice information within 21 days as required by
`35 U.S.C. § 42.8(a)(3). Patent Owner argued that Petitioner’s failure to
`name Lectrosonics cannot be cured now and the proceedings should be
`terminated. Finally, Patent Owner argued that Petitioner made various false
`or misleading representations regarding its relationship with Lectrosonics
`that warrant sanctions under 37 C.F.R. § 42.12.
`
`Petitioner responded that Patent Owner waived any argument that
`Lectrosonics should have been named as a real party-in-interest by failing to
`raise the issue prior to institution or in its Patent Owner Responses.
`
`Petitioner disputed whether it made any false or misleading representations
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[PR2025-00230 (Patent 7,711,443 B1)
`[PR2025-00231 (Patent 7,929,902 B1)
`[PR2025-00232 (Patent 10,276,207 B1)
`and argued that the statements cited by Patent Owner during the call were
`merely attorney argument. According to Petitioner, Patent Owner has,
`at most, raised a good faith dispute as to whether Lectrosonics is a real
`party-in-interest, but has provided no basis on which to terminate the
`proceedings. Petitioner acknowledged the Board’s determination in
`[PR2025-00231 that Lectrosonics was a privy of Petitioner, but argued that
`privity is a broader inquiry than whether an entity is a real party-in-interest.
`Given the fact-intensive nature of the parties’ arguments during the
`call, we determine that briefing is warranted. Patent Owner 1s authorized to
`file a motion to terminate and for sanctions, and should clearly set forth in its
`motion the specific relief being requested and the basis for such relief. The
`parties are encouraged to address in their papers all relevant authority,
`including, for example, 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.5(c)(3), 42.8,
`and 42.12; Corning Optical Comm’cns RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband, Inc.,
`[PR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (precedential except as to
`§ ILLE.1); Proppant Express Investments, LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, Paper 86
`(PTAB Feb. 13, 2019) (precedential); and Lumentum Holdings, Inc. v.
`Capella Photonics, Inc., IPR2015-00739, Paper 38 (PTAB Mar. 4, 2016)
`(precedential). We express no opinion at this time on the merits of the
`
`parties’ arguments.
`
`IPR2025-00231
`Subsequent to institution in IPR2025-00231, the Board dismissed the
`Petition, vacated the decision on institution, and terminated the proceeding,
`
`finding that Lectrosonics was a privy of Petitioner and the Petition thus was
`
`time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b). IPR2025-00231, Papers 32, 33.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[PR2025-00230 (Patent 7,711,443 B1)
`
`[PR2025-00231 (Patent 7,929,902 B1)
`
`[PR2025-00232 (Patent 10,276,207 B1)
`
`Petitioner’s request for Director Review of that decision was denied on
`October 20, 2025. 1PR2025-00231, Paper 40.
`
`Despite termination of this proceeding on August 8, 2025, Patent
`Owner (for the first time) now requests authorization to file a motion for
`sanctions against Petitioner relating to alleged malfeasance of Petitioner in
`disclosing and characterizing Lectrosonics (discussed above) during the
`proceeding. But during the November 13 conference call, Patent Owner did
`not address persuasively (if at all) (1) whether the Board has jurisdiction at
`this juncture to entertain a motion for sanctions against Petitioner, and
`(2) why Patent Owner has not waived filing of such a motion, particularly
`where Patent Owner could have sought authorization to do so before
`termination of the proceeding (such as concurrently with Patent Owner’s
`motion to terminate filed on June 2, 2025). Thus, we decline to authorize
`
`the requested sanctions motion in this proceeding.
`
`In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby:
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file a motion to
`terminate and for sanctions in IPR2025-00230 and IPR2025-00232, limited
`to 15 pages, by November 28, 2025;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is authorized to file an
`opposition in [IPR2025-00230 and [IPR2025-00232, limited to 15 pages, by
`December 10, 2025;
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file the same paper in
`both IPR2025-00230 and IPR2025-00232, using a caption referring to both
`proceedings, and may file evidence, as exhibits in each proceeding, with the
`
`motion and opposition; and
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`[PR2025-00230 (Patent 7,711,443 B1)
`[PR2025-00231 (Patent 7,929,902 B1)
`[PR2025-00232 (Patent 10,276,207 B1)
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that no other additional filings are authorized
`
`in any of the three proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2025-00230 (Patent 7,711,443 B1)
`IPR2025-00231 (Patent 7,929,902 B1)
`IPR2025-00232 (Patent 10,276,207 B1)
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Jeffrey B. Plies
`
`Michael A. Fisher
`DECHERT LLP
`jeftfrey.plies@dechert.com
`michael.fisher@dechert.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Rita C. Chipperson
`CHIPPERSON LAW GROUP, P.C.
`rcc(@chippersonlaw.com
`
`Gerard O’Rourke
`O’KELLY & O’ROURKE, LLC
`gorourke@orourkefirm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`