Petition for Inter Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 12,051,444
`
`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.
`____________________
`
`IPR2025-00557
`
`Patent 12,051,444
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`
`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 ’444 Patent ................................................................................................ 4
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`Summary of the Specification .................................................................... 4
`Claims ......................................................................................................... 6
`Lectrosonics IPRs ....................................................................................... 9
`Collateral Estoppel Based on the PTAB’s Previous Findings .............. 9
`Collateral Estoppel Based on PTAB’s Findings Regarding Zaxcom’s
`Purported Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness ................................ 13
`VII. Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 13
`
`1.
`2.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`VIII. Overview of the Prior Art .............................................................................. 13
`
`Strub .......................................................................................................... 13
`A.
`B. Woo .......................................................................................................... 15
`C.
`Nagai ......................................................................................................... 17
`D.
`Gleissner ................................................................................................... 18
`E.
`Samadani .................................................................................................. 19
`F.
`Prosecution of the ’444 Patent and the Lectrosonics IPRs ...................... 21
`IX.
`Specific Grounds for Invalidity ..................................................................... 22
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`X.
`
`1.
`2.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Ground 1: Claims 1-7, 9-10, 13-15, 17-20, 22-23, and 27 are Rendered
`Obvious Under § 103 By the Combination of Strub and Woo ................ 22
`A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine Strub and Woo .. 22
`The Combination of Strub and Woo Meets All Elements of
`Challenged Claims 1-7, 9-10, 13-15, 17-20, 22-23, and 27 ................ 25
`Ground 2: Claims 12 and 26 are Rendered Obvious Under § 103 By the
`Combination of Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner .................................. 72
`A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine Strub, Woo, Nagai,
`and Gleissner ....................................................................................... 72
`The Combination of Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner Meets All
`Elements of Challenged Claims 12 and 26 ......................................... 74
`Ground 3: Claims 16 and 24 are Rendered Obvious Under § 103 By the
`Combination of Strub, Woo, and Samadani ............................................. 78
`A POSA Would have Been Motivated to Combine Strub, Woo, and
`Samadani ............................................................................................. 78
`The Combination of Strub, Woo, and Samadani Meets All Elements
`of Challenged Claims 16 and 24 ......................................................... 80
`No Relevant Secondary Considerations or Objective Indicia .................. 82
`Discretionary Denial IS Not Warranted ........................................................ 82
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`A.
`
`Section 325 (d).......................................................................................... 82
`Advanced Bionics—Part One .............................................................. 83
`
`1.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`2.
`
`B.
`
`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`Advanced Bionics—Part Two ............................................................. 84
`Section 314(a) ........................................................................................... 86
`Stay Potential ....................................................................................... 86
`1.
`Trial Timing and Diligence ................................................................. 86
`2.
`Litigation Investment .......................................................................... 87
`3.
`Issue Overlap ....................................................................................... 87
`4.
`Litigation Parties ................................................................................. 88
`5.
`Merits ................................................................................................... 88
`6.
`XI. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 89
`
`XII. PAYMENT OF FEES ................................................................................... 89
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Advanced Bionics, LLC v. MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte
`GmbH,
`IPR2019-01469, Paper 6 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2020) .................................... 82, 83, 84
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. M2M Sols. LLC,
`IPR2019-01205, Paper 14 (PTAB Jan. 27, 2020) .............................................. 84
`Apple Inc. v. Seven Networks, LLC,
`IPR2020-00156, Paper 10 (P.T.A.B. June 15, 2020) ......................................... 88
`Apple v. Fintiv,
`IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 (Mar. 20, 2020) ............................................ 86, 87, 88
`Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc.,
`555 F.3d 984 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................... 23, 79
`In re Battiston,
`139 Fed.Appx. 281 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................... 7
`Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. B. Braun Melsungen AG,
`IPR2017-01586, Paper 8 (PTAB Dec. 15, 2017) ............................................... 83
`Bio-Rad Labs. Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc.,
`No. 18-1679-RGA, 2020 WL 2849989 (D. Del. June 2, 2020) ......................... 87
`Ethicon LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.,
`No. 17-871-LPS, 2019 WL 1276029 (D. Del. Mar. 20, 2019) .......................... 87
`Google LLC v. Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc.,
`54 F.4th 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................. 9, 10, 13
`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) ................................................ 88
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`
`KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
`550 U.S. 398 (2007) ................................................................................ 23, 24, 79
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................ 7
`In re Metz,
`173 F.3d 433 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................. 7
`Microsoft Corp. v. SurfCast, Inc.,
`IPR2022-00590, Paper 9 (PTAB Oct. 7, 2022) .................................................. 84
`NEC Corp. v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.,
`No. 22-987-CJB, 2024 WL 1533952 (D. Del. Apr. 9, 2024) ............................. 87
`Nichia Corp. v. Emcore Corp.,
`Case IPR2012-00005, Paper 68 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2014) ................................... 7
`Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Elecs., Am., Inc.,
`924 F.3d 1243, 1251 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................................................ 9, 10
`Sand Revolution II v. Cont’l Intermodal Grp.–Trucking,
`IPR2019-01393, Paper 24 (PTAB June 16, 2020) ............................................. 86
`St. Jude Med., LLC v. Snyders Heart Valve LLC,
`IPR2018-00105, Paper 15 (PTAB May 3, 2018) ............................................... 83
`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) ................................................................................................................... 12
`Zaxcom, Inc. v. Lectrosonics, Inc.,
`Nos. 2020-1921, 2020-1922, 2020-1943, 2020-1944, 2022 WL
`499848 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2022) ........................................................................ 12
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a), (b), and (e) ................................................................. 15, 17, 18
`35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a) and (e) ............................................................................... 13, 19
`vi
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`35 U.S.C. § 103 .................................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. §325(d) .............................................................................................. 82, 85
`Other Authorities
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.15(a) and 42.103(a) ....................................................................... 89
`37 C.F.R. §§ 42.22(a)(1) and 42.104(b) .................................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 42.24(d) ............................................................................................... 90
`37 C.F.R. § 42.104(a) ................................................................................................. 1
`37 CFR § 42.105(b) ................................................................................................. 97
`U.S. Patent 4,872,195............................................................................................... 83
`U.S. Patent 5,479,351................................................................................................. 1
`U.S. Patent 6,825,875................................................................................................. 1
`U.S. Patent 9,336,307............................................................................. 10, 11, 26, 66
`U.S. Patent 8,385,814......................................................................................... 25, 66
`U.S. Patent 9,336,207......................................................................................... 83, 84
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`1001
`
`1002
`
`1003
`
`1004
`
`1005
`
`1006
`
`1007
`
`1008
`
`1009
`
`1010
`
`1011
`
`1012
`
`1013
`
`1014
`
`1015
`
`1016
`
`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`United States Patent No. 12,051,444
`
`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”)
`
`U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0267387 (“Samadani”)
`
`[Reserved]
`
`[Reserved]
`
`[Reserved]
`
`April 12, 2024 Email Serving Complaint to Freedman Electronics Pty
`
`Ltd.
`
`[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
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Exhibit
`No.
`1017
`
`1018
`
`1019
`
`1020
`
`1021
`
`1022
`
`1023
`
`1024
`
`1025
`
`1026
`
`1027
`
`1028
`
`1029
`
`1030
`
`1031
`
`1032
`
`1033
`
`1034
`
`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`
`Description
`
`IPR2018-01129 Paper 33 January 24, 2020 Final Written Decision
`
`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
`
`IDS Form from United States Patent No. 10,276,207
`File History (filed March 11, 2019)
`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 Standard 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.
`[Reserved]
`
`[Reserved]
`
`[Reserved]
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`
`Exhibit
`No.
`1035
`
`1036
`
`1037
`
`1038
`
`1039
`
`Description
`
`[Reserved]
`
`[Reserved]
`
`Ratcliff, TIMECODE, A User's Guide (2015)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 12,051,444 Pros. History, July 11, 2023 Office Action
`
`SMPTE Standard, SMPTE 12M-1999
`
`1040
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,148,844
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`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. See Exhibit 1011. On November 14, 2024, Zaxcom
`
`filed an Amended Complaint which alleges, among other things, that Petitioner has
`
`infringed certain claims of U.S. Patent 12,051,444 (the “’444 Patent”) and six other
`
`patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,711,443 (the “’443 Patent”), 7,929,902 (the “’902
`
`Patent”), 8,385,814 (the “’814 Patent”), 9,336,307 (the “’307 Patent”), 10,276,207
`
`(the “’207 Patent”), and 11,610,605 (the “’605 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 IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board—Co-Pending Matters
`2.
`The following pending IPRs may affect or be affected by this proceeding:
`
` RØDE Microphones, LLC, et al. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2025-00230
`
`(“the ’230 IPR”), which involves the ’443 Patent;
`
` RØDE Microphones, LLC, et al. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2025-00231
`
`(“the ’231 IPR”), which involves the ’902 Patent;
`
` RØDE Microphones, LLC, et al. v. Zaxcom, Inc., IPR2025-00232
`
`(“the ’232 IPR”), which involves the ’207 Patent;
`
`(collectively, the “Co-Pending RØDE IPRs”).
`
`Since the presently challenged claims of the ’444 Patent share many elements
`
`with the claims of the related ’443, ’902, and ’207 Patents that are being challenged
`
`in the Co-Pending RØDE IPRs, since the prior-art references relied on in this
`
`Petition were also relied on in the Co-Pending RØDE IPRs, and since all four of the
`
`’443, ’902, ’207, and ’444 Patents are involved in the Delaware Litigation, decisions
`
`in the Co-Pending RØDE IPRs may affect and/or be affected by decisions in this
`
`proceeding.
`
`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:
`
`xii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
` ’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 challenged claims of the ’444 Patent are similar to claims that the
`
`PTAB previously found unpatentable in the Lectrosonics IPRs, and since the
`
`Lectrosonics IPRs involved 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:
`xiii
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`
` jeffrey.plies@dechert.com,
`
` michael.fisher@dechert.com,
`
` megan.gentleman@dechert.com, and
`
` all-rode-dechert@dechert.com.
`
`xiv
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`RØDE Microphones, LLC and Freedman Electronics Pty Ltd (collectively
`
`“Petitioner”) requests IPR and cancellation of Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 12-20, 22-24, 26,
`
`and 27 (the “Challenged Claims”) of the ’444 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 ’444 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 the Challenged Claims on the
`
`following grounds:
`
`Ground Claims
`
`Basis
`
`Prior Art
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1-7, 9-10, 13-
`15, 17-20, 22-
`23, 27
`12, 26
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 U.S. Patent 6,825,875 (“Strub”)
`(Ex. 1003) and U.S. Patent
`5,479,351 (“Woo”) (Ex. 1004)
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Strub, Woo, U.S. Patent Pub.
`2002/0159179 (“Nagai”) (Ex.
`1005), and U.S. Patent Pub.
`2004/0028241 (“Gleissner”) (Ex.
`1006)
`
`1
`
`

`

`3
`
`16, 24
`
`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`35 U.S.C. § 103 Strub, Woo, and U.S. Patent Pub.
`2004/0267387 (“Samadani”) (Ex.
`1007)
`
`For purposes of the Delaware Litigation, Petitioner reserves the right to argue
`
`that one or more terms in the claims of the ’444 Patent are indefinite or require
`
`construction. Furthermore, Petitioner’s application of the respective claim terms is
`
`based on Zaxcom’s application of the claims against the products accused in its
`
`infringement contentions in the Delaware Litigation, as the claims must be applied
`
`in the same manner.
`
`IV. BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY
`The ’444 Patent describes a system that includes a wearable local device for
`
`recording locally generated audio and transmitting the audio to a remote device. Ex.
`
`1001, 1:40-2:5. The local device receives a master timecode from a master timecode
`
`generator, stamps local audio data with a timestamp to create time-referenced local
`
`audio data, and stores/records the time-referenced local audio data in local memory.
`
`Id. 3:62-66, 4:48-5:6, 10:41-65, 43:22-56.
`
`This purported innovation was not new, but existed in the prior art. As non-
`
`limiting examples, Strub, Woo, and Samadani each teach local devices which record
`
`locally generated audio, transmit the audio to a remote device, receive a master
`
`timecode from a master timecode generator, and stamp the recorded audio data with
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`a timestamp referencing at least a portion of the local audio data to the master
`
`timecode. See, e.g., Ex. 1003, 8:10-29, 8:50-53, 11:32-50, 12:13–21, 12:31–43
`
`(transmitting recorded local audio data to remote devices), 25:35–49, 37:18–40,
`
`38:1–4, 38:29-39 (“synchronization pulse” received from “‘master’ recording unit”),
`
`62:26-63:49 (using a GPS time to “generate time-stamps for the recording data.”),
`
`Figs. 1-3; Ex. 1004, Abstract, 1:60-2:9, 2:39-48, 3:3-24, 4:3-32, 5:3-5 (recorders
`
`capture performance), 5:37-49 (recordings communicated to editing station), 5:5-67
`
`(recording “date and time tag[]” with master timecodes), 7:26-50, 8:32-44, 8:60-9:4,
`
`9:40-43, 9:56-63, 10:15-64, Figs. 1, 3-6; Ex. 1007, [0036]-[0038] (audio recorded in
`
`local recorder and transmitted to central processing station 303; “reference signal
`
`generator [generates] a time stamp”), [0042], [0044]-[0047], [0048] (“[R]eference
`
`signal receiver 525a…receives a main reference signal and generates a reference
`
`signal that is stored as reference data….”), Claims 9, 10, 15, 19, 32, Figs. 3, 5; Ex.
`
`1002, ¶ 37.
`
`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, ¶ 38.
`3
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`
`VI. THE ’444 PATENT
`A.
`Summary of the Specification
`The ’444 Patent describes a recording system 100 which wirelessly records
`
`audio performances. Ex. 1001, 3:64-66, Fig. 1. The system 100 includes wearable,
`
`local audio devices 102, a remote receiver 106, a remote recorder 108 connected to
`
`the receiver 106, a mixer 109, and a remote control unit 104 capable of transmitting
`
`a time reference signal, digital commands, and/or audio to the other components, as
`
`depicted in Fig. 1:
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`See id. 4:23-29, 30:7-25, 43:22-32, 43:65-67, 44:12-13, Fig. 3B. The local audio
`
`devices 102 record audio from the performers and transmit audio wirelessly to the
`
`remote receiver 106, id. 4:36-42, where it is also recorded by recorder 108. Id. 4:36-
`
`38.
`
`The components of the system are synchronized to allow each component to
`
`timestamp its recorded audio. Id. 3:62-4:8. 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. 4:8-22, 4:48-5:6.
`
`To synchronize its devices, the system can include a master timecode
`
`generator to generate master timecodes and send them wirelessly to the local audio
`
`devices 102. Id. 11:23-40, 17:9-11, 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 IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`
`See id. 8:61-63.
`
`The local audio devices 102 can use the master timecodes to timestamp the
`
`locally recorded audio. Id. 4:48-5:6, 5:65-6:4, 10:53-58; see also Ex. 1002, ¶ 48.
`
`Claims
`B.
`The ’444 Patent has 29 claims, of which Claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-20, 22-24, 26,
`
`and 27 are challenged in this Petition. Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Each
`
`Challenged Claim refers to a wearable local audio device which receives a master
`
`timecode, creates time-referenced local audio data from locally generated audio and
`
`the master timecode or a local timecode, and stores the time-referenced local audio
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`data in a local memory, wherein the audio data is transmitted to a remote receiver
`
`substantially simultaneously with the receiving of local audio data or creating or the
`
`storing of the time-referenced local audio data. See Ex. 1001, Claims 1, 13. The
`
`’444 Patent admits that all or most of these features—which are described in the
`
`patent’s “Background” section—were known in the prior art. 1 Id. 1:40-42
`
`(“recording…audio
`
`received
`
`from…wireless
`
`devices”),
`
`1:54-56
`
`(“In
`
`many…systems…audio is timestamped with a time reference signal….”), 1:63-2:5
`
`(audio recorder/receiver “receive audio wirelessly from one or more wireless
`
`transmitters[, which are] body packs that are worn by each performer….”).2
`
`The challenged dependent claims similarly add features that are admitted to
`
`be prior art:
`
`Claim(s) Feature
`2, 14
`“wherein the local audio device
`is in the form of a body pack”
`
`Location in ’444 Background
`1:65-2:5 (“[W]ireless transmitters
`may take the form of body packs
`
`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);
`
`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).
`
`2 Emphasis added throughout unless otherwise indicated.
`
`7
`
`

`

`4, 17
`
`5, 18
`
`6, 19
`
`9, 22
`
`25
`
`25
`
`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`are worn
`by
`each
`that
`performer….”)
`1:54-59 (“In many such systems,
`the received audio and/or
`the
`multitrack audio is timestamped
`with a time reference signal such as
`a…SMPTE…timecode
`signal
`containing information regarding
`the hour, minute, second,….”)
`1:63-2:5 (“audio recorder and….
`receiver…receive audio wirelessly
`from one or more wireless
`transmitters….”)
`1:63 (“[S]uch systems include a
`multi-track audio recorder….”);
`1:48-54
`(“multi-track
`audio
`recorder”)
`1:52-62 (“The multi-track recorder
`combines the single track of audio
`received from each microphone to
`create one multi-track audio file.
`…[T]he
`received
`audio…is
`timestamped with a…SMPTE…
`timecode signal [which] allows
`audio to be more easily matched
`….”)
`Id. at 1:52-62
`
`Id. at 1:52-62; 1:41-42 (“recording
`…audio received from one or more
`wireless devices”), 1:63-2:5 (“The
`audio recorder then combines the
`wireless
`transmissions
`received
`from all body packs to create one
`multi-track audio file.”)
`
`“wherein the at least one master
`timecode [and the at least one
`local timecode] include[s] hour
`data, minute data, second
`data, SMPTE
`timecode, or
`combinations thereof”
`
`“wherein the remote receiver is
`configured to communicate with
`a recording
`device”
`“wherein the recording device is
`a multi-track recorder, a personal
`computer, a cellular phone, or a
`camera”
`time-referenced
`the
`“wherein
`local audio data is configured to
`facilitate synchronization of the
`time-referenced local audio data
`and the remotely recorded audio
`data”
`
`“create time-referenced remote
`audio data from the audio data
`received from the local audio
`device”
`
`time-referenced
`the
`“store
`remote audio data in the at least
`one remote memory.”
`
`8
`
`

`

`12, 26
`
`input
`least one audio
`“at
`configured to receive the local
`audio data”
`
`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`(“Some such systems
`1:48-52
`include a multitrack audio recorder
`wired
`to
`one
`or more
`microphones.”; “[Audio] recorded
`by one or more microphones that
`are directly wired to the multi-track
`recorder.”)
`
`C.
`
`Lectrosonics IPRs
`Collateral Estoppel Based on the PTAB’s Previous Findings
`1.
`In the Lectrosonics IPRs, the PTAB made numerous findings regarding the
`
`disclosure of claim elements by Strub, Woo, Nagai, and Gleissner and the
`
`obviousness of combining them. Zaxcom is collaterally estopped from disputing
`
`these 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
`
`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) (citing In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). “It is well
`
`established that collateral estoppel applies to IPR proceedings.” Id. (citing Papst
`
`Licensing GMBH & Co. KG v. Samsung Elecs., Am., Inc., 924 F.3d 1243, 1251 (Fed.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`Cir. 2019)). 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.’” Id.; 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:
`
` 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;
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
` locally receiving or generating master time data including hour, minute,
`
`and/or second data;
`
` 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 Strub discloses “a local
`
`audio device that records local audio and transmits the local audio to other remote
`
`devices”), 22 (“Strub’s device is ‘wearable.’”);
`
`The PTAB found Claim 1 of the ’307 Patent obvious over Strub with Nagai
`
`or Gleissner, Ex. 1014 at 19, 25, thus necessarily finding that Strub, Nagai and/or
`
`Gleissner teach “at least one local audio device…including…at least one audio input
`
`port for receiving said locally generated audio from an audio input device,” and that
`
`it would have been obvious to combine Strub with Nagai or Gleissner. Id. 4-5, 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 references. See, e.g., Ex. 1017 at 25 (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), 40 (Strub
`11
`
`

`

`Case IPR2025-00557
`Patent 12,051,444
`teaches a local audio device that records local audio and transmits it to a remote
`
`device), 41 (’902 Claims 12, 14, and 15 anticipated by Strub); Ex. 1018 at 21 (Strub’s
`
`device “wearable by a creator of said locally ge