PTAB

IPR2025-00690

Skullcandy Inc v. Earin Ab

Key Events

Petition

petition

Title: Wireless Earbuds
Brief Description: The ’120 patent discloses wireless earbuds with circuitry configured to switch between an "idle mode" and an "operational mode" for automatic power preservation. The transition between modes is triggered by detecting the connection or disconnection of the earbud's battery from a charger.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Olodort (Application # 2011/0286615) and Guccione (Application # 2009/0073950).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Olodort discloses nearly all limitations of claim 20. Olodort teaches wireless earpieces with the required hardware (housing, speaker, rechargeable battery), operational modes (low power, stereo, mono), and circuitry for master/slave determination. Crucially, Olodort’s earpieces enter a low power state when coupled to a charger and enter operational modes (mono/stereo) upon removal. Olodort also teaches a master earpiece reconnecting with a host device. Guccione is introduced to supply the one element missing from Olodort: circuitry that initiates a pairing procedure if reconnection with the host device fails.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Guccione’s functionality with Olodort’s system to enhance a known, important characteristic of wireless earbuds: user convenience. Adding a pairing-initiation feature upon reconnection failure provides a seamless user experience and a more robust device, which would have been a predictable improvement.
- Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as incorporating Guccione’s known software logic for handling reconnection failure into Olodort’s existing hardware platform involves combining known components to achieve a predictable result.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Olodort (Application # 2011/0286615), Guccione (Application # 2009/0073950), and Yamashita (Japanese Application Publication No. 2004/236163).
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground reinforces Ground 1 by introducing Yamashita to explicitly teach the claimed concepts of "automatic power preservation" and "attempting to reconnect." Yamashita discloses reconnection techniques that "reduce battery consumption" by avoiding "unnecessary reconnection attempts," directly addressing the purpose of the challenged claims. Yamashita's circuitry repeatedly attempts to reconnect to an audio player until successful, mapping to the "attempting to reconnect" limitation.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Yamashita’s power-saving reconnection logic with the Olodort/Guccione system to improve battery life, a primary design consideration for wireless earbuds. The combination would predictably yield a more power-efficient and user-friendly product.
- Expectation of Success: Implementing Yamashita's known reconnection techniques into the circuitry of a similar device like Olodort would be a routine application of ordinary skill to achieve the predictable benefit of reduced battery consumption.

Prior Art Relied Upon: Olodort, Guccione, the Bluetooth® Spec. 4.1, and optionally Yamashita.
Core Argument for this Ground:
- Prior Art Mapping: This ground uses the Bluetooth® Spec. 4.1 to further support the contention that Olodort’s disclosed features meet the claim limitations. Petitioner argued the Bluetooth Spec confirms that a POSITA would understand Olodort's "low power state" or "standby mode" to be an "idle mode" where, as claimed, existing connections are disconnected. The Spec explicitly defines the "STANDBY state" as a low-power mode where "no connection has been established." The Spec also discloses audio codecs and standard procedures for connection and reconnection, further rendering the claimed subject matter obvious.
- Motivation to Combine: A POSITA developing a Bluetooth device (as Olodort suggests) would be motivated to implement the standard protocols detailed in the Bluetooth® Spec. 4.1. Doing so ensures interoperability and leverages well-defined, power-efficient operational states. This combination represents a logical and conventional design choice, not an inventive step.
- Expectation of Success: Integrating a standard industry specification like the Bluetooth Spec into a Bluetooth-enabled device like Olodort's is a routine task for a POSITA and would predictably result in a functional, interoperable product.

Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is unwarranted. The parallel district court litigation is in its infancy, with discovery having just opened and no significant events, such as claim construction, having occurred. The scheduled trial date of August 31, 2026, is likely to occur after the statutory deadline for a Final Written Decision in this IPR.
Petitioner asserted a strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits, noting that none of the primary prior art references were before the Examiner during prosecution. It was also argued that the Notice of Allowance was based on a material misunderstanding of the claims by the Examiner, which this petition seeks to correct with new evidence.
Petitioner stipulated that it will not pursue the grounds raised in the petition, or any grounds that reasonably could have been raised, in the parallel litigation if the IPR is instituted.

Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 20 and 21 of Patent 9,402,120 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.