Meta Platforms Inc v. Resonant Systems Inc

Prosecution History analysis

Examiner Search analysis

Invalidity Framework analysis

Petition

Petition Analysis

## 1. Case Identification
- Case Number: [IPR2025-00823](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-00823)
- Patent #: [8,860,337](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8860337)
- Filed: April 23, 2025
- Petitioner(s): [Meta Platforms, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/meta-platforms-inc)
- Patent Owner(s): [Resonant Systems, Inc.](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/resonant-systems-inc)
- Challenged Claims: 2 and 3

## 2. Patent Overview
- Title: Linear Vibration Modules and Linear-Resonant Vibration Modules
- Brief Description: The [’337](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8860337) patent discloses vibration modules for electromechanical devices, such as handheld electronics, designed to produce haptic feedback. The technology focuses on generating vibrations with specific, controllable amplitudes and frequencies through the linear oscillation of an internal component.

## 3. Grounds for Unpatentability
#### Ground 1: Obviousness over Wakuda and Ramsay - Claims 2 and 3 are obvious over Wakuda in view of Ramsay.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** Patent [7,005,811](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005) ([Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005)), Application # [2008/0294984](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006) ([Ramsay](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006)).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** Petitioner argued that [Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005) taught a compact vibration generator system with a movable body that oscillates at both a natural resonant frequency and a lower "envelope" frequency, thereby generating a complex waveform. [Ramsay](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006) taught techniques for end-users to customize haptic feedback on devices like cell phones, including specifying vibration frequency and amplitude, and combining different haptic tracks. Petitioner asserted the combination of [Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005)’s dual-frequency oscillation and [Ramsay](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006)’s user-configurable mixing of haptic effects rendered obvious the limitations of claim 2, including the generation of "complex vibration modes." For claim 3, [Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005)’s waveform was argued to inherently disclose a primary frequency modulated by a modulating frequency, a beat frequency, and an aperiodic waveform.
  - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would combine [Ramsay](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006)'s user-customization software with [Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005)'s haptic hardware to improve functionality and provide users with greater control and a "fuller haptic experience," which was a known goal in the art.
  - **Expectation of Success:** A POSITA would have a reasonable expectation of success because both references described techniques for controlling linear actuators. The combination involved implementing [Ramsay](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006)'s known software solutions on [Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005)'s conventional hardware setup, a predictable integration.

#### Ground 2: Obviousness over Wakuda, Ramsay, Rossi, and Aldrich - Claims 1-4 are obvious over Wakuda in view of Ramsay, Rossi, and Aldrich (under means-plus-function construction).
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** [Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005), [Ramsay](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006), Patent [4,879,641](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1020) ([Rossi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1020)), and NASA Tech Briefs (Apr. 2008) ([Aldrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1021)).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground built on the [Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005)-[Ramsay](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006) combination but addressed the means-plus-function terms "driving component" and "control component." Petitioner contended that [Rossi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1020) taught a specific H-bridge switching circuit, a well-known structure for providing the oscillating current required to drive an actuator like [Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005)’s. Further, [Aldrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1021) taught a "hill-climbing" feedback control algorithm for dynamically finding and maintaining an actuator's resonant frequency. Petitioner argued that [Rossi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1020)'s H-bridge and [Aldrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1021)'s algorithm provided the corresponding structure and algorithm for the means-plus-function limitations of the challenged claims.
  - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would be motivated to incorporate [Rossi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1020)'s H-bridge circuit to provide a concrete, reliable implementation for the oscillating drive current generally described in [Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005). Similarly, a POSITA would incorporate [Aldrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1021)'s detailed resonance-tracking algorithm to improve upon the less-specific feedback control concepts in the base combination.
  - **Expectation of Success:** The combination was predictable because it involved integrating a standard circuit component ([Rossi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1020)'s H-bridge) and a known software algorithm ([Aldrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1021)'s hill-climbing) into the [Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005)-[Ramsay](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006) system to achieve the well-understood goal of efficient, resonant haptic feedback.

#### Ground 3A: Obviousness over Gregorio, Ramsay, and Wakuda - Claims 1, 2, and 4 are obvious over Gregorio in view of Ramsay and Wakuda.
- **Prior Art Relied Upon:** Patent [7,843,277](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1004) ([Gregorio](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1004)), [Ramsay](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006), and [Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005).
- **Core Argument for this Ground:**
  - **Prior Art Mapping:** This ground used [Gregorio](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1004) as the primary reference, which taught a haptic feedback system with a linear resonant actuator (LRA) that determines its resonant frequency during operation. As in other grounds, [Ramsay](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006) was added to provide user-configurability of haptic effects like frequency and amplitude. Petitioner argued that because [Gregorio](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1004) described its LRA components at a high level, a POSITA would have looked to a reference like [Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005) to provide specific, known implementation details for the actuator's internal structure (e.g., casing, coils, movable mass).
  - **Motivation to Combine:** A POSITA would combine [Gregorio](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1004) and [Ramsay](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006) to add user customization to a resonant haptic system. This combination would then be modified with teachings from [Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005) to provide concrete structural details for [Gregorio](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1004)'s LRA, thereby moving from a high-level concept to a practical implementation using known components.
  - **Expectation of Success:** Success was expected because all references addressed haptic actuators in handheld devices. The combination merely involved applying [Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005)'s known implementation details to the compatible system of [Gregorio](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1004)-[Ramsay](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006) to achieve a fully functional, user-configurable haptic module.
- **Additional Grounds:** Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges based on other combinations, including [Gregorio](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1004)-[Ramsay](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006)-[Tierling](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1008) (Ground 3B) to teach specific complex waveforms and [Gregorio](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1004)-[Ramsay](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1006)-[Wakuda](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1005)-[Rossi](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1020)-[Aldrich](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1021) (Grounds 4A/4B) to address means-plus-function limitations in the [Gregorio](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/docs/ptab/IPR2025-00823/1004)-based system.

## 4. Key Claim Construction Positions
- Petitioner dedicated significant analysis to the terms "control component" and "driving component," arguing they should be construed as means-plus-function limitations under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
- Acknowledging that Patent Owner had taken inconsistent positions on this issue in co-pending litigation, Petitioner presented its invalidity arguments under two alternative constructions:
  - **Plain-and-Ordinary Meaning:** Addressed by Grounds 1 and 3.
  - **Means-Plus-Function:** Addressed by Grounds 2 and 4, which identify specific corresponding structures and algorithms from the prior art.
- For the "control component," Petitioner identified the corresponding structure in the [’337](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8860337) patent as one of the disclosed switches and a processor programmed with the algorithm shown in Figures 7A-7C. For the "driving component," Petitioner identified the corresponding structure as the various coils and electromagnets disclosed in the patent.

## 6. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial
- Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on *Fintiv* factors would be inappropriate and that the factors strongly favored institution.
- The core arguments were that the parallel district court litigation was in its infancy, with no scheduling order entered or discovery conducted. The Final Written Decision (FWD) in the IPR would therefore occur well before any potential trial date.
- Crucially, Petitioner stipulated that it would not pursue in the district court any invalidity ground raised or that could have been reasonably raised in the IPR, eliminating concerns of duplicative efforts and inconsistent results. Petitioner also noted the Board had already instituted a related IPR filed by Apple, indicating the strength of the grounds.

## 7. Relief Requested
- Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 2 and 3 of the [’337](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/patent/8860337) patent as unpatentable.

Meta targets linear haptic feedback patent, citing Wakuda, Ramsay & Gregorio prior art for obviousness of key user-configurable vibration claims.