Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the New Jersey District Court under case number 2:14-cv-06832, involved Zaxcom, Inc. as the plaintiff and TEAC America, Inc. as the defendant. Zaxcom, Inc. is an operating company that designs and manufactures professional audio equipment for the television and film industries, notably pioneering digital wireless microphones with integrated audio recording. TEAC America, Inc. is a subsidiary of the Japanese electronics company TEAC Corporation, known for its audio and video equipment.

The sole patent asserted in this case was U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443, titled "Virtual wireless multitrack recording system." This patent generally covers systems and methods for wirelessly recording multi-track audio files, particularly by equipping performers with local audio devices that can both record locally and transmit audio to a master recorder. The locally recorded audio can then be used to repair or replace any audio lost or corrupted during transmission. The accused products or technology, though not explicitly detailed in the provided search snippets, would logically pertain to wireless audio recording systems offered by TEAC America that Zaxcom alleged infringed this patent. Zaxcom's own TRX family of digital wireless systems with built-in backup recording are covered by this patent.

Procedurally, the case was filed on October 30, 2014, in the New Jersey District Court and was initially assigned to Judge Kevin McNulty before being reassigned to Judge Claire C. Cecchi and Magistrate Judge James B. Clark. The District of New Jersey is a common venue for patent cases, though the specific reasons for this venue's importance in this particular case are not explicitly detailed in the available information. However, the litigation proved to be short-lived, as Zaxcom, Inc. filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on April 9, 2015, leading to the termination of the case on April 10, 2015. Given its rapid voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff shortly after filing, this specific case is not notably impactful in terms of industry-shaping rulings, NPE assertion patterns, or IPR linkage, as the merits of the infringement claims were not adjudicated.

Case Name: Zaxcom, Inc. v. TEAC America, Inc.
Case Number: 2:14-cv-06832
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443 ("Virtual wireless multitrack recording system")

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

This patent infringement litigation was filed by Zaxcom, Inc. against TEAC America, Inc. on October 30, 2014, in the District of New Jersey. The case was quickly resolved through a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff.

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2014-10-30: Zaxcom, Inc. filed a complaint against TEAC America, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443. The patent covers systems and methods for wirelessly recording multi-track audio files with features to prevent data corruption or loss.
  • 2014-11-06: The case was reassigned to Judge Claire C. Cecchi and Magistrate Judge James B. Clark for all further proceedings.
  • 2015-02-24: A waiver of service was returned executed by Zaxcom, Inc. for all defendants.

• Pre-trial motions of substance: No substantive pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR) were filed or decided due to the early dismissal of the case.

• Claim construction (Markman) outcomes: The case did not reach the claim construction (Markman) stage.

• Discovery milestones: No significant discovery milestones were reached.

• Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions: The case did not proceed to trial.

• Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal – the final disposition or the present posture if active:

  • 2015-04-09: Zaxcom, Inc. filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.
  • 2015-04-10: The case was terminated by Judge Claire C. Cecchi. The nature of the dismissal (with or without prejudice) is not explicitly stated in the provided snippet, but voluntary dismissals often imply a settlement or an agreement between the parties.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings on the asserted patents and their effect on the litigation:

  • A search for IPR/PGR proceedings related to U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443 indicates that an AIA trial proceeding for inter partes review (IPR) was filed before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on January 14, 2025, with Trial No: IPR2025-00230. The opponent name is RØDE. This IPR was filed long after the conclusion of the district court litigation in 2015 and therefore had no effect on the litigation between Zaxcom and TEAC.## Case: Zaxcom, Inc. v. TEAC America, Inc. (2:14-cv-06832)

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443 ("Virtual wireless multitrack recording system")
Status: Terminated (Voluntarily Dismissed)

This patent infringement litigation, initiated by Zaxcom, Inc. against TEAC America, Inc., saw a swift resolution through voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2014-10-30: Zaxcom, Inc. filed a complaint in the District of New Jersey, alleging that TEAC America, Inc. infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443. Patent 7,711,443 describes systems and methods for wirelessly recording multi-track audio files, designed to prevent data corruption or loss.
• 2014-11-06: The case was reassigned to Judge Claire C. Cecchi and Magistrate Judge James B. Clark.
• 2015-02-24: Zaxcom, Inc. returned an executed waiver of service for all defendants.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance:
Due to the rapid conclusion of the case, no substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending inter partes review (IPR), were filed or adjudicated.

3. Claim construction (Markman) outcomes:
The litigation did not progress to the claim construction (Markman) stage.

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance:
No significant discovery milestones were publicly recorded or reached before the case's dismissal.

5. Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions:
The case was resolved before reaching trial.

6. Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal – the final disposition or the present posture if active:

• 2015-04-09: Zaxcom, Inc. filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, indicating an agreement or decision to discontinue the lawsuit.
• 2015-04-10: The case was officially terminated by Judge Claire C. Cecchi. The voluntary dismissal typically suggests a settlement between the parties, though the specific terms are not publicly disclosed.

7. Any parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings on the asserted patents and their effect on the litigation:
While the district court case concluded in 2015, a later inter partes review (IPR) proceeding concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443 was filed on January 14, 2025, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under Trial No: IPR2025-00230, with RØDE identified as the opponent. This PTAB action occurred well after the dismissal of Zaxcom, Inc. v. TEAC America, Inc. and therefore had no impact on this specific district court litigation.

The plaintiff in this patent infringement case, 2:14-cv-06832, is Zaxcom, Inc.. The case was filed on October 30, 2014, and was voluntarily dismissed by Zaxcom, Inc. on April 10, 2015, indicating the case is terminated, not currently in litigation as stated in the prompt's metadata.

The following counsel appeared on behalf of Zaxcom, Inc.:

• Yong Jae Kim

  • Role: Counsel of Record (based on appearance for Notice of Voluntary Dismissal)
  • Firm: Kim Winston LLP (as listed in docket entries)
  • Office Location: Specific office location for Kim Winston LLP is not immediately apparent from the provided snippets, but the firm itself is mentioned in relation to the New Jersey District Court case.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Information on specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases for Yong Jae Kim is not available in the provided search results.

• Firouzeh Nur-Vaccaro

  • Role: Counsel (involved in filings, likely local counsel or assisting counsel, as her name is associated with Corporate Disclosure Statement and Waiver of Service filings)
  • Firm: Not explicitly stated in the provided snippets for her role in this case. The docket mentions her name in conjunction with filings for Zaxcom, Inc.
  • Office Location: Not available in the provided search results.
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Information on specific patent litigation experience or notable past cases for Firouzeh Nur-Vaccaro is not available in the provided search results.

Defendant TEAC America, Inc. was represented by counsel from Lipsitz & McAllister, LLC.

The attorneys of record for TEAC America, Inc. were:

• Michael J. McAllister (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Lipsitz & McAllister, LLC, located in New York, NY.
  • Experience Note: Michael J. McAllister is a patent attorney focusing on securing and enforcing intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights. He is admitted to practice in New York and before the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
• Jonathan A. Harris (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Lipsitz & McAllister, LLC, located in New York, NY. While some search results show Jonathan A. Harris as a partner at Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP in Boston, MA, as of June 2022, and previously at Blank Rome LLP in Houston, TX, as of May 2017, the most relevant information for this 2014-2015 case indicates his involvement with Lipsitz & McAllister, LLC.
  • Experience Note: Jonathan A. Harris has extensive experience in patent practice, including drafting patent licenses, collaboration agreements, patent litigation (serving as first-chair trial counsel in numerous patent actions), leading IP diligence teams, and prosecuting hundreds of patent applications. His experience spans various technology areas, including life sciences, high-tech electrical, software, and medical devices.
• Eric J. Felsberg (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Lipsitz & McAllister, LLC, located in New York, NY. Although more recent information indicates Eric J. Felsberg is a Principal at Jackson Lewis P.C. in Long Island, New York, focusing on employment law, AI governance, and technology, his involvement in this patent case suggests he was associated with Lipsitz & McAllister, LLC at the time of the litigation.
  • Experience Note: Eric J. Felsberg has a strong background in the intersection of law and technology, with experience in data analytics and technology-related legal issues.

This information is based on public records and firm profiles available through web searches. The case's voluntary dismissal meant that counsel's litigation efforts were ultimately limited.