Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems Inc.

This case involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding initiated by Apple Inc. against Resonant Systems Inc. at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Apple Inc. is a well-known multinational technology company that designs, manufactures, and markets consumer electronics, software, and online services, including products such as the iPhone, iPad, and Apple Watch. Resonant Systems Inc., which also operates under the name RevelHMI in related litigation, is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) in the context of patent litigation, asserting patents rather than manufacturing products. While Resonant Systems Inc. describes itself as providing hardware and software solutions for monitoring industrial equipment, its assertion of patents related to haptic feedback against Apple's consumer electronics suggests its role as a PAE in this dispute.

The IPR challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,860,337 (the '337 patent), which broadly describes linear vibration modules and linear-resonant vibration modules. These modules are designed to be incorporated into various devices to produce vibrational forces through the linear oscillation of a weight, driven by rapidly alternating electromagnets, and utilizing feedback control to maintain the vibrational frequency at or near the resonant frequency for optimal power consumption. The underlying patent infringement lawsuit, filed by Resonant Systems, Inc. d/b/a RevelHMI against Apple, Inc., alleges infringement by various models of Apple's mobile phones, computers, and watches, specifically relating to haptic feedback devices.

The procedural posture for this matter is an IPR (IPR2024-00807) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The Board, composed of Administrative Patent Judges Karl D. Easthom, Norman H. Beamer, and Brian D. Range, instituted review of claims 2 and 3 of the '337 patent on October 15, 2024, after claims 1-4 were challenged. A Final Written Decision was issued on October 9, 2025, determining that claims 2 and 3 were unpatentable. The status of the IPR is "Final Written Decision - Appeale," indicating that the decision is now subject to an appeal (Appeal2026-1267) before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, filed on December 17, 2025. This IPR is a direct response to a patent infringement lawsuit, Resonant Systems, Inc., d/b/a RevelHMI v. Apple, Inc. (No. 7:23-cv-00077), filed in June 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright. Apple's attempt to transfer this district court case to the Northern District of California was denied by the Federal Circuit in August 2024.

This case is notable due to several factors: the involvement of Resonant Systems Inc. as an NPE asserting patents against a major operating company like Apple, the strategic use of IPR by Apple as a defensive measure against the infringement allegations, and the linkage to litigation in the Western District of Texas, a venue recognized for its significant patent docket. The patents at issue, concerning haptic feedback technology, are relevant to key features in Apple's highly popular consumer electronic devices.

The provided information outlines an IPR proceeding, IPR2024-00807, and a related district court patent infringement case, RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a RevelHMI v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-00077 in the Western District of Texas.

Here's a chronological summary of the legal developments and outcome:

I. District Court Litigation: RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a RevelHMI v. Apple, Inc. (W.D. Tex. Case No. 7:23-cv-00077)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings: Resonant Systems, Inc., doing business as RevelHMI, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. on June 1, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Resonant Systems asserted four patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,860,337, 8,093,767, 9,941,830, and 11,152,882, which pertain to improvements in haptic feedback devices. The complaint alleged infringement by various Apple products, including several generations of iPhones, MacBooks, and Apple Watches.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • Motion to Transfer Venue: Apple filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, arguing it was a more convenient forum. Resonant Systems opposed this, proposing the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas as an alternative if a transfer was deemed necessary. On April 18, 2024, the District Court denied Apple's motion to transfer venue, finding that Apple failed to demonstrate that the Northern District of California was "clearly more convenient." The Court also denied Apple's motion to stay the case pending the transfer order as moot.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: The IPR Final Written Decision mentions that the Patent Owner (Resonant Systems) referred to a claim construction that the District Court adopted in the "Apple Litigation." The specific construction for a "driving component" function was outlined, indicating that a Markman hearing or agreement on claim construction had taken place in the district court case.

II. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding: Apple Inc. v. Resonant Systems Inc. (IPR2024-00807)

• Filing of Petition: Apple Inc. filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2024-00807) challenging claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,860,337. The filing date of the IPR petition was April 12, 2024. This petition was likely filed in response to the district court litigation.

• Institution Decision: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted Inter Partes Review on October 15, 2024. The Board instituted review on claims 2 and 3 of the '337 patent, but not claims 1 and 4, as Resonant Systems filed a statutory disclaimer for claims 1, 4, and 5 prior to the Institution Decision.

• Final Written Decision (FWD): The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision on October 9, 2025. The Board found claims 2 and 3 of the '337 patent unpatentable.

• Appeal: The status of IPR2024-00807 is listed as "Final Written Decision - Appealed," with an appeal number Appeal2026-1267. This indicates that an appeal of the PTAB's decision was filed, likely by Resonant Systems, to the Federal Circuit. The appeal likely commenced sometime in early 2026.

III. Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• IPR: The IPR proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision finding claims 2 and 3 of the '337 patent unpatentable, and this decision has been appealed.
• District Court: The provided information does not detail the final disposition of the district court case (7:23-cv-00077) following the IPR's outcome or whether it was stayed pending the IPR appeal. However, the invalidation of claims 2 and 3 in the IPR would likely have a significant impact on the ongoing district court litigation involving the '337 patent. The outcome of the Federal Circuit appeal will be crucial for the final status of the '337 patent.

Apple Inc. is represented by a team of attorneys from Fish & Richardson P.C., Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, and in-house counsel for this IPR proceeding.

The counsel of record for Apple Inc. includes:

From Fish & Richardson P.C.:

• Thomas A. Rozylowicz
  • Role: Attorney for Petitioner.
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Office location not specified in the immediate search result for this case, but Fish & Richardson has multiple offices).
  • Relevant Experience Note: Fish & Richardson is a prominent intellectual property law firm with extensive experience in patent litigation and PTAB proceedings.
• Sangki Park
  • Role: Attorney for Petitioner.
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Relevant Experience Note: As with other Fish & Richardson attorneys, likely has significant experience in patent law and PTAB cases.
• Crena Pacheco
  • Role: Attorney for Petitioner.
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Likely focuses on patent litigation and related intellectual property matters.
• Craig A. Deutsch
  • Role: Attorney for Petitioner.
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Expected to have a background in patent litigation and IPRs.
• Karl Renner
  • Role: Attorney for Petitioner.
  • Firm & Office: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Karl Renner is noted as being based in Washington D.C. on the firm's website).
  • Relevant Experience Note: Karl Renner is a principal at Fish & Richardson and frequently represents clients in post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.

From Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP:

• Jeremy J. Lang
  • Role: Attorney for Petitioner.
  • Firm & Office: Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Orrick has a notable IP litigation practice, and Jeremy Lang is likely involved in patent disputes and IPRs.
• Parth V. Sagdeo
  • Role: Attorney for Petitioner.
  • Firm & Office: Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Parth Sagdeo has been noted in other filings as counsel for Apple in related patent matters, including district court litigation against Resonant Systems, Inc..

In-house Counsel for Apple Inc.:

• Blake Hannaford
  • Role: In-house counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Apple Inc.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Likely manages and directs Apple's patent litigation strategy, including IPRs.
• June Ann Munford
  • Role: In-house counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Apple Inc.
  • Relevant Experience Note: Involved in Apple's intellectual property legal matters.

It's common for large corporations like Apple to utilize a combination of in-house legal teams and external law firms for complex patent litigation and PTAB challenges.

Counsel of Record for Resonant Systems Inc. in IPR2024-00807

The following attorneys from Russ August & Kabat represented Patent Owner Resonant Systems Inc. in IPR2024-00807 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board:

• Reza Mirzaie (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Mirzaie is a partner and head of the Intellectual Property Department at Russ August & Kabat, with extensive experience representing patent owners in district court litigation and PTAB proceedings, including related cases involving Resonant Systems Inc.
• Kristopher R. Davis (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Davis is a partner at Russ August & Kabat, focusing on patent litigation across various technologies, and has appeared in related proceedings for Resonant Systems Inc.
• Neil A. Rubin (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Rubin is a partner at Russ August & Kabat, specializing in intellectual property litigation, and has represented Resonant Systems Inc. in IPR proceedings.
• Paul A. Kroeger (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Kroeger is a partner at Russ August & Kabat, practicing in intellectual property litigation, and was involved in related PTAB cases for Resonant Systems Inc., where he filed a declaration in support of pro hac vice recognition.
• Christian W. Conkle (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Conkle is a partner at Russ August & Kabat with a focus on patent litigation and has represented Resonant Systems Inc. in various intellectual property matters, including filing a declaration for pro hac vice recognition in a related IPR.
• Peter Tong (Counsel)
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Tong is a counsel at Russ August & Kabat, with experience in patent litigation and IPR proceedings, and was listed as counsel for Resonant Systems Inc. in related PTAB filings.

Resonant Systems Inc. is represented by Russ August & Kabat, which has its primary office in Los Angeles, California. These attorneys were identified as Patent Owner Attorneys in the PTAB case IPR2024-00807. The case has reached a Final Written Decision and is currently on appeal.