Invalidity dossier
US 6363345
Added 9/23/2026, 6:51:23 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 6,363,345 B1
Title: System, method and apparatus for cancelling noise
Patent number: US6363345B1 (application US09/252,874)
Inventors: Joseph Marash; Baruch Berdugo
Assignee of record (current, per listing): Andrea Electronics Corp (original assignee also Andrea Electronics Corp)
Dates:
- Priority date: 1999-02-18
- Filing date: 1999-02-18
- Publication/grant date: 2002-03-26
- Legal status shown: Expired – Lifetime; anticipated expiration 2019-02-18
Classification: G10L (speech analysis/synthesis; speech or voice processing), including G10L25/00 and G10L25/78 (detection of presence or absence of voice signals).
Prior-art keywords listed: noise; magnitude; frequency bin; audio signal; minimum value.
Purpose and plain-language scope (from the supplied text): The patent is directed to cancelling noise in an audio signal. The listed keywords indicate operation in the frequency domain—processing an audio signal across frequency bins, using magnitude values and a minimum value to characterize and suppress noise. The G10L25/78 classification further indicates voice-activity detection (presence or absence of voice signals), consistent with distinguishing speech from background noise before suppression. Beyond these indicators, the supplied excerpt does not describe the specific method steps, apparatus components, or claims.
Family/foreign filings noted: PCT/US2000/003538 (WO2000049602A1); IL143989A0; CN1348583A; JP2002537586A; EP1157376A1; CA2358710A1.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6363345/en
What the excerpt does not establish:
- The actual claim language, claim scope, or number of claims.
- The detailed method/apparatus steps beyond the keyword and classification clues.
- The content of any cited prior art or its effect on patentability.
- The accuracy of the assignee listing, legal status, or dates, which the source itself flags as assumptions or non-legal conclusions.
- Any litigation, ownership-transfer, or validity conclusions. The source lists litigation and PTAB entries, but per instruction these are not researched or evaluated here.
I have not verified any fact beyond what the supplied excerpt states.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:42:29 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 6363345. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.