Invalidity dossier
US 9232306
Added 9/23/2026, 3:25:43 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 9,232,306 B2
Title: Systems and methods for reducing stray magnetic flux
Assignee: Apple Inc. (original assignee Apple Inc.)
Inventor(s): Justin D. Crosby, Derek J. Yap, William F. Leggett
Key dates (per the supplied source):
- Prior art date: 2012-06-10 (characterized in the source as an assumption)
- Application no. US13/833,636; filing date: 2013-03-15
- Publication of US20130329910A1: 2013-12-12
- Patent granted/publication of US9232306B2: 2016-01-05
- Adjusted expiration: 2033-12-11; legal status listed as "Expired - Fee Related"
Purpose: The patent relates to reducing stray magnetic flux, and more particularly to reducing the effects of stray magnetic flux from a loudspeaker in an electronic device. Stray flux can disrupt adjacent magnetically sensitive components (e.g., Hall sensors and hard drives), potentially causing component failure or device damage. A stated drawback of traditional shielding is that it consumes valuable space within a device.
Plain-language scope: Rather than shielding, the disclosed approach uses two audio components (e.g., loudspeakers) that share the same acoustic phase but have opposite magnetic phases. The first audio component is positioned so that stray magnetic flux from it enters the second audio component during operation, encouraging the flux to complete its loop through the second component instead of reaching sensitive parts. The description also provides a manufacturing method: positioning a first audio component to provide a first acoustic phase and first magnetic phase, and situating a second audio component to provide the same acoustic phase but an opposite magnetic phase, oriented so stray flux from the first enters the second during operation. Figures 1–6 illustrate an electronic device and magnet assemblies of adjacent loudspeakers.
Not established by this excerpt: The full claim language, the complete specification, the exact identity/configuration of all device components, and the substantive content of cited prior art are not included. This overview relies solely on the supplied excerpt; the source URL is https://patents.google.com/patent/US9232306/en
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:51:37 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 9232306. 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.