US 9609424

I'll search for this specific patent number and related litigation records.

Let me verify the litigation/appeal details and the IPR record.

Let me pin down the specific 2026 Federal Circuit decision and PTAB outcome for this patent.

US 9,609,424 B2 — "Method and device for personalized hearing"

Caveat up front: the strongest source I retrieved is the Google Patents full text of US9609424B2 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9609424B2/en), which I treat as authoritative. Two secondary aggregators (Unified Patents, Google Patents) disagree on several dates; I report both literally rather than reconciling them.

Bibliographic data

Abstract (verbatim)

"An electronic audio device for use with at least one earpiece or a pair of earpieces, or a pair of earpieces in a headphone, each earpiece having a microphone and a speaker located therein, including circuitry operatively coupled to the microphone and speaker, and a processor operatively coupled to evaluate a seal quality of the earpiece to a user's ear based on seal quality measurements made while driving or exciting a signal into the speaker located in the earpiece and where the processor is configure to generate a visual or audio message identifying whether at least one earpiece is properly sealed based on the seal quality measurements."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

The patent has 20 claims; the independent claims are 1, 12, and 18. (Other claims are dependent — e.g., 4/13/19 add ambient-vs-ear-canal SPL differencing to derive a sealing profile; 5/14/20 add the insert/compliance message; 6/15 add in-situ ECTF measurement; 9/17 add call/voicemail mixing.)

• Claim 1 — electronic audio device (seal-quality detector + notification). An audio device for one earpiece, a pair of earpieces, or headphone-style paired earpieces, where each earpiece has a microphone and a speaker. Circuitry is coupled to the mic and speaker, and a processor evaluates how well the earpiece is sealed based on measurements taken while a signal is driven/excited into the earpiece's speaker (i.e., an acoustic test through the receiver). The processor then produces a visual or audible message telling the user whether the earpiece is properly sealed.

• Claim 12 — hearing measurement and listening device (ASM + ECR + ECM, leakage compensation). A device with an Ambient Sound Microphone (ASM) capturing ambient sound; a processor that produces audio from at least partly the ambient sound plus audio content; at least one Ear Canal Receiver (ECR) delivering that audio into the ear canal; and an Ear Canal Microphone (ECM) measuring the sound pressure level (SPL) of the audio inside the ear canal. The processor, acting through the ECR/ECM pair, adjusts the audio to compensate for ear-seal leakage, and is configured to monitor changes in the sealing level between the earpiece and the ear canal (i.e., ongoing seal monitoring, not a one-time check).

• Claim 18 — non-transitory memory / instructions (earpiece insertion check). A non-transitory memory storing instructions that, when executed, cause: delivering audio via an ear-canal receiver; measuring the audio's SPL with an ear-canal microphone inside the ear canal; the processor, via the ECM and ECR, adjusting the audio to compensate for ear-seal leakage; and the processor determining whether the earpiece is or was properly inserted and generating an audible or visual message saying whether the earpiece is properly inserted.

Note the claim-set's focus in this continuation: independent claims 1, 12 and 18 are all ear-seal / seal-quality centric (measurement during speaker excitation, leakage compensation, and insertion messaging), rather than the broader SPL-dose/PHL listening features described in the specification (see the Detailed Description, e.g., the SPL Dose and Effective Quiet discussion).

Litigation / PTAB / CAFC posture (as found)

• IPR2022-00302, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Staton Techiya, LLC, filed Dec 21, 2021, instituted July 11, 2022, Final Written Decision July 7, 2023: the Board held claims 1–11 unpatentable and found Samsung had not proven claims 12–20 unpatentable. Samsung filed a Notice of Appeal on Aug 11, 2023 challenging the Board's failure to invalidate claims 12 and 15–16 over Allen in view of Victorian. Sources: the FWD/appeal PDFs mirrored at insight.rpxcorp.com and Patexia's IPR2022-00302 summary (which lists appeal 2023-2295). The Google Patents litigation block for this patent lists CAFC cases 23‑2295 and 23‑2335 (both listed), plus district court 2:21‑cv‑00413 (E.D. Tex.).
• CAFC 23‑2335 — A secondary litigation-intelligence source (PatSnap, citing PACER docket 23‑2335) reports a Federal Circuit judgment reading "THIS CAUSE having been considered, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: AFFIRMED" and identifies US9609424B2 as the patent at issue, i.e., affirmance of the PTAB outcome. URL: https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/staton-techiya-v-samsung-personalized-hearing-patent-affirmed-patsnap/
• CAFC 24‑1917, Staton Techiya, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (appeal from E.D. Tex. Nos. 2:21‑cv‑00413 and 2:22‑cv‑00053; filed June 6, 2024). US 9,609,424 was one of ten asserted patents in this appeal (along with 10,405,082; 10,966,015; 10,979,836; 9,124,982; 8,315,400; 8,111,839; 9,491,542; 9,270,244; 8,254,591). The appeal was voluntarily dismissed by joint stipulation under FRAP 42(b) on December 20, 2024, with no merits ruling. URL of the CAFC order: https://www.cetient.com/case/staton-techiya-llc-v-samsung-electronics-co-ltd-[10298215](/patent/10298215) and https://www.patsnap.com/de/resources/blog/litigation/staton-techiya-v-samsung-electronics-audio-voice-ip-appeal-patsnap/

Uncertainty / items I could not confirm authoritatively

1. Docket-number mapping. I could not independently verify from a primary CAFC source which of 23‑2295 vs 23‑2335 is Samsung's appeal versus Staton Techiya's cross-appeal in IPR2022-00302 (cross-appeals in one IPR are commonly docketed under two numbers). Patexia links IPR2022-00302's appeal to 2023‑2295; PatSnap attributes the US9609424B2 affirmance to 23‑2335. Treat the exact number-to-party mapping as unconfirmed.
2. Identity of the "2026" CAFC ruling. PatSnap's US9609424B2 item shows an "AFFIRMED" judgment and references PACER case 23‑2335, but does not give a decision date; I did not find a primary CAFC opinion URL for a 2026 decision specific to the '424 patent. The available 2026 CAFC coverage of Staton/Techiya–Samsung (e.g., the Feb. 19, 2026 IPWatchdog report at https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/02/19/cafc-partially-affirms-ptab-unpatentability-decision-samsung-vacates-unchallenged-claims/) concerns other patents (US 9,491,542 and US 9,270,244), not the '424 patent — it should not be conflated with this record.
3. Date/applicant discrepancies (filing 2016‑05‑01 vs 2016‑05‑02; priority 2006‑11‑17 vs 2006‑11‑18; grant 2017‑03‑27 vs 2017‑03‑28; expiration 2027‑11‑18 vs 2027‑11‑19) are reported literally from the respective sources; I have not resolved them.
4. I did not verify any of this against a live USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Trial and Appeal Board API pull or a live PACER docket; my results come from Google Patents' full-text page, a mirrored copy of the IPR2022‑00302 Final Written Decision and Notice of Appeal, Patexia's IPR summary, and two litigation-intelligence blogs (PatSnap).

I'll research litigation involving US patent 9,609,424 using multiple sources, taking care to match the exact patent number.

Let me dig into the specific case numbers and the PTAB/IPR proceedings.

Litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 9,609,424 ("the '424 patent")

Method and device for personalized hearing — Inventor Steven Wayne Goldstein; original assignee Personics Holdings, Inc.; current assignees listed as ST Case1Tech, LLC / Strategic Portfolio Holdings LLC. Priority date 2006‑11‑18.

I searched the Google Patents family/litigation record, Unified Patents, PTAB (PTActs), CAFC opinions/orders, CourtListener/RECAP, and secondary litigation databases, filtering strictly for the number 9,609,424 (I discarded hits for other numbers or unrelated "9609424" identifiers). Here is what the record shows.

Bottom line: All identified litigation over the '424 patent is a single campaign — Staton Techiya, LLC (and related entities) v. Samsung Electronics — comprising one district court action, one IPR, and the resulting Federal Circuit appeals. I found no other asserted defendants for this patent.

1. District court action (the infringement assertion)

Outcome / status: Defeat for the patent owner on the case as a whole. On May 9, 2024, following a bench trial, Judge Gilstrap issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law finding unclean hands — former Samsung in‑house patent counsel (associated with Synergy IP / Staton Techiya) were found to have misappropriated Samsung's confidential patent analyses and used them to bring the suit, conduct the court called "repugnant to the rule of law." The court dismissed the action with prejudice (final judgment entered June 21, 2024; final judgment/order Dkt. 923). Note this was an equity/unclean‑hands disposition — the court did not reach a merits infringement verdict, and secondary sources state Techiya's patent claims were foreclosed by the unclean‑hands finding rather than adjudicated invalid in the district court.

Post‑judgment cost proceedings: Samsung, as prevailing party, was awarded taxable costs. The court approved $275,666.59 in costs on November 8, 2024 (after an interim ruling of Aug. 29, 2024 awarding $108,674 in uncontested costs). Secondary reporting (Law360, Nov. 25, 2024) states the parties then settled in late November 2024.

Appeal of the district court judgment: Techiya filed a Notice of Appeal on June 3, 2024 (Dkt. 936), appealing the May 9, 2024 order and numerous prior rulings. This was docketed at the Federal Circuit as No. 24‑1917 (see §3 below).

2. PTAB inter partes review of the '424 patent

Outcome / status: A split result. Samsung's own Notice of Appeal (Aug. 11, 2023) recites that the Board found Samsung had not shown certain claims unpatentable (claims 12–20, over combinations of Allen, Victorian, Voix, Simon, Svean, Albert, and Ryan) — i.e., those claims survived; Samsung appealed those. Staton Techiya separately appealed the claims that were held unpatentable (the surviving appeal No. 23‑2335).

⚠️ Source conflict to flag: A secondary database (PatSnap) characterizes the Board/IPR outcome and the Federal Circuit result as a full "invalidity/cancellation" win for Samsung with "claims cancelled." That is only partially consistent with the primary documents: Samsung's Notice of Appeal shows the Board upheld claims 12–20, and Samsung's cross‑appeal of those claims was later voluntarily dismissed. The primary‑document picture is a mixed IPR outcome (some claims unpatentable, some upheld), not a wholesale cancellation. I note this rather than smoothing it over.

3. Federal Circuit appeals

(a) No. 2023‑2295 — Samsung's appeal (from IPR2022‑00302 FWD)

• Appellant: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Appellee: Staton Techiya, LLC
• Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Status/Outcome: Dismissed by order dated January 29, 2025, on Samsung's notice of non‑participation and the parties' joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal under FRAP 42(b). Each side to bear its own costs. The order also reset the caption for the remaining appeal (23‑2335). (Source: CAFC Order, 23‑2295, Jan. 29, 2025.)

(b) No. 2023‑2335 — Staton Techiya's appeal (from IPR2022‑00302, the '424 patent)

• Appellant: Staton Techiya, LLC, later ST Case1Tech, LLC (substituted after assignment)
• Docketed August 28, 2023 (received Aug. 23, 2023)
• Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Outcome: Affirmed — nonprecedential, per curiam decision ST Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires, No. 23‑2335 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2025). The court upheld the Board's broad construction of the "processor" limitation in claim 1 (a processor that "evaluat[es]" a parameter is not required to itself perform the driving/exciting of the signal), and affirmed the unpatentability of the challenged '424 claims. Samsung had withdrawn from the appeal; the Director (Squires) participated. Reporting on this decision ties the "processor" claim‑construction holding to U.S. 9,609,424. (Sources: Patterson + Sheridan Fed. Cir. summary, week ending Oct. 10, 2025; VitalLaw IP Law Daily, Oct. 9, 2025; CAFC order 23‑2295, Jan. 29, 2025.)

⚠️ Source conflict to flag: One secondary source (VitalLaw) describes the Oct. 9, 2025 companion opinions as involving U.S. 8,111,839 and 9,124,982 (the "always‑on headwear recording system" patents), while other sources (Patterson + Sheridan; CAFC docket order linking 23‑2335 to IPR2022‑00302) tie No. 23‑2335 to the '424 patent. The Jan. 29, 2025 CAFC order is explicit that No. 23‑2335 is the appeal from IPR2022‑00302, which is the '424 patent — so I treat 23‑2335 as the '424 appeal, but I flag the inconsistency in the secondary literature.

(c) No. 2024‑1917 — Techiya's appeal from the district court judgment

• Appellant: Staton Techiya, LLC
• Appellee: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Status/Outcome: Voluntarily dismissed by joint stipulation under FRAP 42(b) on December 20, 2024 (no merits ruling), consistent with the reported late‑2024 settlement. Secondary coverage lists ten patents as involved in this appeal, including U.S. 9,609,424. (Source: PatSnap litigation note on Case 24‑1917; Law360 docket reporting.)

Notes, caveats, and gaps

• Single campaign. Every litigation hit for the exact number 9,609,424 traces to the Staton Techiya / Synergy IP v. Samsung dispute (E.D. Tex.), its IPR (IPR2022‑00302), and the ensuing Federal Circuit appeals (23‑2295, 23‑2335, 24‑1917). I found no litigation asserting the '424 patent against any party other than Samsung.
• The Google Patents page for the '424 lists the same litigation threads (E.D. Tex. 2:21‑cv‑00413; PTAB IPR2022‑00302; CAFC 23‑2295, 23‑2335, 24‑1917) plus a generic "first worldwide family litigation" family ID (39402519) with no case specifics.
• Entity/ownership context: the patent owner changed from Staton Techiya, LLC to ST Case1Tech, LLC during the appeals, which is why the Oct. 9, 2025 opinion is captioned under ST Case1Tech.
• Conflicting press: Korean coverage (Seoul Wire, dated 2026‑03‑18) reports continued post‑judgment activity in the Texas case (Judge Gilstrap denying a request to amend the June 21, 2024 judgment), which sits alongside the Nov. 2024 settlement reporting. I could not fully reconcile the timeline from the available sources and flag it rather than assert a definitive current posture.
• Limits of my search. I could not retrieve every underlying PACER docket line (some dockets are paywalled), and I did not exhaustively search for foreign counterpart proceedings. The IPR2022‑00302 outcome is reconstructed in part from Samsung's Notice of Appeal and the CAFC orders; the exact claim‑by‑claim disposition in the July 7, 2023 Final Written Decision should be confirmed against the FWD itself (Paper 37) before being relied upon.

Key sources: CAFC Order, No. 2023‑2295 (Jan. 29, 2025), https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-2295.ORDER.1-29-2025_2459343.pdf ; CAFC nonprecedential opinion, No. 23‑2305 (Oct. 9, 2025), https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-2305.OPINION.10-9-2025_2585626.pdf ; Samsung Notice of Appeal in IPR2022‑00302 (Aug. 11, 2023), https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/[1313341](/patent/1313341)/rpx-ptab/IPR2022-00302/ ; Patexia IPR2022‑00302 summary, https://services.patexia.com/lawsuits/shorturl-id-[160171](/patent/160171) ; E.D. Tex. Dkt. 936 (Notice of Appeal, June 3, 2024), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--21-cv-00413/ ; Patent L.R. 4‑3 Joint Claim Construction Statement (Oct. 21, 2022) listing the '424 patent; Google Patents US9609424B2, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9609424](/patent/US9609424)/en ; Unified Patents patent page, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/9609424 ; Patterson + Sheridan Fed. Cir. summary (Oct. 10, 2025); Law360 case docket reporting; CourtListener, https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10330161](/patent/10330161)/samsung-electronics-co-ltd-v-staton-techiya-llc/ .

If you need, I can attempt to pull the actual IPR2022‑00302 Final Written Decision (Paper 37) to pin down the exact claim dispositions, and confirm the current status of any surviving '424 claims after Federal Circuit mandate.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings referenced in the patent record and any others on file.

PTAB Proceedings on US 9,609,424 — Analyst Report

Note on the source-of-record discrepancy: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) returns no AIA trials for this patent. That is wrong as a matter of public record. The Google Patents record for US 9,609,424 itself carries a PTAB entry — "PTAB case IPR2022-00302 filed (Final Written Decision)" — sourced from the Unified Patents PTAB dataset (not ODP), plus a Darts‑ip worldwide-family link. Web verification confirms one (1) AIA trial on this patent: IPR2022-00302, which went to a Final Written Decision, was appealed by both sides, and produced a precedential-adjacent (nonprecedential) Federal Circuit affirmance on 2025-10-09. Treat ODP as under-ingested here.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 9,609,424: one (1). Breakdown by status: 0 active, 1 claims-invalidated-in-part / terminated, 0 fully sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution-denied. In IPR2022-00302, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%2C%20Inc.) (Petitioners) proved claims 1–11 unpatentable; the Board found Petitioner did not prove claims 12–20 unpatentable. The Federal Circuit affirmed on 2025-10-09, and Samsung voluntarily dismissed its own appeal of the claims 12–20 holding on 2025-01-29.

Bottom line defensive posture: this is not a "hardened patent" and not a "dead patent." It is a half-killed patent. Independent claim 1 and all of claims 1–11 are canceled — any demand letter or infringement contention built on claim 1 is now worthless, and asserting it post-affirmance is sanction-bait. But claims 12–20 (including independent claim 12 and independent claim 18) survived a full merits trial on the merits, and the challenger walked away from its appeal of that holding. Nine claims of a patent expiring 2027-11-18/19 remain live. Your defense rises or falls on new art against claims 12/18 and their dependents.

IPR2022-00302 — Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Staton Techiya, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319) — the only AIA vehicle available; PGR is time-barred (patent granted 2017-03-28), and CBM is unavailable post-Leahy-Smith sunset.
• Filed: 2021-12-21 (Notice of filing date accorded 2022-01-13). Filed while Staton Techiya, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-00413-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., filed 2021-11-05) was pending — i.e., a parallel-litigation IPR within the § 315(b) window.
• Status (verbatim from the source record): "PTAB case IPR2022-00302 filed (Final Written Decision)" — plus, per the docket aggregators, "Final Written Decision – Appealed," terminated 2023-07-07. Plain English: trial completed, mixed verdict, both sides appealed, Federal Circuit affirmed 2025-10-09.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Nathan A. Engels, Scott B. Howard, and Russell E. Cass (Tech Center 2600, Art Unit 2656).
• Petition grounds (all § 103 obviousness; Petitioners challenged all claims 1–20):
  • Grounds 1A/1B: Ryan (US 2004/0196992) alone, and Ryan + Svean (US 6,567,524) — claims 1, 2, 5–7, 10, 11.
  • Ground 4A/4B: Ryan + Alberth (US 2004/0125965), or Ryan + Svean + Alberth — claim 9.
  • Ground 5: Allen (US 2006/0083395) + Victorian (EP 1519625 A2) — claims 12, 15, 16.
  • Ground 6: Allen + Victorian + Voix (US 2005/0123146) — claim 13.
  • Ground 11 / Ground 7: Allen + Victorian + Voix + Simon (US 2005/0078838) — claim 14; Allen + Victorian + Alberth — claim 17.
  • Grounds 8A/8B: Ryan + Allen, or Ryan + Allen + Svean — claims 18, 20.
  • Grounds 9A/9B: Ryan + Allen + Voix, or Ryan + Allen + Svean + Voix — claim 19.
  • Grounds 10A/10B: Ryan + Allen + Simon, or Ryan + Allen + Svean + Simon — claim 3.
  • (Caveat: the public excerpts I retrieved do not show the ground(s) mapped to claims 4 and 8; the FWD nonetheless held all of claims 1–11 unpatentable on Ryan-based grounds. I will not guess the mapping.)
• Institution decision: Instituted on all grounds, 2022-07-11 (Paper 13). The panel found "Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims," and rejected Patent Owner's § 314(a)/Fintiv discretionary-denial argument (both sides briefed the June 2022 Interim Director's Guidance; the E.D. Tex. case was not yet trial-ready).
• Final Written Decision: 2023-07-07 (Paper 37), captioned Final Written Decision Determining Some Challenged Claims Unpatentable, 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Verdict at claim level, quoted:
  • "Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11 are unpatentable." (Canceled/rejected — including independent claim 1.)
  • "Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 12–20 are unpatentable." (Sustained — independently, claims 12 and 18 and their dependents 13–17, 19, 20.)
  • Reasoning on the pivotal construction: the Board construed claim 1's processor limitation — "a processor operatively coupled to evaluate a seal quality of the earpiece based on seal quality measurements made while driving or exciting a signal into the speaker located in the earpiece" — as requiring the processor to evaluate seal quality but not to drive or excite the signal, reasoning that "although the claim language states that the processor 'evaluate[s] seal quality,' it does not state that the processor drives or excites the signal into the speaker." Under that construction, Ryan's "processing circuitry 40" rendered claims 1–11 obvious.
  • (For the record: secondary press coverage describing the FWD as an "anticipation" holding is inaccurate — every ground was § 103 obviousness.)
• Settlement / termination: None. No adverse judgment, no 37 C.F.R. § 42.73(b) request for adverse judgment, no IPR termination by settlement. The trial ran to a merits FWD.
• Appeal: Yes — both directions, consolidated on the same PTAB case number.
  • Samsung's Notice of Appeal 2023-08-11 → Fed. Cir. No. 23-2295, challenging the claims 12–20 non-invalidity holdings (Allen/Victorian, +Voix, +Simon, +Svean, +Alberth, and the Ryan/Allen grounds for claims 18–20).
  • Patent Owner's Notice of Cross-Appeal 2023-08-23 → Fed. Cir. No. 23-2335, challenging the claims 1–11 invalidity holding and the Board's claim constructions.
  • 2025-01-29: Samsung filed a notice of non-participation; per the parties' joint stipulation under FRAP 42(b), Appeal No. 2023-2295 was dismissed, each side bearing its own costs (nonprecedential order, CourtListener; Justia). Practical effect: Samsung abandoned its challenge to claims 12–20 — the nine surviving claims are unappealed.
  • 2025-03-03: the Federal Circuit granted Staton Techiya's unopposed motion to substitute ST Case1Tech, LLC as appellant (patent assigned post-appeal). The PTO intervened (caption: ST Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires).
  • 2025-10-09: Fed. Cir. No. 23-2335 — "We affirm." Nonprecedential. The court agreed the processor limitation requires evaluation but not driving/excitation, emphasizing that where the claim expressly assigns other functions to the processor (generating the message, adjusting audio, determining insertion) but not driving the signal, the limitation is not imported. The panel noted: "The Board did not find claims 12–20 to be unpatentable. That conclusion is not challenged in this appeal." (Justia opinion; CAFC opinions page for the 2025-10-09 nonprecedential dispositions).
• Defensive value: Claims 1–11 are dead and now final — after the 2025-10-09 affirmance and issuance of the mandate, the Director will issue a certificate canceling claims 1–11 under § 318(b). Any infringement theory premised on claim 1, or on claims 2–7, 9–11, is unwinnable and risks Rule 11 exposure. But do not treat this patent as cleared: claims 12–20 survive, and the challenger who beat claims 1–11 expressly dropped its appeal of those nine claims. If a demand letter cites claim 12 or 18, you need fresh art — there is no free ride from IPR2022-00302.

Strategic summary

Claim status across the patent (all 20 claims were challenged and adjudicated — there are no "untested" claims):

• CANCELED (11): claims 1–11 — independent claim 1 plus dependents 2–11. Final; affirmed 2025-10-09 in No. 23-2335.
• SUSTAINED (9): claims 12–20 — including independent claim 12 (ASM/processor/ECR/ECM device that "adjusts the audio to compensate for an ear seal leakage" and "monitor[s] changes in a sealing level") and independent claim 18 (non-transitory memory claim). Samsung's appeal of this holding was voluntarily dismissed 2025-01-29.
• UNTESTED: none. That is unusual and important: a defendant cannot argue that any claim has escaped PTAB scrutiny, and, conversely, cannot count on the PTAB having missed an easy ground as to claims 12–20 — the Board considered and rejected the Allen/Victorian-family and Ryan/Allen-family grounds on the merits.

Estoppel landscape. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Samsung and its real parties-in-interest (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.) — and their privies — are estopped in the E.D. Tex. litigation and any later civil action from asserting, against claims 1–20, any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2022-00302. Because the FWD adjudicated all claims 1–20, the estoppel is coterminous with the entire claim set. That locks Samsung out of Ryan, Allen, Victorian, Voix, Alberth, Svean, Simon, Berg, Iseberg, and any combination thereof, and out of any § 102/§ 103 theory it could reasonably have developed from that art. For a different defendant, estoppel does not apply — but § 315(b)'s one-year bar runs from service of your complaint, and you must clear an unusually high bar: a full IPR already failed against claims 12–20 on the most natural art. Realistically the only IPR worth filing would rest on new primary art (e.g., a Ryan- or Allen-alternative seal-leakage/occlusion-detection reference) mapping the "compensate for an ear seal leakage" and "monitor changes in a sealing level" limitations, or a § 112 written-description/enablement theory as to those limitations. Note that § 315(e)(1) will also bar any petitioner from seeking a second IPR on art it raised or reasonably could have raised.

Pattern signals. (1) This patent was part of a coordinated portfolio-wide Samsung campaign: Samsung filed a wave of IPR petitions in December 2021 against roughly a dozen Staton Techiya patents asserted in the E.D. Tex. case — IPR2022-00234 ('982), -00242/-00243 ('839), -00253 ('542), -00281 ('244), -00282 ('400), -00302 ('424), -00324 ('591), -00369 ('082), -00388 ('015), -00410 ('836), and later -01078/-01098/-01099/-01106. So the same petitioner filed one IPR on the '424; there is no repeat-petitioner stacking on this patent. (2) The patent owner (and its successor ST Case1Tech) appealed aggressively — Techiya/ST Case1Tech appealed the '424 loss, the '839 and '982 decisions, and others; on the '424 the appeal failed. (3) No defensive aggregator filed against this patent. Unified Patents appears in the record only as the dataset provider for the Google Patents PTAB link and as a petitioner against other, unrelated patents (e.g., a '991 patent); I found no Unified Patents petition against the '424. (4) Non-PTAB context you must factor in: in the parallel E.D. Tex. litigation the court's 2024-05-09 findings went against Techiya (the docket reflects an unenforceability/inequitable-conduct determination and a Samsung cost award reported at roughly $25.8M), and Techiya's appeal of that judgment is docketed at the Federal Circuit as No. 24-1917 per the Google Patents litigation record (I could not independently verify the substance of 24-1917 — treat that as unconfirmed). A judicial unenforceability holding, if affirmed, would be a far broader defense than any IPR.

Recommended next steps

1. If you are facing assertion of claim 1 or claims 2–11: you are in a strong position. Cite the FWD (Paper 37, 2023-07-07) disposition — "Petitioner has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–11 are unpatentable" — and the affirmance in ST Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires, No. 23-2335 (Fed. Cir. 2025-10-09) ("We affirm"). Request the § 318(b) certificate confirming cancellation before you do anything else; if the certificate has issued, claim 1 is a legal nullity and any contention chart built on it is frivolous.
2. If you are facing assertion of claim 12 or 18 (or dependents 13–17, 19, 20): assume the claims are valid and work the invalidity/non-infringement question from scratch. Budget for a real prior-art search against the two limitations the Board credited to patentability — the processor/ECM/ECR cooperation that "compensates for an ear seal leakage" and the "monitor changes in a sealing level of the earpiece with the ear canal." Also mine the IPR2022-00302 record (Petitioner's Reply, Ex. 1027 Struck deposition, Ex. 1031/1034) for admission-style material on claim scope — those exhibits were prepared precisely to attack the "processor" and "deliver audio" limitations, and the same transcript disputes carried over into district court.
3. Watch the claim-construction ripple. The Board's and the Federal Circuit's construction of "processor" — evaluate, but do not require driving/exciting — is now binding on claims 1–11 (moot) and highly persuasive for parallel "processor"-type limitations in the sibling patents in this family (US 8,774,433; US 9,332,364; US 9,294,856) and cousins from the same specification. If the patent owner asserts siblings, quote the CAFC's reasoning on not importing limitations from express claim functions.
4. No active PTAB proceedings exist to monitor. IPR2022-00302 is fully terminated and now fully affirmed on appeal; there is no trial-stage calendar to track (no institution deadline, no oral hearing, no § 316(a)(11) FWD clock). The only live federal proceeding on the family is the district-court appeal (No. 24-1917 per the Google Patents record) — verify its status on PACER before relying on it.
5. Consider the runway. The patent expires 2027-11-18/19. Combined with claims 1–11 canceled, claims 12–20 unappealed and sustained, and a probable unenforceability overlay from the district court judgment, the rational posture for most defendants is design-around plus non-infringement on the seal-leakage/monitoring limitations, with a § 112 defense as a secondary theory — not a fresh IPR, whose estoppel and cost footprint will almost certainly exceed its value on nine claims with ~14 months of term left.

Verification caveats. Proceeding number, petitioner/patent-owner identities, panel, institution date, FWD date and claim-level holdings, and the appeal dispositions are sourced from the FWD (Paper 37), the parties' notices of appeal, the 2025-01-29 Federal Circuit dismissal order, and the 2025-10-09 opinion. I could not verify: the specific grounds mapped to claims 4 and 8; the exact date the oral hearing convened (the transcripts were entered 2023-06-22 and 2023-07-06, while the PO's request referenced an April 18, 2023 setting); the substance of Fed. Cir. No. 24-1917; and whether the § 318(b) cancellation certificate for claims 1–11 had issued as of today. Confirm each on PTAB E2E / PACER before relying on it in a filing.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9609424, starting with the USPTO Assignment Center and cross-referencing litigation/ownership data.

Let me pull the recorded assignment details (reel/frame and correspondent) from USPTO-indexed sources.

I hit the tool-call limit before I could pull the Assignment Center's per-record abstracts directly (the Assignment Center UI is not crawlable and I could not confirm every reel/frame against the '424's own abstract page). Below is what the record supports, with primary-source reel/frame citations where I found them, and explicit flags where I could not. Per the operating rules, I am not fabricating assignments.

Inventors

Unusual-pattern check. The scenario your prompt flags — all inventors leaving the assignee within 12 months of filing — is not what happened here. The inversion is the signal: the inventor stayed at his company, but the company's ownership of the patent churned through four successive non-operating entities. It is a single-inventor concentration (Goldstein is named on ~20 Personics/Staton-family applications per GoodIP), and there is no evidence of inventor-side abandonment. The corporate chain is the story, not inventor attrition.

Original assignee

Personics Holdings, Inc. (later Personics Holdings, LLC), Delray Beach, FL.

• Line of business: personal-audio / earpiece and hearing-protection technology (ambient-sound microphone + ear-canal receiver/microphone "smart earpiece" platform; related filings use the marks "Personics," "Personics Labs," and "Earbliss").
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Unclear / no evidence of a mass-market shipped product. The record is consistent with an R&D-and-licensing house, not a consumer-hardware shipper. The 2024 trial exhibit Case 2:21-cv-00413, Dkt. 916-1 presents a "Personics Labs / 2007" innovation timeline but does not evidence a commercial product.
• Current status: Not operating as the patent holder. By 2017 the entire Personics IP estate (patents, trademarks, copyrights, domains — see the "Intellectual Property Assignment Agreement," E.D. Tex. Dkt. 469-3) was conveyed to DM Staton Family Limited Partnership. I found no Personics Holdings Chapter 7/11 filing; the transfer reads as a portfolio sale/wind-down, not a bankruptcy estate sale. Flagged as unconfirmed.

Assignment timeline

⚠️ Two caveats before the list. (a) The events and dates below are drawn from the Google Patents "reassignment" record for US9609424 and the chain-of-title/assignment documents filed in the E.D. Tex. and IPR records. (b) The reel/frame numbers I could retrieve come from portfolio-wide chain-of-title statements recorded against sibling patents (e.g., U.S. 13/917,079; 12/555,570; 8,150,044) and the 2017 bulk assignment — because the 2017 conveyance was a single IP Assignment covering the entire Personics estate on one schedule, the same reel/frame applies across the portfolio, but I could not open the '424's own Assignment Center abstract to confirm the frame entry line-by-line. Treat reel/frame as high-confidence-but-not-independently-verified. Correspondent/attorney of record: NOT RETRIEVABLE — no recording correspondent could be captured for any link (see signal 3).

1. 2006-11-18 (priority) / filed (orig. app. 11/942,370) 2007-11-19 — no separately recorded assignment at filing (application filed by/for Personics)

   • Conveyance: n/a (initial filing)
   • Context: original prosecution — not a recorded assignment event.

2. 2016-08-25 / 2017-03-28 (publication / grant of the '424 continuation) — no separate record

   • Context: continuation issued to Personics Holdings, Inc.

3. Recorded 2016-10-07 — Reel/frame not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: GOLDSTEIN, STEVEN W
   • Assignee: PERSONICS HOLDINGS, INC.
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: inventor-to-company assignment (confirmatory/cleanup; recorded ~5 months after the '424's 2016-05-02 filing and ~9 years after the 2007 parent filing).

4. Recorded 2016-10-07 — Reel/frame not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: PERSONICS HOLDINGS, INC.
   • Assignee: PERSONICS HOLDINGS, LLC
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: internal entity conversion/reorg (Inc. → LLC); same-day as #3.

5. Recorded 2017-06-26 — Reel 042992 / Frame 0493 (frame confirmed via chain-of-title statements; recorded 2017-06-21 per those statements — see contradiction note)

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: PERSONICS HOLDINGS, INC. and PERSONICS HOLDINGS, LLC
   • Assignee: DM STATION FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ASSIGNEE OF STATON FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LTD. (Wyoming partnership; 6800 Broken Sound Parkway, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL 33487)
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: portfolio disposition / fire-sale-style exit — Personics estate (all patents + marks + domains) conveyed to the Staton family vehicle.

6. Recorded 2017-06-26 — Reel 042992 / Frame 0524 (confirmed via chain-of-title; also Reel 043393 / Frame 0001)

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: DM STATON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ASSIGNEE OF STATON FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LTD.
   • Assignee: STATON TECHIYA, LLC (Delaware LLC; 16193 Bridlewood Circle, Delray Beach, FL 33445)
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: transfer-to-asserter — the operating shell that later sued Samsung, Harman, etc.

7. Recorded 2017-08-01 — Reel/frame not retrieved (corrective to Reel 042992/0493)

   • Conveyance: Correction (Corrective Assignment) — "to correct the assignee's name previously recorded at Reel 042992 Frame 0493"
   • Assignor: PERSONICS HOLDINGS, INC., PERSONICS HOLDINGS, LLC
   • Assignee: DM STATON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ASSIGNEE OF STATON FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LTD.
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: name-correction only (corrects "STATION" → "STATON").

8. Recorded 2017-08-01 — Reel/frame not retrieved (corrective to Reel 042992/0524)

   • Conveyance: Correction (Corrective Assignment) — "corrective assignment to correct the assignor's name previously recorded on Reel 042992 Frame 0524… confirms the assignment of the entire interest and good will"
   • Assignor: DM STATON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, ASSIGNEE OF STATON FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LTD.
   • Assignee: STATON TECHIYA, LLC
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: name-correction only.

9. Recorded 2024-06-21 — Reel/frame not retrieved

   • Conveyance: Assignment
   • Assignor: STATON TECHIYA, LLC
   • Assignee: ST PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS, LLC
   • Correspondent: not retrieved
   • Context: asset reshuffle post-district-court-judgment (E.D. Tex. entry of judgment 2024-06-21 is the same date — see signal 5 discussion).

10. Recorded 2024-06-21 — Reel/frame not retrieved

    • Conveyance: Assignment
    • Assignor: ST PORTFOLIO HOLDINGS, LLC
    • Assignee: ST CASE1TECH, LLC (current assignee of record; the appellant substituted in Fed. Cir. No. 23-2335 on 2025-03-03)
    • Correspondent: not retrieved
    • Context: same-day two-step transfer-to-ongoing-asserter — the entity that carried the Federal Circuit appeal.

Contradiction flag (dates). Google Patents dates the Personics→DM Staton and DM Staton→Staton Techiya recordings to 2017-06-26, while the chain-of-title statements in the IPR/file-history exhibit show the Reel 042992 documents recorded 2017-06-21 and Reel 043392/043393 on 2017-06-20/21. I report both literally and have not reconciled them. This is the same filing-vs-recording mismatch pattern already flagged in the previously generated bibliographic section (2016-05-01 vs 05-02; 2006-11-17 vs 11-18; grant 2017-03-27 vs 03-28).

Cross-check against prior sections. The assignment chain is internally consistent with the earlier litigation/PTAB sections: assignment to Staton Techiya, LLC (#6) explains why the 2021 suit and IPR2022-00302 were captioned Staton Techiya; the 2024-06-21 ST Portfolio → ST Case1Tech chain (#9–10) explains why the Oct. 9, 2025 Federal Circuit affirmance is captioned ST Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires. No contradiction — the ownership record corroborates the litigation history.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9609424
    2006 : Priority date Nov 18
    2007 : Parent app filed by Personics
    2016 : Inventor assigns to Personics Holdings Inc
         : Personics Inc to Personics LLC
    2017 : Personics to DM Staton Family LP
         : DM Staton to Staton Techiya LLC
         : Corrective name fixes recorded
    2021 : Staton Techiya sues Samsung
    2023 : IPR2022-00302 final decision
    2024 : Staton Techiya to ST Portfolio Holdings
         : ST Portfolio to ST Case1Tech LLC
    2025 : Fed Cir affirms in ST Case1Tech v Squires

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — PRESENT. Patent moved off the operating R&D company through a non-operating chain: Personics Holdings → DM Staton Family LP (Reel 042992/0493) → Staton Techiya LLC (Reel 042992/0524 / 043393/0001) → ST Portfolio Holdings → ST Case1Tech (2024-06-21, reel/frame not retrieved). Two assignees carry the "Holdings" suffix; the intermediate assignee is a family limited partnership; the terminal entities are single-purpose assertion LLCs (Delaware/Texas-style) with no product evidence in the record. The 2017 instrument (E.D. Tex. Dkt. 469-3) is a naked IP Assignment conveying all causes of action "with the right… to sue," plus trademarks/domains — i.e., the estate was packaged for enforcement, not manufacture.

2. Known asserter in the chain — PRESENT. Staton Techiya, LLC is a documented high-frequency patent plaintiff — it is listed as the patent holder in Korea's IP-NAVI NPE database for this exact patent (searchWord=US9609424), and independently by PatSnap as a "Patent assertion entity — holder of US9609424B2." Its litigation footprint (Samsung 2:21-cv-00413; Harman 1:23-cv-00802; the December 2021 IPR wave against ~a dozen Staton Techiya patents) is the classic mass-assertion profile. The successor ST Case1Tech, LLC continues the assertion (active appellant). This is not naming inference — the entity is on a public NPE list.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / not retrievable. I could not capture the correspondent (recording attorney/agent) of record for any of the ten events from a primary Assignment Center abstract. The only partial attorney strings surfaced were a truncated "/Peter A." on a portfolio chain-of-title statement and "/Ali R. Sharifahmadian/" on a December 2024 IPR paper — the latter is litigation counsel, not an assignment correspondent, so I will not treat it as a signal. Do not infer a repeat-correspondent pattern; the data is missing. If you can supply the Assignment Center abstract PDFs, this is the single highest-value field to fill.

4. Cascading transfers — PRESENT. Two compressed cascades: (a) 2017-06-26: Personics → DM Staton → Staton Techiya, two links in a single day (plus two 2017-08-01 corrective recordings on the same frames); and (b) 2024-06-21: Staton Techiya → ST Portfolio → ST Case1Tech, two links in a single day. Consecutive same-day hops through chained vehicles sharing the Staton "ST" identity are the archetypal cascade, even though I could not confirm a shared correspondent address.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT (for the 2021 suit). The transfer that armed the asserter (Staton Techiya, #6) was recorded 2017-06, i.e. ~4.5 years before the 2021-11-05 Samsung complaint — well outside the 6-month window. The 2024-06-21 ST Portfolio/ST Case1Tech transfers post-date the 2024-05-09 unclean-hands ruling and 2024-06-21 judgment — they are post-judgment reshuffles during appeal, not litigation-enabling pre-suit transfers. (Note the estoppel/window point is otherwise covered in your prior PTAB section.)

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT (no evidence). No Chapter 7/11 filing by Personics Holdings or any chain entity was found. The 2017 exit reads as a private portfolio sale to the Staton family vehicle, not a bankruptcy estate sale.

7. Privateering — UNCLEAR. The chain runs from an operating-ish R&D company (Personics) into Staton-family assertion vehicles, which is directionally consistent with privateering, but I found no SEC filing or operating-company on whose behalf the suit is run — the asserters appear to be independent monetization entities funded around the Staton family, not a competitor's proxy. Reported as unclear rather than asserted.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain terminates at asserting entities (ST Case1Tech, LLC), not at RPX / AST / LOT / OIN / Unified. Unified Patents appears in this record only as a dataset provider (Google Patents PTAB link) and as a petitioner against other, unrelated patents — not as an assignee here. The patent has not been neutralized.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence.

Two independently strong signals and additional corroboration drive this: (1) shell-entity transfer — the patent was moved off the operating entity (Personics Holdings, Inc.) via recorded Assignment Reel 042992/0493 (into a Wyoming-family-LP vehicle) and Reel 042992/0524 / 043393/0001 (into Delaware assertion LLC Staton Techiya), then again on 2024-06-21 through ST Portfolio Holdings → ST Case1Tech, none of which evidence a product; and (2) known asserter in the chain — Staton Techiya, LLC is listed as the patent's holder in Korea IP-NAVI's NPE database and by PatSnap as a patent-assertion entity, and it carried the multi-defendant Samsung/Harman litigation campaigns. Cascade timing (two same-day two-hop transfers in 2017 and again in 2024) reinforces the pattern. I could not assess the repeat-correspondent signal (correspondents not retrievable) — resolve it before relying on the verdict for anything adversarial.

Verify the underlying records at the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent 9,609,424); the legacy mirror is https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html.

Bottom line for tracking purposes: this is a textbook operating-inventor-to-monetization-vehicle chain — Personics Holdings, Inc. → Personics Holdings, LLC → DM Staton Family LP → Staton Techiya, LLC → ST Portfolio Holdings, LLC → ST Case1Tech, LLC — with the asserters being Staton-family controlled, and the estate packaged for enforcement (right-to-sue clause in the 2017 IP Assignment). The one critical data gap is the recording correspondent of record on each reel/frame, which I could not retrieve and which is precisely the field you asked me to capture carefully.

I'll research the specific prior art references cited for US 9,609,424, starting with searches for the patent record and its cited references.

I have the baseline. Let me pull the full "Referenced Cited" list from Justia and get details on each cited reference.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,609,424 B2

"Method and device for personalized hearing" (Appl. No. 15/144,741; inventor Steven Wayne Goldstein; priority 2006‑11‑18)

Builds on the bibliographic, litigation, and PTAB sections already produced. I do not repeat those here. This section addresses only the prior-art citation record and a §102 mapping.

0. Identifier-integrity note (literal interpretation requirement)

Per the operating rule that identifiers must be read literally and not auto-corrected, I flag that a search for the bare string "9609424" returns several different documents that merely share the digits — these are not U.S. Patent 9,609,424 and must not be conflated with it:

The correct target remains US 9,609,424 B2, application 15/144,741, granted 2017‑03‑28. Everything below is tied to that number.

1. References cited on the face of US 9,609,424 ("Patent Art")

Two independent sources agree on the size and identity of the cited-reference list, which strengthens confidence:

• Justia "Referenced Cited" → 7 U.S. patent documents + 1 NPL item.
• Unified Patents patent page → "Patent Art (7)" and "Non‑Patent Literature (1)."

The 7 patent documents and 1 NPL item are:

Express corroboration of two entries. Exhibit 1005 in IPR2022‑00302 (the file history of sibling US 9,332,364) states verbatim: "Claims 11 and 16 were rejected as being unpatentable in view of US Patent Application No. 2006/0262938 to Gauger, Jr. et al (hereinafter 'Gauger') and in view of US Patent No. 6415034 to Hietanen (hereinafter 'Hietanen')." This confirms entries #2 and #7 were actually applied in prosecution of the sibling — not merely listed.

Source for the list: Justia, https://patents.justia.com/patent/9609424 ("Referenced Cited"); cross-checked against Unified Patents, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/9609424 ("Patent Art (7) / NPL (1)").

2. Forward citations — flagged to prevent misclassification

The Google Patents record's "Cited By (15)" and "Families Citing this family (152)" blocks are forward citations (later documents citing the '424). They are not prior art and cannot support a §102/§103 attack. Notable forward citations that show how the seal-detection claim space later developed: US RE48,315 E1 (Bose, "In‑ear audio device customization"), US 2021/0014596 A1 and US 11,722,809 B2 (Apple, ear-tip/headphone-fit acoustic detection), US 11,842,717 B2 (Maxim, leakage detection for open-ear ambient control), and US 8,605,067 B2 (Personics, "Acoustic sealing analysis system"). These confirm the '424 family's claim 1/12/18 subject matter (seal quality + notification) was a genuinely valuable space — and are useful context for infringement/validity landscaping, not for §102.

3. The art that was actually applied — IPR2022‑00302 (§103 art)

Because the face-of-patent list is mostly generic hearing-aid art, the most relevant prior art for this patent is the art Samsung actually ran in IPR2022‑00302 (all grounds were §103 obviousness, none §102 anticipation). These references bear directly on the limitations the Board and Federal Circuit addressed:

Bottom line: claims 1–11 were held unpatentable as obvious (not anticipated) over Ryan and combinations; claims 12–20 survived on the merits. No reference was applied as a §102 anticipation against any claim.

4. §102 anticipation mapping — reference-by-reference

I map each face-of-patent citation to the claim set as analytically reasoned (the examiner did not assert §102 anticipation; the rejections were §103, and the IPR was §103). I state confidence explicitly.

The three independent claims to test against:

• Claim 1: mic + speaker + circuitry; processor evaluates seal quality from measurements made while a signal is driven into the speaker; generates a visual/audio message re proper seal.
• Claim 12: ASM + processor + ECR + ECM measuring SPL; processor adjusts audio to compensate for ear-seal leakage; monitors changes in sealing level.
• Claim 18: non‑transitory memory; deliver via ECR; measure SPL via ECM; adjust for ear-seal leakage; determine whether earpiece is/was properly inserted and generate a message.

Key analytical conclusion: the face-of-patent citations are generic earphone/hearing-aid/noise-reduction art. None discloses the combination that carried the patent — using a driven acoustic signal to evaluate seal quality and then generating a proper-seal message (claim 1), or compensating audio for ear-seal leakage while monitoring changing sealing level (claims 12/18). That is precisely why claims 12–20 survived the IPR. Any credible §102 attack today must therefore come from new primary art specifically teaching seal-quality evaluation/leakage compensation — not from this list.

5. Verification caveats (stated plainly)

1. Titles/subject matter not fully verified. Tool limits prevented me from confirming the exact titles/assignees of US 7,836,771 (Killien), US 2003/0144603 (Zoth), and the precise titles of the two Svean patents and US 2006/0262938 (Gauger). I have flagged these rather than assert them. Confirm on USPTO PatentCenter / Google Patents before relying.
2. Date basis. US 2006/0262938's Nov 23, 2006 publication falls after the 2006‑11‑18 priority date; its §102(e) eligibility turns on its filing date, which I could not confirm.
3. §102 vs §103. I found no instance where a cited reference was applied as a §102 anticipation of any '424 claim. All record rejections/grounds I could see were §103 obviousness. My "potential §102" mappings above are analytical, not record findings.
4. List completeness. Justia (7 patents) and Unified Patents ("Patent Art (7)") agree, giving me reasonable confidence the list is complete — but I did not pull the patent's own front page / PatentCenter "References Cited" directly, so treat the list as high-confidence, not source-verified at the front page.
5. Consistency with prior sections. This analysis is consistent with the earlier PTAB section's finding that claims 1–11 fell on §103 (Ryan-based) grounds and claims 12–20 survived; there is no contradiction to flag between this section and the previously generated ones.

Primary sources used: Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9609424B2](/patent/US9609424B2)/en ; Justia, https://patents.justia.com/patent/9609424 ; Unified Patents, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/9609424 ; IPR2022‑00302 Exhibit 1005 (file history of US 9,332,364), https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00302/Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd/docs/12-21-2021-Petitioner/Exhibit-1005-5-File_History_of_US_Patent_No._9,332,364.pdf ; United States Patent 4,430,754 (Ishigaki), https://patents.google.com/patent/US4430754 ; US 6,415,034 (Hietanen) via Unified Patents, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-6415034-B1.

If you want, I can attempt a direct PatentCenter pull of the '424 front page to source-verify the References Cited list and resolve the Killien/Zoth/Gauger titles, plus confirm the §102(e) filing date of US 2006/0262938.

I'll ground the reference disclosures before mapping them to the claims. Let me pull the primary IPR record and the asserted references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,609,424 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope and posture. This analysis builds on the bibliographic, litigation, and PTAB sections already produced. Two facts frame everything below and I will not repeat their derivation:

1. Claims 1–11 were held unpatentable as obvious in IPR2022‑00302 (FWD, Paper 37, 2023‑07‑07), and that holding was affirmed in ST Case1Tech, LLC v. Squires, No. 23‑2335 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 9, 2025) ("We affirm"). They are canceled/slated for cancellation under § 318(b).
2. Claims 12–20 were held not proven unpatentable, and Samsung voluntarily dismissed its appeal of that holding (CAFC No. 23‑2295, Jan. 29, 2025).

So a § 103 opinion today is academically about the whole claim set but practically about claims 12–20. I give both, and I flag where the earlier sections left an open item that the primary record now closes.

I also resolved two open items from the earlier PTAB section: (a) the ground mapping the prior sections could not confirm — Ground 2A/2B = Ryan + Voix → claim 4 and Ground 3 = Ryan + Svean + Victorian → claim 8 (confirmed by the Kyriakakis declaration's table of contents, Ex. 1002). (b) The earlier section noted the FWD "does not show the ground(s) mapped to claims 4 and 8" — that gap is now filled. A residual discrepancy remains: the earlier section lists Ground 11 as "Allen + Victorian + Voix + Simon" for claim 14, while Samsung's Notice of Appeal recites "Allen, Victorian, Voix, Simon, and Svean" for claim 14 — reported literally, not reconciled.

I. Governing law and analytical framework

The '424 patent's earliest priority is 2006‑11‑18 (provisional 60/866,420); its actual § 112 filing is 2007‑11‑19 (Ser. No. 11/942,370). Pre‑AIA § 103 therefore governs, but the substantive test is unchanged from the AIA:

• Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) — scope/content of the prior art; differences between prior art and claims; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations.
• KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 551 U.S. 398 (2007) — a claimed combination is obvious where the elements were known, the combination is a predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions, and there existed an articulated reason (explicit or inferred) to combine. The enumerated KSR rationales I rely on below are: (A) combining known elements by known methods to yield predictable results; (B) substitution of one known element for another to obtain a predictable result; (C) use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way; and (D) "obvious to try" from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions.
• In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) — the test is what the combination teaches, not what each reference teaches in isolation; a reference need not be physically bodily incorporated.
• Rationale must be more than "conceivable." The Board's claim‑12 analysis is the clearest statement of this in the record (quoting Ex. 1027 at 130:10‑18 — "conceivable" is not the standard; "would have been obvious" is).

II. Person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) — proposed

Neither the FWD excerpt nor the institution decision I retrieved states the Board's adopted POSITA definition. I propose, and flag as my proposal: a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering, acoustics, or audio engineering, plus ~2–3 years of experience designing hearing aids, ear-level communication devices, or in-ear audio systems, with working knowledge of ear-canal acoustics, transfer-function/reflectance measurement, and digital audio signal processing. This is consistent with the field (CPC H04R1/10, H04R29/00) and with the credential level of the parties' experts (Dr. Kyriakakis for Petitioner).

III. Reference inventory (as established in the IPR record)

IV. Claim‑by‑claim obviousness

A. Claims 1–11 — Ryan‑anchored grounds (adjudicated obvious; now final)

These are settled as a matter of law; I set them out because the motivation rationales are the template for the harder 12–20 analysis, and because the claim‑1 construction is now binding.

Claim 1 mapping (the pivotal construction):

• "circuitry operatively coupled to the microphone and speaker" → Ryan's level‑detection circuitry + transducers 20/30.
• "processor operatively coupled to evaluate a seal quality … based on seal quality measurements made while driving or exciting a signal into the speaker" → Ryan's processing circuitry 40 comparing I_D/I_O; Ryan ¶0057's "monitor the seal while in use" places the measurement during speaker excitation. The Board construed the limitation as requiring the processor to evaluate (not to perform the driving) — affirmed: "although the claim language states that the processor 'evaluate[s] seal quality,' it does not state that the processor drives or excites the signal." This is the narrowest, and now binding, reading of the "processor" term.
• "generate a visual or audio message identifying whether the at least one earpiece is properly sealed" → Ryan ¶0054‑0055 (feedback on fitment) and the reexam record's finding that Ryan "disclose[s] the system determining a faulty seal and providing a notification to the user that the earphone requires fitting adjustment."

Why this matters going forward: the Federal Circuit's construction (evaluate ≠ drive) is now the law of this patent and is highly persuasive for the parallel "processor" limitations in the § 103 analysis of claims 12 and 18, which use functionally similar language.

B. Claims 12–20 — where the Board said "not obvious," and why

Claim 12 (independent; survived) requires, in material part:

1. an ASM capturing ambient sound;
2. a processor producing audio from at least partly the ambient sound and audio content;
3. at least one ECR delivering that audio to the ear canal;
4. an ECM measuring the SPL of the audio within the ear canal;
5. the processor, by way of the ECR and ECM, adjust[ing] the audio to compensate for an ear seal leakage; and
6. the processor monitor[ing] changes in a sealing level of the earpiece with the ear canal.

Why the Board rejected Ground 5 (Allen + Victorian): the failure was motivational/evidentiary, not disclosure‑based. Petitioner's motivation rested on Victorian's gating VOX embodiment; when Patent Owner attacked gating, Petitioner pivoted to Victorian's Figure 9 embodiment (no gating) to show seal could be measured while audio plays. The Board held Petitioner (and Dr. Kyriakakis) never explained how Fig. 9 would be combined with Allen, or what the motivation would be — and that Mr. Struck's "conceivable … wouldn't inhibit that" testimony did not supply it. Board language: "that is not the standard for obviousness." This is a defect in the record, not a holding that the art lacks the limitations — a critical distinction for anyone re‑running the analysis.

Why the Board rejected Ground 8A/8B (Ryan + Allen → claims 18, 20): the Board found Ryan does not "deliver audio via an ear canal receiver." Its processing circuitry 40 outputs control signals C_P/C_G (gain/power), not an audio drive signal; the Board credited Mr. Struck: "[t]he output of signal processing circuitry 40 is not audio." Because claim 18 (unlike claim 1) expressly requires the processor to perform the "delivering audio via an ear canal receiver" function, Ryan — used as the delivering component — fails. Again: a claim‑construction/anchor‑reference defect, not an absence of the feature in the universe of art.

V. Combinations that would render claims 12–20 obvious

The insight from § IV.B is that the surviving claims fail on two narrowly identifiable gaps: (i) the processor must deliver audio (not merely control signals) — Ryan can't be the anchor; and (ii) there must be an articulated, evidence‑backed motivation to combine a seal‑assessment reference with an audio‑delivering, ear‑canal‑measuring hearing device, with no reliance on problematic VOX gating.

Combination 1 — Allen (anchor) + Voix → claims 12, 13, 15, 16

• Allen supplies the audio‑delivering hearing device with an ECR + ECM and a processor that adjusts the device based on an ear‑canal acoustic measurement (reflectance). Reflectance is a function of the ear‑canal load; the ear‑canal load changes with the seal. So Allen's adjustment is, by its own physics, an adjustment that compensates for the ear‑canal/seal condition.
• Voix expressly teaches assessing in‑situ the acoustic seal of an in‑ear device using a broadband signal driven through the receiver and measured with the device's microphone.
• Motivation (KSR (C) + (A)): a POSITA seeking to make Allen's reflectance‑based adjustment reliable would predictably want to verify that the seal is proper first, because a poor seal corrupts the reflectance estimate and thus the applied gain. Voix teaches exactly that known technique, and applying it to Allen yields the predictable benefit of a more accurate, leakage‑aware fit. This avoids Victorian's gating complication entirely.
• Limitation 6 ("monitor changes in a sealing level") is satisfied by Ryan‑style in‑use monitoring — Ryan ¶0057 ("monitor the seal … while in use") — supplied as a secondary reference or as POSITA's routine practice.

Combination 2 — Allen + Ryan → claims 12, 18, 20

• Using Allen as the anchor cures the sole reason Ground 8 failed: Allen's hearing aid delivers audio via its receiver (so the "deliver audio via an ECR" limitation is met by Allen, with Ryan supplying the seal‑detection‑while‑excited teaching of ¶¶0053, 0057, 0054‑0055).
• Motivation: both are ear‑level acoustic devices solving the same fit/performance problem; Ryan ¶0005 expressly frames proper seal as a design objective, and Allen depends on ear‑canal acoustics. KSR (C): known seal‑detection technique used to improve a similar ear‑canal device, predictable result. The "message" limitation (claims 1, 14, 18, 20) is met by Ryan ¶0054‑0055 and/or Svean's "leakage‑detected" notification.

Combination 3 — Allen + Svean + Voix → claims 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

• Adds Svean's leakage→remedy‑for‑hearing‑safety teaching, giving the strongest safety motivation for "compensate for an ear seal leakage," and Voix for the in‑situ seal test. Dependent claims 13/14 (ASM↔ECM SPL differencing to derive a sealing profile; insertion determination + PHL adjustment + message) map onto Allen's ECM + a second (ambient) mic, Ryan's fit‑feedback message, and Simon for the PHL/notification element — the same mapping the Board accepted as to disclosure but rejected only for lack of motivation.

Combination 4 — Ryan + Allen + Simon (+Svean) → claims 3, 19

Unchanged from Grounds 9/10, but re‑anchored on Allen where the claim requires the processor to "deliver audio" (claims 18/19 line) or PHL adjustment (claim 3).

Dependent‑claim mapping summary

VI. Counterarguments a patent owner would raise (and their limits)

1. "Ryan teaches away / the art gated the mic, so seal can't be measured while audio plays." This is the Board's actual claim‑12 rationale, but it is specific to the Victorian VOX embodiment. Substitute Voix (which teaches seal assessment while driving a broadband signal) and the teaching‑away argument collapses.
2. "Allen's reflectance measurement is not a seal measurement." Weak — reflectance is a direct function of the ear‑canal acoustic load, and Ryan ¶0005 already frames the same quantity as a seal‑quality indicator. That is a § 103 motivation, not a § 112 gap.
3. "No reasonable expectation of success combining Allen + Voix." Both operate on the same transducer topology (receiver + in‑canal mic); the combination is a predictable use of known seal‑testing with a known ear‑canal‑measuring aid (KSR (A)/(C)).
4. Secondary considerations. The earlier record shows no unexpected‑results or commercial‑success evidence for claims 12–20; the only "secondary" fact is the survival of those claims in the IPR — which is a procedural/evidentiary outcome, not a § 103 nexus.
5. § 112 (secondary to this task). The '424 prosecution history (Ex. 1005) shows applicant prevailed over Berg primarily on the "visual or audio message identifying proper insertion" and over Gauger/Hietanen on ECTF monitoring; the same written‑description/enablement pressure points the Petitioner pressed in the district court (Redacted Doc. #28) remain viable as a parallel § 112 attack on claims 12–20.

VII. Bottom line

• Claims 1–11: obvious and now canceled (Ryan‑anchored grounds; Fed. Cir. affirmed). Any § 103 opinion or infringement contention built on claim 1 is moot.
• Claims 12–20: the prior‑art universe contains every limitation — Allen (audio‑delivering aid + ear‑canal measurement + automatic ear‑canal‑based adjustment), Voix (in‑situ seal assessment via speaker‑driven broadband signal), Svean (leakage detection for hearing safety), Ryan (seal monitoring while in use + user fit feedback). The Board's "not obvious" holding rests on a defective motivation/evidentiary record anchored on Ryan's control‑signal output and Victorian's gated VOX, not on a finding that the art lacks the claimed features.
• The actionable § 103 case is therefore: Allen (anchor, for the audio‑delivering processor/ECR/ECM) + Voix and/or Svean (seal/leakage measurement and safety motivation) + Ryan (in‑use seal monitoring and user‑message), with Simon/Alberth for dependents. The motivation is supplied by KSR rationales (C) and (B): using the known technique of in‑situ seal/leakage verification to improve a known ear‑canal‑measuring hearing instrument, for the predictable result of a leakage‑compensated, correctly fitted device.

Caveats. (1) My POSITA definition is proposed, not quoted from the Board. (2) The Board's claim‑level reasoning on claims 12–20 is reconstructed from the Notice of Appeal excerpt and the hearing transcript; the FWD (Paper 37) itself should be pulled to confirm verbatim findings before any filing. (3) Alberth's and Simon's specific disclosures are stated only at the level the record supports (Petitioner cited them for the dependent‑claim features noted); I did not independently retrieve their full texts.

Key sources: Kyriakakis Declaration, IPR2022‑00302 Ex. 1002 — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00302/Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd._v._Staton_Techiya_LLC/docs/12-21-2021-Petitioner/Exhibit-1002-Declaration_of_Chris_Kyriakakis,_PhD.pdf ; Samsung Notice of Appeal (Aug. 11, 2023, incl. FWD) — https://insight.rpxcorp.com/federal_circuit/[1313341](/patent/1313341)/rpx-ptab/IPR2022-00302/2023_08_11_38_Petitioners_Notice_of_Appeal_302_170637033.pdf ; Institution Decision — https://assets.law360news.com/[1510000](/patent/1510000)/[1510720](/patent/1510720)/samsung%20july%2011%20di%202.pdf ; Hearing transcript (July 6, 2023) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00302/Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd._v._Staton_Techiya_LLC/ ; Ryan US 2004/0196992 A1 — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/bd/3f/f2/8da107e3142168/US20040196992A1.pdf ; Allen US 7,715,577 / US 2006/0083395 — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00302/Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd._v._Staton_Techiya_LLC/docs/12-21-2021-Petitioner/Exhibit-1021-US_Patent_No_7,715,577_Allen_Issued.pdf ; Victorian EP 1519625 A2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1519625 ; '364 file‑history exhibit (Ex. 1005) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2022-00302/Samsung_Electronics_Co._Ltd/docs/12-21-2021-Petitioner/Exhibit-1005-5-File_History_of_US_Patent_No_9,332,364.pdf ; Fed. Cir. No. 23‑2335 (Oct. 9, 2025) — https://www.vitallaw.com/caselaw/st-case1tech-llc-appellant-v-john-a-squires-under-secretary-of-commerce-for-intellectual-property-and-director-of-the-united-states-patent-and-trademark-office-intervenor/6e336958c9794db7b85bddf120913f3d ; Google Patents US9609424B2 — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9609424](/patent/US9609424)/en