Stratosaudio, Inc. v. Hyundai Motor America

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
STRATOSAUDIO, INC.,
Appellant
v.
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA,
Appellee
______________________
2023-1719
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-
01267.
-------------------------------------------------
STRATOSAUDIO, INC.,
Appellant
v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
Appellee
______________________
2023-1721
______________________
Case: 23-1719 Document: 50 Page: 1 Filed: 10/28/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

STRATOSAUDIO, INC. v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA 2
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2021-
00721.
______________________
Decided: October 28, 2024
______________________
ROBERT GREENSPOON, Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig
PLLC, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented
by WILLIAM W. FLACHSBART; DAVID E. BOUNDY, Potomac
Law Group PLLC, Newton, MA.
WILLIAM FINK, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington,
DC, argued for appellee Hyundai Motor America. Also
represented by COKE MORGAN STEWART; BENJAMIN HABER,
CLARENCE ROWLAND, NICHOLAS WHILT, RYAN KEN YAGURA,
Los Angeles, CA; CAITLIN P. HOGAN, New York, NY;
CAMERON WILLIAM WESTIN, Newport Beach, CA.
RICHARD CRUDO, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox
PLLC, Washington, DC, argued for appellee Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc. Also represented by RYAN CHARLES
RICHARDSON, MICHAEL D. SPECHT, DANIEL YONAN.
______________________
Before PROST, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PROST, Circuit Judge.
StratosAudio, Inc. (“StratosAudio”) appeals two final
written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
(“Board”) in inter partes reviews (“IPR”) determining that
all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,166,081 (“the
’081 patent”) are unpatentable. We affirm one appeal,
No. 23-1719, and dismiss the other as moot, No. 23-1721.
Case: 23-1719 Document: 50 Page: 2 Filed: 10/28/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

STRATOSAUDIO, INC. v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA 3
BACKGROUND
Hyundai Motor America (“Hyundai”) petitioned for IPR
of claims 9–11, 15, and 23 of the ’081 patent (IPR2021-
01267), and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
(“Volkswagen”), with others, petitioned for IPR of claims 9–
11 and 23 (IPR2021-00721). The ’081 patent relates to
“systems and methods for associating an advertising media
signal with another media signal.” ’081 patent col. 1 ll. 18–
20.
In IPR2021-01267, the Board determined that the
challenged claims 9–11, 15, and 23 of the ’081 patent are
unpatentable as obvious over Ellis1 and Crosby.2 Hyundai
Motor Am. v. StratosAudio, Inc., No. IPR2021-01267, 2023
WL 358829 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2023). In IPR2021-00721,
the Board determined that DeWeese3 anticipates claims 9–
11 and 23 of the ’081 patent. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.
v. StratosAudio, Inc., No. IPR2021-00721, 2023 WL
1073951 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2023).
StratosAudio timely appealed, and we have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A).
DISCUSSION
StratosAudio’s arguments on appeal challenge the
Board’s obviousness determinations in IPR2021-01267 and
anticipation determinations in IPR2021-00721.
“Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is a question of
fact, while obviousness under § 103 is a question of law
based on underlying findings of fact. We review the Board’s
1 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0227611 (“Ellis”).
J.A. 1304–33.
2 U.S. Patent No. 6,628,928 (“Crosby”). J.A. 1177–
97. 3 U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2005/0262542
(“DeWeese”). J.A. 3795–3843.
Case: 23-1719 Document: 50 Page: 3 Filed: 10/28/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

STRATOSAUDIO, INC. v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA 4
factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal
conclusions without deference.” Kennametal, Inc. v.
Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (cleaned up).
We reject StratosAudio’s arguments as to IPR2021-
01267. Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings,
and based on those findings, the Board did not err in
concluding that claims 9–11, 15, and 23 of the ’081 patent
are unpatentable as obvious. Based on our affirmance of
the Board’s conclusion that claims 9–11 and 23 are
unpatentable in IPR2021-01267, we dismiss
StratosAudio’s appeal to IPR2021-00721 as moot.
CONCLUSION
We have considered StratosAudio’s remaining
arguments and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing
reasons, we affirm the Board’s determination that claims
9–11, 15, and 23 of the ’081 patent are unpatentable in
appeal No. 23-1719, and we dismiss appeal No. 23-1721 as
moot.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART, DISMISSED-IN-PART
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 23-1719 Document: 50 Page: 4 Filed: 10/28/2024

-- 4 of 4 --