Audio Evolution Diagnostics v. USPTO & GlobalMedia: Federal Circuit Affirms Unpatentability
Audio Evolution Diagnostics appealed the unpatentability findings for two patents covering physiological auditory signal acquisition and processing devices. The Federal Circuit affirmed in a Rule 36 judgment after 561 days, leaving both patents invalidated and the appellant without appellate recourse at this level.
Federal Circuit closes the door on two physiological audio patents
Audio Evolution Diagnostics, Inc. brought this appeal at the Federal Circuit (Case No. 23-1096) against the United States Patent and Trademark Office and GlobalMedia Group, LLC. The dispute centres on two patents — US8870791B2 and US8920343B2 — covering apparatus for acquiring and processing physiological auditory signals, a technology category relevant to medical-grade acoustic diagnostics and remote health monitoring. The appeal was filed on 31 October 2022 and closed on 14 May 2024.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the underlying unpatentability determination under Fed. Cir. R. 36, issuing a judgment without a written opinion. This mechanism signals that the appellate panel found no reversible error in the tribunal below and that the legal and factual issues were sufficiently settled to require no further elaboration. The practical effect is that both patents remain unpatentable, and Audio Evolution Diagnostics cannot pursue further relief at this appellate level.
The 561-day duration of the appeal is consistent with contested inter partes review or post-grant proceedings that require substantive briefing before the Federal Circuit. The Rule 36 affirmance, while offering no written reasoning, suggests the panel found the record below well-developed and the outcome clearly correct. What remains unknown from the public record is the precise procedural posture of the underlying USPTO proceeding and the nature of GlobalMedia Group’s involvement as a co-defendant or real party in interest.
Filing to Unpatentable in 561 days
561 days — longer than the median Federal Circuit appeal (~400 days)
Federal Circuit affirms: what the Rule 36 judgment means for both parties
A Rule 36 affirmance: brevity signals clear outcome
Fed. Cir. R. 36 allows the Federal Circuit to affirm a lower tribunal’s decision without a written opinion when the panel unanimously finds no reversible error. It does not imply the case was unimportant — rather, that the record was sufficiently clear. Here, the unpatentability findings for both US8870791B2 and US8920343B2 were deemed sound on appeal, and no new legal question warranted elaboration.
No written opinion — unpatentability standsBoth patents remain unpatentable — enforceability extinguished
For Audio Evolution Diagnostics, the affirmance forecloses patent-based exclusivity over its physiological auditory signal apparatus technology at this level. With the Federal Circuit affirming unpatentability, the patents cannot be asserted in infringement proceedings. The company’s IP enforcement strategy in this product category will need to rely on any surviving claims, continuations, or entirely distinct patent families — the asserted patents themselves offer no further protection.
Patent enforceability lostUSPTO and GlobalMedia secure a final appellate win
The USPTO and GlobalMedia Group successfully defended the unpatentability findings through appeal. For GlobalMedia, this outcome removes a patent barrier in the physiological audio signal processing space, reducing litigation risk from these two patents. The appellate affirmance is final at this level, meaning Audio Evolution Diagnostics’ options are limited to a petition for en banc rehearing or a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court — both of which face exceptionally high bars.
Freedom-to-operate strengthenedCleared IP landscape for physiological audio signal technology
The invalidation of both patents widens the operating space for companies developing apparatus for physiological sound acquisition and processing. Competitors and new entrants in digital auscultation, acoustic diagnostics, and remote patient monitoring can now reference these patents as prior art without infringement risk. However, adjacent patents in Audio Evolution Diagnostics’ portfolio — if any exist — should be independently assessed before assuming full freedom to operate in this technical domain.
Sector risk reduced post-affirmanceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AUDIO EVOLUTION DIAGNOSTICS, INC. | Company | Medical audio diagnostics company — holder of US8870791B2 and US8920343B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | United States and Trademark Office | Individual | USPTO (federal agency) and GlobalMedia Group, LLC (technology challenger)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | GlobalMedia Group, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joel Benjamin Rothman | Attorney | Counsel for AUDIO EVOLUTION DIAGNOSTICS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Joseph Corcoran III | Attorney | Counsel for AUDIO EVOLUTION DIAGNOSTICS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Corcoran IP Law PLLC | Law Firm | Representing AUDIO EVOLUTION DIAGNOSTICS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sriplaw, PA | Law Firm | Representing AUDIO EVOLUTION DIAGNOSTICS, INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian M. Boynton | Attorney | Counsel for United States and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gary Lee Hausken | Attorney | Counsel for United States and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Grant Drews Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for United States and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott David Bolden | Attorney | Counsel for United States and Trademark OfficeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge E. Campbell-Smith | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance under Rule 36 confirms that the panel found no reversible error in the unpatentability determination below, applying substantial evidence review to factual findings and de novo review to questions of law. The terse ‘AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.’ formulation is dispositive: both US8870791B2 and US8920343B2 are unpatentable as a matter of final appellate adjudication. No further written reasoning will issue, and the lower tribunal’s record is conclusively upheld.
US8870791B2 & US8920343B2 — physiological auditory signal apparatus patents
US8870791B2 (application US13/430561) and US8920343B2 (application US11/602017) cover apparatus-level inventions in the acquisition, processing, and transmission of physiological auditory signals — the electronic capture and handling of body sounds such as heart, lung, and bowel acoustics for diagnostic purposes. These patents sit at the intersection of medical device hardware and digital signal processing, a domain with growing relevance to telemedicine and remote patient monitoring platforms.
Strategically, patents in physiological audio signal acquisition represent a competitive moat in digital auscultation tools — stethoscope-adjacent devices, wearable acoustic sensors, and cloud-connected diagnostic platforms. The invalidation of both patents by the USPTO and affirmed by the Federal Circuit removes a potential licensing or litigation threat for competitors in this space, but companies should conduct independent patent family searches to identify any surviving related claims before treating the domain as fully cleared.
Should you run an FTO against US8870791B2 and US8920343B2?
Product teams developing apparatus for physiological sound acquisition — including digital stethoscopes, wearable acoustic sensors, and telehealth audio processing hardware — should note that both patents have been affirmed as unpatentable by the Federal Circuit. However, a full FTO analysis against the broader Audio Evolution Diagnostics patent family remains advisable. Related continuations or divisional applications may cover overlapping technical ground and have not been adjudicated in this proceeding.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the complete patent family originating from application numbers US13/430561 and US11/602017, identify any surviving related claims, and flag co-pending applications by the same assignee. This targeted clearance workflow is particularly valuable for teams preparing a product launch in digital auscultation or remote physiological monitoring — enabling evidence-based go/no-go decisions rather than reliance on a single case outcome.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8870791B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals: physiological audio and medical device patents
Federal Circuit cases involving unpatentability affirmances for medical device and physiological signal processing patents, including IPR and ex parte appeal outcomes.
What this case signals for the medical audio diagnostics IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 affirmance reinforces the USPTO’s unpatentability findings and reshapes the competitive IP environment for physiological audio signal technology.
Rule 36 affirmances carry real commercial weight despite silence
A Rule 36 judgment may lack a written opinion, but its legal effect is identical to a full merits affirmance. Companies relying on patent exclusivity in acoustic diagnostics should treat this outcome as definitive. If your freedom-to-operate analysis referenced these patents as potential risk, they can now be deprioritised — but document the affirmance date in your FTO audit trail.
GlobalMedia Group’s involvement flags competitive patent pressure in this space
The presence of GlobalMedia Group as a co-defendant alongside the USPTO suggests an inter partes review or covered business method challenge. This pattern — private challenger plus USPTO — is a well-established route to invalidation. Teams in physiological audio processing should monitor GlobalMedia’s own patent activity and any continuation filings by Audio Evolution Diagnostics for residual risk.
AUDIO v United — key questions answered
A Rule 36 affirmance means the Federal Circuit unanimously upheld the unpatentability findings below without issuing a written opinion. For US8870791B2 and US8920343B2, this is a final appellate ruling: both patents are confirmed unpatentable and cannot be enforced in infringement proceedings. The result carries the same legal weight as a full merits opinion.
No. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the unpatentability determination means neither US8870791B2 nor US8920343B2 can be enforced against alleged infringers. Companies developing physiological audio signal acquisition devices can reference these specific patents as cleared, though independent review of related patent family members remains advisable.
GlobalMedia Group, LLC appears as a co-defendant alongside the USPTO, a structure consistent with it being the petitioner in an underlying inter partes review or post-grant proceeding. This dual-party structure — private challenger plus the USPTO defending its invalidation decision — is typical of IPR appeals at the Federal Circuit. The public record does not confirm the exact procedural posture of GlobalMedia’s involvement.
Following a Federal Circuit affirmance, the appellant may petition for en banc rehearing by the full Federal Circuit or seek certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court. Both routes face very high acceptance thresholds. Absent a successful petition, the unpatentability findings for US8870791B2 and US8920343B2 are final. Audio Evolution Diagnostics could also pursue any surviving continuation or related applications that were not subject to this proceeding.
At 561 days, this appeal ran longer than the typical Federal Circuit case resolution window of approximately 12–18 months. This duration is consistent with contested patent validity appeals requiring full briefing cycles and oral argument scheduling. The eventual Rule 36 affirmance suggests that, despite the extended timeline, the panel reached a clear and unanimous conclusion on the merits without need for a written opinion.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.