Roland Corp v. Wirges Percussion Systems LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Roland Corp (Japan)
  • Defendant: Wirges Percussion Systems LLC (Arkansas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Foley & Lardner LLP
• Case Identification: 2:08-cv-04785, C.D. Cal., 07/22/2008
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant operates an interactive e-commerce website through which it offers to sell and sells its products to purchasers within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s electronic percussion instruments infringe a patent related to the use of a mesh-like material for a drum head and a corresponding sensor apparatus.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses a long-standing issue in electronic drums by using tensionable mesh heads to provide a more realistic playing feel and quieter acoustic sound compared to older rubber pads or triggered acoustic drums.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1996-07-04	’538 Patent Priority Date
2000-09-19	’538 Patent Issue Date
2008-07-22	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,121,538 - "Electronic Percussion Instrumental System and Percussion Detecting Apparatus Therein"

Issued September 19, 2000

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes shortcomings in prior art electronic drums. Percussion pads made from soft compounds had poor "repulsive feeling," while using traditional acoustic drum heads as a percussion surface produced significant, undesirable acoustic noise that could disturb a performance (’538 Patent, col. 1:36-45, 1:56-60).
• The Patented Solution: The invention uses a head made of a "net-like raw material" stretched across a drum shell (’538 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-28). This mesh construction is intended to provide the elasticity and feel of a traditional drum head while being extremely quiet, as air can pass through the openings in the mesh (’538 Patent, col. 2:32-38). A sensor assembly, including a transducer and a cushioning member, is placed underneath the head to detect strikes and convert them into an electronic signal (’538 Patent, Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to combine the realistic feel of an acoustic drum with the low-volume, versatile nature of an electronic instrument, a key objective in the electronic percussion market (’538 Patent, col. 2:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts. Independent claim 1 is representative of the system claims.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
  • a drum head;
  • a barrel section with engaging pins to provide tension on the drum head;
  • a supporting material disposed within the barrel, adjacent to but spaced from the head;
  • a cushioning member made of an elastic material in contact with the head; and
  • a transducer supported by the supporting material, located between the head and the supporting material, with the cushioning member also located between the head and the transducer.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but this is implied by the general nature of the pleading.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "certain electronic percussion instruments, including custom electronic drums" that are made, used, and sold by Wirges Percussion Systems LLC (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant operates an internet website at "www.percussion-systems.com" to sell its electronic percussion instruments to customers, including those in the Central District of California (Compl. ¶4). The pleading does not provide any specific technical descriptions, model numbers, or diagrams of the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes a general allegation of infringement without providing specific factual assertions that map features of the accused products to the elements of any asserted claim (Compl. ¶6). Therefore, a detailed claim chart cannot be constructed based on the pleading. The infringement analysis below is based on the general theory presented.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Structural Questions: The infringement analysis will depend entirely on the physical construction of the accused instruments. A central question will be whether the accused products contain a "supporting material" that is structurally separate from the "barrel section" and whether it is "spaced, from said head" as required by claim 1. Evidence will be needed to determine if the accused products' sensor assembly is mounted on such a distinct material or is attached differently, for instance, directly to the drum shell.
  • Component Arrangement Questions: Claim 1 requires a specific spatial relationship, with both the transducer and the cushioning member located "between the head and the supporting material." The court will need to examine evidence regarding the precise assembly and layering of components within the accused drums to determine if they meet this limitation. The complaint provides no evidence on this point.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "supporting material"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines a key structural element on which the sensor assembly is mounted, distinct from the main drum shell ("barrel section"). The existence and nature of this component in the accused device will be a central point of the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because a defendant could argue its sensor is mounted directly to the drum shell or a fixture that does not meet the definition of a separate "supporting material."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any internal structure that serves to support the transducer, as long as it is within the barrel section.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment where the "head sensor supporting material 72 is placed in the barrel section 50 in such that [it] intersects the position of the axial center of the barrel section 50" (’538 Patent, col. 6:50-53; Fig. 3). A defendant could argue this embodiment limits the term to a distinct cross-member or bar, not just any mounting point or bracket attached to the shell wall.

• The Term: "cushioning member"

• Context and Importance: This element forms the direct interface between the vibrating mesh head and the transducer. Its definition is crucial for determining how the claimed sensor assembly is constructed and functions.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require it to be composed of an "elastic material" and disposed "in contact with said head" (’538 Patent, col. 19:4-5). Plaintiff may argue this covers any piece of foam, rubber, or other elastic material that serves this purpose.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discloses a "frustoconical cushioning member 80" that contacts the head at its narrow end (’538 Patent, col. 6:65-67; Fig. 7). The patent explains this shape ensures that "vibrations of percussion in the head 12 are hardly transmitted directly to the piezoelectric element," preventing damage and improving detection accuracy (’538 Patent, col. 8:5-14). A defendant may argue that these functional and structural details limit the scope of "cushioning member" to a component with these specific characteristics.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes conclusory allegations of contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶6). It does not, however, plead any specific facts to support the requisite knowledge and intent, such as identifying specific components sold for an infringing combination or referencing user manuals that instruct customers to infringe.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been "willful and deliberate" (Compl. ¶7). The pleading does not allege any facts that would support pre-suit knowledge of the ’538 patent, such as a prior notice letter or citation.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A primary issue will be one of factual proof: The complaint lacks any specific factual allegations linking the accused products to the patent claims. A key question is whether Plaintiff can, through discovery, uncover evidence showing that Defendant’s electronic drums contain the precise, multi-element structural arrangement required by the asserted claims, particularly the "supporting material" and its relationship to the head, barrel, and transducer.
• The case will also turn on a question of claim scope: The viability of the infringement case will likely depend on the construction of the term "supporting material." The core issue for the court will be whether this term is limited to the distinct cross-member structure shown in the patent’s figures or if it can be construed more broadly to cover other types of internal sensor-mounting hardware.