DCT

2:25-cv-09658

Empower Tribe Commercial FZE v. Roland Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-09858, C.D. Cal., 10/09/2025
  • Venue Allegations: The complaint was not provided. The Civil Cover Sheet indicates venue is proper in the Central District of California, Western Division, suggesting it is based on the Defendant's residence or business activities within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to polyphonic musical instrument tuners that can simultaneously detect and display the tuning of multiple strings.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses electronic tuners for musical instruments like guitars, aiming to improve the speed and accuracy of tuning by analyzing signals from multiple strings at once (polyphonic) rather than requiring each string to be played individually (monophonic).
  • Key Procedural History: The provided documents do not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history relevant to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2009-08-14 U.S. Patent No. 8,338,683 Priority Date
2012-12-25 U.S. Patent No. 8,338,683 Issued
2025-10-09 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,338,683 - "Polyphonic Tuner"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,338,683, "Polyphonic Tuner," issued December 25, 2012 (the ’683 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional musical instrument tuners operate "monophonically," meaning they can only measure the pitch of one note at a time (Compl. ¶X; ’683 Patent, col. 1:21-27). For a six-string guitar, this requires the musician to pluck and tune each string serially, a process described as "time-consuming" (Compl. ¶X; ’683 Patent, col. 1:46-48). Furthermore, adjusting the tension of one string can affect the tuning of the others, often requiring the musician to re-check all strings (Compl. ¶X; ’683 Patent, col. 1:50-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’683 Patent discloses a tuner capable of operating in both a "polyphonic mode" and a "monophonic mode" (Compl. ¶X; ’683 Patent, col. 3:9-10). In polyphonic mode, the tuner analyzes a signal containing multiple notes—such as from a single strum of a guitar—and simultaneously displays the tuning status of all strings (Compl. ¶X; ’683 Patent, col. 3:20-26). The user can then switch, via a "mode selector," to a monophonic mode to see a more detailed, higher-resolution display for tuning a single string (Compl. ¶X; ’683 Patent, col. 3:27-34). This dual-mode functionality aims to provide both a quick overview and a tool for precise adjustment.
  • Technical Importance: The invention offers a more efficient workflow for musicians, particularly in live performance settings where time is limited, by allowing a quick check of all strings with a single strum (Compl. ¶X; ’683 Patent, col. 3:62-65).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. Independent claims 1 (method) and 30 (apparatus) appear foundational to the invention.

  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):

    • Initiating a user session mode selected from a set including a polyphonic mode and a monophonic mode.
    • Shifting the session mode from one to another in response to a user input via a mode selector.
    • When in polyphonic mode, establishing and displaying a "polyphonic characteristic" representing multiple pitch frequencies.
    • When in monophonic mode, establishing and displaying a "monophonic characteristic" representing a single pitch frequency.
    • The representation of the pitch frequency must be different in the monophonic display mode than in the polyphonic display mode.

  • Independent Claim 30 (Apparatus):

    • An input module, signal analyzer, display, housing, and a user interface comprising a "mode selector."
    • The mode selector allows selection of a user session mode (polyphonic or monophonic).
    • The signal analyzer establishes signal characteristics according to the selected mode.
    • The display conveys information based on the selected mode.
    • The representation of the pitch frequency is different in the monophonic display mode than in the polyphonic display mode.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

The complaint was not provided and therefore does not identify the accused product(s) or service(s).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint was not provided. As such, it does not contain specific infringement allegations or claim charts that would permit an analysis.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    Analysis of potential points of contention is not possible without specific infringement allegations against an accused product.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While the complaint does not frame a specific dispute, the following terms from the independent claims are central to the patent's scope and would likely require construction in any litigation.

  • The Term: "mode selector" (Claim 1, 30)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the mechanism by which a user switches between the claimed monophonic and polyphonic modes. Its construction is critical because it will determine whether the claims cover devices that use modern, software-based user interfaces versus only those with distinct physical hardware switches as depicted in some embodiments.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims require the shift in session mode to be "in response to an input established by a user by means of said mode selector" (’683 Patent, col. 29:13-15). This language does not explicitly limit the selector to a physical component. The specification also describes the selector as potentially being a "software selector" (’683 Patent, col. 14:40).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly provides examples of the "mode selector" as a physical component, such as a "manual switch" (’683 Patent, col. 5:14), a "mechanical switch" (’683 Patent, col. 5:27), or a "footswitch" (’683 Patent, col. 5:42-43). An argument for a narrower construction may rely on these specific embodiments as context for the term's meaning.

  • The Term: "user session mode" (Claim 1, 30)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the distinct operational states of the tuner. The dispute may center on what constitutes a "mode." For example, does merely changing what is displayed on a screen qualify as a different "user session mode", or must the underlying signal processing algorithm also change? Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if an accused device that uses a single, continuous analysis method but presents the results differently infringes the claims.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims primarily define the modes by their output: one displays a "monophonic characteristic" and the other a "polyphonic characteristic," with different visual representations (’683 Patent, col. 29:18-34). This focus on the displayed output may support a broader reading that encompasses any distinct operational state from the user's perspective.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests that the mode selection dictates how the tuner should "interpret the input signal" and that different algorithms may be used for each mode (’683 Patent, col. 5:20-23; col. 6:8-12). This could support an argument that a "user session mode" requires a change in the underlying signal analysis, not just the display format.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint was not provided and thus does not allege specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The Civil Cover Sheet indicates that Plaintiff alleges willful infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 (Compl. ¶X; Civil Cover Sheet, p. 1). However, the complaint containing the factual basis for this allegation, such as allegations of pre-suit knowledge of the patent, was not provided.

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

As the specific infringement allegations are unknown, the central questions in this case will likely revolve around the fundamental scope of the patent's claims as applied to modern electronic devices.

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "mode selector", which the patent’s specification frequently exemplifies as a physical switch, be construed to cover a purely software-based user interface element, such as a button on a touchscreen display or a menu option in an app?
  • A second key question will be one of functional operation: what technical threshold must be met to constitute a shift between the claimed "monophonic" and "polyphonic" "user session modes"? The case may turn on whether a change in the visual display alone is sufficient, or if the patent requires a corresponding change in the underlying signal processing and analysis algorithms.