DCT
8:20-cv-00080
Kaotica Corp v. Ningbo Alctron Electronics Technology Co Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Kaotica Corp. (Canada)
- Defendant: Ningbo Alctron Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fortis LLP; Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP
- Case Identification: 8:20-cv-00080, C.D. Cal., 01/14/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant, a non-U.S. resident, has marketed, offered for sale, and sold accused products in the district, including at the National Association of Music Merchants (NAMM) trade show in Anaheim, California.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s microphone isolation shields infringe a patent related to a noise-mitigating microphone attachment.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns portable acoustic treatment devices that fit around a microphone to reduce unwanted ambient noise and sound reflections during recording, particularly in environments not professionally treated for sound.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with written notice of its infringing conduct as early as July 2017.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-09-05 | '662 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-05-27 | '662 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-07-01 | Alleged Pre-Suit Notice to Defendant |
| 2020-01-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,737,662 - "Noise Mitigating Microphone Attachment"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of recording audio in spaces not acoustically treated, where microphones can pick up ambient "room tone" (e.g., air conditioner hum) and undesirable reflections of the performance sound from surfaces like walls and ceilings, which can degrade recording quality (’662 Patent, col. 1:7-24). Existing solutions, such as professional studio treatments or portable recording booths, are described as costly, complex, and potentially occupying substantial space (’662 Patent, col. 1:25-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a portable microphone attachment, typically made of a foam structure, designed to mitigate these issues (’662 Patent, Abstract). It features two primary cavities: a "microphone cavity" into which the microphone is inserted, and a "sound cavity" that opens toward the sound source (e.g., a vocalist) (’662 Patent, col. 2:56-65). The two cavities are fluidly connected, allowing sound from the source to reach the microphone, while the surrounding foam body works to shield the microphone's sound-receiving elements from off-axis noise and reflections (’662 Patent, col. 1:50-65; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a portable and low-cost device for improving recording quality, aiming to offer an alternative to expensive, permanent acoustic treatments or bulky recording booths (’662 Patent, col. 5:30-38).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶13).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- An attachment for a microphone comprising a foam structure.
- A first cavity extending from a first opening into the foam structure, configured to seal a microphone.
- A second cavity extending from a second opening into the foam structure, configured to receive sound, where the second cavity is cylindrical with a substantially uniform diameter.
- The first cavity is fluidly connected to the second cavity, forming a junction, with the junction and sealing working to shield the microphone.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The Alctron PF8 and Alctron PF8 PRO products (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Accused Products are described as portable microphone screens or acoustic filters made of a foam structure (Compl. ¶13, pp. 4, 8). Product marketing materials attached to the complaint describe the PF8 as a "noise reduction cylinder" that can "isolate your microphone in a quiet recording space by absorbing and reflecting the surrounding noise" (Compl. Ex. B, p. 27). The complaint alleges the products function by creating a chamber around the microphone to shield it from unwanted sound, with one opening for the microphone and another for receiving the desired sound source (Compl. ¶13). A photograph of the accused PF8 product shows a disassembled view with a main foam body and a pop filter cap (Compl. p. 4). The complaint includes a photograph of the accused PF8 PRO model, depicting its foam body and external frame (Compl. p. 8).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
Claim Chart Summary
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An attachment for a microphone, the attachment comprising: a foam structure; | The accused PF8 and PF8 PRO products are made of a foam structure and are described as microphone screens. | ¶13 | col. 2:50-51 |
| a first cavity extending from a first opening at a surface of the foam structure and into the foam structure, the first cavity configured to seal a microphone at least partly into the cavity with sound receiving elements of the microphone fully installed in the structure; | The accused products have a first cavity for inserting a microphone, which is alleged to seal the microphone with its sound-receiving elements fully within the foam structure. A front-facing view of an assembled accused PF8 product illustrates the opening of the second, sound-receiving cavity (Compl. p. 6). | ¶13 | col. 2:52-58 |
| a second cavity extending from a second opening at the surface of the foam structure and into the foam structure, the second opening configured to receive sound from a sound source, wherein the second cavity is a cylindrical-shaped cavity with a substantially uniform diameter along a longitudinal axis of the second cavity; and | The accused products include a second cavity that extends from a second opening and is configured to receive sound. This cavity is alleged to have a cylindrical shape with a uniform diameter. | ¶13 | col. 2:58-65 |
| the first cavity being fluidly connected to the second cavity within the foam structure so that a junction is formed between the first cavity and the second cavity, the junction, the sound cavity, and the sealing of the microphone working to shield the sound receiving elements of the microphone from sound other than received through the second opening. | The complaint alleges the first and second cavities in the accused products are fluidly connected, forming a junction. This configuration is alleged to work together to shield the microphone's sound-receiving elements from sound other than that coming through the second opening. | ¶13 | col. 7:1-7 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of the term "seal". The analysis will turn on whether the friction fit between the microphone and the foam of the accused products constitutes a "seal" as required by the claim, or if a more robust connection is required.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused products have a second cavity with a "substantially uniform diameter". The infringement analysis may focus on whether the actual geometry of the accused products meets this limitation, or if any tapering or variation in diameter is significant enough to fall outside the claim's scope.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "seal a microphone"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the nature of the connection between the microphone and the foam attachment is a core element of the claimed invention. The dispute may center on the degree of closure required to constitute a "seal." Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue that its product merely holds the microphone via friction without creating a functional seal intended by the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the connection is achieved via an "elastic coupling" that "may form a seal" (’662 Patent, col. 3:4-6), which could support an interpretation that a perfect or hermetic seal is not required.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim states the sealing works to "shield the sound receiving elements" (’662 Patent, col. 7:4-7). This functional language could support a narrower construction requiring a fit tight enough to contribute meaningfully to acoustic isolation, beyond simply holding the microphone in place.
The Term: "substantially uniform diameter"
- Context and Importance: Infringement of this limitation is a factual question of product geometry. The meaning of "substantially" will define the permissible tolerance. This term is important because a defendant could design a product with a conical or intentionally non-uniform cavity to avoid literal infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The word "substantially" is a term of approximation, inherently allowing for some manufacturing tolerances or minor, functionally insignificant variations from a perfectly uniform diameter.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly refers to the cavity as having a "cylindrical shape" (’662 Patent, col. 4:4-5, col. 2:63) and depicts it as such in figures (e.g., Fig. 1), which could be used to argue that the term requires a shape that is, for all practical purposes, a true cylinder.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief requests an injunction against acts of indirect infringement, but the complaint does not contain a separate count or allege specific facts to support a claim for either induced or contributory infringement (Compl. p. 10, ¶C).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is willful, deliberate, and intentional (Compl. ¶14). The basis for this allegation is the claim that Defendant was put on "written notice of its infringing conduct at least as early as July 2017" and continued its alleged infringement despite this notice (Compl. ¶15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the friction fit provided by the accused products' foam body be considered to "seal a microphone" as required by Claim 1, or does the claim, in light of the specification, require a more functionally robust acoustic barrier?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical compliance: do the internal cavities of the Alctron PF8 and PF8 PRO products possess a "substantially uniform diameter," or do they feature a degree of tapering or geometric variation that places them outside the literal scope of the asserted claim?
- A central question for damages will be willfulness: given the allegation of pre-suit notice in 2017, the court will need to determine whether Defendant's knowledge of the patent, if proven, rendered its subsequent conduct objectively reckless, potentially justifying enhanced damages.