5:25-cv-08189
Raycon Inc v. Shenzhen Shokz Co Ltd A Foreign Ltd Liability Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Raycon, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Shenzhen Shokz Co., Ltd. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bochner PLLC
- Case Identification: 5:25-cv-08189, N.D. Cal., 09/26/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant conducts business in California, a substantial part of the harm occurred in the district, and California contains Amazon fulfillment centers that would distribute the accused products. As a foreign corporation, Defendant is also subject to suit in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff Raycon seeks a declaratory judgment that its "Open Earbuds" product does not infringe Defendant Shokz's patent, and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and obviousness.
- Technical Context: The dispute concerns acoustic design in open-ear audio devices, which aim to deliver sound to a user while leaving the ear canal unobstructed to allow for awareness of ambient sounds.
- Key Procedural History: The action was precipitated by Defendant submitting a complaint to Amazon on or around July 28, 2025, alleging Plaintiff's product infringes the patent-in-suit and requesting the product's delisting. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant committed inequitable conduct by failing to disclose a material European Search Report to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office during the patent's prosecution.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2020-08-04 | ’208 Patent Priority Date |
| 2022-08-29 | European Search Report Issued for Counterpart Application |
| 2023-02-09 | Defendant allegedly aware of European Search Report |
| 2024-10-01 | ’208 Patent Issue Date |
| 2025-07-28 | Defendant submits infringement complaint to Amazon |
| 2025-09-26 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 12,108,208 - ACOUSTIC OUTPUT DEVICES
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 12,108,208, issued on October 1, 2024 (the "’208 Patent"). (Compl. ¶11).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes a problem in open-ear acoustic devices where sound reflection within the back cavity of the device creates resonance and standing waves. This can narrow the effective frequency response range and, at certain frequencies, cause phase reversal that leads to increased sound leakage noticeable to others. (’208 Patent, col. 1:33-52).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an acoustic output device with a housing that forms a "back cavity" behind the acoustic driver. The key feature is a "curved structure" connecting different side walls of this back cavity. This curved geometry is intended to "destroy the reflection conditions inside the back cavity" and suppress the formation of standing waves. The design also includes at least one sound outlet hole on a side wall of the back cavity to output sound from behind the driver. (’208 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:6-15).
- Technical Importance: The described solution aims to reduce far-field sound leakage, a critical performance issue for open-ear headphones that seek to provide private listening without isolating the user from their environment. (’208 Patent, col. 5:15-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint’s non-infringement and invalidity arguments focus on independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶22, 26).
- Claim 1 requires:
- An acoustic driver with a diaphragm and a magnetic circuit structure.
- A housing structure configured to carry the acoustic driver.
- The back side of the acoustic driver and the housing structure form a back cavity.
- Side walls of the back cavity are connected to each other by a curved structure.
- The housing structure includes at least one sound outlet hole.
- The at least one sound outlet hole is acoustically coupled with the back cavity and outputs the sound radiated to the back cavity by the acoustic driver to the outside.
- The at least one sound outlet hole is located on at least part of the side walls of the back cavity.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused product is the "Raycon Fitness Open Earbuds – True Wireless Open Ear Bluetooth Headphones, Hook Design, IPX5 Water Resistant, 40 Hours of Battery Life (Black)," identified by Amazon Standard Identification Number (ASIN) B0DBN31S41 (the "Open Earbuds"). (Compl. ¶18). The complaint includes images of the Open Earbuds in their case and individually. (Compl. ¶19).
Functionality and Market Context
The Open Earbuds are a commercial open-ear audio product. (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that the product's design is central to its non-infringement position, specifically regarding how it manages sound from the rear of its acoustic driver. (Compl. ¶¶23-24). Plaintiff states that Amazon.com is its primary sales channel and that a majority of its revenue comes from sales made through the platform, making Defendant's delisting request a significant commercial threat. (Compl. ¶¶16-17, 29).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
This is a declaratory judgment action where the Plaintiff, Raycon, argues for non-infringement. The following chart summarizes Raycon’s stated position on why its Open Earbuds do not meet the limitations of claim 1 of the ’208 Patent.
’208 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| at least one sound outlet hole... is acoustically coupled with the back cavity and outputs the sound radiated to the back cavity by the acoustic driver | The Open Earbuds allegedly do not meet this limitation because the relevant hole is not located in the back cavity. Instead, the hole is located in a "separate compartment" that is acoustically sealed from the back cavity. | ¶¶23-24 | col. 6:23-28 |
| the at least one sound outlet hole is located on at least part of the side walls of the back cavity | The complaint alleges the hole is not in the back cavity at all, but in a separate compartment, and therefore cannot be on a side wall of the back cavity. An annotated photograph of the product's internal structure is provided to support this assertion. | ¶24 | col. 6:63-65 |
The complaint provides a teardown photograph of the accused Open Earbuds with annotations identifying the "Back side of the acoustic driver," the "Back cavity," and a "Hole in housing located below back side of the acoustic driver in an acoustically sealed compartment and separate to the back cavity." (Compl. p. 6).
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may be the proper construction of "back cavity." The question for the court will be whether this term is limited to the single, primary chamber immediately behind the acoustic driver, as depicted in the patent's figures, or if it could be construed more broadly to encompass other internal voids within the housing structure.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question is whether the accused product's internal structure functions as described in the complaint. Discovery and expert analysis will likely focus on whether the identified "separate compartment" is, in fact, "acoustically sealed" from the "back cavity" or if there exists a pathway that would constitute "acoustic coupling" under a legally construed definition of that term.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "back cavity"
Context and Importance: This term is dispositive for the non-infringement analysis. Plaintiff’s argument is predicated on its product’s relevant sound hole not being located in or coupled with the "back cavity." (Compl. ¶¶23-24). The definition will determine whether the accused product's geometry falls within the claim's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states, "the back side of the acoustic driver and the housing structure form a back cavity." (’208 Patent, col. 5:49-50). A party could argue this is a broad, functional definition encompassing any enclosed space behind the driver created by the housing.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently illustrates the "back cavity" (e.g., element 111 in Fig. 1, 311 in Fig. 3) as a single, contiguous volume whose walls are the subject of the "curved structure" invention. A party may argue this consistent depiction limits the term to that specific chamber, excluding other separate or sealed compartments.
The Term: "acoustically coupled"
Context and Importance: This term defines the required relationship between the sound outlet hole and the back cavity. Plaintiff alleges its product lacks this coupling because the hole vents a separate, sealed compartment. (Compl. ¶24). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will dictate what level of sound transmission, if any, between two chambers meets the claim limitation.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term. A party could argue for its plain and ordinary meaning, suggesting that any path allowing sound waves or pressure to travel between the hole and the cavity would suffice, even if indirect.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that in the context of the patent, which is focused on managing sound radiating from the back cavity to achieve far-field cancellation, "acoustically coupled" implies a direct and intentional path for sound to exit the primary back cavity through the hole. The complaint's visual evidence suggests the hole in the accused product serves a different compartment. (Compl. p. 6).
VI. Other Allegations
- Invalidity: The complaint alleges that claim 1 of the ’208 Patent is invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of combinations of prior art, including U.S. Pat. No. 4,742,887, JP Pat. No. 5,867,705 B2, and CN Pat. No. 201957195U. (Compl. ¶¶25-27). The complaint includes a detailed claim chart mapping elements of the '887 and JP '705 patents to the limitations of claim 1. (Compl. pp. 7-11).
- Inequitable Conduct: The complaint alleges the ’208 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The basis is Defendant's alleged intentional failure to disclose a material European Search Report, which identified four "X" references, to the USPTO during prosecution of the U.S. application, despite allegedly knowing of the report and its materiality. (Compl. ¶¶35-42).
- Patent Misuse: Plaintiff alleges Defendant misused its patent rights by asserting the ’208 Patent in its Amazon complaint while knowing it was not infringed, invalid, and/or unenforceable, constituting an act to unlawfully restrain competition. (Compl. ¶¶80-81).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of structural fact: Does the accused product’s internal architecture align with the Plaintiff’s depiction of a "back cavity" that is "acoustically sealed" from the compartment containing the sound outlet hole? This question will likely be resolved through expert analysis and physical inspection of the device.
- The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the term "back cavity," as defined and used in the ’208 Patent, be construed to encompass the separate, adjacent compartment that Plaintiff alleges exists in its Open Earbuds, or is its meaning confined to the single resonant chamber immediately behind the driver?
- A third critical issue is one of patent enforceability: Does the evidence support the allegation that Defendant intentionally withheld the European Search Report from the USPTO with the intent to deceive the examiner, and were the references contained therein material to patentability? This raises the possibility that the patent could be held unenforceable regardless of the outcome of the infringement and validity analyses.