DCT
1:25-cv-01197
Ear Technology Corp v. Westone Laboratories Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Ear Technology Corporation (Tennessee)
- Defendant: Westone Laboratories, Inc. (Colorado)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Luedeka Neely, P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01197, D. Colo., 04/15/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant is incorporated and has a principal place of business in Colorado, and because it sells the accused products within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s DefendEar series of hearing protection devices infringes three patents related to user-programmable hearing assistance devices with simplified controls.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns in-ear audio devices that allow users to select from pre-set audio processing programs and adjust settings without external programming equipment.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that on February 27, 2025, Plaintiff provided Defendant with copies of the patents-in-suit and explained that the DefendEar Devices infringe, which forms the basis for the willfulness allegation.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-03-14 | Priority Date for ’968, ’634, and ’272 Patents |
| 2012-10-09 | ’968 Patent Issued |
| 2013-06-25 | ’634 Patent Issued |
| 2015-05-12 | ’272 Patent Issued |
| 2025-02-27 | Plaintiff Notifies Defendant of Infringement |
| 2025-04-15 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,284,968 - "Preprogrammed hearing assistance device with user selection of program," issued October 9, 2012
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the traditional process of fitting a hearing aid as an expensive and iterative procedure that requires significant involvement from a professional audiologist or dispenser. (’968 Patent, col. 2:1-23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a self-contained, user-programmable hearing assistance device. It stores multiple pre-configured audio processing programs (e.g., for quiet vs. noisy environments) and allows the user to cycle through and select a preferred program using a simple on-device control, such as a push button. The device provides audible feedback, like a series of beeps, to inform the user which program has been selected, eliminating the need for an external computer or programming interface for basic adjustments. (’968 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:5-25).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to reduce the cost and complexity of hearing aid fitting, making the technology more accessible by empowering the end-user to perform basic programming selections. (’968 Patent, col. 2:54-62).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 23 (Compl. ¶19).
- Claim 23 requires:
- A housing configured to be worn in, on, or behind an ear;
- Memory storing a plurality of audio processing programs;
- A processor to execute one or more selected audio processing programs;
- A selection device operable by the person to select one of the programs;
- A digital-to-analog converter;
- An audio output section for generating audible sound for the user;
- The audio output section is further for generating one or more audible sounds that indicate which program is currently selected;
- Whereby the selected program can be determined without connecting the apparatus to an external device.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 8,472,634 - "Preprogrammed hearing assistance device with audiometric testing capability," issued June 25, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the ’968 patent, this patent addresses the high cost and complexity associated with professionally fitting and programming a hearing aid. (’634 Patent, col. 2:5-15).
- The Patented Solution: The invention enhances the user-programmable device concept by adding a built-in audiometric testing mode. The device can generate testing tones at various frequencies; the user then adjusts the volume to their personal hearing threshold for each tone and confirms the setting with a switch. The device uses these user-defined thresholds to automatically create a custom amplification profile, further automating the fitting process. (’634 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-48).
- Technical Importance: Integrating self-administered audiometric testing directly into the hearing device sought to further reduce reliance on clinical equipment and professional services for initial setup. (’634 Patent, col. 2:16-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 17 and 20 (Compl. ¶¶27, 34).
- Claim 17 (apparatus) requires, in part, a switching device for switching between available programs based on a user action.
- Claim 20 (apparatus) requires:
- One or more housings to be worn in, on, or behind the ear;
- An audio output section, memory, processor, and digital-to-analog converter;
- A single "switching device" that is operable by a user in two distinct modes: a "program switching mode" to switch between audio programs and a "volume control mode" to adjust sound volume.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 9,031,272 - "Hearing assistance apparatus having single multipurpose control device and method of operation," issued May 12, 2015 (Multi-Patent Capsule)
- Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on simplifying the user interface of a hearing assistance device. The invention describes a method and apparatus where a single, multipurpose control device (like a rocker switch) performs different functions based on how it is operated—for example, a short "tap" adjusts volume, while a longer "press and hold" switches between different audio processing algorithms. (’272 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶14).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent method claim 7. (Compl. ¶39).
- Accused Features: The accused DefendEar Devices allegedly use a single control that distinguishes between a "short press" for volume adjustment and a "long press" for mode selection, which Plaintiff maps to the steps of the asserted method claim. (Compl. ¶¶42-43).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the DefendEar DigitalX5 and DefendEar DigitalX3 hearing protection devices (collectively, "DefendEar Devices") (Compl. ¶17).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the DefendEar Devices as in-ear devices that provide hearing protection while allowing for sound amplification. They allegedly contain multiple selectable "modes," which are audio processing programs stored in memory (Compl. ¶21). A user can switch between these modes and adjust volume using a control on the device housing (Compl. ¶¶22, 37). The complaint alleges the devices provide "vocal feedback" to the user, which "vocally advises you which mode you are using" without connection to an external device (Compl. ¶¶25-26). The complaint provides visual evidence from the product's user manual, which depicts the device being worn in the ear and illustrates the controls for mode selection and volume adjustment. A diagram for "Mode Selection" shows that a "Long Press Up" or "Long Press Down" is used to change modes (Compl. ¶22), while a separate diagram for "Adjusting Volume" shows that a "Short Press Up" or "Short Press Down" is used to change volume (Compl. ¶37). The complaint does not provide detail on the products' market positioning beyond identifying them as hearing protection devices.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’968 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 23) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a housing configured to be worn in, on or behind an ear of the person | The DefendEar Devices include a housing configured to be worn on an ear, as shown in a user manual diagram. | ¶20 | col. 2:38-40 |
| memory disposed within the housing, the memory for storing a plurality of audio processing programs... | The devices have multiple selectable "modes," which are alleged to be audio processing programs stored in memory. | ¶21 | col. 2:40-41 |
| a selection device disposed on the housing...operable by the person to select one of the audio processing programs... | The devices have a "mode selection mechanism" on the housing that a user operates to select a mode. A user manual diagram shows "Long Press" for mode selection. | ¶22 | col. 2:45-48 |
| a digital-to-analog converter disposed within the housing... | The devices are alleged to include a digital-to-analog converter as an "inherent component of a digital hearing device." | ¶23 | col. 2:42-43 |
| an audio output section...for...generating audible sound...and providing the audible sound to the person | The devices include an audio output section that provides audible sound to the user. | ¶24 | col. 2:43-44 |
| the audio output section further for generating one or more audible sounds that indicate...which...program is currently selected | The devices provide "vocal feedback," which allegedly "vocally advises you which mode you are using." | ¶25 | col. 8:12-16 |
| whereby the currently selected...program can be determined without having to connect the apparatus to any external device | The alleged "vocal feedback" is not dependent on a connection to an external device like a smartphone. | ¶26 | col. 2:59-62 |
’634 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 20) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| one or more housings configured to be worn in, on or behind an ear of the person | The DefendEar Devices include a housing configured to be worn in the ear. | ¶35 | col. 26:48-50 |
| a switching device disposed on one of the housings...the switching device for operating in a program switching mode in which the switching device is operable by the person to switch from one of the available...programs to another | The devices allegedly include a switching device for changing modes, which the user manual shows is operated via a "long press" of the control. | ¶36 | col. 22:5-46 |
| the switching device further for operating in a volume control mode in which the switching device is operable by the person to adjust the volume of audible sound... | The complaint alleges the same switching device is also operable to adjust volume, which the user manual shows is operated via a "short press" of the control. | ¶37 | col. 22:5-46 |
| a digital-to-analog converter disposed within at least one of the housings... | The devices are alleged to include a digital-to-analog converter as an inherent component. | ¶35 | col. 4:10-12 |
| the audio output section including an amplifier for receiving and amplifying the output analog audio signals, and including a transducer for generating audible sound... | The complaint alleges the devices include an amplifier and transducer, stating that some modes include "amplification" and that a transducer is inherent for generating sound from amplified signals. | ¶38 | col. 4:18-24 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question for the ’968 Patent is whether the term "audible sounds that indicate" the selected program, which the patent describes as coded beeps, can be construed to cover the "vocal feedback" alleged in the complaint. For the ’634 and ’272 patents, a key question is whether a single physical control that uses different press durations for different functions meets the claim language of a single "switching device" operating in distinct "modes."
- Technical Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations that the accused devices contain internal components like a digital-to-analog converter, amplifier, and transducer because they are "inherent" to such devices. A point of contention may be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to prove the existence and operation of these specific claimed components within the accused products.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "audible sounds that indicate...which...program is currently selected" (’968 Patent, cl. 23)
- Context and Importance: This limitation is critical for infringement of the ’968 Patent. The dispute may turn on whether the accused product's "vocal feedback" (Compl. ¶25) falls within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language uses the general term "audible sounds," which is not explicitly limited. Plaintiff may argue that spoken words are a form of "audible sounds" and directly "indicate" the selected program, thus falling within the plain meaning of the claim.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the indicator as a series of beeps corresponding to the program number (e.g., "the device 10 generates two beeps...to indicate to the selection of the second program") (’968 Patent, col. 8:12-14). Defendant may argue this consistent description of a specific beep-based system limits the claim scope to such a system, excluding the allegedly more advanced "vocal feedback."
- The Term: "switching device" (’634 Patent, cl. 20)
- Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the infringement theories for both the ’634 and ’272 patents, which claim a single control for multiple functions. Practitioners may focus on this term because the case hinges on whether a single button using different press durations (short vs. long) constitutes the claimed "switching device" that operates in both a "program switching mode" and a "volume control mode."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes user controls generally, such as "a push button control" and "volume-up/down" controls, without rigidly defining their physical form or integration. (’634 Patent, col. 15:42-44). Plaintiff may argue this supports construing "switching device" broadly to cover any user-operable electronic switch that accomplishes the claimed functions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An embodiment described in the specification and depicted in Figure 11 shows a distinct push button (28) for program selection and a separate scroll wheel (34a) for volume control. (’634 Patent, Fig. 11; col. 6:4-10). Defendant may argue that this separation of controls in a disclosed embodiment suggests that the claim's requirement for a single device performing both functions is a specific configuration that should be construed narrowly.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing customers with instructions, product manuals, and marketing materials that instruct and encourage users to operate the DefendEar Devices in an infringing manner (e.g., using the controls to switch modes and adjust volume) (Compl. ¶¶48, 56, 63). The complaint supports this by citing to and providing images from the accused products' user manuals.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of all three patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged knowledge of the patents as of February 27, 2025, due to a notice letter from Plaintiff, and Defendant's continued alleged infringement after that date (Compl. ¶¶44, 52, 60, 67).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may depend on the court’s determination of the following key questions:
- A core issue will be one of functional consolidation: does the accused product's single control button, which distinguishes function based on the duration of a press ("short press" vs. "long press"), meet the '634 patent's requirement for a single "switching device" that operates in distinct "program switching" and "volume control" modes?
- A second central question will be one of definitional scope: can the term "audible sounds that indicate" from the '968 patent, which is described in the specification as a system of coded beeps, be construed broadly enough to read on the "vocal feedback" allegedly provided by the accused devices?
- Finally, an evidentiary question will be whether the Plaintiff can substantiate its conclusory allegations that the accused devices contain specific internal components (e.g., digital-to-analog converters, amplifiers) that are claimed in the patents but are only alleged to be "inherent" in the complaint.