Balor Audio LLC v. Ableton Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Balor Audio LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Ableton, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Ferraiuoli LLC
• Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01284, D. Del., 08/21/2018
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and is therefore a resident of the district. The complaint also alleges Defendant conducts substantial business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s audio software infringes a patent related to methods and systems for automatically generating an audio signal of a user-selected length from a library of pre-defined audio components.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the automated creation of custom-length audio tracks, a common need in consumer and professional video editing, by assembling pre-composed musical sequences to fit a target duration.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies the accused product as the "Pro Tools" system, a product associated with a different company (Avid Technology). However, the complaint's supporting citations and technical descriptions refer to Defendant Ableton's website and reference manuals for its "Live" software, raising a question of fact regarding the identity of the instrumentality that will likely need to be clarified or amended.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,649,891 - Audio Signal Generator, Method of Generating an Audio Signal, and Computer Program for Generating an Audio Signal, Issued Feb. 11, 2014

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the process of creating a custom-length audio track (e.g., for a video) as a "tedious task" for users (’891 Patent, col. 1:31-35). Manually cutting existing audio files can sound "strange from a musical point of view," while prior automated methods that assemble very short audio "blocks" are described as computationally demanding and can lead to unnatural, repetitive-sounding results (’891 Patent, col. 1:35-38; col. 2:21-36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses a database of longer, "pre-defined sequences" of audio samples, which have been preferably composed by a sound designer to be musically coherent and serially combinable with each other (’891 Patent, col. 2:49-53). A processor receives a target length from the user and then constructs the final audio signal by selecting and connecting these pre-defined sequences according to a "construction algorithm" designed to match the target length while minimizing the number of sequences used (’891 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-49). This approach aims to be more efficient and produce a higher-quality musical output than block-by-block assembly (’891 Patent, col. 3:6-16).
• Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a way for users without musical expertise to automatically generate a musically pleasing audio track of a specific, arbitrary length, which is a common requirement in multimedia editing applications (’891 Patent, col. 1:10-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 12 (method) (Compl. ¶32).
• Independent Claim 1 recites an audio signal generator comprising:
  • A database with information on a "plurality of different pre-defined sequences of audio samples," where each sequence has an order and a duration, and each underlying audio sample is identifiable with an ID.
  • A database interface.
  • A processor for constructing the audio signal by "serially connecting the pre-defined sequences" using a "construction algorithm."
  • The algorithm is defined to "acquire a collection of pre-defined sequences" where the "combined duration" is "as close as possible to the selected length" and the "number of pre-defined sequences in the resulting collection...[is] minimum."
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶15).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names the "Pro Tools" system as the "Accused Instrumentality" (Compl. ¶17, ¶24). However, all technical evidence cited, including hyperlinks and reference manual citations, points to Defendant's "Ableton Live" software product (Compl. ¶17 n.1, n.2; ¶24 n.8, n.9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentality is software that "enables users to generate an audio signal by recording, editing and mixing audio sequences (including loops, previously recorded audio, and other audio samples)" (Compl. ¶17). It is alleged to provide a "library of audio sequences" and use a "Live graphical user interface" through which users can arrange audio samples and specify a length for the overall audio signal (Compl. ¶18, ¶19, ¶21). The complaint does not provide specific allegations regarding the product's market positioning beyond describing it as an audio product for "individuals and businesses" (Compl. ¶17).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’891 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that user-selected "loops" and "previously recorded audio" function as the claimed "pre-defined sequences" (Compl. ¶18). This raises the question of whether the term "pre-defined sequence," as used in the patent, encompasses any user-selected audio clip, or if it is limited to the musically pre-composed and curated sequences described in the specification's preferred embodiments (’891 Patent, col. 2:49-53).
• Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires a "construction algorithm" that minimizes the "number of pre-defined sequences" used. The complaint alleges the accused product uses an algorithm for "repeating the selected loops" to match a target length (Compl. ¶21). A key technical question will be whether an algorithm that primarily repeats a user's selection satisfies the claim limitation of selecting from a "plurality of different" sequences to explicitly minimize the count of those sequences, as opposed to simply filling time.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "construction algorithm to acquire a collection of pre-defined sequences...a number of pre-defined sequences in the resulting collection of pre-defined sequences being minimum"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's logic for automatically building the audio track. The infringement analysis may turn on whether the accused product's method for filling a user-specified duration meets this two-part "as close as possible" and "minimum number" requirement. Practitioners may focus on the "minimum" limitation, as the complaint's allegation centers on "repeating" loops (Compl. ¶21), which may not be functionally equivalent to an algorithm that selects from a library of different-length sequences with the goal of using the fewest possible pieces.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the exact steps of the algorithm, which could support an argument that any process achieving the stated goals of matching length and minimizing sequence count infringes.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific "greedy" algorithm as a preferred embodiment, where the system first uses as many of the longest available sequences as possible before moving to shorter ones, a process that inherently minimizes the number of sequences used (’891 Patent, FIG. 3; col. 6:38-50). The explicit description of this logic could be used to argue for a narrower construction tied to this type of optimization.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "actively induc[es] its respective customers, users, and/or licensees to directly infringe" by selling and advertising the Accused Instrumentality with the intent that customers use its infringing features (Compl. ¶42).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not pleaded as a standalone count. However, the complaint alleges Defendant has had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint," which provides a basis for alleging post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶33, ¶41).

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

1. Definitional Scope: A core issue will be whether a user-selected "loop" in the accused software constitutes a "pre-defined sequence" within the meaning of the patent. The case may turn on if the term requires the specific musical pre-composition and inter-compatibility emphasized in the patent's specification or if it can be construed more broadly to cover any discrete audio clip from a library.
2. Functional Equivalence: A central evidentiary question will be whether the accused product's alleged function of "repeating... selected loops" to match a target duration performs the same function as the claimed "construction algorithm" that must minimize the number of sequences used. The court will need to determine if there is a fundamental mismatch between the alleged functionality and this specific claim limitation.
3. Factual Clarity: The complaint's apparent misidentification of the accused product by name ("Pro Tools") while providing evidence related to a different product ("Ableton Live") creates a factual ambiguity. While likely correctable, the resolution of this discrepancy is a necessary preliminary step for the litigation to proceed on its technical and legal merits.