DCT
1:18-cv-01285
Balor Audio LLC v. Bandlab USA Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Balor Audio LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: BandLab Singapore Pte. Ltd. d/b/a BandLab Technologies (Singapore); BandLab U.S.A., Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Ferraiuoli LLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01285, D. Del., 10/29/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant BandLab U.S.A. is a Delaware corporation and thus a resident of the district, and Defendant BandLab Singapore is a foreign defendant.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Cakewalk by Bandlab (SONAR)" digital audio software infringes a patent related to methods and systems for automatically generating an audio signal of a user-selected length by combining pre-defined musical sequences.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the field of digital audio workstations (DAWs), specifically addressing the automated creation of custom-length musical tracks from a library of loops or samples.
- Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is a First Amended Complaint. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-08-28 | ’891 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-02-11 | ’891 Patent Issued |
| 2018-10-29 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: 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 February 11, 2014 (the "’891 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty for users, particularly in multimedia editing, to create a background audio track that precisely matches a desired length (e.g., the length of a video). Manually cutting audio samples can be tedious and often results in a low-quality, musically awkward final product ('891 Patent, col. 1:21-35). Prior automated systems that combined very short audio blocks were computationally intensive and inflexible ('891 Patent, col. 2:11-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses a library of longer, musically-coherent "pre-defined sequences" of audio samples, which are preferably composed by a sound designer to be serially combinable ('891 Patent, col. 2:45-55). A processor receives a target length from the user and then executes a "construction algorithm" to select and serially connect a collection of these sequences. The algorithm aims to create a final audio signal whose duration is "as close as possible to the selected length" while using a "minimum" number of sequences ('891 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-49).
- Technical Importance: This method automates the musically-aware composition of custom-length audio tracks, simplifying the process for users who lack the time or skill for manual audio editing ('891 Patent, col. 1:43-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (an audio signal generator system) and 12 (a method of generating an audio signal) (Compl. ¶40).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A database comprising information on a plurality of different pre-defined sequences of audio samples, including an order and duration for each sequence.
- A database interface for accessing the database.
- A processor for constructing the audio signal by serially connecting the pre-defined sequences.
- The processor uses a "construction algorithm" to acquire a collection of sequences where the combined duration is "as close as possible to the selected length."
- The algorithm also ensures that "a number of pre-defined sequences in the resulting collection of pre-defined sequences being minimum."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Cakewalk by Bandlab (SONAR)" system (the "Accused Instrumentality") (Compl. ¶25).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the Accused Instrumentality as a digital audio workstation software that enables users to record, edit, and mix audio, including using pre-defined "loops, previously recorded audio, and other audio samples" from a library to generate audio mixes (Compl. ¶¶25-26). It is alleged that users can specify a length for an overall audio signal and that the software provides functionality for "repeating the selected loops such that the combined duration of the loop tracks is as close as possible to the length of the overall audio signal" (Compl. ¶29). The complaint does not contain allegations regarding the product's specific market position or commercial importance.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’891 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a database comprising information on a plurality of different pre-defined sequences of audio samples, a sample being an audio signal comprising a time duration larger than one second, each pre-defined sequence...comprising at least two audio samples, the information for a pre-defined sequence comprising an order of the audio samples...and a duration... | The Accused Instrumentality provides a library of audio sequences (including loops and other samples), where each sequence comprises at least two audio samples, each sample is longer than one second, and the information includes the order of samples. | ¶26 | col. 12:10-24 |
| a database interface for accessing the database; | The Accused Instrumentality provides a graphical user interface (GUI) to access the database of audio tracks, sequences, and loops. | ¶28 | col. 12:25-26 |
| a processor for constructing the audio signal by serially connecting the pre-defined sequences using the information on the duration of each pre-defined sequence in accordance with a construction algorithm to acquire a collection of pre-defined sequences...a combined duration of the collection...being as close as possible to the selected length, a number of pre-defined sequences in the resulting collection...being minimum... | Users specify a length for the audio signal, and the software uses a "construction algorithm for repeating the selected loops" to create a track whose combined duration is "as close as possible" to the user-specified length. The complaint also alleges the number of sequences is minimum. | ¶29 | col. 12:27-39 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the user-driven action of "repeating the selected loops" as described in the complaint (Compl. ¶29) meets the claim requirement of a "processor for constructing the audio signal" that acquires a collection of sequences. The patent's description suggests a more automated process where the processor itself selects the sequences from a library ('891 Patent, col. 6:38-50), raising the question of whether a feature that primarily repeats a user's single selection falls within the claim's scope.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on whether the accused SONAR software employs a "construction algorithm" that satisfies the claim's specific two-part optimization: 1) achieving a duration "as close as possible" to the target, and 2) using a "minimum" number of sequences. The complaint asserts this dual functionality (Compl. ¶29), but the provided citations to a user guide may be scrutinized to determine if they provide sufficient evidentiary support for this specific algorithmic behavior, as opposed to a simpler loop-repetition function.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "construction algorithm"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core intelligence of the claimed invention. The specific functions and constraints of this algorithm will be central to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will determine whether a simple loop-repetition tool infringes, or if the claim is limited to a more sophisticated, multi-sequence selection process.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of Claim 1 does not specify the inner workings of the algorithm, only its inputs (duration information) and its dual-objective output (close duration, minimum sequences). This may support an interpretation covering any process achieving that result.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment of the algorithm that involves iteratively selecting the longest available sequences first to fill the target duration ('891 Patent, FIG. 3; col. 6:38-50). A party might argue this detailed disclosure limits the term to this type of "greedy" algorithm.
The Term: "a number of pre-defined sequences in the resulting collection... being minimum"
- Context and Importance: This limitation imposes a specific optimization constraint on the "construction algorithm". The infringement case may depend on whether the accused product's algorithm is proven to actively minimize the number of sequences used.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff could argue this means the algorithm avoids using an unnecessarily large number of sequences, rather than requiring a strict, mathematically provable minimum, which might be commercially impractical.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language uses the word "minimum" without qualification. A defendant could argue this requires the algorithm to produce a collection with the absolute fewest possible sequences, and that any algorithm prioritizing other factors (like musical variation over minimizing sequence count) would not meet this limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The factual basis is that Defendants sell, offer for sale, and advertise the Accused Instrumentality through websites and digital platforms, allegedly intending for customers to use the infringing features (Compl. ¶50). The complaint also references a user's guide, which may be presented as evidence of instructions that encourage infringing use (Compl. ¶25, fn. 2).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an allegation of willful infringement. It alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the ’891 Patent "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶¶41, 49), which supports a claim for enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement but does not allege pre-suit knowledge required for a typical willfulness claim.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of algorithmic functionality: does the accused SONAR software’s function for generating audio of a specific length embody the specific two-part "construction algorithm" required by Claim 1, which mandates optimizing for both proximity to a target duration and the use of a "minimum" number of sequences? The case may turn on evidence demonstrating how the accused software actually selects and arranges audio loops.
- Another key question will be one of claim scope and automation: does the claimed "processor for constructing the audio signal" cover a system where a human user is primarily responsible for selecting and arranging audio loops, or is the claim limited to a more automated system where the processor itself autonomously selects a collection of different, pre-defined sequences from a library to meet the user's objective, as depicted in the patent’s preferred embodiments?