RecepTrexx LLC v. Signify North America Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Signify North America Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00777, D. Del., 07/17/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and maintains an established place of business in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified entertainment equipment products infringe a patent related to a method for temporarily reducing audio volume to a preset, intermediate "hush" level.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns user interface controls for audio-visual equipment, specifically providing an alternative to fully muting or manually lowering volume in multiple steps.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,012,652, "Audio hush for entertainment equipment and particularly television receivers," issued March 14, 2006. (Compl. ¶8, ¶9).

U.S. Patent No. 7,012,652 - Audio hush for entertainment equipment and particularly television receivers

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the "overbearing loudness" of audio from entertainment equipment, particularly during television commercials, as a key problem. (’652 Patent, col. 1:8-14). It notes that the conventional "mute" function is a blunt instrument, as it completely blocks the audio, preventing a viewer from noticing when a commercial break has ended. ('652 Patent, col. 1:19-27). Manually lowering the volume with standard controls is described as "cumbersome and annoying." ('652 Patent, col. 1:40-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "HUSH" control function that, upon a single user action, "instantly" reduces the audio to a "preset limited level" that is intermediate between the normal listening volume and a full mute. ('652 Patent, col. 2:52-58). This allows a user to "keep an ear" tuned to the program while having a conversation or avoiding loud commercials, without losing all audio cues. ('652 Patent, col. 1:35-39). The system, depicted in Figure 1, uses a remote controller (10) to send a command to a level control circuit (36) within the television, which then selects the preset "hush" audio level (42-2). ('652 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 12:4-8).
• Technical Importance: The invention offers a one-touch method for partial quieting, which is presented as a more satisfactory user experience than either complete silence (mute) or the multi-step process of manually lowering and then restoring volume. ('652 Patent, col. 7:17-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the '652 Patent without specifying them. (Compl. ¶11). The following analysis focuses on representative independent claim 1.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • An audio level reduction method comprising steps of:
  • establishing the entertainment apparatus to deliver a first preferred volume level of sound reproduction;
  • defining a mute level where the sound reproduction is substantially silenced;
  • presetting the entertainment apparatus to fixate a first HUSH level as a second preferred volume level intermediate between the first preferred volume level and mute; and,
  • first remotely controlling the entertainment apparatus to presently establish one of a plurality of selectable levels of sound reproduction including at least the first preferred volume level, the mute level and the first HUSH level.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not specifically name any accused products in its main body. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are allegedly identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality. It alleges generally that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '652 Patent." (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" to support its infringement allegations, but this exhibit was not provided with the publicly filed document. (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). The body of the complaint itself contains only conclusory allegations of infringement. It states that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" infringe the "'652 Patent Claims" literally or under the doctrine of equivalents and that these products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '652 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations detailing how any particular feature of a Defendant product meets any specific claim limitation.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "HUSH level"

  • Context and Importance: This is a patentee-coined term that is central to the asserted claims. Its construction will determine what type of low-volume functionality in an accused product can be said to infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case hinges on whether a defendant's standard low-volume or volume-limiting features meet the specific definition of a "HUSH level."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself defines the term broadly as "a second preferred volume level intermediate between the first preferred volume level and mute." ('652 Patent, col. 17:9-12). This suggests any preset volume level between normal and mute could qualify.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the HUSH function as a distinct, selectable mode, initiated by a single "simplified keybutton activity" and intended to be an alternative to the MUTE function. ('652 Patent, col. 7:20-27). A defendant could argue that to be a "HUSH level," the audio level must be part of a discrete "hush mode" and not just any point along a standard volume continuum. The use of a dedicated "HUSH keybutton" (16) in embodiments like Figure 1 may support a narrower construction. ('652 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 7:31-33).

• The Term: "first remotely controlling the entertainment apparatus to presently establish one of a plurality of selectable levels"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the user action that triggers infringement. The dispute will likely concern whether this requires a single, discrete command to select the "HUSH level," or if any sequence of remote commands that results in an intermediate volume setting (e.g., pressing "volume down" multiple times) meets the limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is general, referring to "remotely controlling" to "establish" a level. This could arguably encompass any remote-initiated action that achieves the result.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes the "one button" or "simplified keybutton activity" nature of the invention, which "instantly" reduces the volume, as a key advantage over the "cumbersome" prior art method of gradual reduction. ('652 Patent, col. 2:52-58; col. 5:24-32). This could support an interpretation requiring a single command that directly selects the preset HUSH level, rather than a series of incremental adjustments.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶14). The knowledge element is pleaded as arising "at least since being served by this Complaint." (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" based on the service of the complaint and its attached (but un-filed) claim charts. (Compl. ¶13). This appears to form the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness. (Compl. ¶15).

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

1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: Will the patentee-coined term "HUSH level" be construed broadly to cover any pre-settable, intermediate audio level, or will it be limited more narrowly to a discrete, named "hush mode" that is explicitly presented to the user as an alternative to "mute," as depicted in the patent's specific embodiments?
2. A second core question will relate to infringing action: Does the claim limitation "remotely controlling... to presently establish" a HUSH level require a single, direct user command, or can it be met by the multi-step, incremental volume reduction that the patent specification identifies as a problem the invention sought to overcome?
3. The primary evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations, the case will depend on discovery to determine the precise functionality of the accused products' volume controls and whether that functionality can be mapped to the court's construction of the claim terms, particularly given the reliance on the un-filed claim charts in Exhibit 2.