Patent Armory Inc v. Holoplot Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Holoplot Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00825, D. Del., 07/31/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and maintains an established place of business in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s phased array sound systems infringe a patent related to technology for creating localized regions of audible sound.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that use an array of speakers with individually calculated time delays to focus sound waves, creating an "audio spotlight" effect where sound is clearly audible in a specific zone but not elsewhere.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,130,430 - "Phased array sound system"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,130,430, "Phased array sound system", issued October 31, 2006.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a cost-effective system that can produce sound audible only in a localized region, allowing multiple listeners in the same room to receive unique audio input without headphones ("430 Patent, col. 2:7-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention uses an array of speakers fed by a single audio source. Each speaker transmits the sound with a specific time delay, which is calculated based on the distance between that speaker and a selected target point. This ensures that the sound waves from all speakers arrive at the target point at the same moment and constructively interfere, creating a focused region of significantly increased audio volume. Outside this target region, the out-of-phase sounds do not constructively add and are substantially quieter or unintelligible ("430 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-38). The patent illustrates this concept in a museum setting, where different visitors can hear separate audio descriptions for different exhibits simultaneously ("430 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technique allows for the creation of targeted audio zones in open spaces, a method sometimes referred to as "sound beaming," which has applications in public venues, advertising, and private audio systems ("430 Patent, col. 13:3-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify any specific claims asserted against the Defendant ("430 Patent, ¶11). It refers to "Exemplary '430 Patent Claims" detailed in an "Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the complaint and is therefore not available for analysis ("430 Patent, ¶16-17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not specifically name any accused products. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within the unattached Exhibit 2 ("430 Patent, ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '430 Patent" ("430 Patent, ¶16). It provides no specific details on the functionality or market context of the accused products beyond this general allegation.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim-chart exhibit (Exhibit 2) that is not provided. The infringement theory is summarized in prose below, and no claim-chart table can be constructed.

The complaint’s infringement theory is that unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology of the "430 Patent (Compl. ¶16). It alleges that these products directly infringe by being made, used, sold, or imported by Defendant, and also by being used internally for testing by Defendant's employees (Compl. ¶11-12). The complaint asserts that these products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '430 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: As no specific claims are asserted, a primary point of contention will be which claims Plaintiff ultimately asserts and how their terms are construed by the court.
  • Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the technical method by which Defendant's products create localized sound—specifically how they calculate and apply time delays to individual speaker elements—falls within the scope of the method defined by the asserted claims of the "430 Patent. The factual evidence supporting how Defendant's systems operate will be critical.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As the complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims, no analysis of key claim terms for construction is possible.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that since the filing of the suit, Defendant has acted with knowledge by continuing to sell the accused products and distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct customers on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that Defendant's continued infringement despite this knowledge supports a claim for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, which is requested in the prayer for relief (Compl. ¶14; Prayer for Relief ¶D).

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

• A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: once the asserted claims and accused products are specified, a key question will be whether discovery produces evidence sufficient to demonstrate that the accused products' method of operation meets each limitation of the asserted claims.
• The case may turn on a question of technical scope: assuming infringement is proven, the dispute will likely focus on whether the specific implementation of phased-array audio used by Defendant—particularly its method for calculating and applying time delays to speaker elements—is merely a modern implementation of the patented concept or if it represents a distinct, non-infringing technology.
• A central legal question will be the construction of claim terms: the outcome will heavily depend on how the court defines the boundaries of key terms within the yet-to-be-identified asserted claims, which will determine whether the accused systems fall within the patent's scope.