Patent Armory Inc v. Voxx Electronics Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Premium Audio Company LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01021, D. Del., 10/24/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant’s audio products infringe a patent related to phased array sound systems that create localized, targeted audio zones.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using a large array of speakers, each with a calculated time delay, to constructively interfere sound waves at a specific point, creating a private "sound spotlight" audible only to a listener in that location.
• Key Procedural History: The filed document is a First Amended Complaint, but no other procedural history, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent, is mentioned.

Case Timeline

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

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

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 7,130,430, issued October 31, 2006 (the "'430 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a "cost-effective system for providing sound which can only be heard in a localized region" so that multiple listeners in the same room can receive unique audio input without using headphones (ʼ430 Patent, col. 2:6-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention uses an array of speakers where each speaker transmits sound from a common audio source, but with a specific time delay. The delay for each speaker is calculated based on its distance to a desired focal point, or "target." This ensures that the sound waves from all speakers arrive at the target simultaneously and in-phase, creating a zone of constructive interference where the sound is clearly audible, while remaining much quieter elsewhere (ʼ430 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:14-37). The system uses a computer to digitize the audio, store it in memory, and apply the correct delays for each speaker in the array (ʼ430 Patent, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This technique allows for the creation of private audio zones in public or shared spaces, such as providing exhibit-specific narration to patrons in a museum or enabling private conversations in an open-office environment (ʼ430 Patent, col. 3:51-60; col. 13:5-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, referring generally to "one or more claims" and the "Exemplary '430 Patent Claims" identified in an attached exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, and 16 are available for assertion.
• Independent claim 16 is a representative system claim, requiring:
  • A first audio source;
  • A central processing unit;
  • An array of speakers in fixed relation to one another;
  • A first stack of data registers maintained by the central processing unit to store samples from the audio source; and
  • A first pointer array maintained by the central processing unit, with pointers corresponding to each speaker and pointing to the data register with the necessary time delay to cause sound to reach a localized region simultaneously.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific products in its main body, referring to them as the "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts incorporated as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide any specific details regarding the technical functionality or operation of the accused products. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '430 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No allegations are made regarding the products' specific market context or commercial importance.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references infringement claim charts in an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not provided for this analysis (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The narrative infringement theory is sparse. The complaint alleges that the Defendant directly infringes the ’430 Patent by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products (Compl. ¶11). It further alleges direct infringement occurs when Defendant's employees "internally test and use" the products (Compl. ¶12). The complaint asserts that the products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '430 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16), but provides no element-by-element factual support in the body of the complaint itself.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: The central issue will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that the accused products actually perform the functions recited in the claims. A key question will be what evidence supports the allegation that the products use a "pointer array" to select delayed audio samples for each speaker, as required by claim 16.
• Technical Questions: A potential dispute may arise over how the accused products achieve sound localization. The court will have to determine if the accused method for calculating and applying signal delays is the same as, or equivalent to, the specific "stack of data registers" and "pointer array" architecture recited in claims like claim 16.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"central processing unit" (from claim 16)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term will be critical for determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused products could use distributed processors, an integrated System-on-a-Chip (SoC), or a specialized Digital Signal Processor (DSP) rather than a traditional "central processing unit." The outcome may depend on whether the term is construed broadly to cover any processing hardware or narrowly to mean a specific type of processor architecture.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not further define the term, which may suggest it should be given its ordinary meaning in the art, potentially encompassing various types of processing circuitry capable of performing the recited functions.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the tested embodiment discloses a specific architecture using a "DSP card" in an "IBM PC clone" to perform the processing, which could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to a more conventional computer-based system ('430 Patent, col. 8:36-43; col. 9:3-6).

"pointer array" (from claim 16)

• Context and Importance: This term describes a specific data structure for implementing the time delays. The infringement analysis for claim 16 hinges on whether the accused products use this specific software implementation or merely a functionally similar one.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "pointer array" should be construed functionally to cover any data structure that maps a speaker to a corresponding delay value, even if not implemented as a literal array of memory pointers.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed description of this element as a "matrix of memory pointers" where each pointer "points to a specific address within the delay line" ('430 Patent, col. 9:23-28). This specific disclosure could support an argument that the term is not a generic placeholder for any delay mechanism but is limited to the particular data structure described.

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 a manner that allegedly infringes the '430 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15).

Willful Infringement

The willfulness allegation is based on a theory of post-filing knowledge. The complaint alleges that the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts provided Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement," and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim scope: Can the implementation-specific terms of claim 16, such as "central processing unit" and "pointer array," be construed broadly to cover modern audio processing architectures, or are they limited by the patent's disclosure to the specific PC-based DSP card and memory pointer implementation that was tested and described?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Given the complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations, the case will depend on whether discovery yields evidence that the accused products practice the precise method of storing audio samples in data registers and using a "pointer array" to retrieve them with calculated delays, as required by the patent's system claims.