DCT

1:23-cv-01245

Zaxcom Inc v. Rode Microphones LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01245, D. Del., 11/14/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant RODE Microphones, LLC is a Delaware corporation, and its parent company, Defendant Freedman Electronics Pty Ltd., is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district through its subsidiary and by committing acts of infringement, including importing and selling products within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Wireless Go II and Wireless Pro microphone systems infringe seven U.S. patents related to virtual wireless multitrack audio recording and methods for repairing remotely recorded audio data.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses data loss in wireless audio transmissions by enabling simultaneous local recording on a body-pack transmitter and remote recording at a receiver, a critical function for reliability in professional film, television, and sports production.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendants with pre-suit notice of infringement on at least three separate occasions. A first letter was allegedly sent on March 26, 2021, identifying infringement by the Rode Go II product and listing five of the patents-in-suit. A second letter was allegedly sent on August 25, 2023, identifying infringement by the Rode Pro product and adding a sixth patent-in-suit. Notice of the seventh patent-in-suit was allegedly provided via email on August 14, 2024. This history forms the primary basis for the complaint's allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-07-14 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
2010-05-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443 Issued
2011-04-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,929,902 Issued
2013-02-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,385,814 Issued
2016-05-10 U.S. Patent No. 9,336,307 Issued
2019-04-30 U.S. Patent No. 10,276,207 Issued
2021-03-26 First pre-suit notice letter allegedly sent to Defendants
2023-03-21 U.S. Patent No. 11,610,605 Issued
2023-08-25 Second pre-suit notice letter allegedly sent to Defendants
2024-07-30 U.S. Patent No. 12,051,444 Issued
2024-08-14 Notice of '444 Patent allegedly sent to Defendants
2024-11-14 Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,711,443 - "VIRTUAL WIRELESS MULTITRACK RECORDING SYSTEM"

Issued May 4, 2010

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the problem of wireless audio transmission errors, such as dropouts and interference, which result in lost or corrupted audio data that cannot be corrected even by systems with redundant receiver circuits (’443 Patent, col. 2:11-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where each performer is equipped with a "local audio device" that both wirelessly transmits audio to a master recorder and simultaneously records the same audio locally to an internal memory (’443 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:56-65). This locally stored, time-stamped audio serves as a perfect backup that can be used to electronically repair any data lost during the wireless transmission, ensuring a complete and error-free final recording (’443 Patent, col. 4:15-28).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a robust fail-safe against the inherent unreliability of RF transmissions, a significant concern in professional environments where capturing a unique performance without data loss is critical (’443 Patent, col. 2:11-27).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 22.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A system for recording locally generated audio.
    • A master timecode generator for generating master timecodes.
    • At least one local audio device wearable by a creator of the audio, which includes a local audio device receiver for receiving master timecodes, an audio input port, a memory, and a control unit for creating and storing local audio data.
    • The local audio data includes stamped and unstamped data, where the stamped data includes a timestamp referencing a master timecode.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (’443 Patent, Claims 1, 22; Compl. ¶ 51).

U.S. Patent No. 7,929,902 - "VIRTUAL WIRELESS MULTITRACK RECORDING SYSTEM"

Issued April 19, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent, a continuation-in-part of the ’443 patent, addresses the same fundamental problem of data loss in wireless audio recording (’902 Patent, col. 2:2-6).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’902 patent further details the architecture of the local audio device, introducing a "local timecode generator" within the device itself (’902 Patent, Abstract). This local generator can be synchronized with a master timecode ("jam sync"), allowing the local device to continue generating accurate timestamps even if the connection to the master timecode source is temporarily lost (’902 Patent, col. 10:55-64). This enhances the robustness of the system by ensuring the local recording maintains timecode integrity independently.
  • Technical Importance: The inclusion of a local, synchronizable timecode generator provides greater autonomy and reliability for the individual recording units, reducing the system's dependence on a constant, error-free connection to a master clock (’902 Patent, col. 11:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 16.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 16 include:
    • A method of wirelessly recording local audio.
    • Locally receiving audio generated by a performer.
    • Wirelessly transmitting the audio to a receiver or recorder.
    • Locally recording the audio as local audio data in a memory of a wearable local audio device.
    • Remotely recording the transmitted audio as remote audio data.
    • Retrieving a portion of the local audio data and combining it with the remote audio data.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (’902 Patent, Claim 16; Compl. ¶ 65).

Multi-Patent Capsules for Additional Patents-in-Suit

U.S. Patent No. 8,385,814 - "VIRTUAL WIRELESS MULTITRACK RECORDING SYSTEM"

Issued February 26, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent continues the technical disclosure of the '443 and '902 patents, focusing on systems and methods for remotely controlling functions of the local audio devices, such as adjusting microphone gain, and for creating and managing timestamped audio files that can be used for post-production repair (Compl. ¶ 39; '814 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶ 79).
  • Accused Features: The accused Rode Go II and Rode Pro products are alleged to embody the claimed systems for recording timestamped audio locally on a transmitter while wirelessly sending it to a receiver (Compl. ¶ 75).

U.S. Patent No. 9,336,307 - "VIRTUAL WIRELESS MULTITRACK RECORDING SYSTEM"

Issued May 10, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent further develops the system, describing methods for remotely controlling the local audio devices and using a multi-memory unit to facilitate the manipulation and processing of audio files from multiple local recorders for post-production synchronization and repair ('307 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 15 and 23 are asserted (Compl. ¶ 93).
  • Accused Features: The accused Rode Go II and Rode Pro products are alleged to infringe by implementing the claimed methods of recording and transmitting audio for subsequent repair and synchronization (Compl. ¶ 89).

U.S. Patent No. 10,276,207 - "VIRTUAL WIRELESS MULTITRACK RECORDING SYSTEM"

Issued April 30, 2019

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses methods for dynamically adjusting the power level of a local audio device based on the recording status of a master recorder, aiming to conserve power and reduce RF interference ('207 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 17, 59, 66, and 91 are asserted (Compl. ¶ 107).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Rode Go II and Rode Pro products practice the claimed methods for creating and managing locally recorded audio files that are synchronized with remotely transmitted audio (Compl. ¶ 103).

U.S. Patent No. 11,610,605 - "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REPAIRING REMOTELY RECORDED AUDIO DATA"

Issued March 21, 2023

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses specifically on the methods for repairing corrupted remote recordings by retrieving the corresponding clean audio data from the local recorder's memory ('605 Patent, Abstract). It claims the process of combining the locally stored audio with the remotely recorded audio data to create a complete, error-free file.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 16 are asserted (Compl. ¶ 121).
  • Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to provide the necessary components (local recording transmitters, remote receiver) that enable users to perform the claimed repair methods (Compl. ¶¶ 117-118).

U.S. Patent No. 12,051,444 - "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR REPAIRING REMOTELY RECORDED AUDIO DATA"

Issued July 30, 2024

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation, this patent refines the claims around the system and method for repairing remotely recorded audio, detailing the roles of the local audio device, remote receiver, and the timecodes used to synchronize and combine the local and remote data streams ('444 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 13, and 28 are asserted (Compl. ¶ 135).
  • Accused Features: The Rode Go II and Rode Pro systems are alleged to infringe by providing the apparatus that allows users to create and combine locally and remotely recorded audio data as claimed (Compl. ¶ 131).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the "Rode Go II Dual Channel Wireless Microphone System" (“Rode Go II”) and the "Wireless Pro Dual-Channel Wireless Microphone System" (“Rode Pro”) (Compl. ¶ 20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes the accused products as wireless microphone systems that each include two transmitters and one receiver (Compl. ¶¶ 42-43). The central functionality alleged to be infringing is the capability of the transmitter units to record audio data locally onto an internal memory while simultaneously transmitting that audio wirelessly to the receiver (Compl. ¶ 39). The complaint alleges these products are marketed to compete directly with Plaintiff's own transmitter products (Compl. ¶ 41). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts attached as Exhibit O, which was not provided. Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in narrative form.

'443 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Rode Go II and Rode Pro systems meet the limitations of the asserted claims, including claim 1, by providing a "local audio device" (the transmitter) that is wearable, receives audio, and stores it locally in a memory (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 48, 51). It is alleged that these systems operate in a manner that creates timestamped local audio files that can be used to supplement or repair a main recording made at the receiver, thereby embodying the claimed invention (Compl. ¶ 39). The combination of the Rode transmitters and receiver with third-party components like cameras and smartphones is alleged to form the infringing "system" (Compl. ¶ 50).

'902 Patent Infringement Allegations

The infringement theory for the ’902 Patent is similar, focusing on the accused products' alleged practice of the claimed methods (Compl. ¶ 61). The complaint alleges that by providing systems capable of simultaneous local recording and remote transmission, Defendants directly infringe and also induce their customers to perform the claimed method of retrieving the local audio to repair or "combine" it with the remotely recorded audio, particularly through instructional videos and user manuals (Compl. ¶¶ 62-63).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the term "system for recording," as claimed in the patents, requires the components to be used for the explicit purpose of data repair, or if merely providing a "backup recording" feature on a transmitter is sufficient. The court may need to determine if the claims require a functional integration for data repair or simply a collection of components with certain capabilities.
  • Technical Questions: A key question will concern the nature of the "timecode" or "timestamp" used by the accused products. The patents describe synchronization with a "master timecode," often a professional standard like SMPTE. The analysis may turn on whether the accused products' internal clock and metadata meet the claim limitations for a "master timecode reference" and "synchronization," or if there is a technical distinction that places them outside the claim scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "local audio device"

('443 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core component of the invention. Its construction will determine whether the accused Rode transmitters fall within the scope of the claims. Defendants may argue for a narrow construction limited to the specific embodiments shown, while Plaintiff may advocate for a broader definition covering any wearable device with the claimed recording and transmitting functionality.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the device functionally as being "in the form of body-packs, such as those typically worn by news announcers, performers, and the like," suggesting the term is not limited to a specific structure but to a class of devices used in the industry (’443 Patent, col. 7:60-64).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed figures and corresponding descriptions show a specific configuration of a body-pack with particular inputs, outputs, and controls (’443 Patent, Fig. 3A, 3B). A party could argue these details limit the scope of the term to devices with a similar architecture.

Term: "synchronize their clocks to the master time code reference"

('902 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the patents' solution for ensuring that locally recorded audio can be seamlessly integrated with remotely recorded audio. The dispute will likely focus on the required degree and method of synchronization.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification speaks generally of synchronization ensuring that timestamps are "highly accurate as compared to the timestamps created by all other components," which could support a functional definition rather than requiring a specific protocol (’902 Patent, col. 4:8-12).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly references the industry-standard SMPTE timecode as an exemplary "master time reference signal” (’902 Patent, col. 5:61-63). This could support an argument that the term requires synchronization with a formal, external timecode standard, potentially excluding systems that only synchronize to a proprietary clock signal from the receiver.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants provide "free educational videos... and published on YouTube instructing users," as well as user guides and support manuals, that allegedly encourage and instruct customers to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 62-63). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the Rode products are not staple goods, have no substantial non-infringing use when used as intended with cameras or smartphones, and are a material part of the patented combination (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 64).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendants' alleged knowledge of the patents following multiple pre-suit notice letters. The first letter, dated March 26, 2021, allegedly provided notice regarding the Rode Go II product, and a second letter on August 25, 2023, provided notice regarding the Rode Pro product and an additional patent (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 54, 57). A third notice regarding the most recent patent was allegedly sent on August 14, 2024 (Compl. ¶ 139).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical and functional scope: Do the claims, which describe a system for creating time-synchronized local recordings for the purpose of repairing wireless dropouts, read on the accused Rode products, which may be characterized as providing a more general "backup recording" feature? The case may turn on whether the accused products' timestamping and file management capabilities meet the specific "synchronization" and "timecode" limitations recited in the patents.
  • A second central question will be one of willfulness: Given the complaint’s allegations of multiple, specific pre-suit notice letters dating back to March 2021, a key focus for the litigation will be whether Defendants can establish that they held an objectively reasonable belief that they did not infringe valid patents, a high bar that will be critical to determining eligibility for enhanced damages.
  • Finally, a key evidentiary question will relate to infringement of the method claims: What proof will be required to show that the accused products are actually used by customers to perform the claimed steps of "combining" or "repairing" remote audio with local audio, and to what extent are Defendants' instructional materials sufficient to prove inducement of those steps?