DCT

1:24-cv-00339

RecepTrexx LLC v. Sonos Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00339, D. Del., 07/29/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has an established place of business in the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s audio products infringe a patent related to technology for temporarily reducing audio volume to an intermediate "hush" level, distinct from a full mute.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns user interface controls for audio equipment, specifically providing a single-action method to lower volume for brief interruptions without completely silencing the audio.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events relevant to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-01-09 '652 Patent Priority Date
2006-03-14 '652 Patent Issue Date
2024-07-29 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the "annoying" problem of "overbearing loudness" from television commercials and station breaks, and the awkwardness of either fully muting the audio (and potentially missing the program's return) or manually adjusting the volume down and then back up (Compl. ¶9; ’652 Patent, col. 1:8-18, 1:40-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "HUSH" control function that, upon a single command, "abruptly" lowers the audio to a preset intermediate level—louder than mute but quieter than the normal listening volume. This allows a user to conduct a conversation while still being able to audibly detect when a commercial break ends, at which point another command can instantly restore the original volume (’652 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:21-32). Patent Figure 1 illustrates a system diagram including a remote controller, a television receiver, and level control circuitry for implementing normal, hush, and mute volume levels (’652 Patent, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology claims to offer a more convenient and less disruptive user experience for managing audio volume on entertainment devices compared to traditional volume and mute controls (’652 Patent, col. 7:20-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of one or more "Exemplary '652 Patent Claims" without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Method):
    • Establishing an entertainment apparatus to deliver a "first preferred volume level."
    • Defining a "mute level" where sound is substantially silenced.
    • Presetting the apparatus to fixate a "first HUSH level" intermediate between the normal and mute levels.
    • Remotely controlling the apparatus to select one of these levels (normal, mute, or HUSH).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" sold by Sonos, Inc. (Compl. ¶11). Specific product models are not identified in the body of the complaint but are referenced as being detailed in an attached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the accused products practice the technology claimed in the ’652 Patent by satisfying all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16).
  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality of the accused products or their market context beyond the general allegation of infringement.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that claim charts comparing the asserted claims to the accused products are provided in Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16, 17). However, this exhibit was not available for this analysis. The complaint’s narrative theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '652 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '652 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Without the charts, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Based on the patent’s language and the general nature of the accused products, the infringement analysis may raise several questions.
    • Technical Questions: What specific feature in the accused Sonos products corresponds to the "HUSH level" as defined in the patent? What evidence demonstrates that this feature operates as a distinct, preset level intermediate between a normal volume and a full mute, as opposed to a standard volume adjustment?
    • Scope Questions: Claim 7, an independent claim, describes automatically establishing the HUSH level in response to "a change in tuning of the entertainment apparatus." A potential question is whether modern, streaming-based audio systems perform "tuning" in a manner consistent with the term's use in the patent, which appears to contemplate broadcast channel changes (’652 Patent, col. 8:31-42).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "presetting the entertainment apparatus to fixate a first HUSH level" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's novelty, distinguishing it from simple volume reduction. The dispute may turn on whether the accused products "fixate" a specific, predetermined intermediate level or merely allow for general volume adjustment. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define whether any temporary volume reduction functionality infringes, or only a specific implementation that involves a pre-saved, discrete state.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the HUSH level simply as a "moderated second (presettable HUSH) level," which could suggest any user-selected lower volume qualifies (’652 Patent, col. 5:29-32).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a "setup mode" for storing a "desired volume level as a setting for the HUSH level," implying a specific, saved state rather than a dynamic adjustment (’652 Patent, col. 18:8-12). The use of the word "fixate" in the claim itself suggests a locked-in or non-transient value.

  • The Term: "first remotely controlling the entertainment apparatus to presently establish one of a plurality of selectable levels" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the user action that triggers the inventive function. The analysis will likely question whether a standard volume-down button press on a Sonos controller constitutes "remotely controlling" to "establish" the HUSH level, or if the claim requires a dedicated, single-function command that directly selects the preset HUSH state.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses using existing buttons in new combinations (e.g., "1+MUTE") to trigger the HUSH function, which could support an argument that standard hardware can perform the claimed control step (’652 Patent, col. 7:15-19).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes the desirability of a "distinctively separate HUSH keybutton" that provides an "immediate lowering of the volume," contrasting it with the "conventional volume-lowering method" of multiple button presses (’652 Patent, col. 7:31-40, 7:9-15).

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 infringes the ’652 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint bases its willfulness allegation on Defendant's continued infringement despite having "actual knowledge" of the patent, with such knowledge established by the service of the complaint and its attached claim charts (Compl. ¶13, 14, 15). This alleges post-filing willfulness.

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

  1. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: does the term "HUSH level," as defined and claimed in the patent, read on the functionality of the accused Sonos products? The court will need to determine if merely lowering the volume qualifies, or if the claims require a specific, "fixated," and preset intermediate state that is distinct from standard volume controls.
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mapping: Plaintiff must demonstrate how the accused products, which operate in a modern streaming ecosystem, meet claim limitations drafted in the context of 2003-era television receivers. This is particularly relevant for limitations such as "change in tuning" (Claim 7) and the specific hardware and software architecture that "presets" and "fixates" the claimed volume levels.