RecepTrexx LLC v. Magic Leap Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Magic Leap, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00340, D. Del., 03/15/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated there, has an established place of business in the district, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to methods for temporarily reducing the audio volume of entertainment equipment to a preset "hush" level.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns user interface controls for audio-visual equipment, specifically addressing the common problem of overly loud commercials or the need for a temporary, partial reduction in volume.
• Key Procedural History: No prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history is mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the "overbearing loudness" of audio from entertainment equipment, particularly during commercials and station breaks, as a key problem (Compl. Ex. 1, '652 Patent, col. 1:7-14). It further notes that completely muting the audio is often a poor solution, as it prevents the user from noticing when the desired program has resumed and can be disruptive in a social setting ('652 Patent, col. 1:17-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "HUSH" control function that, upon a single command, "abruptly" reduces the audio volume to a preset, intermediate level that is quieter than normal but not fully silent ('652 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:52-58). This allows a user to conduct a conversation or avoid loud commercials while still being able to discern the audio content, and then quickly return to the normal volume level ('652 Patent, col. 7:20-29). The patent also describes automatically invoking this "HUSH" mode upon a channel change to prevent a new channel from "booming-in" unexpectedly ('652 Patent, col. 2:1-12).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a one-touch solution for partial audio reduction, framed as a more convenient and functional alternative to either fully muting the sound or manually adjusting the volume up and down in multiple steps ('652 Patent, col. 7:5-19).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify any specific independent or dependent claims asserted against the Defendant (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). It states that the "Exemplary '652 Patent Claims" are identified in an attached Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the complaint document.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products, methods, or services in the body of the document (Compl. ¶11). It refers to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" as being identified in Exhibit 2, which was not provided.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement via claim charts in Exhibit 2, which was not provided (Compl. ¶16-17). Therefore, a detailed infringement analysis based on the complaint is not possible. The narrative alleges that Defendant directly infringes by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products and by having its employees "internally test and use these Exemplary Products" (Compl. ¶11-12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Because the complaint does not specify which claims of the '652 Patent are asserted, an analysis of key claim terms for construction is not feasible based on the provided document.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that since the date of its filing, Defendant has induced infringement by "selling Exemplary Defendant Products to their customers for use... in a manner that infringes" and by distributing "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint and its attached (but unprovided) claim charts "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). This forms the basis for a willfulness claim based on Defendant's alleged continued infringement after receiving notice of the lawsuit.

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

The complaint, by relying on an external exhibit not included with the filing, leaves the central factual bases for the dispute undefined. Consequently, the initial phase of litigation will likely focus on establishing the answers to several fundamental questions:

1. A primary question of identification: Which specific Magic Leap products, services, or technologies are the "Exemplary Defendant Products," and what are their precise audio control functionalities?
2. A core issue of claim scope: Which specific claims of the '652 Patent does RecepTrexx assert, and how do the elements of those claims purportedly map onto the accused products?
3. An underlying evidentiary question of infringement: Once the asserted claims and accused products are identified, does the accused functionality—which may involve modern, software-driven audio processing—perform the specific steps of the claimed method, such as establishing a "HUSH level" that is "intermediate between the first preferred volume level and mute" as defined in the patent (e.g., '652 Patent, Claim 1)?