DCT
1:25-cv-00712
Earin Ab v. Skullcandy Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Earin AB (Sweden)
- Defendant: Skullcandy, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00712, D. Del., 06/06/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendant Skullcandy is incorporated in the District of Delaware.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Dime Evo True Wireless Earbuds, which feature a cylindrical charging case, infringe a patent related to a storage and charging capsule for wireless earbuds.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the mechanical design of charging cases for wireless earbuds, a key product feature in the highly competitive consumer audio market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint states that neither the Plaintiff nor its licensees have ever made, sold, or imported into the United States any article that practices any claim of the patent-in-suit. This allegation is likely intended to preemptively address potential defenses related to patent marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), which can limit pre-suit damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-09-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,967,645 Priority Date |
| 2015-10-06 | Plaintiff Earin AB launches its M-1 earbuds product |
| 2018-05-08 | U.S. Patent No. 9,967,645 Issues |
| 2025-06-06 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,967,645, “Charging of Wireless Earbuds,” issued May 8, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the design of accessories for the growing market of wireless earbuds, where characteristics like physical size and convenience are important for consumers ('645 Patent, col. 1:21-33). The implicit problem is the need for a compact and user-friendly way to store and charge these small devices.
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a "storage and charging capsule" with a distinct cylindrical, tube-like form factor. It comprises a base, an "elongate intermediate part" with a chamber to hold a pair of earbuds "arranged one after another along the longitudinal major axis," and a "cover part being retractable over the intermediate part" ('645 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:57-64). This axial arrangement allows for a slimmer profile compared to cases where earbuds are placed side-by-side.
- Technical Importance: The design focuses on creating a compact and portable charging solution, which is a significant factor for user convenience and product differentiation in the consumer electronics space ('645 Patent, col. 1:30-31).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint’s allegations focus on independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶21, 23).
- Claim 1 requires:
- A storage and charging capsule for a pair of wireless earbuds, comprising:
- a base part;
- an elongate intermediate part having a longitudinal major axis;
- a cover part being retractable over the intermediate part;
- wherein the intermediate part has a first end attached to the base part, a second end, and an earbud chamber adapted to receive the pair of wireless earbuds arranged one after another along the longitudinal major axis; and
- a power source for charging the earbuds when placed in the chamber.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Skullcandy Dime Evo True Wireless Earbuds" and their associated storage and charging case (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the Accused Products include a storage and charging capsule with a "long retractable case which slides back to reveal a storage chamber where the wireless earbuds are placed one after the other along the longitudinal axis" (Compl. ¶2). The complaint provides an image of the Dime Evo product, showing a cylindrical case and two earbuds (Compl. p. 5).
- The case is alleged to contain a "rechargeable power source" capable of charging the earbuds, providing a total of 36 hours of listening time (Compl. ¶27). Annotated images from the complaint are used to identify the specific components of the accused case alleged to meet the claim limitations (Compl. p. 6-7).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'645 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a base part | The Accused Products are alleged to include a base part. An annotated image identifies this feature on the accused device (Compl. p. 6). | ¶25 | col. 2:57 |
| an elongate intermediate part, the intermediate part having a longitudinal major axis | The Accused Products are alleged to include an elongate intermediate part with a longitudinal axis. An annotated image identifies this feature (Compl. p. 6). | ¶25 | col. 2:57-58 |
| a cover part being retractable over the intermediate part | The Accused Products are alleged to have a retractable cover part. An annotated image identifies this feature (Compl. p. 6). | ¶25 | col. 2:58-59 |
| wherein the intermediate part has a first end attached to the base part, a second end, and an earbud chamber... adapted to receive the pair of wireless earbuds arranged one after another along the longitudinal major axis... | The Accused Products are alleged to have a case with an earbud chamber that accepts earbuds "one after another along the longitudinal major axis." An annotated image illustrates this arrangement (Compl. p. 7). | ¶26 | col. 2:59-64 |
| wherein the capsule further has a power source for charging the pair of wireless earbuds when placed in the earbud chamber... | The Accused Products are alleged to have a "rechargeable power source inside the storage and charging case" that provides power to the earbuds. | ¶27 | col. 1:50-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The complaint's infringement theory relies on annotated product photos. A primary question will be whether the internal structure of the accused case, once revealed in discovery, contains distinct "base part" and "intermediate part" components that are "attached" as claimed, or if it uses a different construction (e.g., a monolithic or two-part sliding shell) that may not map onto the claim's elements.
- Technical Questions: The patent specification describes an embodiment where earbuds are placed "'nose to nose'" ('645 Patent, col. 4:6-7). The complaint alleges the earbuds are arranged "one after another" (Compl. ¶26). A factual question will be whether the specific orientation of the earbuds in the accused Dime Evo case falls within the scope of the claim language, and whether Defendant will argue that the "nose to nose" description in the specification limits the claim's scope.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "retractable over the intermediate part"
Context and Importance: This term defines the primary mechanical action of opening and closing the case. The viability of the infringement claim depends on the accused product’s sliding mechanism meeting this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific nature of the sliding or retracting action is a core feature of both the patent and the accused product.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the action in general terms: "the cover part 26 can be placed in a first, or open, position in which the cover part 26 is retracted by a user from the intermediate part 24" ('645 Patent, col. 3:7-9). This language could support a broad definition covering any user action that pulls or slides the cover away to expose the chamber.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict a specific embodiment where an outer cylindrical sleeve (26) slides over a stationary inner body (24) that is fixed to a base (22) ('645 Patent, Figs. 1-3). A party could argue the term should be limited to this "sleeve-over-core" configuration shown in the drawings.
The Term: "arranged one after another"
Context and Importance: This phrase describes the spatial relationship of the earbuds within the case, which is the key to the invention's compact, longitudinal form factor. Infringement hinges on the accused product having this specific arrangement.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general and could be read to mean any sequential or end-to-end placement along the specified axis. The complaint's visual evidence shows the earbuds in a line, which could align with a broader reading (Compl. p. 7).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a more specific example, stating the earbuds "are to be placed 'nose to nose' in the earbud chamber" ('645 Patent, col. 4:6-7). A party could argue that this is the intended, and therefore limiting, meaning of "arranged one after another."
VI. Other Allegations
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect or willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of structural interpretation: Does the accused product's case, which appears to be a two-piece sliding assembly, actually comprise the three distinct structural elements required by claim 1—a "base part," an "intermediate part" attached to it, and a "cover part" that retracts over the intermediate part? The case may turn on whether the product's construction can be mapped onto the claim's more complex, three-part architecture.
- A second key question will involve definitional scope: Can the general claim term "arranged one after another" be limited by the more specific "nose to nose" orientation described in the patent's preferred embodiment? The court's construction of this term will be critical in determining whether the alignment of the earbuds in the Skullcandy product infringes.