DCT

1:09-cv-11439

Bose Corp v. SDI Technologies

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:09-cv-11439, D. Mass., 08/28/2009
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged on the basis that each defendant resides in the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ remote-controlled speaker systems, designed for use with MP3 players, infringe a patent related to interactive sound reproduction systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the integration of personal computer and digital-file-based audio sources with traditional speaker and radio systems, a key market development during the popularization of MP3 players.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patent, forming the basis for a willfulness claim. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the asserted patent underwent inter partes reexamination, which concluded on May 11, 2016, with the cancellation of all claims (1-43). The cancellation of all asserted claims is a dispositive event for an infringement action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-10-12 U.S. Patent No. 7,277,765 Priority Date
2007-10-02 U.S. Patent No. 7,277,765 Issue Date
2008-12-01 Alleged earliest knowledge by SDI and Imation
2009-01-01 Alleged earliest knowledge by DPI
2009-08-28 Complaint Filing Date
2016-05-11 Reexamination Certificate Date (All claims cancelled)

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,277,765 - "Interactive Sound Reproducing" (Issued Oct. 2, 2007)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes an invention relating to "interactive sound reproducing" from a variety of modern digital and traditional analog sources, including computer CD drives, network radio stations, broadcast radio, and locally stored digital files (e.g., MP3s) (’765 Patent, col. 1:15-19). The implicit problem is the lack of a single, integrated system to conveniently access and control these disparate audio sources.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system combining a sound reproduction device (e.g., a unit with a powered speaker and radio tuner) with an external "audio source device" (described as a computer) (’765 Patent, Abstract). The core of the solution is that the sound reproduction device includes control buttons, or can receive signals from a remote control, that allow a user to control functions of the connected audio source device, such as selecting and playing music files stored on the computer (’765 Patent, col. 2:25-35, col. 4:22-31). This creates a unified interface where a traditional-style audio product can command a computer-based music library.
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to bridge the user experience gap between conventional home audio electronics and the then-emerging ecosystem of PC-based digital music libraries.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims, alleging infringement of the patent generally. Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An "audio source device" (e.g., a computer) with a storage device for music files containing metadata and a display for a user interface that organizes files by that metadata.
    • An "enclosure" (e.g., a speaker unit) containing a powered speaker and an interface to couple with the audio source device.
    • "Control circuitry" within the enclosure for receiving control signals.
    • A "remote control" that produces a "first control signal" to control an operation of the audio source device, which is received by the enclosure's control circuitry and then "transmitted to the audio source device via the interface."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are various models of "remote-controlled speaker systems for coupling to MP3 music players" (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 22, 28). These are sold under multiple brands, including SDI's "iHome," Imation's "Memorex" and "XtremeMac," and DPI's "GPX," "iLive," and "Zlive" (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 22, 28).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the products as consumer electronics that function as speaker docks for MP3 players (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 22, 28). The core functionality alleged to be infringing is the combination of a speaker system with a remote control that interacts with a docked music player. The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operational mechanics of the accused products.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a high-level, notice-style pleading and does not contain element-by-element infringement allegations or a claim chart. The infringement theory must be inferred from the general description of the accused products as "remote-controlled speaker systems for coupling to MP3 music players" (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 22, 28). The implied allegation is that the combination of a defendant's speaker dock, a user's MP3 player, and the system's remote control together meet the limitations of the asserted claims. For instance, the MP3 player would correspond to the "audio source device," the speaker dock to the "enclosure," and the remote to the "remote control" of claim 1.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the court would be whether an "MP3 music player" falls within the scope of the claimed "audio source device." The patent specification predominantly describes this element as a personal computer (PC) with components like a CPU, RAM, and network card (’765 Patent, FIG. 1; col. 4:41-59). The infringement case appears to depend on construing this term to cover a portable music player.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires that a control signal be received by the enclosure's circuitry and then "transmitted to the audio source device via the interface." The complaint does not provide any factual detail or evidence as to how, or if, the accused speaker docks perform this specific function of relaying a command to a docked MP3 player. Establishing this signal transmission path would be a critical evidentiary burden for the plaintiff.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "audio source device"

Context and Importance

This term's definition is critical, as the patent’s main embodiment describes a "Computer system (PC)" (’765 Patent, col. 4:41-42), while the infringement allegations target systems using MP3 players. The outcome of the case could turn on whether a portable MP3 player is considered an "audio source device" under the patent.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself defines the device functionally as comprising a "storage device" and a "display for displaying a user interface," features present in many MP3 players of the era (’765 Patent, col. 12:4-12).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term should be limited to the context provided by the specification, which consistently refers to a "computer system 20" with a "bus 22 which interconnects various computer system components" such as a CPU, RAM, CD player, and network interface card (’765 Patent, col. 4:41-59).

The Term: "transmitted to the audio source device via the interface"

Context and Importance

This phrase describes the core interactive function. Infringement requires not just that the remote controls the system, but that the signal is specifically received by the speaker enclosure and then passed through to the docked device. Practitioners may focus on this term because it requires a specific technical mechanism that the complaint does not evidence.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim does not specify the protocol or method of transmission, potentially allowing for any form of electronic communication through a docking connector to satisfy the limitation (’765 Patent, col. 12:21-23).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a detailed "interface unit 54" with logic circuitry, D/A converters, and distinct signal paths (’765 Patent, FIG. 3; col. 4:5-8). A defendant might argue this detailed disclosure limits the scope of the "interface" to something more complex than a simple electrical pass-through.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes conclusory allegations of contributory and induced infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 23, 29). It does not, however, plead specific facts to support these claims, such as referencing user manuals or advertising that allegedly instruct users to perform the claimed steps.

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’765 Patent. The complaint asserts that SDI and Imation have known of the patent "since at least December, 2008" and that DPI has known of it "since at least January 2009" (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 24, 30).

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

The procedural history of the asserted patent is the single most critical factor in this dispute. The subsequent cancellation of all claims during inter partes reexamination effectively terminates any basis for an infringement claim.

Assuming the patent had remained valid, the case would likely have centered on two key questions:

  1. A core issue would be one of definitional scope: can the term "audio source device", which is detailed in the patent specification as a personal computer, be construed broadly enough to read on the portable MP3 players used with the accused speaker dock systems?

  2. A key evidentiary question would be one of technical operation: does the complaint, and any subsequent discovery, provide evidence that the accused products perform the specific function required by claim 1—namely, that the speaker enclosure itself receives a remote command and then actively "transmits" that command to the docked MP3 player to control it?