DCT
1:18-cv-11662
Balor Audio LLC v. Avid Technology Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Balor Audio LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Avid Technology, Inc. (Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ferraiuoli LLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-11662, D. Mass., 08/07/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that Defendant is a resident of the District of Massachusetts.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Pro Tools" digital audio workstation software infringes a patent related to the automated generation of an audio signal of a user-selected length from a collection of pre-defined audio sequences.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses automated audio track creation for digital media, a key function in software used for music production, film scoring, and video post-production.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-08-28 | U.S. Patent No. 8,649,891 Priority Date |
| 2014-02-11 | U.S. Patent No. 8,649,891 Issued |
| 2018-08-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,649,891 - "Audio Signal Generator, Method of Generating an Audio Signal, and Computer Program for Generating an Audio Signal"
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,649,891 ("the ’891 Patent"), "Audio Signal Generator, Method of Generating an Audio Signal, and Computer Program for Generating an Audio Signal," issued on February 11, 2014. (Compl. ¶13).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the process of creating a custom-length audio track for a video as a "tedious task" for users, often resulting in a "low quality audio signal from a musical perspective" when audio files are manually cut or concatenated. (’891 Patent, col. 1:30-45).
- The Patented Solution: The invention automates this process using a system that accesses a database of pre-defined, musically compatible "sequences" of audio samples. A user inputs a desired length, and a processor executes a "construction algorithm" to select and serially connect these sequences to build a final audio track. The algorithm's goal is to match the desired length as closely as possible while using a minimum number of the pre-defined sequences, thereby preserving musical quality. (’891 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-49; Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to allow users, particularly non-experts in audio editing, to easily generate high-quality, length-specific soundtracks for media projects, which was an improvement over manual and often musically dissonant editing techniques. (’891 Patent, col. 2:43-53).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (an apparatus claim) and 12 (a method claim). (Compl. ¶32).
- Independent Claim 1 recites an audio signal generator comprising, in essence:
- A database containing information on a plurality of "pre-defined sequences of audio samples," where each sequence has a defined order and duration.
- A database interface.
- A processor that uses a "construction algorithm" to construct an audio signal by serially connecting sequences from the database.
- The algorithm acquires a collection of sequences whose combined duration is "as close as possible to the selected length" and where the "number of pre-defined sequences in the resulting collection" is "minimum."
- Independent Claim 12 recites a method for generating an audio signal that mirrors the functionality of the apparatus in Claim 1, comprising the steps of accessing the database and constructing the audio signal using the same algorithmic constraints.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
Defendant's "Pro Tools" system. (Compl. ¶17).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Pro Tools system enables users to generate an audio signal of a selected length by "recording, editing and mixing audio sequences (including loops, previously recorded audio, and other audio samples)." (Compl. ¶17).
- The system is alleged to provide a "Region List of audio sequences" for users to assemble into audio mixes. (Compl. ¶18).
- Plaintiff alleges that when users specify a length for an overall audio signal, the Pro Tools software "uses a construction algorithm for repeating the selected loops such that the combined duration of the loop tracks is as close as possible to the length of the overall audio signal." (Compl. ¶21).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’891 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a database comprising information on a plurality of different pre-defined sequences of audio samples, a sample being an audio signal comprising a time duration larger than one second, each pre-defined sequence...comprising at least two audio samples... | The Pro Tools "Region List," which allegedly contains audio sequences such as loops, previously recorded audio, and other audio samples for users to generate mixes. | ¶18 | col. 4:53-61 |
| a processor for constructing the audio signal by serially connecting the pre-defined sequences using the information on the duration of each pre-defined sequence in accordance with a construction algorithm... | The Pro Tools software, which allegedly allows users to construct an audio signal by importing, arranging, and mixing the predefined audio samples stored in the Region List. | ¶21, ¶22 | col. 4:40-49 |
| ...to acquire a collection of pre-defined sequences representing the audio signal a combined duration of the collection of pre-defined sequences being as close as possible to the selected length, a number of pre-defined sequences in the resulting collection of pre-defined sequences being minimum... | The software allegedly uses a "construction algorithm for repeating the selected loops" to match a user-specified length for the overall audio signal. | ¶21 | col. 6:30-37 |
| wherein the processor is operative to serially connect the collection of the pre-defined sequences of audio sample IDs for rendering or for generating or storing the audio signal... | Users of Pro Tools allegedly construct an audio signal by arranging and mixing predefined audio samples, including loops, stored in the Region List. | ¶22 | col. 8:1-5 |
Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "Region List" in Pro Tools, which the complaint describes as containing user-recorded audio and other samples (Compl. ¶17), meets the claim requirement for "pre-defined sequences." The ’891 Patent specification suggests these sequences are preferably curated by a "sound designer" to be musically compatible with each other (’891 Patent, col. 2:50-60), which may raise a dispute over whether a list of user-generated clips qualifies.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement of the "construction algorithm" limitation based on a feature for "repeating the selected loops" (Compl. ¶21). This raises the technical question of whether this function performs the two-part optimization required by the claim: 1) getting "as close as possible to the selected length" and 2) using a "minimum" number of sequences. The patent describes a greedy algorithm that selects from sequences of varying lengths (’891 Patent, Fig. 3), which may be functionally different from a simple loop-repeating tool.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: 'pre-defined sequences'
- Context and Importance: The interpretation of this term is critical to determining if the accused Pro Tools "Region List" falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s emphasis on curated, musically-matched sequences appears to contrast with the more general-purpose nature of a user's clip list in a digital audio workstation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a sequence as "a collection of a selected number of different audio samples or audio tracks" (’891 Patent, col. 2:46-49), language which could be argued to encompass a user-managed list of audio clips.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly states that "the sound sequences are created by a sound designer" and are "predefined so that each sequence matches with each of the other sequences" to provide "high flexibility for finally constructing the audio signal" (’891 Patent, col. 2:58-64), suggesting a purpose-built, harmonically compatible library rather than an arbitrary collection of clips.
The Term: 'construction algorithm'
- Context and Importance: The infringement analysis depends on whether the accused "loop repeating" functionality (Compl. ¶21) is equivalent to the claimed "construction algorithm." The outcome will depend on how narrowly the algorithm's two-part optimization function is construed.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language defines the algorithm by its function: acquiring a collection of sequences with a combined duration "as close as possible to the selected length" and with a "minimum" number of sequences. An argument could be made that any software routine that achieves this functional outcome would satisfy the limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific embodiment of the algorithm in Figure 3, which involves a greedy, step-wise process of selecting from the longest available sequences first, then the next-longest, and so on, to fill the target duration (’891 Patent, col. 6:38-50). A court could be asked to limit the claim term to this disclosed algorithm or its technical equivalents, which may not read on a simple loop repeater.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "sells, offers to sell and advertises the Accused Instrumentality...specifically intending that its customers use it." (Compl. ¶42). The alleged knowledge element is based on the filing of the complaint itself. (Compl. ¶41).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests "enhanced damages...pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285." (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e). The factual allegations only assert knowledge of the ’891 patent "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶33), which would only support a claim for post-suit, not pre-suit, willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case may turn on two central questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term 'pre-defined sequences', which the patent describes in the context of a curated, musically-compatible library, be construed to cover the "Region List" in the accused Pro Tools software, which may contain arbitrary user-generated audio clips?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: Does the accused "loop repeating" feature perform the specific, two-part logical optimization required by the claimed 'construction algorithm'—simultaneously matching a target length and minimizing the number of distinct sequences—or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?