RecepTrexx LLC v. Sound United LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Sound United, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-03200, D.N.J., 03/15/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because the Defendant maintains an established place of business in the district, has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s entertainment equipment infringes a patent related to a specialized audio control feature that reduces volume to a preset, intermediate "hush" level.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses user interface controls for home entertainment systems, offering a more nuanced method for managing audio during interruptions than the conventional binary options of full volume or complete silence.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit’s specification distinguishes its claimed invention—an entertainment device with a special signal receiver—from a prior art patent by the same inventor that described a specially adapted remote controller. This distinction may be relevant to arguments concerning the state of the art and claim scope.

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," issued March 14, 2006

• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the "overbearing loudness" of television commercials and station breaks as a primary annoyance for viewers (ʼ652 Patent, col. 1:11-15). It notes that conventional "mute" functions are a suboptimal solution, as they prevent the user from hearing when a desired program resumes and are unhelpful for parallel activities, like a phone call, where a user might want to "keep an ear" on the program (ʼ652 Patent, col. 1:20-25, 1:36-41). Manually lowering volume via standard controls is described as "cumbersome and annoying" (ʼ652 Patent, col. 1:47-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a "HUSH" control function that, upon a single command, "abruptly" reduces the audio volume to a preset intermediate level that is neither full volume nor fully silent (ʼ652 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:27-31). This allows a user to notice when a program's audio changes (e.g., a commercial ends) or to conduct a conversation without completely silencing the entertainment device (ʼ652 Patent, Abstract). The patent describes an entertainment apparatus, such as a television, with a command receiver specifically engineered to recognize a unique HUSH command, distinguishing this approach from prior art focused on special remote controllers that simulated the effect by sending multiple "volume down" signals (ʼ652 Patent, col. 4:36-44).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide a more sophisticated and user-friendly solution to a common problem in home entertainment, moving beyond the simple on/off paradigm of traditional mute controls (ʼ652 Patent, col. 5:10-19).
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint does not identify specific claims, instead referencing "Exemplary '652 Patent Claims" in a non-provided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology.
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • establishing the entertainment apparatus to deliver a first preferred volume level of sound reproduction;
    • defining a mute level where the sound reproduction is substantially silenced;
    • presetting the entertainment apparatus to fixate a first HUSH level as a second preferred volume level intermediate between the first preferred volume level and mute; and,
    • first remotely controlling the entertainment apparatus to presently establish one of a plurality of selectable levels of sound reproduction including at least the first preferred volume level, the mute level and the first HUSH level.
  • The complaint notes that infringement is alleged for "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not name specific accused products in its main body, instead referring to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts within Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' functionality. It alleges generally that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '652 Patent" and that they are sold by the Defendant (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from Exhibit 2, which is not publicly available (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be provided. The narrative of the complaint alleges that Defendant's products directly infringe the ’652 Patent by practicing the claimed technology (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). The core of the infringement theory appears to be that Defendant's audio entertainment products include a feature functionally equivalent to the claimed "HUSH" mode, whereby a user can trigger an immediate reduction in volume to a preset, lowered level that is distinct from a full mute.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be the interpretation of "presetting the entertainment apparatus to fixate a first HUSH level." It is unclear whether this requires a user-configurable preset level, which is described as a preferred embodiment in the specification (ʼ652 Patent, col. 2:21-27), or if a non-adjustable, factory-defined level would satisfy the limitation as recited in the broader claims.
  • Technical Questions: The patent distinguishes the invention (a device receiving a unique HUSH command) from prior art (a remote sending multiple VOL-DOWN signals) (ʼ652 Patent, col. 4:1-12). A key factual question will be how the accused systems technically operate. Does the accused receiver respond to a single, unique command to enter a reduced-volume state, or does its functionality rely on a different mechanism that may fall outside the scope of the claims?

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 critical for defining the scope of infringement. The dispute will likely focus on whether an infringing device must allow the user to define and store the HUSH level, or if a fixed, unchangeable factory setting is sufficient. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either narrow the patent's applicability to more advanced systems or broaden it to cover a wider range of devices with simpler audio-ducking features.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself does not specify how the presetting or fixation must occur. The term "fixate" could be argued to mean simply "to make stable," which could encompass a factory-set level.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes user convenience, stating that "the capability for presetting the HUSH level preferably should be convenient for the user to accomplish and to change from time-to-time" (ʼ652 Patent, col. 2:21-24). Dependent claim 6 explicitly recites a "HUSH level setup mode" for a user to adjust and store the level, which could be used to argue that "presetting" implies user interaction (ʼ652 Patent, col. 18:7-14).
• The Term: "intermediate" (from Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: The HUSH level must be "intermediate" between the normal volume and mute. This term's definition is key to determining if a feature that significantly, but not completely, lowers volume infringes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Abstract describes the HUSH level functionally as being "just loud enough to telltale a viewer when a program content change occurs." This suggests any audible level below normal that is not "substantially silenced" could be considered "intermediate."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures graphically depict the "HUSH" level as a distinct state between "NORMAL" and nil or "MUTE" (e.g., ’652 Patent, Fig. 2, levels 72-1, 72-2, 72-3). This visual depiction could support an argument that the level must be meaningfully separated from both the upper and lower bounds, not merely a level that is negligibly above mute.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’652 Patent (Compl. ¶14). The claim is based on knowledge gained "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it alleges that service of the complaint constitutes "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringement despite this knowledge entitles Plaintiff to damages (Compl. ¶13, ¶14, ¶18). This pleading structure sets up a basis for seeking enhanced damages for post-complaint conduct.

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

• A central issue will be one of claim construction: does the limitation "presetting the entertainment apparatus to fixate a first HUSH level" require a user-configurable setting, as detailed in preferred embodiments, or can it be read more broadly to cover devices with a single, factory-set reduced volume level?
• The case will also present a key evidentiary question of technical operation: assuming the complaint's allegations are substantiated with evidence, does the accused functionality operate by receiving a unique command at the entertainment device as the patent appears to require, or by another method that may place it outside the bounds of the asserted claims?
• A third question will be one of infringement evidence: given that the complaint’s specific factual allegations are contained entirely within a non-provided exhibit, a threshold issue will be whether the Plaintiff can produce sufficient technical evidence to demonstrate that the accused products' features meet every limitation of the asserted claims.