Patent Armory Inc v. Boss Audio Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Boss Audio, Inc. (New Jersey)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Antranig Garibian; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-03973, D.N.J., 07/25/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant is incorporated in New Jersey and maintains an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s audio products infringe a patent related to phased array sound systems that create localized zones of audible sound.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that use an array of speakers and precise time delays to focus sound at specific points, allowing different listeners in the same space to hear different audio without headphones.
• 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

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,130,430 - "Phased array sound system"

The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent No. 7,130,430, issued October 31, 2006 (the “'430 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a cost-effective system to produce sound that is audible only in a localized region, enabling multiple listeners in the same room to receive unique audio input without using headphones (Compl. ¶9; ’430 Patent, col. 2:6-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention uses an array of speakers fed from a single audio source. The key innovation is that the signal sent to each speaker is delayed by a specific amount. This delay is calculated based on the speaker's distance to a selected "target" point in space. By timing the signals so that the sound waves from all speakers arrive at the target simultaneously, they constructively interfere, creating a zone of significantly increased volume at the target while remaining quiet elsewhere (’430 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:14-36). This concept is illustrated in a museum setting where different patrons hear descriptions of different art pieces (’430 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for creating "private" audio zones in public or shared spaces, a significant departure from traditional broadcast audio systems (’430 Patent, col. 3:15-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the ’430 Patent but does not identify specific claims in the body of the complaint, instead referring to "Exemplary '430 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A speaker system for producing localized regions of sound comprising:
  • a multiplicity of audio frequency speakers;
  • at least one defined sound target spaced from each of the speakers;
  • wherein each speaker has a means for applying a time varying audio drive voltage which is substantially identical, except that each audio drive voltage is offset in time by an amount which is related to the distance between each speaker and the defined sound target;
  • so that substantially identical sound from each speaker reaches the sound target at the same time.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts incorporated as Exhibit 2, which was not publicly filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’430 Patent (Compl. ¶16). It states that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these products, and provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on their use (Compl. ¶¶11, 14). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market positioning. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct and indirect infringement but relies on claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" to detail its infringement theory (Compl. ¶¶11, 16-17). As the charts are not available, a tabular analysis cannot be performed.

The narrative theory of infringement alleges that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). The complaint states that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, selling, and testing these products (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The basis for these allegations is contained within the unprovided Exhibit 2, which purportedly includes "charts comparing the Exemplary ’430 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶16).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A primary question for the court will be whether the factual evidence, once presented, demonstrates that the accused products' operation maps onto the specific claim limitations, particularly the requirement of applying calculated time offsets to signals for multiple speakers to create a localized "sound target."
  • Technical Question: Does the accused system's functionality achieve sound localization through the specific mechanism of time-delayed constructive interference as claimed, or does it use an alternative acoustic method? The complaint's lack of technical detail on the accused products leaves this as a central open question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "sound target" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The existence and definition of a "sound target" is a prerequisite for infringement. The construction of this term will determine whether the accused products, which may simply create a general sound field, can be found to create the specific, focused regions of sound required by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims refer to a "defined sound target spaced from each of the speakers," which could be argued to cover any region where sound is intended to be focused (’430 Patent, col. 13:30-31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the target as a precise point or region where a person would be located to hear a specific soundtrack, such as in front of a museum exhibit, suggesting a specific, predetermined, and localized point in space (’430 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:1-4).

• The Term: "substantially identical" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term modifies "audio drive voltage" and "sound," and its scope is critical to determining infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the degree of similarity required between the audio signals will be a key technical issue.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted to mean signals that are merely derived from the same source audio track.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides an explicit definition, stating the term "means capable of constructive interference when used in the sound system 36 of this invention" (’430 Patent, col. 12:20-24). This links the term directly to the functional outcome of the invention and may support a narrower construction tied to that specific physical phenomenon.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the products in a manner that infringes the ’430 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge. It asserts that the filing and service of the complaint itself provides "actual knowledge" and that any subsequent infringement is therefore willful and intentional (Compl. ¶¶13-15).

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Operation: Given the complaint’s reliance on an unprovided exhibit, a central issue will be whether discovery produces evidence that the accused audio systems actually perform the claimed method—specifically, by using a "multiplicity of speakers" to transmit time-delayed signals calculated to "constructively interfere" at a "sound target."
2. A Definitional Question of Scope: The case may turn on claim construction, particularly the meaning of "sound target". The court will need to determine if this term requires a discrete, pre-defined focal point, as depicted in the patent's museum embodiment, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover less-defined areas of directional sound that may be produced by Defendant's products.
3. A Question of Intent for Indirect Infringement: The viability of the inducement claim will depend on whether Plaintiff can show that Defendant's instructional materials specifically directed users to operate the products in a way that meets all limitations of an asserted claim, thereby demonstrating an intent to cause infringement.