Audiometric Analytics Tech LLC v. Beyer Dynamic Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Audiometric Analytics Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Beyer Dynamic, Inc. (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:20-cv-01351, E.D.N.Y., 03/13/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s audio products infringe a patent related to personalizing audio by adjusting playback parameters based on a user’s hearing test results.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for automatically customizing audio output on personal electronic devices to compensate for an individual's specific hearing deficiencies.
• 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. 10,511,907 - "System and method for adjusting audio parameters for a user"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,511,907, issued December 17, 2019 (’907 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that conventional solutions for hearing loss, such as hearing aids, can be costly, uncomfortable, and ineffective in noisy, real-world environments. It also notes that diagnostic hearing tests are typically performed in sterile, noise-free settings, which may not translate to practical use. (’907 Patent, col. 1:26-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system and method, typically implemented on a user device like a smartphone, that first performs a hearing test by playing audio and capturing the user's auditory response. (’907 Patent, Abstract). Based on the test results, the system generates a "hearing profile" for the user and then automatically "adjust[s] a playing speed of the audio" to compensate for the user's hearing ability, as shown in the method’s flowchart. (’907 Patent, col. 4:46-53; FIG. 4).
• Technical Importance: The patent presents this approach as a "cost effective and efficient" alternative to traditional methods for overcoming hearing problems. (’907 Patent, col. 1:58-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’907 Patent, identifying them as the "Exemplary '907 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit not included with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). The patent's independent claims are 1, 6, and 11.
• Independent claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
  • performing, by a processor, a hearing test of the user, wherein the hearing test comprises playing an audio and capturing an auditory response of the user towards the audio;
  • generating, by the processor, a hearing profile of the user, based on one or more results of the hearing test; and
  • adjusting, by the processor, a playing speed of the audio based on the hearing profile, thereby adjusting the audio parameters for the user.
• Independent claims 6 (a system) and 11 (a device) recite functionally identical limitations.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses "at least the Beyer Dynamic products identified in the charts" which are incorporated as Exhibit 2, but this exhibit was not provided with the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused products. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the "Exemplary Beyer Dynamic Products practice the technology claimed by the '907 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '907 Patent Claims" as detailed in the unprovided claim charts (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in its Exhibit 2, which was not publicly filed, to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶17). The complaint’s narrative theory is that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" by the patent (Compl. ¶17). Without the charts or a more detailed description of the accused functionality, a direct element-by-element comparison based on the complaint is not possible.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Question: A primary question for the court will be factual and evidentiary: What evidence demonstrates that the accused products perform the specific step of "adjusting a playing speed of the audio" based on a hearing profile, as required by all independent claims of the ’907 Patent? The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations on this point.
• Scope Question: The patent specification mentions adjusting other audio parameters, such as "amplitude," "frequency," and "volume" (’907 Patent, col. 4:50-53). However, all independent claims (1, 6, and 11) are explicitly limited to adjusting "playing speed." This raises the question of whether the Plaintiff can argue that adjusting other parameters is equivalent to or falls within the scope of adjusting "playing speed," or if the claim is strictly limited to modulating the temporal rate of the audio playback.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "adjusting a playing speed of the audio"
• Context and Importance: This term appears in all three independent claims (1, 6, and 11) and appears to be the central inventive step for adjusting audio parameters. The interpretation of this phrase will be critical to the infringement analysis, as liability may hinge on whether the accused products perform this specific action or a different, unclaimed type of audio modification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's title is "System and method for adjusting audio parameters for a user", and the final clause of claim 1 states the adjustment of playing speed is a means of "thereby adjusting the audio parameters for the user" (’907 Patent, col. 7:21-22). A party might argue this suggests "adjusting playing speed" is an exemplary, not exclusive, way to achieve the broader goal of adjusting parameters.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract, as well as the dispositive step in every independent claim, explicitly recites "adjusting a playing speed," suggesting it is a required limitation, not merely an example (’907 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:1-col. 8:43). The detailed description discusses adjusting playing speed separately from adjusting volume or frequency, which may suggest these are technically distinct, non-interchangeable functions (’907 Patent, col. 4:50-60).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegation is based on the claim that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15). The contributory infringement allegation asserts the products are not a "staple article of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use" (Compl. ¶16).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it lays the groundwork for a claim of post-filing willfulness by asserting that "service of this Complaint upon Defendant constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" (Compl. ¶13). Plaintiff also requests that the case be declared "exceptional" and seeks attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 5, ¶D.i).

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what proof will be offered that the accused products actually perform the specific, claimed function of "adjusting a playing speed of the audio" based on a user's hearing test, as opposed to only adjusting more conventional parameters like volume or frequency equalization?
• The litigation may also turn on a core issue of claim scope: can the limitation "adjusting a playing speed," which is recited in all independent claims, be construed to cover the adjustment of other audio parameters like amplitude or frequency, which are mentioned in the patent's specification but pointedly omitted from the independent claims?