Cypaleo LLC v. Boss Audio Systems Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Cypaleo LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Boss Audio Systems, Inc. (Florida)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kizza Johnson PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00005, E.D. Tex., 01/03/2017
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant is "deemed to reside in this District" and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-vehicle navigation and stereo systems infringe a patent related to an operator-controlled interactive communication device.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns a standalone device that adds interactive communication capabilities—such as ordering supplies or requesting service via menu-driven prompts—to equipment not originally built with such features.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is the initial pleading in this action and does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,638,427 - "Operator-controlled Interactive Communication Device," issued June 10, 1997

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency and difficulty of using traditional voice telephone calls for routine interactions between a customer and a vendor for business equipment, such as ordering supplies or requesting service for a copy machine. It notes that machines with built-in remote interactive communication (RIC) capabilities were often expensive high-end models, leaving a gap for lower-volume users. (’427 Patent, col. 2:5-10, 2:21-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a standalone, external communication device that can be associated with a piece of equipment, like a copier, that lacks its own communication features. The device includes a display and keypad, allowing an operator to navigate menus to perform tasks like ordering specific supplies or sending a service request over a communication line (e.g., a phone line) without requiring a real-time voice conversation. (’427 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:25-35). It is designed to be a cost-effective add-on to expand the functionality of existing "dumb" machines.
• Technical Importance: The described technology provided an economical method to retrofit an installed base of business machines with interactive communication and remote servicing capabilities that were otherwise only available on more expensive, high-end systems. (’427 Patent, col. 2:50-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 9 (method).
• Independent Claim 1 recites an interactive communication device comprising:
  • a display
  • an input device
  • a communication transmission interface
  • a telephone handset connector
  • a computer connector
  • a remote interactive communication connector for a machine being monitored
  • a "flexibility" feature wherein the input device and remote connector allow use with machines both with and without a remote interactive communication system
• Independent Claim 9 recites a communication method comprising the steps of:
  • displaying messages
  • inputting data via an input device
  • operatively connecting a transmission medium
  • operatively connecting a telephone handset
  • operatively connecting a computer
  • operatively connecting a remote interactive communication system
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 3, 6, and 11. (Compl. ¶13).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Boss Audio BV9386NV navigation and stereo system" and any similar devices (the "Product"). (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Product as an in-vehicle navigation and stereo system. The allegedly infringing functionality centers on its use of a single Bluetooth module to connect to various external devices and perform different functions. (Compl. ¶¶18-20). The Product is alleged to have a display for messages like song titles or caller ID; inputs such as USB and SD card slots; and wireless (Bluetooth) connectivity that allows it to interface with smartphones for hands-free calls, contact syncing, and control of music applications. (Compl. ¶¶15-20). The complaint characterizes the Product as an "interactive device that may be used to transmit and receive data." (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

'427 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 1 - Apparatus)

'427 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 9 - Method)

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over whether the patent's distinct "connector" limitations ("telephone handset", "computer", "remote interactive") can be met by a single physical Bluetooth interface that uses different software profiles, as alleged by the complaint (Compl. ¶¶18-20). The patent specification and figures depict physically separate connectors (e.g., ’427 Patent, Fig. 1), which may support an argument that the claims require distinct hardware structures.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that connecting to a smartphone to control music apps satisfies the limitation of connecting to a "remote interactive communication system within a machine being monitored." (Compl. ¶20). This raises the question of whether the functionality of a modern car stereo and smartphone falls within the technical scope of a patent originally directed at monitoring and servicing business machines like copiers. (’427 Patent, col. 1:5-11).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "connector" (as used in "telephone handset connector", "computer connector", and "remote interactive communication connector")

  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory hinges on construing these three distinct claim limitations as being met by different software profiles of a single Bluetooth module. Practitioners may focus on this term because if "connector" is construed to require separate physical hardware interfaces, the infringement allegation may be more difficult to sustain.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not explicitly limit "connector" to a physical port. The specification mentions that the "communication transmission interface" can be configured for "RF communication capabilities," which could suggest a non-physical interpretation is possible. (’427 Patent, col. 3:42-45).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures explicitly depict the "telephone handset connector" (16), "computer connector" (18), and "RIC connector" (20) as separate physical ports on the device housing. The detailed description consistently refers to them as distinct interfaces for connecting physical items like a "telephone handset 17" or a "lap-top type" computer 19. (’427 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:39-42).

• The Term: "a machine being monitored"

  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires the "remote interactive communication connector" to connect to a system "within a machine being monitored." The complaint's theory identifies a smartphone as this machine. (Compl. ¶20). The definition of this term is critical to determining if the accused system’s interaction with a smartphone is the type of activity the patent covers.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad and does not restrict the "machine" to a specific type. An argument could be made that any external device whose functions are being controlled or observed (like a smartphone playing music) is a "machine being monitored."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background and summary are exclusively focused on "copying/printing machines" and other business equipment requiring service and supplies. (’427 Patent, col. 1:8-11, 2:17-20). This context may support a narrower construction where the "monitoring" relates to the operational status or diagnostics of a service-based machine, not media control on a consumer device.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not allege indirect infringement or willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "connector", as used for three distinct elements in Claim 1, be interpreted to cover different software profiles of a single physical Bluetooth radio, or does the patent’s specification and vintage limit the term to separate physical hardware ports?
• A key question of technical scope will be whether the accused product's function—a car stereo interacting with a smartphone for calls and media playback—constitutes "monitoring" a "machine" in the manner contemplated by the '427 patent, which is described in the context of providing remote service and supply ordering for office equipment.