Patent Armory Inc v. Bose Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Bose Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00335, E.D. Tex., 07/18/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Bose Corporation maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unspecified products made by Defendant infringe a patent related to phased array sound systems that create localized regions of audible sound.
• Technical Context: The technology involves using an array of speakers and precise signal time delays to focus sound at a specific point, allowing a listener at that point to hear audio clearly while it remains unintelligible elsewhere in the room.
• 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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,130,430, “Phased array sound system,” issued October 31, 2006. (Compl. ¶8-9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a cost-effective system that can produce sound audible only in a localized region, enabling multiple listeners in the same space to receive unique audio input without using headphones. (’430 Patent, col. 2:6-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention uses an array of speakers that are all fed signals originating from a single audio source. However, the signal sent to each individual speaker is delayed by a specific amount of time. This delay is calculated based on the physical distance between that speaker and a selected target point in space. The result is that sound waves from all speakers, despite traveling different distances, arrive at the target point at the same moment. This simultaneous arrival causes constructive interference, creating a zone of significantly increased volume at the target, while sound in other areas remains at a low volume or is unintelligible. (’430 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:25-37; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technique provides a method for creating an "audio spotlight" using standard audio-frequency sound waves and digital delay processing, as an alternative to other complex approaches like using ultrasonic emitters or acoustic time-reversal mirrors. (’430 Patent, col. 1:37-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and references "Exemplary '430 Patent Claims" in an attached exhibit, but does not specify any claim numbers in the body of the complaint. (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).
• Independent claim 1 is representative and recites the core elements of the invention:
  • A multiplicity of audio frequency speakers.
  • At least one defined sound target spaced from the speakers.
  • A means for applying a time varying audio drive voltage to each speaker that is substantially identical, except that each is offset in time by an amount related to the distance between the speaker and the target.
  • This time offset ensures that sound from each speaker reaches the sound target at the same time.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific Bose products. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in "charts incorporated into this Count." (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no technical description of how the accused products operate. It makes the conclusory allegation that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '430 Patent." (Compl. ¶16). No allegations are made regarding the products' specific commercial importance or market position, beyond the general assertion that they are made, used, sold, or imported by Defendant. (Compl. ¶11). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an external exhibit (Exhibit 2) but does not include them or provide a narrative summary of their contents. (Compl. ¶16-17). It alleges that these charts demonstrate that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶16). Without access to the charts or a more detailed narrative, a specific element-by-element analysis is not possible. The infringement theory appears to be that unspecified Bose products incorporate a phased array of speakers with timed delays to create focused sound, thereby infringing the ’430 Patent.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the functionality of any accused Bose product falls within the scope of the claims. For instance, do the accused products use a "multiplicity of speakers" where each receives a "substantially identical" but time-delayed signal to create a single "sound target," or do they employ different audio processing techniques (e.g., beamforming for general sound dispersion, equalization) that may not align with the claim limitations?
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be what proof exists that the accused products implement the specific time-delay calculation and application as required by the claims. The complaint does not provide any evidence that the accused products calculate a delay for each speaker that is "related to the distance between each speaker and the defined sound target" to ensure simultaneous arrival of sound waves. (’430 Patent, col. 13:32-37).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"means for applying a time varying audio drive voltage" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term, framed in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), is the functional heart of the invention. Its construction will be limited to the specific structures disclosed in the specification for performing this function, and their equivalents. The infringement analysis will hinge on whether the accused products contain this specific structure or its legal equivalent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The scope of a means-plus-function claim is defined by the corresponding structure in the specification.
  • Disclosed Structure: The patent describes a specific architecture for performing the function of applying the delayed voltage. This structure includes a computer or microprocessor (80) that manages a "memory stack" (76) or digital registers. This memory stores a series of digitized sound samples. For each speaker, a "pointer" (79) reads out a sample from a specific memory location corresponding to the required time delay. The resulting digital signal is then passed through a digital-to-analog converter (104) and an amplifier (106) to drive the speaker. (’430 Patent, col. 6:33-65; Fig. 2; Fig. 3). Infringement will require the accused products to use this architecture or an equivalent thereof.

"substantially identical sound" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the required relationship between the sound waves emitted by the different speakers in the array. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern audio systems often apply unique processing (e.g., equalization) to different channels, which could be argued to result in sound waves that are not "substantially identical."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The use of the word "substantially" suggests the patentee did not intend for the sound waves to be perfectly identical, potentially allowing for minor variations in amplitude or frequency response so long as the core waveform permits constructive interference.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly explains that the speakers are fed from a "single audio source" and that the system creates delayed versions of that single signal. (’430 Patent, col. 2:15-16; col. 5:61-64). This could support a narrower interpretation requiring the fundamental waveform sent to each speaker to be the same, merely shifted in time.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement. It asserts that Defendant provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶14). The basis for this allegation is said to be detailed in the unprovided Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the term "willful," but it lays the groundwork for post-filing enhancement of damages. It alleges that "The service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts...constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant has continued to infringe despite this knowledge. (Compl. ¶13-15). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

1. A core issue will be one of evidence and specificity: Given the complaint’s lack of detail, a threshold question is whether Plaintiff can produce evidence demonstrating that a specific, named Bose product actually performs the claimed function. Does any Bose product employ an array of speakers driven by time-delayed versions of a single audio signal calculated specifically to create constructive interference at a discrete target location?

2. The case will likely turn on a question of structural equivalence during claim construction: Will the "means for applying a time varying audio drive voltage" be narrowly construed to the specific computer-and-pointer memory architecture disclosed in the patent? If so, the central question becomes whether Bose's products utilize this structure or a legally equivalent one, or if they achieve sound manipulation through a fundamentally different, non-equivalent technology.