Patent Armory Inc v. Koninklijke Philips NV

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Netherlands)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00430, E.D. Tex., 09/19/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes 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 with individually delayed audio signals to create constructive interference at a specific target point, making sound audible only in that location.
• 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. The complaint itself is alleged to provide Defendant with actual knowledge of infringement for the purpose of willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,130,430 - "Phased array sound system," issued October 31, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a "cost-effective system for providing sound which can only be heard in a localized region" without requiring listeners to use headphones (’430 Patent, col. 2:6-11). This would allow multiple individuals in the same room to receive unique audio information.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an array of speakers that are all fed from a single audio source. However, the signal sent to each individual speaker is delayed by a precise amount of time. This delay is calculated based on the speaker's physical distance from a designated "target" point in space. By timing the delays correctly, the sound waves from all the speakers arrive at the target point simultaneously and in-phase, causing constructive interference that makes the sound audible at the target. Elsewhere in the room, the sound waves arrive out-of-phase and do not constructively interfere, remaining effectively inaudible (’430 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:14-36). Figure 1 of the patent illustrates this concept by showing two different people in a museum gallery, each standing in a separate localized sound region to hear a description of a different piece of art (’430 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This technique enables the creation of multiple, distinct "zones" of sound within a single open space, which has applications in museums, public spaces, and open-plan offices (’430 Patent, col. 13:3-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of one or more claims, identified as the "Exemplary '430 Patent Claims," without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • 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, where the voltage is "substantially identical" for each speaker but is "offset in time" by an amount related to the distance between that speaker and the target.
  • The time offset ensures that "substantially identical sound from each speaker reaches the sound target at the same time."
  • The speakers are arranged in a single plane and mounted to a ceiling as part of a ceiling panel system.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '430 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). It does not, however, provide any specific technical details about how the accused products operate. The infringement allegations are contained in an "Exhibit 2" which is referenced in the complaint but was not publicly filed with it (Compl. ¶16-17). Therefore, the complaint itself provides insufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references but does not include the claim charts from its Exhibit 2, which allegedly compare the patent claims to the "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶16). As such, a detailed claim chart analysis is not possible. The complaint’s infringement theory is that Defendant's unidentified products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '430 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). The patent's Figure 1, depicting museum visitors hearing targeted audio, illustrates the type of system at the heart of the allegations (Compl. ¶9, Ex. 1).

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: Without identification of the accused products, a fundamental question is what evidence exists that Defendant's products employ a phased array of speakers with individually calculated time delays to create a localized sound field through constructive interference. The complaint itself provides no such evidence.
• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether any accused product contains the structure corresponding to the "means for applying a time varying audio drive voltage" as required by claim 1. This element's scope is likely limited to the specific architecture disclosed in the patent—a computer processing digital samples through a memory stack and pointer system—and its equivalents (’430 Patent, col. 7:6-65; Fig. 2).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "means for applying a time varying audio drive voltage" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is not limitless but is confined to the specific structures (or "means") disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the stated function, plus any structural equivalents. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused products contain the disclosed structure or an equivalent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent discloses a specific corresponding structure for performing this function. This structure includes a computer or microprocessor (80) that takes an audio source (70), digitizes it (72), stores the digital samples in a memory stack (76), uses a "pointer array" (79) to select a specifically delayed sample for each speaker, and sends that signal to the speaker (’430 Patent, col. 7:6-65; Fig. 2). This detailed disclosure will form the basis for construing the term's scope.

The Term: "substantially identical" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term qualifies the "time varying audio drive voltage" and the resulting sound waves. The degree of identity required will be a key issue. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine whether systems that modulate amplitude or make other signal alterations fall within the claim.
• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "the signals are defined as being substantially identical, although they vary in amplitude" (’430 Patent, col. 11:18-22). This language may support an interpretation that "substantially identical" refers to the underlying waveform or phase, allowing for intentional variations in volume.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An argument could be made that the core purpose of the invention—achieving perfect constructive interference—requires the sound waves to be as close to identical as possible. A party might argue that "substantially" only accounts for minor, unintentional signal degradation, not purposeful modifications like amplitude modulation, which is a distinct technical choice.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" which instruct end users to operate the products in a manner that infringes the ’430 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that the filing and service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringing activity thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14). No facts alleging pre-suit knowledge are presented.

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Operation: The central and most immediate question is factual: what are the "Exemplary Defendant Products" and is there evidence they actually function by using an array of speakers with coordinated, calculated time delays to create a localized sound field via constructive interference, as claimed in the patent? The complaint currently provides no specific product names or evidence on this point.

2. A Definitional Question of Structure: The case may turn on the construction of the means-plus-function term "means for applying a time varying audio drive voltage." The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend on whether Defendant's products use the specific computer-and-memory-stack architecture disclosed in the patent, or a structure that a court deems to be equivalent.

3. A Pleading Sufficiency Question: Given the absence of any named accused product and the reliance on an un-filed exhibit, a threshold issue may be whether the complaint provides sufficient factual detail to state a plausible claim for relief under current federal pleading standards.