RecepTrexx LLC v. Bose Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Bose Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00060, E.D. Tex., 01/30/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unspecified products made by Defendant infringe a patent related to audio control technology for entertainment equipment.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for temporarily reducing the audio volume of entertainment devices, such as televisions, to a preset intermediate level that is quieter than normal but not fully muted.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 7,012,652, was originally assigned to the "Sam Stuff Property Trust." The patent specification explicitly discusses U.S. Patent No. 6,396,549, issued to the same inventor, as "TYPICAL PRIOR ART," noting that the earlier invention required a "patterned series of pulse steps" rather than the instant reduction claimed in the present invention. This characterization of the inventor's own prior art may be relevant to claim construction and the scope of the asserted claims.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2003-01-09	'652' Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2006-03-14	'652 Patent Issue Date
2024-01-30	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,012,652 - Audio hush for entertainment equipment and particularly television receivers

(Issued March 14, 2006. Compl. ¶8-9)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the "overbearing loudness" of television programming, particularly during commercials and station breaks, as a key annoyance for viewers. (’652 Patent, col. 1:7-14). It notes that existing solutions like a full "MUTE" function are suboptimal because the viewer cannot hear when the desired program resumes, and manually lowering the volume with standard controls can be "cumbersome and annoying," especially when distracted by another activity like a phone call. (Compl. ¶9, Ex. 1, '652 Patent, col. 1:15-35, 1:44-53).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a dedicated "HUSH" control function that, upon a single command, "abruptly" reduces the audio from a "normal" level to a preset, intermediate "HUSH" level. (’652 Patent, Abstract). This level is low enough to permit a conversation but loud enough for a user to audibly notice when program content changes. (’652 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:54-68). The system is designed to return the volume to its previous normal level with a subsequent command. The patent’s Figure 1 illustrates a system with a remote controller (10) sending a signal to a receiver that uses a "level control" module (36) to select between "normal" (42-1), "hush" (42-2), and "mute" (42-3) audio paths.
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a "one button" solution for temporarily quieting audio without completely silencing it, offering a more convenient and functional alternative to repeatedly pressing a volume-down key or toggling a full mute. (’652 Patent, col. 7:20-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the '652 Patent without specifying them. (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • establishing the entertainment apparatus to deliver a first preferred volume level of sound reproduction;
  • defining a mute level where the sound reproduction is substantially silenced;
  • presetting the entertainment apparatus to fixate a first HUSH level as a second preferred volume level intermediate between the first preferred volume level and mute; and,
  • first remotely controlling the entertainment apparatus to presently establish one of a plurality of selectable levels of sound reproduction including at least the first preferred volume level, the mute level and the first HUSH level.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in an Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the '652 Patent. (Compl. ¶16). It alleges these products have been made, used, sold, and imported by Defendant. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not provide specific details on the functionality or market context of the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the public filing. (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart analysis is not possible.

The complaint’s narrative infringement theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the patented technology and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '652 Patent Claims." (Compl. ¶16). The allegations cover both literal infringement and infringement under the doctrine of equivalents for direct infringement, induced infringement, and willful infringement. (Compl. ¶11, ¶15). The complaint alleges that Defendant’s employees use the products internally (Compl. ¶12) and that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶14). Without access to the claim charts or identification of the accused products, the specific factual basis for these allegations cannot be analyzed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Key Term: "HUSH level"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central concept of the invention. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement. The dispute will likely focus on whether any temporary volume reduction qualifies as a "HUSH level," or if the term requires the specific, "preset" and "fixated" characteristics described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent itself states that "HUSH" is "mere jargonization of a term which may just as well be expressed by other terminology including, but not to 'soften', 'quiet', 'reduce', 'lower' and so forth." (’652 Patent, col. 16:45-49). This language could support an argument that the term simply means a reduced volume.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly describes the HUSH level as being "preset" and "fixated." (e.g., ’652 Patent, col. 17:9-12). Claim 1 requires "presetting the entertainment apparatus to fixate a first HUSH level." The specification contrasts the invention with "gradually 'turning the volume down' in step-like increments," suggesting the "HUSH" function is an abrupt, one-step change to a pre-defined level, not just any lowered volume. (’652 Patent, col. 5:28-32).

Key Term: "presetting the entertainment apparatus to fixate a first HUSH level"

• Context and Importance: This active step in claim 1 is crucial. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific user action to establish the HUSH level before it can be activated. The case may turn on whether the accused products have a distinct "setup mode" for the HUSH feature, as described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any system allowing a user to set a preferred quiet volume, which is then recalled, meets this limitation, even if not explicitly labeled a "setup mode."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific setup process where a user enters a mode, adjusts the volume to a desired HUSH level, and then enters a "second predetermined sequence" to "fix the HUSH volume at the preset level." (’652 Patent, col. 9:26-31). This detailed description of a multi-step "fixating" process could support a narrow construction requiring a dedicated setup and storage function.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to operate the accused products in a manner that infringes the '652 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that the service of the complaint itself "constitutes actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued conduct thereafter is willful. (Compl. ¶13-14). 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 definitional scope: Does the term "HUSH level," as claimed, cover any form of user-initiated volume reduction, or must it be a distinct, one-touch function that recalls a specific, "fixated" volume level that was established in a prior "presetting" step? The patent’s own characterization of "HUSH" as "mere jargon" could conflict with the more specific embodiments described.
2. A second central issue will be evidentiary and functional: What evidence will Plaintiff produce to show that the accused Bose products actually perform the method of "presetting" and "fixating" a HUSH level, as distinct from simply allowing a user to turn the volume down? The case may turn on whether the accused products include a setup mode or memory function that corresponds to the patent's specific teachings, as opposed to a generic volume control.
3. Finally, a key question for inducement will be one of intent: Assuming direct infringement by users is proven, does the product literature cited by Plaintiff merely describe the operation of a standard volume control, or does it specifically instruct users to perform the patented method of presetting, fixating, and activating a dedicated intermediate volume level?