RecepTrexx LLC v. Yamaha Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Yamaha Corporation (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00061, E.D. Tex., 01/30/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign corporation, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement that have caused harm within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's products with audio control features infringe a patent related to a method and system for temporarily reducing audio volume to a preset, intermediate "hush" level.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns audio control systems in consumer entertainment devices, designed to offer a more nuanced alternative to a full mute function for situations like telephone calls or loud commercials.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

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

Issued March 14, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the "overbearing loudness" of audio from entertainment devices, particularly during commercials, as a common annoyance (ʼ652 Patent, col. 1:7-14). It posits that the conventional "mute" function is a blunt instrument, as total silence prevents a user from noticing when a program resumes and can be undesirable in social settings (ʼ652 Patent, col. 1:15-34). Manually lowering the volume is described as "cumbersome and annoying" (ʼ652 Patent, col. 1:39-42).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "HUSH" control function that, upon a single command from a remote controller, "instantly" reduces the audio to a preset level that is intermediate between the normal listening volume and complete silence (ʼ652 Patent, col. 1:53-65, Abstract). This allows a user to conduct a parallel activity, such as a phone conversation, while still being able to "keep an ear" on the audio program (ʼ652 Patent, col. 1:35-39). The system also contemplates the ability for the user to set the specific volume of this "HUSH" level (ʼ652 Patent, col. 2:20-27).
• Technical Importance: The technology offered a single-action solution to a common user frustration, providing a middle ground between full, disruptive audio and complete silence. (ʼ652 Patent, col. 5:11-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims in its main body but reserves the right to assert claims detailed in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the asserted technology.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • Establishing an entertainment apparatus to deliver a first preferred volume level.
  • Defining a mute level where sound is substantially silenced.
  • Presetting the apparatus to fixate a "first HUSH level" as a second preferred volume, intermediate between the first preferred volume and mute.
  • Remotely controlling the apparatus to select one of the levels, including the first preferred volume, the mute level, and the first HUSH level.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name specific accused products in its main body. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts within "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused functionality. It makes the conclusory allegation that the unidentified products "practice the technology claimed by the '652 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '652 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). Without access to the referenced Exhibit 2, the specific features and operations of the accused instrumentalities cannot be described.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but incorporates the details into an external "Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the public filing (Compl. ¶17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The narrative infringement theory suggests that Defendant’s products provide an audio control method where a user can remotely select not only a normal volume and a mute function, but also a third, intermediate volume level that corresponds to the patent’s "HUSH level." The allegation is that these products allow for this intermediate level to be preset and then selected, thereby practicing the method of claim 1 of the '652 Patent (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the meaning of a "HUSH level." The case could turn on whether the accused products' functionality for reducing volume creates a distinct, "fixated" level as required by the claims, or whether it is simply a transient state achieved through conventional "volume down" commands, which the patent distinguishes itself from (ʼ652 Patent, col. 7:5-15).
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be what proof Plaintiff can offer that the accused Yamaha products perform the specific step of "presetting the entertainment apparatus to fixate a first HUSH level" (ʼ652 Patent, col. 17:9-13). The analysis will likely focus on the user interface and underlying software architecture to determine if a specific, storable, intermediate volume setting exists, separate from the main volume control.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "first HUSH level"

• Context and Importance: This term is the central concept of the invention. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as it distinguishes the claimed invention from generic volume reduction. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute will likely center on whether the accused functionality is merely a relabeling of standard volume control or a distinct, preset mode as taught in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the feature in general terms as a "preset limited level" (ʼ652 Patent, col. 1:55-56) or a "moderated second (presettable HUSH) level" (ʼ652 Patent, col. 5:29-32), which a party could argue encompasses any user-configurable, reduced-volume setting.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly contrasts the "HUSH" function with manually pressing a "VOL-DOWN keybutton" multiple times (ʼ652 Patent, col. 7:5-9). The claims and specification also detail specific setup modes to "fixate" or "store" the desired level, suggesting a more structured, saved value is required rather than any arbitrary intermediate volume (ʼ652 Patent, col. 18:8-13 (claim 6); col. 9:9-14).

The Term: "intermediate between the first preferred volume level and mute"

• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the functional requirement of the "HUSH level". The breadth of "intermediate" will be important; if defined very broadly, it could cover nearly any volume reduction.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any audible sound level that is perceivably lower than the user's normal listening volume but not silent meets the plain and ordinary meaning of "intermediate."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s stated purpose is to lower volume to a "still-hearable level" that is sufficient to "notice" when program content resumes but is not "overbearing" ('652 Patent, col. 5:15-20; col. 6:6-10). This suggests the level must fall within a functionally useful range, not just any mathematical point between the normal volume and zero.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating on information and belief that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to operate the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the '652 Patent (Compl. ¶14). The allegation is tied to knowledge gained from the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint lays the groundwork for a claim of post-suit willful infringement. It alleges that the service of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of its infringement and that Defendant's continued infringing activities, despite this knowledge, warrant enhanced damages (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "HUSH level", which the patent describes as a "fixated" and "preset" state, be construed to read on the specific audio-adjustment features implemented in Yamaha's products? The outcome may depend on whether the accused feature is a distinct, stored setting or merely a result of generic volume-down commands.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: assuming the complaint survives dismissal, Plaintiff will need to produce evidence demonstrating that the accused products technically perform each claimed step. The case will likely focus on evidence of the specific mechanism for "presetting" and "remotely controlling" a dedicated intermediate volume level, as distinguished from the conventional volume and mute functions also present on the device.