Helical LLC v. Little Bird ApS

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Helical LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Little Bird ApS (Denmark)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00355, E.D. Tex., 04/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-the-ear audio products infringe a patent related to an ergonomic design that shifts the device's center of gravity to improve its fit and stability in the user's ear.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the market for personal audio devices, such as wireless earbuds, focusing on the technical challenge of creating a secure, comfortable, and universal fit without expensive custom molding.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation-in-part of a chain of applications, claiming priority back to an application filed in 2008. The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's continuation of allegedly infringing activities after being served with the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,445,183, "Sound system with ear device with improved fit and sound," issued September 13, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art ear buds as prone to falling out, particularly during physical activity, because their weight is balanced outside the user's ear. Such devices can also be uncomfortable, require high volume due to poor acoustics, and may carry a "negative stigma" associated with hearing aids. Commercially available custom-molded solutions are noted as being too costly for the general public (ʼ183 Patent, col. 1:32-37, col. 2:1-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an in-the-ear device with an anatomical shape designed to be secured by the natural curvature of the human ear. Its key feature is the intentional placement of internal components (like a speaker) within a cavity to shift the device's overall center of gravity "more medially into the user's ear." This gravity-based approach is intended to use the device's own weight to help secure it, rather than relying solely on friction or a tight fit in the ear canal (ʼ183 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-13).
• Technical Importance: The design purports to provide a "non-custom, in-the-ear device" that offers a stable, comfortable fit for a broad population, potentially reducing manufacturing costs and making improved ergonomics accessible to the general public (ʼ183 Patent, col. 2:34-37, col. 6:34-39).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts "one or more claims," but does not specify them in the body of the complaint, instead referring to an attached exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1 is the first independent claim of the ʼ183 Patent.

• Independent Claim 1:
  • An audio content delivery device comprising: a main in-the-ear body portion with a first side distal to a user, a second side medial to the user, a center of gravity, at least one speaker and a sound channel with a cavity;
  • the speaker positioned within the cavity such that the center of gravity of the audio content delivery device is closer to the second side and more medial to the user for ensuring that the audio content delivery device remains situated in the user's ear during physical activity;
  • the device further comprising in the cavity a wireless receiver with antenna, a processor, a memory, and a power supply for receiving and transmitting digital audio content.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market context, other than to allege that they "practice the technology claimed by the '183 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s infringement allegations are primarily contained within claim charts attached as Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the complaint for this analysis (Compl. ¶16-17). The narrative portion of the complaint alleges that Defendant has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, one or more claims of the ’183 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶11). The alleged infringing acts include "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products in the United States (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: Claim 1 includes the functional limitation "for ensuring that the audio content delivery device remains situated in the user's ear during physical activity." A central dispute may be whether this phrase states only an intended purpose or imposes a mandatory, verifiable functional requirement on an accused device.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires a specific causal link: the speaker's position within a cavity must cause the center of gravity to shift medially. A key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate that the accused products possess this specific structural arrangement and that this arrangement is the cause of any observed stability, as opposed to other design factors like friction, material choice, or overall shape.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "center of gravity ... is closer to the second side and more medial to the user"

• Context and Importance: This term is the technical core of the asserted invention. The entire theory of improved stability rests on this specific physical property. The parties' dispute over infringement will likely depend on how this "center of gravity" is defined and measured in an accused product.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not provide a precise mathematical formula for calculating the center of gravity, which may support a more qualitative, conceptual interpretation of the term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific structural implementation for achieving this result, namely a cavity with a depth of "about 0.10 inches" to house components ('183 Patent, col. 5:11-13, col. 7:19-21). This could be used to argue that the term must be construed in light of this specific embodiment that gives the concept its structure.

• The Term: "for ensuring that the ... device remains situated in the user's ear during physical activity"

• Context and Importance: This functional language at the end of the claim element is critical. Whether it is interpreted as a strict requirement for infringement or a mere statement of intended result could be dispositive. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction determines the evidentiary burden on the plaintiff.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (e.g., as purpose): A defendant could argue this language merely describes the benefit of the invention, not a testable limitation that an accused product must meet.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (e.g., as function): The patent states that the described configuration "will prevent the device from slipping out while retaining a high level of comfort," which supports interpreting the phrase as a required functional outcome ('183 Patent, col. 2:52-54).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that since being served with the complaint, Defendant has continued to sell its products and "distribute product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that the filing of the lawsuit itself provides "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued alleged infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

• A core issue will be one of claim construction and proof: How will the court define the "center of gravity" limitation, and what technical evidence will be required to prove that an accused product's component placement causes the specific medial shift required by the claim?
• A second central question will be evidentiary and functional: Can the plaintiff prove that the accused products meet the functional requirement of "ensuring" stability during physical activity, and, critically, that this stability is a direct result of the claimed center-of-gravity design, rather than other ergonomic features?
• Finally, a key procedural question arises from the complaint's structure: given that the substantive infringement allegations are contained entirely within an unattached exhibit, a primary issue in the early stages will be how the plaintiff substantiates its claims to meet federal pleading standards once challenged.