Helical LLC v. OnePlus Technology Shenzhen Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Helical LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00360, E.D. Tex., 04/09/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's earbud products infringe a patent related to the ergonomic design of in-the-ear audio devices intended to improve fit and stability.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the physical and anatomical design of in-ear electronics, focusing on weight distribution to enhance user comfort and prevent the device from dislodging during use.
• 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 patent-in-suit is identified as a continuation-in-part of earlier applications, establishing an earlier priority date.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,445,183 - "Sound system with ear device with improved fit and sound,"

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes issues with prior art ear buds, which tend to fall out of the ear canal, particularly during physical activity, due to their shape and weight distribution. ( '183 Patent, col. 1:32-36, 1:59-62). These prior art devices can also be uncomfortable, require high volume settings due to poor acoustics, and may carry a negative stigma associated with hearing aids. ('183 Patent, col. 1:36-41, 2:1-5).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an in-the-ear device with a specific anatomical shape designed to be more stable and comfortable. The core concept is to shift the device's "center of gravity" further into the ear ("medially") by strategically placing the internal components within a housing that leverages the natural curvature of the human ear for support. ('183 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:5-11). This configuration is intended to prevent the device from slipping out while improving comfort. ('183 Patent, col. 3:8-11).
• Technical Importance: This design approach sought to create a universally fitting, mass-producible earbud that offered the stability of expensive, custom-molded earpieces without the associated cost and individual fitting process. ('183 Patent, col. 2:35-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," including what it terms the "Exemplary '183 Patent Claims," without specifying claim numbers (Compl. ¶11). The patent's independent claims are 1, 7, and 15.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1, a representative device claim, include:
  • A "main in-the-ear body portion" with a speaker and a sound channel with a cavity.
  • The speaker is positioned within the cavity such that the "center of gravity" of the device is closer to the side medial to the user.
  • This positioning serves the function of "ensuring that the audio content delivery device remains situated in the user's ear during physical activity."
  • The device also comprises, within the cavity, a wireless receiver with an antenna, a processor, a memory, and a power supply.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" of the '183 Patent. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts provided as Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶11). However, Exhibit 2 was not filed with the public complaint. Defendant OnePlus Technology is a known manufacturer of consumer electronics, including wireless earbuds.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '183 Patent" by having a physical construction that satisfies all elements of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶16). The allegations suggest the accused products are in-ear audio devices whose internal component layout and external shape are central to the infringement claim. The complaint does not provide further detail on the specific functionality or market position of the accused products.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates infringement allegations by referencing claim charts in an exhibit that was not provided with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The complaint’s narrative theory of infringement asserts that Defendant's accused products contain all the elements of the asserted claims of the '183 Patent. (Compl. ¶16). The core of this allegation appears to be that the physical design of Defendant's earbuds—specifically the shape of the housing and the arrangement of internal components like the speaker, processor, and power supply—results in a "center of gravity" that is shifted medially into the user's ear, thereby infringing the patent. (Compl. ¶16; '183 Patent, cl. 1). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the interpretation of functional language in the claims, such as the requirement that the center of gravity be positioned for the purpose of "ensuring that the... device remains situated in the user's ear." A question for the court may be whether this purpose must be the primary driver of the design, or if an incidental stability benefit is sufficient to meet the limitation.
• Technical Questions: A central factual dispute may involve proving the actual "center of gravity" of the accused products. This raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff will offer to demonstrate that the accused devices have a medially-shifted center of gravity that performs the claimed stabilizing function, a task that could require complex physical analysis and expert testimony.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "center of gravity...is closer to the second side and more medial to the user" (from claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This limitation is the core of the purported invention, linking a physical property ("center of gravity") to a functional outcome (stability). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine the scope of the claim and the type of evidence needed to prove infringement. The dispute may center on whether this requires a specific, quantifiable degree of medial shift or simply a general weight distribution that is more internal than external.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept in general terms, stating the invention "shifts its center of gravity more medially into the user's ear" without providing a precise mathematical or physical definition. ('183 Patent, col. 3:8-9). This could support an interpretation based on the overall functional effect rather than a strict geometric measurement.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links this shift to a specific structure, noting that a cavity with a depth of "about 0.10 inches" is a "functional means to shift the center of gravity inward." ('183 Patent, col. 5:15-18). A defendant could argue that this ties the term to a particular structural implementation and depth, narrowing its scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement based on the claim that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct users to use the accused products in a manner that directly infringes the '183 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that 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 allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

• A core issue will be one of proof and construction: How will the court construe the "center of gravity" limitation, and what specific technical evidence will be required to prove that the accused products' internal component layout meets this functionally-defined structural claim? The case may depend on detailed product teardowns and expert analysis to map the patented claims onto the accused devices.
• A second key question will be one of design intent versus inherent properties: Does the accused products' design locate components to medially shift the center of gravity for the purpose of achieving stability, as required by the claim's functional language, or is the component layout dictated by other non-infringing design constraints (e.g., manufacturing efficiency, acoustic performance), with any resulting stability being merely an incidental, unclaimed benefit?