Helical LLC v. 1more Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Helical LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: 1MORE Inc. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00712, E.D. Tex., 07/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign corporation, which may be sued in any judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s in-ear audio devices infringe a patent related to an ergonomic design that improves fit and stability by shifting the device's center of gravity.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the design of consumer in-ear audio devices, a market where comfort, sound quality, and a secure fit during physical activity are key competitive features.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation-in-part of two earlier applications, giving it a priority chain extending back to 2008. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

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

Issued September 13, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes deficiencies in prior art ear-bud devices, including their tendency to fall out during physical activity, cause discomfort from deep insertion, and require high volumes to overcome poor acoustics and ambient noise (’183 Patent, col. 1:24-48, col. 2:6-14). It also notes that many designs are aesthetically unappealing, resembling medical hearing aids (’183 Patent, col. 2:1-5).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an in-the-ear device with an anatomical shape designed to provide a secure and comfortable fit without deeply or completely sealing the ear canal (’183 Patent, col. 2:23-28). The core inventive concept is the specific placement of internal components (e.g., the speaker) within a cavity to shift the device's center of gravity "more medially into the user's ear," using the ear's natural shape and gravity to secure the device rather than relying solely on friction (’183 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:6-11).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to create a "universal fit" device that could be mass-produced at a reasonable cost while providing the stability and comfort typically associated with more expensive, custom-molded earpieces (’183 Patent, col. 2:35-38).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "Exemplary '183 Patent Claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referencing an unattached exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16). The patent’s independent claims are 1 (device), 7 (system with local device), and 15 (system with network provider).
• Independent Claim 1 (device) includes these essential elements:
  • A main in-the-ear body portion with a distal side (away from the user) and a medial side (toward the user).
  • At least one 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 medial side "for ensuring that the audio content delivery device remains situated in the user's ear during physical activity."
  • The cavity also comprises a wireless receiver, processor, memory, and power supply.
• Independent Claim 7 (system) recites a system comprising the in-the-ear device of Claim 1 in communication with a "local computing device" that streams audio content to it.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶ B).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify specific accused products by name. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in charts within an unattached "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’183 Patent and that their sale and use constitute infringement (Compl. ¶ 16). Without the products being identified or Exhibit 2 being available, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific features or market context. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Exhibit 2 contains claim charts comparing the asserted claims to the accused products, but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17). The pleading states in a conclusory manner that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '183 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '183 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶ 16). The absence of the specific product identities and the corresponding claim charts prevents a detailed, element-by-element infringement analysis at this stage.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central dispute will likely involve the construction of the phrase "center of gravity... closer to the second side and more medial to the user" (’183 Patent, cl. 1). The parties may dispute whether this is a precise, measurable structural limitation or a more general design goal. The functional language "for ensuring that the... device remains situated in the user's ear during physical activity" raises the question of whether this is a mandatory condition that must be proven or merely a statement of intended purpose.
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary challenge for the plaintiff will be to demonstrate that the accused products' internal components are arranged in a way that satisfies the specific "center of gravity" limitation. This may require expert analysis, disassembly, and physical testing of the accused products. It is not a feature that can be determined from a simple visual inspection of a product's exterior.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"center of gravity ... is closer to the second side and more medial to the user" (’183 Patent, cl. 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the asserted claims, purporting to distinguish the invention from prior art that relied on friction fit. The outcome of the infringement analysis will likely depend heavily on how this limitation is defined and measured.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention describes the concept generally as shifting the center of gravity "from outside the ear to further inside the auricle and ear canal" to prevent slipping (’183 Patent, col. 2:50-54). This could support a more qualitative, functional interpretation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links the center-of-gravity shift to a cavity of a specific dimension, stating the cavity has "a depth of about 0.10 inches, thus positioning the center of gravity" more medially (’183 Patent, col. 5:10-14). A defendant may argue this ties the claim term to a specific structure or dimension disclosed in the preferred embodiment.

"for ensuring that the audio content delivery device remains situated in the user's ear during physical activity" (’183 Patent, cl. 1)

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its classification—as either a separate functional requirement or a non-limiting statement of purpose—is a common point of dispute in claim construction. Its interpretation will determine whether the plaintiff must prove not only the structure but also a specific functional result.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Purpose): Plaintiff may argue that this phrase simply states the inherent result or purpose of the preceding structural limitation (the center of gravity placement) and does not impose an additional, separately provable limitation on the claim.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Function): A defendant could argue that the word "ensuring" imposes a strict functional requirement. This would require the plaintiff to prove that the accused device's design actually guarantees stability during physical activity, a potentially high evidentiary bar.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that the defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶ 14). The specific materials are referenced as being in the unattached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶ 14).

Willful Infringement

The allegation of willfulness is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that the filing and service of the lawsuit provide the defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14). No facts are alleged to support pre-suit knowledge.

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

1. A central issue will be one of claim construction and proof: How will the court define the novel "center of gravity" limitation, and what type of technical evidence—such as expert modeling, physical testing, or documentary evidence of design intent—will be required to prove that the accused products meet this specific structural requirement?
2. The case will turn on a functional interpretation: Does the claim language "for ensuring" the device remains in the ear impose a separate, demanding functional test that the plaintiff must meet, or is it merely a statement of intended purpose that is satisfied if the claimed physical structure is present?
3. An initial procedural question will be the sufficiency of the pleadings: The complaint’s reliance on an unattached exhibit to identify the accused products and provide the basis for its infringement allegations may be challenged, potentially requiring the plaintiff to amend its complaint with greater specificity.