Southern Audio Services Inc v. Grace Digital Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Southern Audio Services, Inc. (Louisiana)
  • Defendant: Grace Digital, Inc. (California); Grace Digital II, Inc. (Texas); and Sound Extreme, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-2723, S.D. Tex., 08/26/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas because Defendants have committed acts of infringement in the district and maintain a regular and established place of business there, specifically citing a physical location in Cypress, Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s SOUNDEXTREME by ECOXGEAR line of sound bars infringes patents related to the structural design and mounting systems for sound bars used on recreational vehicles.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns audio equipment designed for harsh environments, such as on all-terrain vehicles and marine watercraft, where durability, weather resistance, and adjustable sound projection are significant market features.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that both patents-in-suit have survived ex parte reexamination proceedings initiated by the Defendants. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued reexamination certificates for both U.S. Patent No. 11,407,362 and U.S. Patent No. 11,745,669, confirming the patentability of all original claims. The complaint also alleges Defendants had knowledge of the patent family as early as October 2020.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-01-04	Priority Date for ’362 and ’669 Patents
2022-01-01	Approximate Launch of Accused SOUNDEXTREME Brand (stated as "in 2022")
2022-08-09	’362 Patent Issued
2023-09-05	’669 Patent Issued
2024-02-06	Defendants File Request for Reexamination of ’362 Patent
2024-02-26	Defendants File Request for Reexamination of ’669 Patent
2024-08-15	Reexamination Certificate Issued for ’669 Patent
2024-09-18	Reexamination Certificate Issued for ’362 Patent
2025-06-23	Reexamination Certificate Issued for ’362 Patent
2025-07-29	Reexamination Certificate Issued for ’669 Patent
2025-08-26	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,407,362 - "Sound Bar for Mounting on a Recreational Land Vehicle or Watercraft"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes the unique challenges of using sound bars on recreational vehicles like ATVs and boats, which include vigorous shaking, exposure to dust and water, and the difficulty of directing sound in a noisy, open-air environment (’362 Patent, col. 1:26-40). Prior art solutions allegedly lacked adequate mounting assemblies that could be easily adjusted for position and directionality (’362 Patent, col. 2:5-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an elongated, hollow sound bar housing an array of mid-range and tweeter speakers in its middle section and bass speakers at its opposing ends (’362 Patent, Abstract). The key innovation is a mounting system that allows the entire sound bar to be rotated around its longitudinal axis. This is achieved through mounting assemblies, preferably "generally L-shaped," that attach to a center hub on the grills at each end of the sound bar, enabling the user to direct the sound as needed (’362 Patent, col. 7:4-10; Fig. 7).
• Technical Importance: This design provides a durable, weather-resistant audio solution with the ability to precisely aim the sound output, which is critical for overcoming engine and wind noise common to recreational vehicle use (’362 Patent, col. 2:41-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’362 Patent, Compl. ¶39).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • An elongated housing with a middle section and two ends.
  • An array of speakers (e.g., midrange, tweeters) in the middle section oriented to emit sound outward.
  • A first bass speaker positioned in the first end, emitting sound in line with the longitudinal axis.
  • A second bass speaker positioned in the second end, emitting sound in line with the longitudinal axis.
  • First and second mounting assemblies, each comprising an "L-shaped member."
  • The L-shaped members are "positioned to rotably support the sound bar on a horizontal axis," allowing the sound bar to be rotated to direct the sound.

U.S. Patent No. 11,745,669 - "Sound Bar for Mounting on a Recreational Land Vehicle or Watercraft"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’362 Patent, the ’669 Patent addresses the same technical problems of providing robust, adjustable sound systems for recreational vehicles operating in harsh conditions (’669 Patent, col. 1:31-44).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes the same core invention as the ’362 Patent: a sound bar with a specific speaker layout (mid-range/tweeters in the center, bass at the ends) and a mounting system that facilitates 360-degree rotation via members attached to the end caps (’669 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:10-48).
• Technical Importance: The solution offers the same benefit of improved audio directionality and durability for the off-road and marine audio market (’669 Patent, col. 2:45-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (’669 Patent, Compl. ¶49).
• The elements of Claim 1 of the ’669 Patent are identical to those of Claim 1 of the ’362 Patent, as analyzed above.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names sound bar speaker products sold under the brand SOUNDEXTREME by ECOXGEAR, including models SE18, SEDS32, SE26, SEB26, SE18E, SEB28, SE28, and SEDS33 (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Accused Products are marketed as "100% waterproof outdoor audio and LED light solutions" for the marine, golf cart, and powersports industries (Compl. p.5). A product description included in the complaint states an Accused Product features a "patent-pending IP66 highly water-resistant enclosure" and contains "8 rugged speakers: 2 tweeters, 4 mid-range, and 2 side-mounted woofers" (Compl. p.6). This speaker configuration—tweeters and mid-range speakers centrally located with woofers at the ends—is a central feature of the infringement allegation. The complaint also provides an image from the product packaging showing instructions for mounting the speaker bar using brackets that attach to its ends (Compl. p.12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 11,407,362 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
an elongated housing having a first end opposite a second end and a middle section...	The Accused Products are sound bars with an elongated, bar-shaped housing.	¶13; p.6	col. 5:20-22
...an array of speakers...positioned in the middle section and oriented to emit sound in a direction outward from the central longitudinal axis;	The Accused Products are described as having 2 tweeters and 4 mid-range speakers.	p.6	col. 5:46-52
...a first bass speaker positioned in the first end...to emit sound in a direction outward...in line with the central longitudinal axis;	The Accused Products are described as having "2 side-mounted woofers," which implies one at each end emitting sound outward along the bar's axis.	p.6	col. 5:29-35
...a second bass speaker positioned in the second end...	As above, the "2 side-mounted woofers" allegedly satisfy the requirement for a bass speaker at each end.	p.6	col. 5:35-38
...a first mounting assembly comprising a first L-shaped member and a second mounting assembly comprising a second L-shaped member...	The Accused Products are sold with mounting hardware. A diagram in the complaint shows a mounting bracket that attaches to the end of the sound bar.	p.12	col. 7:4-10
...said first L-shaped member and said second L-shaped member are positioned to rotably support the sound bar on a horizontal axis...	The product's instructions direct the user to place the mounts "at your desired orientation" before tightening, which allegedly enables rotational positioning.	p.12	col. 10:17-24

U.S. Patent No. 11,745,669 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
an elongated housing having a first end opposite a second end and a middle section...	The Accused Products are sound bars with an elongated, bar-shaped housing.	¶13; p.6	col. 5:25-27
...an array of speakers...positioned in the middle section and oriented to emit sound in a direction outward from the central longitudinal axis;	The Accused Products are described as having 2 tweeters and 4 mid-range speakers.	p.6	col. 5:50-55
...a first bass speaker positioned in the first end...to emit sound in a direction outward...in line with the central longitudinal axis;	The Accused Products are described as having "2 side-mounted woofers," which implies one at each end emitting sound outward along the bar's axis.	p.6	col. 5:33-39
...a second bass speaker positioned in the second end...	As above, the "2 side-mounted woofers" allegedly satisfy the requirement for a bass speaker at each end.	p.6	col. 5:39-42
...a first mounting assembly comprising a first L-shaped member and a second mounting assembly comprising a second L-shaped member...	The Accused Products are sold with mounting hardware. A diagram in the complaint shows a mounting bracket that attaches to the end of the sound bar.	p.12; p.15	col. 7:8-14
...said first L-shaped member and said second L-shaped member are positioned to rotably support the sound bar on a horizontal axis...	The product's instructions direct the user to place the mounts "at your desired orientation" before tightening, which allegedly enables rotational positioning.	p.12; p.15	col. 8:49-55

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the mounting brackets provided with the Accused Products, depicted in the complaint (Compl. p.12), meet the claim limitation of an "L-shaped member." The construction of this term will be critical.
• Technical Questions: It raises the question of whether the accused mounting system, which allows the user to select an orientation before tightening bolts, satisfies the claim requirement to "rotably support" the sound bar. The dispute may center on whether this language requires continuous rotation capability or is met by the ability to be fixed in various rotational positions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "L-shaped member"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the structure of the claimed mounting assembly. The infringement analysis for a key component of the asserted claims hinges on whether the brackets sold with the Accused Products fall within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the visual evidence provided for the accused bracket does not depict a classic 90-degree "L" shape (Compl. p.12).

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to a "generally L-shaped mounting member" (’362 Patent, col. 7:4-5), and the use of "generally" may suggest that the term is not meant to be limited to a strict geometric shape but rather to a member that serves a similar mounting function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures, particularly Figure 9, depict a distinct L-shape with a long leg and a shorter leg extending "generally perpendicularly" from it (’362 Patent, col. 7:22-25). A party could argue that these embodiments define the scope of the term, limiting it to structures that more closely resemble the drawings.

• The Term: "rotably support"

• Context and Importance: This term describes the function of the mounting assembly. The outcome may depend on whether the accused product's function of being manually set to a desired orientation and then locked down constitutes "rotabl[e] support."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An objective of the invention is to provide a mounting system "permitting the sound bar to be rotated and affixed at any point in the 360° rotation about the longitudinal axis" (’362 Patent, col. 2:48-52). This language could support an interpretation that covers any system allowing for rotational adjustment before being fixed in place.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific mechanism for rotation involving interlocking ridges on the mounting member and the grill hub, which "can mate in locking fashion" (’362 Patent, col. 3:55-56, 7:13-18). This could be interpreted to mean that "rotably support" requires a specific type of interlocking mechanism that allows for indexed positioning, potentially narrowing the term's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶40, 42). Inducement is based on allegations that Defendants provide user manuals and installation instructions, a visual of which is included in the complaint, that direct customers to install and use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶41, p.12). Contributory infringement is based on the sale of the Accused Products and their mounting brackets, alleged to be a material part of the invention especially adapted for infringement and not a staple article of commerce (Compl. ¶42).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the patents and their infringement (Compl. ¶32, 43). The allegations are based on Defendants having cited a parent patent in an Information Disclosure Statement in October 2020 (Compl. ¶27) and, most notably, on the fact that Defendants themselves initiated ex parte reexamination proceedings against both patents-in-suit in February 2024 (Compl. ¶28, 29, 32). The complaint further alleges that Defendants knew the patents were valid after the USPTO issued certificates confirming patentability following those reexaminations (Compl. ¶43).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: will the term "L-shaped member," as defined by the patent's text and figures, be construed broadly enough to read on the specific geometry of the mounting brackets supplied with the Accused Products?
• A second central question will be one of functional interpretation: does the accused mounting system's ability to be fixed in various rotational positions during installation satisfy the claim requirement to "rotably support" the sound bar, or does the claim demand a more dynamic or specific mechanism for rotation?
• Given the strong allegations that Defendants initiated reexamination proceedings on the patents-in-suit prior to the lawsuit, a crucial question for damages will be one of willfulness: if infringement is found, did Defendants act with the requisite knowledge and intent to justify an award of enhanced damages?