DCT
1:25-cv-00867
IngenioSpec LLC v. Apple Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: IngenioSpec, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP; Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00867, W.D. Tex., 06/05/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Apple maintains numerous regular and established places of business in the district—including corporate campuses, an engineering center, a manufacturing facility, and retail stores—and because Apple employs engineers in the district who work on the accused products. The complaint also cites prior federal court decisions holding that venue is proper for Apple in this district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Apple AirPods and AirPods Pro, operating in conjunction with iPhones, infringe three U.S. patents related to wearable audio devices with enhanced and personalized hearing support features.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns integrating advanced audio processing into wireless earbuds to provide personalized hearing assistance, a feature that blends consumer electronics with hearing aid functionalities in a significant and growing market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint makes no mention of prior litigation involving the asserted patents, any IPR proceedings, or any licensing history. It does, however, reference the Carbyne Biometrics, LLC v. Apple Inc. case to support its venue allegations against Apple in the Western District of Texas.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-04-15 | Priority Date (U.S. Patent No. 8,582,789) |
| 2004-07-28 | Priority Date (U.S. Patent No. 11,644,693) |
| 2004-07-28 | Priority Date (U.S. Patent No. 11,921,355) |
| 2013-11-12 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 8,582,789) |
| 2023-05-09 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 11,644,693) |
| 2024-03-05 | Issue Date (U.S. Patent No. 11,921,355) |
| 2025-06-05 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,582,789 - "Hearing Enhancement Systems," Issued November 12, 2013
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the social stigma and discomfort associated with traditional hearing aids, which often require objects to be inserted into the ear canal, creating an "occlusion effect" (US 8,582,789 B2, col. 2:5-20).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a hearing enhancement system that does not require insertion into the ear. An "interface unit," worn by the user, contains a microphone to capture audio and a directional speaker that transforms the audio into ultrasonic signals. These ultrasonic signals are transmitted through the air to the user's ear, where they demodulate back into audible sound, allowing the user to hear both the enhanced audio and ambient environmental sounds without a device in the ear canal (US 8,582,789 B2, Abstract; col. 3:20-30).
- Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide hearing assistance that was more discreet and physically comfortable than conventional hearing aids by eliminating the need for an in-ear component (US 8,582,789 B2, col. 2:5-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶26).
- Claim 1 of the ’789 Patent requires:
- An audio system configured to receive input signals and up-convert them into wirelessly transmittable signals.
- A wireless receiver configured to receive the up-converted signals.
- A down-converter to change the received signals back into down-converted signals.
- A modifier to alter the down-converted signals based on a user's "hearing characteristic."
- A speaker to generate audio output from the modified signals.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,644,693 - "Wearable Audio System Supporting Enhanced Hearing Support," Issued May 9, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background explains that traditional eyeglasses do not contain electrical components, and that integrating such components presents significant design challenges related to size, weight, aesthetics, and electrical connections (’693 Patent, col. 2:46-64).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes techniques for integrating electrical components into wearable devices, such as eyewear or earbuds, to provide audio support and enhanced hearing. The system includes a wearable component (e.g., ear buds) and a mobile communication device that stores a user's "hearing profile." The mobile device processes audio to create customized output signals that compensate for the user's specific hearing impairment and transmits them to the wearable component (’693 Patent, Abstract; col. 110:1-20).
- Technical Importance: The technology provides a system for integrating sophisticated, personalized audio processing into everyday wearable electronics, moving beyond generic audio playback to offer customized hearing assistance (’693 Patent, col. 5:10-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
- Claim 1 of the ’693 Patent requires:
- A pair of ear buds.
- A mobile communication device configured to store a hearing profile that characterizes a user's hearing impairment.
- The mobile communication device configured to produce and transmit customized audio output signals to the ear buds.
- The customized signals must compensate for the hearing impairment and use signal amplification.
- The ear buds must be configured to receive the signals and generate the customized audio output.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 11,921,355 - "Head-Worn Personal Audio Apparatus Supporting Enhanced Hearing Support," Issued March 5, 2024
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a head-worn audio apparatus, such as wireless earbuds, containing electronic circuitry. The circuitry is configured to store a user's hearing characteristics, receive audio signals wirelessly, and customize those signals to compensate for the user's hearing impairment before outputting them through speakers (’355 Patent, Abstract; col. 109:1-24).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 17 (Compl. ¶44).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Apple's AirPods and AirPods Pro, as head-worn devices with speakers and wireless receivers, infringe by providing enhanced hearing support functionality (Compl. ¶43).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Apple's AirPods, AirPods Pro, and, for the '789 and '693 patents, iPhones, which are alleged to operate as an integrated system (Compl. ¶¶25, 34, 43).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint characterizes the accused products as wireless communication and hearing devices that can provide dynamic noise cancellation, hearing assistance features, and hands-free control through a mobile phone (Compl. ¶¶6, 8). The complaint alleges that these products are part of Apple's "flagship products" and that Apple employs engineers in the Western District of Texas specifically to work on their development (Compl. ¶17).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references preliminary infringement claim charts attached as exhibits, but those exhibits were not filed with the complaint. The analysis below is based on the narrative infringement allegations provided in the body of the complaint.
’789 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| an audio system configured to receive input signals for broadcasting, and configured to up-convert the received input signals into up-converted signals to be wirelessly transmitted | The iPhone receives input signals and up-converts them for wireless transmission. | ¶25 | col. 7:42-47 |
| a wireless receiver configured to wirelessly receive the up-converted signals | Apple AirPods and AirPods Pro wirelessly receive the up-converted signals from the iPhone. | ¶25 | col. 7:48-50 |
| a down-converter configured to down-convert the received up-converted signals into down-converted signals | The accused system down-converts the received signals for processing. | ¶25 | col. 7:51-53 |
| a modifier configured to modify the down-converted signals into modified signals based on at least one hearing characteristic of the user to enhance the hearing of the user | The accused system modifies the signals based on a user's hearing characteristic to provide hearing enhancement. | ¶25 | col. 7:54-58 |
| a speaker configured to generate audio output signals from the modified signals for the user | The speakers in the AirPods and AirPods Pro generate the modified audio output for the user. | ¶25 | col. 7:59-61 |
’693 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a pair of ear buds, each configured to be placed in an ear of a user | The Apple AirPods and AirPods Pro. | ¶34 | col. 110:1-3 |
| a mobile communication device... configured to store at least a hearing profile associated with the user, the stored hearing profile... at least characterizes hearing impairment | The Apple iPhone stores a hearing profile (e.g., an audiogram or other user-configured setting) that characterizes a hearing impairment. | ¶34 | col. 110:4-9 |
| the mobile communication device configured to produce audio output signals customized for the user... such that the customized audio output signals at least compensate for the hearing impairment | The iPhone processes audio to generate customized signals that compensate for the user's hearing loss. | ¶34 | col. 110:9-14 |
| the mobile communication device configured to produce the customized audio output signals using at least signal amplification, and... configured to transmit the customized audio output signals to the pair of ear buds | The iPhone amplifies and wirelessly transmits the customized audio signals to the AirPods. | ¶34 | col. 110:14-17 |
| wherein each of the ear buds is configured to receive... and... generate at least a portion of the customized audio output for the user | The AirPods receive the transmitted signals from the iPhone and play the customized audio for the user. | ¶34 | col. 110:18-24 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central issue for the ’789 Patent may be the construction of "up-convert" and "down-convert." The dispute could turn on whether these terms require a specific type of signal modulation/demodulation described in the patent or if they can be read more broadly to cover standard audio encoding and decoding used in Bluetooth protocols. For the ’693 Patent, a key question will be whether Apple's features, which may be marketed for general hearing enhancement, meet the claim limitation of "compensat[ing] for the hearing impairment."
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify which features of the accused products perform the claimed functions. A technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that Apple's "hearing enhancement systems" actually "modify" signals based on a "hearing characteristic of the user," as required by the claims of both the '789 and '693 patents, rather than applying a generic audio-processing algorithm.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’789 Patent
- The Term: "up-convert" / "down-convert"
- Context and Importance: These terms are foundational to the infringement theory for the '789 patent. Their construction will determine whether standard wireless audio transmission protocols fall within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on these terms because the patent describes a system based on ultrasonic transmission, which may differ significantly from the radio-frequency Bluetooth technology used by the accused products.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not specify a frequency or method, which could support an argument that the terms encompass any process of preparing a signal for wireless transmission and reversing that process upon receipt.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description in the '789 patent repeatedly discusses transforming audio signals into "ultrasonic signals" for transmission (US 8,582,789 B2, col. 3:20-25). This specific embodiment could be used to argue that "up-convert" should be limited to modulation into an ultrasonic frequency range.
For the ’693 Patent
- The Term: "a hearing profile... [that] characterizes hearing impairment"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because infringement hinges on whether the data used by the accused products to customize audio qualifies as a "profile" that "characterizes hearing impairment." The case may turn on whether this requires clinical data (like an audiogram) or if user-adjusted settings (like an equalizer or features such as "Conversation Boost") meet the definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses calibrating the system "by the user or by a third party" and notes the process can be guided by a website, suggesting a less formal process than a clinical hearing test may be contemplated (’693 Patent, col. 6:6-12).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly mentions compensating for "mild or medium hearing loss" and "severe hearing loss," language that suggests a medical or clinical context for the "hearing impairment" the profile must characterize (’693 Patent, col. 5:60-65).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Apple induces infringement of all asserted patents by actively encouraging and instructing customers and other companies to use the accused products in ways that directly infringe. This is alleged to be done with knowledge of the patents and intent to cause infringing acts (Compl. ¶¶27, 36, 45).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Apple's infringement has been and continues to be willful, knowing, reckless, and egregious. This allegation is based on Apple's alleged knowledge of the patents and the infringing nature of its products for a period of time before and through the filing of the complaint (Compl. ¶¶31, 40, 49).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can terms rooted in the patents' specific disclosures, such as "up-convert" from an ultrasonic context ('789 Patent) and a "hearing profile... [that] characterizes hearing impairment" ('693 Patent), be construed broadly enough to read on the functionality of mass-market consumer electronics that use standard Bluetooth protocols and offer general audio enhancement features?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: What evidence will be required to prove that the software and hardware in the accused Apple products perform the specific, multi-step processes recited in the claims—particularly the step of modifying audio signals "based on" a user's specific hearing characteristics to "compensate" for an impairment, as distinct from simply personalizing the listening experience?