Patent Armory Inc v. K Array

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: K-array (Italy)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00555, W.D. Tex., 08/01/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation, and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement and caused harm within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s sound systems infringe a patent related to technology for creating localized regions of audible sound using phased speaker arrays.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using a large array of speakers, each emitting a precisely time-delayed audio signal, to create constructive interference at a specific point in space, making sound clearly audible only in that targeted zone.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,130,430 - "Phased array sound system"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,130,430, “Phased array sound system,” issued October 31, 2006.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for a cost-effective system that can deliver sound to a localized region, allowing multiple listeners in the same room to receive unique audio input without using headphones (’430 Patent, col. 2:6-10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention uses an array of speakers fed from a single audio source. Each speaker transmits the sound with a specific time delay calculated based on the distance between that speaker and a selected target point. This ensures that the sound waves from all speakers arrive at the target simultaneously and in-phase, creating a zone of constructive interference where the sound is significantly louder than in surrounding areas (’430 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:13-37). The system is depicted creating distinct audio zones for different viewers in a museum gallery (’430 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach enables the creation of "private" audio spaces within a public or shared environment, such as providing different exhibit narrations to different museum patrons standing in the same room (’430 Patent, col. 1:30-37).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims asserted against the Defendant, instead referring to "Exemplary '430 Patent Claims" detailed in an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11).
• As a representative example, independent claim 1 recites a system comprising:
  • a multiplicity of audio frequency speakers;
  • at least one defined sound target spaced from the speakers;
  • a means for applying a time varying audio drive voltage to each speaker, where the voltage is offset in time by an amount related to the distance between the speaker and the target;
  • the time offset ensures that "substantially identical sound from each speaker reaches the sound target at the same time";
  • the speakers are arranged in a single plane and mounted to a ceiling; and
  • the speakers are formed as part of a ceiling panel that can be joined to other panels.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "numerous other devices that infringe" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused products' specific functionality or market context. It alleges only that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '430 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an "Exhibit 2," which was not provided (Compl. ¶16). The infringement theory is therefore based on the general assertion that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Because the complaint does not specify asserted claims or provide claim charts, a detailed infringement analysis based on the provided documents is not possible. The core of the infringement allegation appears to be that Defendant's products employ a phased array of speakers to create localized sound zones in a manner that reads on the patent's claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "means for applying a time varying audio drive voltage which is substantially identical, except that each audio drive voltage is offset in time by an amount which is related to the distance between each speaker and the defined sound target, so that substantially identical sound from each speaker reaches the sound target at the same time" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The scope of this claim element is limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. The entire infringement case may depend on whether the accused products contain the specific structures disclosed in the patent for performing the complex function of calculating and applying individualized time delays.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties may dispute the full scope of the disclosed structure. Plaintiff might argue the structure should be understood at a higher level of generality, encompassing any processing system that executes the described delay algorithm.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses a specific structure for performing this function, including a computer or microprocessor (80), an A/D converter (72), a memory stack (76) to store sound samples, and a "pointer array" (79) that directs the output of time-delayed signals to each speaker (’430 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 6:28-65). A defendant would likely argue that the claim is limited to this specific computer-and-pointer-based architecture and its equivalents.

• The Term: "substantially identical sound" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term qualifies the nature of the sound waves that must reach the target. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern audio processing systems may apply other transformations (e.g., equalization, phase shifting) in addition to time delays, raising the question of whether the resulting sound waves are still "substantially identical."

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the term simply means the core audio content is the same, allowing for minor processing differences, as the goal is constructive interference of the primary signal (’430 Patent, col. 4:16-23).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that "substantially identical" requires the waveforms to be nearly exact replicas, offset only by time, and that any additional signal processing renders them non-identical for the purposes of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the ’430 Patent obtained "At least since being served by this Complaint and corresponding claim charts" (Compl. ¶15). This frames the willfulness claim as being based on post-filing conduct.

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

1. A Fundamental Evidentiary Question: The complaint lacks any identification of the accused products. The first major hurdle for the Plaintiff will be to establish through discovery that K-array's products actually implement the specific time-delay architecture claimed in the ’430 patent, as opposed to other known methods of creating directional sound (e.g., beamforming).

2. A Question of Claim Scope: The case will likely hinge on the construction of the means-plus-function term in Claim 1. The central issue will be whether the specific computer, memory, and pointer-based structure described in the patent specification is present, either literally or equivalently, in the accused K-array systems.

3. A Question of Technical Operation: A key factual dispute will be whether the accused systems function by calculating and applying a distinct time delay to each speaker signal based on its physical distance to a target point, as required by the claims. The defense may argue its products achieve directional sound through an alternative technical mechanism that falls outside the patent's scope.