Patent Armory Inc v. Panasonic Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Patent Armory Inc. (Canada)
  • Defendant: Panasonic Corporation (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00556, W.D. Tex., 08/01/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district, causing harm there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unidentified products of Defendant infringe a patent related to phased array sound systems that create localized audio zones.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that use a large array of speakers to project sound that is audible only in a specific, targeted area, enabling multiple, distinct audio experiences in a single open space without headphones.
• 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.

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, issued October 31, 2006.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a cost-effective system to produce sound that can only be heard in a specific, localized region, allowing multiple listeners in the same room to receive unique audio input without using headphones ('430 Patent, col. 2:6-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using an array of speakers that are all fed a signal from a single audio source. However, the signal sent to each individual speaker is delayed by a precise amount of time. This delay is calculated based on the speaker's physical distance to a desired "target" location. The result is that the sound waves from all speakers, despite traveling different distances, arrive at the target location at the same moment and constructively interfere, creating a zone of significantly amplified, intelligible sound. Outside this target zone, the sound waves arrive out-of-phase, resulting in unintelligible or much quieter sound ('430 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:14-37). The patent illustrates this concept with a museum setting where different patrons standing in designated spots can hear audio descriptions for different artworks ('430 Patent, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach enables the creation of private "sound bubbles" in public or shared spaces, facilitating applications like multilingual presentations, targeted advertising, or private audio in open-plan offices ('430 Patent, col. 13:1-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '430 Patent Claims" in an attached exhibit that was not made public with the complaint (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • 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 which is substantially identical for each speaker, 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;
  • such that substantially identical sound from each speaker reaches the sound target at the same time.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

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 "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

As Exhibit 2 was not filed publicly with the complaint, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes by making, using, and selling the "Exemplary Defendant Products" which allegedly "practice the technology claimed by the '430 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '430 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). However, the complaint incorporates its specific infringement theories by reference to claim charts in an attached Exhibit 2, which was not made publicly available (Compl. ¶17). Without access to these charts or identification of the accused products, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of potential points of contention.

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" (from Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This term is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its construction will be critical because its scope is not defined by the literal words of the claim, but is instead limited to the specific structures disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the recited function, and their structural equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the outcome of the infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused products contain the specific structures disclosed in the patent or their legal equivalents.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for broader scope might point to the general description of the system, which involves a computer processing an audio source and applying calculated delays, suggesting that any modern digital signal processing (DSP) architecture that achieves the same function could be an equivalent ('430 Patent, col. 5:45-65).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower scope could argue the "means" is limited to the specific embodiment detailed in the specification. This includes a computer or microprocessor (80) that uses a "pointer array" (79) to read specific values from a "memory stack" (76) of digital audio samples, which are then passed through a D/A converter (104) and amplifier (106) ('430 Patent, Fig. 2; Fig. 3; col. 6:48-70). The patent also describes a specific experimental setup using a Texas Instruments DSP and custom D-to-A cards, which could be argued to further define the disclosed structure ('430 Patent, col. 8:33-63).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users to operate the products in a manner that infringes the '430 Patent (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that despite this knowledge, Defendant has "continued to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products, forming the basis for a post-suit willfulness claim (Compl. ¶14).

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

1. A central question will be one of pleading sufficiency and evidence: Given the complaint's reliance on a non-public exhibit to identify the accused products and infringement contentions, a threshold issue may be whether the pleading provides sufficient notice to Defendant under federal rules. Subsequently, the case will turn on what specific products are accused and what technical evidence Plaintiff presents to map their functionality onto the patent's claims.
2. The case will likely hinge on a question of claim construction, specifically the scope of the "means for applying a time varying audio drive voltage" limitation. The dispute will be whether this term is limited to the 2001-era computer architecture disclosed in the patent, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover the architecture of modern Panasonic audio processing systems.
3. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Once products are identified, the court will need to determine if their internal workings—how they process and delay audio signals for individual speaker drivers—are the same as or structurally equivalent to the specific "pointer array" and "memory stack" system disclosed in the '430 Patent's specification.