DCT
2:17-cv-00322
ClearOne Communications v. Shure Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ClearOne, Inc. (Utah)
- Defendant: Shure Inc. (Illinois), Biamp Systems Corporation (Delaware), QSC Audio Products, LLC (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Magleby Cataxinos & Greenwood; Hueston Hennigan LLP
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00322, D. Utah, 04/25/2017
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, and therefore reside in the district for venue purposes. Personal jurisdiction is alleged based on Defendants transacting business in Utah and causing injury to Plaintiff, which is headquartered there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that integrated audio conferencing systems, comprising a microphone array from one Defendant and an audio processor from another, infringe a patent related to combining beamforming microphone arrays with acoustic echo cancellation.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to professional audio conferencing systems that use microphone arrays to focus on a speaker's voice (beamforming) while simultaneously canceling echo from remote participants' audio being played in the room.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that on March 10, 2017, prior to the patent issuing but after a Notice of Allowance, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to all three Defendants. This letter allegedly identified the patent application, its allowed claims, and included a detailed 18-page claim chart asserting that the combined Shure, Biamp, and QSC products infringed. This pre-suit notice forms the basis for the willfulness allegations.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-06-11 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,635,186 |
| 2012 | Plaintiff ClearOne alleges it was first to market with its Beamforming Microphone Array product |
| 2017-03-10 | Plaintiff’s counsel sends notice letter with infringement allegations and claim chart to all Defendants |
| 2017-03-21 | Defendants Shure and Biamp acknowledge receipt of the notice letter |
| 2017-04-17 | Defendant Shure sends a letter to Plaintiff claiming its products do not infringe |
| 2017-04-25 | U.S. Patent No. 9,635,186 issues |
| 2017-04-25 | Complaint filed |
| Fall 2017 | Scheduled launch for Defendant Shure's upcoming Intellimix P300 Audio Conferencing Processor, mentioned as part of the accused integrated systems (projected date) |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,635,186 - “Conferencing Apparatus that Combines a Beamforming Microphone Array with an Acoustic Echo Canceller,” Issued April 25, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical and computational challenges of combining a beamforming microphone array (BMA) with an acoustic echo canceller (AEC) in a conferencing system. It identifies two prior art strategies: "AEC first," which is effective but computationally intensive and costly as the number of microphones increases, and "beamformer first," which is less computationally intensive but can be impractical because the AEC must continuously "re-learn" as the beamformer's characteristics change to track different speakers. (’186 Patent, col. 1:40-62, col. 10:16-28).
- The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a "hybrid" system that aims to achieve the computational efficiency of "beamformer first" architecture without its practical drawbacks. The solution is to perform beamforming first, but to create a plurality of fixed beams rather than a single, adaptive beam. An AEC is then applied to each of these fixed-beam signals. Because the beams are fixed, the AEC does not need to continuously adapt to large changes in the beamformer, which is alleged to provide good echo cancellation without the high computational cost of the "AEC first" approach. (’186 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:3-16).
- Technical Importance: This "hybrid" method is presented as a way to enable the use of a large number of microphones to improve audio quality through better beamforming, without incurring the prohibitive computational complexity and cost that would typically accompany such an increase in an "AEC first" system. (’186 Patent, col. 2:5-16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts representative claims 1, 7, and 13. (Compl. ¶¶45-47).
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus Claim):
- A conferencing apparatus comprising a beamforming microphone array with a plurality of microphones.
- A processor configured to perform a beamforming operation to combine microphone signals into a plurality of combined signals, each corresponding to a different fixed beam.
- The processor is also configured to perform an acoustic echo cancellation operation on the plurality of combined signals to generate a plurality of combined echo cancelled signals.
- A signal selection module selects one or more of the combined echo cancelled signals for transmission.
- The signal selection module uses the far end signal as information to inhibit the module from changing its selection while only the far end signal is active.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are not single products but "integrated systems" created by combining products from different Defendants. Specifically, the systems consist of Defendant Shure’s beamforming microphones (e.g., the Shure Microflex Advance Array microphone) used in conjunction with acoustic echo cancellation products from other companies, such as Defendant Biamp’s Tesira/TesiraFORTE audio processors or Defendant QSC’s Q-SYS platform. (Compl. ¶¶45-47).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that these integrated systems perform the core functions of the patented technology: they "perform beamforming operations that combine microphone signals into signals corresponding to fixed beams, and then perform acoustic echo cancellation on the combined signals." (Compl. ¶¶45-47). These systems are sold into the professional audio conferencing market, where Plaintiff and Defendants are direct competitors. (Compl. ¶¶16, 21, 26). The complaint includes a photograph of the "ClearOne Beamforming Microphone Array," the product Plaintiff asserts embodies its patented technology. (Compl. p. 2).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’186 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a conferencing apparatus that combines a beamforming microphone array... with an acoustic echo canceller... | An integrated system consisting of Shure's beamforming microphones (e.g., Microflex Advance Array) and acoustic echo cancellation products from Biamp (Tesira/TesiraFORTE) or QSC (Q-SYS platform). | ¶¶45-47 | col. 1:32-38 |
| perform a beamforming operation... to combine the plurality of microphone signals... into a plurality of combined signals... corresponding to a different fixed beam; | The integrated systems are alleged to "perform beamforming operations that combine microphone signals into signals corresponding to fixed beams." | ¶¶45-47 | col. 2:30-37 |
| perform an acoustic echo cancellation operation... on the plurality of combined signals to generate a plurality of combined echo cancelled signals; | The integrated systems are alleged to "then perform acoustic echo cancellation on the combined signals." | ¶¶45-47 | col. 2:38-41 |
| select with a signal selection module, one or more of the combined echo cancelled signals for transmission to the far end... | While not explicitly detailed in the infringement paragraphs, this is a necessary function for the accused systems to operate as conferencing devices. The complaint broadly alleges infringement of "one or more claims of the '186 Patent," including this element. | ¶¶45-47 | col. 2:41-44 |
| wherein said signal selection module uses the far end signal as information to inhibit said signal selection module from changing the selection... while only the far end signal is active. | This specific function is alleged to be part of the "other operations in the '186 Patent" that the accused systems perform. The complaint’s technology background section also highlights this feature as a key part of the invention. | ¶33, ¶45 | col. 2:44-48 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Joint Infringement: The complaint accuses systems composed of products from separate, competing companies. A central legal question will be whether Plaintiff can satisfy the standard for joint infringement, which may require showing that one Defendant directs or controls the other parties, or that the Defendants have formed a joint enterprise. The complaint's allegations of "announced partnerships" will be scrutinized. (Compl. ¶¶45-47).
- Technical Questions: A key technical dispute may arise over the final limitation of claim 1: whether the accused systems use the "far end signal" to "inhibit" the selection of an audio beam "while only the far end signal is active." The complaint alleges this in general terms, but proof may require detailed evidence about the internal logic and operation of the accused audio processors.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "fixed beam"
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's asserted novelty over prior art that used adaptive, or steerable, beams. The definition of "fixed beam" will be critical to determine if the accused systems, which the complaint alleges use fixed beams, fall within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish between beams that are merely pre-configured versus those that meet the more specific definitions in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not provide a detailed definition, suggesting the term could be given its plain and ordinary meaning in the art.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification defines a fixed beam as one "that is defined with pre-computed parameters rather than being adaptively steered to look in different directions in real time." (’186 Patent, col. 8:50-54). A party could argue this definition, including the "pre-computed parameters" language, should be imported into the claims.
The Term: "inhibit said signal selection module from changing the selection"
Context and Importance: This functional language describes a specific control logic that prevents the system from switching its active microphone beam when only far-end audio (e.g., a remote talker) is present, which could otherwise cause unwanted audio artifacts. Infringement will depend on whether the accused systems perform this exact function.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this covers any mechanism that prevents beam switching in response to echo, regardless of the specific software implementation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification links this function to specific control logic and system states (e.g., the "RX ONLY" state). (’186 Patent, col. 2:44-48, col. 16:36-39). A defendant could argue the claim requires this specific implementation detail.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement based on Defendants allegedly advertising, encouraging, and instructing customers to build and use the infringing integrated systems. (Compl. ¶¶17, 22, 27, 45-47). It also alleges that the Defendants have "announced partnerships" to manufacture and sell these systems. (Compl. ¶¶45-47).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on a pre-suit notice letter sent on March 10, 2017. The complaint states this letter provided Defendants with actual notice of the pending patent application, its allowed claims, and a detailed claim chart mapping the claims to the accused integrated systems. The complaint alleges that Defendants continued their infringing activities despite this notice. (Compl. ¶¶37, 48-49).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of liability for a combined system: can ClearOne prove that the separate defendants, who are also competitors, act as a "joint enterprise" or that one defendant "directs or controls" the others' actions to the extent required to establish liability for joint infringement? The allegations of "partnerships" will be a key factual battleground.
- A key technical question will be one of functional operation: does the evidence show that the accused integrated systems perform the specific control logic claimed in the patent, particularly the step of using a far-end signal to "inhibit" a change in beam selection? This will likely require a deep dive into the software and hardware of the accused audio processors.
- A third question will relate to damages and remedy: if infringement is found, how will damages be apportioned among the multiple defendants whose products combine to create the infringing system? This raises complex questions of causation and apportionment of value.