Bose Corp v. IngenioSpec LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-01547
• Patent #: 8,582,789
• Filed: September 19, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Bose Corp
• Patent Owner(s): IngenioSpec, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-82

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Hearing Enhancement System
• Brief Description: The ’789 patent is directed to hearing-enhancement systems that address hearing impairments. The technology aims to overcome the "occlusion effect" of traditional in-ear hearing aids by using a directional speaker located outside the user's ear to transmit modified audio signals.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Priority Date Challenge - Claims 1-82 are anticipated by or obvious over Cheung.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Cheung (Application # 2004/0208333).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the challenged claims are not entitled to their 2004 priority filing date because the Priority Application fails to provide adequate written description support for the full scope of the claims. The claims recite a generic "speaker," which Patent Owner has asserted covers in-ear devices. However, the Priority Application allegedly describes only a specific type of speaker: an ultrasonic, directional speaker positioned outside the user's ear. Petitioner contended that the Priority Application disparages in-ear speakers as causing drawbacks like the occlusion effect. Because the claims lack written description support in the Priority Application, their effective filing date is no earlier than June 6, 2008. This makes Cheung, the publication of the Priority Application, prior art under pre-AIA §102(b). Cheung was asserted to disclose all limitations of claims 1-82, including a wireless system that receives audio, modifies it based on a user's hearing profile, and outputs it through a speaker.
  • Key Aspects: The central argument for this ground rested on invalidating the patent's priority claim, thereby making the patent's own parent application publication (Cheung) qualifying prior art against it.

Ground 2: Anticipation/Obviousness over Enzmann - Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11-23, 27-30, 43, 46-50, 52-54, 62, 75, 77, and 81-82 are anticipated by or obvious over Enzmann.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Enzmann (Application # 2004/0136555).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Enzmann disclosed a wireless earbud system that functions as both a hearing aid and a receiver for a wireless phone. Enzmann's system included a cellphone (the "audio system") that wirelessly transmits audio signals via Bluetooth to an earbud. Petitioner asserted a POSITA would have understood this process involved up-converting the signal for transmission. The earbud’s transmit/receive unit served as the "wireless receiver" and "down-converter." A "source control module" in the earbud acted as the claimed "modifier," as it adjusted the audio signal based on pre-stored "hearing characteristics" of the user, using an amplification chart to modify frequencies and enhance hearing. The earbud’s speaker then generated the audio output. Petitioner also contended that dependent claim limitations, such as using WiFi or implementing user-calibration, were either directly disclosed or would have been obvious implementations of Enzmann's teachings.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For elements not explicitly disclosed, Petitioner argued a POSITA would have been motivated to implement known techniques (e.g., WiFi for wireless connection, user volume controls) to achieve predictable results and improve device functionality.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success as combining these features involved routine design choices and the application of well-known principles in audio engineering.

Ground 3: Anticipation/Obviousness over Berger - Claims 1-8, 11-15, 18-20, 23, 25, 27-30, 46-48, 52, 62, 75-76, and 80 are anticipated by or obvious over Berger.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Berger (Application # 2001/0041602).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Berger disclosed a system that integrates a hearing aid into electronic devices, including a wireless headset. This system included an audio source like a television or cellphone that wirelessly transmits an up-converted signal. Berger's headset contained a "receiver" that also functioned as a "down-converter" to demodulate the incoming signal. A processor in the headset served as the claimed "modifier," transforming the audio signal based on a programmed "user's prescription" to apply more gain in frequency ranges where the user has hearing loss. A speaker then output the modified signal. Petitioner asserted that Berger's disclosure of a "user's prescription" inherently taught determining this characteristic by calibrating the user's hearing, a conventional practice known to a POSITA.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): For any limitations arguably not explicit, such as specific wireless protocols, Petitioner argued that a POSITA would have been motivated to use known elements like WiFi for their predictable benefits in a wireless audio system.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have expected success in implementing any minor modifications as they involved standard, well-understood technologies.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted numerous additional obviousness challenges based on combinations of Enzmann or Berger with other references. These included Enzmann in view of Eaton (for wireless programming), Sauer (for voice control), Hagen (for directional microphones), and Fretz (for directional speakers). Similar combination grounds were asserted based on Berger, such as Berger in view of Eaton, and Berger/Eaton in view of DeJaco (for automatic volume control).

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of IPR and cancellation of claims 1-82 of the ’789 patent as unpatentable.