Bose Corp v. IngenioSpec LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-01549
• Patent #: 11,852,901
• Filed: September 19, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Bose Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Ingeniospec, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1-32

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Wireless headset supporting messages and hearing enhancement
• Brief Description: The ’901 patent discloses a wireless headset or wearable device designed to manage voice calls and messages simultaneously. The system allows an incoming message (text or audio) to be presented to the user through the headset, avoiding the need to view a separate mobile phone screen.

3. Key Technical Contentions

• Ineffective Priority Claim: A central argument of the petition is that the ’901 patent is not entitled to its earliest claimed priority date. Petitioner asserted that a critical application in the priority chain, Application Serial No. 11/546,685 (the ’685-Application), fails to provide written description support for key claim limitations, specifically those related to presenting a "text message."
• Improper Incorporation by Reference: Petitioner argued that the ’685-Application’s attempt to incorporate text messaging disclosures from other provisional and non-provisional applications by reference was legally ineffective for establishing priority. The attempts allegedly failed because essential matter cannot be incorporated from a provisional application or from a non-published application identified only by serial number, per 37 C.F.R. §1.57(d). This alleged break in the priority chain makes the publication of the ’685-Application itself—Howell-442—valid prior art against the challenged claims.

4. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation and Obviousness over Howell-442 - Claims 1-32 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 and/or §103 over Howell-442 and its incorporated applications.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Howell-442 (Application # 2007/0030442), which incorporates by reference the ’169-Provisional, the ’262-Application, the ’343-Application, and the ’283-Application.
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that as a consequence of the broken priority chain, Howell-442 (published in 2007) qualifies as prior art. While the ’685-Application (from which Howell-442 published) could not rely on its incorporated references to support the ’901 patent’s claims for priority purposes, Howell-442 as a prior art document can include the disclosures of those same incorporated applications. Petitioner contended that Howell-442, combined with the full disclosure of its incorporated applications, teaches every limitation of claims 1-32. For example, the ’343-Application explicitly discloses presenting an incoming text message to a user, and the ’262-Application discloses modifying audio signals based on a user's hearing needs.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the teachings because Howell-442 explicitly incorporates each of the other applications by reference, directing an artisan to their disclosures. The references are all directed to similar technology (e.g., electronic eyeglasses), making the combination of their respective features predictable.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success, as the combination merely integrates known electronic features into the eyeglass/headset system described in Howell-442.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Goh and Berger - Claims 1, 3-11, 13, 21-22, and 24 are obvious over Goh in view of Berger.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Goh (WO 2003/056790 A1) and Berger (Application # 2001/0041602).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Goh discloses a multifunctional wireless headset with a speaker, microphone, and wireless circuitry capable of functioning as a phone and a reader for text messages (e.g., SMS, email). Goh thus teaches most limitations of the independent claims. Berger discloses integrating hearing-aid functionality into electronic devices, including a wireless headset, by programming a processor with a user’s hearing prescription to modify audio signals and amplify frequencies where the user has hearing loss. This maps directly to the "hearing characteristic" limitation of claim 1.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references because Berger explicitly addresses the problem that conventional hearing aids are often incompatible with electronic devices like wireless telephones. Berger provides the solution of building hearing compensation directly into a compatible wireless headset, which would have motivated a POSITA to apply Berger's teachings to improve a known headset like Goh's.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected because the combination involves programming Goh's existing digital processing unit to perform the audio amplification taught by Berger, which was a known technique to improve a similar device.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted further obviousness challenges by adding references to the Goh/Berger combination. These included adding Irvin (disclosing wear-detecting sensors for power management), Hollemans (disclosing touch-sensitive controls), and Regen (disclosing an LED in-use indicator) to argue that various dependent claims reciting these conventional features were obvious.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-32 of Patent 11,852,901 as unpatentable.