Eight Khz, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

6:22-cv-00575 W.D. Tex. Closed 9 patents
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 3 Jun 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 29 Apr 2026, with 9 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Case no.
6:22-cv-00575
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
W.D. Tex.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Texas
Chief judge
None recorded
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
3 Jun 2022 – 29 Apr 2026
Duration
1426 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed with Prejudice
Products & marks
Cambria, · Oculus Go · Oculus Pro · Oculus Quest · Oculus Quest 2 · Oculus Rift S · Quest 3
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 6:22-cv-00575, United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

Check this patent against your own product

Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Get an FTO claim chart
10,000 free credits to start
Patent at issue
US10368179B1 Active App. US16/401242

Switching binaural sound

A method provides binaural sound to a person through electronic earphones. The binaural sound localizes to a sound localization point (SLP) in empty space that is away from but proximate to the person. When an event occurs, the binaural sound switches or changes to stereo sound, to mono sound, or to altered binaural sound.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
30 Jul 2019
Est. expiry
27 Dec 2035
Validity challenges
1 on recordIPR2023-01019 · Patentability · filed by META PLATFORMS, INC.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04S1/00G10L19/16H04R5/04G10L19/22H04S7/00
Prosecution counsel
PHILIP S. LYREN, PC
Examiner
HUBER, PAUL W
US10368179B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10368179B1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
US10798509B1 Active App. US16/938936

Wearable electronic device displays a 3D zone from where binaural sound emanates

A portable electronic device (PED) divides an area around a user into a three-dimensional (3D) zone. A wearable electronic device worn on a head of the user displays the 3D zone in response to the wearable electronic device detecting that the user is leaving the zone. The wearable electronic device plays binaural sound that emanates to the user from sound localization points (SLPs) inside the zone.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Active
Granted
6 Oct 2020
Est. expiry
20 Feb 2036
Validity challenges
2 on recordIPR2023-01023 · Patentability · filed by Meta Platforms, IncIPR2023-01023 · Patentability · filed by META PLATFORMS, INC.
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04S1/00H04R29/00H04S7/00G06K9/00G06F3/16G06F3/01
Prosecution counsel
PHILIP S. LYREN, PC
Examiner
PATEL, YOGESHKUMAR
US10798509B1 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US10798509B1 patent drawing, figure 2
Fig. 2
Source: Patsnap patent data + case record. Bibliographic fields and drawings reproduced from the published patent document. Break down the claims
Parties & counsel

Parties of record

Plaintiff

Eight Khz, LLC

Core tech
H04S1/00G10L19/16H04R5/04G10L19/22
Counsel
Andrew W. Lester · Brian Charles Poldrack · Brian Gregory Strand · Brian Medich · Brian T. Bear · Corby R. Vowell · Danielle Joy Healey · Dave R. Gunter · Erick Scott Robinson · Homayoon Rafatijo · Ian G. Dibernardo · Jayme Partridge · Jayne C. Piana · John Stefan Spisak · Jonathan T. Suder · Katherine Dearing · Kevin S. Tuttle · Kyle L. Elliott · Kyril Talanov · Michael Thomas Cooke · Patrick M. Dunn
Firm
Brown Rudnick LLP, Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PC, Friedman, Suder & Cooke PC, Spencer Fane LLP
Defendant

Meta Platforms, Inc.

Core tech
Not recorded
Counsel
Christopher W. Henry · Douglas Ethan Lumish · Ethan Lawrence Plail · Gabrielle A. LaHatte · Giri Pathmanaban · Heather Blacklaws · Jeffrey G. Homrig · Joseph C. Akalski · Kimberly Q. Li · Paige Arnette Amstutz · Razi Safi · Robert Pierce Earle · Saishruti Mutneja · Stephen Burbank
Firm
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, White & Case LLP

Counsel of record

AttorneyForRole
Andrew W. LesterEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Brian Charles PoldrackEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Brian Gregory StrandEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Brian MedichEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Brian T. BearEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Corby R. VowellEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Danielle Joy HealeyEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Dave R. GunterEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Erick Scott RobinsonEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Homayoon RafatijoEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Ian G. DibernardoEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Jayme PartridgeEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Jayne C. PianaEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
John Stefan SpisakEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Jonathan T. SuderEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Katherine DearingEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Kevin S. TuttleEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Kyle L. ElliottEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Kyril TalanovEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Michael Thomas CookeEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Patrick M. DunnEight Khz, LLCPlaintiff
Christopher W. HenryMeta Platforms, Inc.Defendant
Douglas Ethan LumishMeta Platforms, Inc.Defendant
Ethan Lawrence PlailMeta Platforms, Inc.Defendant
Gabrielle A. LaHatteMeta Platforms, Inc.Defendant
Giri PathmanabanMeta Platforms, Inc.Defendant
Heather BlacklawsMeta Platforms, Inc.Defendant
Jeffrey G. HomrigMeta Platforms, Inc.Defendant
Joseph C. AkalskiMeta Platforms, Inc.Defendant
Kimberly Q. LiMeta Platforms, Inc.Defendant
Paige Arnette AmstutzMeta Platforms, Inc.Defendant
Razi SafiMeta Platforms, Inc.Defendant
Robert Pierce EarleMeta Platforms, Inc.Defendant
Saishruti MutnejaMeta Platforms, Inc.Defendant
Stephen BurbankMeta Platforms, Inc.Defendant
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket. Compare both portfolios
Outcome

Basis of termination

From the record · verbatim

"Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Eight kHz, LLC (“8K”) and Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC (collectively, “Meta”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby jointly file this Stipulation of Dismissal, dismissing with prejudice all claims brought by 8K against Meta. Each party will bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees"

Case 6:22-cv-00575 · W.D. Tex. · closed 29 April 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.

Related cases

Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

What is case 6:22-cv-00575?

6:22-cv-00575 is a patent infringement action brought by Eight Khz, LLC against Meta Platforms, Inc., filed on 3 Jun 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 29 April 2026.

Which patents were asserted in 6:22-cv-00575?

US10368179B1 (“Switching binaural sound”), assigned to EIGHT KHZ, LLC, currently active; US10798509B1 (“Wearable electronic device displays a 3D zone from where binaural sound emanates”), assigned to EIGHT KHZ, LLC, currently active; US11172316B2 (“Wearable electronic device displays a 3D zone from where binaural sound emanates”), assigned to EIGHT KHZ, LLC; US10448184B1 (“Switching binaural sound”), assigned to EIGHT KHZ, LLC; US9282196B1 (“Moving a sound localization point of a computer program during a voice exchange”), assigned to EIGHT KHZ, LLC; US9226090B1 (“Sound localization for an electronic call”), assigned to EIGHT KHZ, LLC; US10917737B2 (“Defining a zone with a HPED and providing binaural sound in the zone”), assigned to EIGHT KHZ, LLC; US9674628B1 (“Providing binaural sound to localize at an image during a telephone call”), assigned to EIGHT KHZ, LLC; US11290836B2 (“Providing binaural sound behind an image being displayed with an electronic device”), assigned to EIGHT KHZ, LLC. The record also lists Cambria,, Oculus Go, Oculus Pro, Oculus Quest, Oculus Quest 2, Oculus Rift S and Quest 3.

How was case 6:22-cv-00575 terminated?

The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: "Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff Eight kHz, LLC (“8K”) and Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC (collectively, “Meta”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby jointly file this Stipulation of Dismissal, dismissing with prejudice all claims brought by 8K against Meta. Each party will bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees"

What does dismissal with prejudice mean?

A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.

How long did case 6:22-cv-00575 take?

1426 calendar days, from filing on 3 Jun 2022 to closure on 29 April 2026.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-00575?

Andrew W. Lester, Brian Charles Poldrack, Brian Gregory Strand, Brian Medich, Brian T. Bear, Corby R. Vowell, Danielle Joy Healey, Dave R. Gunter, Erick Scott Robinson, Homayoon Rafatijo, Ian G. Dibernardo, Jayme Partridge, Jayne C. Piana, John Stefan Spisak, Jonathan T. Suder, Katherine Dearing, Kevin S. Tuttle, Kyle L. Elliott, Kyril Talanov, Michael Thomas Cooke and Patrick M. Dunn are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Eight Khz. Christopher W. Henry, Douglas Ethan Lumish, Ethan Lawrence Plail, Gabrielle A. LaHatte, Giri Pathmanaban, Heather Blacklaws, Jeffrey G. Homrig, Joseph C. Akalski, Kimberly Q. Li, Paige Arnette Amstutz, Razi Safi, Robert Pierce Earle, Saishruti Mutneja and Stephen Burbank appear for defendant Meta Platforms.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 6:22-cv-00575 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-00575 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.