Koss Corp. v. Peag LLC: Wireless Headphone Patent Dispute Ends After 1,620 Days
Koss Corporation, a pioneer in headphone technology, sued Peag LLC — the maker of JLab Audio products — asserting four US patents across wireless audio headphone designs including the Air Executive, JBud Epic, and Jbud Airsport. After more than four and a half years in the Southern District of California, both parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice in November 2025.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1620 days
1,620 days — well above the median federal patent case duration of roughly 700–900 days
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars any re-filing of these claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes — Koss cannot re-assert the same four patents against Peag based on the same accused products in any future action. The joint nature of the motion indicates both sides agreed to end the litigation, which is the hallmark of a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal.
Final, no re-filing permittedKoss forfeits future claims against Peag on these products
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Koss Corp. cannot pursue Peag again on US10206025B2, US10491982B1, US10506325B1, or US10368155B2 in connection with the Air Executive, JBud Epic, or Jbud Airsport. Any compensation Koss received — if any — would be governed by a confidential settlement agreement not visible in the public record.
Claims extinguished vs. PeagPeag achieves certainty — but patent exposure may persist elsewhere
Peag LLC (JLab Audio) eliminates litigation risk from Koss on these specific products and patents. However, the four Koss patents remain in force and could be asserted against other wireless audio manufacturers. The with-prejudice dismissal benefits Peag specifically but does not invalidate the patents — competitors should note that Koss’s IP portfolio remains active.
Case-specific certainty securedSettlement pattern consistent with Koss’s broader licensing strategy
Koss has pursued an extensive multi-defendant patent licensing campaign in the wireless audio space. A with-prejudice joint dismissal after prolonged litigation typically suggests a licensing agreement was reached. For competitors selling wireless headphones in the US market, the survival of these four patents signals continued assertion risk. FTO analysis against Koss’s portfolio remains advisable for consumer audio product teams.
Portfolio risk remains for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Koss, Corp. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Peag, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amanda C. Maxfield | Attorney | Counsel for Koss, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin E. Weed | Attorney | Counsel for Koss, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Darlene F. Ghavimi | Attorney | Counsel for Koss, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Erik James Halverson | Attorney | Counsel for Koss, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gina A. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Koss, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James A. Shimota | Attorney | Counsel for Koss, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Melissa Marie Haulcomb | Attorney | Counsel for Koss, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Edward Soskin | Attorney | Counsel for Koss, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Philip Andrew Kunz | Attorney | Counsel for Koss, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | K&L Gates LLP | Law Firm | Representing Koss, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Spencer Fane LLP | Law Firm | Representing Koss, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Ridge Wallet, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Koss, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP | Law Firm | Representing Koss, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jayson Lorenzo | Attorney | Counsel for Peag, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan James Altomare | Attorney | Counsel for Peag, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | J. Lorenzo Law | Law Firm | Representing Peag, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The November 25, 2025 order grants a joint motion to dismiss all remaining claims with prejudice. The ‘jointly moved’ language is significant — it removes any inference of a unilateral capitulation and strongly suggests a negotiated resolution, most likely a confidential license or cross-agreement. The with-prejudice designation is the court’s final word: no claims between these parties on these patents and products can be revived. The order’s brevity is typical for consent dismissals and offers no insight into financial terms.
US10206025B2 — Wireless headphone technology and audio connectivity
The four asserted patents — US10206025B2, US10491982B1, US10506325B1, and US10368155B2 — all originate from application filings in the 2018–2019 window, placing them squarely within the Bluetooth and true-wireless stereo (TWS) technology era. Koss, a company with roots in headphone innovation dating to the 1950s, has systematically built a portfolio around modern wireless audio functionality. These patents cover aspects of wireless connectivity, audio device pairing, and operational control in consumer headphone products.
For the consumer audio sector, these four patents represent a meaningful assertion risk given Koss’s demonstrated willingness to litigate for extended periods before reaching resolution. The accused products — JLab’s Air Executive, JBud Epic, and Jbud Airsport — are mid-market wireless headphones, suggesting Koss’s claim scope extends beyond premium devices into the broader consumer segment. Any brand selling Bluetooth or TWS headphones in the US market should assess overlap with these claims, particularly around device pairing protocols and audio streaming state management.
Should your team run an FTO against Koss’s wireless headphone patents?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or distributes Bluetooth or true-wireless stereo headphones for the US market, the four patents asserted in this case warrant direct FTO attention. The Peag/JLab accused products were mid-tier consumer headphones — not niche or premium devices — which suggests the claim scope Koss is pursuing is broad enough to sweep in a wide range of commercial wireless audio products. The 2018–2019 priority dates mean these patents will remain in force well into the 2030s.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim sets of US10206025B2, US10491982B1, US10506325B1, and US10368155B2 in minutes. Eureka’s prior art discovery and claim-charting tools help R&D and IP teams identify design-around opportunities, assess invalidity arguments for IPR, and benchmark against Koss’s full enforcement history before your product reaches market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10206025B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless audio patent cases in US district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving wireless headphone and Bluetooth audio technology litigated in California federal courts and beyond.
What this case signals for the wireless audio IP landscape
Koss’s multi-patent campaign against consumer audio brands is a recurring enforcement pattern worth tracking for any company in the wireless headphone market.
Koss’s four-patent assertion strategy increases per-defendant leverage
By asserting four patents across multiple product lines simultaneously, Koss dramatically raises the cost of defense for consumer electronics companies like Peag. A 1,620-day case that ends jointly with prejudice suggests the economics of continued litigation eventually favored settlement — a dynamic that repeats across Koss’s broader enforcement campaign.
With-prejudice dismissal does not mean patent invalidity
US10206025B2, US10491982B1, US10506325B1, and US10368155B2 all survive this dismissal fully intact. Any wireless audio manufacturer whose products could read on these claims should treat this outcome as a signal that Koss continues to enforce — not that the patents have been neutralised.
Koss v Peag — key questions answered
Koss Corp. asserted four US patents: US10206025B2, US10491982B1, US10506325B1, and US10368155B2. All originate from 2018–2019 application filings and cover wireless headphone connectivity and audio functionality. The accused products were Peag’s (JLab Audio) Air Executive, JBud Epic, and Jbud Airsport headphones.
On November 25, 2025, both parties filed a joint motion to dismiss all remaining claims with prejudice. The court granted the motion. The joint nature of the filing strongly suggests a negotiated resolution — most likely a confidential settlement or licensing agreement — though the specific financial terms are not disclosed in the public record.
No. A dismissal with prejudice resolves the dispute between Koss and Peag only. It does not affect the validity or enforceability of US10206025B2, US10491982B1, US10506325B1, or US10368155B2. Koss retains the right to assert these patents against other parties. Competitors in the wireless audio space should not interpret this outcome as a patent clearance.
The case ran for 1,620 days — approximately four years and five months — from filing on June 25, 2021 to closure on December 1, 2025. This is significantly longer than the median US patent case duration of roughly 700–900 days, suggesting the parties engaged in substantive litigation including claim construction and potentially expert discovery before reaching resolution.
Koss has pursued a multi-defendant patent licensing campaign targeting wireless and Bluetooth headphone manufacturers across multiple US courts. The company has filed infringement actions against numerous consumer electronics brands. The pattern — multi-patent assertions followed by extended litigation and eventual with-prejudice joint dismissals — is consistent with a licensing-driven enforcement model rather than product-based competition.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.