P2I Ltd. v. Favored Tech & GN Audio: Nano-Coating Patent Battle Over Jabra Elite 8 Active
UK nano-coating specialist P2I, Ltd. asserted two patents covering liquid-repellent nano-coating technology against Favored Tech USA, Chinese parent Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology, and GN Audio USA — maker of the Jabra Elite 8 Active earbuds — in California’s Northern District. After 894 days of litigation, the court entered judgment on the merits in favour of all three defendants.
Nano-coating IP clash ends in complete defeat for P2I after 894-day N.D. Cal. fight
P2I, Ltd., a UK-headquartered specialist in plasma-deposited nano-coating technology, filed this infringement action on 7 April 2023 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint targeted Favored Tech USA Corporation, its Chinese parent Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd., and GN Audio USA Inc. — the US entity behind the Jabra brand — alleging that the manufacturing and sale of the Jabra Elite 8 Active earbuds infringed two P2I patents: US11041087B2 and US8389070B2, both directed to liquid-repellent nano-coating compositions and processes.
The case concluded on 17 September 2025 when the court entered final judgment on the merits in favour of all defendants against P2I’s claims as pleaded in the Second Amended Complaint. The judgment followed three substantive court orders issued over the preceding year — 24 September 2024, 20 June 2025, and 29 August 2025 — suggesting a structured sequence of dispositive rulings rather than a single trial verdict. A defendant win on the merits means P2I’s infringement claims were adjudicated and rejected; the patents remain in force but could not be successfully asserted against these specific products in this action.
The 894-day duration is consistent with contested N.D. Cal. patent litigation that proceeds through claim construction and summary judgment rather than settling early. The progression through three court orders and a Second Amended Complaint suggests P2I made multiple attempts to refine its claims, which may indicate difficulties surviving dispositive motions. What drove the ultimate defence victory — whether claim construction, non-infringement findings, invalidity, or a combination — is not fully detailed in the public docket record available, leaving the precise legal basis of each order open to interpretation.
Filing to Judgment on the merits for Defendant in 894 days
894 days — nearly 2.5 years from filing to final judgment in N.D. Cal.
Judgment for defendants: what a merits win means for both sides
Merits judgment: a substantive defeat, not a procedural exit
Unlike a voluntary dismissal or settlement, judgment on the merits means the court adjudicated P2I’s infringement claims and found them legally insufficient. Following three dispositive orders and a Second Amended Complaint, the court ordered final judgment for defendants. This forecloses re-litigation of the same claims against the same parties on the same patents in this jurisdiction, carrying res judicata effect.
Res judicata appliesP2I’s enforcement attempt fails; patents intact but credibility tested
US11041087B2 and US8389070B2 remain in force — a merits judgment for defendants does not invalidate the patents. However, P2I faces reputational and strategic headwinds: a public record of a failed infringement action against a high-profile product makes future licensing negotiations harder and may embolden other potential infringers. P2I’s ability to assert these patents against different defendants or products in future actions is preserved but commercially complicated.
Patents valid; enforcement weakenedFavored Tech and GN Audio secure full merits victory
All three defendants — Favored Tech USA, Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology, and GN Audio USA — obtain a judgment that conclusively resolves P2I’s claims with respect to the Jabra Elite 8 Active earbuds. GN Audio can continue selling the product without the cloud of this litigation. Defendants may now seek attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 if the court finds the case exceptional, though no such ruling is confirmed in the available public record.
Defendants cleared on the meritsNano-coating IP enforcement landscape shifts after high-profile loss
The outcome suggests that asserting nano-coating process patents against finished consumer electronics products faces meaningful legal hurdles — likely around linking a supplier’s coating process to a product maker’s infringement liability. For the wearables and hearables sector, the case signals that supply-chain nano-coating arrangements may provide a degree of insulation from downstream patent exposure, though the precise legal basis of this defeat remains partially opaque from the public record.
Supply-chain coating IP risk re-pricedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | P2I, Ltd. | Company | Nano-coating technology licensor — holder of US11041087B2 and US8389070B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Favored Tech USA Corporation | Company | Nano-coating manufacturer (Favored Tech/Jiangsu Favored) and Jabra earbud brand owner (GN Audio USA)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | GN Audio USA Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Bochner | Attorney | Counsel for P2I, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ariel Reinitz | Attorney | Counsel for P2I, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Laura Anne Harper | Attorney | Counsel for P2I, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Meredith Lloyd | Attorney | Counsel for P2I, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott Matthew Lowry | Attorney | Counsel for P2I, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bochner PLLC | Law Firm | Representing P2I, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Lowry Blixseth APC | Law Firm | Representing P2I, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Taylor Dykema, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing P2I, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew T. Dufresne | Attorney | Counsel for Favored Tech USA CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Irvin Tietz | Attorney | Counsel for Favored Tech USA CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew A. Lembo | Attorney | Counsel for Favored Tech USA CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Cook Bernstein | Attorney | Counsel for Favored Tech USA CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael A. Chajon | Attorney | Counsel for Favored Tech USA CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas Lipperd | Attorney | Counsel for Favored Tech USA CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Patrick John McKeever | Attorney | Counsel for Favored Tech USA CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bernstein IP Strategy | Law Firm | Representing Favored Tech USA CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Favored Tech USA CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict language — judgment entered ‘in favor of Defendants, and against Plaintiff, on Plaintiff’s claims in its Second Amended Complaint’ — is a comprehensive merits disposition. The reference to three prior court orders (September 2024, June 2025, August 2025) indicates the judgment consolidates a series of rulings rather than reflecting a single trial outcome. The phrase ‘on Plaintiff’s claims’ confirms that all of P2I’s asserted causes of action were resolved adversely, carrying full res judicata effect and foreclosing re-litigation between these parties on these patents with respect to the accused Jabra products.
US11041087B2 & US8389070B2 — Liquid-Repellent Nano-Coating Technology
US11041087B2 (application no. US16/547728) and US8389070B2 (application no. US10/593207) both cover P2I’s core technology in plasma-deposited, liquid-repellent nano-coatings. The earlier ‘070 patent, stemming from a mid-2000s application, establishes foundational protection over the coating compositions and deposition methodology. The later ‘087 patent, filed in 2019, extends protection to refined formulations or application methods, reflecting incremental innovation in a fast-moving materials science field. Together, they represent P2I’s attempt to protect both the underlying chemistry and its commercial implementation.
Nano-coating technology has become strategically critical across the consumer electronics supply chain — smartphones, earbuds, and wearables routinely use such coatings to achieve IP (ingress protection) ratings marketed to consumers. P2I’s business model, centred on licensing rather than manufacturing, places these two patents at the heart of its revenue strategy. The involvement of Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology — a dedicated nano-coating supplier — alongside GN Audio signals that P2I was targeting the full supply chain. For competitors operating in the hearables space, the outcome of this case should inform FTO analysis of P2I’s surviving claims.
Should your product team run an FTO against US11041087B2 and US8389070B2?
Any company sourcing plasma nano-coating services for consumer electronics — earbuds, hearables, smartwatches, or smartphones — should treat P2I’s patent portfolio as a live risk. Although P2I lost this action against the Jabra Elite 8 Active earbuds, the patents remain enforceable and P2I retains standing to assert them against different products or defendants. Nano-coating suppliers based in China with US distribution exposure are particularly relevant to monitor.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US11041087B2 and US8389070B2 against your product’s coating process and substrate specifications in minutes. Eureka surfaces relevant prior art, identifies design-around opportunities, and flags related P2I family members that may extend protection to formulations or application methods not covered by these two patents — giving your R&D and legal teams an evidence base before contract signature or product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11041087B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Nano-Coating & Consumer Electronics Patent Cases in N.D. Cal.
Explore patent infringement cases involving nano-coating, surface treatment technology, and consumer electronics supply-chain defendants litigated in the Northern District of California.
What this case signals for the nano-coating and wearables IP landscape
A full merits defeat for a specialist licensor in N.D. Cal. carries broader lessons for nano-coating IP enforcement and consumer electronics supply chains.
Downstream product defendants can break out from supplier infringement claims
The inclusion of both the coating manufacturer (Jiangsu Favored) and the brand owner (GN Audio) as co-defendants is common in supply-chain infringement suits — but all three defendants prevailed here. Companies sourcing nano-coating technology should nonetheless conduct proactive FTO analysis before committing to coating suppliers with contested IP histories.
Multiple amended complaints are a warning sign in patent enforcement actions
P2I’s progression to a Second Amended Complaint, followed by three dispositive orders culminating in a defence judgment, suggests the court found sustained deficiencies in the infringement theory. IP owners asserting process patents against consumer electronics products should stress-test claim mapping before filing, particularly in N.D. Cal. where courts apply rigorous Twombly/Iqbal standards.
P2I v Favored — key questions answered
The Northern District of California entered final judgment on the merits in favour of all three defendants — Favored Tech USA, Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology, and GN Audio USA — against P2I’s infringement claims. The judgment followed three court orders and addressed P2I’s Second Amended Complaint. P2I’s patents remain in force but the infringement claims were rejected.
P2I asserted two US patents: US11041087B2 (application no. US16/547728) and US8389070B2 (application no. US10/593207). Both cover liquid-repellent nano-coating technology using plasma deposition processes. The accused product was the Jabra Elite 8 Active earbuds, sold by GN Audio USA and coated by Favored Tech/Jiangsu Favored Nanotechnology.
No. A judgment on the merits for defendants in an infringement action does not invalidate the asserted patents. It means the court found that the defendants did not infringe, or that the claims could not be sustained on the pleaded theory. US11041087B2 and US8389070B2 remain enforceable against other parties and products, though this outcome weakens P2I’s practical enforcement leverage.
The public docket record does not fully explain the reasons for amendment, but the progression from original complaint to Second Amended Complaint typically reflects either court-ordered repleading following successful motions to dismiss or a plaintiff’s strategic decision to refine claim scope and accused product identification. The fact that the court ultimately ruled for defendants on the Second Amended Complaint suggests the amendments did not cure the underlying legal deficiencies.
Defendants may petition for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 if they can demonstrate the case was ‘exceptional’ — typically requiring a showing that the litigation was objectively unreasonable or brought in bad faith. The multiple dispositive orders and amended complaints may support such a motion, but no fee award is confirmed in the available public record as of the case close date.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.