Patent Armory, Inc. v. Bose Corp.
Infringement action filed 18 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 8 Aug 2023, with US7130430B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed without prejudice.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7130430B2
- Application no.
- US10/024159
- Case no.
- 2:23-cv-00335
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- E.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Rodney Gilstrap
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 18 Jul 2023 – 8 Aug 2023
- Duration
- 21 days
- Basis of termination
- Dismissed without Prejudice
- Products & marks
- Phased array sound system
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
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- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Phased array sound system
An array of speakers are fed from a single source of audio frequency sound but each speaker transmits the sound delayed by an amount which is determined by the distance between a particular speaker and a selected region in space, so that sound from each speaker constructively adds at the selected region in space. A sufficiently large number of speakers are employed so that when sound reaches a region in space at the same moment in time the audio volume will be increased substantially over sound in regions where there is not constructive interference. This simple technique allows audio frequency sound to be heard in only selected regions within the room or other auditory space. Multiple regions with multiple soundtracks can be created by simultaneously playing variously delayed soundtracks over each of the speakers in the array.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 31 Oct 2006
- Est. expiry
- 28 Feb 2024
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- MILSAP, JEFFREY P.
- Classification
- H04B3/00H04R1/40H04R3/12H04R27/00
- Prosecution counsel
- STIENNON & STIENNON
- Examiner
- PENDLETON, BRIAN T.
Parties of record
Patent Armory, Inc.
- Core tech
- H04B3/00H04R1/40H04R3/12H04R27/00
- Counsel
- Isaac Phillip Rabicoff
- Firm
- Rabicoff Law LLC
Bose Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jeremy P. Oczek
- Firm
- Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Patent Armory, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jeremy P. Oczek | Bose Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (the “Notice”) made pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and filed by Plaintiff Patent Armory Inc. (Dkt. No. 7.) In the Notice, Plaintiff dismisses all claims without prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case.”
Case 2:23-cv-00335 · E.D. Tex. · closed 8 August 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 2:23-cv-00335?
2:23-cv-00335 is a patent infringement action brought by Patent Armory, Inc. against Bose Corp., filed on 18 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 8 August 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 2:23-cv-00335?
US7130430B2 (“Phased array sound system”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Phased array sound system.
How was case 2:23-cv-00335 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed without prejudice. The termination text reads: “Before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (the “Notice”) made pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and filed by Plaintiff Patent Armory Inc. (Dkt. No. 7.) In the Notice, Plaintiff dismisses all claims without prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Notice, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned case
What does dismissal without prejudice mean?
A dismissal without prejudice ends this action but leaves the claims alive — the plaintiff may file them again later, subject to the limitation period.
How long did case 2:23-cv-00335 take?
21 calendar days, from filing on 18 Jul 2023 to closure on 8 August 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-00335?
Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided. Isaac Phillip Rabicoff is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Patent Armory. Jeremy P. Oczek appears for defendant Bose.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-00335 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.