Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Patent Armory v. Sennheiser Electronic | Patent Lawsuit 1:23-cv-00824

Patent Armory, Inc. v. Sennheiser Electronic Corporation

1:23-cv-00824 D. Del. Closed US7130430B2
Get a prior-art report

Infringement action filed 31 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 5 Dec 2023, with US7130430B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.

Case recordPatsnap Litigation Data·

Case record

Patent involved
US7130430B2
Application no.
US10/024159
Case no.
1:23-cv-00824
Verdict cause
Infringement action
Court
D. Del.
Court level
District Court
Case region
Delaware
Trial level
First instance
Filed – Closed
31 Jul 2023 – 5 Dec 2023
Duration
127 days
Basis of termination
Dismissed with Prejudice
Products & marks
Phased array sound system
Validity challenges
None recorded
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 1:23-cv-00824, United States District Court for the District of Delaware. 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
US7130430B2 Inactive App. US10/024159

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.

Read claims and description in Eureka
Patent standing
Legal status
Inactive
Granted
31 Oct 2006
Est. expiry
28 Feb 2024
Validity challenges
None recorded
Licences recorded
None recorded
Classification
H04B3/00H04R1/40H04R3/12H04R27/00
Prosecution counsel
STIENNON & STIENNON
Examiner
PENDLETON, BRIAN T.
US7130430B2 patent drawing, figure 1
Fig. 1
US7130430B2 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

Counsel of record

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), the parties hereby stipulate to dismiss this action with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees”

Case 1:23-cv-00824 · D. Del. · closed 5 December 2023
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 1:23-cv-00824?

1:23-cv-00824 is a patent infringement action brought by Patent Armory, Inc. against Sennheiser Electronic Corporation, filed on 31 Jul 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 5 December 2023.

Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-00824?

US7130430B2 (“Phased array sound system”), assigned to PATENT ARMORY INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Phased array sound system.

How was case 1:23-cv-00824 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), the parties hereby stipulate to dismiss this action with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, 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 1:23-cv-00824 take?

127 calendar days, from filing on 31 Jul 2023 to closure on 5 December 2023.

Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-00824?

Chief Judge Gregory B. Williams presided. John C. Phillips Jr. and Megan C. Haney are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Patent Armory. Francis DiGiovanni, PHV appears for defendant Sennheiser Electronic.

Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:23-cv-00824 and do not constitute legal advice. Ask your own question

Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-00824 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.

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.