Pinn Inc. v. SoundSOUL: Three-Patent Wireless Audio Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Pinn, Inc. asserted three patents covering wireless audio and earbuds technology against Shenzhen SoundSOUL’s 13-product lineup — including the Air4 Pro, Capsule 3 Pro, and Sonic Pro — before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed after 242 days when Pinn voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.
Early voluntary exit: Pinn drops three-patent wireless audio claims
On 5 July 2024, Pinn, Inc. filed suit against Shenzhen SoundSOUL Information Technology Co., Ltd. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00493), before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Pinn asserted three US patents — US11102340B2, US10455066B2, and US11849061B2 — covering wireless audio and connected-earbuds technology against 13 of SoundSOUL’s consumer products, including the Air4 Pro, Capsule 3 Pro, Engine4, and Sonic Pro.
The case closed on 4 March 2025 when Pinn filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant answers or moves for summary judgment. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal with prejudice, extinguishing all of Pinn’s claims against SoundSOUL on these patents. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
At 242 days, the case resolved in under nine months — consistent with a pre-answer settlement or strategic withdrawal rather than a merits adjudication. Because SoundSOUL had not yet answered or filed any substantive motion, the public record is silent on whether the parties reached a licensing arrangement or whether Pinn concluded the case was unlikely to proceed favourably. The with-prejudice designation means Pinn is permanently barred from reasserting these specific claims against SoundSOUL in a future action.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 242 days
242 days from filing to closure — shorter than the E.D. Texas median for patent cases reaching trial.
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41 finality means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit
Because SoundSOUL had not yet filed an answer or summary judgment motion, Pinn could dismiss unilaterally under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without court approval. However, by electing to dismiss with prejudice rather than without, Pinn waived the right to refile these same claims. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the notice — a ministerial act confirming the case is fully closed.
Voluntary Rule 41 — with prejudiceWith prejudice: these claims are permanently extinguished
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits, barring Pinn from ever re-asserting these three patents (US11102340B2, US10455066B2, US11849061B2) against SoundSOUL in a future action. This is materially distinct from a dismissal without prejudice, which would preserve Pinn’s right to refile. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement or licence drove this election.
Permanent claim barPinn exits without a public adverse ruling — but forfeits future claims
Pinn avoids any court finding of non-infringement or invalidity, which could have created estoppel risk in parallel or future suits. However, the with-prejudice designation means Pinn cannot revisit this defendant on these patents. If a confidential licence was the driver, that value is entirely non-public. Pinn retains its patent portfolio for enforcement against other parties.
No adverse merits findingSoundSOUL clears infringement exposure — no costs awarded
SoundSOUL achieves a definitive resolution without incurring the cost of litigation through to trial. The court’s each-party-bears-own-costs order means no fee-shifting burden falls on either side. SoundSOUL’s 13 accused products — including the Air4, Capsule 3 Pro, and Sonic Pro — are no longer subject to Pinn’s infringement claims under these patents, though the underlying IP remains active and enforceable against other market participants.
Full exposure cleared, no fee awardFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pinn, Inc. | Company | Wireless audio IP licensing company — holder of US11102340B2, US10455066B2, and US11849061B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Shenzhen SoundSOUL Information Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Shenzhen-based consumer audio hardware maker; maker of Air4 Pro, Capsule 3 Pro, Sonic Pro earbudsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cabrach John Connor | Attorney | Counsel for Pinn, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David A. Skeels | Attorney | Counsel for Pinn, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Connor Lee & Shumaker PLLC (Austin) | Law Firm | Representing Pinn, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Whitaker Chalk Swindle & Schwartz PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Pinn, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s acceptance of Pinn’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice is ministerial rather than substantive — no merits determination was made on infringement or validity. The with-prejudice designation, however, carries permanent legal consequence: it functions as a final judgment barring Pinn from relitigating these claims against SoundSOUL. The each-party-bears-own-costs order rules out any fee-shifting exposure for SoundSOUL, while preserving Pinn’s ability to enforce the same patents against other defendants.
US11102340B2, US10455066B2 & US11849061B2 — wireless audio connectivity patents
The three patents asserted by Pinn — US11102340B2 (App. No. 16/912823), US10455066B2 (App. No. 15/563937), and US11849061B2 (App. No. 18/164937) — cover wireless audio device technology spanning connectivity, pairing protocols, and audio-routing for earbuds and headsets. The sequential application numbers suggest a continuation family strategy, extending protection across successive generations of the underlying inventions. This family structure is consistent with Pinn’s positioning as a wireless audio IP licensor.
For the TWS (true wireless stereo) earbuds market, a continuation family covering phone-pairing and call-handling creates substantial licensing leverage: new product SKUs can be targeted by later-issued continuations even after earlier claims have been litigated. SoundSOUL’s 13 accused products — ranging from the Air4 Lite to the Sonic Pro — suggest Pinn mapped its claims broadly across a product line rather than targeting a single device. Any company marketing wireless earbuds with Bluetooth connectivity and call-management features should assess freedom-to-operate against this family.
Should your audio product team run an FTO against Pinn’s wireless earbuds patents?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or imports TWS earbuds, Bluetooth headsets, or wireless audio devices with phone-pairing or call-management capability, Pinn’s three-patent family warrants direct FTO assessment. The case against SoundSOUL targeted 13 SKUs across a broad product range — suggesting the asserted claims may read on common wireless audio architectures rather than device-specific features. The continuation structure means additional claims may still be pending in prosecution.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map independent and dependent claims across US11102340B2, US10455066B2, and US11849061B2 against your product’s technical specifications, flag prosecution history estoppel, and surface any continuation or divisional applications still in prosecution. R&D teams evaluating wireless audio product roadmaps can use Eureka to identify design-around pathways before a product launch or market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11102340B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless audio patent cases in E.D. Texas and related venues
Explore related patent infringement actions involving wireless earbuds and Bluetooth audio technology filed before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the wireless audio IP landscape
Early exits in E.D. Texas before answer consistently suggest licence-first strategies — this three-patent filing warrants close monitoring.
Pre-answer dismissals in E.D. Texas often signal confidential licensing
When a plaintiff files with prejudice before the defendant answers, the most commercially rational explanation is a licensing agreement. Pinn’s three-patent portfolio — covering wireless audio connectivity — appears to be an active enforcement asset. Competitors in the TWS earbuds and Bluetooth audio space should assess exposure to the same patent family.
Pinn’s portfolio remains live against the broader wireless audio market
The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes claims only against SoundSOUL. US11102340B2, US10455066B2, and US11849061B2 remain fully enforceable. Any company designing or importing wireless audio products — particularly TWS earbuds with phone-pairing or call-handling features — should evaluate whether their product reads on these claims.
Pinn v Shenzhen — key questions answered
Pinn, Inc. voluntarily dismissed all claims against SoundSOUL with prejudice on 4 March 2025, approximately eight months after filing. The dismissal was made under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before SoundSOUL answered. Judge Gilstrap accepted the notice and ordered each party to bear its own costs. No merits determination was made on infringement or validity.
Pinn asserted three patents: US11102340B2 (App. 16/912823), US10455066B2 (App. 15/563937), and US11849061B2 (App. 18/164937). These cover wireless audio connectivity and associated technology. The sequential application numbers are consistent with a continuation family, and all three remain enforceable against other defendants despite the SoundSOUL dismissal.
A with-prejudice dismissal operates as a final judgment on the merits, permanently barring Pinn from reasserting US11102340B2, US10455066B2, and US11849061B2 against SoundSOUL. Pinn cannot refile these claims against SoundSOUL in any future action. However, the patents remain fully enforceable against other parties in the wireless audio market.
Pinn’s complaint identified 13 SoundSOUL products: Air 3 Deluxe, Air4, Air4 Lite, Air4 Pro, Capsule 3 Pro, Engine4, Life, Free2, H2, Mini HS, Opera03, Opera05, Sonic, and Sonic Pro. The breadth of accused products suggests the asserted claims may cover common Bluetooth pairing or audio-routing features shared across SoundSOUL’s earbuds lineup.
The Eastern District of Texas — particularly before Judge Rodney Gilstrap — is one of the most frequently chosen venues for patent infringement cases in the US, known for its established patent litigation procedures and historically plaintiff-friendly docket management. Pinn’s choice of E.D. Texas is consistent with the filing strategy of patent licensing entities seeking efficient case progression and early resolution leverage.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.