Faunus Up Holdings LLC v. Sonova USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Faunus IP Holdings LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Sonova USA Inc. (Minnesota corporation with principal place of business in Illinois)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Direction IP Law; Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00796, N.D. Ill., 01/23/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Phonak Audeo Lumity line of hearing devices infringes four patents related to personalized audio adjustment and multi-sensor signal optimization for speech communication.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves advanced signal processing in personal audio devices to enhance sound quality by creating user-specific hearing profiles and dynamically reducing environmental noise.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,172,345 - "Personalized adjustment of an audio device"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that different individuals have unique hearing sensitivities, and conventional audio devices with standard equalizers or volume controls are unable to properly personalize the audio, which can lead to distortion or fail to improve clarity for a specific user (’345 Patent, col. 1:25-54; Compl. ¶11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a user engages a "tuning mode" to establish a personalized "minimum perceptible level" of hearing across multiple audio frequency bands. This process creates a unique auditory profile, or "tuning data," which is stored in the device. In normal use, the device then monitors environmental noise and automatically adjusts the audio signal in each frequency band to ensure it remains perceptible relative to the user's specific hearing profile and the current noise conditions (’345 Patent, col. 2:18-33; Compl. ¶11).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides a method to dynamically adapt an audio device’s output to both a user’s unique hearing characteristics and their changing acoustic environment (Compl. ¶11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 30).
• Claim 1 is directed to a device comprising:
  • A memory configured to store "tuning data associated with a tuning process for a user identity."
  • A processor configured to select an audio signal from a plurality of audio signals based on speech data.
  • The processor is also configured to repeatedly monitor a noise level associated with environmental noise.
  • The processor is further configured to adjust the selected audio signal according to a plurality of filter bands associated with a digital transformation, based on the stored tuning data.

U.S. Patent No. 9,711,127 - "Multi-sensor signal optimization for speech communication"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes how environmental factors like wind and ambient noise can severely degrade the speech quality of conventional audio devices, rendering microphones and static filters unusable for clear communication, particularly for users "on the move" (’127 Patent, col. 1:40-53; Compl. ¶15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system using multiple acoustic sensors to capture sound. An audio processing component generates "filtered sound information" using a spatial filter (e.g., a beamformer) associated with the sensors. The system then determines noise levels for the signals from the individual sensors as well as the filtered signal, and generates an optimized output based on a selection or a "weighted combination" of these noise levels to isolate voice from interference in real-time (’127 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:24-38; Compl. ¶15).
• Technical Importance: This approach offers a dynamic method of improving voice clarity by using spatial information from multiple sensors to actively separate speech from environmental noise, an improvement over static filtering techniques (Compl. ¶15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 39).
• Claim 1 is directed to a system comprising:
  • A sensor component with acoustic sensors configured to detect sound and generate first and second sound information.
  • An audio processing component configured to determine estimates of the respective impacts of wind noise on the first and second sensors.
  • The audio processing component is also configured to generate output sound information based on those wind noise estimates, a spatial filter, and a "proportionally weighted combination of processes" that includes calculating signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) for the sensor inputs and for beamforming information derived from a spatial filter.

Multi-Patent Capsules

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,871,496, entitled “Personalized adjustment of an audio device,” issued on January 16, 2018 (Compl. ¶16).

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the inability of conventional audio equalizers to account for an individual user's hearing sensitivity, which can lead to signal distortion (Compl. ¶19). The invention provides for a personalized audio adjustment system where a device determines a user's hearing threshold and dynamic range, and then adaptively adjusts an "audio effect in accordance with the minimum perceptible level" based on environmental noise (Compl. ¶19).

• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶44).

• Accused Features: The personalized audio adjustment features of the Phonak Audeo Lumity (L90) products are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶43).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,347,232, entitled “Multi-sensor signal optimization for speech communication,” issued on July 9, 2019 (Compl. ¶20).

• Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the deficiency of conventional speech processing systems that are often rendered unusable by environmental noise (Compl. ¶23). The invention describes a multi-sensor system where an audio processor generates filtered sound information using a spatial filter, determines distinct noise levels from each sensor and the filtered information, and then generates an "output sound information based on a selection of one for the noise levels, or a weighted combination of the noise levels" (Compl. ¶23).

• Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶53).

• Accused Features: The multi-sensor signal processing and noise reduction features of the Phonak Audeo Lumity (L90) products are accused of infringement (Compl. ¶52).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the "Phonak Audeo Lumity (L90), among other substantially similar products" (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 34, 43, 52).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not describe the specific functionality or technical operation of the accused products. It states that its infringement allegations are based on "publicly available information" and references exemplary claim charts in Exhibits 5, 6, 7, and 8, which are not attached to the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 35, 44, 53). Therefore, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused product's specific features or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges infringement of claim 1 of each of the four patents-in-suit but does not provide the claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 5-8) it references (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 35, 44, 53). The complaint itself contains no narrative explanation of how the accused products meet the specific limitations of the asserted claims.

• ’345 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the '345 Accused Products infringe claim 1, with an exemplary claim chart provided in the unattached Exhibit 5 (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26). The complaint does not provide a prose summary of this infringement theory.

• ’127 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the '127 Accused Products infringe claim 1, with an exemplary claim chart provided in the unattached Exhibit 6 (Compl. ¶¶ 34-35). The complaint does not provide a prose summary of this infringement theory.

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Evidentiary Questions: As the complaint provides no technical details mapping product features to claim limitations, a primary point of contention will be evidentiary. The case may turn on what evidence Plaintiff can obtain through discovery to demonstrate that the internal software and hardware architecture of the Phonak Audeo Lumity (L90) performs the specific steps recited in the asserted claims.
  • Scope Questions (’345 Patent): The infringement analysis may raise the question of whether the accused product's user setup process qualifies as the "tuning process" that generates "tuning data" as recited in claim 1. The defense may argue its process is a standard audiogram that falls outside the patent's specific teachings.
  • Technical Questions (’127 Patent): A potential dispute may center on whether the accused product's noise reduction algorithm functions by creating a "proportionally weighted combination of processes" as specifically required by claim 1. This raises the question of whether the accused functionality matches the claimed technical operation or employs a different, non-infringing method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "tuning data associated with a tuning process for a user identity" (from ’345 Patent, claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the ’345 Patent's concept of personalization. The definition will be critical for determining whether the accused product's method of establishing a user's hearing profile falls within the scope of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from generic audio settings.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the goal as providing "adjustment of audio effects to personalize the audio device for a given individual" (’345 Patent, col. 2:15-17), which may support construing "tuning data" broadly to encompass various forms of user-specific hearing profiles.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the tuning process as one where a user establishes a "minimum perceptible level of hearing" across different frequency bands (’345 Patent, col. 2:20-26). This specific embodiment may be cited to argue that the term requires this explicit method, rather than any generic user profile.
• The Term: "proportionally weighted combination of processes" (from ’127 Patent, claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term appears to define a specific mathematical or algorithmic step in the claimed noise reduction method. The infringement analysis for the ’127 Patent may depend heavily on whether the accused product's algorithm meets this specific functional description.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this term should be understood in the context of the overall goal of signal optimization, covering any method that blends different audio streams (e.g., from individual sensors and a beamformer) based on their relative quality or SNR.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification of the patent family provides a specific example of this combination, including an equation: S=f1X1+f2X2+f3X3+f4X4+f5X5 where f is a weighting function based on SNR (’127 Patent, Fig. 6 and col. 9:28-35). This specific disclosure could be used to argue that the claim is limited to this or a structurally equivalent mathematical approach.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for each patent-in-suit, stating that Defendant provides the accused products with "specifications, instructions, manuals, advertisements, [and] marketing materials" that allegedly encourage and direct customers to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 36, 45, 54).
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willful infringement (Prayer for Relief, ¶C). However, the body of the complaint alleges Defendant's knowledge of infringement for each patent "as of the filing and service of the Complaint" (Compl. ¶¶ 27, 36, 45, 54). This language suggests the willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct rather than pre-suit knowledge.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A core issue will be one of process scope: Can the "tuning process" claimed in the ’345 and ’496 patents, which is described in the specification as establishing a "minimum perceptible level," be construed to cover the standard user-fitting and audiogram procedures allegedly used by the accused hearing aids?
2. A key technical question will be one of algorithmic equivalence: Does the accused product's multi-sensor noise reduction system operate using the specific "proportionally weighted combination of processes" recited in the ’127 and ’232 patent claims, or does it employ a fundamentally different and non-infringing signal processing architecture?
3. An immediate procedural question will be evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint’s complete reliance on un-filed exhibits for its infringement contentions, a central focus will be on the technical evidence Plaintiff produces during discovery to map the internal operations of the accused products to the detailed limitations of the asserted claims.