This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Patent Infringement

One-E-Way Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Published: Aug. 26, 2022 | Result Date: Jul. 6, 2022 | Filing Date: Jul. 16, 2020 |

Case number: 2:20-cv-06339-JAK-GJS Summary Judgment –  Defense

Judge

John A. Kronstadt

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Douglas G. Muehlhauser
(Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP)

Payson J. LeMeilleur
(Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP)


Defendant

Heidi L. Keefe
(Cooley LLP)

Lowell D. Mead
(Cooley LLP)

Benjamin Sung-Ping Lin
(Cooley LLP)


Facts

One-E-Way, Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Pasadena, California. One-E-Way was founded by C. Earl Woolfork, an electrical engineer, who filed for, and received, patent protection for an audio system that wirelessly communicates high quality audio data without interference from other nearby users of similar systems. Woolfork assigned the patents to One-E-Way, and One-E-Way commercialized the invention by selling it via an online retail outlet.

Apple Inc. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Cupertino, California. It manufactures and sells various wireless headphone, earphone, and speaker products, both through its own company and through Beats Electronics, LLC, which it also owns.

In July 2020, One-E-Way filed suit against Apple for infringing upon its patents.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that defendant had knowingly and intentionally infringed upon its patents by manufacturing and selling its own line of wireless headphone and earphone products; that it had suffered harm because of defendant's patent infringement; and that it would continue to suffer harm from defendant's patent infringement.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied any wrongdoing and all of plaintiff's material allegations.

Result

The court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of defendant.


#139304

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390