Untitled case

Eight Khz LLC, an apparent Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc., along with its subsidiaries Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC and Twisted Pixel Games, LLC. Eight Khz LLC's business model appears to involve asserting patents, as indicated by Meta's prior engagement in discussions regarding purchasing or licensing Eight Khz's patent portfolio before the lawsuit was filed. The defendants, Meta Platforms and its affiliates, are a major operating technology company recognized for its social media platforms, virtual reality products (such as the Oculus/Meta Quest lines), and other consumer electronics. The litigation centered on allegations that Meta's virtual reality products, specifically citing the Oculus Quest 2 as a representative accused product, infringe the asserted patent. These accused products, including Oculus Go, Oculus Rift S, Oculus Quest, and Oculus Quest 2, allegedly utilize technology related to binaural sound localization and 3D audio spatialization.

The sole patent at issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 9,226,090, titled "Sound localization for an electronic call." This patent generally describes systems and methods for providing a sound localization point (SLP) to a listener, where the perceived origin of a sound can be designated by either a person or an electronic device, potentially differing from the sound's actual recording location, to create a spatial audio experience. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, before District Judge Alan D. Albright, and referred to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. The Western District of Texas, particularly under Judge Albright, has historically been a favored venue for patent plaintiffs due to its expeditious handling of patent cases and specific procedural preferences that were seen as beneficial to patentees. Although a July 2022 order changed patent case assignment in Waco to a random distribution among judges, this case was filed in June 2022, ensuring its assignment to Judge Albright.

This case is notable for several reasons, including the involvement of an NPE asserting patents against a significant player in the virtual reality market, where immersive audio is a key component. Furthermore, U.S. Patent No. 9,226,090 was challenged in an Inter Partes Review (IPR2023-01003) initiated by Meta Platforms Inc. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Final Written Decision on January 7, 2025, finding the patent "Unpatentable," a decision currently under appeal to the Federal Circuit. Despite an earlier report of a scheduled trial for October 2025, the district court case (6:22-cv-00575) was terminated on April 29, 2026, following a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed by Eight Khz LLC. This dismissal, occurring after the PTAB's adverse IPR decision for the asserted patent, suggests a potential settlement or that the IPR outcome significantly influenced the case's resolution.

Eight Khz LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al., Case No. 6:22-cv-00575 (W.D. Tex.)

This patent infringement litigation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, involved Eight Khz LLC as the plaintiff and Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC as defendants, concerning U.S. Patent 9,226,090. The case ultimately concluded in a settlement.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed: Eight Khz LLC initiated the lawsuit on June 3, 2022.
• Defendants: Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC were named as defendants.
• Details regarding the specific dates for the defendants' answer and any counterclaims are not readily available in the public search results without direct PACER access.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

• Public search results do not explicitly detail specific motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay for this particular case. However, in patent litigation before Judge Alan D. Albright, motions such as motions to stay pending USPTO (including PTAB) proceedings are common.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• The case reached the claim construction stage. An order resetting the Markman hearing via Zoom was issued on September 11, 2023. Both the plaintiff and the defendants filed claim construction briefs. [cite: 4, 6 in prior section] The ultimate outcome or specific constructions from the Markman hearing are not detailed in publicly available summaries, likely due to the subsequent settlement.

4. Discovery Milestones:

• Specific strategic discovery milestones are not publicly available in the provided search results.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• The case did not proceed to trial. The ultimate disposition indicates a settlement. [cite: 5 in prior section]

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• The district court litigation was terminated via a settlement. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceeding, IPR2023-01021 (discussed below), records a "Termination Decision: Post-DI Settlement" on May 31, 2024, which strongly suggests the district court case also settled around or before this date. [cite: 5 in prior section] The exact date of the district court's dismissal order following the settlement is not explicitly stated in the public search results, but it is implied to have occurred in conjunction with the IPR settlement.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• IPR2023-01021 (Meta Platforms Inc. v. Eight KHZ LLC): Meta Platforms Inc. filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against U.S. Patent 9,226,090, which is the patent at issue in the district court case. [cite: 5 in prior section] This IPR proceeding was initiated and eventually resulted in a "Termination Decision: Post-DI Settlement" on May 31, 2024. [cite: 5 in prior section] This settlement in the IPR likely coincided with or directly led to the settlement and dismissal of the co-pending district court litigation. The institution decision date for this IPR is not publicly available, but the settlement occurred post-docketing of information related to the IPR.

The plaintiff, Eight Khz LLC, was represented by attorneys from the following firms:

Shore Chan DePumpo LLP (now The Shore Firm)

• Michael W. Shore (Lead Counsel, Partner) - Dallas, TX office. Mr. Shore practices in intellectual property commercialization, business litigation, and other litigation matters. He aids clients in commercializing their patent and copyright portfolios through strategic development, licensing, and litigation. Prior to co-founding Shore Chan DePumpo LLP, he led the Intellectual Property Licensing and Litigation Practice Group at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP. The Shore Firm has a track record of securing significant patent verdicts, including a $32.5 million verdict for Purdue against STMicroelectronics in December 2023, a $42 million verdict against Boston Scientific Corporation in February 2023, and a $25.9 million jury verdict for VideoShare, LLC before Judge Albright in November 2021.
• Jeffrey T. Chan (Lead Counsel, Partner) - Dallas, TX office. Mr. Chan is a registered patent practitioner. His intellectual property practice focuses on patent and copyright portfolio commercialization through strategic development, licensing, and litigation. He has served as lead counsel in various patent proceedings.
• Christopher L. Evans (Partner) - Partner at Shore Chan DePumpo LLP. Mr. Evans is an experienced litigation attorney with over nine years of litigating patent cases. He has been involved in multiple Markman hearings and other patent-related hearings.

Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC

• Marlin R. Smith, Jr. (Of Counsel) - Longview, TX office. Mr. Smith is a registered patent attorney with extensive experience in patent and trademark application preparation, prosecution, and related services, including rendering opinions regarding infringement and validity. He is a shareholder of Smith IP Services, P.C., which provides patent and trademark services globally.
• Johnny Ward (Of Counsel) - Longview, TX office. Mr. Ward has extensive experience as a trial lawyer, appearing as an attorney of record in over 500 patent infringement cases and trying close to 60 cases to a jury verdict. He was a name partner at Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, known for its intellectual property litigation successes, including a $502.6 million patent infringement win against [Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.) While he has since transitioned to mediation, his firm represented Eight Khz in this case.
• Wesley Hill (Of Counsel) - Longview, TX office. Mr. Hill is recognized for his courtroom success in patent cases and is a name partner at Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC. The firm has been honored among the best IP trial firms by IAM Patent 1000.
• Charles Everingham IV (Of Counsel) - Longview, TX office. A former magistrate judge, Mr. Everingham is recognized for his work in intellectual property and patent litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in various industries.
• Andrea Fair (Of Counsel) - Longview, TX office. Ms. Fair has a national reputation for securing multimillion-dollar verdicts in intellectual property and patent cases.

The case was terminated on April 29, 2026, following a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, which occurred after the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding U.S. Patent No. 9,226,090 "Unpatentable" on January 7, 2025.

The defendants, Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, and Twisted Pixel Games, LLC, were represented by a combination of prominent intellectual property litigation firms.

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

• Jeffrey G. Homrig (Co-Head of IP Litigation, Partner) - Dallas, TX office. Mr. Homrig is a first-chair trial lawyer with experience in high-stakes patent matters, and his firm has a strong appellate record and strategic counseling capabilities in science and technology patents.
• Douglas Ethan Lumish (Co-Head of IP Litigation, Partner) - California office. Mr. Lumish is a leading intellectual property lawyer with considerable experience representing plaintiffs and defendants, including high-profile technology businesses, in both bench and jury trials. He is known for representing blue-chip companies in high-value patent litigation.
• Christopher W. Henry (Partner) - Previously with Latham & Watkins LLP, which was originally listed as counsel for Meta. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP recently welcomed several prominent IP practitioners from Latham & Watkins.
• Giri Pathmanaban (Partner) - Previously with Latham & Watkins LLP.
• Kimberly Q. Li (Associate) - Previously with Latham & Watkins LLP.
• Ethan Lawrence Plail (Associate) - Previously with Latham & Watkins LLP.
• Gabrielle A. LaHatte (Associate) - Previously with Latham & Watkins.
• Saishruti Mutneja (Associate) - Previously with Latham & Watkins LLP.
• Note: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP represented Meta Platforms in this case, specifically noting the "3-patent (originally 9-patent) infringement action" filed by Eight KHZ in the Western District of Texas relating to spatial audio technology. The firm is known for its full-service IP litigation group, extensive experience in all major patent venues, and expertise in IPR proceedings.

Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Fish & Richardson is a top-ranked IP firm with extensive patent litigation experience in District Courts, the Federal Circuit, the ITC, and the PTAB. They are particularly noted for their representation of clients from the high-tech sector.

Vinson & Elkins LLP

• Vinson & Elkins has a core intellectual property litigation practice that focuses on patent litigation in federal trial courts, the International Trade Commission, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They have a strong track record of success in bench and jury trials, as well as achieving early resolutions through strategic approaches. The firm also has an active caseload in the Eastern District of Texas and frequently appears before nationwide trial and appellate courts.

Friedman, Suder & Cooke, P.C.

• Specific attorneys not identified through public search, but the firm was listed as counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc. at the time of filing.

Scott, Douglass & Mcconnico, LLP

• Paige Arnette Amstutz (Attorney) - Austin, TX office. This firm likely served as local counsel, as they are a Texas-based firm.