Litigation

Earin AB v. Skullcandy, Inc.

Active

1:24-cv-00275

Filed
2024-03-01

Patents at issue (1)

9402120

Plaintiffs (1)

Defendants (1)

Summary

Earin filed a complaint alleging that Skullcandy's products directly infringe on at least claim 20 of the '120 patent. Skullcandy's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was denied on November 14, 2024, and the case is ongoing.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

This patent infringement litigation, Earin AB v. Skullcandy, Inc., centers on allegations that Skullcandy's audio products infringe Earin's wireless earbud technology. Plaintiff Earin AB is a Swedish product development company founded in 2014, known for specializing in miniaturized high-quality wireless earphones and audio solutions, notably launching its first "true wireless" earbuds in 2015. Defendant Skullcandy, Inc. is an American company established in 2003, marketing a range of audio accessories including headphones, earphones, and Bluetooth speakers, targeting both action sports and general consumer markets.

The accused products in this litigation include newly released Skullcandy products, specifically mentioning the Push 540 Open, which Earin alleges unlawfully utilize its patented wireless connection technology. The primary patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 9,402,120 (the '120 patent). This patent broadly covers a wireless earbud system, with particular emphasis on a system where the charging status of the earbuds dictates an automatic connection process. Earin's complaint specifically alleges direct infringement on at least claim 20 of the '120 patent, with Skullcandy's invalidity contentions also addressing claim 21. Skullcandy has contended that claim 20, at least, is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, arguing it is directed to an abstract idea without sufficient inventive concept.

The case is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, case number 1:24-cv-00275, with Judge Richard G. Andrews presiding. The District of Delaware is a common venue for patent litigation due to its established patent law jurisprudence and efficient case management. The litigation is notable not only for involving two established players in the consumer audio market but also because it represents a recurring dispute between the parties; Earin previously sued Skullcandy in 2024 concerning the multipoint-pairing-capable functionality of some of its products. Furthermore, the case is linked to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, as Skullcandy has filed petitions for IPR on the '120 patent, although it has stipulated not to pursue the same IPR grounds in the district court litigation if its IPR petition is granted.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Earin AB v. Skullcandy, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00275, is an active patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: Earin AB filed its initial complaint against Skullcandy, Inc. on March 1, 2024.
  • Motion to Dismiss: Skullcandy filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. This motion was subsequently denied by the court on November 14, 2024.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • As of the current date, no other substantive pre-trial motions like motions to transfer or for summary judgment have reached an outcome, beyond the denied motion to dismiss.

3. Claim Construction (Markman):

  • The case is still active and has not yet reached the Markman hearing stage, where the court would construe the claims of the '120 patent.

4. Discovery Milestones:

  • No specific strategic discovery milestones are readily available in public records at this time, other than the ongoing nature of the litigation implying discovery is proceeding.

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

  • A 5-day jury trial has been set to begin on October 5, 2026, at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 6A. No trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions have occurred as the trial date is in the future.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The case is currently active and ongoing, with a trial date scheduled for October 2026. There has been no settlement, dismissal, or final judgment to date.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • Skullcandy has filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) on the '120 patent, the patent-in-suit. While the specific IPR numbers or outcomes are not detailed in the provided information, Skullcandy has stipulated that it will not pursue the same IPR grounds in the district court litigation if its IPR petition is granted. This indicates that the IPR proceedings are ongoing and could potentially impact the scope of the district court litigation if claims are invalidated.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research plaintiff-side counsel for Earin AB in this case. Let me run several targeted searches.

Now let me identify the plaintiff-side attorneys and their firms.

Let me confirm firm details, local counsel, and check for any additional plaintiff counsel or related Earin cases.

Plaintiff representatives (Earin AB)

Earin AB is represented by a Seattle-based patent boutique as lead counsel, with a Wilmington firm acting as Delaware local counsel. The pro hac vice motion that put the lead team on the docket was filed in the first weeks of the case.

Lead counsel — Folio Law Group PLLC (Seattle, WA)

Address of record: 1200 Westlake Ave. N., Ste. 809, Seattle, WA 98109

Attorney Role Notes
Cristofer I. ("Cris") Leffler Lead counsel / trial counsel Founder & Managing Partner of Folio Law Group. 25+ years of experience; practice focused on patent litigation and IP monetization. Previously Partner at Dorsey & Whitney (Seattle, joined 2018) and K&L Gates; formerly Director of IP Litigation at Intellectual Ventures Management, LLC. Has appeared in/managed 100+ IP matters; admitted in CA and WA, plus the Fifth and Federal Circuits.
Alexandra Fellowes Of-counsel / partner-level litigator on the team Folio partner; in practice since 2008 with the majority focused on patent litigation; NY and CA bars, Federal Circuit and multiple district courts. Notable PTAB work: represents Immersion Corp. as patent owner in Valve Corp. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2024-00582, and appears for Dali Wireless in PTAB matters. Her Folio bio emphasizes helping international clients navigate U.S. enforcement — consistent with representing a Swedish plaintiff here.
Katherine Bentfield Associate Joined Folio in 2023 (Univ. of Washington School of Law, J.D. 2023; SMU B.B.A.). PTAB experience includes Ericsson Inc. v. Dali Wireless, Inc., IPR2022-01345, where she was granted LEAP-practitioner argument time, and IPR2022-01242 — i.e., she has appeared before the Board on the same '120-patent-adjacent wireless audio/PoW tech.

Local counsel — Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)

Address of record: 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801

Attorney Role Notes
Brian E. Farnan Delaware local counsel Farnan LLP partner; prolific Delaware patent-litigation filer and the attorney who signed the PHV motion and paid the PHV fees in this case.
Michael J. Farnan Delaware local counsel Farnan LLP partner; co-counsel of record on the docket and the signatory on service/CM-ECF filings for Earin (e.g., summons returns in the later-filed Earin v. Skullcandy matters).

Docket grounding

  • D.I. 6 (filed Mar. 6, 2024): "MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Alexandra Fellowes, Cristofer I. Leffler, and Katherine Bentfield — filed by Earin AB" (signed by Brian Farnan). https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2024cv00275/85103
  • D.I. 7 (Mar. 7, 2024): PHV fee ($150) paid for Fellowes, Leffler, and Bentfield; the motion was SO ORDERED by Judge Richard G. Andrews on Mar. 7, 2024.
  • Mar. 8, 2024 docket note: the three PHV attorneys were added for electronic noticing, with the standard Local Rule 83.5(d) notation that Delaware counsel (Farnan LLP) must be the CM/ECF-registered filers.
  • UniCourt's attorney-of-record list for No. 1:24-cv-00275 independently confirms the five names above (Bentfield, Leffler, Fellowes, M. Farnan, B. Farnan) and lists Chad S.C. Stover as the sole defendant attorney. https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-casegu13717da1578c-[1772170](/patent/1772170)

Gaps / things I could not verify

  • No in-house counsel identified. Neither Earin's corporate legal staff nor any Swedish/EU counsel has appeared on the Delaware docket in the available records. If Earin has inside counsel coordinating, they are not of record.
  • Later-filed Earin cases. Earin filed additional Delaware suits against Skullcandy (No. 1:25-cv-00712, filed June 6, 2025, and a May 2026 filing, No. 1:26-cv-00276 / 1:26-cv-00555). Both show Farnan LLP (Brian E. and Michael J. Farnan) representing Earin, and the 2025 case shows a July 3, 2025 "Add Attorneys – PHV only" entry and an April 8, 2026 pro hac vice filing. I could not confirm from available snippets which out-of-state attorneys were admitted PHV in that later case; it is likely the same Folio team, but I am not asserting that as verified.
  • A separate 2024 case, No. 1:24-cv-00274-RGA, is docket-associated with this one (the Mar. 8, 2024 PHV entry covers both). I ran out of search steps before confirming its caption; it appears to be a companion Earin filing, not this case.

⚠️ Contradiction to flag with the previously generated "Defendant representatives" section

The earlier section identified Chad Stover as Fish & Richardson (San Diego) and speculated that Fish & Richardson serves as Skullcandy's lead counsel "based on … connection to Skull Shaver, LLC." Search results point the other way:

  • Chad S.C. Stover is a Barnes & Thornburg attorney in Wilmington, Delaware (Law360 firm page: "Chad S.C. Stover (Wilmington, DE) — Firm: Barnes & Thornburg," with Earin AB v. Skullcandy entries), and he is listed as the Skullcandy attorney of record on the UniCourt docket page for 1:24-cv-00275.
  • The "Fish & Richardson" and "Jonathan E. Singer" attributions appear to be unsupported inferences, not docket facts.

That section should be corrected: on the available record, Skullcandy's counsel of record is Delaware-side (Barnes & Thornburg's Wilmington office), and I found no docket evidence of Fish & Richardson appearing for Skullcandy in this case.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the defense counsel of record for Skullcandy, Inc. in this case.

I found initial leads. Let me dig deeper into the docket and IPR filings to identify all defense counsel.

Let me identify Skullcandy's lead counsel via the IPR petition and any pro hac vice appearances.

I ran into the search-step limit, so here's my report based on what I was able to verify, with sourcing and explicit gaps.

Defendant's counsel of record — Skullcandy, Inc.

Confirmed (on the district court docket)

Attorney Role Firm / Office Docket basis
Chad S.C. Stover Delaware counsel of record (local counsel; the sole attorney who has appeared for Skullcandy and the signatory on all defense filings to date) Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Wilmington, DE D.I. 8 (Notice of Appearance, 3/25/2024); D.I. 9 (stipulation extending time); D.I. 10 (Motion to Dismiss); D.I. 11 (Opening Brief ISO Motion to Dismiss)

Every defense filing I could find is signed by Stover, including the motion to dismiss that Judge Andrews denied on 11/14/2024 (Earin AB v. Skullcandy, Inc., No. 24-275-RGA (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2024), D.I. 13 denied). Sources: Justia dockets entry for 1:24-cv-00275 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2024cv00275/85103); UniCourt docket listing for the same case; the CourtListener/cetient copy of the memorandum order (https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[10274380](/patent/10274380)/earin-ab-v-skullcandy-inc/).

Relevant experience — Chad S.C. Stover: First-chair patent trial attorney; Chambers USA 2026 ranks him Band 4 for Intellectual Property in Delaware, noting he "has a wealth of experience litigating IP disputes before Delaware's state and federal courts." Barnes & Thornburg's bio credits him with 200+ cases nationally, a recent $31M jury verdict in a patent/trade-secret case, service as a special discovery master in the District of Delaware, and admission to the D. Del., Federal Circuit, and USPTO bars. He appears on Law360's firm page under Earin AB v. Skullcandy, Inc. (https://www.law360.com/firms/barnes-thornburg/attorneys/chad-s-c-stover; https://btlaw.com/en/people/chad-stover; https://chambers.com/lawyer/chad-stover-usa-5:[904438](/patent/904438)).

Prior Skullcandy patent work by the same attorney (context, not this case): Stover represented Skullcandy in Creekview IP LLC v. Skullcandy Inc., 1:22-cv-00427 (D. Del.) (answer + counterclaim) and in WFR IP LLC v. Skullcandy, Inc. (D. Del., Judge Williams) (protective order, scheduling, initial disclosures).

Not confirmed / appears absent

  • No pro hac vice appearance or out-of-state lead counsel for Skullcandy is reflected on the docket snapshot I could retrieve. The Justia docket I relied on was "last retrieved on November 14, 2024," so it may simply be incomplete for anything filed after that date — including any later admission of trial counsel, an answer/counterclaims, or a joint scheduling order naming a trial team. Treat "Stover is the only defense attorney of record" as time-bounded to that snapshot, not as a definitive statement about the case today (October 2026).
  • No in-house counsel for Skullcandy appears of record.
  • Barnes & Thornburg's Chicago office (Christopher M. Dolan) is Skullcandy's long-standing trademark counsel (numerous TTAB oppositions; TSDR attorney of record), but I found no indication he is counsel in this patent case — I flag this only as a firm/client relationship, not an appearance.
  • IPR counsel: Skullcandy's parallel petition is IPR2025-00690, Skullcandy Inc. v. Earin AB, filed March 7, 2025, challenging claims 20 and 21 of the '120 patent on three § 103 grounds (Olodort/Guccione, +Yamashita, +Bluetooth Spec 4.1) (https://cases.arcticinvent.com/us/patent/us/petition-for-ipr-as-filed/ipr2025-00690/). I was unable to verify the names of the attorneys on that petition (PTAB counsel of record) before hitting my search limit. Do not assume they are the same as the district-court team without checking the petition's mandatory notices.

Contradiction to flag with the previously generated section

The existing "Plaintiff representatives" section states Earin's Delaware local counsel is Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP (Joseph B. Cicero) and lead counsel are Patterson Belknap (Jonathan M. Goble, Christopher M. McArdle). The docket, however, shows Earin's Delaware counsel as Farnan LLP — Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan — with pro hac vice appearances (D.I. 6–7, granted 3/7/2024) for Katherine Bentfield, Alexandra Fellowes, and Cristofer I. Leffler. That is a direct conflict with the earlier section, which I could not resolve with available sources; it may be that the earlier section drew from a different/related Earin matter (note the associated case 1:24-cv-00274-RGA, and a later 1:26-cv-00276 Earin v. Skullcandy filing reported by Docket Alarm). I recommend the plaintiff-side section be re-verified against PACER.

Bottom line: The only defense attorney I can confirm of record for Skullcandy in 1:24-cv-00275 is Chad S.C. Stover of Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Wilmington, DE). Any additional lead/trial counsel and the IPR2025-00690 petitioner's counsel remain unverified and should be confirmed against PACER and PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System.