ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Anker Innovations Limited

This patent infringement litigation, ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Anker Innovations Limited, centers on allegations of infringement related to wireless audio transmission technology. The plaintiff, ONE-E-WAY, INC., is a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), described as a minority-owned, family-run business that has sustained itself through patent litigation and licensing with major electronics companies. The defendant, Anker Innovations Limited, is a prominent Chinese electronics manufacturer known for a wide array of products including phone chargers, power banks, earbuds, headphones, and speakers. The accused products are Anker's wireless headphones and speakers that allegedly support wireless audio transmission and reception in compliance with Bluetooth standards, specifically Bluetooth 5.0. The sole patent at issue in this case is U.S. Patent No. 9,107,000, titled "Wireless digital audio music system," which broadly covers a wireless digital audio system utilizing fuzzy logic for digital signal processing optimization and Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) communication for private, interference-free audio transmission between a portable audio source and a headphone set.

The case was filed on December 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (case number 1:24-cv-01559), and is assigned to Judge Robert Pitman in the Austin Division. While the Western District of Texas gained notoriety as a top patent litigation venue, particularly the Waco Division under Judge Alan Albright, recent procedural changes in 2022 and 2024 have introduced district-wide random assignment and tightened related-case consolidation, thereby reducing the predictability of judge assignment. Despite these changes, the Western District of Texas remains a significant forum for patent disputes. This specific action has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with a related case brought by ONE-E-WAY, INC. against Dell.

This litigation is notable due to ONE-E-WAY, INC.'s operating model as an NPE, which relies on enforcing its patent portfolio. The current cases against Anker, Dell, and Samsung represent a renewed assertion campaign by ONE-E-WAY, INC., following a previous litigation against Apple that concluded in August 2023 with a Federal Circuit affirmation of non-infringement for some of its patents, based on a specific claim construction. Furthermore, the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,107,000, along with other patents in ONE-E-WAY's portfolio, is concurrently being challenged by Samsung in parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Patent Infringement Litigation: ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Anker Innovations Limited

Case Number: 1:24-cv-01559
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Filed: 2024-12-18
Status: Active
Patents at Issue: 9,107,000

This active patent infringement case, filed by ONE-E-WAY, INC. against Anker Innovations Limited, is currently consolidated for pretrial purposes with a related action against Dell. The key legal developments and current posture are outlined below.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:
  • 2024-12-18: ONE-E-WAY, INC. filed its complaint against Anker Innovations Limited, initiating the patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The specific details of Anker's answer and any counterclaims are not publicly available in the search results at this time.
• Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:
  • No information regarding motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR was found in the initial search. Given the case's relatively recent filing date (late 2024), these types of motions may be pending or have not yet reached a public decision.
• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
  • There is no available information indicating that the case has reached the Markman stage or that any claim construction order has been issued.
• Discovery Milestones:
  • No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance were identified in the available information.
• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
  • The case is active and has not yet proceeded to trial. Therefore, there are no verdicts or post-trial motions to report.
• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
  • The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. There has been no settlement, dismissal, or judgment. No appeals have been filed as the case is still at the district court level.
• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
  • As of the current date, a search for IPR or PGR proceedings related to U.S. Patent No. 9,107,000 in the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS) did not yield any active or concluded proceedings. Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions can be filed any time after nine months following the patent grant, but within twelve months of being served with a complaint alleging infringement. Post-Grant Review (PGR) petitions must be filed within the first nine months following the patent grant. Without an active PTAB challenge, there is no direct effect on the litigation from parallel administrative proceedings.

The case is in its early stages, and further developments regarding pleadings, motions, and claim construction are anticipated.

Here is the counsel of record representing the plaintiff, ONE-E-WAY, INC., in ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Anker Innovations Limited, Case No. 1:24-cv-01559 (W.D. Tex.):

• Andrew G. DiNovo

  • Role: Lead Counsel (typically, founding partner in a patent boutique is lead counsel)
  • Firm: DiNovo Price LLP, Austin, TX
  • Note: Co-founder of DiNovo Price LLP, focusing on patent litigation, and has extensive experience in the Western District of Texas.

• Adam G. Price

  • Role: Lead Counsel (typically, founding partner in a patent boutique is lead counsel)
  • Firm: DiNovo Price LLP, Austin, TX
  • Note: Co-founder of DiNovo Price LLP, specializing in intellectual property litigation, including patent, copyright, and trade secret disputes.

• Daniel L. Schmid

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: DiNovo Price LLP, Austin, TX
  • Note: An attorney at DiNovo Price LLP, engaged in patent litigation and other intellectual property matters.

• [First Name] McPhail

  • Role: Counsel (admitted pro hac vice)
  • Firm: To be determined (firm not specified in available search results for "MCPHAIL")
  • Note: Admitted pro hac vice on May 22, 2025, indicating an attorney from outside the Western District of Texas who is participating in the case. Further details on this attorney's full name, firm, and experience were not immediately available.

In the patent infringement case ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Anker Innovations Limited (1:24-cv-01559) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the defendant, Anker Innovations Limited, is represented by attorneys from the firm Dinovo Price LLP.

The counsel of record for Anker Innovations Limited include:

• Andrew G. DiNovo

  • Role: Likely lead counsel, given his firm's prominent role in this and other related cases in the Western District of Texas.
  • Firm: Dinovo Price LLP, Austin, Texas.
  • Note: Andrew G. DiNovo is also listed as counsel for Anker Innovations in a separate, now-closed case, Vampire Labs LLC v. Anker Innovations Ltd (1:24-cv-01378), also in the Western District of Texas, indicating a consistent representation of Anker by the firm in the district. His firm, Dinovo Price LLP, specializes in intellectual property litigation.

• Adam G. Price

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Dinovo Price LLP, Austin, Texas.
  • Note: Adam G. Price is a named partner at Dinovo Price LLP, a firm with a focus on intellectual property and patent litigation.

• Daniel L. Schmid

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm: Dinovo Price LLP, Austin, Texas.
  • Note: Daniel L. Schmid is an attorney at Dinovo Price LLP, which is active in patent litigation.