ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Bose Corporation

ONE-E-WAY, INC. has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Bose Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff, ONE-E-WAY, INC., is identified as an unfunded wireless audio innovator founded in 2004, focusing on designing and manufacturing consumer electronic products such as wireless earbuds, headphones, and wearable audio receivers. The company holds numerous U.S. patents in wireless communication and has a history of asserting its patent rights, including a notable lawsuit against Apple and Beats in 2020 concerning AirPods and PowerBeats. This background suggests ONE-E-WAY, INC. may operate as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). The defendant, Bose Corporation, is a well-established American manufacturing company founded in 1964, renowned for its audio equipment, including home audio systems, noise-canceling headphones, and vehicle sound systems, and is known for actively protecting its intellectual property.

The asserted patent in this litigation is U.S. Patent No. 9,107,000. While the specifics of the accused products are not explicitly detailed in the initial search results, given ONE-E-WAY's focus on "light weight wireless portable products and removable wireless audio receiver in wearable products" and its prior actions against headphone manufacturers, it is highly probable that Bose's wireless audio products, such as its noise-canceling headphones or earbuds, are the accused infringing articles. A one-line technical sketch of patents held by ONE-E-WAY, consistent with the description of their portfolio, indicates inventions related to "wireless digital audio music system" that allow for private audio enjoyment without interference and utilize fuzzy logic for optimized digital signal processing.

The case is currently active in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a venue known for its expeditious handling of patent cases and a high volume of patent litigation filings. The specific division and assigned judge are not yet detailed in the provided search results but will be critical for understanding the procedural trajectory. The notability of this case stems from the assertion of patents by what appears to be an NPE against a prominent and well-resourced operating company in the audio electronics industry. The outcome could have implications for the wireless audio market, particularly concerning technologies related to portable wireless audio transmission and reception, and may also highlight ongoing strategies by patent holders to enforce their portfolios against market leaders. Any potential linkage to Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) challenging the '000 patent would also significantly impact the case, but no such IPRs were identified in the initial search.ONE-E-WAY, INC. has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Bose Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff, ONE-E-WAY, INC., is an unfunded wireless audio innovator, founded in 2004, that designs and manufactures consumer electronic products such as wireless earbuds, headphones, and wearable audio receivers. The company has a history of asserting its multiple U.S. patents in wireless communication, notably filing lawsuits against Apple and Beats (concluding in August 2023 with a Federal Circuit affirmation of non-infringement based on claim construction) and recently against Anker, Dell, and Samsung. This pattern strongly suggests ONE-E-WAY, INC. operates as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). The defendant, Bose Corporation, is a well-established American manufacturing company founded in 1964, globally recognized for its audio equipment, including home audio systems, noise-canceling headphones, and vehicle sound systems. Bose is known for being protective of its intellectual property.

The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 9,107,000, titled "Wireless Digital Audio Music System". This patent describes a wireless digital audio system that includes a portable audio source with a digital audio transmitter coupled to it, and an audio receiver coupled to a headphone set. The system is configured for digital wireless communication, utilizes fuzzy logic for optimized digital signal processing, and employs code division multiple access (CDMA) communication to allow private audio enjoyment "virtually free from interference". While specific accused Bose products are not detailed in the initial filing information, given ONE-E-WAY's litigation history and the patent's subject matter, the suit likely targets Bose's wireless audio products, such as its headphones or earbuds that support wireless audio transmission and/or reception in compliance with Bluetooth standards.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a venue that has become a significant hub for patent litigation, largely due to the practices of District Judge Alan D. Albright, who formerly heard a disproportionately high number of patent cases in the Waco Division. While recent case assignment reforms have aimed to redistribute patent cases within the district, the Western District of Texas remains a popular forum for patent plaintiffs, especially NPEs, known for its expedited dockets and reluctance to transfer cases. The filing in this district by an NPE against a major operating company like Bose makes the case notable, reflecting ongoing trends in patent enforcement. As of the current date, no Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) specifically challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,107,000 by Bose or other parties have been identified in the search results, although IPRs against other ONE-E-WAY patents (e.g., U.S. Patent No. 10,468,047) have been filed by Samsung.

Patent Infringement Lawsuit: ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Bose Corporation (1:24-cv-01557)

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed by ONE-E-WAY, INC. against Bose Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, is currently active. The case was initiated on December 18, 2024, and concerns patent 9,107,000. As of May 16, 2026, the public record does not detail extensive legal developments beyond the initial filing.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: ONE-E-WAY, INC. filed its complaint against Bose Corporation on December 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting infringement of patent 9,107,000.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • As of the current date, specific substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR proceedings are not publicly detailed in the available information.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • The case has not yet reached the stage where Markman claim construction outcomes are publicly available.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • No strategically significant discovery milestones have been publicly reported.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • The case is still active and has not proceeded to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The case remains active and has not reached a final disposition through settlement, dismissal, or judgment. No appeals have been filed.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • There is no publicly available information indicating any parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) specifically challenging patent 9,107,000 in connection with this litigation. While general information on IPR and PGR processes and statistics exists, no such proceedings have been identified for the patent at issue in this specific case.

Unfortunately, a direct search for the counsel of record representing ONE-E-WAY, INC. in ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Bose Corporation, case number 1:24-cv-01557 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, through publicly available web search results (including general searches for PACER dockets, legal news, and firm websites) did not yield specific attorney names or firms for the plaintiff in this particular case.

While ONE-E-WAY, INC. has been involved in other patent litigation, such as an IPR proceeding against [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) (IPR2025-01516) where Gregory Donahue was listed as counsel for ONE-E-WAY, INC., and a Federal Circuit case against Apple Inc. (No. 22-2020), these do not provide the requested counsel information for the active district court case against Bose Corporation. Information regarding counsel representation for related cases like One-E-Way, Inc. v. Anker Innovations Ltd. (1:24-cv-01559), also filed in the Western District of Texas on the same day, indicates that such details are often behind a subscription paywall on legal intelligence platforms, which suggests direct PACER access would be necessary to obtain this information.

Therefore, without direct access to the PACER docket for case 1:24-cv-01557, it is not possible to identify the specific counsel of record, their roles, firms, office locations, or relevant patent litigation experience for the plaintiff, ONE-E-WAY, INC., at this time. Filings for this case may be sealed or specific attorney appearances may not be publicly indexed through general web searches.

This patent infringement lawsuit, ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Bose Corporation (1:24-cv-01557), is active in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. While specific counsel appearances on the docket for this case are not yet publicly detailed in the provided search results, general information about Bose Corporation's approach to intellectual property and likely patent litigation counsel can be inferred.

Bose Corporation employs in-house IP Counsel to manage its patent portfolio and litigation. Daniel Sternberg, for example, is identified as IP Counsel at Bose Corporation, with experience in all aspects of intellectual property litigation in district court and the International Trade Commission (ITC), and a background in software engineering. He also advises on patent portfolio strategy and provides IP due diligence support. Bose's legal team focuses on protecting its intellectual property globally and works with outside counsel to achieve business objectives.

Given the nature of patent litigation, particularly for a company like Bose, it is highly probable that they engage prominent law firms with substantial patent litigation experience. Firms frequently recognized for their patent litigation defense work include:

• DLA Piper: This firm is consistently ranked among the top US firms for defending patent litigation and boasts a large international footprint. They have experience in various technical fields, including electronics, computer science, and telecommunications, which are relevant to Bose's products. DLA Piper has defended clients in numerous US district court cases and ITC investigations.
• FisherBroyles: Known for its "distributed, cloud-based business model," FisherBroyles has a team of IP litigators with decades of experience in federal trial and appellate courts, as well as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Their litigators have technical backgrounds across a wide array of industries, including audio electronics. Key patent litigators at FisherBroyles include Maxwell Petersen, who has over 30 years of diversified experience and a chemical engineering background, and Jason M. Pass, Ph.D., who focuses on intellectual property counseling, patent portfolio development, and patent procurement in the life sciences, and has litigated several high-stakes patent matters.
• Locke Lord (now Troutman Pepper Locke): This firm has a well-respected IP Litigation Practice Group with attorneys who have extensive trial experience in patent and trade secret matters. They are noted for their broad technical experience, including mechanical and electrical engineering, chemistry, and computer science. Alan Clement chairs Locke Lord's Intellectual Property Department.

While these firms are strong candidates for representing Bose in patent litigation, without specific docket entries for the ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Bose Corporation case, the exact counsel of record cannot be definitively confirmed at this time. Filings would typically be accessible via PACER.