ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Dell Inc. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Dell Inc. et al., pits a patent assertion entity against a major technology hardware manufacturer over wireless audio technology. The plaintiff, ONE-E-WAY, INC., is an unfunded Pasadena-based company founded in 2004 by C. Earl Woolfork, described as a "wireless audio innovator" focusing on headphones and accessories. While it claims to design and manufacture consumer electronic products, One-E-Way has sustained itself through "successful litigation and licensing efforts" with prominent electronics companies such as Sony, Sennheiser, and GN Netcom, indicating its primary role as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE). The defendants, Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc., are a multinational technology company headquartered in Round Rock, Texas, known for its extensive range of products including personal computers, servers, monitors, and various IT services. Dell is an operating company with a significant market share in computer manufacturing and peripherals.

The accused products are Dell's wireless headphones and speakers that support "wireless transmission and/or reception of an audio signal in compliance with versions of the Bluetooth standard," specifically mentioning Bluetooth 5.0. The sole patent asserted in this case 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, a digital audio transmitter, and an audio receiver (often in a headphone set), utilizing fuzzy logic and Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) communication to deliver high-fidelity, interference-free private audio listening. One-E-Way has a history of asserting this and related patents against other major players in the wireless audio market, including Apple and Samsung.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas under Judge Robert Pitman. This venue is particularly notable for patent litigation, having been a favored forum for patent owners, especially NPEs, due to its historically fast-paced proceedings and high volume of patent case filings. Although the Western District of Texas has implemented changes to spread patent cases among more judges, it remains a top district for overall and NPE patent litigation. The litigation is part of a broader assertion campaign by One-E-Way, with parallel cases filed against Anker Innovations and Samsung, highlighting an ongoing pattern of enforcing its wireless audio patents against major consumer electronics companies.

The case "ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Dell Inc. et al." (1:24-cv-01558) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas on December 18, 2024. The plaintiff is ONE-E-WAY, INC., and the defendants are Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. The case involves U.S. Patent 9,107,000. The case is currently active and is being presided over by Judge Robert Pitman. It is the lead case for consolidated pretrial proceedings that also involve Anker Innovations.

Given the filing date of December 18, 2024, and the current date of May 16, 2026, the case is still in its early to mid-stages. Therefore, it is unlikely to have reached advanced stages such as a trial, verdict, or appeal. Information regarding detailed docket entries like answers, counterclaims, specific pre-trial motions (other than the general indication of consolidation), Markman outcomes, or discovery milestones would typically require direct PACER access or more specific news reporting which is not yet publicly available for such a recent case through general search.

Regarding parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings for U.S. Patent 9,107,000, a search of the USPTO PTAB databases (P-TACTS and the Open Data Portal) for patent 9107000 does not readily show any instituted or filed IPR or PGR proceedings specifically against this patent. Without specific IPR/PGR trial numbers or party names on the PTAB side related to this patent, it is not possible to confirm any direct parallel proceedings.

Therefore, the key legal developments so far are:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:
  • Complaint Filed: ONE-E-WAY, INC. filed its complaint against Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. on December 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 9,107,000.
• Case Consolidation:
  • The case is designated as the lead case for consolidated pretrial proceedings, which includes other defendants such as Anker Innovations Limited.

Further developments such as answers, counterclaims, substantive motions, claim construction, discovery, trial, or final disposition have not yet been publicly reported or reached due to the relatively recent filing date. There is no readily available information regarding parallel PTAB proceedings for the asserted patent at this time.The patent infringement litigation ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Dell Inc. et al. (Case number: 1:24-cv-01558) was filed on December 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff in the case is ONE-E-WAY, INC., and the defendants are Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. The lawsuit asserts infringement of U.S. Patent 9,107,000. The case is currently active and is being presided over by Judge Robert Pitman.

As of May 16, 2026, the key legal developments are as follows:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (Complaint):
  • 2024-12-18: ONE-E-WAY, INC. filed its complaint initiating the patent infringement lawsuit against Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.
• Case Consolidation:
  • The case has been designated as the lead case for consolidated pretrial proceedings, which also involves Anker Innovations Limited as a defendant in related actions.

Given the recent filing date, the litigation is still in its early stages. Specific details regarding answers, counterclaims, substantive pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR), claim construction (Markman) outcomes, detailed discovery milestones, or any trial events, verdict, or post-trial motions are not yet publicly available.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
A search of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) databases (P-TACTS and Open Data Portal) for U.S. Patent 9,107,000 does not indicate any instituted or filed Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings related to this patent. Therefore, there are no known parallel PTAB proceedings affecting this litigation at present.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff ONE-E-WAY, INC.

Plaintiff ONE-E-WAY, INC. in ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Dell Inc. et al. (1:24-cv-01558) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas is represented by both lead counsel and local counsel.

Lead Counsel:

• Douglas G. Muehlhauser (Partner)

  • Firm: MacArthur James LLP
  • Office Location: Costa Mesa, California
  • Experience: Mr. Muehlhauser is a founding partner of MacArthur James LLP and has over 25 years of experience in intellectual property law. He has a long history of representing ONE-E-WAY, INC. in patent litigation, including trials and appeals before federal district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He was previously recognized as an "IP Giant Slayer" by The Recorder for prevailing against larger, better-resourced opponents for ONE-E-WAY, INC. in an ITC investigation involving wireless audio technology patents.

• Payson J. LeMeilleur (Partner)

  • Firm: MacArthur James LLP
  • Office Location: Costa Mesa, California
  • Experience: Mr. LeMeilleur is a founding partner of MacArthur James LLP and has over 25 years of experience in intellectual property law. He has represented sophisticated high-tech clients in patent litigation across various federal district courts, federal appellate courts, the ITC, and the PTAB. He has a history of achieving favorable results, including victories in trials, appeals, IPRs, and dispositive motions.

Local Counsel:

While specific docket entries for case 1:24-cv-01558 explicitly naming local counsel were not directly retrieved, it is highly probable, given the Western District of Texas's common practice for out-of-district lead counsel, that local counsel from Dinovo Price LLP are also representing ONE-E-WAY, INC. In the related consolidated case, One-E-Way, Inc. v. Anker Innovations Ltd. (1:24-cv-01559), which is part of the same pretrial proceedings, the following attorneys from Dinovo Price LLP are listed as counsel for One-E-Way, Inc.:

• Adam G. Price

  • Firm: Dinovo Price LLP
  • Office Location: Austin, Texas (Presumed, as Dinovo Price LLP is based in Austin and is known for local counsel representation in W.D. Tex. patent cases)
  • Experience: Dinovo Price LLP is an Austin-based firm with experience in patent litigation.

• Andrew G. DiNovo

  • Firm: Dinovo Price LLP
  • Office Location: Austin, Texas
  • Experience: Dinovo Price LLP is an Austin-based firm with experience in patent litigation.

• Daniel L. Schmid

  • Firm: Dinovo Price LLP
  • Office Location: Austin, Texas
  • Experience: Dinovo Price LLP is an Austin-based firm with experience in patent litigation.

Based on the search results, it's not possible to definitively identify the specific outside counsel of record who have filed appearances in case 1:24-cv-01558 ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Dell Inc. et al. The search for PACER docket information for this exact case did not yield specific attorney names making appearances.

However, the searches did provide information about Dell Technologies' in-house intellectual property counsel who are generally involved in patent litigation. It also noted that in another recent Western District of Texas patent case (WSOU Investments vs. Dell Technologies), Dell was represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Winston & Strawn LLP, and in-house counsel. While this doesn't confirm their involvement in this specific case, it provides an indication of firms Dell might retain.

Here are the identified in-house counsel at Dell Technologies with relevant patent litigation experience:

• Lauren Hoffer

  • Role: Senior Litigation Counsel for IP Matters (In-house)
  • Firm: Dell Technologies Inc., Round Rock, TX
  • Note: Handles day-to-day strategy and logistics with outside counsel on Dell's patent litigation in federal district court and the International Trade Commission. She practices both commercial and patent litigation.

• Peter Jovanovic

  • Role: Legal Director, IP (In-house)
  • Firm: Dell Technologies, Austin, TX (based on Dell's primary practice location and general counsel information)
  • Note: Responsible for patent portfolio development, patent litigation, open source management, and license drafting and negotiation. He has experience as an associate patent attorney in prosecution, litigation, and licensing services and was previously a software engineer.

• Shruti Costales

  • Role: Legal Director, IP (formerly at Dell Technologies)
  • Firm: Dell Technologies (previously), now Owner & Founder of Shruti Law PLLC, Washington, DC.
  • Note: Has over 20 years of legal experience, including patent litigation, counseling, and drafting/prosecuting over 1000 patent applications.

• Rich Rothberg

  • Role: General Counsel and Secretary (In-house)
  • Firm: Dell Technologies Inc., Round Rock, TX
  • Note: Oversees the global legal department, including patent litigation.

Since direct docket entries listing counsel appearances for 1:24-cv-01558 are not publicly accessible through the web search performed, a complete list of all counsel of record, including specific lead, local, or of counsel attorneys from outside firms, cannot be provided at this time.The counsel of record representing the defendant(s), Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc., in ONE-E-WAY, INC. v. Dell Inc. et al. (1:24-cv-01558) cannot be definitively identified from publicly accessible web search results, as specific attorney appearances for this case were not found on the docket.

However, based on general information regarding Dell's intellectual property litigation, the following in-house counsel at Dell Technologies Inc. are typically involved in such matters:

• Lauren Hoffer

  • Role: Senior Litigation Counsel for IP Matters (In-house)
  • Firm: Dell Technologies Inc., Round Rock, TX
  • Note: Handles day-to-day strategy and logistics with outside counsel on Dell's patent litigation in federal district court and the International Trade Commission. She practices both commercial and patent litigation.

• Peter Jovanovic

  • Role: Legal Director, IP (In-house)
  • Firm: Dell Technologies, Austin, TX (based on Dell's primary practice location and general counsel information)
  • Note: Responsible for patent portfolio development, patent litigation, open source management, and license drafting and negotiation. His background includes experience as a software engineer and an associate patent attorney providing prosecution, litigation, and licensing services.

• Rich Rothberg

  • Role: General Counsel and Secretary (In-house)
  • Firm: Dell Technologies Inc., Round Rock, TX
  • Note: Oversees the global legal department, which includes patent litigation, and has held various critical leadership roles within Dell's legal department since 1999.

• Shruti Costales

  • Role: Legal Director, IP (formerly at Dell Technologies)
  • Firm: Dell Technologies (previously), now Owner & Founder of Shruti Law PLLC, Washington, DC.
  • Note: Has over 20 years of legal experience, including patent litigation, patent counseling, and drafting and prosecuting numerous patent applications.

While specific outside counsel for this particular case could not be confirmed through available web searches, Dell has previously engaged firms such as Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and Winston & Strawn LLP in other patent litigation in the Western District of Texas.