Litigation

One-E-Way, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc.

Early Stages

1:24-cv-01558

Patents at issue (1)

10468047PTAB challenge active

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

This patent litigation was filed by One-E-Way against Dell Technologies in the Western District of Texas and is in its early stages.

Case overview & background

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

The patent infringement lawsuit, One-E-Way, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc., is currently in its early stages in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff, One-E-Way, Inc., describes itself as an electronic products design and manufacturing firm, founded by C. Earl Woolfork, which has focused on commercializing wireless audio technology. Dell Technologies Inc. is a major American multinational technology company known for its broad range of products and services, including personal computers, servers, and other IT infrastructure and solutions. One-E-Way has previously engaged in patent litigation and licensing efforts with other major electronics companies.

The accused products or services in this case 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," including Bluetooth 5.0. The sole patent asserted in this litigation is U.S. Patent No. 10,468,047, titled "Wireless digital audio music system." This patent generally describes a wireless digital audio system comprising a portable audio source with a digital audio transmitter 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 ensure private audio enjoyment without interference.

The case is being heard in the Western District of Texas, a venue that has historically been popular for patent litigation due to its fast-track scheduling orders and, until recently, the high likelihood of cases being assigned to Judge Alan Albright, who cultivated an environment attractive to patent plaintiffs. However, as of July 2022, patent cases in the Waco Division (where many patent cases were filed to reach Judge Albright) are now randomly assigned among all judges in the Western District of Texas, which may impact its prior predictability for plaintiffs. The assigned judge for this particular case is Judge Robert Pitman. This case is notable as One-E-Way has a history of asserting its patents against large tech companies, including a previous lawsuit against Apple involving similar wireless audio technology that concluded in August 2023 with a Federal Circuit affirmation of non-infringement. Furthermore, U.S. Patent No. 10,468,047 is also the subject of an ongoing inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2025-01516) initiated by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. against One-E-Way, Inc., with a trial instituted as of February 17, 2026. One-E-Way has also filed similar complaints against Anker Innovations and Samsung in the Western District of Texas.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

One-E-Way, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc.: Key Legal Developments

Case Number: 1:24-cv-01558
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
Assigned Judge: Robert Pitman
Patents at Issue: 10468047
Current Status: Early Stages

This patent infringement litigation was filed by One-E-Way, Inc. against Dell Technologies Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case is in its very early stages, having been filed in late 2024.

Key Legal Developments:

  • Filing & Initial Pleadings:

    • Complaint Filed: One-E-Way, Inc. initiated the lawsuit on December 18, 2024, by filing a complaint against Dell Technologies Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The case was assigned to Judge Robert Pitman. Details regarding Dell's answer or any counterclaims are not yet publicly available through general web search, which is typical for cases in their nascent stages.

  • Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
    Due to the recent filing date of December 18, 2024, there are no publicly available records of substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or for summary judgment, nor any rulings on such motions.

  • Claim Construction (Markman):
    The case has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage, which typically occurs later in patent litigation after initial pleadings and some discovery.

  • Discovery Milestones:
    No significant discovery milestones have been publicly reported, consistent with the early phase of the litigation.

  • Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:
    The case has not proceeded to trial, nor have there been any verdicts or post-trial motions.

  • Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
    There is no public information indicating a settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal in this case. The litigation remains active and in its early procedural phases.

  • Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
    A search for parallel PTAB IPR (Inter Partes Review) or PGR (Post-Grant Review) proceedings related to U.S. Patent No. 10,468,047 at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through general web search, which queries the USPTO's public databases, did not yield any active or concluded IPR or PGR proceedings for this specific patent. Given the patent's issue date (which can be inferred from the filing date of the lawsuit asserting it, suggesting it is relatively recent), a Post-Grant Review (PGR) would have a narrow nine-month window from the patent's grant date for filing.

The current posture of One-E-Way, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc. is that of an active patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, still in its initial procedural phase following the filing of the complaint.

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

I'll search multiple angles to find press coverage of this case.

Press & News Coverage

Bottom line: no article specifically about One-E-Way v. Dell Technologies (1:24-cv-01558) surfaced in any search. Nothing from Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, Patently-O, EFF, JD Supra, or mainstream tech press discusses the Dell action itself. What exists falls into three buckets: (a) Korean-language business-press coverage of the companion Samsung suit filed the same day, which names the same three patents; (b) Law360 docket-tracker listings (attorney profile pages that index the case caption and filing date, e.g. Law360's attorney page for Andy W. Tindel, which lists "December 18, 2024 One-E-Way, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al, Texas Western" with no article text); and (c) database entries from the Korean government's IP-NAVI dispute portal, which log the Dell case as of 2024-12-20 and identify the accused Dell products as the Latitude laptop and tablet lines and the Dell Pro WL5022 (IP-NAVI) — a registry, not journalism.

The closest reporting. Seoul Wire published a December 19, 2024 piece by Cheon Seong-yoon on the Samsung complaint filed the same day in the Austin Division, which lists U.S. Patent Nos. 10,129,627, 10,468,047 and 9,107,000 — the same family One-E-Way asserted against Dell — and identifies the accused Samsung devices (Galaxy phones, tablets, laptops, watches, Galaxy Buds, Level Box and Sound Tower speakers). It reports that One-E-Way alleges infringement based on the 20 Hz–20 kHz audio range and on users' ability to rename Bluetooth devices, and that One-E-Way sent Samsung a notice letter dated April 10, 2020 and is seeking a jury verdict, damages, and attorneys' fees. Two days later, FO Economy reported the same Samsung filing and expressly credited Bloomberg Law with breaking it on December 19, 2024 (local time) — meaning a Bloomberg Law story on the Samsung complaint likely exists behind a paywall, but I could not retrieve or verify its text, headline, or whether it mentions Dell, so I am not characterizing its contents.

Where reporting goes beyond the record. Seoul Wire editorializes on the merits in a way no court filing does: it notes One-E-Way sued Apple on the same patents in 2020, lost at summary judgment, and lost again on appeal, and states that "원이웨이가 삼성전자를 상대로 승소할 확률이 낮을 것으로 전망된다" — that One-E-Way's odds of prevailing against Samsung are viewed as low. That is the outlet's own prognostication, not a party statement or a ruling, and it is an inference from a different defendant's case. Both Korean outlets also frame One-E-Way as a company known for aggressive patent assertion ("특허 소송을 적극적으로 활용하는 기업"), a characterization that sits awkwardly with the complaint's self-description as a small, minority-owned operating company selling its own products through shop.wayvz.com. Notably, no outlet has reported any damages figure, royalty rate, or settlement number in the Dell case, and I found none.

Related coverage worth flagging. The most substantive press treatment of this patent family is Dennis Crouch's Patently-O piece on One-E-Way v. Apple (Fed. Cir. 2022-2020, Aug. 14, 2023), summarized and excerpted in a UT Law CLE coursebook, which explains the Federal Circuit's affirmance of non-infringement on the agreed construction of "unique user code" — the code is associated with a device, not a user. That holding is directly consequential for the Dell case (Dell's accused products use the same Bluetooth BD_ADDR/UFN pairing), yet no retrieved coverage draws that line.

Corrections to earlier sections (flagging contradictions)

  1. Patent count. The metadata and prior sections say the sole patent is 10,468,047. That was true of the original Dec. 18, 2024 complaint, but One-E-Way's First Amended Complaint against Dell (Dkt. 65, filed June 27, 2025) asserts three patents — the '627, '047, and '000 — as recited in the court's stay order, Dkt. 89.
  2. Case is not "early stages / no motions." The prior "Key legal developments" section is stale. On October 29, 2025, Judge Pitman granted the defendants' opposed motion to stay pending IPR (Dkt. 81), over One-E-Way's opposition (Dkt. 83) and reply (Dkt. 88), staying "this action and all deadlines" with 60-day status reports, the first due January 5, 2026 (Dkt. 89). Dell had also moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on July 21, 2025 (Dkt. 70). Per the order, fact discovery was set to open Jan. 13, 2026 and trial for April 5, 2027.
  3. IPR status. The prior section said no PTAB proceedings exist. Samsung's three petitions were filed Sept. 8, 16, and 17, 2025; IPR2025-01516 (the '047 patent) shows institution with an institution decision date of February 18, 2026 per IPVerse/GreyB — one day off from the Feb. 17, 2026 date in the existing summary; I could not independently confirm which is correct, so treat it as unverified to the day.

Given the near-total absence of Dell-specific press, the practical suggestion is that any coverage will follow the PTAB institution decision on the '047 patent or a lift of the stay, not the pleadings.

Sources

Plaintiff representatives

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

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff One-E-Way, Inc.

In the case of One-E-Way, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc., 1:24-cv-01558, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, the following attorneys have appeared as counsel for the plaintiff, One-E-Way, Inc.:

  • Adam G. Price

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP, Austin, Texas.
    • Experience Note: Adam Price focuses on intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement cases.

  • Daniel L. Schmid

    • Role: Counsel
    • Firm: DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP, Austin, Texas.
    • Experience Note: Daniel Schmid's practice includes patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes.

An attorney named D. Andrew G. Dinovo is also associated with DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP in relation to this case, indicating the firm's involvement.

Additionally, an order dated May 30, 2025, granted an attorney named "Pease" pro hac vice status. However, the specific firm and full name of this attorney, as well as their direct connection to One-E-Way, Inc. through an appearance notice, are not explicitly detailed in the readily available docket snippets, preventing a full profile at this time.

Defendant representatives

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

Based on available docket information for One-E-Way, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc. (1:24-cv-01558), the following attorneys are representing Dell Technologies Inc.:

  • Bradley Dalton Coburn

    • Role: Counsel for Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.
    • Firm: Shelton Coburn LLP
    • Office Location: (Not specified in search results, but Shelton Coburn LLP is a Texas-based firm specializing in intellectual property and business litigation).
    • Note: Bradley Coburn is a partner at Shelton Coburn LLP, a firm known for its work in intellectual property and business litigation, including patent defense.

  • Barry Kenneth Shelton

    • Role: Counsel for Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc.
    • Firm: Shelton Coburn LLP
    • Office Location: (Not specified in search results, but Shelton Coburn LLP is a Texas-based firm specializing in intellectual property and business litigation).
    • Note: Barry Shelton is a founding partner of Shelton Coburn LLP, with extensive experience in intellectual property and commercial litigation, including representing clients in patent infringement cases.