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

This patent infringement litigation, One-E-Way, Inc. v. [Dell Technologies Inc. et al](/litigations/by-defendant/Dell%20Technologies%20Inc.%20et%20al)., centers on allegations of infringement related to wireless audio technology. The plaintiff, One-E-Way, Inc., is identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE), also referred to as a non-practicing entity (NPE), and a minority-owned small business founded by inventor C. Earl Woolfork. While One-E-Way describes itself as an "electronic products design and manufacturing firm," its track record indicates a primary focus on licensing and enforcement of its patent portfolio, having previously engaged in successful litigation and licensing with major electronics companies such as Sony, Sennheiser, and GN Netcom. The defendants, Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc., are global technology operating companies known for their computer systems and related products.

The core of the dispute involves Dell's products featuring wireless audio capabilities, specifically targeting wireless headphones and speakers that utilize "wireless transmission and/or reception of an audio signal in compliance with versions of the Bluetooth standard," including Bluetooth 5.0. Dell's product lines include various wireless headsets and Bluetooth speakers. The primary patent asserted in this case is US Patent 10,129,627, titled "Wireless digital audio music system." This patent generally describes a wireless digital audio system comprising an audio transmitter and an audio receiver configured for digital wireless communication, employing fuzzy logic for optimized digital signal processing and Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) communication to enable private audio listening without interference from other users in a shared space.

The case was filed on December 18, 2024, in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, case number 1:24-cv-01558, with Judge Robert Pitman presiding. The Western District of Texas has historically been a popular venue for patent infringement lawsuits, particularly for NPEs, due to its perceived efficiency and certain procedural tendencies, although recent administrative changes regarding patent case assignments have somewhat altered its landscape. This litigation is part of a broader campaign by One-E-Way, reflecting a common NPE strategy of asserting a patent portfolio against multiple defendants in the consumer electronics industry. The notability of the case is further enhanced by the presence of a related inter partes review (IPR2025-01540) filed against US Patent 10,129,627 by [[[Samsung Electronics America](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20America) Inc](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%20Inc).](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20America%20Inc.), which has proceeded to trial. This highlights the ongoing interplay between district court litigation and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings in patent disputes.

This report outlines the key legal developments and current posture of the patent infringement litigation One-E-Way, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01558, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case, which is part of a broader litigation campaign by One-E-Way, asserts U.S. Patent 10,129,627 against Dell's products with wireless audio capabilities. The case is currently active.

Key Legal Developments

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2024-12-18): One-E-Way, Inc. initiated the lawsuit against Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case was assigned to Judge Robert Pitman.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:
As of May 16, 2026, the available information does not detail specific substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay. Given the relatively recent filing date (December 2024), these types of motions may be pending or have not yet been publicly reported with detailed outcomes.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:
There is no publicly available information regarding claim construction (Markman) proceedings or their outcomes in this case to date.

4. Discovery Milestones:
No specific strategic discovery milestones are publicly reported at this stage.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions:
The case is active and has not yet reached the trial stage. Therefore, there are no reported trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:
The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. No settlement, dismissal, or judgment has been reported.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
A parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceeding has been initiated at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent 10,129,627.

• IPR2025-01540: Samsung Electronics America Inc. filed a petition for IPR against U.S. Patent 10,129,627 B2. The petition was filed on September 16, 2025, and the last reported docket activity was on March 17, 2026. The status and outcome of this IPR proceeding are not yet finalized, but IPRs typically conclude within 12 to 18 months of institution. An IPR challenges the patentability of claims based on prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.
• Other IPRs: While IPR2025-01540 directly targets the patent in this case, One-E-Way, Inc. is also involved in other IPR proceedings related to its patent portfolio, including IPR2025-01541 and IPR2025-01516, which concern U.S. Patents 9,107,000 B2 and 10,468,047 B2, respectively, with Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung Electronics America Inc as challengers. The outcomes of these parallel proceedings, particularly IPR2025-01540, could significantly impact the district court litigation if the PTAB finds any claims of U.S. Patent 10,129,627 unpatentable.

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

Initial searches surfaced mostly docket material and court opinions rather than press. Let me search press-specific angles.

Press coverage

There is essentially no mainstream or trade press coverage of this case specifically. Across multiple search angles — the caption, the parties, the '627 patent number, and the parallel IPR — I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, IPWatchdog, JD Supra, or EFF article reporting on One-E-Way v. Dell (W.D. Tex. No. 1:24-cv-01558). What the searches return instead are docket and analytics aggregators: Justia Dockets, which carries the complaint, service dates and the March 2025 answer deadline; Patexia, which links the case to three related patents ('627, '047, '000); the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, which classifies One-E-Way as an NPE asserting against a "product company" defendant; and a foreign dispute-tracking entry on Korea's IP-NAVI identifying the accused products as the Dell Latitude laptop and tablet lines and the Dell Pro WL5022 headset. One indirect indicator that Law360 at least tracks the docket (without a published article I could locate) is a Law360 firm page listing "December 18, 2024 One-E-Way, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al, Texas Western" among attorney Omar A. Nesheiwat's cases — consistent with Greenberg Traurig appearing for Dell (Barry K. Shelton filed Dell's first appearance, per the Justia docket), though I could not confirm counsel rosters from a secondary source.

The closest thing to press coverage concerns the same patent family in the earlier Apple litigation, not this case. VitalLaw's IP Law Daily reported on 2023-08-14 that the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement for Apple in One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 22-2020, holding that under the parties' stipulated construction — "unique user code" means a "fixed code (bit sequence) specifically associated with one user of a device(s)" — Apple's Bluetooth-compliant earbuds assign codes to devices, not users, so no infringement was possible. Law firm commentary followed: Crowell & Moring published a 2023-09-05 client alert calling the decision a "cautionary tale" about agreed constructions that later produce unforeseen disputes, and the decision was digested for practitioners under the heading "Construction-of-the-Construction" in a University of Texas School of Law CLE coursebook, which quotes and summarizes Dennis Crouch's Patently-O analysis of the case (I accessed the CLE summary, not the underlying Patently-O post directly). None of this coverage discusses Dell, the 2024–25 complaints, the IPRs, or the stay. For background on the broader campaign, the only primary-source disclosure I found is Koss Corporation's SEC Form 10-Q, which discloses that Koss was "notified by One-E-Way, Inc." regarding its wireless headphone patents — a corporate filing, not press reporting, and one that does not mention Dell.

No press account supplies damages figures, settlement terms, or verdicts in this case, because none exist in reporting I could find. The complaint's demand appears in the docket only as the standard prayer for damages, enhanced damages, fees and costs, as summarized by analytics vendors; no outlet has reported a damages number. I also found no analyst takes, Dell executive statements, or industry reaction to this suit. The one widely reported "numbers" story in this patent family — the ITC Section 337 investigation against Sony, Sennheiser, Jabra and others, and the Federal Circuit's 2017 reversal on indefiniteness of "virtually free from interference" — appears in a Wiley Federal Circuit bulletin and is about different patents (the '258 and '391 patents) from a much earlier era of the campaign.

Two contradictions with earlier sections of this case report should be flagged. First, the earlier sections state that only the '627 patent is at issue and treat the case as Dell-only; the operative record shows One-E-Way consolidated its Dell (1:24-cv-01558), Anker (1:24-cv-01559) and Samsung (1:24-cv-01561) suits into 1:24-cv-01558 as the lead case and, in first amended complaints filed June 2025, asserted three patents — the '627, '047 and '000 patents — against all three defendants, according to the PacerMonitor docket for the Samsung case and the court's stay opinion discussed below. Second, the earlier sections say no stay or Markman activity is publicly reported and that the IPRs are "not yet finalized"; in fact the court issued a written opinion (Dkt. 89) granting the defendants' opposed motion to stay pending IPR, available on CourtListener, and the PTAB analytics site ipverse/GreyB lists IPR2025-01541 (the '000 patent) as "Trial Instituted" with an institution decision dated 2026-03-10. I could not verify from the sources I retrieved the issuance date of the stay order or the institution status of IPR2025-01540 itself, so those points should be re-verified directly against the docket before being stated.

Sources

• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION
• One-E-Way, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc.; One-E-Way, Inc. v. Anker Innovations Ltd. – CourtListener.com - Trial Court Document
• Complaint analysis | 1:24-cv-01558 | One E Way Inc v. Dell Tech Inc | Ex Parte
• in late December 2025)
• 1:24-cv-01558 | One E Way Inc v. Dell Tech Inc | Ex Parte
• Dell Inc. - Dell Inc.
• Patent Cases, Dockets and Filings in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• - https://cdn
• Ex. 1005 | IPR2025-01540 | Samsung Electronics America Inc v. One E Way Inc | Ex Parte
• PATERSON + SHERIDAN LLP
• One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc. – CourtListener.com - One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 22-2020 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
• Cases

The following attorneys represent One-E-Way, Inc. in One-E-Way, Inc. v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al.:

• Isaac Rabicoff - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Rabicoff Law LLC (Chicago, IL)
  • Note: Rabicoff Law was recognized among Lex Machina's top 3 law firms in 2017 for most active patent litigation. Isaac Rabicoff has led licensing campaigns against major tech companies like Amazon, Apple, Google, Huawei, LG, Samsung, and T-Mobile. He has also successfully defended against numerous post-grant review petitions at the PTAB.

• S. Gillam - Local Counsel

  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP (Marshall, TX, and Tyler, TX)
  • Note: Gillam & Smith LLP has extensive experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in federal court patent infringement litigation throughout Texas, and its attorneys have served as local or trial counsel in over a thousand intellectual property disputes. The firm is known for its trial skills and familiarity with Texas courts.

• Wesley Hill - Local Counsel

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Ward, Smith & Hill is a prominent East Texas law firm known for high-stakes intellectual property trials. Wesley Hill has been individually recognized for his work in intellectual property litigation by IAM Patent 1000.
  • Note: Effective October 1, 2024, Johnny Ward, Wesley Hill, and Bruce Smith were to end their trial practices, with the remaining firm members continuing under the name Miller Fair Henry. However, given the filing date of this case (December 18, 2024), it is possible Wesley Hill is acting in an "Of Counsel" capacity, or his appearance was filed prior to this change.

• T. John Ward - Of Counsel

  • Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Judge Ward is a former U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, where he presided over one of the heaviest intellectual property dockets in the country and conducted hundreds of patent cases and claim construction hearings. He now focuses his litigation practice on patent and other complex commercial cases.

The information regarding counsel is based on publicly available docket information and firm websites. No sealed filings prevented the identification of counsel.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record for this case.

Let me dig into the specific counsel names found and the docket.

Let me check the actual docket sheet and the recent stay opinion.