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 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.

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.