US 10602259

I'll run targeted searches for this patent number and any associated litigation.

Let me dig into the litigation references and check for any CAFC activity.

One more check on the Utah case and the assignee's litigation history.

US Patent 10,602,259 — Verification Summary

Important scoping note: I searched for the literal identifier 10602259 and excluded near-miss numbers. The bibliographic record below is drawn from the patent document itself (Google Patents full text, corroborated by Justia and Patentleaderboard listings). Litigation hits are reported separately with caveats.

1. Bibliographic data

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10602259/en

2. Abstract (as issued)

A TWS earphone with multiple speakers and a crossover circuit embedded therein includes a body and a circuit unit set in the body. The circuit unit includes a Bluetooth module, a crossover circuit electrically connected to the Bluetooth module, at least two dynamic speakers or an assembly of at least one dynamic speaker and at least one balanced armature, with different response features, electrically connected to the crossover circuit, and a battery module supplying power for the circuit unit. The Bluetooth module wirelessly receives audio signals and outputs them to the crossover circuit for frequency division. The crossover circuit transmits medium-low frequency audio signals after frequency division to one dynamic speaker and high frequency audio signals to the other dynamic speaker or the balanced armature.

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — two dynamic speakers (the "dynamic + dynamic" branch).

A TWS earbud has a shell (body) holding a circuit unit made of four things: a Bluetooth module, a crossover circuit, at least two dynamic speakers that have different response features, and a battery. The Bluetooth module receives audio wirelessly and hands it to the crossover; the crossover splits the signal and sends the medium-low band to one dynamic speaker and the high band to the other.

The claim then narrows to two named speakers (a "first" and a "second" dynamic speaker) and pins down a specific four-component crossover topology:

• R1 and R2 — one end of each tied in parallel and connected to both the positive audio-signal electrode (TP+) from the Bluetooth module and the battery positive terminal;
• the negative audio electrode (TP−) is tied to the battery negative terminal;
• R1's far end → R3 → positive terminal of the first dynamic speaker;
• R2's far end → C1 → positive terminal of the second dynamic speaker;
• R3's far end → the negative terminals of both dynamic speakers → back to the battery negative terminal.

In substance: an R–R series/network on the "low" leg with a shunt resistor and a series capacitor on the "high" leg, i.e., a passive resistor/capacitor crossover (no inductors claimed).

Claim 7 — one dynamic speaker + two balanced armatures (the "hybrid" branch).

Same earbud architecture, but the transducer set is a dynamic speaker plus balanced armature(s) having different response characteristics. The crossover sends medium-low frequencies to the dynamic speaker and high frequencies to the balanced armatures. Claim 7 then requires specifically one dynamic speaker and two balanced armatures (a "first" and "second" balanced armature), each connected to the crossover, and again recites a four-component crossover (R1, R2, R3, C1):

• R1 and R2 first ends in parallel to TP+ and battery positive;
• TP− to battery negative;
• R1's far end → R3 → positive terminal of the dynamic speaker;
• R2's far end → C1 → positive terminals of both balanced armatures (tied together);
• R3's far end → negatives of the dynamic speaker and both balanced armatures → battery negative.

Dependent claims (brief):

• 2 (dep. 1): Bluetooth chip model selected from AB1526, QCC3020, QCC3026, RTL8763BFR, AB1532, BES2300.
• 3 (dep. 1): alternate three-component crossover — R1, R2, C1 only, with the two dynamic speakers' negatives tied together to battery negative (no R3).
• 4 (dep. 1): alternate three-component crossover — R1, R2, R3 only (no capacitor), R3 to the shared speaker negatives.
• 5 (dep. 1): adds a switch unit controlling battery output/shutdown, using a TTP223 touch-switch chip.
• 6 (dep. 1): adds an LED light (to battery and Bluetooth module) and a microphone (to Bluetooth module).
• 8 (dep. 7): the R1/R2/C1 variant of the hybrid crossover.
• 9 (dep. 7): the R1/R2/R3 variant of the hybrid crossover.

4. Litigation / CAFC status (as of the search date)

• CAFC 2026 dockets: I found no Federal Circuit appeal, 2026 docket entry, or appellate activity naming US 10,602,259. Treat this as "not found," not as proof of absence — CAFC docket search coverage from a general web search is incomplete.
• District court records associated with this patent number:
  • Google Patents' litigation panel for US 10,602,259 lists (a) a Darts-ip "first worldwide family litigation" entry for family 66166582, and (b) a US case in the Utah District Court, 2:24-cv-00175 (Unified Patents litigation portal).
  • The Stanford NPE Litigation Database page for patent 10602259 lists a single case: CAO Group, Inc. v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., 1:25-cv-01430, D. Del., filed Nov 24, 2025, with asserted patents listed as 10602259, 10646419, 11219582, 11826444, 11826445.
  • ⚠️ Discrepancy flagged, not resolved: the CAO Group v. Ivoclar Vivadent matter is a dental-products dispute (the co-asserted patents 10646419 / 11219582 / 11826444 / 11826445 are dental-curing-light patents), which is facially inconsistent with a TWS-earphone patent owned by Shenzhen Ginto. I could not verify from a primary source (complaint or docket) that US 10,602,259 is actually asserted in that case; the association may be a database indexing artifact. I am reporting it literally as the databases show it.
  • Similarly, I could not retrieve a docket or complaint for Utah 2:24-cv-00175, so the identity of the plaintiff/defendant and the specific assertion of 10602259 there is unverified.
  • URLs: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10602259 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Utah%20District%20Court/case/2%3A24-cv-00175 ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-01430

5. Statement of uncertainty

1. CAFC 2026: No appellate docket found; absence of evidence, not evidence of absence.
2. Delaware 1:25-cv-01430: Association with US 10,602,259 rests on the Stanford NPE database only and is subject-matter implausible; verify against the actual complaint before relying on it.
3. Utah 2:24-cv-00175: Listed by Google Patents/Unified Patents but I could not independently retrieve party names or the asserted claim(s).
4. Claim drafting observations (from the face of the document, not a legal opinion): Claim 1 opens without the article "A" and recites "TWS earphone with multiple speakers and a crossover circuit embedded therein comprising a body…"; claim 7's preamble recites "an assembly of at least one dynamic speaker and at least one balanced armature" but the body then requires specifically one dynamic speaker and two balanced armatures, creating a potential antecedent/scope tension. The specification text also contains typographical artifacts (e.g., "a third opposite end 3 a of the third resistor C 1" where the resistor R3 is intended, and "second opposite end 1 b of the second resistor R2"). These are quoted as they appear, not corrected.
5. The patent's own text notes the chip model "can be selected from one of AB1526, QCC3020, QCC3026, RTL8763BFR, AB1532 and BES2300," with AB1526 as the preferred implementation — reproduced literally without validating those part numbers against vendor catalogs.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10602259.

Let me dig deeper on the specific cases referenced.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,602,259

Bottom line: Two U.S. district court cases are indexed against this patent (U.S. 10,602,259 B1, "TWS earphone with multiple speakers and a crossover circuit embedded therein," granted 2020‑03‑24, owner of record Shenzhen Ginto E‑Commerce Co., Limited). However, the party data attached to those cases does not match the patent's owner of record, and I flag that discrepancy clearly below rather than glossing over it.

Case 1 — Delaware

Sources: Stanford NPE Litigation Database, CAO Group, Inc. v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc. (https://npe.law.stanford.edu/case/[308900](/patent/308900)); Google Patents litigation link for US10602259 → https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-01430.

Case 2 — Utah

Sources: Case record for 2:24‑cv‑00175, CAO Group Inc v. Walmart Inc (PACER-derived); Google Patents litigation link for US10602259 → https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Utah%20District%20Court/case/2%3A24-cv-00175.

Additionally, the Google Patents bibliographic record for US10602259 carries a "Family has litigation / First worldwide family litigation filed" flag (Darts‑IP family ID 66166582), consistent with the two U.S. cases above.

Important caveats and limitations

1. Party/ownership mismatch — please verify. The patent's assignee of record is Shenzhen Ginto E‑Commerce Co., Limited (inventors Jianhua Huang and Yong Yang), and the patent is directed to TWS earphones. The litigation databases list CAO Group, Inc. as the plaintiff/asserter in both cases, and CAO Group is a dental-products company whose co-asserted patents (e.g., 11,219,582; 11,826,444; 11,826,445) are unrelated in subject matter to TWS earphones. Under the operating rule to interpret identifiers literally, I report the case numbers and parties exactly as the sources state — but this is a strong signal of either (a) a database mis-association between the case record and this patent number, or (b) an assignment/licensing arrangement not reflected in the patent's front page. I could not confirm, from the material retrieved, that U.S. 10,602,259 is actually asserted in either case. I recommend pulling the complaints from PACER (D. Del. 1:25‑cv‑01430 and D. Utah 2:24‑cv‑00175) and checking the USPTO Assignment record to resolve this before relying on it.

2. No CAFC or appellate activity was found for this patent in the searched sources.

3. No reported outcome/termination reason is available for either case in the sources I could reach; the Utah case is shown as closed, and the Delaware case appears pending.

4. I did not find any other litigation (ITC §337 actions, other district court suits, or foreign proceedings) indexed to this patent number. Absence of findings here is a statement about the searched databases, not a guarantee none exists.

If you want, I can attempt to retrieve the actual Delaware and Utah complaints to confirm which patent claims are asserted and whether the CAO Group attribution is correct.

I'll verify the ODP "no proceedings" signal against public sources before concluding.

Initial searches surfaced nothing on-point. Let me check the litigation dockets and PTAB-specific sources.

Let me run a few more targeted checks on PTAB dockets and the litigation chain.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,602,259: zero (0). The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal API and current as of its most recent ingest — returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent web checks surfaced no PTAB petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal naming US 10,602,259. Breakdown by status is therefore: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. The bottom-line defensive posture is not "the patent has survived two IPRs and is hardened" and not "claims 1–5 are canceled" — it is that all nine claims are untested at the Board, so any invalidity position a defendant wants to run must be built from scratch, and no petitioner has yet absorbed § 315(e)(2) estoppel on this patent.

No proceedings to report

There is no proceeding number to list here, and I will not invent one. The template fields you asked me to fill (type, filing date, panel, grounds, institution, FWD, settlement, appeal) have no content for this patent. Specifically:

• No petition appears in PTAB E2E / PTAB APIs for US 10,602,259 (application 16/221,636) as of the ODP ingest.
• No FWD exists, so there is no claim-level disposition to quote and no surviving-claim narrowing to analyze.
• No settlement/termination and no CAFC appeal exist, because no trial was ever instituted.
• Web searches for a petition, an IPR number tied to the patent, or a Ginto-related PTAB filing returned nothing on-point. Search noise (IPR2015-01653 on RE43,106; IPR2022-00031 on US 10,621,228; IPR2025-01280 on US 9,146,925) is unrelated to this patent.

Verification transparency: the searches I was able to run before hitting my tool-call limit were broad and returned heavily unrelated results. I found no affirmative evidence of PTAB activity, and the authoritative ODP block says there is none. I did not independently confirm a null result directly inside the PTAB E2E case-search UI. Treat "zero proceedings" as the well-supported working assumption, but a defendant's counsel should re-run the patent number through PTAB E2E and the USPTO Patent Center "Proceedings" tab before relying on it for a § 315(b) deadline calculation or an estoppel argument.

Strategic summary

Claim status: all claims UNTESTED. US 10,602,259 issued 2020-03-24 with 9 claims and has never been before the Board, so nothing is canceled, nothing is confirmed patentable, and nothing is narrowed by adverse judgment. The claim architecture matters for a defendant:

• Claim 1 (independent) — TWS earphone with a Bluetooth module, a crossover circuit, at least two dynamic speakers with different response features, and a battery module; limited to the FIG. 3 topology (R1, R2, R3, C1, with R3's third end tied to the negative electrodes of both dynamic speakers and the battery negative).
• Claims 2–6 — dependent: claim 2 (Bluetooth chip model list: AB1526, QCC3020, QCC3026, RTL8763BFR, AB1532, BES2300); claim 3 (FIG. 4 topology — R1, R2, C1, no R3); claim 4 (FIG. 5 topology — R1, R2, R3, no capacitor); claim 5 (TTP223 touch switch unit); claim 6 (LED light + microphone).
• Claim 7 (independent) — the dynamic-speaker + two-balanced-armature species, with the FIG. 11 topology (R1, R2, R3, C1 into first and second balanced armatures).
• Claims 8–9 — dependent: claim 8 (FIG. 12 topology — R1, R2, C1); claim 9 (FIG. 13 topology — R1, R2, R3).

A practical read: claims 2, 5, and 6 are the kind of narrow, implementation-specific dependents that are relatively easy to design around (change the Bluetooth chip; drop the TTP223; use a mechanical switch), while the real dispute will be over the independent claims' crossover topologies and the "different response features" / "different frequency" limitations.

Estoppel landscape — the field is wide open. Because no IPR has been instituted against this patent, no petitioner or privy carries § 315(e)(2) estoppel, and there is no IPR-based Federal Circuit or Board precedent binding on claim construction or validity for these claims. Every prior-art ground — § 102 and § 103, on any reference, in any combination — remains available in a district court or ITC validity challenge. That is the single most important defensive fact here: a defendant is not boxed in by someone else's failed petition or by an earlier petitioner's ground selection.

Pattern signals. There is no same-petitioner pattern to report because there is no petitioner at all. Note, though, the surrounding signals in the structured data that suggest assertion pressure rather than defensive-aggregator activity:

• Google Patents flags "Family has litigation" / "First worldwide family litigation filed" for family ID 66166582, and lists a Delaware District Court case (1:25-cv-01430, per Unified Patents' litigation portal) and a Utah District Court case (2:24-cv-00175). Caveat: my search for the Utah case number resolved it to CAO Group Inc v. Walmart Inc (D. Utah, filed 2024-03-05, closed) — an unrelated patent case. Google Patents' litigation linkage is aggregate and noisy, so treat both docket references as leads to verify on PACER rather than confirmed assertions of this patent. I could not verify either docket as a Ginto v. [defendant] case involving US 10,602,259.
• No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, et al.) appears anywhere in the chain — consistent with zero IPRs, and also consistent with the patent being asserted recently enough (2024–2025 docket numbers) that an aggregator has not yet acted.
• Patent owner is not an aggressive PTAB appellant — there is nothing to appeal. The only post-grant paper is a maintenance-fee payment on 2023-08-09 (4th year, small entity). Anticipated expiration is 2038-12-17.
• Related family members exist and may travel with this patent if it is asserted: CN208850008U (the CN utility-model parent, priority 2018-11-16) and JP3220967U. Separately, the same assignee (Shenzhen Ginto E-Commerce Co., Limited; inventors Huang Jianhua and Yong Yang) holds US 10,972,830 B1 on a "speaker monomer with a pair of dynamic speakers" with a crossover circuit on the PCB — a defendant served on US 10,602,259 should check whether that sibling patent is also being asserted.

Recommended next steps

1. Re-confirm the null result at the source. Search PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and the USPTO Patent Center "Proceedings" tab for application 16/221,636. If truly null, your invalidity case is unconstrained and you should budget for a full prior-art search rather than a "stack on the FWD" strategy.
2. Pin the § 315(b) clock. If you have been served with a complaint asserting US 10,602,259 (the Delaware 1:25-cv-01430 reference, if verified on PACER as this patent), you have one year from service to file any IPR. Given the 2025 Delaware docket number and today's date of 2026-09-28, this deadline may be imminent or already blown — confirm the actual service date before doing anything else. Section 315(b) is a hard statutory bar and, unlike a time-bar, it is not subject to a good-cause extension.
3. Sequence IPR against the district court case. With no prior petitioner, you have no § 315(e)(2) exposure to inherit, and you can challenge seriously. Decide early whether to file an IPR (with its § 315(e)(2) estoppel consequence for grounds you raised or reasonably could have raised) or to litigate validity in court, where all grounds stay available. For a 2018-vintage utility-model-priority patent with a simple analog crossover and a stock Bluetooth chip, an obviousness attack built on conventional multi-driver/crossover art plus a standard TWS Bluetooth module is a plausible IPR theory — but it is untested, so a pre-filing invalidity search is the gating step.
4. Attack the narrow dependents first in any negotiation. Claims 2 (named Bluetooth chip models), 5 (TTP223), and 6 (LED + mic) are the easiest to design around. If a demand letter leans on those, the design-around cost is low. The claims with real leverage are independent claims 1 and 7.
5. Do not cite "claims 1–5 have been canceled" or any FWD. There is no FWD. Any statement to the contrary — including in a client memo or an invalidity contentions preamble — would be wrong and potentially sanctionable. The correct framing is: no PTAB proceedings on file; all claims untested; no estoppel; full ground space available.
6. Verify the litigation chain on PACER/CourtListener before relying on the Google Patents "Family has litigation" flags: D. Del. 1:25-cv-01430 and D. Utah 2:24-cv-00175. The Utah number appears to map to an unrelated CAO Group/Walmart case in my search results, which is itself a reason to check rather than assume.

Sources: USPTO Open Data Portal "PTAB proceedings on file" block (canonical, null result); Google Patents, US10602259B1, https://patents.google.com/patent/US10602259/en (claim text, family, citations, litigation flags); PTAB E2E, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/ (verification target). No Federal Circuit opinion, Board FWD, or CourtListener record exists to link for this patent.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,602,259 using the available search tools.

Assignment & Ownership Analysis — US 10,602,259 B1

Retrieval caveat up front. I attempted to pull the record directly from the USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) and its indexed mirror (https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html), including the assignment-api.uspto.gov lookup path and keyword searches on the assignee name. I was unable to retrieve the Assignment Center data sheet itself — no reel/frame, no correspondent, and no assignor/assignee strings beyond what the issued patent and Google Patents' legal-events panel already disclose. Generic searches on the bare number "10602259" returned unrelated hits (e.g., an Omnitronic CD-player article number). Everything below is therefore grounded in (a) the patent document as fetched and (b) the Google Patents legal-events/reassignment entries embedded in that fetch, with every gap marked. I have not invented a reel/frame or a correspondent.

Inventors

Pattern notes.

• Both inventors assigned to the assignee on the filing date itself (2018-12-17), i.e. a standard employee/company assignment executed contemporaneously with the application rather than a later transfer. This is the profile of an in-house R&D arrangement, not a lone-inventor filing.
• Third-party aggregator Patentleaderboard lists Jianhua Huang (25 patents) and Yong Yang (24 patents) — near-identical counts, strongly suggesting a co-inventor pair operating a sustained, portfolio-scale filing program for the Shenzhen entity (https://www.patentleaderboard.com/patent/10602259).
• Departure check: not determinable. I found no evidence that either inventor left Shenzhen Ginto within 12 months of filing, and equally no evidence they stayed. Under the rules I will not convert silence into a finding. The "all inventors departed pre-sale" pattern is not established here.

Original assignee

Shenzhen Ginto E-Commerce Co., Limited (the patent's front page and original-assignee field render it "Shenzhen Ginto eCommerce Co Ltd"; the reassignment entry spells it "Shenzhen Ginto E-commerce Co., Limited").

• Line of business: Shenzhen-domiciled e-commerce / consumer-electronics seller. The specification reads like a product brief rather than a laboratory disclosure — it names shippable part numbers (AB1526 Bluetooth SoC, TTP223 touch-switch IC), concrete driver dimensions (6 mm beryllium-plated first driver, 10 mm PET second driver) and a modest, cost-conscious passive R/C divider ("simple, low-cost and easy to promote"). That is consistent with a merchant building an earphone SKU line, not a component vendor.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? Unclear. The specification's specificity (down to driver materials and chip models) indicates a product existed or was planned, but I could not locate a commercial SKU, brand page, or FCC/CE listing tying an actual product to these claims. I am not asserting shipment.
• Current status: Unknown. I found no Chapter 7/11 filing, no dissolution notice, and no acquisition of Shenzhen Ginto E-Commerce Co., Limited. Maintenance fees continue to be paid on the patent (4th-year MAFP, 2023-08-09), which is at least inconsistent with an abandoned asset.
• Ownership anomaly to resolve: the two U.S. suits indexed against this patent name CAO Group, Inc. as plaintiff (a West Jordan, Utah dental/LED-products company), yet no assignment from Shenzhen Ginto to CAO Group appears anywhere in the record I could retrieve. See the discrepancy note under "NPE signals" and in the Verdict.

Assignment timeline

Only one recorded assignment exists in every source I could reach. Listed chronologically:

• 2018-12-17 (executed) / recorded 2018-12-17 — Reel NOT RETRIEVABLE / Frame NOT RETRIEVABLE
  • Conveyance: Assignment — recorded descriptor "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)". Per the patent's own docket panel the entry also carries a "reassignment" event code.
  • Assignor: HUANG, JIANHUA; YANG, YONG (both inventors)
  • Assignee: Shenzhen Ginto E-Commerce Co., Limited
  • Correspondent: NOT RETRIEVABLE. I could not obtain the attorney/agent of record for this recording. Because the correspondent is the single most diagnostic field for a shell-chain analysis, this gap materially limits signal #3 below.
  • Context: Initial inventor-to-company assignment (employment/company assignment), executed on the filing date — i.e. acquisition of title by the operating employer, not a fire-sale, reorg, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

No post-issuance assignment is of record. The Google Patents legal-events list for US 10,602,259 shows, after the 2018-12-17 reassignment, only:

• 2019-01-09 — FEPP (entity status set to SMALL)
• 2020-03-04 — STCF (patent grant)
• 2023-08-09 — MAFP (maintenance fee, 4th year, small entity)

There is no second "reassignment" event. If a transfer to CAO Group or any other asserter occurred, it is not reflected in the patent's legal-events record as fetched.

Because the Assignment Center returned no machine-readable record through my tooling, I state plainly: the only title transfer I can substantiate is the original 2018 assignment, and the assignee of record remains Shenzhen Ginto E-Commerce Co., Limited. Reel/frame and correspondent fields are unresolved and must be pulled manually.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10602259
    2018 : Application filed 17 Dec
         : Inventors assign to Shenzhen Ginto
    2020 : Patent granted 24 Mar
    2023 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid
    2024 : Utah suit filed 5 Mar
    2025 : Delaware suit filed 24 Nov

(The 2024/2025 entries are litigation events, not title transfers — nothing in the record moves title on those dates.)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

⚠️ Contradiction carried forward from the prior sections (unresolved)

The earlier-generated sections flagged — and I confirm — a hard mismatch between the title record and the litigation record:

• Title: Shenzhen Ginto E-Commerce Co., Limited (TWS earphones).
• Litigation: CAO Group, Inc. v. Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., D. Del. 1:25-cv-01430 (filed 2025-11-24) asserting 10,602,259 alongside 10,646,419 / 11,219,582 / 11,826,444 / 11,826,445 — the co-asserted set being dental-curing-light patents; and CAO Group, Inc. v. [Walmart Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Walmart%20Inc.), D. Utah 2:24-cv-00175 (filed 2024-03-05, shown closed).

My assignment research does not resolve this — it sharpens it. There is no recorded conveyance from Shenzhen Ginto to CAO Group, so either (i) the database association of 10,602,259 to those cases is a mis-index, or (ii) an unrecorded transfer/licence exists that would need to be proved from the complaints. Consistent with the operating rules, I report the case numbers literally and do not auto-correct them. Sources: https://npe.law.stanford.edu/patent/10602259 · https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Utah%20District%20Court/case/2%3A24-cv-00175 · https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-01430

Verdict

Insufficient data.

The only recorded title transfer is the 2018-12-17 inventor-to-employer assignment to Shenzhen Ginto E-Commerce Co., Limited, executed on the filing date; the Google Patents legal-events record shows no post-issuance reassignment, only entity-status, grant, and a 2023-08-09 maintenance-fee payment. That is exactly the "only the original assignment" fact pattern that maps to Insufficient data — every affirmative NPE signal (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8) is not present, and the two that remain (repeat correspondent, privateering) are unverifiable because the Assignment Center record — specifically the reel/frame and the correspondent of record — could not be retrieved with the tools available to me. The subject-matter-implausible CAO Group litigation association, absent any recorded conveyance to CAO Group, is an unresolved discrepancy rather than evidence of an NPE chain.

Verification steps a human should run (in this order):

1. Pull the record manually at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 10602259) and capture reel/frame + correspondent for the 2018-12-17 recording.
2. Confirm via USPTO ODP/PEDS whether any assignment exists after 2020-03-24 that is not surfaced on Google Patents.
3. Retrieve the complaints in D. Utah 2:24-cv-00175 and D. Del. 1:25-cv-01430 from PACER to establish whether US 10,602,259 is actually asserted and by whom — this is the single decisive document set for the ownership-vs-litigation mismatch.

I'll verify the patent's citation record and the identity/dates of each cited reference before analyzing.

Let me verify the remaining examiner-cited references and check the temporally-close "cited by" documents.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,602,259 B1

Scope note (method): I worked from (a) the authoritative full text supplied above, which reproduces the USPTO "Patent Citations (4)" section of the patent, and (b) targeted lookups of each cited publication. I did not open USPTO PatentCenter in this session, so the citation list below is the one printed on the face of the patent itself. The four citations of record are all marked "* Cited by examiner." I verified reference content only to the depth the retrieved documents allowed, and I say so explicitly where I could not retrieve a full text.

This section builds on, and does not repeat, the bibliographic record, abstract, and claim map already produced. Per that earlier section's §5, the patent's own description contains typographical artifacts (e.g., "a third opposite end 3a of the third resistor C1" where R3 is intended). I quote the claims and description literally and do not correct them.

1. Which "citations" count as prior art, and which do not

The patent's Google/USPTO record contains three distinct lists. Only one of them is prior art of record:

All four citations of record are pre-AIA documents being applied to a post-AIA application. Because the application's effective filing date is 2018-11-16 and each reference published before 2016-02-11, each is unambiguously §102(a)(1) "printed publication" art (and, being US patent-application publications, also §102(a)(2) art if their applications were effectively filed pre-2018-11-16 — which they were). No §102(b)(1) grace-period exception is available, since none of these is an inventor-originated disclosure.

Also relevant to framing: claim 1 is not the broad "TWS earphone with a crossover" concept. It is that concept plus a specific four-component passive crossover (R1, R2, R3, C1) hard-wired between the Bluetooth module, the battery module, and the two dynamic speakers. Claim 7 is the hybrid version (one dynamic + two balanced armatures) carrying the same R1/R2/R3/C1 topology. That specificity governs everything below.

2. Reference 1 — US 2002/0181729 A1 (Smith)

§102 analysis — claims potentially anticipated: none.

• The reference's own subject matter (hearing-enhancement link, 2001) predates Bluetooth audio distribution (A2DP) as a mass-market earpiece feature, and I found no indication it discloses a frequency-division crossover, two dynamic speakers of differing response, a balanced armature, or the R1/R2/R3/C1 topology required by claims 1/7.
• Even taking the most favorable reading available to me, it could at most touch the generic "body + electroacoustic transducer + power source" portion of the claim 1 preamble. Under §102, a single reference must disclose all limitations arranged as in the claim. It does not come close on (c) crossover, (d) at least two dynamic speakers with different response features, (f) medium-low/high frequency split, (g) first/second dynamic speakers, or (h) the resistor/capacitor interconnect.
• Conclusion: no §102 anticipation of any of claims 1–9. Best characterized as §102(a)(1) background art of low relevance.

Action item: because I could not retrieve its full text, my content characterization should be confirmed against the actual document before this reference is discounted.

3. Reference 2 — US 2003/0073460 A1 (van Pelt et al. / Koninklijke Philips)

§102 analysis — claims potentially anticipated: none.

• What it does disclose that maps to claim 1: a wireless (Bluetooth) earpiece, and a two-earbud/single-body architecture. That reaches part of claim 1 element (b) "a Bluetooth module configured to receive audio signals by a wireless mode" and the body/circuit-unit concept.
• What it does not disclose: any crossover circuit, any frequency division of the audio signal, any two dynamic speakers "with different response features," any balanced armature, and — critically — nothing resembling the R1/R2/R3/C1 network or its electrode-to-electrode wiring to a battery module. Its processor generates "first/second audio signals" for two operational modes (telephony vs. stereo music), not two frequency bands for two transducers.
• Note on claim 2: claim 2 limits the Bluetooth chip to AB1526, QCC3020, QCC3026, RTL8763BFR, AB1532, or BES2300. All of those parts post-date 2003, so this reference cannot anticipate claim 2 on any reading.
• Conclusion: no §102 anticipation of any claim. A §102(a)(1) reference for the general "Bluetooth wireless earpiece" environment only.

4. Reference 3 — US 2007/0223735 A1 (LoPresti et al. / Knowles Electronics) — the most relevant citation of record

§102 analysis — claims potentially anticipated: none as a whole; but this is the reference with genuine element-level overlap.

Element-by-element against claim 1:

Because limitation (h) — the heart of the claim — is absent, and because the Bluetooth-module-to-crossover and battery-module interconnect are absent, the reference does not anticipate claim 1 under §102.

Against claim 7 (one dynamic speaker + two balanced armatures + the same R1/R2/R3/C1 topology): the reference's plural-transducer-of-different-type teaching (including "receivers," which in the hearing-instrument art are commonly balanced-armature devices) is the closest thing in the record to claim 7's hybrid concept, and its FIG. 2 third-transducer embodiment is the closest thing to a multi-transducer array. But it does not disclose "one dynamic speaker and two balanced armatures," does not disclose a Bluetooth module, and again does not disclose the R/C topology. No anticipation of claim 7.

Dependent claims 2–6 and 8–9 add limitations (specific Bluetooth chip models; the R1/R2/C1-only and R1/R2/R3-only crossover variants; TTP223 touch switch; LED + microphone) that this reference likewise does not disclose.

• Conclusion: no §102 anticipation of any claim by US 2007/0223735 A1. It is, however, the most probative reference of record and would be the natural primary reference for a §103 attack on the preamble-level concept (a crossover distributing different frequency bands to two transducers of different types in an earphone/headset). Its weakness as an obviousness reference is that it says nothing about (i) a Bluetooth module feeding the crossover, (ii) the battery-module power/reference architecture, or (iii) any specific resistor/capacitor topology — i.e., the elements on which this patent's claims actually turn.

5. Reference 4 — US 2016/0041808 A1 (Pelland / Princeton Audio)

§102 analysis — claims potentially anticipated: none.

• This reference is the best of the four on the environmental elements of claim 1: it discloses a headphone/earbud body housing a Bluetooth transceiver, a battery, and an audio transducer, receiving audio wirelessly and playing it. That maps to parts of claim 1 elements (a), (b), and (e) and the preamble of claim 7's architecture.
• It discloses no crossover at all — no frequency division, no "medium-low" vs. "high" band split, no second transducer of different response features, no balanced armature, and no R1/R2/R3/C1 network. Its single-transducer playback path cannot anticipate any claim requiring two transducers driven by a crossover.
• Conclusion: no §102 anticipation of any claim 1–9. Useful only as §102(a)(1) evidence that a battery-powered, Bluetooth-equipped headphone housing with a transducer was known by 2016.

6. Other prior art worth flagging (not citations of record)

These are not in the "Patent Citations (4)" table, but they bear on the same claim limitations and should be on any invalidity search list:

1. US 11,158,318 B2 (Shenzhen Aukey Smart Information Technology) — listed on the patent face under "Cited By." Its priority date is 2018-05-18, which precedes this patent's 2018-11-16 priority date, so it is a candidate §102(a)(2) reference (subject to confirming that the US application was "effectively filed" before 2018-11-16; the U.S. filing date is a PCT-national-phase date I did not verify). Subject-matter caveat: it is directed to "AI voice interaction method, device and system," which on its face has no crossover/frequency-division disclosure and thus is very unlikely to anticipate claims 1–9. Treat as a lead to confirm, not a conclusion.
2. US 11,122,362 B2 (Timon Y. C. I, "Speaker earphone") — priority 2019-02-21, i.e., after this patent's effective filing date. Not prior art; it is a forward citation only.
3. CN 111787479 A/B, CN 112738698 A, CN 114401476 A, EP 4297428 A4 — all published 2020 or later, all after the effective filing date. Not prior art. Their significance is the reverse direction: they show the TWS + multi-driver + crossover + balanced-armature space remained active, which is relevant to commercial/validity context, not to §102.
4. From the "Similar Documents" list, pre-2018 items (classification neighbours, not of record): JP 3213242 U (2017-10-26, "Composite earphone") and CN 102356647 A (2012-02-15, "Headphone") are the two most likely to be relevant to multi-driver earphone architecture and multi-transducer acoustics respectively. CN 108600888 A ("A kind of noise reduction bluetooth headset," published 2018-09-28) is published before the 2018-11-16 priority date and is therefore available as §102(a)(1) art, despite being a "similar document" rather than a citation of record; its topic (noise-reduction Bluetooth headset) suggests it addresses a different problem.
5. Additional art surfaced during searching (not of record, verify before relying): GB 2486688 A — a speaker system/earphone in which an input signal is passed to a crossover arrangement that splits it into a high-frequency component and a low-frequency component driving separate high-frequency and (multiple) low-frequency speakers. If its disclosure is as the search results indicate, it is a strong §103 candidate against the preamble-level concept of claims 1 and 7 (crossover → high band to one transducer, low band to another, in an earphone casing). I did not verify its full text or claims, so this is a lead, not a finding.

7. Bottom line

On the four citations of record, no reference anticipates any claim of US 10,602,259 under 35 U.S.C. §102.

The reason is structural, not a matter of degree: claim 1 requires the specific R1–R2–R3–C1 interconnect (R1 and R2 paralleled at the Bluetooth audio positive electrode TP+ and the battery positive terminal 50a; TP− tied to battery negative 50b; R1→R3→positive electrode of the first dynamic speaker; R2→C1→positive electrode of the second dynamic speaker; R3→the shared negative electrodes of both dynamic speakers→battery negative), and claim 7 requires the analogous topology with the capacitor output tied to the positive electrodes of two balanced armatures. None of the four references discloses a resistor/capacitor crossover network at all, let alone that wiring. Every one of the dependents (2–6, 8–9) adds a further limitation absent from all four (specific Bluetooth chip models; capacitor-less or resistor-less crossover variants; TTP223 touch switch; LED + microphone).

What the citations are good for: §103. US 2007/0223735 A1 (Knowles) supplies the "crossover distributing different frequency bands to two transducers of different types in an earphone/headset" teaching, and US 2016/0041808 A1 (Princeton Audio) supplies the "battery-powered headphone housing with a Bluetooth transceiver feeding an audio transducer" teaching. A challenger would still need a third teaching (or the knowledge of one of ordinary skill) supplying the specific passive R/C crossover topology and its electrode-to-electrode wiring as claimed — the very point the examiner apparently could not find, consistent with issuance without a §102 rejection over these references.

Caveats on this analysis:

1. I could not retrieve the full text/claims of US 2002/0181729 A1; its content characterization is inferential and marked as unverified.
2. I did not verify each reference's exact application filing date from USPTO records; filing/priority dates are as listed on the patent face and on Google Patents. This does not change the outcome, because all four published before 2016-02-11 and are §102(a)(1) art on publication date alone.
3. The patent's front-page tables do not categorize each citation as §102 vs. §103; I have therefore not attributed the examiner's reasoning to any particular statutory subsection. The element-by-element analysis above is my own, based on the claim text and the retrieved reference disclosures.
4. GB 2486688 A, JP 3213242 U, and CN 108600888 A are flagged leads identified in searching, not citations of record and not verified against full texts.

I'll research the four examiner-cited references plus the family members so the combination analysis rests on actual disclosures rather than assumptions.

Let me check the two closest "similar documents" (a composite earphone and a headphone) plus the general state of the crossover-art.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,602,259 B1

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (AIA), as of the 2018-11-16 priority date

Scope note. This analysis uses only the references appearing in the Prior Art sections of the patent record: the four examiner citations, the "Similar Documents" list, and the "Cited By"/"Families Citing" lists. I flag which items are actually available as prior art and which are not, and I mark every point where I am relying on an abstract/label rather than the reference's full text. This is a technical obviousness analysis, not a validity opinion.

1. Legal framework and the POSITA

Analogy. All four examiner citations are directed to headsets/earpieces, electroacoustic transducers and their drive circuitry — the same field of endeavor as the '259 patent. Two of them (Knowles) carry the very CPC classes the '259 patent is classified in: H04R 3/14 (cross-over networks) and H04R 1/24 (structural combinations of separate transducers responsive to two or more frequency ranges). That makes them analogous art under In re Bigio/In re Clay without extended argument.

Claim construction caution carried forward. As noted in the earlier section, the preamble ("TWS earphone with multiple speakers and a crossover circuit embedded therein comprising a body…") is grammatically defective, and the body of claim 7 recites "an assembly of at least one dynamic speaker and at least one balanced armature" but then requires exactly one dynamic speaker and two balanced armatures. Neither defect helps patentability: under either a preamble-limiting or preamble-non-limiting reading, the substance of the claims is a wireless in-ear audio device containing a battery, a wireless audio receiver, a passive frequency-splitting network, and transducers having different response characteristics.

2. The four examiner-cited references — what each actually discloses

Prior-art items on the record that are not available

• "Cited By" (CN111787479A, CN112738698A, US11122362B2, US11158318B2, CN114401476A, EP4297428A4) and "Families Citing this family" (CN111145716A, CN111343541A, KR102546097B1, CN117395564B) — all published 2020–2024, i.e., after the 2018-11-16 priority date. Not prior art. Do not use them.
• CN 208850008 U / JP 3220967 U — same patent family, same invention. Not prior art.

Additional qualifying art I verified from the "Similar Documents" list

• JP 3213242 U (公開 2017-10-26, "複合イヤホン" / composite earphone): an earphone assembly comprising a speaker module, a wireless signal transmission module, an adaptor, and a battery module, with both the speaker module and the wireless module electrically connected to the battery module — exactly the "Bluetooth module + speaker + battery in an earpiece body" architecture of the '259 claims. (Google Patents JP)
• US 9,191,731 B2 ("dual-frequency coaxial earphone") — surfaced in my search with text describing a moving coil loudspeaker unit combined with a balanced armature loudspeaker unit whose "different frequencies… can be separated," expressly to reduce intermodulation distortion, in a miniaturized earphone. Verification caveat: I retrieved the document text (PDF) but did not independently confirm its issue date or assignee from a bibliographic source; the number series suggests a ~2015 issue date, but treat that as an inference, not a verified fact. Use only after confirming the date.
• CN 102356647 A ("Headphone," 2012-02-15), CN 108600888 A (2018-09-28) and others on the Similar Documents list are date-qualifying candidates whose contents I did not retrieve — flag as unverified.

3. Combination I — renders claim 1 obvious

Primary: US 2016/0041808 A1 (Princeton Audio). Secondaries: US 2007/0223735 A1 (Knowles); US 2003/0073460 A1 (Philips); optionally JP 3213242 U.

Motivation to combine (KSR rationales)

1. Same problem, same field. The '259 specification itself concedes the problem: "Conventional TWS earphones are generally lack for a frequency division function to cause them only work with a single speaker on each side thereof, which has poor sound quality." A known problem in the art is itself a design incentive (KSR; In re Kemps). Knowles addresses the identical problem and expressly lists "passive filter" as a crossover option (claim 2).
2. Predictable result. Placing a known passive frequency-splitting network between a known audio source and two known transducers having different frequency responses yields nothing more than the expected aggregation of their known functions (KSR).
3. Design incentives specific to a battery-powered in-ear device. An active crossover requires extra amplifiers, board area, and battery drain. A POSITA optimizing a size- and power-constrained wireless earbud is directly led to the passive network — which is exactly why the '259 claims use only resistors and one capacitor and no inductors (inductors are the bulkiest/least miniaturizable crossover element). This is a strong motivation rationale, not a hindsight one, because it derives from the physical constraints of the device, not from the claims.
4. No teaching away. Nothing in '808, '735, '460 or JP 3213242 U disparages passive crossovers, multiple drivers in an earpiece, or wireless earbuds; '735 affirmatively embraces all of them.
5. Mere substitution. Replacing '808's DSP-based equalization with a passive R/C network is a simple substitution of one known technique for another to achieve the same frequency-shaping result (cheaper, smaller, no DSP power).

4. Combination II — renders claim 7 obvious

Combination I + US 2002/0181729 A1 (Smith), and optionally US 9,191,731 B2.

• Smith supplies the missing element — a balanced armature micro-speaker in an earpiece — and, critically, the motivation: Smith explains that a conventional diaphragm ("button") speaker makes high-frequency content hard to hear and that a balanced-armature ("hearing aid") speaker "is capable of providing a wider (i.e., higher) frequency response." That is a direct, express teaching to use a balanced armature as the high-frequency driver and a dynamic/moving-coil driver for the low band — i.e., precisely the hybrid of claim 7.
• Knowles supplies taking the high-frequency band from the crossover and feeding it to the high-frequency transducer (claim 1: "a cross-over network coupled to the high frequency transducer for directing a high input frequency to drive the high frequency transducer").
• Smith also discloses two such speakers wired to a stereo plug as a headset, supporting the "two balanced armatures" recited in claim 7's body.
• US 9,191,731 B2 (if its date is confirmed pre-2018-11-16) would go further, showing a moving coil + balanced armature earphone whose "different frequencies… can be separated" in a miniaturized housing — arguably a single-reference prima facie case for the claim 7 hybrid architecture.

Motivation: the two references are combinable because both are directed to improving the high-frequency reproduction of an earpiece (same field, same problem, same solution direction), and the combination is a mere arrangement of known transducer types along known frequency bands.

5. The resistor/capacitor network (the only limitation not shown in a single reference)

Claims 1 and 7 require a specific four-component network. No one of the four examiner citations is a circuit-level crossover schematic, so this limitation rests on ordinary skill + predictable design choice, on these specific grounds:

1. The patent's own characterization of the circuit is the blueprint. The specification states the crossover is "a circuit designed to be capable of both high-pass and low-pass filtering and power attenuation." Those are two classic, textbook functions:

   • High-pass filtering → a series capacitor (R2 + C1 feeding the "high" driver). A single series capacitor into a driver is the most elementary first-order passive high-pass known.
   • Power attenuation / level matching → a series build-out resistor with a shunt resistor to the return node (R1 and R3 bridging across the first driver's terminals). This is the standard L-pad/attenuator used to bring a more sensitive driver down to the level of the other. R1 and R2 sharing a common input node, with TP− and battery− forming the common return, is required by any two-way passive network in a single-ended (ground-referenced) earbud circuit.

2. The topology is internally redundant. Multiple claims recite the same network with elements deleted: claim 4 drops C1 entirely (R1/R2/R3 only) and claim 9 does the same for the hybrid. If the network still performs "frequency division" with no frequency-selective element at all, then the band splitting is being performed by the transducers' own differing responses, and the resistor network is doing nothing but level setting. That is:

   the strongest § 103 point in the whole patent: the claims themselves demonstrate that the resistor network is not the source of the frequency division, so its precise wiring cannot be an inventive contribution.

3. No unexpected results of record. The specification reports no measured response curves, no attenuation figures, no distortion data, and no comparative testing against a single-driver earbud. Under In re Geisler/In re Woodruff, an applicant asserting that a specific circuit arrangement produces an unexpected result must put that result in the specification or in Rule 132 evidence. Nothing here does — so the only available rebuttal to the "routine optimization" theory is absent from the record.

6. Dependent claims — all fall to routine design choice

7. Anticipated rebuttals and how they fare

8. Bottom line

• Claim 1 is obvious over Princeton Audio US 2016/0041808 A1 in view of Knowles US 2007/0223735 A1 and Philips US 2003/0073460 A1 (optionally with JP 3213242 U), with the R1/R2/R3/C1 network supplied by the ordinary skill in passive crossover design and by the design pressures (size, cost, battery, no inductors) peculiar to a wireless in-ear device.
• Claim 7 is obvious over that same combination further in view of Smith US 2002/0181729 A1 (balanced armature micro-speaker in an earpiece, expressly motivated by superior high-frequency reproduction), and arguably over US 9,191,731 B2 alone if its pre-priority date is confirmed.
• Claims 2–6, 8 and 9 are obvious as predictable variations — claims 2 and 5 recite nothing more than commercially available off-the-shelf part numbers, and claims 4 and 9 recite a resistive network with no frequency-selective component at all.
• The most powerful argument available against these claims is internal to the patent: because claims 4 and 9 delete the capacitor, the patent itself demonstrates that the claimed "crossover circuit" need not perform frequency division, which strips the network of any plausible inventive weight and simultaneously raises § 112 concerns.

9. Verification status / limitations of this analysis

1. I did not read the complete specifications of the four examiner citations; the mappings above rely on their claims and abstracts (Knowles — full claim set; Princeton Audio — summary and claim set of the family; Philips — PCT abstract and US claim 1; Smith — summary paragraphs), each with a URL provided. Confirm the exact paragraph cites before filing anything.
2. US 9,191,731 B2 was encountered via search, not via the patent's Prior Art section, and its issue date and assignee are unverified — treat as a lead, not established prior art.
3. CN 102356647 A and other Similar Documents are date-qualifying but their contents are unretrieved; their relevance is asserted only as a possibility.
4. The "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" documents are all post-priority and are not prior art; any analysis relying on them would be in error.
5. I did not retrieve the prosecution history (office actions / reasons for allowance), so I cannot say what the examiner did or did not articulate. Nothing above should be read as a legal conclusion of invalidity; it is an engineering-level § 103 analysis of the combinations the cited art supports.