Certain Electronic Devices with Certain Audio Technologies; Inv. No. 337-TA-1521 (Violation)
U.S. International Trade Commission
Holding
BoomCloud 360 Inc. files a Section 337 complaint against Apple, Samsung (Electronics Co., Ltd. and Electronics America, Inc.) and Google LLC, alleging that their imported smartphones, tablets and other devices with audio features infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 10,524,078, 11,533,560 and 11,051,121.
Why It Matters
The complaint targets the flagship phones and tablets of three major U.S. device makers over spatial audio signal processing. BoomCloud seeks a limited exclusion order, permanent cease and desist orders and a bond during the 60-day Presidential review period. It also argues the public interest does not warrant delegation to the ALJ, since the accused features are optional audio functions.
Full Summary
Key Points
- Complainant BoomCloud 360 Inc. (Delaware, Encinitas, CA) says it owns all right, title and interest in each asserted patent by assignment and has not licensed any of them.
- Proposed respondents are Apple, Inc.; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Google LLC.
- Asserted patents: the '078 patent (crosstalk cancellation B-chain), the '560 patent (device metadata-informed audio enhancement) and the '121 patent (spectral defect compensation for crosstalk processing). Claims 1-23, 1-43 and 1-30 respectively are asserted, with direct and induced infringement alleged.
- Representative accused products include the Apple iPhone 17 and iPad, Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra and Galaxy Tab S10 FE, and Google Pixel 10 Pro, said to be made in Vietnam and China and classified under HTSUS 8517.13.00, 8518.13, 8518.30 and 8471.41.
- Domestic industry is alleged under 337(a)(3)(B)-(C) based on the BoomCloud 360 Smart Sound product, with claim charts in Exhibits 20-22 and investment details in Hegemier declaration Exhibit 7C. Both are confidential.
- Relief sought: a limited exclusion order, permanent cease and desist orders and a bond during the Presidential review period. Parallel district court suits are pending in E.D. Tex. and W.D. Tex.
Related Documents
New to District court litigation? Start with PTAB vs. District Court: Where to Challenge a Patent’s Validity
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 14, 2026Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. UPL Ltd.
- Fed. Cir. · Oct. 1, 2026Truinject Corp. v. Galderma S.A.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026WSOU Investments LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated
- Fed. Cir. · Sept. 30, 2026EPIC TECH, LLC v. PEN-TECH ASSOCIATES, INC.