`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. __________________
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`BOSE CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`PATENT NONINFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Bose Corporation (“Bose”) brings this action for declaratory judgment of patent
`
`noninfringement against Koss Corporation (“Koss” or “Defendant”) and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action arising under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201
`
`and 2202, and the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Bose brings this action
`
`for a declaration that it does not infringe any claim of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,206,025 (“the ’025
`
`patent”), 10,368,155 (“the ’155 patent”), or 10,469,934 (“the’934 patent”) (collectively “the
`
`Asserted Patents”).
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Bose Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at
`
`100 The Mountain Road, Framingham, Massachusetts 01701.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Koss Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 4129 North Port Washington Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
`
`53212.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-12193-RGS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 2 of 10
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment claims
`
`presented in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338 because these claims arise under
`
`the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., and under the Declaratory Judgment
`
`Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`5.
`
`On July 22, 2020, Koss filed a complaint against Bose in the Western District of
`
`Texas (“the Texas Complaint” in “the Texas Litigation”) alleging that certain Bose SoundSport,
`
`700, and QC 35 wireless headphone products (collectively, the “Accused Products”) infringe the
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is improper in the Western District of Texas because Bose is not resident
`
`in that district and Bose lacks a regular and established place of business in that district.
`
`7.
`
`Bose intends to move to dismiss (or transfer) the Texas Litigation on the ground
`
`that venue is improper in the Western District of Texas.
`
`8.
`
`Prior to filing the Texas Complaint, Koss sent to Bose a letter alleging that Bose
`
`infringed the Asserted Patents. Koss sent the letter on July 9, 2020 and attached a copy of the
`
`letter as Exhibit G to the Texas Complaint.
`
`9.
`
`Koss’s counsel sent copies of the July 9, 2020 letter to (i) Bose’s Registered
`
`Agent in Boston, Massachusetts and (ii) Bose’s Chief Intellectual Property Counsel in
`
`Framingham, Massachusetts. A copy of the July 9, 2020 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`10.
`
`In the July 9, 2020 letter, Koss accused Bose of infringing “one or more claim” of
`
`the Asserted Patents. Koss attached claim charts to the letter that Koss alleged show “the
`
`manner in which the aforementioned products infringe [the Asserted Patents].”
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-12193-RGS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`11.
`
`In the July 9, 2020 letter, Koss demanded that Bose (i) stop selling the products
`
`accused of infringement, (ii) promptly meet with Koss to discuss patent license terms, and (iii)
`
`provide Koss with sales information regarding the Accused Products.
`
`12.
`
`Prior to Koss serving the Texas Complaint on Bose, Koss and Bose engaged in
`
`discussions in an attempt to resolve the dispute.
`
`13.
`
`As part of that discussion process, Koss and Bose entered into a Non-Disclosure
`
`Agreement (“NDA”) to facilitate the sharing of confidential information.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`The NDA is subject to the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
`
`Bose shared with Koss, pursuant to the NDA, confidential sales information that
`
`originated from Bose’s headquarters in Framingham, Massachusetts.
`
`16.
`
`The July 9, 2020 letter, the Texas Complaint, and the negotiations between Koss
`
`and Bose with respect to alleged infringement by Bose, individually and collectively demonstrate
`
`that an immediate, substantial, and justiciable controversy exists between Bose and Koss
`
`regarding Bose’s alleged infringement of the Asserted Patents. Accordingly, declaratory
`
`judgment jurisdiction exists over the subject matter set forth in this complaint.
`
`17.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Koss in this action. Koss regularly
`
`transacts business in this District. Koss derives substantial revenue from products and/or
`
`services provided in this District and has purposely established substantial, systematic and
`
`continuous contacts within this District, including distribution and sale of products within this
`
`District through, among other channels, retailers, distributors, the internet, and direct mail
`
`catalogs. For example, in the Texas Complaint, Koss alleged that its products “are sold at
`
`various retail chains throughout the United States and the world, including Walmart stores and
`
`other large brick-and-mortar establishments.”
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-12193-RGS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`18.
`
`As detailed above, Koss also sent the July 9, 2020 letter to Bose in this District
`
`alleging infringement, attaching claim charts and inviting Bose to negotiate a license, then
`
`followed up by engaging in negotiations, email communications and discussions with Bose in an
`
`effort to secure a payment from Bose. Bose’s claims in this declaratory judgment complaint
`
`arise out of these activities by Koss within this District and relate to products designed and
`
`developed in this District.
`
`19.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a
`
`substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims at issue occurred in Massachusetts. Bose
`
`resides in Massachusetts. Bose designed the Accused Products in Massachusetts and sells the
`
`Accused Products in Massachusetts. Further, as discussed above, Koss’s infringement threat
`
`letter was sent to Bose in Massachusetts and the discussions between Koss and Bose involved
`
`provision by Bose of confidential information from its headquarters in Massachusetts.
`
`BOSE’S INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS
`
`20.
`
` Bose is a leading designer and manufacturer of audio equipment, including
`
`speakers, headphones, and wearable devices. Since its founding in 1964, Bose has continually
`
`invested in research and development to become a worldwide leader in audio and
`
`communication products for home, professional, and aviation use. These investments in
`
`groundbreaking technologies have allowed Bose to be the first to bring advanced technologies to
`
`market, such as launching one of the first commercial active noise cancelling headsets. Bose has
`
`been awarded over 1,700 United States patents as a result of this culture of innovation.
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-12193-RGS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`21.
`
`The SoundSport, QuietComfort 35, and 700 lines of wireless headphones are
`
`among the pioneering products created as a result of Bose’s efforts. The SoundSport wireless
`
`headphones are earbuds designed to be comfortable and stable within a user’s ear during exercise
`
`while protecting the sensitive electronic components from damage from sweat or inclement
`
`weather. The QuietComfort 35 and 700 headphones provide premium sound while utilizing
`
`Bose’s renowned active noise cancellation technology in a comfortable ergonomic design. All
`
`three products utilize Bluetooth to wirelessly connect with an audio source such as a smartphone.
`
`PATENTS
`
`22.
`
`The’025 patent is titled “System with Wireless Earphones.” The ’025 patent
`
`names as inventors Michael J. Koss, Michael J. Pelland, Michael Sagan, Steven R. Reckamp,
`
`Gregory J. Hallingstad, Jeffery K. Bovee, and Morgan J. Lowery. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’025 patent is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`23.
`
`The assignee of the ’025 patent identified on the patent’s face is Koss. Koss
`
`claims to be the current owner of the ’025 patent.
`
`24.
`
`The ’155 patent is titled “System with Wireless Earphones.” The ’155 patent
`
`names as inventors Michael J. Koss, Michael J. Pelland, Michael Sagan, Steven R. Reckamp,
`
`Gregory J. Hallingstad, Jeffery K. Bovee, and Morgan J. Lowery. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’155 patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`25.
`
`The assignee of the ’155 patent identified on the patent’s face is Koss. Koss
`
`claims to be the current owner of the ’155 patent.
`
`26.
`
`The ’934 patent is titled “System with Wireless Earphones.” The ’934 patent
`
`names as inventors Michael J. Koss, Michael J. Pelland, Michael Sagan, Steven R. Reckamp,
`
`Gregory J. Hallingstad, Jeffery K. Bovee, and Morgan J. Lowery. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’934 patent is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-12193-RGS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`27.
`
`The assignee of the ’934 patent identified on the patent’s face is Koss. Koss
`
`claims to be the current owner of the ’934 patent.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`COUNT I
`
`Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,206,025
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`The Accused Products do not infringe any claim of the ’025 patent.
`
`For example and without limitation, the Accused Products do not practice the
`
`limitation of claim 1 requiring that the processor “is for, upon activation of a user-control of the
`
`headphone assembly, initiating transmission of a request to the remote, network-connected
`
`server.” Rather, the Accused Products only communicate with a local device.
`
`31.
`
`Because claims 2-56 of the ’025 patent depend from claim 1, the Accused
`
`Products do not infringe these claims for at least the same reasons they do not infringe claim 1.
`
`32.
`
`As set forth above, an actual controversy exists between Bose and Koss with
`
`respect to the ’025 patent, and this controversy is likely to continue. Accordingly, Bose desires a
`
`judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties with
`
`respect to the ’025 patent.
`
`COUNT II
`
`Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,368,155
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`The Accused Products do not infringe any claim of the ’155 patent.
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-12193-RGS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`35.
`
`For example and without limitation, the Accused Products do not practice the
`
`limitation of claim 1 requiring that the headphone assembly be “configured, with the processor,
`
`to transition automatically from playing digital audio content received wirelessly by the
`
`headphone assembly via a first wireless network to playing digital audio content received
`
`wirelessly by the headphone assembly via a second wireless network.” The Accused Products
`
`do not transition automatically from a first wireless network to a second wireless network.
`
`36.
`
`Because claims 2-14 of the ’155 patent depend from claim 1, the Accused
`
`Products do not infringe these claims for at least the same reasons they do not infringe claim 1.
`
`37.
`
`As set forth above, an actual controversy exists between Bose and Koss with
`
`respect to the ’155 patent, and this controversy is likely to continue. Accordingly, Bose desires a
`
`judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties with
`
`respect to the ’155 patent.
`
`COUNT III
`
`Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,469,934
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`The Accused Products do not infringe any claim of the ’934 patent.
`
`For example and without limitation, the Accused Products do not practice the
`
`limitation of claims 1 and 58 requiring that the a headphone assembly comprise a processor
`
`“wherein the processor is configured to, upon activation of a user-control of the headphone
`
`assembly, initiate transmission of a request to a remote, network-connected server that is in
`
`wireless communication with the mobile, digital audio player.” Rather, the Accused Products
`
`only communicate with a local device.
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-12193-RGS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`41.
`
`Because claims 2-57 of the ’934 patent depend from claim 1, and because claims
`
`59-62 of the ’934 patent depend from claim 58, the Accused Products do not infringe these
`
`claims for at least the same reasons they do not infringe claims 1 or 58.
`
`42.
`
`As set forth above, an actual controversy exists between Bose and Koss with
`
`respect to the ’934 patent, and this controversy is likely to continue. Accordingly, Bose desires a
`
`judicial determination and declaration of the respective rights and duties of the parties with
`
`respect to the ’934 patent.
`
`DEMAND FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Bose prays that judgment be entered in its favor and requests:
`
`(a)
`
`A judgment and declaration that Bose has not infringed and does not infringe
`
`literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, in any manner any claim of the Asserted Patents,
`
`directly, contributorily, or by inducement, and has not otherwise infringed or violated any rights
`
`of Koss or Koss’s affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, employees, or agents;
`
`(b)
`
`An injunction preventing Koss and its affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, employees,
`
`agents, and/or anyone acting in privity or concert with Koss from charging infringement or
`
`instituting any legal action for infringement of the Asserted Patents against Bose or anyone
`
`acting in privity with Bose, including the divisions, successors, assigns, agents, suppliers,
`
`manufacturers, contractors, and customers of Bose;
`
`(c)
`
`A judgment and declaration that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285 in favor of Bose, entitling Bose to an award of its reasonable attorneys’ fees,
`
`expenses, and costs in this action;
`
`(d)
`
`An award to Bose of its costs and reasonable expenses to the fullest extent
`
`permitted by law; and
`
`(e)
`
`An award of any other remedy or relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`
`
`
`
`/Michael N. Rader/
`By:
`Michael N. Rader (BBO No. 646990)
`Daniel M. Huttle (pro hac vice application to be filed)
`mrader@wolfgreenfield.com
`dhuttle@wolfgreenfield.com
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`605 Third Avenue
`New York, NY 10158
`Telephone: (212) 697-7890
`Facsimile: (617) 646-8646
`
`Nathan R. Speed (BBO No. 670249)
`nspeed@wolfgreenfield.com
`WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
`600 Atlantic Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`Telephone: (617) 646-8000
`Facsimile: (617) 646-8646
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-12193-RGS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Bose demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 10, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Bose Corporation
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-12193-RGS Document 1 Filed 12/10/20 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that this document is being filed through the Court’s electronic filing system,
`
`which serves counsel for other parties who are registered participants as identified on the Notice
`of Electronic Filing (NEF). Any counsel for other parties who are not registered participants are
`being served by first class mail on the date of electronic filing.
`
`
`/Michael N. Rader/
`Michael N. Rader
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`