SoundStreak Texas, LLC v. Yamaha Corporation et al

On August 26, 2021, SoundStreak Texas, LLC (“SoundStreak” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Alfred Ross Fabricant, Joseph Michael Mercadante, Peter Lambrianakos, and Vincent J. Rubino, III of Fabricant LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Yamaha Corporation (“Yamaha”) and Steinberg Media Technologies GmbH (“Steinberg”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiffs filed suit seeking an award of damages, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs for the alleged infringement of United States Patents owned by Plaintiff. This case was filed in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Texas with Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding.

The plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged infringement of United States Patent No. 9,635,312 (the “’312 Patent”) entitled “Method and Apparatus for Remote Voice-Over or Music Production and Management.”; United States Patent No. 10,726,822 (the “’822 Patent”) entitled “Method and Apparatus for Remote Digital Content Monitoring and Management.” (together, the “Patents-in-Suit”) owned by the plaintiff.

In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that, “The patents-in-suit generally cover systems for collaborative remote capturing of high quality audio and video recordings. Defendants have been manufacturing, importing, offering to sell, selling, and or importing into the United States audio and video remote recording systems including, but not limited to, Cubase since at least as early as 2015 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Accused Systems”). The Accused Systems support collaborative remote recording of a voice talent, musician or other performer in high quality. The Accused Systems permit an end user to remotely monitor and record over a data communication network digital content.”

The plaintiff further alleged that, “Defendants have directly infringed and continue to directly infringe one or more claims of the ’312 Patent, including claim 1, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States infringing Accused Systems without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.”

The plaintiff also alleged that, “Defendants have committed and continue to commit acts of infringement that Defendants actually knew or should have known constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of at least one valid and enforceable claim of the ’312 Patent. Defendants had actual knowledge of the ’312 Patent at least from the correspondence from SoundStreak’s counsel to Yamaha dated December 15, 2017. SoundStreak has suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ direct and indirect infringement of the ’312 Patent in an amount to be proved at trial.”

Similar allegations have been made by the plaintiff with reference to the infringement of other Patents-in-suit.

There are two claims for relief laid down by the plaintiff, one for infringement of each of the patents-in-suit.

In its prayer for relief the plaintiff has requested the court for an order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283 permanently enjoining the defendants and those persons in active concert or participation with it, from further acts of infringement of the patents-in-suit. The plaintiff also requested the court for an order awarding damages sufficient to compensate SoundStreak for Defendants’ infringement of the patents-in-suit, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest. The plaintiff has also requested the court to enter a judgment declaring that the defendants have directly and/or indirectly infringed one or more claims of each of the patents-in-suit.

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.