1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Jerry Harvey Audio's Patent Falls

Discussion in 'Head-Fi Network & Industry News' started by ericr, Jul 31, 2017.
  1. ericr
    Interesting News on the 64 Audio Blog

    Fair use snippet:
    "VANCOUVER, WA, July 20, 2017 – 64 Audio (formerly 1964 Ears) is pleased to announce that on July 19, 2017, the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled in favor of 64 Audio, finding all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,897,463, held by Jerry Harvey Audio Holdings (JH Audio), unpatentable."


    Though I have no legal expertise, after reading the patent it seems to me the US Patent Office clearly got it right with this ruling. I imagine most all other CIEM manufacturers are relieved by this news as well.
    Arysyn likes this.
  2. Arysyn
    This is interesting. I wonder if JH Audio can appeal, and might this this affect in the business relationships between JH Audio and other iem manufacturers, including 64 Audio?

    Personally, I'm not much interested in multi-driver balanced armature iems, as I prefer dynamic, though I did once have some interest in the Zeus XR. Still, these companies deserve respect for all the work and innovation they put into these products. It surprises me any of them would go to court over this.
  3. Coolranch
    Companies who are sued for patent infringement often resort to challenging the validity of the patent in the first place. The decision mentions a pending court case where I assume Jerry Harvey was suing 64 Ears (Jerry Harvey Audio Holding, LLC v. 1964 EARS, LLC, (M.D. Fla)).

    The decision made it clear: "Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art, wanting to accurately reproduce sound with reduced distortion in [] canalphone, would have been led by the teachings of the prior art and [] to use a minimum of three dual drivers: a dual LFD, a dual MFD, and a dual HFD; resulting in a six driver canalphone." Basically saying that it was obvious at the time of the patent filing, due to previous patents and literature, to arrange such balanced armature drivers that way, making the patent invalid now.

    "[JH Audio] argues a person of ordinary skill in the art . . . would not have found it obvious to produce a canalphone having two LFDs, two MFDs, and two HFDs [drivers], because such a person would be 'merely throw[ing] metaphorical darts at a board filled with combinatorial prior art possibilities.'"

    "Consequently, [64 Audio's] argument does more than simply throw metaphorical darts at prior art combinatorial possibilities. Rather, it follows clear teachings of the prior art . . ."


Share This Page