Share This Page
Litigation Details for Shure Incorporated v. Clearone, Inc. (D. Del. 2019)
✉ Email this page to a colleague
Shure Incorporated v. Clearone, Inc. (D. Del. 2019)
| Docket | 1:19-cv-01343 | Date Filed | 2019-07-18 |
| Court | District Court, D. Delaware | Date Terminated | 2022-12-30 |
| Cause | 35:1 Patent Infringement | Assigned To | Richard Gibson Andrews |
| Jury Demand | Both | Referred To | |
| Patents | 12,168,021; 9,023,401 | ||
| Link to Docket | External link to docket | ||
Small Molecule Drugs cited in Shure Incorporated v. Clearone, Inc.
Details for Shure Incorporated v. Clearone, Inc. (D. Del. 2019)
| Date Filed | Document No. | Description | Snippet | Link To Document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-18 | External link to document | |||
| >Date Filed | >Document No. | >Description | >Snippet | >Link To Document |
Litigation summary and analysis for: Shure Incorporated v. Clearone, Inc. (D. Del. 2019)
Shure Incorporated v. Clearone Inc. (1:19-cv-01343) Patent Litigation Summary, Procedural Posture, and Business Risk Analysis
Executive summary: The docket entry set for Shure Incorporated v. Clearone Incorporated (D.N.J., 1:19-cv-01343) reflects a federal patent case filed in 2019. The record supports litigation risk analysis around claim construction, infringement and invalidity theories, and the likelihood of early resolution or narrowing typical of audio/accessory patent disputes. However, a complete litigation summary (claims asserted, asserted patents, claim construction rulings, motion outcomes, settlement/disposition terms) cannot be produced from the information available in this prompt.
What is the Shure v. Clearone case (1:19-cv-01343) and what patents are at issue?
Featured answer: The case is a U.S. federal patent litigation matter filed under case number 1:19-cv-01343 involving Shure Incorporated as plaintiff and Clearone Inc. as defendant, with the claims grounded in patent infringement allegations. The prompt does not provide the specific asserted patent numbers or the complaint’s claim set, so the patent estate cannot be mapped to the dispute.
Parties and case identifiers
- Plaintiff: Shure Incorporated
- Defendant: Clearone Inc.
- Court and docket: 1:19-cv-01343 (U.S. federal district court; venue not specified in prompt)
- Filing year: 2019 (prompt context)
What is typically required to identify the patent estate in this dispute
A litigation-grade mapping usually requires:
- Asserted patent numbers in the complaint
- Whether the plaintiff alleged direct infringement, inducement, contributory infringement
- Whether there are ITC proceedings, parallel suits, or later-filed amended complaints
- Identification of accused products (model numbers, firmware/app versions, accessory bundles)
No such details are present in the prompt, so this section cannot be completed accurately.
What procedural events and key motion practice occurred in Shure v. Clearone (1:19-cv-01343)?
Featured answer: The prompt provides no docket timeline, hearing outcomes, or motion results. A litigation summary must include concrete procedural milestones (Rule 12 motions, Markman schedule, summary judgment filings, Daubert rulings, injunction motions), but those are not included.
Motion categories that usually drive outcomes in patent cases
- Pleadings: motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), venue or jurisdiction challenges
- Claim construction: Markman hearing and claim construction order
- Dispositive motions: summary judgment (infringement/invalidity), motions on damages
- Evidence: Daubert/objections to expert testimony
- Post-trial: if the case reached trial, JMOL and related filings
No docket text is provided, so it is not possible to state what happened in this case.
What claim construction and infringement theories were used by Shure in this case?
Featured answer: Cannot be determined from the provided input.
A complete infringement analysis requires:
- Claim terms construed by the court
- Alleged mapping from each claim element to accused product components
- Treatment of product literature, performance specs, schematics, and firmware
- Whether infringement is asserted for entire systems or subcomponents
None of those facts are present in the prompt.
How did Clearone challenge the asserted patents in Shure v. Clearone (1:19-cv-01343)?
Featured answer: Cannot be determined from the provided input.
A defensible invalidity and unenforceability analysis requires:
- Invalidity theories (anticipation/obviousness; claim scope limits)
- Prior art references and claim charts
- Whether the defendant sought PTAB review (IPR) and estoppel effects
- Indefiniteness, written description, enablement positions
- Inequitable conduct allegations, if any
No asserted defenses are provided.
Did Shure v. Clearone involve PTAB IPRs or other parallel proceedings?
Featured answer: Cannot be determined from the provided input.
A correct summary would list:
- PTAB case numbers for any IPRs
- Petition dates, institution dates, and final written decisions
- Effect on district court schedule (stay granted or denied)
- Estoppel scope if final written decisions issued
No parallel proceedings are described in the prompt.
What is the settlement or disposition status of Shure v. Clearone (1:19-cv-01343)?
Featured answer: Cannot be determined from the provided input.
A litigation summary typically states:
- Whether the case was dismissed with prejudice, settled, or proceeded through judgment
- Whether there is a consent judgment, stipulated dismissal, or ongoing appeal
- Whether any injunction or ongoing royalty terms were agreed
No disposition terms are included in the prompt.
What does the case posture imply for generic or redesign risk in Clearone products?
Featured answer: Cannot be quantified without asserted patents, claim scope, and adjudicated infringement/validity.
Business risk modeling depends on:
- Whether key claims were narrowed or found invalid
- Whether the asserted patents cover core audio processing, microphone array processing, conferencing protocols, or interfaces
- Whether the court required design-around at the feature level
- Whether there are enforceable damages findings or ongoing royalty obligations
None of these inputs are available here.
How strong is Shure’s patent estate in audio/conferencing technologies based on this case?
Featured answer: Cannot be assessed from the provided input because the asserted patent set and their technical claim coverage are missing.
A strength assessment normally covers:
- Independent claim scope (breadth and required features)
- Prior art landscape and whether claims survive IPR
- Claim construction outcomes (especially for means-plus-function or algorithmic terms)
- Prior infringement history and licensing posture
No patent numbers, claim terms, or rulings are supplied in the prompt.
What are the key business takeaways for licensing strategy and exposure in Shure v. Clearone (1:19-cv-01343)?
Featured answer: Limited to structural guidance; cannot be tied to this specific docket without docket facts.
Licensing and enforcement posture signals that matter
In patent disputes, the following docket outcomes drive licensing leverage:
- Court willingness to narrow claims at Markman stage
- Summary judgment on invalidity or non-infringement
- Whether damages issues were reached and how experts performed
- Whether injunction was sought and whether eBay factors were litigated
The prompt does not supply any of these outcomes.
Exposure drivers to model
- Which products and components are accused
- Whether infringement requires only software configuration or hardware redesign
- Whether design-arounds can avoid every asserted claim element
- Whether the plaintiff pursued willfulness and enhanced damages
No product mapping or claim scope is provided.
Key Takeaways
- Case identification: Shure Incorporated v. Clearone Inc., 1:19-cv-01343 (filed in 2019 per prompt context).
- Missing litigation specifics: The prompt does not include asserted patent numbers, accused products, claim construction results, motion outcomes, or final disposition.
- Actionability limit: A litigation-grade summary and analysis cannot be completed without those docket facts.
FAQs
- What courts typically hear patent cases like Shure v. Clearone, and how does that affect timing?
- How do Markman claim construction outcomes usually shift leverage in audio technology patent disputes?
- When do defendants in similar cases pursue IPR stays, and what is the practical effect?
- What damages frameworks (reasonable royalty vs. lost profits) tend to matter in consumer audio/conferencing patents?
- What design-around strategies most commonly reduce infringement risk in communications hardware/software claims?
References
- No citable sources were provided in the prompt.
More… ↓
