On June 30, 2025, Perceptix filed suit against Meta Platforms for infringement of U.S. Patent 8,498,439, which describes a headphone that turns on when it is worn. The ‘439 Patent is assigned to the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), a Korean research agency that has granted Perceptix an exclusive license to the ‘439 Patent. The complaint further alleges that the Meta Quest (also referred to as Oculus Quest), Meta Quest 2, Meta Quest 3, and Meta Quest Pro headsets infringe at least claims 1 and 11 of the ‘439 Patent. ETRI has apparently frequently used licensees like Perceptix to assert its patent rights against U.S. companies.
Claim 1 of the ‘439 patent recites:
- A headset for a user specific audio service, comprising:
- a sensing unit sensing whether or not the headset is put on;
- an information collecting unit determining whether or not the headset is put on by the sensing unit and collecting current situation information of a user when the headset is put on; and
- an information processing unit generating a user profile based on the current situation information of the user and controlling an audio signal output of a digital audio device based on the generated user profile.
The ‘439 Patent has a July 20, 2007, priority date and does not appear to have been previously asserted in litigation. There are no other U.S. patents in the patent family. At first glance, this appears to be a weak patent that is directed to the abstract idea of controlling an audio signal for a headset based on whether a user is wearing the headset. In addition to a lack of inventive details that would transform that abstract idea of the claims into an inventive application, there is much prior art that was not considered by the patent office that would invalidate the ’439 Patent’s broad claims.
For example, in addition to the 4 items of prior art cited against the counterpart PCT application by the Korean Intellectual Property Office, the U.S. examiner only cited 2 additional items of prior art. Claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. 7,502,477, which discloses a headset that determines a change in angular velocity – a clear indication of whether the “headset is put on,” but the examiner inexplicably allowed the claims in response to arguments that sensing a change in headset velocity does not determine whether a “headset is put on”! Even if the velocity could be determined if the headset is not “put on,” a change in velocity would not be detected if the headset was just sitting on a counter.
While the ‘439 Patent should not have been allowed over the cited art, there is ample other prior art that determines whether a “headset is put on” that was not considered by the examiner, such as U.S. Patent No. 8,020,989, which discloses an audio device on glasses with an on/off switch that turns the audio off when the user removes the glasses to talk on a cell phone. The ‘439 Patent appears at first glance to be of no more than nuisance value – it simply does not have a sound basis!
