BoomCloud 360 and Apple are now in three forums at once. That is a procedural fact, not a merits finding. Apple's declaratory-judgment complaint in the Southern District of California, filed August 5, is the first-filed district-court case. It seeks a DJ of noninfringement of 10,313,820, 10,721,564, and 10,757,527. BoomCloud 360's later Western District of Texas complaints, filed August 13 in Midland against Apple (7:26-cv-00312) and Google (7:26-cv-00313), assert a different trio: 10,524,078, 11,051,121, and 11,533,560. The ITC receipt notice (DN 3931) still lists no patent numbers. Do not collapse the two district sets, and do not import either set into the ITC caption.
Forum one: Apple's first-filed DJ in San Diego
On August 5, 2026, Apple Inc. sued Boomcloud 360, Inc. in the Southern District of California, No. 3:26-cv-04492-RSH-DEB, assigned to Judge Robert S. Huie. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,313,820, 10,721,564, and 10,757,527. BoomCloud is an Encinitas, California company. Venue in the Southern District is therefore not a stretch. Apple's theory of an actual controversy is that BoomCloud accused Apple products in other cases, including infringement contentions served March 19, 2026 in Eastern District of Texas suits against AT&T and T-Mobile.
The DJ is also the source for how BoomCloud describes itself. Apple quotes BoomCloud's AT&T complaint as alleging that BoomCloud's audio rendering solutions have been licensed and implemented by several large companies, including Qualcomm, which is headquartered in San Diego. That is an operating-licensor allegation recited in a public pleading, not a finding that Qualcomm practices the patents or that Apple does. Apple denies infringement of all three patents.
What the three DJ patents cover (as Apple recites them)
The '820 patent is titled Sub-Band Spatial Audio Enhancement (issued June 4, 2019). Claim 1, as quoted in the DJ, is a method that splits left and right input channels into a spatial (difference) component and a nonspatial (sum) component, applies first and second subband gains, and recombines them into left and right output channels. Apple says the accused devices do not process left and right inputs into spatial and nonspatial components or apply subband gains to generate an enhanced nonspatial component.
The '564 patent is titled Subband Spatial and Crosstalk Cancellation for Audio Reproduction (issued July 21, 2020). Claim 1, as quoted, is a crosstalk-cancellation method that determines a speaker parameter comprising a listening angle between first and second speakers, generates a compensation signal for spectral defects, precompensates the audio, and then performs crosstalk cancellation based on that speaker parameter. Apple says the accused devices do not determine a listening angle or generate compensation based on it.
The '527 patent is titled Crosstalk Cancellation B-Chain (issued August 25, 2020). Claim 1, as quoted, is a system that determines asymmetries between left and right speakers in frequency response, time alignment, and signal level for a listening position, and then generates output channels by applying N-band equalization, delay, or gain to adjust for those asymmetries. Apple says the accused devices do not determine those asymmetries or apply corrections based on them. Mid-side subband processing, crosstalk cancellation tied to listening angle, and b-chain speaker matching are a fair high-level map of the three DJ families. They are Apple's recitation of BoomCloud's claims, not a construction. They are still DJ-only.
Forum two: BoomCloud sues Apple (and Google) in Midland, not Waco
On August 13, 2026, BoomCloud 360, Inc. sued Apple Inc. in the Western District of Texas, No. 7:26-cv-00312, assigned to Judge David Counts. The 7: prefix is the Midland/Odessa division. It is not the Waco 6: docket. Counsel is Russ August & Kabat. The complaint asserts a different trio: 10,524,078, Crosstalk Cancellation B-Chain (issued December 31, 2019); 11,051,121, Spectral Defect Compensation for Crosstalk Processing of Spatial Audio Signals (June 29, 2022); and 11,533,560, Dynamic Rendering Device Metadata-Informed Audio Enhancement System (December 20, 2022). Claims are not quoted in the complaint body; the charts are exhibits not in the main PDF. Accused products include iPhone 17; iPad Pro 11-inch M5; Spatialize Stereo and built-in stereo-speaker spatial audio; and combinations with AirPods 4, AirPods 4 ANC, AirPods Pro 2, AirPods Pro 3, and AirPods Max. Direct, induced, and contributory infringement are pleaded, all willful. Notice is alleged through licensing talks from summer 2017 through fall 2021 under NDA. The Midland Apple complaint was filed August 13, 2026. Any Rule 12 date depends on service, which is not in the public complaint extract. The first-filed San Diego DJ is likely to be Exhibit A on any motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer the Texas case.
The same day, BoomCloud sued Google LLC in Midland, No. 7:26-cv-00313, on the same three patents. Accused products include Pixel 10 Pro; Spatial Audio and built-in stereo; and Pixel Buds Pro 2, Pixel Buds Pro, and Pixel Buds 2a. Notice is alleged through a June 2016 NDA with Google. The '527 patent in the San Diego DJ and the '078 patent in the Midland complaints share the title Crosstalk Cancellation B-Chain. They are different patent numbers. Do not treat the DJ trio as the Midland counts, or the Midland trio as the DJ counts.
Forum three: ITC receipt, not institution
On August 14, 2026, BoomCloud 360 Inc. filed a section 337 complaint, docketed as DN 3931 and captioned Certain Electronic Devices with Certain Audio Technologies. The Federal Register notice (91 FR 53894, Aug. 20, 2026) names as proposed respondents Apple, Inc. of Cupertino, CA; Samsung Electronics America Co., LTD. of South Korea; Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, NJ; and Google LLC of Mountain View, CA, using those names as published. BoomCloud asks for a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and a bond. Public-interest comments were due eight calendar days after publication. The Commission has not instituted. Institution, if it comes, is likely around September 13. The FR notice does not list patent numbers. Do not import the DJ numbers or the Midland numbers into DN 3931 as if the Commission had identified them.
How the three forums interact
Apple filed in BoomCloud's home district on August 5. BoomCloud filed in Midland on August 13 against Apple and Google, and at the ITC on August 14. That sequence is the classic customer-suit and dual-track pattern, with a twist: the patentee is an operating licensor (on the face of the AT&T complaint Apple quotes), the Midland patents are a different trio from the DJ patents, and the accused products in the carrier cases include a long list of iPhones, iPads, AirPods, and Beats products that Apple recites in the DJ. If the Commission institutes DN 3931, expect stay motions in the district cases, and expect Apple to argue that San Diego is the first-filed Article III case. If the Commission does not institute, the first-to-file contest between 3:26-cv-04492 and 7:26-cv-00312 becomes the main venue fight. Midland is not Waco, and Judge Counts's patent docket is not Judge Albright's. Forum analysis that treats 7: as 6: will be wrong.
The likely near-term path
The probabilistic call is that the next thirty days are about institution and pleading, not claim construction. Apple is likely to answer or move in Midland once served, and to use the San Diego DJ as the first-filed case. BoomCloud is likely to treat the ITC as the pressure forum against Apple, Samsung, and Google together. Settlement talk, if it happens, will have to account for the carrier and retailer cases already on file in the Eastern District of Texas (AT&T, T-Mobile, Walmart, Target, Best Buy), which the DJ recites, and for the separate Midland Google case. None of that is a prediction that BoomCloud establishes infringement or that Apple obtains a noninfringement judgment.
What to watch next
Apple's Western District of Texas response, once service is on the docket. Google's Midland response on 7:26-cv-00313. The Commission's institution decision on DN 3931, which, if the usual clock from the August 14 filing holds, would fall around mid-September. Any first-to-file motion in San Diego or Midland. And the first public ITC document that lists DN 3931's patents, so neither district trio is imported into the Commission caption by assumption.