Meta Petitions for Inter Partes Review of 30 Claims of a Solos Head Wearable Noise Cancellation Patent.

The parties and the patent

The proceeding is Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Solos Technology Limited, IPR2027-00019. Meta is the petitioner and names itself as the real party in interest, and it also lists Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc. and several Luxottica, Essilor and EssilorLuxottica entities without conceding they are real parties in interest. The petition says the '389 patent is assigned to Solos Technology Limited. USPTO assignment records show that the four named inventors assigned the application to Kopin Corporation by assignments executed November 6, 2015, and that Kopin assigned the patent to Solos Technology Limited by an assignment executed November 22, 2019 and recorded December 13, 2019. U.S. Patent 10,306,389, issued May 28, 2019, is titled Head Wearable Acoustic System with Noise Canceling Microphone Geometry Apparatuses and Methods. The petition gives its earliest claimed priority date as March 13, 2013, and says Meta does not concede that the challenged claims are entitled to any priority date before October 18, 2015. Lead counsel is Lisa K. Nguyen of Paul Hastings LLP.

What the claims cover

Independent claim 1 covers an apparatus worn on a user's head with a head wearable device and two microphones. The first microphone is positioned to receive the user's voice, and its signal is input as a main channel to a two-stage noise cancellation unit. The second microphone is farther from the user's mouth in acoustic distance, and its signal is input as a reference channel. The first signal has a larger signal-to-noise ratio than the second, and the two-stage noise cancellation unit is configured to reduce noise from any arrival angle of desired audio, measured relative to an axis through the two microphones. Dependent claims 2 and 3 add a wireless communication system, compatible with Bluetooth in claim 3, and claim 4 adds an adaptive noise cancellation unit whose output feeds a single channel noise cancellation unit, plus a filter control. The petition also challenges independent claims 19, 22, 30, 35 and 40.

The grounds and the prior art

All five grounds are obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103: Schevciw and Yu-464 against claims 1 to 3, 9, 10, 17, 19, 20, 22 to 26 and 30 to 33; Schevciw, Yu-464 and Li against claims 4 to 8, 22 to 26 and 31; Schevciw, Yu-464 and Short against claims 11 and 21; Schevciw and Yu-529 against claims 35 to 40; and Schevciw, Yu-529 and Li against claims 35 to 40. The references are U.S. Publication 2011/0288860 (Schevciw), U.S. Publication 2004/0047464 (Yu-464), U.S. Patent 7,092,529 (Yu-529), U.S. Publication 2008/0317260 (Short) and U.S. Patent 8,275,148 (Li). Meta supports the petition with a technical expert's declaration.

The petition says none of the Schevciw, Yu-464 or Yu-529 prior art was before the USPTO during prosecution, and that a Chinese counterpart of Schevciw was identified during prosecution of related Application 15/726,620 but not submitted in the '389 prosecution. It says no claim terms require construction to resolve the challenges.

Related matters and the stipulation

The petition says Solos sued Meta on the '389 patent in Solos Technology Limited v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-10304 (D. Mass.), where Solos also asserts U.S. Patents 11,082,055, 10,651,866, 11,871,174 and 12,216,339. It lists IPR2026-00412 and IPR2026-00420 on the '055 patent, IPR2026-00512 on the '866 patent, IPR2026-00413 on the '174 patent and IPR2026-00376 on the '339 patent. In IPR2026-00376, a Director notice dated October 19, 2026 lists that petition among the proceedings that "will be reviewed for merits and non-discretionary considerations." Meta stipulates that if review is instituted it will not pursue in the district case, against any challenged claim, any invalidity ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in the IPR, or any section 102 or 103 ground relying on a reference asserted in the petition, and that the stipulation has no effect if institution is denied or vacated.

In the district case, Meta moved on March 25, 2026 to dismiss for failure to join a required party, or alternatively to stay the case pending resolution of an ownership dispute, arguing that a third company has a nonfrivolous claim to co-ownership of all five asserted patents through contract or inventorship. Meta's motion says the '389 patent was originally assigned to Kopin. Solos opposed the motion on April 22, 2026, and Meta filed its reply on April 30, 2026.

What to watch next

Under 37 CFR 42.107(b), Solos may file a preliminary response within three months of the notice according the petition a filing date. Under the USPTO's interim Director discretionary process, any discretionary denial brief from Solos is due within two months of that notice. Watch for the notice, those filings, and the institution decision.