Is this history accurate, can anyone familiar with the story verify?  If so then it seems he deserves something for his pioneering, no?

It's mostly accurate, no real issues. What does UE have to do with it though? Jerry was able to carry over his UE product line to the JH5, JH7, JH10x3, and JH11. He was cashed out of UE, and he took that money to found JH Audio after a one year non-compete period.

The issue at hand here is why JH Audio feels the need to "enforce the patent". The world of custom IEMs is very different from back in the day when UE and Westone were in an incestuous relationship (as were Etymotic/Shure/Sensaphonics). The new companies these days have technical support from the BA companies themselves, as well as their own R&D --- there's no need to collaborate as fully as they did back in the day. The designers might look around and think, "well, that's a nice idea", but for the most part, they blaze their own trail and want it to remain so. There's no real need to sue; the move seems both a retaliatory response and a peremptory one, almost purely for business reasons, not for "personal dignity".

UE has everything to do with it. You can't patent something that you've already sold to people for more than a year.

Yeah so that was what I was unclear about.  Did he develop it and then sell all the rights to them?

After reading through the complaint and the claims on the patent application in some detail, it looks like the focus here is specifically on the use of dual HF drivers which are placed within the housing (along with multiple mid and low frequency drivers) in a way that minimizes certain distortions.  The key excerpt underlying this patent seems to be: "the first high frequency driver and second high frequency driver are positioned where the oscillation of one interacts with the oscillation of the other to reduce harmonic distortion, and where the first high frequency driver and the second high frequency driver each produce each produce similar frequencies."

Setting aside all the general allegations describing ba IEM's, the complaint alleges (in paragraph 19) that 1964 advertises that its v8 uses "precision tuned" dual HF drivers.  JH's attorneys go on to allege, in the same paragraph, without pleading any specific facts, that this descriptor "thus" means 1964 has infringed on JH's patent by positioning these HF drivers so that the oscillation of the one interacts with the other, reducing THD.  It is interesting that JH's allegations don't simply state that 1964 has placed the HF drivers in the v8 in a manner identical to the positioning set forth in their patent.  I don't practice any patent law, but this allegation in particular seems likely to invite a challenge at the pleading stage as burn previously mentioned.

I really hope 1964 wins this case. They seem like a small, honest company that's getting screwed over.

Well, yes and no. What JH is doing to them is unwarranted, but 1964's stupid ADEL campaign is asinine, asi-ten, asi-leven. The ADEL valve is the closest I've seen to snake oil in CIEMs in perhaps, ever. There is some scientific merit to it, but it's incredibly overblown.