DCT
2:18-cv-02083
Advanced Voice Recognition Systems Inc v. Apple Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Advanced Voice Recognition Systems, Inc. (Nevada)
- Defendant: Apple, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP; Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC
- Case Identification: 2:18-cv-02083, D. Ariz., 08/24/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant allegedly committing acts of infringement in the district and maintaining multiple "regular and established places of business," specifically citing several Apple retail store locations within Arizona.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Siri voice assistant service, as implemented across various Apple products and operating systems, infringes a patent related to networked speech recognition systems designed to function with heterogeneous user protocols.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses architectures for decoupling a powerful, centralized speech recognition engine from user devices, enabling a "software-as-a-service" model for voice transcription across different platforms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a lengthy history predating the lawsuit, stating that Apple cited the patent-in-suit as relevant prior art during the prosecution of over 100 of its own patent applications, beginning in June 2013. Plaintiff also alleges it put Apple on notice of infringement via a presentation in November 2015. Subsequent to the complaint's filing, an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office resulted in the cancellation of claims 15 and 17 of the asserted patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-11-27 | ’730 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-07-07 | ’730 Patent Issue Date |
| 2013-06-19 | Alleged first date Apple cited ’730 Patent in its own prosecution |
| 2015-11-01 | AVRS allegedly provided notice of infringement to Apple |
| 2018-08-24 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2019-07-22 | IPR (IPR2019-01352) against ’730 Patent filed |
| 2022-09-29 | IPR Certificate issued, cancelling claims 15 and 17 of ’730 Patent |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,558,730 - "Speech Recognition and Transcription among users having Heterogeneous Protocols"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,558,730, "Speech Recognition and Transcription among users having Heterogeneous Protocols," issued July 7, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a market where early speech recognition systems were workstation-based products that could not effectively serve a network of users with different, incompatible "legacy systems" and communication protocols (Compl. ¶¶11, 13; ’730 Patent, col. 2:44-60). This incompatibility was a barrier to implementing more efficient, centralized, and powerful networked transcription engines. (’730 Patent, col. 2:36-43).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system architecture that decouples the user from the speech recognition engine. It introduces a central "system transaction manager" that operates on a "uniform system protocol." An "application service adapter" acts as a translator, converting requests from a user's "legacy protocol" into the uniform protocol for the manager, and converting the transcribed response back for the user. (’730 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:4-19; Fig. 3). This allows users with disparate systems to access a common, powerful transcription service.
- Technical Importance: This architecture provided a model for "software as a service" (SaaS) or "on demand" software for speech recognition, allowing a centralized engine with robust dictionaries to serve a large scale of users without requiring each user to abandon their existing system protocols. (Compl. ¶12).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶22). The following analysis focuses on representative independent claim 1.
- Independent Claim 1 requires a system comprising three main components:
- A "system transaction manager" using a "uniform system protocol" to receive requests from a user with a "first user legacy protocol" and route transcribed responses to a user with a "second user legacy protocol."
- A "speech recognition and transcription engine" that communicates with the manager to receive requests and generate transcribed responses.
- An "application service adapter" that provides "bi-directional translation" between the legacy protocols of the users and the system's uniform protocol.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as Apple's "Siri" service and the products on which it operates, including the iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, and Apple HomePod, along with their respective operating systems (iOS, macOS, watchOS, tvOS). (Compl. ¶¶18-19).
Functionality and Market Context
- Siri is described as a voice-activated intelligent assistant providing voice recognition and natural language understanding services. (Compl. ¶19). The complaint alleges that Siri's architecture involves user devices (e.g., an iPhone running iOS) sending speech requests to a central system for processing and transcription, with the system then returning a response. (Compl. ¶¶23-26). It further alleges that this architecture is necessary to process requests from different types of devices running different operating systems (e.g., macOS and iOS), which it characterizes as distinct "legacy protocols." (Compl. ¶23).
- The complaint asserts that Apple has previously touted Siri as a significant driver of consumer demand for its products, citing statements from prior litigation. (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’730 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| at least one system transaction manager using a uniform system protocol, adapted to receive a speech information request from at least one of the users employing a first user legacy protocol, and configured to route a response... | The complaint alleges that the "Active Ontology" component of the Siri system functions as the claimed system transaction manager, utilizing a uniform protocol to process commands from users on different operating systems like macOS and iOS. The complaint provides a block diagram, allegedly from an Apple patent, to identify the "Active Ontology" component. (Compl. p. 10). | ¶23 | col. 8:50-54 |
| at least one speech recognition and transcription engine communicating with the system transaction manager... configured to receive the speech information request... to generate a response... and to transmit the response... | The complaint alleges that Siri's "STT Processing Module" is the claimed speech recognition and transcription engine, which receives audio files, transcribes them into written text, and communicates with the system transaction manager. The complaint provides a data flow diagram, allegedly from an Apple patent application, to identify this module. (Compl. p. 11). | ¶24 | col. 8:9-19 |
| an application service adapter configured to provide bi-directional translation between the first user legacy protocol and the uniform system protocol and between the second user legacy protocol and the uniform system protocol. | The complaint alleges that Siri's "I/O Module" functions as the claimed application service adapter, bridging the user's request with the system transaction manager ("Active Ontology") and handling the transmission of the final response back to the user. | ¶¶25-26 | col. 8:31-47 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "legacy protocol." The complaint characterizes Apple's distinct modern operating systems (e.g., iOS, macOS) as different "legacy protocols" (Compl. ¶23). The defense may argue that the patent's description of "legacy systems" as older, hardwired business systems that are "very difficult to alter" does not read on Apple's actively developed and updated operating systems. (’730 Patent, col. 2:44-51).
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies heavily on mapping components from diagrams in Apple's own patent filings to the claim elements. A key question is whether these diagrams accurately represent the live, operational Siri service and, if so, whether the identified components (e.g., "Active Ontology," "I/O Module") perform the specific functions (e.g., "bi-directional translation") as required by the claims of the ’730 Patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "legacy protocol"
Context and Importance: The applicability of the patent to Apple's ecosystem hinges on this term's definition. Plaintiff's theory requires that different modern operating systems like iOS and macOS are considered distinct "legacy protocols." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either confine the patent to the 1990s-era business systems described in the background or expand it to cover any system with heterogeneous communication standards.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines "Protocol" as a "group of processes that a User... employs to directly support some business process or transaction" (’730 Patent, col. 6:61-64). This could be argued to encompass any distinct set of rules for accomplishing a task, such as those within iOS or macOS.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's background section repeatedly frames "legacy systems" in the context of internal "business" systems that are "very difficult to alter" and costly to replace, a description that may not align with modern, consumer-facing operating systems. (’730 Patent, col. 2:44-51).
The Term: "application service adapter"
Context and Importance: Plaintiff maps this term to the "I/O Module" in its diagrams of Siri's architecture. The viability of this mapping depends on whether the I/O Module performs the functions required of an "adapter," specifically "bi-directional translation."
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the adapter as an "interface" layer that allows a user's existing application to "communicate with the Transaction Manager." (’730 Patent, col. 5:60-65). This could suggest a relatively simple interfacing function.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the adapter to provide "bi-directional translation" between the user's protocol and the system's uniform protocol. (’730 Patent, col. 26:4-10). The defense may argue this requires more than simple data formatting or routing and that the accused "I/O Module" does not perform such "translation."
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that "Apple provides training and instructions to end users... instructing them how to use Siri... in a manner which directly infringes the ’730 Patent." (Compl. ¶40).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Apple's infringement was and continues to be willful. The allegations are based on both pre-suit knowledge from Apple's own patent prosecution activities and explicit notice from the plaintiff. (Compl. ¶¶34, 37). The complaint alleges Apple knew of the ’730 Patent as early as June 2013, when it began citing the patent in Information Disclosure Statements for its own patent applications related to speech technology and Siri. (Compl. ¶¶30-34). It further alleges that the plaintiff, through a licensing agent, provided Apple with a presentation in November 2015 "explaining how the Siri functionality infringes that patent." (Compl. ¶37).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "legacy protocol," which the patent specification grounds in the context of difficult-to-alter, internal business systems, be construed to encompass modern, distinct consumer operating systems like iOS and macOS as alleged by the plaintiff?
- A second central issue will be evidentiary and technical: plaintiff bases its infringement case on diagrams from Apple's own patent filings. This raises the key questions of whether the live Siri service operates as depicted in those diagrams and, more fundamentally, whether the functions of the accused software components (e.g., "Active Ontology") meet the specific limitations recited in the patent's claims.
- The allegations of willfulness present a significant question, supported by detailed claims of Apple's long-standing awareness of the patent through its own prosecution activities and direct pre-suit notice. The court will need to determine if this history demonstrates the kind of deliberate or reckless disregard required for enhanced damages.