DCT
2:17-cv-00890
Eloqui Voice Systems LLC v. Nuance Communications Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Eloqui Voice Systems, LLC (California)
- Defendant: Nuance Communications, Inc. (Massachusetts)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: COTMAN IP LAW GROUP, Group
- Case Identification: 2:17-cv-00890, C.D. Cal., 02/03/2017
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California because Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district and has conducted business there, including the sale of the accused software.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Nina Virtual Assistant Platform infringes four patents related to voice user interfaces that exhibit a "personality" to create more natural, human-like interactions.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns systems and methods for moving beyond robotic, command-based voice interfaces by imbuing them with distinct, consistent personalities that emulate human verbal behavior and social norms.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,144,938 and 7,058,577 because Defendant cited these patents as prior art during the prosecution of its own, later-filed patent applications. These allegations may form the basis for claims of indirect and willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-05-01 | Priority Date for '938, '103, '577, and '147 Patents |
| 2000-11-07 | U.S. Patent No. 6,144,938 Issued |
| 2001-12-25 | U.S. Patent No. 6,334,103 Issued |
| 2006-06-06 | U.S. Patent No. 7,058,577 Issued |
| 2013 | USAA, a customer of Defendant, begins using Accused Product |
| 2015-06-09 | U.S. Patent No. 9,055,147 Issued |
| 2017-02-03 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,144,938, “Voice User Interface with Personality,” issued November 7, 2000
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes conventional computer-telephony applications, such as voice mail systems, as being rigid and controlled by telephone keypad tones, while speech-recognizing interfaces lacked human-like qualities, making interactions unnatural. (’938 Patent, col. 1:35-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a voice user interface (VUI) controlled by a "personality engine" that uses a set of rules to manage dialog. (’938 Patent, col. 3:62-col. 4:8). This engine selects prompts and responses based on context, user experience, and social norms (e.g., politeness) to create the impression of a consistent, human-like personality, thereby making the interaction more effective and user-friendly. (’938 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-8).
- Technical Importance: The technology represents an effort to improve human-computer interaction by applying principles from social psychology directly to the architecture of voice-based software systems. (’938 Patent, col. 9:8-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 43 (Compl. ¶ 44).
- The essential elements of Claim 43 include:
- storing a recognition grammar in a memory, the grammar comprising multiple phrases that a virtual assistant with a personality can recognize when spoken by a user, the recognition grammar being selected based on the personality of the virtual assistant;
- executing a voice user interface, the voice user interface outputting first voice signals, the voice user interface recognizing speech signals; and
- controlling the voice user interface to provide the voice user interface with a verbal personality.
U.S. Patent No. 9,055,147, “Voice User Interface with Personality,” issued June 9, 2015
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: This patent, which shares a specification with the ’938 Patent, addresses the same general problem of creating more natural and effective voice user interfaces. (’147 Patent, col. 1:35-51).
- The Patented Solution: The claims of the ’147 Patent are directed to a system operating via a finite state machine. The system receives a voice input and transitions to a "domain state functionality." A central feature of the claimed solution is the selection of a "specific prompt" that is a "variant of a generic prompt" associated with that state. (’147 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:54-61). This allows the system to provide varied, personality-driven responses while maintaining a structured conversational flow.
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a structured method (the finite state machine) for managing complex, multi-turn conversations while still enabling the human-like variability that is central to the concept of a personality.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent system claim 16 (Compl. ¶ 59).
- The essential elements of Claim 16 include:
- A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions to perform a method comprising:
- initiating a finite state machine;
- receiving a voice input;
- interpreting the received voice input, which comprises transitioning to a domain state functionality, selecting a generic prompt, and selecting a specific prompt that is a variant of the generic prompt; and
- transmitting the specific prompt in a response.
U.S. Patent No. 6,334,103, “Voice User Interface with Personality,” issued December 25, 2001
Technology Synopsis
As a continuation of the application leading to the ’938 Patent, the ’103 Patent similarly describes a voice user interface with an emulated personality. The asserted claim is directed to an apparatus comprising logic to provide the voice interface and logic to provide the personality, which includes controlling the interface to provide a verbal personality and using a recognition grammar selected based on that personality. (’103 Patent, Abstract; Claim 105).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts at least Claim 105 (Compl. ¶ 71).
Accused Features
The complaint alleges infringement by the Nina platform's ability to conduct "natural, human-like" conversations, emulate human interaction dynamics, and use social protocols for greetings and farewells (Compl. ¶¶ 64, 69).
U.S. Patent No. 7,058,577, “Voice User Interface with Personality,” issued June 6, 2006
Technology Synopsis
This patent claims a method for implementing a voice user interface with personality. The claimed process includes selecting a personality from a plurality of options, defining a dialog based on the selection, and developing a recognition grammar that enables the interface to recognize user commands within that dialog structure. (’577 Patent, Abstract; Claim 1).
Asserted Claims
The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 85).
Accused Features
Infringement allegations focus on the process by which the Nina platform is developed and operates, including the selection of a personality, the definition of a corresponding dialog, and the development of a recognition grammar to understand user commands (Compl. ¶¶ 81-83).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Nina Virtual Assistant Platform," referred to as "Nina" (Compl. ¶ 22).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes Nina as a platform that combines speech recognition, text-to-speech, voice biometrics, and natural language understanding to deliver a "human-like conversational interface" (Compl. ¶ 49). The platform is alleged to provide a VUI with "personality," deliver "emotional" content, and emulate the dynamic interactions of human conversation (Compl. ¶¶ 26, 30, 31). The complaint references a screenshot of a news article stating that Defendant's customer, USAA, has used the Nina platform on its mobile application since 2013 (Compl. ¶ 25, Ex. F).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'938 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 43) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| storing a recognition grammar in a memory, the recognition grammar comprising multiple phrases that a virtual assistant with a personality can recognize when spoken by a user, the recognition grammar being selected based on the personality of the virtual assistant | Each Accused Product stores a recognition grammar with multiple phrases, and this grammar is selected based on the personality of the virtual assistant (Compl. ¶ 33). | ¶33 | col. 5:26-34 |
| executing a voice user interface, the voice user interface outputting first voice signals, the voice user interface recognizing speech signals | Each Accused Product executes a voice user interface that outputs voice signals and recognizes speech signals from the user (Compl. ¶ 38). | ¶38 | col. 4:56-61 |
| controlling the voice user interface to provide the voice user interface with a verbal personality | Each Accused Product controls the voice user interface to provide it with a verbal personality, including using appropriate protocols for greetings and farewells (Compl. ¶¶ 42, 32). | ¶42 | col. 2:7-14 |
'147 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| initiating a finite state machine | Nina is described as a pre-made virtual assistant that can exist in a finite number of states, which the complaint alleges constitutes initiating a finite state machine (Compl. ¶ 50). | ¶50 | col. 6:49-54 |
| receiving a voice input | Nina is configured to receive voice inputs from a user, such as a passphrase for identity verification (Compl. ¶ 52). | ¶52 | col. 7:41-45 |
| interpreting the received voice input, comprising: transitioning to a domain state functionality of the finite state machine... | The complaint alleges that a received voice input, such as a password, allows the user to access a domain state functionality, such as a banking application (Compl. ¶¶ 53-54). | ¶54 | col. 8:5-10 |
| ...selecting a generic prompt... and selecting a specific prompt corresponding to the generic prompt, wherein the specific prompt comprises a variant of the generic prompt... | Nina is allegedly configured to interpret voice input and select a specific prompt that is a variant of a generic prompt corresponding to the domain state functionality (Compl. ¶ 55). | ¶55 | col. 15:5-22 |
| transmitting the specific prompt in a response | Nina is configured to transmit the selected prompt back to the user in a response (Compl. ¶ 56). | ¶56 | col. 16:1-3 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern whether the accused Nina platform, a modern cloud-based AI system, operates as a "finite state machine" as that term is used in the ’147 Patent. Further, for the ’938 Patent, a question is whether having a personality-inflected script is equivalent to the claim requirement of a "recognition grammar being selected based on the personality of the virtual assistant."
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Nina's "natural, human-like" interactions meet the "verbal personality" limitations. A technical question will be what objective evidence supports this assertion and whether the accused product's functionality aligns with the specific rules-based "personality engine" described in the patents. The complaint references screenshots from Defendant's website, which allegedly describe customers conversing with Nina in a human-like way, as evidence of this functionality (Compl. ¶ 27, Ex. G).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "personality"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core inventive concept across the asserted patents. Its construction will be critical, as it will determine whether the accused product’s marketed features—such as being "human-like" and delivering "emotional content"—fall within the scope of the claims.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad definition: "the totality of spoken language characteristics that simulate the collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional, and mental traits of human beings." (’938 Patent, col. 3:24-30). This language could support a construction covering a wide range of non-robotic, stylized voice interactions.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides specific examples of personality types (e.g., "friendly-dominant, friendly-submissive") and describes a "personality engine" that implements rules based on social psychology. (’938 Patent, col. 3:30-34; Fig. 5). This may support a narrower construction limited to systems that implement such structured, psychologically-defined models.
The Term: "finite state machine"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the asserted claim of the ’147 Patent. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the architecture of the accused Nina platform can be properly characterized as a "finite state machine."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is well-understood in computer science, and a party could argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which might encompass any system that moves through a defined set of conversational states, regardless of the underlying technology.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures illustrate a system with explicitly defined states and transitions, such as a "main state," a "select domain state," and a "record name state." (’147 Patent, Fig. 18). This could support an argument that the term is limited to the more classical, explicitly-coded state machine structures disclosed in the patent, as opposed to a more dynamic, AI-driven system.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint asserts induced infringement for the ’938 and ’577 Patents (Compl. p. 4, 11). The allegations are based on Defendant’s advertising and sale of the Nina platform to customers, such as USAA, which allegedly induces them to operate the platform in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 78).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant knew of the ’938 and ’577 Patents because it cited them during the prosecution of its own patent applications (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 75). This allegation of pre-suit knowledge provides a basis for a potential claim of willful infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "personality," which is described in the patents with reference to specific psychological models and rules-based engines, be construed broadly enough to cover the accused Nina platform's more generally marketed "human-like" and "conversational" characteristics?
- A key technical question will be one of architectural correspondence: does the accused Nina platform, a modern, cloud-hosted AI system, operate as a "finite state machine" as required by the '147 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the accused product’s architecture and the more structured system disclosed in the patent?
- A central evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: what evidence will Plaintiff provide to demonstrate that the accused system performs an active "selection" of a recognition grammar "based on the personality," as required by the '938 patent, rather than merely utilizing a single, static grammar with personality-inflected phrasing?