DCT

3:23-cv-00466

Jawbone Innovations LLC v. Google LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00985, W.D. Tex., 09/23/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Google maintaining regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas, including offices in Austin and San Antonio.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s audio products, including the Pixel Buds and Google Nest smart devices, infringe eight patents related to acoustic noise suppression and voice activity detection technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using sensor data and multi-microphone arrays to distinguish human speech from background noise, a critical function for voice-controlled devices and clear communications in noisy environments.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the asserted technology was developed by Jawbone, Inc., which was forced into liquidation in 2017. Following the liquidation, Plaintiff alleges that Google was contacted regarding the value and its infringement of the patents-in-suit, forming a basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-07-19 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
2001-05-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058
2002-03-27 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
2004-01-01 AliphCom (Plaintiff's predecessor) launches "Jawbone" headset
2007-05-25 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,321,213 & 8,326,611
2007-06-13 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,779,080 & 11,122,357
2007-06-27 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072
2007-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058 Issues
2008-01-01 AliphCom launches Bluetooth version of "Jawbone" headset
2011-09-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091 Issues
2012-10-02 U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072 Issues
2012-11-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,321,213 Issues
2012-12-04 U.S. Patent No. 8,326,611 Issues
2013-06-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543 Issues
2015-01-01 Plaintiff alleges Google's knowledge of Jawbone patent portfolio
2017-01-01 Jawbone, Inc. liquidation occurs
2017-01-01 Plaintiff alleges Google was notified of infringement
2020-09-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,779,080 Issues
2021-09-14 U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357 Issues
2021-09-23 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091 - “Voice activity detector (VAD)-based multiple-microphone acoustic noise suppression”

  • Issued: September 13, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional noise suppression systems struggle to remove noise without distorting speech, particularly when it is difficult to determine whether a user is speaking or remaining silent (’091 Patent, col. 2:2-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses a sensor independent of the microphones—such as one that detects human tissue vibration—to create a highly accurate voice activity detector (VAD). When the VAD indicates no speech is present, the system calculates a first transfer function to model and remove the background noise. When the VAD indicates speech is present, it generates a second transfer function. The system then uses these functions to produce a denoised audio stream (’091 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:48-65).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for more aggressive noise removal during periods of silence without risking distortion of the user's speech, a significant advantage over systems that rely solely on acoustic data to guess when a user is speaking (’091 Patent, col. 1:49-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶41).
  • The essential elements of claim 11 are:
    • A receiver that receives at least two acoustic signals from at least two microphones.
    • At least one sensor that receives human tissue vibration information associated with a user's voicing activity.
    • A processor that generates a plurality of transfer functions, including:
      • A first transfer function generated when voicing activity is absent, representing a ratio of energy of acoustic signals from the microphones.
      • A second transfer function generated when voicing activity is present.
    • The processor removes acoustic noise using the first transfer function and a combination of the first and second transfer functions to produce a denoised acoustic data stream.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058 - “Detecting Voiced and Unvoiced Speech Using Both Acoustic and Nonacoustic Sensors”

  • Issued: July 17, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The ability to correctly identify not just the presence of speech, but to distinguish between voiced speech (e.g., vowels) and unvoiced speech (e.g., consonants like "s" or "f"), is critical for applications like speech recognition and noise suppression (’058 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses a hybrid system. It identifies voiced speech by generating cross-correlation data between a physiological "voicing sensor" and an acoustic signal. It identifies unvoiced speech by generating "difference parameters" (representing relative signal gain) between two microphones, exploiting the principle that unvoiced speech may be louder in one microphone than another, unlike ambient noise (’058 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:59-3:8).
  • Technical Importance: This dual-method approach provides a more robust way to classify different components of human speech, allowing a system to denoise signals more intelligently than systems that treat all speech as a single category (’058 Patent, col. 2:26-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶58).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • At least two microphones receiving acoustic signals.
    • At least one voicing sensor receiving physiological information.
    • At least one processor that:
      • Generates cross-correlation data between the physiological information and an acoustic signal to identify voiced speech when the data exceeds a correlation threshold.
      • Generates difference parameters between the acoustic signals from the two microphones.
      • Identifies unvoiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a gain threshold.
      • Identifies noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072 - “Microphone Array with Rear Venting”

  • Issued: October 2, 2012
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a microphone array where multiple physical microphones are used to form a smaller number of "virtual microphones." This technique combines the signals from the physical microphones to create an output with less acoustic noise (Compl. ¶26).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶76).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Google's Pixel Buds, which use an array of physical microphones to create beamformed virtual microphones for noise reduction, practice the claimed method (Compl. ¶77-79).

U.S. Patent No. 8,321,213 - “Acoustic Voice Activity Detection (AVAD) for Electronic Systems”

  • Issued: November 27, 2012
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology involves acoustic voice activity detection using virtual microphones formed from an array of physical microphones. The system creates virtual microphones with similar noise responses but dissimilar speech responses, and detects voicing by comparing a ratio of energies between them to a threshold (Compl. ¶28).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶89).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Google Nest smart home device infringes by using an array of virtual microphones (via filter-and-sum beamforming) to detect a "Hey Google" wake word by comparing a ratio of energies to a threshold (Compl. ¶29, 93).

U.S. Patent No. 8,326,611 - “Acoustic Voice Activity Detection (AVAD) for Electronic Systems”

  • Issued: December 4, 2012
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is from the same family as the ’213 Patent and describes similar technology for acoustic voice activity detection. It details forming virtual microphones by applying filters and delays to signals from physical microphones and detecting speech when an energy ratio between the virtual microphones exceeds a threshold (Compl. ¶28).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶103).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Google Nest of infringing by using beamformed microphones to detect the "hey Google" wake word based on an energy ratio comparison (Compl. ¶104, 107).

U.S. Patent No. 10,779,080 - “Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA)”

  • Issued: September 15, 2020
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes noise suppression using an array of omnidirectional microphones to form two distinct virtual microphones. These virtual microphones are designed to have similar responses to noise but dissimilar responses to speech, allowing an adaptive filter to significantly reduce noise without distorting the desired speech (Compl. ¶30).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶117).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that each Google Pixel Bud earbud, with its two physical omnidirectional microphones and processing component, generates two beamformed virtual microphones with the claimed similar noise/dissimilar speech response characteristics (Compl. ¶31, 121).

U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357 - “Forming Virtual Microphone Arrays Using Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA)”

  • Issued: September 14, 2021
  • Technology Synopsis: Related to the ’080 Patent, this invention concerns acoustic noise suppression using an array of physical microphones to form virtual directional microphones. It describes combining signals by filtering and summing in the time domain to suppress noise in the output signal (Compl. ¶32).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶133).
  • Accused Features: The Google Pixel Buds are accused of infringing by using arrays of physical microphones whose outputs are combined into beamformed microphones to reduce noise (Compl. ¶33, 134-135).

U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543 - “Microphone and Voice Activity Detection (VAD) Configurations for Use with Communications Systems”

  • Issued: June 18, 2013
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system with a voice detection subsystem and a denoising subsystem. A key configuration involves a microphone array where one microphone is oriented toward a talker's mouth and another is oriented away, allowing the denoising system to subtract noise when the voice detection subsystem indicates speech is occurring (Compl. ¶34).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶147).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Google Pixel Buds Pro and Google Pixel 5 smartphone infringe, alleging they have at least one microphone oriented towards the user's mouth and another oriented away, and use an accelerometer for speech detection to attenuate background noise (Compl. ¶35, 150).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies a broad range of Google products, with a focus on the Google Pixel Buds series of earbuds and Google Nest/Home series of smart home devices (Compl. ¶29, 36, 42).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused functionalities are those related to voice communication and command recognition in consumer electronics (Compl. ¶25, 29). The complaint alleges the Google Pixel Buds utilize "uniquely placed beamforming mics and [a] voice accelerometer [to] deliver crystal-clear calls even in noisy environments" (Compl. ¶42). This feature is central to the user experience for wireless earbuds. The complaint further alleges the Google Nest devices use a microphone array and filter-and-sum beamforming to detect wake words like "Hey Google" by comparing signal energies to a threshold (Compl. ¶29). The complaint provides a teardown image identifying a "DSP Group - DS18B - Audio DSP" chip as the processor in the Pixel Buds that allegedly performs the infringing functions (Compl. p. 19; ¶45).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a receiver that receives at least two acoustic signals via at least two acoustic microphones positioned in a plurality of locations The Google Pixel Buds comprise a receiver that receives signals via a dual microphone array in each earbud. ¶43 col. 4:51-54
at least one sensor that receives human tissue vibration information associated with human voicing activity of a user The Google Pixel Buds comprise a "voice accelerometer" that allegedly detects speech through jawbone vibrations. ¶44, 47 col. 4:55-57
a processor coupled among the receiver and the at least one sensor that generates a plurality of transfer functions The Pixel Buds comprise a DSP Group DS18B audio digital signal processor. ¶45 col. 4:58-59
wherein the plurality of transfer functions includes a first transfer function representative of a ratio of energy of acoustic signals...wherein the first transfer function is generated in response to a determination that voicing activity is absent The processor allegedly generates a first transfer function based on the microphone array signals when the voice-detecting accelerometer indicates that voicing activity is absent. ¶45-46 col. 4:60-66
wherein the plurality of transfer functions includes a second transfer function...wherein the second transfer function is generated in response to a determination that voicing activity is present The processor allegedly generates a second transfer function in response to a determination that voicing activity is present, based on detection of tissue vibrations by the accelerometer. ¶47 col. 5:1-5
wherein acoustic noise is removed from the acoustic signals using the first transfer function and at least one combination of the first transfer function and the second transfer function to produce the denoised acoustic data stream The Pixel Buds allegedly remove noise by applying a first transfer function when voicing is absent and a combination of transfer functions when voicing is detected, utilizing a least mean squares-based algorithm. ¶48 col. 5:6-12
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the Pixel Buds generate distinct "first" and "second" transfer functions. A potential point of contention may be whether the accused product's integrated processing, which may use a single complex algorithm like a neural network, can be said to generate separate and distinct "transfer functions" as contemplated by the claim, or if it performs a single, continuous operation that is merely modulated by the VAD input.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the system generates the first transfer function in response to a determination that voicing activity is absent. A factual question will be what evidence supports the allegation that the accused algorithm models the noise environment only during periods of silence as determined by the accelerometer, as required by this claim limitation.

U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
at least two microphones that receive the acoustic signals Each Pixel Bud earbud comprises at least two MEMS microphones that receive acoustic signals. ¶59 col. 10:11-12
at least one voicing sensor that receives physiological information associated with human voicing activity The Pixel Buds comprise an accelerometer that allegedly receives human tissue vibration associated with voicing activity. ¶60 col. 10:13-14
at least one processor...generates cross correlation data between the physiological information and an acoustic signal received at one of the two microphones The DSP Group DS18B audio processor allegedly generates cross-correlation data between tissue vibration from the accelerometer and the acoustic signal from one of the microphones. ¶61-62 col. 10:18-21
identifies information of the acoustic signals as voiced speech when the cross correlation data...exceeds a correlation threshold The DSP processor allegedly identifies voiced speech when the cross-correlation data exceeds a threshold. ¶63 col. 10:21-25
generates difference parameters between the acoustic signals received at each of the two receivers The DSP processor allegedly generates difference parameters based on the relative signal gain between the microphones. ¶64 col. 10:26-31
identifies information of the acoustic signals as unvoiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a gain threshold The DSP processor allegedly identifies unvoiced speech when the difference parameter exceeds a gain threshold. ¶65 col. 10:31-34
identifies information of the acoustic signals as noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold The DSP processor allegedly identifies acoustic signals as noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold. ¶66 col. 10:34-36
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Will the term "voicing sensor that receives physiological information" be construed to cover a general-purpose accelerometer that measures motion, or will it be limited to sensors that more directly measure a biological process? The patent specification's definition and examples will be critical.
    • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether the accused DSP actually performs the specific, bifurcated logic of the claim: (1) using cross-correlation between sensor and microphone to find voiced speech, and separately (2) using difference parameters between two microphones to find unvoiced speech. The complaint's technical support for this specific two-path process is not detailed. The complaint includes a diagram from a Google research paper on "Neural Network Adaptive Beamforming" which may be used to illustrate the accused functionality (Compl. p. 11).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term from ’091 Patent, Claim 11: "generates a plurality of transfer functions"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis. The claim requires generating a "first transfer function" when speech is absent and a "second transfer function" when it is present. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern audio processing systems, such as those allegedly using neural networks, may not generate discrete, separable mathematical functions but rather employ a single, complex model whose behavior changes based on input. The dispute will question whether such a system "generates a plurality of transfer functions."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the transfer functions in functional terms as representing a "relationship between the microphones" for noise (’091 Patent, col. 3:3-5). This functional language may support an argument that any system which alters its noise-filtering relationship based on VAD input meets the limitation, regardless of the specific algorithmic implementation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description discusses "calculating" the transfer functions and storing them (’091 Patent, col. 6:35-45). This language may suggest that a "transfer function" is a discrete, calculated mathematical object, potentially narrowing the claim scope to exclude single, continuously adaptive algorithms.

Term from ’058 Patent, Claim 1: "voicing sensor that receives physiological information"

  • Context and Importance: The claim requires a specific type of sensor. The complaint accuses Google's accelerometer of meeting this limitation. The construction of this term will determine whether a general-purpose motion sensor falls within the scope of the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples of voicing sensors that include "radio frequency devices, electroglottographs, ultrasound devices, acoustic throat microphones, and airflow detectors" (’058 Patent, col. 12:49-54). This broad list of disparate technologies, all capable of detecting physical effects of speech production, may support construing "physiological information" broadly to include any physical manifestation of voicing, such as jawbone vibration detected by an accelerometer.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "physiological" itself suggests a direct connection to a biological process. A defendant may argue that an accelerometer merely detects motion, which is a physical rather than a direct physiological parameter, and that the term should be limited to sensors that measure properties like muscle electrical activity or glottal movement more directly, as some examples in the specification do.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Google induces infringement by providing customers with instruction manuals, websites, promotional materials, and advertisements that demonstrate how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶49-50, 67-68).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Google has known of the Jawbone patent portfolio since at least January 2015 and was specifically notified of the patents-in-suit and its alleged infringement "at least as of 2017" following the liquidation of Jawbone, Inc. (Compl. ¶21-22, 52). This allegation of specific, pre-suit knowledge forms the basis for the willfulness claim.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: can the specific, sequential, and logically distinct processing steps recited in the patent claims (e.g., generating a first transfer function only when speech is absent; using cross-correlation for voiced speech and separate difference parameters for unvoiced speech) be mapped onto the functionality of Google's allegedly integrated, modern audio processing systems, or is there a fundamental mismatch in their method of operation?
  • A second central question will be one of definitional scope: the case may turn on whether claim terms like "generates a plurality of transfer functions" are construed to require the creation of discrete mathematical objects, or if they can broadly cover the changing behavior of a single, complex algorithm. Similarly, the definition of "physiological information" will determine whether a general-purpose motion sensor infringes claims requiring a more specific type of biological input.
  • Finally, a key evidentiary question will concern willfulness: what evidence will be presented to substantiate the allegation that Google was made aware of its alleged infringement as early as 2017, and how will that knowledge, if proven, impact a potential damages award?