DCT

3:24-cv-02160

Google LLC v. Goel

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 5:24-cv-02160, N.D. Cal., 06/14/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Google alleges venue is proper because it is headquartered in the district and Defendant Goel is subject to personal jurisdiction based on his patent enforcement activities directed at companies in the district, including filing a prior lawsuit there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff Google seeks a declaratory judgment that its products, including Google Meet, do not infringe Defendant Goel's patent related to advanced videoconferencing features.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves software systems for enhancing videoconferences with features like real-time audio accent modification and merging multiple video feeds into a single cohesive virtual environment.
  • Key Procedural History: This action follows a prior lawsuit (Case No. 5:23-cv-05806-PCP) in the same district where Defendant Goel accused Google of infringing the same patent. Goel voluntarily dismissed that lawsuit without prejudice, prompting Google to file this action to resolve the continuing controversy over its alleged infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2021-01-11 ’217 Patent Priority Date (Filing Date)
2021-09-28 ’217 Patent Issue Date
2023-11-09 Goel files initial infringement lawsuit against Google
2024-02-08 Goel voluntarily dismisses prior lawsuit without prejudice
2024-06-14 Google files Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,134,217 - "System that provides video conferencing with accent modification and multiple video overlaying," issued Sep. 28, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent asserts that contemporary videoconferences are "relatively boring" and lack user control, citing examples such as being forced to share an entire screen, appearing in disconnected boxes from other users, and having an accent that may be difficult for other participants to understand (’217 Patent, col. 2:26-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system designed to make videoconferencing "more fun" and user-centric by providing a suite of features. These include modifying a speaker's audio from one accent to another in real-time, merging separate video streams so users appear to be "sitting together, instead of being separated into separate boxes," and offering options to digitally change a user's clothing or display a looping video instead of a live feed (’217 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:44-60). The system aims to create a more immersive and controllable virtual meeting experience.
  • Technical Importance: The technology seeks to address user experience shortcomings in videoconferencing by applying augmented reality and real-time processing concepts to create a more unified and customizable social presence for remote participants (’217 Patent, col. 3:49-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint states that Google does not infringe claims 1-3 of the patent (Compl. ¶31). Independent claim 1 is asserted.
  • Independent Claim 1 (System Claim) requires:
    • An option to modify a user's accent from an original to a preferred accent.
    • An option to merge live video streams into one viewable stream where users appear sitting next to each other with possible backgrounds and seats.
    • An option for partial screen sharing.
    • An option to change the user's clothing digitally.
    • An option to choose the display frame.
    • An option to display a looped video instead of a real-time video.
    • A specific option to merge live video streams with selectable backgrounds and seats (e.g., a couch, conference table, movie theater).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, as it is a declaratory judgment action focused on claims previously asserted by the patent holder.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement for all of Google’s products, with specific mention of "Google Meet, either alone or in combination with Google's smart assistant technology, Google Assistant" (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 11). These are referred to as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint characterizes Google Meet as a videoconferencing technology. Rather than detailing its features, the complaint focuses on what the Accused Products allegedly do not do. It asserts that Google's products lack the specific functionalities required by the patent's claims, such as modifying a user's accent, merging video streams into a single composite scene with customizable seating, or displaying a looped video in place of a live feed (Compl. ¶30). The complaint notes that Goel's prior lawsuit supported its jurisdictional allegations with "images of webpages indicating that Google...[was] located in this District" (Compl. ¶18). This referenced visual evidence, used in the prior case, pertains to Google's business presence rather than the technical operation of the Accused Products (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts from the prior lawsuit filed by Goel but does not include them as exhibits (Compl. ¶2). Therefore, a formal claim chart summary cannot be constructed.

The core of Google's complaint is a direct rebuttal of Goel's infringement theory. Google alleges that its products do not practice multiple limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶30). The infringement dispute, as framed by Google, centers on whether the functionality of Google Meet meets specific claim limitations. Key non-infringement arguments asserted by Google include that its products do not provide:

  1. An option to modify a user's accent from an original to a preferred one (Compl. ¶30a).
  2. An option to merge live video streams into a single viewable stream where users appear "sitting next to each other" with various possible backgrounds and seats, such as on a couch or around a conference table (Compl. ¶30b, 30d).
  3. An option for a user to display a video on a loop instead of their real-time video feed (Compl. ¶30c).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The dispute raises the question of whether standard videoconferencing features, such as gallery views or virtual backgrounds, could be interpreted to meet the patent's requirement to "merge live video streams of each user into one viewable stream such that each user appears sitting next to each other." The patent’s detailed descriptions and figures depicting composite scenes may support a narrower interpretation than what a standard gallery view provides (’217 Patent, Fig. 2A, 10).
    • Technical Questions: A central factual question will be whether the Accused Products contain code or functionality that performs the highly specific actions claimed, particularly the "option to modify an accent." Google's position is that its products lack this feature entirely (Compl. ¶30a). Evidence will be required to establish the precise capabilities of the Accused Products in relation to this and other disputed claim elements.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "an option to modify an accent of a user from an original accent to a preferred accent of another user" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term appears to describe a core, novel feature of the invention. Its construction is critical because Google alleges its products do not have this functionality at all (Compl. ¶30a). The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this term is given a broad or narrow meaning.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses changing verbal output "from 1 accent to another accent" and from an "unidentifiable accent to a neutral accent," which could suggest any form of real-time audio processing that alters vocal characteristics to improve clarity might fall within the term's scope (’217 Patent, col. 4:58-64).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and dependent claims provide a specific, non-exhaustive list of accents, such as "Australian English; American English; British English," and various forms of French, Portuguese, Mandarin Chinese, and Spanish (’217 Patent, col. 9:26-31). This explicit list may be used to argue that the term requires a system capable of converting between recognized regional or national linguistic accents, not just general audio filtering.

  • The Term: "merge live video streams of each user into one viewable stream such that each user appears sitting next to each other" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the invention from a standard "gallery view" where participants are in separate boxes. Google denies its products perform this function, particularly with the specified backgrounds and seating arrangements (Compl. ¶30b, 30d).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any layout that places user videos adjacent to one another without significant borders could constitute "sitting next to each other" in a virtual sense.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes creating the feeling that "people are together" and not "separated into separate boxes" (’217 Patent, col. 2:49-51, col. 3:61-64). Figures 2A, 2B, and 10 depict users composited into a shared virtual space (e.g., around a table), suggesting the "merge" requires creating a single, cohesive scene rather than just tiling separate video feeds.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint states that in the prior lawsuit, Goel alleged that Google induced its customers and online retailers to infringe. The alleged inducement was based on users using the Accused Products and retailers marketing and selling them (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 24).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain information regarding allegations of willful infringement.

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

This declaratory judgment action will likely center on fundamental questions of claim scope and factual evidence. The key issues for the court appear to be:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim limitation "merge live video streams...such that each user appears sitting next to each other," which is described in the patent as creating a unified scene, be construed broadly enough to read on the layout functionalities of Google Meet, such as its gallery view or virtual backgrounds?
  • A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof: does Google’s technology, as a matter of technical fact, provide the specific "option to modify an accent" as required by the claims? The patent describes a distinctive feature that Google asserts is entirely absent from its products.
  • Finally, the case presents a broader question of plausibility: can the collection of highly specific, user-selectable features recited in Claim 1 plausibly be found in a mass-market videoconferencing product like Google Meet, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed invention and the accused technology?