DCT
1:18-cv-01371
Portal Communications LLC v. SoundHound Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Portal Communications, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: SoundHound, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC; Collins, Edmonds & Schlather, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:18-cv-01371, D. Del., 09/04/2018
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s voice-based search platform, Houndify, infringes three patents related to processing natural language queries by using location information as a contextual input.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses improving the relevance and efficiency of voice search on mobile devices by incorporating the user's physical location or proximity to objects to better interpret the intent of a spoken query.
- Key Procedural History: The three patents-in-suit are part of a patent family with a shared specification, tracing priority to a 2004 provisional application. After the complaint was filed, U.S. Patent No. 7,376,645 was subject to an Inter Partes Review (IPR2019-00513), which resulted in the cancellation of all claims (1-30), a fact that substantially impacts the viability of the infringement count on that patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-11-29 | Priority Date for ’645, ’654, and ’872 Patents |
| 2008-05-20 | U.S. Patent No. 7,376,645 Issues |
| 2011-01-18 | U.S. Patent No. 7,873,654 Issues |
| 2012-04-03 | U.S. Patent No. 8,150,872 Issues |
| 2018-09-04 | Complaint Filed |
| 2018-12-31 | IPR Filed Against ’645 Patent |
| 2021-08-16 | IPR Certificate Cancelling All Claims of ’645 Patent Issues |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,376,645 - "Multimodal Natural Language Query System and Architecture for Processing Voice and Proximity-Based Queries"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art voice-based search systems as being limited, inaccurate, and inefficient because they required time-consuming, user-specific voice training and were "single-modal," meaning they lacked contextual information, such as user location, to help interpret a query (Compl. ¶¶17, 20; ’645 Patent, col. 2:3-15, col. 3:50-63).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "multimodal" system that combines a voice-based query with location or proximity information to create a context for the search, thereby improving accuracy and relevance without requiring voice training (’645 Patent, col. 4:1-10). The system receives the voice and location inputs, converts the voice to text, uses natural language processing informed by the location context to generate a formal database query, and retrieves a result, all ideally in a single iteration (’645 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:28-40).
- Technical Importance: At a time when mobile internet access was becoming more widespread but mobile devices had limited input capabilities, this technology sought to make voice search a more viable and user-friendly interface by improving its reliability and contextual awareness (Compl. ¶¶14-15).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (system) and 21 (method) (Compl. ¶97).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A device comprising a speech input module and a location/proximity module.
- A speech conversion module to convert the voice query to text.
- A natural language processing module to convert text to a searchable form, using lexicons and grammar rules to determine meaning, where the meaning is "further determined responsive to the location/proximity information."
- A semantic engine module to convert the searchable text to a formal database query.
- A database-look-up module that uses the formal query to get a result, where the location/proximity module provides context for "narrowing and streamlining" the query.
U.S. Patent No. 7,873,654 - "Multimodal Natural Language Query System for Processing and Analyzing Voice and Proximity-Based Queries"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation-in-part of the ’645 patent, the ’654 Patent addresses the same core problems of prior art voice search systems (Compl. ¶53).
- The Patented Solution: The ’654 patent refines the invention by explicitly claiming a client-server architecture. It describes a user "device" that captures the voice and location inputs, which is connected to "one or more servers" that perform the computationally intensive tasks of speech conversion, natural language processing, and database searching (’654 Patent, Claim 1; ’654 Patent, Fig. 4). This distributed architecture is better suited for mobile devices with limited onboard processing power (Compl. ¶71).
- Technical Importance: By formally separating the client device from the processing servers, the invention describes a more practical and scalable architecture for deploying advanced, context-aware voice search services over a network to a wide range of mobile devices (Compl. ¶71).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (system), 8 (device), and 15 (method) (Compl. ¶108).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A device with a speech input module and a location/proximity module.
- "one or more servers connected to the device" which comprise:
- A speech conversion module.
- A natural language processing module to determine meaning.
- A semantic engine module.
- A database-look-up module, where the location/proximity module provides context for "narrowing and streamlining" the query.
U.S. Patent No. 8,150,872 - "Multimodal Natural Language Query System for Processing and Analyzing Voice and Proximity-Based Queries"
Technology Synopsis
This continuation-in-part further evolves the system by explicitly adding a requirement to "rank responses of the database lookup using an accuracy algorithm" (’872 Patent, Claim 1). It also recites a client-server architecture where a computing device receives an audio query and determines location, and a server performs the natural language processing, database lookup, and ranking (Compl. ¶83). The specification also introduces the concept of routing a query to multiple constrained databases ("semantic models") and returning the best result, a technique for improving accuracy on broad topics (Compl. ¶75.n; ’872 Patent, col. 12:57-13:5).
Asserted Claims
Independent claims 1 (system) and 12 (method) are asserted (Compl. ¶119).
Accused Features
The Houndify voice-searching system is accused of infringing by using a client-server architecture where a device captures audio and location, and servers process the query, perform a database lookup, and rank the results using an algorithm before returning them (Compl. ¶¶120-121).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies "Houndify voice-searching" as the accused instrumentality, as well as the associated systems, computing devices (including mobile phones), and methods that incorporate this functionality (Compl. ¶¶98, 109, 120).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Houndify is a voice search technology that operates on mobile and other computing devices. The functionality described involves receiving voice and proximity-based queries from a user, processing those queries on one or more servers, and returning search results (Compl. ¶¶98, 109). The complaint does not provide specific details about the commercial importance of Houndify, but alleges that SoundHound has a "significant need to continue providing" the functionality to stay competitive (Compl. ¶¶102, 113, 125). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’645 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a device, comprising: a speech input module receiving a voice-based query...and a location/proximity module receiving location/proximity information... | Defendant’s systems include computing devices like mobile phones with Houndify, which receive voice queries and location information from the user. | ¶98 | col. 5:26-32 |
| a speech conversion module converting the voice-based query...to text... | The accused system allegedly includes a speech conversion module for converting the voice query to text. | ¶98 | col. 5:32-34 |
| a natural language processing module converting the text...to text in searchable form using lexicons and grammar rules to...determine underlying meanings..., wherein the underlying meanings are further determined responsive to the location/proximity information... | The accused system allegedly uses a natural language processing module to parse the text and determine its meaning, with the meaning being responsive to the user's location. | ¶98 | col. 9:16-23 |
| a semantic engine module converting the text in searchable form to a formal database query | The accused system allegedly includes a semantic engine module that converts the parsed text into a formal database query. | ¶98 | col. 9:23-27 |
| a database-look-up module using the formal database query to obtain a result..., wherein the location/proximity module is configured to provide a context...narrowing and streamlining the formal database query... | The accused system’s database lookup module allegedly uses the user's location to provide context that narrows and streamlines the query to obtain a result. | ¶98 | col. 9:28-40 |
’654 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a device, comprising: a speech input module for receiving a voice-based query...and a location/proximity module for receiving location/proximity information... | Defendant’s systems include devices like mobile phones that receive voice and location inputs via the Houndify application. | ¶109 | col. 6:9-14 |
| one or more servers connected to the device, wherein the one or more servers comprise: | Defendant’s systems allegedly use one or more servers connected to the user's device to perform the processing of the voice query. | ¶109 | col. 6:14-16 |
| a speech conversion module for converting the voice-based query...to text... | A server in the accused system allegedly performs speech-to-text conversion. | ¶109 | col. 6:17-19 |
| a natural language processing module for converting the text...to text in searchable form using lexicons and grammar rules... | A server in the accused system allegedly performs natural language processing to determine the query's meaning. | ¶109 | col. 6:19-24 |
| a database-look-up module for using the formal database query to obtain a result..., wherein the location/proximity module is configured to provide a context...for narrowing and streamlining the formal database query... | A server in the accused system allegedly uses the location information as context to narrow and streamline the database query before obtaining a result. | ¶109 | col. 6:28-32 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Patent Viability: A threshold issue for the ’645 patent is its validity. The post-filing cancellation of all claims of the ’645 patent in an IPR proceeding raises a dispositive question regarding the viability of Count I of the complaint.
- Scope Questions: A central question for all asserted patents will be the scope of the phrase "narrowing and streamlining the formal database query...responsive to the location/proximity information." The dispute may focus on whether the accused Houndify system’s use of location data is merely a filter applied to search results, or if it functions to fundamentally alter or refine the "formal database query" itself, as the claim language requires.
- Technical Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations that the accused system performs the functions of each claimed module. A key technical question will be whether the Houndify system actually contains discrete or logically separate "natural language processing" and "semantic engine" modules that operate in the manner described in the patents, or if its architecture performs these functions in a technically distinct way.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "narrowing and streamlining the formal database query" (’645 Claim 1; ’654 Claim 1)
Context and Importance
This term is the core of the asserted technical improvement, distinguishing the invention from simply using location as another search keyword. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend heavily on whether the accused system’s use of location data meets this specific functional limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be the primary point of novelty over prior art that simply used location as a search parameter.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the location information provides a "context or environment" that is used to interpret the query, which a plaintiff might argue covers any process where location informs the final result set beyond simple geographic filtering (’645 Patent, col. 9:35-40).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example of a user in an art museum, where the system "knows" which painting the user is near (’645 Patent, col. 10:5-14). A defendant might argue this limits the claim to high-precision, object-specific proximity, not general-purpose geographic location used in typical map or business searches.
The Term: "rank responses of the database lookup using an accuracy algorithm" (’872 Claim 1)
Context and Importance
This term is a key limitation in the ’872 patent. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the parties may dispute what constitutes an "accuracy algorithm" and whether the accused system's ranking methods fall within its scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "accuracy algorithm" is not explicitly defined, which could support an argument that it covers any algorithm that ranks results based on a calculated measure of relevance or correctness.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent discusses "scorecarding" and ranking results from "multiple domains" to find the "best answer" (’872 Patent, col. 13:1-5). A defendant could argue this context narrows the term to a specific process of comparing results from different, constrained databases, rather than a general relevance ranking within a single database.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges that SoundHound induces infringement by providing its customers and end-users with the "Houndify" software and apps, along with instructions, which allegedly encourage and enable users to perform the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶99-100, 110-111, 122-123).
Willful Infringement
The complaint alleges that any infringement continuing after the suit was filed is willful, based on the notice provided by the complaint itself (Compl. ¶¶102, 113, 125). The complaint also makes a general allegation of pre-suit knowledge "upon information and belief" but does not plead specific facts showing when or how SoundHound became aware of the patents prior to the lawsuit (Compl. ¶99).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- The ’645 Patent’s Viability: A dispositive legal question for the court will be the effect of the USPTO’s post-filing cancellation of all claims of the ’645 patent. This procedural development appears to render the infringement count on that patent moot.
- Functional Scope: A core technical issue for the remaining patents will be one of functional scope: does the accused Houndify system’s use of location data constitute "narrowing and streamlining the formal database query" as claimed, or does it operate as a conventional search filter applied after a query is formed, creating a potential mismatch with the specific function recited in the claims?
- Architectural Equivalence: An evidentiary question central to the ’872 patent will be whether SoundHound’s system performs the claimed step of "rank[ing] responses...using an accuracy algorithm." The case may turn on whether the accused ranking method is technically equivalent to the specific process of "scorecarding" results from multiple domains described in the patent, or if it is a more generic relevance ranking system that falls outside the claim's scope.