VB Assets LLC v. Apple Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: VB Assets, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Apple, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-1368, D. Del., 03/10/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Apple maintains a regular and established place of business (an Apple retail store) and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Siri voice assistant and the products incorporating it infringe seven U.S. patents related to cooperative conversational voice interfaces, natural language understanding, and voice-based advertising.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns the architecture of conversational artificial intelligence, a core feature of modern digital assistants integrated into smartphones, smart speakers, and other consumer electronics.
• Key Procedural History: The filing is a First Amended Complaint, indicating it supersedes an original complaint previously filed in the matter.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-XX-XX	VoiceBox Technologies founded.
2006-10-16	Priority Date for ’681, ’765, ’249, and ’341 Patents.
2007-02-06	Priority Date for ’176, ’536, and ’097 Patents.
2010-10-19	U.S. Patent No. 7,818,176 Issued.
2011-10-XX	Apple released its first Siri Products.
2011-12-06	U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681 Issued.
2013-08-20	U.S. Patent No. 8,515,765 Issued.
2014-11-11	U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536 Issued.
2016-02-23	U.S. Patent No. 9,269,097 Issued.
2019-05-21	U.S. Patent No. 10,297,249 Issued.
2019-12-17	U.S. Patent No. 10,510,341 Issued.
2025-03-10	First Amended Complaint Filed.

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681, titled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A COOPERATIVE CONVERSATIONAL VOICE USER INTERFACE,” issued December 6, 2011. (Compl. ¶28).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes existing speech interfaces as lacking a "conversational speech model," which forces users to learn rigid commands and prevents intuitive, human-like dialogue with a system. (’681 Patent, col. 1:33-2:11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention claims a "cooperative conversational voice user interface" that can understand free-form utterances by creating and building upon "shared knowledge." This knowledge is divided into "short-term" (from the current conversation) and "long-term" (from past user interactions). The system uses this combined knowledge to identify context, generate hypotheses about the user's intent, and produce an adaptive, grammatically appropriate response. (’681 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:59-4:14).
• Technical Importance: This approach represented a conceptual shift from simple command-and-control voice recognition toward a more flexible, context-aware system designed to mimic human conversational patterns. (’681 Patent, col. 1:44-53).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 25. (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 50).
• The essential elements of independent claim 25 include:
  • A system comprising a voice input device to receive an utterance containing words with different meanings in different contexts.
  • A conversational speech engine with one or more processors configured to:
    • accumulate short-term shared knowledge about the current conversation;
    • accumulate long-term shared knowledge about the user from past conversations;
    • identify a context for the utterance from the combined short-term and long-term knowledge;
    • establish an intended meaning for the utterance within that context to disambiguate intent; and
    • generate a grammatically or syntactically adapted response based on the established meaning.
• The complaint states that Plaintiff "anticipates identifying additional asserted claims in accordance with the case schedule." (Compl. ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 8,515,765

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,515,765, titled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A COOPERATIVE CONVERSATIONAL VOICE USER INTERFACE,” issued August 20, 2013. (Compl. ¶31).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same general problem as its parent '681 patent: the non-intuitive nature of human-to-machine voice interfaces. (’765 Patent, col. 1:19-2:6).
• The Patented Solution: This invention proposes a system that determines a "conversation type" by classifying the user's role in an interaction as either a "leader" or a "supporter." The system's response format is adapted based on this role. If the user has a "supporter role," the response is structured to "limit the user's future input to interjecting queries or requests for clarification," thereby guiding the dialogue. (’765 Patent, Abstract; col. 15:3-16:7).
• Technical Importance: This patented method of modeling conversational roles was an approach to manage and direct the flow of dialogue in a human-computer interaction more effectively. (’765 Patent, col. 15:3-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 10. (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 71).
• The essential elements of independent claim 10 include:
  • A system comprising a speech engine that receives a natural language utterance corresponding to a conversation type.
  • The speech engine includes a processor configured to determine the conversation type based on whether the user has a "leader role" or a "supporter role" in the interaction.
  • A response builder generates a response with a format based on the determined conversation type.
  • The format is adapted to limit the user's future input to clarifications or queries if the user is determined to have the "supporter role."
• The complaint states that Plaintiff "anticipates identifying additional asserted claims in accordance with the case schedule." (Compl. ¶71).

Multi-Patent Capsules

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,297,249, “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A COOPERATIVE CONVERSATIONAL VOICE USER INTERFACE,” issued May 21, 2019. (Compl. ¶34).

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for generating voice responses by using short-term knowledge derived from multi-modal interactions, including both voice and non-voice inputs. The method involves comparing voice inputs from multiple input devices to filter sound and uses the state of the user interface to help determine the context for interpreting a user's speech. (’249 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:50-2:8).

• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 35, 101).

• Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that Apple's Siri products infringe by using short-term knowledge generated from prior multi-modal device interactions to facilitate natural language responses. (Compl. ¶104).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,510,341, “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A COOPERATIVE CONVERSATIONAL VOICE USER INTERFACE,” issued December 17, 2019. (Compl. ¶37).

• Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a system that uses both short-term and long-term knowledge to interpret utterances. It specifies a process where items of short-term knowledge expire after a time period and are then accumulated into long-term knowledge, which is then used in combination with current short-term knowledge to determine context. (’341 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:52-2:4).

• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10. (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 118).

• Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that Siri products perform a method of facilitating responses that utilizes accumulated short-term and long-term knowledge, including the expiration of short-term knowledge. (Compl. ¶¶ 121-122).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,818,176, “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SELECTING AND PRESENTING ADVERTISEMENTS BASED ON NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING OF VOICE-BASED INPUT,” issued October 19, 2010. (Compl. ¶40).

• Technology Synopsis: The patent discloses a system that selects and presents advertisements in response to a natural language voice request. The system is configured to recognize words, establish a context for the user's utterance, select an advertisement relevant to that context, and present it on an output device. (’176 Patent, Abstract).

• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 27. (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 134).

• Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that Siri selects and presents advertisements, such as for Apple Music or Apple TV+, in the context established by a user's natural language utterance. (Compl. ¶¶ 138, 149).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536, “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DELIVERING TARGETED ADVERTISEMENTS AND TRACKING ADVERTISEMENT INTERACTIONS IN VOICE RECOGNITION CONTEXTS,” issued November 11, 2014. (Compl. ¶43).

• Technology Synopsis: The patent claims a system for providing promotional content based on a conversational exchange. It describes receiving a first utterance, providing a response, and then receiving a second, related utterance that contains requests for one or more different applications; the system then determines and presents promotional content related to those requests. (’536 Patent, Abstract).

• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 43. (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 161).

• Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that Siri provides promotional content related to a sequence of one or more natural language utterances and responses from a user. (Compl. ¶¶ 164-165).

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,269,097, “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DELIVERING TARGETED ADVERTISEMENTS AND/OR PROVIDING NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING BASED ON ADVERTISEMENTS,” issued February 23, 2016. (Compl. ¶46).

• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for interpreting a user's spoken utterance based on a previously presented advertisement. A key feature is the system's ability to determine whether a pronoun in the user's speech refers to the product, service, or provider mentioned in the advertisement. (’097 Patent, Abstract).

• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 177).

• Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that Siri provides natural language processing based on advertisements, including determining the referent of a pronoun in a user's utterance. (Compl. ¶¶ 180-181).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Apple's Siri voice assistant, Apple Intelligence Siri enhancements, the operating systems that run Siri (e.g., iOS, macOS), the hardware products that incorporate it (e.g., iPhone, iPad, AirPods, HomePod, Apple Watch), and the associated cloud infrastructure. (Compl. ¶2, fn. 1).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes Siri as a voice-controlled personal assistant that processes natural language commands to answer questions, control device functions, and interact with applications. (Compl. ¶54, fn. 12). Allegations emphasize Siri's ability to maintain context across multiple user requests, leverage on-device information for "onscreen awareness," and use machine learning to personalize the user experience. (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 24, fn. 12). The complaint positions Siri as a central and fundamental feature across Apple's product ecosystem. The screenshot on page 24 of the complaint demonstrates Siri's "onscreen awareness," which allows it to understand and act on information displayed on the screen, such as a friend's address in a text message. (Compl. p. 24).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a voice input device configured to receive an utterance... wherein the utterance includes one or more words that have different meanings in different contexts	Apple's devices (e.g., iPhone, HomePod) use microphones to receive voice commands like "Hey Siri, how's the weather," which contain words that are ambiguous without context.	¶54	col. 2:15-18
accumulate short-term shared knowledge about the current conversation	Siri's conversational speech engine allegedly accumulates knowledge about the immediate utterance, such as the user's request for weather and the device type used.	¶55	col. 3:59-65
accumulate long-term shared knowledge about the user, wherein the long-term shared knowledge includes knowledge about one or more past conversations with the user	Siri allegedly accumulates knowledge from past conversations, including the user's voice profile for speaker recognition and prior requests.	¶56	col. 4:1-5
identify a context associated with the utterance from the short-term shared knowledge and the long-term shared knowledge	The conversational engine allegedly identifies context, such as location for a weather request or the identity of the user, by combining short-term and long-term data.	¶57	col. 4:6-14
establish an intended meaning for the utterance within the identified context to disambiguate an intent	Siri allegedly disambiguates user intent, such as determining whether an alarm should be set for AM or PM, or identifying the location for a weather query.	¶58	col. 4:15-22
generate a grammatically or syntactically adapted response to the utterance based on the intended meaning	Siri allegedly provides adapted responses based on the disambiguated intent, such as stating the weather for a specific location or confirming a change to an alarm. A screenshot provided in the complaint shows Siri responding, "I changed your alarm to 6:30 AM."	¶59; p. 40	col. 4:23-27

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Siri's architecture for processing user history and session data meets the claim requirements of distinctly "accumulating" "short-term shared knowledge" and "long-term shared knowledge" and then using them in combination to "identify a context". The defense may argue that Siri's operation is more akin to a series of stateless queries supplemented by user profile data, rather than the integrated conversational model described in the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges Siri uses knowledge of past conversations. (Compl. ¶56). A key evidentiary question will be what specific data from "past conversations," beyond general user preferences or voice profiles, is stored and used in the manner required by the claim to interpret a subsequent, unrelated utterance.

U.S. Patent No. 8,515,765 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
a speech engine configured to receive a natural language utterance ... corresponding to a conversation type	Siri's speech engine receives user commands, such as "Siri, heading to work" or "Siri, change my alarm."	¶76	col. 2:12-16
determine the conversation type ... based on whether a user that spoke the natural language utterance has a leader role ... or has a supporter role	The complaint alleges that when a user issues a direct command ("change my alarm"), they have a "leader role", but when activating a pre-defined "Shortcut" ("heading to work"), they have a "supporter role".	¶¶78, 80	col. 15:35-51
a response builder configured to generate a response to the natural language utterance with a format based on the conversation type	Siri's responses allegedly differ based on the determined role. The complaint provides screenshots showing a direct answer for a "supporter" query and a clarifying question for a "leader" query.	¶¶84-87; pp. 56, 58	col. 15:60-63
wherein the format is adapted to limit the user's future input to interjecting queries or requests for clarification if the user has the supporter role	For the "supporter role" utterance "Siri, how do I bake a cake," Siri provides instructions, limiting further input. In contrast, for the "leader role" utterance "change my alarm," Siri asks "Which one?," inviting further input rather than limiting it.	¶¶86-87; pp. 57-58	col. 16:4-7

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the patent's abstract concepts of "leader role" and "supporter role" can be construed to cover the concrete functionalities of Siri, such as executing a direct command versus running a pre-configured Shortcut. The defense may argue that these are simply different user interface flows for different tasks, not an implementation of the patent's claimed conversational model.
  • Technical Questions: Plaintiff will need to present evidence that Siri's system makes an affirmative determination of a "role" and then adapts its response format because of that determination, as opposed to simply executing different, pre-programmed logic paths for different types of commands.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’681 Patent:

• The Term: "accumulate short-term shared knowledge" and "accumulate long-term shared knowledge"
• Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’681 patent family hinges on the distinction between these two types of knowledge and how they are allegedly combined to resolve ambiguity. Practitioners may focus on these terms because the defense will likely argue that Siri's use of session data and user history does not map onto the specific architecture of "accumulating" distinct short-term and long-term knowledge as claimed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "shared knowledge" generally as information that "continually build[s] and draw[s] upon," with short-term knowledge relating to a "single conversation" and long-term knowledge being "user-centric." (’681 Patent, col. 4:40-48, 15:10-23).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests short-term knowledge "may be expired after a psychologically appropriate amount of time," while long-term knowledge is built from "information with long-term significance." (’681 Patent, col. 15:10-23). This distinction between ephemeral session data and more permanent user profile data may be used to argue for a narrower construction.

For the ’765 Patent:

• The Term: "leader role" / "supporter role"
• Context and Importance: These terms are the central inventive concept of the asserted claim of the '765 Patent. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether Siri's functionality can be shown to operate according to this "role"-based model.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent provides general definitions, stating a "leader...controls a conversation" while a "supporter...follows the leader and provides input as requested." (’765 Patent, col. 15:18-22). This could be argued to encompass any user-led command versus a system-prompted user response.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a detailed table defining the roles based on three specific criteria: "Goal," "Role," and "Information Allocation." (’765 Patent, col. 15:52-16:47, Table). A court may be persuaded to limit the definitions to conversational exchanges that fit squarely within this explicit, multi-factor framework.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement allegations are based on Apple's alleged instruction and encouragement of infringing use through its product manuals, developer tools (SiriKit), and marketing materials. (Compl. ¶¶ 53-54, 75-76). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that Siri products are a material component of the claimed inventions, are especially made for an infringing use, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶¶ 62, 92).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all patents. For patents that issued before or around the time of the original complaint, the allegation is based on knowledge "at least as of the date of the filing of the original Complaint." (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 74). For patents that issued later in the same family (e.g., the '249 and '341 patents), the complaint alleges Apple was "willfully blind" to the infringement because it was on notice of the parent patent and family from the litigation. (Compl. ¶¶ 102, 119).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can abstract conversational frameworks described in the patents, such as the "leader role"/"supporter role" dichotomy, be construed to read on the concrete, task-specific user interface flows implemented in Apple's Siri? The dispute will likely focus on whether Plaintiff's infringement theory is a permissible application of the claim language or an after-the-fact recharacterization of how the accused technology functions.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does the accused Siri architecture operate in the specific manner required by the claims of the ’681 patent family? The case may depend on evidence demonstrating that Siri distinctly "accumulates" "short-term" and "long-term" knowledge and uses them in combination to "identify a context", as opposed to using alternative methods (e.g., stateless queries plus static user profiles) to achieve a context-aware result.
• For patents that issued after the original complaint was filed, a central legal question regarding willfulness will be whether notice of a patent family through litigation is sufficient to establish knowledge or willful blindness for later-issuing child patents, or if specific notice of each issued patent is required.