DCT

1:26-cv-10129

Ad Innovations LLC v. Cerence Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-10129, D. Mass., 01/13/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Burlington, MA, within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Cerence AI automotive software platform, specifically its Emergency Vehicle Detection feature, infringes a patent related to selectively switching between audio channels to alert a user to important external sounds.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns in-vehicle infotainment systems that can detect critical ambient sounds, such as emergency sirens, and automatically interrupt media playback to ensure driver awareness.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant was aware of the patent-in-suit prior to this litigation due to Plaintiff's earlier infringement lawsuits against BMW of North America, LLC and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC involving the same patent. This alleged pre-suit knowledge forms the basis for Plaintiff's claims of induced and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-10-18 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,594,341
2013-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 8594341 Issues
2026-01-13 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,594,341 - *"System and Method for Selectively Switching Between a Plurality of Audio Channels"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem that arises when users of audio devices, particularly in vehicles, desire an immersive listening experience (e.g., listening to music with noise reduction) but also need to hear critical external sounds like car horns or emergency vehicle sirens for safety reasons (Compl. ¶12; ’341 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that supplies desired audio content (e.g., music) on a "first channel" while simultaneously using a microphone to monitor for "predetermined sound patterns" on a "second channel." If a pattern is matched (e.g., a siren is detected), a switching mechanism interrupts the first channel and presents the sound from the second channel to the user (Compl. ¶11; ’341 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:44-63).
  • Technical Importance: This technology allows for a balance between media consumption and situational awareness, a critical safety consideration with the proliferation of sophisticated in-vehicle entertainment and noise-cancellation systems (Compl. ¶12; ’341 Patent, col. 1:26-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 40 of the ’341 Patent (Compl. ¶13).
  • The essential elements of claim 40 include:
    • prestoring a plurality of predetermined digital sound patterns in a memory device, each corresponding to a preselected external audio sound;
    • supplying audio content on a first channel of the audio device;
    • generating an acoustic signal from sound external to the audio device on a second channel;
    • receiving the audio content on the first channel and the acoustic signal on the second channel;
    • determining whether the acoustic signal matched at least one of the stored sound patterns;
    • if a match occurs, selecting the second channel to generate an audible sound based on the acoustic signal;
    • if no match occurs, selecting the first channel to generate an audible sound based on the audio content;
    • wherein the audio device is a vehicular audio device.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is Defendant's Cerence AI platform, and specifically the Cerence Emergency Vehicle Detection ("Cerence EVD") feature (Compl. ¶14).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that Cerence EVD is a software feature integrated into vehicular infotainment systems that uses the vehicle's existing microphones to detect the sirens of approaching emergency vehicles (Compl. ¶14).
  • The system is alleged to use acoustic echo cancellation to distinguish external sirens from background noise or sirens present in music playing inside the vehicle (Compl. ¶14).
  • Upon identifying a siren, the system allegedly lowers the volume of the playing media and notifies the driver through the vehicle's visual and audio infotainment system (Compl. ¶14). A screenshot in the complaint shows a visual alert on a car's dashboard stating "Emergency Vehicle Approaching" (Compl. p. 7).
  • The complaint alleges the system recognizes over 1,500 different sirens from 47 countries, positioning it as a global safety solution for automotive manufacturers (Compl. ¶15; p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’341 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 40) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
prestoring a plurality of predetermined digital sound patterns in a memory device, each of the plurality of predetermined digital sound patterns corresponding to a preselected external audio sound The Cerence EVD feature allegedly recognizes over 1,500 different sirens from police cars, fire trucks, and ambulances, which correspond to the prestored sound patterns. A marketing graphic highlights that the system "Identifies More Than 1500 Sirens Worldwide" (Compl. p. 7). ¶15 col. 8:30-34
supplying audio content on a first channel of the audio device The vehicle's infotainment system plays radio or other media, such as music, which constitutes the audio content on the first channel. ¶16 col. 12:1-2
generating an acoustic signal from sound external to the audio device on a second channel Cerence EVD allegedly utilizes the vehicle's microphones to detect external emergency vehicle sirens and generates a processed acoustic signal from that sound. ¶17 col. 12:3-5
receiving the audio content on the first channel and the acoustic signal on the second channel The system allegedly enables a driver to listen to music from the infotainment system (first channel) while the microphones are simultaneously active and processing external sounds for sirens (second channel). ¶18 col. 12:6-8
determining whether the acoustic signal matched at least one of the plurality of predetermined digital sound patterns stored in the memory device... The complaint alleges Cerence EVD determines whether sounds detected by the microphones match one of the 1,500 prestored siren patterns. A visual annotation in the complaint points to the "Emergency Vehicle Approaching" alert as the outcome of this determination step (Compl. p. 17). ¶19 col. 12:8-12
...wherein if the acoustic signal matches at least one of the plurality of predetermined digital sound patterns stored in the memory device, selecting the second channel such that an audible sound is generated from the second channel based on the acoustic signal, and if the acoustic signal does not match... selecting the first channel such that an audible sound is generated from the first channel based on the audio content Upon matching a siren, the system allegedly "overrides the music currently playing, and the driver is notified about the siren via visual and audio alerts." If no siren is detected, the infotainment system allegedly "continues playing the radio or other media." ¶19 col. 12:12-21
wherein the audio device includes a vehicular audio device. The complaint alleges the Cerence EVD feature is designed for and integrated into vehicles, and the entire infringement theory is grounded in this automotive context. ¶19 col. 12:21-22
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 40 requires, upon a match, "selecting the second channel such that an audible sound is generated from the second channel based on the acoustic signal." The complaint alleges the accused system provides "audio alerts" (Compl. ¶19). This raises the question of whether generating a new, synthesized alert (e.g., a chime or a voice warning like "emergency vehicle detected") satisfies this limitation, or if the claim requires playing back the actual captured siren sound itself.
    • Technical Questions: Claim 40 is a method claim. The complaint asserts direct infringement by Cerence "through use and testing" (Compl. ¶13) and induced infringement of its customers (Compl. ¶20). An open question for the court will be whether all steps of the method are performed by a single actor. The analysis may explore whether the steps are divided between Cerence (providing the software), the vehicle manufacturer (integrating it), and the end-user (operating the vehicle), which could introduce a defense of divided infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "selecting the second channel such that an audible sound is generated from the second channel based on the acoustic signal"
  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears central to the infringement analysis. The dispute may turn on whether the "audible sound" generated must be a playback of the original external sound (the siren) or if it can be a system-generated alert triggered by the detection of that sound. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product is described as providing "audio alerts" (Compl. ¶19), which may differ from a direct playback of the captured siren.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary states the system will "interrupt the audio content when predetermined sound patterns are detected and subsequently play the sound patterns to the user" (’341 Patent, col. 2:1-3). The use of "subsequently" and the general goal of alerting the user could support an interpretation where the generated sound is functionally related to the detected pattern but not necessarily an exact replica.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the switching mechanism states that in the second position, "the acoustic signal picked up by the MID [microphone] 122 will be output to the AOD [audio output device] 106 and played to the user" (’341 Patent, col. 4:60-63). This language suggests a more direct pathway where the captured acoustic signal itself is what is played, supporting a narrower construction.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides its Cerence AI portfolio, including Cerence EVD, to customers with the specific intent to encourage them to perform the infringing method (Compl. ¶20). Knowledge of the patent is alleged based on Defendant’s awareness of prior lawsuits filed by Plaintiff against automotive companies BMW and Mercedes-Benz (Compl. ¶18).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement, asserting that Defendant was aware of the infringement "before this Complaint was filed" due to its knowledge of the aforementioned lawsuits against BMW and Mercedes-Benz (Compl. ¶22).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the claim limitation "an audible sound... generated... based on the acoustic signal" require a playback of the captured external siren, or can it be construed to cover a system-generated, synthesized alert that is triggered by the siren's detection? The viability of the infringement claim may depend heavily on this construction.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of attribution of action: As claim 40 is a method claim, the case may turn on whether all the required steps are performed by a single entity. The court will likely need to determine if Cerence's alleged "use and testing" constitutes direct infringement, or if the actions are divided between Cerence, its automotive partners, and end-users in a manner that could complicate the infringement analysis.