DCT

4:10-cv-40024

Voice Domain Tech LLC v. Sony Corporation of America

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:10-cv-40024, D. Mass., 01/26/2010
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is registered to do business in Massachusetts, sells products in the state, and derives substantial revenue from the Commonwealth.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s voice recorder and dictation products infringe a patent related to the high-speed transfer of recorded audio from a portable device.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns portable digital dictation devices capable of offloading audio files to a computer for transcription or analysis at speeds faster than the original recording, improving workflow efficiency.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation-in-part of an earlier application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,398,220. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation, licensing, or post-grant proceedings.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1992-04-06 U.S. Patent No. 5,548,566 Priority Date
1996-08-20 U.S. Patent No. 5,548,566 Issue Date
2010-01-26 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,548,566 - Dictation recording device having means for rapidly transmitting recorded dictation to a receiving device (Issued Aug. 20, 1996)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency of traditional dictation systems where audio is recorded on a magnetic tape that must then be physically given to a typist. The transcription process is limited by the real-time playback speed of the tape. (’566 Patent, col. 1:13-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a portable dictation device that stores the user's voice as a digital signal in a memory device (either magnetic tape or digital memory). ('566 Patent, col. 2:36-39; col. 4:59-62). The device includes an output port and controller that can transmit this stored signal to a remote device, such as a computer, at a rate "substantially greater" than the rate at which the voice was originally recorded. ('566 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:38-48). This allows for rapid transfer of dictation for automated speech recognition or faster transcription workflows.
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to decouple the recording process from the transcription process, significantly reducing the time required to move audio data from the point of capture to the point of use. ('566 Patent, col. 4:44-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts the patent generally, not specific claims. The independent claims are Claims 1 and 4.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A portable voice recording device comprising:
    • a microphone for generating an electrical signal representative of an acoustic speech signal,
    • memory device for storing a memory signal representative of said electric signal, and
    • an output port controller for transmitting said memory signal to a voice processing computer device at a rate substantially more rapid than the rate at which said electrical signal was generated.
  • Independent Claim 4:
    • A portable voice recording device comprising:
    • a microphone for generating an electrical signal representative of an acoustic speech signal,
    • memory device for storing a memory signal representative of said electric signal,
    • an output port controller for transmitting said memory signal to a voice processing computer device at a rate substantially more rapid than the rate at which said electrical signal was generated,
    • a loudspeaker for generating an acoustic signal corresponding to said memory signal; and
    • a chassis having a size and shape which allows said chassis to fit in a user's hand, wherein said microphone, said memory device, said output port controller, and said loudspeaker are all housed within said chassis.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint alleges infringement by "various models of [Sony's] voice recorder and dictation products." (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not identify any specific Sony products or describe their particular functionalities. The allegations are directed at a general category of products. (Compl. ¶7). The complaint contains no allegations regarding the accused products' commercial importance or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only a conclusory allegation of infringement and does not include a claim chart or any specific factual detail mapping elements of the asserted claims to features of any accused product. (Compl. ¶7). Therefore, a detailed claim-chart analysis is not possible based on the provided documents. The central infringement allegation is that Sony's "voice recorder and dictation products" practice the invention claimed in the ’566 Patent. (Compl. ¶7).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "at a rate substantially more rapid than the rate at which said electrical signal was generated" (Claim 1, 4)

  • Context and Importance: This term of degree is the central feature of the invention and distinguishes it from prior art devices that played back dictation in real-time. The entire infringement analysis for any given product will depend on whether its data transfer speed meets this "substantially more rapid" threshold relative to its recording rate.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a qualitative, functional difference, stating the transfer is "much more quickly than the time it took to record the dictation." ('566 Patent, col. 4:46-48). This language could support a broad, non-numeric interpretation based on a noticeable improvement in user workflow.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification, when describing an embodiment, provides a more specific comparison, stating the download rate "R_d" is "greater than the rates R_p [play rate] and/or R_rec [record rate], preferably substantially greater". ('566 Patent, col. 4:19-22). A defendant may argue this ties the term to a significant, measurable multiple of the recording or playback rate, rather than any speed that is merely faster.

  • The Term: "memory device" (Claim 1, 4)

  • Context and Importance: The scope of this term will determine whether the claims are limited to specific storage technologies of the era (e.g., magnetic tape) or broadly cover modern storage like flash memory.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims use the general term "memory device." The specification explicitly discloses two distinct embodiments: one using a "magnetic tape cassette" ('566 Patent, col. 2:36-37) and another using a "digital memory device such as CMOS random access memory" ('566 Patent, col. 4:59-62). This disclosure of different technologies may support a construction covering any form of digital data storage.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the primary embodiment and majority of the detailed description focuses on a magnetic tape system. ('566 Patent, col. 2:36-col. 4:58). This could be used to argue that the context of the invention is tied to solving problems specific to tape-based systems, potentially limiting the term's scope in unforeseen ways.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(b) and (c) but provides no specific factual allegations to support the required elements of knowledge, intent, or the absence of substantial non-infringing uses for any components. (Compl. ¶7).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Sony "has, and continues to, willfully infringe." (Compl. ¶7). The complaint does not plead any facts to support this allegation, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or egregious conduct.

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

  • A primary procedural question will be one of specificity: The complaint lacks any identification of the specific accused products and the factual basis for infringement. The initial phase of litigation will likely focus on compelling the plaintiff to provide this information.
  • The central technical question will be one of claim scope: How will the court construe the term "at a rate substantially more rapid than the rate at which said electrical signal was generated"? The viability of the infringement case against any product will depend on whether its data transfer speed meets this relative, non-quantified threshold.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of proof: Assuming the case proceeds, a critical issue will be what evidence Plaintiff can marshal to demonstrate that Sony's accused products—once identified—actually perform the functions required by the claims, particularly the high-speed data transmission from a memory device as claimed in the '566 patent.