DCT
4:20-cv-00111
Voice Tech Corp v. Mycroft Ai Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Voice Tech Corporation (Texas)
- Defendant: Mycroft AI Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Berkowitz Oliver LLP; Tumey L.L.P.
- Case Identification: Voice Tech Corp v. Mycroft AI Inc, 4:20-cv-00111, W.D. Mo., 03/10/2020
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Missouri because Defendant maintains its principal place of business within the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Mycroft AI voice assistant software and associated hardware infringe two patents related to using voice commands from a mobile device to remotely access and control a computer.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue operates in the field of voice-activated digital assistants, a market segment focused on providing hands-free control of computing devices and software applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that an initial lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas and then voluntarily dismissed to be re-filed in this district. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, both patents-in-suit underwent Inter Partes Review (IPR). The IPR proceeding for the '679 patent resulted in the cancellation of all claims. The IPR for the '348 patent resulted in the cancellation of numerous claims, though several independent and dependent claims survived. The complaint also contains extensive allegations regarding post-filing threats and harassment by Defendant’s CEO, which Plaintiff frames as evidence of willful infringement and grounds for declaring the case exceptional.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-06-04 | Priority Date for '348 and '679 Patents |
| 2017-10-17 | U.S. Patent No. 9,794,348 Issued |
| 2019-11-26 | U.S. Patent No. 10,491,679 Issued |
| 2020-02-05 | Defendant's CEO allegedly publishes threatening blog post |
| 2020-03-10 | Complaint Filing Date |
| 2020-06-05 | IPR filed against '679 Patent (IPR2020-01018) |
| 2020-10-01 | IPR filed against '348 Patent (IPR2020-01739) |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,794,348 - "Using Voice Commands from a Mobile Device to Remotely Access and Control a Computer," issued October 17, 2017
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a limitation in prior art voice control systems, which it describes as "application-specific" and thus requiring a user to employ multiple different systems to control different applications on a computer. These systems also allegedly limited the "audible and visible feedback" the user could receive from the remote computer (ʼ348 Patent, col. 1:15-32).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a unified system where a user can remotely control a computer's operating system and various native applications using voice commands from a mobile device. An "audio command interface" on the computer receives and decodes the voice command, determines which software program is the target of the command, executes a process within that program, and transmits the resulting output (e.g., audio or visual data) back to the mobile device for the user to perceive (ʼ348 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:20-51). This creates an experience intended to be similar to controlling the computer locally (ʼ348 Patent, col. 2:58-65).
- Technical Importance: The technology purports to offer a device-agnostic and application-agnostic method for comprehensive remote voice control of a computer, breaking down the silos between individual application control systems (ʼ348 Patent, col. 4:55-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the '348 patent without specifying which (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 17). Post-filing IPR proceedings cancelled claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11-14, 18, 19, 23-26, 30, and 31.
- Independent claim 1, which survived IPR, includes the following essential elements:
- A method of remotely accessing and controlling a computer from a mobile device, comprising:
- receiving audio data from the mobile device at an audio command interface on the computer;
- the audio command interface decoding the audio data into a command;
- the audio command interface selecting one application from two or more applications that it decides is appropriate to execute a process, wherein the decision uses "biometric data";
- executing the process with the selected application;
- generating output data from the execution; and
- transmitting the output data to the mobile device.
U.S. Patent No. 10,491,679 - "Using Voice Commands from a Mobile Device to Remotely Access and Control a Computer," issued November 26, 2019
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '348 patent, this patent addresses the same problem of "application-specific" remote voice control systems that lack a unified command structure and comprehensive user feedback ('679 Patent, col. 1:15-32).
- The Patented Solution: The technology is substantially the same as described in the '348 patent. It discloses a system where a voice command from a mobile device is processed by an "audio command interface" on a remote computer, which then intelligently selects either the operating system or a native application to execute a function and returns the output to the user's mobile device ('679 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:46-62).
- Technical Importance: The invention aims to allow a user to "switch between native applications that are configured and operating system functions and native applications that are not configured for interaction with [a] mobile device" ('679 Patent, col. 6:58-63).
Key Claims at a Glance
- NOTE: An Inter Partes Review (IPR2020-01018) subsequent to the complaint's filing resulted in the cancellation of all claims (1-8) of the '679 patent.
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of the '679 patent (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 22).
- Independent claim 1, now cancelled, included the following essential elements:
- A method of accessing and controlling a computer from a mobile device, comprising:
- receiving audio data from the mobile device at an audio command interface on the computer;
- the audio command interface decoding the audio data into a command;
- the audio command interface selecting, from at least one operating system and at least one application, the one it decides is "appropriate" to execute a process;
- executing the process with the selected operating system or application;
- generating output data; and
- transmitting the output data to the mobile device.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the "Mycroft AI family of software (including related components, e.g., Adapt, Padatious, etc.)," which run on Defendant's hardware products "Mark I and Mark II" and potentially on third-party devices like "smartwatches, laptops, and in automobiles" (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 22).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint describes the accused products as a voice assistant platform. It alleges that by making, using, and selling this platform, Defendant infringes the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 22). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the architecture or operation of the Mycroft AI software. It does note on information and belief that Defendant is developing a "Mark III" product, suggesting ongoing commercial activity and development (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 22).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement contentions. The analysis below is based on the general allegations in the complaint against a representative surviving claim of the '348 patent.
’348 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving audio data from the mobile device, at the computer, at an audio command interface; | Defendant's Mycroft AI software allegedly receives voice commands to control a computer or device (Compl. ¶17). | ¶17 | col. 9:20-23 |
| the audio command interface decodes the audio data into a command; | The Mycroft AI software allegedly processes the received voice audio into an executable command (Compl. ¶17). | ¶17 | col. 9:24-25 |
| the audio command interface selects, from two or more applications, one application ... wherein in deciding which application to select ... uses biometric data; | The complaint does not provide specific allegations that the accused software uses "biometric data" to select an application. | ¶17 | col. 9:26-31 |
| executing with the selected application the at least one process in response to the command; | The Mycroft AI software allegedly executes a function in response to the user's command (Compl. ¶17). | ¶17 | col. 9:32-34 |
| generating output data in response to the selected application executing the at least one process; and | The Mycroft AI software allegedly generates a response, such as an answer or a confirmation (Compl. ¶17). | ¶17 | col. 9:35-37 |
| transmitting the output data to the mobile device. | The Mycroft AI software allegedly transmits the generated response back to the user (Compl. ¶17). | ¶17 | col. 9:38-39 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary factual question for the '348 patent is whether the accused Mycroft AI system "uses biometric data" for the purpose of "deciding which application to select," as strictly required by surviving independent claim 1. The complaint does not allege any facts to support this specific claim element.
- Scope Questions: The case will raise the question of whether the functionality of the accused Mycroft AI platform, an integrated voice assistant, maps onto the claimed architecture of an "audio command interface" that selects between distinct "applications."
- Mootness: All infringement allegations concerning the '679 patent are moot due to the post-filing cancellation of all its claims in an IPR proceeding.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’348 Patent
- The Term: "wherein in deciding which application to select the audio command interface uses biometric data"
- Context and Importance: This limitation appears in the sole surviving independent method claim and is highly specific. The viability of the infringement case for the '348 patent may depend entirely on the construction of this phrase and whether any feature of the accused system can be shown to meet it. Practitioners may focus on this term as it appears to be a significant point of difference between the claimed invention and a standard voice assistant.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint provides no basis for this analysis. A party might argue that any user-specific data used in routing a command could be considered "biometric," but the specification provides little support for such a broad reading.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses using "speech or image data" for "password or other authorization processes" and recognizing a user despite changes in appearance (e.g., "long hair, short hair... with or without facial hair or make-up") ('348 Patent, col. 7:4-24). This context suggests "biometric data" relates to user authentication or identification, a function distinct from the claimed purpose of selecting an application to execute a command.
For the ’679 Patent
- The Term: "the audio command interface decides is the appropriate operating system or application"
- Context and Importance: Although all claims are cancelled, this term was central to the asserted invention. The dispute would have focused on whether the Mycroft AI system employs a distinct "interface" that acts as a dispatcher, making a decision to route a command to either the operating system or a separate native application.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the system allows remote control of "both operating system functions and native applications" ('679 Patent, col. 4:48-50), which could support an argument that any system capable of performing both types of tasks meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowchart in Figure 4 shows two distinct decision blocks: "OPERATING SYSTEM COMMAND?" (412) and "NATIVE APP. COMMAND?" (416). This could be used to argue that the claim requires a specific, sequential decision logic that routes a command down one of two separate functional paths, rather than being handled by a single, integrated process.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes general allegations of induced and contributory infringement for both patents, stating Defendant's actions cause others (e.g., end-users) to infringe (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 22). It does not, however, plead specific facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials that instruct on infringing use.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant infringed with "full knowledge" of the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 24). It further supports this claim with detailed allegations that Defendant's CEO, after being contacted about the infringement, published a blog post containing threats against Plaintiff's counsel and encouraged its wide distribution (Compl. ¶¶ 11-15). Plaintiff explicitly offers this alleged conduct as "evidence of Defendant's willful intent" (Compl. ¶15).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Impact of IPR Proceedings: A threshold issue is the legal effect of the post-filing IPRs. For the '679 patent, the cancellation of all claims appears to be dispositive, rendering infringement allegations moot. For the '348 patent, the cancellation of numerous claims has substantially narrowed the dispute to the handful of surviving claims.
- Factual Proof of Infringement: For the surviving claims of the '348 patent, a key evidentiary question will be one of technical capability: does the accused Mycroft AI system use "biometric data" to select an application for command execution, as required by claim 1? The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations on this element suggests this will be a central point of contention.
- Exceptional Case Allegations: A significant question, potentially independent of the technical merits, is one of litigation conduct: will the court find that the alleged threats and harassment by Defendant's CEO constitute behavior so egregious as to render this an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, potentially justifying an award of attorney fees to Plaintiff?