DCT

2:16-cv-05220

Andrea Electronics Corp v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:16-cv-05220, E.D.N.Y., 09/19/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York because Defendant regularly transacts business, maintains retail stores and a corporate office, and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s consumer electronics, including iPhones, computers, and accessories, infringe three patents related to digital audio signal processing for noise and echo cancellation.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for improving audio clarity in digital communications by isolating and removing unwanted background noise and signal echo from a primary audio stream.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of the asserted patents and allegations of infringement via a letter on May 13, 2015. Subsequent to the filing of this complaint, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office resulted in the cancellation of all asserted claims of the ’637 patent, and the cancellation of the asserted independent claims (and numerous dependent claims) of the ’607 and ’345 patents. These outcomes, subject to appeal, raise fundamental questions about the viability of the asserted claims in this litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-09-18 U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 Priority Date
1999-02-18 U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345 Priority Date
2000-04-11 U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607 Issues
2000-07-12 U.S. Patent No. 6,377,637 Filing Date
2002-03-26 U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345 Issues
2002-04-23 U.S. Patent No. 6,377,637 Issues
2015-05-13 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant
2016-09-19 Complaint Filed
2018-02-06 IPR Certificate issues cancelling claims of the '607 Patent
2018-02-05 IPR Certificate issues cancelling all claims of the '637 Patent
2020-06-05 IPR Certificate issues cancelling claims of the '345 Patent

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,049,607, “Interference Canceling Method and Apparatus,” issued April 11, 2000

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent seeks to solve the problem of acoustic echo in teleconferencing systems, where a microphone at the "near end" picks up audio from a local loudspeaker (which is broadcasting the "far end" speaker's voice) and transmits it back to the far end, creating a distracting echo ('607 Patent, col. 1:31-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an apparatus and method that first splits both the desired audio signal (target) and the undesired audio signal (interference/echo) into a plurality of distinct, band-limited frequency channels ('607 Patent, Abstract). An adaptive filter then processes each frequency band separately to remove the interference from the target signal ('607 Patent, col. 4:50-64). This band-by-band approach is described as more computationally efficient and more effective than attempting to filter the entire broadband signal at once ('607 Patent, col. 5:40-59).
  • Technical Importance: By dividing the signal processing task into parallel, narrower frequency bands, the required adaptive filters become less complex and can converge on a solution more quickly, which is critical for real-time communication systems.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 25 (method) (Compl. ¶4).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus) Elements:
    • A main input for the target signal.
    • A reference input for the interference signal.
    • A "beam splitter" for splitting both the target and interference signals into corresponding, band-limited signals.
    • An "adaptive filter" for filtering each band-limited interference signal from each corresponding band-limited target signal.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims 2-12 and 26-37 (Compl. ¶4).

U.S. Patent No. 6,363,345, “System, Method and Apparatus for Cancelling Noise,” issued March 26, 2002

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of accurately estimating and removing ambient background noise from a speech signal, particularly in real-time systems where the noise may be non-stationary and speech may be continuous. A key problem identified is the creation of "musical noise" artifacts by conventional spectral subtraction methods ('345 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that operates in the frequency domain, analyzing the signal in discrete "bins." For each bin, a "threshold detector" determines if the signal component is noise by comparing its magnitude to a threshold. Critically, this threshold is set using a noise estimation process based on tracking both "current" and "future" minimum signal values over predefined time windows ('345 Patent, col. 6:25-41, Fig. 3). This allows the system to distinguish speech from noise more accurately than a simple energy-based voice switch ('345 Patent, col. 3:24-40).
  • Technical Importance: The approach of setting an adaptive, per-bin threshold based on forward-looking minimums provides a more robust method for estimating the noise floor, thereby improving noise cancellation and reducing audible artifacts.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus), 26 (apparatus), and 38 (method) (Compl. ¶4).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus) Elements:
    • An input for an audio signal.
    • A "frequency spectrum generator" for generating frequency bins.
    • A "threshold detector" for setting a threshold for each frequency bin using a noise estimation process and detecting noise elements based on that threshold.
  • The complaint also asserts dependent claims and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶4).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 6,377,637, “Sub-Band Exponential Smoothing Noise Canceling System,” issued April 23, 2002

  • Technology Synopsis: The ’637 Patent discloses a method for noise cancellation that, like the ’607 Patent, divides a digital input signal into multiple frequency-limited "sub-bands." Each sub-band is processed in the time domain to cancel noise, using techniques including exponential averaging of the input, noise estimation, and a subtraction process simplified by generating a filter coefficient. The processed sub-bands are then recombined into a single digital output signal (’637 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 8 (method), as well as all intervening dependent claims (Compl. ¶4).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the audio processing hardware and software in Apple's products implement the claimed sub-band noise canceling system to reduce noise in audio signals (Compl. ¶¶ 62-64, 71).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses a broad range of Apple products, including "desktop computers, all-in-one computers, notebook/laptop computers, tablets, smart phones, headsets, headphones, earbuds, and wearables" (Compl. ¶1). The Apple iPhone 6S is identified as a representative example of an infringing product (Compl. ¶34, ¶49, ¶64).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused functionality is the "audio processing hardware and/or software" embedded within these devices that performs noise and interference cancellation (Compl. ¶41, ¶56, ¶71). The complaint alleges this technology is used to enhance the user experience in applications like speech recognition and VoIP/video conferencing (Compl. ¶19). The complaint highlights that users can enable or disable these audio processing features through a user interface, referencing an exemplary screenshot from an iPhone 6S (Compl. ¶39, ¶54, ¶69). The complaint describes a visual from Exhibit 3 as a user interface on the iPhone 6S product that allows users to enable or disable the accused audio processing functionalities (Compl. ¶39).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As the complaint references claim-chart exhibits that were not provided with the filed document, the following is a prose summary of the infringement theories.

’607 Patent Infringement Allegations Summary

The complaint alleges that Apple's products, exemplified by the iPhone 6S, infringe the ’607 Patent by implementing an interference canceling system (Compl. ¶32-33). The theory suggests that when a user is on a call, the device's microphones receive the user's voice (the "target signal") as well as ambient sounds (the "interference signal"). The device's audio processing hardware and software are alleged to filter this interference in a manner that practices the claimed method, thereby directly infringing the patent (Compl. ¶34, ¶41). Infringement allegations are supported by reference to a user interface that allows the functionality to be enabled, which is also used as a basis for induced infringement (Compl. ¶39).

’345 Patent Infringement Allegations Summary

The complaint alleges that Apple's products infringe the ’345 Patent by using a system for noise cancellation that maps onto the patent's claims (Compl. ¶47-48). The core of this allegation is that Apple's audio processing technology identifies and reduces or eliminates noise from audio signals in a manner that infringes (Compl. ¶54). The complaint's theory appears to be that Apple's software performs a process equivalent to the patent's method of setting per-frequency-bin thresholds to distinguish noise from speech and then subtracting the identified noise (Compl. ¶49, ¶56).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether Apple's software architecture can be characterized as having a "beam splitter" that operates on both a "target" and "interference" signal as required by the ’607 Patent. For the ’345 Patent, a key dispute may be whether Apple's noise estimation algorithm functions as the claimed "threshold detector" by specifically using "current and future minimum values" to set its thresholds.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint provides little technical detail on how Apple's accused software actually works. A central question for the court will be an evidentiary one: what is the specific algorithm used in the accused products, and does its operation align with the particular steps and components recited in the asserted claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical approach?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1 (’607 Patent, Claim 1): "beam splitter"

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the architecture of the claimed invention. The infringement case for the ’607 Patent hinges on whether Apple’s accused software, which likely decomposes audio into frequency components for processing, performs an operation that meets the definition of a "beam splitter" as it is used in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the purpose of the beam splitter is to split the signal "into a plurality of band-limited" signals ('607 Patent, col. 4:56-59). A party could argue the term should be construed functionally to cover any component that achieves this result, such as a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) or other digital filter bank.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment: "The beam splitter of the exemplary embodiment of the present invention is a DFT filter bank using single side band modulation" ('607 Patent, col. 4:13-16). A party could argue the term should be limited to this more specific structure, or at least to a structure that splits both the target and reference signals into corresponding bands for comparison.

Term 2 (’345 Patent, Claim 1): "threshold detector for setting a threshold...using a noise estimation process"

  • Context and Importance: This term recites the novel mechanism of the ’345 Patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will turn on whether Apple's method for estimating noise is the same as, or equivalent to, the specific process described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is somewhat broad. A party might argue it covers any system that estimates a noise floor for a frequency bin and uses that estimate to set a threshold for separating signal from noise.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification details a very specific process involving the calculation and comparison of a "future minimum" and a "current minimum" over five-second intervals ('345 Patent, col. 6:25-41; Fig. 3). A party will likely argue that the claim term must be limited to this detailed embodiment, which is presented as the solution to the problems of the prior art.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all three patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Apple knowingly encourages infringement by providing products with the accused functionalities and including user manuals or interfaces that instruct customers on how to use them (Compl. ¶¶ 39, 54, 69). Contributory infringement is based on the allegation that the specific audio processing hardware and software have no substantial non-infringing use and are especially made for use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 56, 71).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Apple having actual notice of the patents and the infringement allegations since at least May 13, 2015, over 16 months prior to the suit's filing (Compl. ¶¶ 78-80). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s continued infringement despite this notice was objectively reckless (Compl. ¶80).

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

  • Viability of Asserted Claims: The most critical issue in this case is procedural: given the subsequent cancellation of all asserted claims of the ’637 Patent and the asserted independent claims of the ’607 and ’345 Patents during Inter Partes Review, a threshold question for the court will be whether any claims asserted in this litigation remain legally viable, pending the outcome of any appeals of those administrative decisions.
  • Claim Scope and Infringement: Should any claims survive, the case will turn on a question of definitional scope. Can terms like "beam splitter", which is described with a specific embodiment, be construed broadly enough to read on Apple's proprietary software? Similarly, can the "threshold detector" of the ’345 Patent, which is taught as a unique process involving future minimums, be interpreted to cover Apple's potentially different noise-floor tracking algorithm?
  • Evidentiary Proof: A key challenge for the plaintiff will be one of technical proof. The infringement allegations are based on the function of complex, proprietary software. The case will depend on whether discovery yields evidence that Apple’s algorithms operate in the specific manner required by the claim limitations, or if they achieve a similar result through a technically distinct method that falls outside the patent's scope.