DCT
1:21-cv-04607
Corey Griffin v. Belleau Tech LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: CG3 Media, LLC (Delaware) and Corey Griffin (California)
- Defendant: Belleau Technologies, LLC (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Keyhani LLC
- Case Identification: 1:21-cv-04607, S.D.N.Y., 05/21/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the Defendant, Belleau Technologies, LLC, is a New York corporation with its principal place of business within the Southern District of New York.
- Core Dispute: This is a declaratory judgment action in which Plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that their "Speakflow" application does not infringe Defendant's patent related to speech-recognition-based teleprompter technology, and further that the patent-in-suit is invalid and unenforceable.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns teleprompter systems that automatically advance a script by using speech recognition to track the words being spoken by a user in real-time.
- Key Procedural History: The lawsuit was precipitated by a cease and desist letter sent by Defendant Belleau Technologies to Plaintiff Corey Griffin, which alleged that the Speakflow application infringes the patent-in-suit and demanded that Plaintiffs cease distributing versions of the application containing its "Flow" mode.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-09-02 | U.S. Patent No. 9,953,646 Priority Date |
| 2018-04-24 | U.S. Patent No. 9,953,646 Issue Date |
| 2021-04-27 | Defendant sends cease and desist letter to Plaintiffs |
| 2021-05-21 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,953,646, "METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR DYNAMIC SPEECH RECOGNITION AND TRACKING OF PREWRITTEN SCRIPT," issued April 24, 2018.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the limitations of conventional teleprompters, which either scroll at a fixed rate or require manual operation. This can cause a speaker to fall behind, read ahead of the script, or lose their place, particularly if they deviate from the prepared text ('646 Patent, col. 1:20-39).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a computer-implemented method that automates the teleprompter process. It receives a prewritten script ("text artifact") and a live vocal input from a speaker. The system generates a transcript of the spoken words ("hypothesis words") and compares this transcript to the script to determine the speaker's current location. It then alters the on-screen display to show the corresponding section of the script, for example by scrolling or highlighting the relevant text ('646 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:47-66).
- Technical Importance: This technology allows a teleprompter to dynamically adapt to a speaker's natural pace, pauses, and ad-libs, aiming to provide a more seamless and less error-prone experience than fixed-rate or manually-operated systems.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint identifies independent claim 1 as being asserted by the Defendant (Compl. ¶21).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- Receiving and storing a "text artifact" (a prewritten script) on a computer.
- Displaying the text artifact on a screen.
- Receiving a "vocal input" from a user.
- Generating a "text file" of "hypothesis words" from the vocal input.
- Comparing a "predetermined number" of hypothesis words to a "predetermined number" of artifact words.
- Determining a "match location" in the text artifact based on the comparison.
- Altering the display to show the match location.
- Determining the font size and screen orientation.
- Altering the "predetermined number of artifact words utilized for comparing" based on those determinations.
- The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity for all claims of the '646 Patent (Compl., Request for Relief A, B).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentality is the "Speakflow" software application, an online teleprompter owned and operated by the Plaintiffs (Compl. ¶4). The cease and desist letter specifically targeted the application's "Flow" mode and "any other speech recognition-based scrolling method" (Compl. ¶16).
Functionality and Market Context
- Speakflow is described as a teleprompter application that operates directly from a user's web browser on various operating systems (PC, Mac, Android, and iOS) (Compl. ¶14). The functionality at issue is its "Flow" mode, which the complaint identifies as a "speech recognition-based scrolling method" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the specific algorithms or operational steps of this mode. Defendant's letter characterized Speakflow as a "copycat product that competes with PromptSmart," Defendant's own teleprompter application (Compl. ¶15).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
As this is a declaratory judgment action, the complaint does not contain a formal claim chart from the patent holder. The following table summarizes the likely infringement theory for claim 1, based on the description of the accused product in the complaint.
'646 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| e) receiving a vocal input; | The Speakflow application's "Flow" mode receives a user's speech. | ¶16 | col. 16:3-4 |
| f) generating... a text file representing the words spoken... said text file containing a plurality of hypothesis words; | The "Flow" mode utilizes speech recognition to process the user's speech into text data for scrolling purposes. | ¶16 | col. 16:5-9 |
| g) comparing... a predetermined number of said hypothesis words to a predetermined number of said artifact words; | The application's speech recognition-based method necessarily compares the recognized speech to the pre-loaded script to determine scroll position. | ¶16 | col. 16:10-14 |
| h) determining a match location in said text artifact...; | The application determines the user's current place in the script to facilitate automated scrolling. | ¶16 | col. 16:15-19 |
| i) altering... the display on said display screen to display said match location...; | The "Flow" mode is a "speech recognition-based scrolling method," which by its nature alters the display to show the user's current location. | ¶16 | col. 16:20-23 |
| j) determining... the font size...; k) determining... the orientation of the electronic screen...; l) altering... said predetermined number of artifact words utilized for comparing... | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of these elements. | col. 16:24-33 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question is evidentiary: does the Speakflow "Flow" mode actually perform every step recited in claim 1? The complaint provides no information on whether Speakflow performs the specific functions of determining font size (1j), screen orientation (1k), and, critically, altering the number of words used for comparison based on those factors (1l). The absence of these functions in the accused product could be a basis for a non-infringement finding.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of the claim limitations. For example, does the "comparing" step of claim 1(g) require the specific, complex matching algorithms (e.g., Cosine Distance, N-Gram analysis) detailed in the patent's specification ('646 Patent, col. 9:8-54), or does it cover any method of matching spoken words to a script? The answer will determine whether a potentially simpler implementation in Speakflow would still fall within the claim's scope.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "altering... said predetermined number of artifact words utilized for comparing" (from claim 1(l))
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it appears to recite a specific, dynamic feedback loop where the system adjusts its own matching parameters based on other factors (font size and screen orientation, per claims 1j and 1k). If the Speakflow application does not perform this specific alteration, it may not infringe. Practitioners may focus on this term as a key potential point of non-infringement for the Plaintiffs.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any change to the number of words being compared, even a one-time user setting, satisfies this limitation. The claim uses the general term "altering" without specifying that it must be automatic.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim links this "altering" step (1l) directly to the "determining" steps for font size (1j) and orientation (1k). This structure suggests a narrower interpretation where the system must automatically alter the comparison window in response to changes in font or orientation, as described in the patent's summary ('646 Patent, col. 2:21-29) and detailed description ('646 Patent, col. 13:58-64).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement "directly, indirectly, willfully, or under the doctrine of equivalents," but provides no specific facts regarding any allegations of indirect infringement (Compl. ¶23). The analysis focuses on direct infringement by the Speakflow application itself.
- Willful Infringement: Plaintiffs deny any willful infringement (Compl. ¶23). The complaint establishes that Plaintiffs received notice of the '646 Patent via the cease and desist letter dated April 27, 2021 (Compl. ¶15). This fact would be relevant to potential claims of willful infringement for any conduct occurring after this date, should the patent holder file a counterclaim for infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of "functional correspondence": can the patent holder prove that the accused Speakflow "Flow" mode performs every limitation of the asserted claims? The dispute may focus on the more detailed functional steps recited in claim 1, such as determining font size and screen orientation and using that data to alter the word-comparison algorithm (elements 1j, 1k, and 1l), for which the complaint provides no evidence of implementation.
- The case will also likely involve a question of "claim scope": will the court construe key terms like "comparing" broadly to cover any form of speech-to-text matching, or narrowly to require the specific complex algorithms disclosed in the patent's specification? The outcome of claim construction will be pivotal in determining the patent's reach over different technical implementations.
- Finally, a key "evidentiary question" will be whether the Plaintiffs can substantiate their boilerplate claims of invalidity (Compl. ¶26). The court will require specific prior art or arguments to support the allegations that the '646 Patent fails to meet the requirements of patentability under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.