DCT

2:18-cv-00289

Uniloc USA Inc v. Amazon.com Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:18-cv-00289, E.D. Tex., 07/13/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, including distribution facilities and data centers, and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Alexa Voice Service and associated devices infringe a patent related to instant voice messaging over an IP network.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for sending and receiving voice messages over packet-switched networks, aiming to provide a more immediate alternative to traditional voicemail.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior procedural history. However, the patent documents provided include an inter partes review (IPR) certificate and an ex parte reexamination certificate, both issued after the complaint was filed. These proceedings resulted in the cancellation of numerous claims, including independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6, upon which asserted claim 7 depends. This raises a threshold question about the continued validity of the asserted claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-12-18 Patent Priority Date ('890 Patent)
2009-05-19 Issue Date, U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890
2018-07-13 Complaint Filing Date
2021-10-15 Inter Partes Review Certificate Issued
2022-07-11 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issued

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,535,890 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR INSTANT VOIP MESSAGING, issued May 19, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional voice messaging (i.e., voicemail) as an inefficient process involving dialing, waiting for a connection, navigating menus, and recording a message for asynchronous pickup by the recipient (’890 Patent, col. 2:11-23). The invention sought to address the lack of a system for more immediate, or "instant," voice communication over IP networks.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a client-server architecture for instant voice messaging (IVM) over a packet-switched network like the Internet. A user on a client device (such as a VoIP softphone) selects a recipient from a list, records a voice message, and sends it through a server to the recipient for playback (’890 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2). The system is designed to deliver the message for immediate listening if the recipient is online or temporarily store it for later delivery if the recipient is "unavailable" (’890 Patent, col. 8:25-30).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aimed to merge the immediacy associated with text-based instant messaging with the expressiveness of voice, providing a "walkie-talkie" style communication method that was more direct than traditional voicemail (’890 Patent, col. 2:38-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint directly asserts infringement of "at least Claim 7" (Compl. ¶17). It also alleges inducement and contributory infringement of "at least Claim 1" (Compl. ¶¶19-20).
  • Claim 7 is a dependent claim. Its scope includes all limitations of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6. The essential elements of claim 7 are:
    • A system with a client and a server on a packet-switched network.
    • The client selects a recipient, generates an instant voice message, and transmits it.
    • The server receives and delivers the message.
    • The server temporarily stores the message if the recipient is unavailable, delivering it when the recipient becomes available.
    • The client records the voice message into an "audio file."
    • The client "signal processes, compresses and encrypts the audio file."
    • The recipient is enabled to "decrypt and decompress the audio file before audibly playing" it.
  • The complaint states it asserts "one or more claims," suggesting the right to assert other claims may be preserved (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Alexa Voice Service," its "Alexa Calling and Messaging" client, and associated devices including the "Alexa mobile app, Echo, Echo Dot, and Echo Show" (Compl. ¶16). The system is alleged to run on Amazon's "Amazon Web Service platform" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused functionality is the "sending and listening to voice messages" between users of Alexa-enabled devices over Wi-Fi and the Internet (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that these messages are "temporarily stored if an intended message recipient is unavailable and thereafter delivered once the intend[ed] recipient becomes available" (Compl. ¶17). No other specific details on the product's market context or commercial importance are provided.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • ’890 Patent Infringement Allegations
Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 6 & 7) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a client connected to the network, the client selecting one or more recipients, generating an instant voice message therefor, and transmitting the selected recipients and the instant voice message therefor over the network Amazon's Alexa app and devices (e.g., Echo, Echo Show) act as clients that allow users to select recipients and send voice messages over the Internet. ¶16, ¶17 col. 2:31-33
a server connected to the network, the server receiving the selected recipients and the instant voice message therefor, and delivering the instant voice message to the selected recipients over the network Amazon's Web Service platform and associated servers receive the voice messages and deliver them to the intended recipient's Alexa-enabled device(s). ¶16, ¶17 col. 2:56-60
and the server temporarily storing the instant voice message if a selected recipient is unavailable and delivering the stored instant voice message to the selected recipient once the selected recipient becomes available The Alexa system temporarily stores messages for recipients who are offline and delivers them once the recipient becomes available. ¶17 col. 8:25-30
wherein the client records the instant voice message in an audio file The Alexa app and associated system records the user's speech as a voice message for transmission. ¶16, ¶17 col. 8:2-8
wherein the client signal processes, compresses and encrypts the audio file, and the selected recipients being enabled to decrypt and decompress the audio file before audibly playing the audio file The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element. N/A col. 11:2-22
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The complaint makes a conclusory allegation of infringement of claim 7 but provides no specific factual support for the element requiring the client to "signal process, compress and encrypt the audio file" and the recipient to "decrypt and decompress" it. The court will need to consider what evidence, if any, Plaintiff can produce in discovery to substantiate this core technical requirement of the asserted claim.
    • Scope Questions: A foundational issue for the litigation, which arose after the complaint was filed, is the cancellation of claims 1 and 6 in IPR proceedings. Because claim 7 depends from claim 6 (which in turn depends from claim 1), a central question is whether claim 7 can remain valid and enforceable after the claims from which it depends have been cancelled.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "instant voice message"

    • Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the invention and appears in the asserted claim. Its construction will be critical in determining whether the accused Alexa messaging feature, which operates on a store-and-forward basis, falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether "instant" requires a specific degree of real-time delivery.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's description of a "record mode" and the server's function to "temporarily sav[e] the instant voice message" if a recipient is unavailable could support an interpretation where "instant" refers to the user's action of sending, not necessarily immediate receipt by the recipient (’890 Patent, col. 8:25-30).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with traditional, delayed voicemail and describes an "intercom mode" for "real-time instant voice messaging," which could support a narrower definition requiring near-synchronous communication not present in all store-and-forward systems (’890 Patent, col. 2:11-23; col. 11:23-26).

  • The Term: "unavailable"

    • Context and Importance: The server's claimed duty to "temporarily stor[e]" a message is triggered when a recipient is "unavailable." The definition of this term will be key to analyzing infringement of the store-and-forward limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an explicit example: "if a recipient IVM client is not currently connected to the local IVM server 202 (i.e., is unavailable)..." This suggests "unavailable" could broadly mean any state where the client device is not actively connected to the network (’890 Patent, col. 8:25-30).
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also discusses a server maintaining the "current status of the IVM clients... i.e., whether the IVM client... is 'on-line'," which could be used to argue that "unavailable" requires a specific, formally recognized "offline" status rather than any general inability to receive a message (’890 Patent, col. 12:47-50).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement of at least claim 1. It alleges inducement is based on Amazon providing instructional materials like "training videos, demonstrations, brochures, installation and/or user guides" that allegedly instruct customers on how to perform the claimed method (Compl. ¶19). It alleges contributory infringement on the basis that the Alexa app and system is a material part of the invention, is not a staple article of commerce, and is especially adapted for infringing use (Compl. ¶¶20-21).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges post-suit knowledge as the basis for willfulness, stating that Amazon will be on notice of the ’890 Patent from the date of service of the complaint and that its continued infringement thereafter will be willful and deliberate (Compl. ¶22).

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

  1. Procedural Viability: A threshold and potentially case-dispositive issue, arising from post-filing IPR proceedings, will be claim validity: can asserted claim 7 survive as valid and enforceable after the cancellation of independent claim 1 and dependent claim 6, from which it depends?
  2. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A key factual question will be one of technical proof: can Plaintiff produce evidence through discovery to show that the accused Alexa system performs the specific client-side "signal process[ing], compress[ing], and encrypt[ing]" of voice messages, and the corresponding recipient-side "decrypt[ing] and decompress[ing]," as required by the express limitations of asserted claim 7?
  3. Definitional Scope: A central legal issue will be one of claim construction: does the term "instant voice message" require a near-real-time, "intercom-style" communication, or can it be construed more broadly to cover store-and-forward messaging systems like the one allegedly employed by the accused Alexa service?