DCT
2:21-cv-00186
Jawbone Innovations LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jawbone Innovations, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Republic of Korea); Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fabricant LLP; McKool Smith, P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:21-cv-00186, E.D. Tex., 05/27/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction, have committed acts of infringement, and maintain a regular and established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphones and earbud products infringe patents related to multi-microphone acoustic noise suppression and voice activity detection.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of clearly capturing human speech in noisy environments, a critical feature for consumer electronics like smartphones and wireless headsets.
- Key Procedural History: The technology was originally developed by Jawbone, Inc., which went into liquidation in 2017. The complaint alleges that Samsung was made aware of the patents-in-suit and the alleged infringement by third parties at least as of 2017, which may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-07-19 | Earliest Priority Date for ’091 and ’072 Patents |
| 2004-01-01 | AliphCom (Plaintiff's predecessor) launches "Jawbone" mobile headset |
| 2011-09-13 | ’091 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-10-02 | ’072 Patent Issue Date |
| 2017-01-01 | Jawbone, Inc. (Plaintiff's predecessor) liquidates |
| 2017-01-01 | Samsung allegedly becomes aware of the Asserted Patents |
| 2021-05-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091 - "Voice Activity Detector (VAD)-Based Multiple-Microphone Acoustic Noise Suppression"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091, "Voice Activity Detector (VAD)-Based Multiple-Microphone Acoustic Noise Suppression," issued September 13, 2011. (Compl. ¶8).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the limitations of conventional noise suppression systems that rely on a single microphone. These systems struggle to differentiate desired speech from environmental noise, particularly when the background noise is loud or changes rapidly. (’091 Patent, col. 1:47-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that uses multiple microphones along with a non-acoustic Voice Activity Detector (VAD). This VAD senses physiological information, such as human tissue vibration, to determine with high accuracy when a user is speaking. (’091 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:40-50). By knowing precisely when speech is absent, the system can create a highly accurate model of the noise (a "first transfer function") and use it to subtract the noise from the mixed signal when speech is present. (’091 Patent, col. 4:50-65).
- Technical Importance: Using a physiological sensor to detect voicing activity provides a source of information that is independent of, and more reliable than, the acoustic signal itself, thereby improving the ability to separate speech from noise. (Compl. ¶16).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 11. (Compl. ¶25).
- The essential elements of independent claim 11 include:
- A receiver for receiving at least two acoustic signals from at least two microphones.
- At least one sensor that receives human tissue vibration information associated with a user's voicing activity.
- A processor that generates a plurality of transfer functions, including:
- A "first transfer function" generated when the sensor determines voicing activity is absent.
- A "second transfer function" generated when the sensor determines voicing activity is present.
- A process for removing acoustic noise using the first transfer function and a combination of the first and second transfer functions.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶24).
U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072 - "Microphone Array with Rear Venting"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,280,072, "Microphone Array with Rear Venting," issued October 2, 2012. (Compl. ¶9).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Multi-microphone noise suppression systems can produce poor results or distort speech if the acoustic relationship between the microphones is not modeled accurately by the system's adaptive filter. (’072 Patent, col. 1:41-47).
- The Patented Solution: The patent describes methods for arranging microphone arrays to simplify this acoustic relationship. One solution involves creating "virtual microphones" by processing the signals from a physical microphone array, where the number of physical microphones is greater than the number of resulting virtual microphones. (’072 Patent, Abstract). Another embodiment describes a physical housing where multiple microphones share a common rear vent, which ensures they sample a common pressure source and simplifies the filtering required to cancel noise. (’072 Patent, col. 2:49-54; Fig. 2).
- Technical Importance: By simplifying the acoustic transfer function between microphones, the invention allows for more accurate and efficient noise cancellation with less distortion of the user's speech. (Compl. ¶18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶41).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 (a method claim) include:
- Receiving acoustic signals at a physical microphone array and outputting multiple microphone signals.
- Forming a virtual microphone array from combinations of the microphone signals.
- The number of physical microphones in the array is larger than the number of virtual microphones.
- Generating a final output signal with less acoustic noise by combining signals from the virtual microphone array.
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert additional claims. (Compl. ¶40).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint names various Samsung smartphones (Galaxy S, Note, Z, A, M, and Core series) and earbuds (Gear and Galaxy series), with a particular focus on the Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro. (Compl. ¶¶17, 20).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are alleged to incorporate noise suppression and voice activity detection features. (Compl. ¶17). The Samsung Galaxy Buds Pro are specifically alleged to include an accelerometer, a "voice pickup unit," and an infrared sensor that together are claimed to function as a voice activity detector. (Compl. ¶¶6-7). The complaint references a marketing image of the Galaxy Buds Pro showing the "Voice Pickup Unit." (Compl. p. 7).
- The Galaxy Buds Pro are also alleged to use a "mic array for superior beamforming performance," which the complaint contends creates virtual microphones from a larger number of physical microphones. (Compl. ¶¶7, 19). The complaint includes an exploded-view diagram of the Galaxy Buds Pro, labeling the "Dual mic array," "High SNR Mic," and "Inner Mic." (Compl. p. 9).
- The complaint positions the accused products as flagship consumer electronics, suggesting substantial sales and market presence. (Compl. ¶20).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’091 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a receiver that receives at least two acoustic signals via at least two acoustic microphones positioned in a plurality of locations | The Galaxy Buds Pro contains a microphone array with at least two microphones in each earbud that receive acoustic signals. | ¶27 | col. 14:7-10 |
| at least one sensor that receives human tissue vibration information associated with human voicing activity of a user | The Galaxy Buds Pro's "voice pickup unit," accelerometer, and/or IR sensor are alleged to receive human tissue vibration associated with voicing. | ¶28 | col. 14:11-14 |
| a processor...that generates a plurality of transfer functions... | The Galaxy Buds Pro contains a BCM 43015 SoC processor that allegedly generates transfer functions based on the microphone and sensor inputs. | ¶29 | col. 14:15-18 |
| ...a first transfer function...generated in response to a determination that voicing activity is absent... | The processor allegedly generates a first transfer function when the sensors indicate that voicing activity is absent. | ¶30 | col. 14:21-25 |
| ...a second transfer function...generated in response to a determination that voicing activity is present... | The processor allegedly generates a second transfer function when the sensors determine voicing activity is present, citing the product's "voice detect" feature. | ¶31 | col. 14:26-30 |
| ...acoustic noise is removed...using the first transfer function and at least one combination of the first transfer function and the second transfer function... | The Galaxy Buds Pro allegedly removes noise by applying the first transfer function during non-speech periods and a combination of transfer functions during speech. | ¶32 | col. 14:31-36 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the accused "voice pickup unit" and "IR sensor" actually perform the function of receiving "human tissue vibration information" as required by the claim. A defendant could argue that an IR sensor, for example, detects ear presence or proximity rather than the mechanical "vibration" associated with speech production.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires the generation of two distinct transfer functions based on the binary state of voicing (present vs. absent). The complaint alleges the accused product uses a ‘least mean squares method,’ which is an adaptive algorithm. (Compl. ¶32). This raises the question of whether the accused system's continuous adaptation maps onto the discrete "first" and "second" transfer function generation steps recited in the claim.
’072 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a method comprising receiving acoustic signals at a physical microphone array and in response outputting a plurality of microphone signals... | The Galaxy Buds Pro receive acoustic signals via a physical microphone array in each earbud. An exploded diagram shows this array. (Compl. p. 17). | ¶42 | col. 18:35-39 |
| forming a virtual microphone array by generating a plurality of different signal combinations from the plurality of microphone signals... | The accused products allegedly use "beamforming technology" to combine signals from physical microphones to create virtual microphones. | ¶43 | col. 18:40-47 |
| ...wherein a number of physical microphones of the physical microphone array is larger than a number of virtual microphones... | The complaint alleges on information and belief that the Galaxy Buds Pro use at least four physical microphones to form two "beamformed" (virtual) microphones. | ¶43 | col. 18:43-47 |
| generating output signals by combining signals output from the virtual microphone array, the output signals including less acoustic noise... | The product allegedly suppresses noise by combining the signals from the two virtual (beamformed) microphones. | ¶44 | col. 18:48-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory rests on the factual assertion that the number of physical microphones is greater than the number of virtual microphones created by the beamforming algorithm. The complaint alleges a ratio of "at least four" to "two." (Compl. ¶43). This is a technical question of fact that will depend on evidence from discovery regarding the implementation of Samsung's software and hardware.
- Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether Samsung's "beamforming technology" is properly characterized as creating "virtual microphones" within the meaning of the patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’091 Patent
- The Term: "human tissue vibration information" (from claim 11)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's asserted novelty, which separates it from purely acoustic-based systems. The dispute will likely focus on whether the components in the accused products, particularly the "IR sensor" and "voice pickup unit," fall within this definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of potential sensors, including "an accelerometer, a skin surface microphone in physical contact with skin of a user, a human tissue vibration detector," among others. (’091 Patent, col. 4:42-47). This suggests the term was intended to cover a category of sensors that detect physiological correlates of speech.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "vibration" itself implies a mechanical, oscillatory movement. The patent's detailed examples and figures heavily feature accelerometers, which directly measure such movement. (’091 Patent, Fig. 8; col. 11:1-6). A defendant may argue the term is limited to sensors that physically detect mechanical motion, potentially excluding optical sensors like an IR sensor.
For the ’072 Patent
- The Term: "virtual microphone" (from claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The infringement allegation for the ’072 patent hinges on the accused products' "beamforming technology" being an implementation of the claimed "virtual microphone array." The construction of this term will determine whether Samsung's technology is covered.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself defines the formation of a virtual microphone array broadly as "generating a plurality of different signal combinations from the plurality of microphone signals." (’072 Patent, claim 1). This functional language may support encompassing a wide range of digital signal processing techniques, including modern beamforming.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific mathematical examples for creating virtual microphones, such as
M1=O1-O3z^-dt. (’072 Patent, col. 11:1-6). A defendant could argue that the term "virtual microphone" should be limited to the specific subtractive and delayed combinations disclosed in the embodiments, rather than any generic beamforming algorithm.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for both patents. The inducement claim is based on allegations that Samsung knowingly encourages infringement by providing customers with "instruction manuals, websites, promotional materials, [and] advertisements" that instruct on the use of the accused noise suppression features. (Compl. ¶¶33-34, 45-46).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint requests a finding of willful infringement in its prayer for relief. (Compl. p. 19, ¶b). The factual basis for this allegation is that Samsung was allegedly notified of the patents-in-suit and its potential infringement by third parties "at least as of 2017," following the liquidation of the original patent developer, Jawbone, Inc. (Compl. ¶14). The filing of the complaint itself establishes knowledge for any ongoing infringement.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical mapping: Can Plaintiff produce evidence to show that the internal workings of Samsung's products, particularly the Galaxy Buds Pro, map onto the specific steps and components recited in the asserted claims? This includes demonstrating that the accused sensors detect "human tissue vibration" ('091 patent) and that the beamforming algorithm creates a smaller number of "virtual microphones" from a larger number of physical ones ('072 patent).
- A second key issue will be one of claim construction: How will the court define "human tissue vibration information"? A narrow construction limited to mechanical sensors could jeopardize the infringement case for the '091 patent, while a broader construction covering other physiological correlates of speech could favor the plaintiff.
- A significant question for damages will be pre-suit knowledge: The allegation of willfulness hinges on whether Plaintiff can prove that Samsung had knowledge of the patents and its alleged infringement prior to the lawsuit, based on communications that occurred around the 2017 liquidation of Plaintiff's predecessor. (Compl. ¶14).