DCT

2:23-cv-00077

Jawbone Innovations LLC v. HTC Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00077, E.D. Tex., 02/28/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that HTC is a foreign corporation, which may be sued in any judicial district, and that it is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s virtual reality headsets, home devices, and smartphones infringe eight patents related to acoustic noise suppression and voice activity detection technologies.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for improving audio clarity in electronic devices by distinguishing a user's speech from ambient noise, a critical function in modern communications and voice-activated systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the technology was originally developed by AliphCom (later Jawbone, Inc.), which was liquidated in 2017. Following the liquidation, HTC was allegedly notified of the patent portfolio and its potential infringement as early as 2017, and again in 2019 regarding the portfolio's availability for license or purchase.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-07-19 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091
2001-05-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058
2002-03-27 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543
2007-06-13 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,779,080; 11,122,357; 8,503,691
2007-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058 Issued
2008-10-24 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,321,213; 8,326,611
2011-09-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091 Issued
2012-11-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,321,213 Issued
2012-12-04 U.S. Patent No. 8,326,611 Issued
2013-06-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543 Issued
2013-08-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,503,691 Issued
2017-01-01 Jawbone, Inc. liquidation; HTC allegedly became aware of patents and infringement (approximate date)
2019-10-01 HTC allegedly received correspondence regarding availability of patent portfolio (approximate date)
2020-09-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,779,080 Issued
2021-09-14 U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357 Issued
2023-02-28 Complaint Filed

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, titled "Voice Activity Detector (VAD)-Based Multiple-Microphone Acoustic Noise Suppression," issued on September 13, 2011 (Compl. ¶6).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint describes a need for improved acoustic noise suppression, particularly in environments where traditional acoustic-only methods of detecting user speech are unreliable (Compl. ¶¶19-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses a voice activity detector (VAD) that senses vibration in human tissue to determine when a user is speaking (Compl. ¶19). This non-acoustic signal is used to inform a noise removal algorithm, which calculates a first "transfer function" when only noise is detected and a second transfer function when speech is detected. These distinct transfer functions are then used to more effectively remove noise from the acoustic signal (Compl. ¶20; ’091 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allegedly provides "significant advantages for noise suppression systems" by enabling more precise and effective noise removal, even in the presence of multiple noise sources (Compl. ¶21).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least claim 11 (Compl. ¶35).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 11 include:
    • A receiver that receives at least two acoustic signals from at least two acoustic microphones.
    • At least one sensor that receives human tissue vibration information associated with human voicing activity.
    • A processor that generates a plurality of transfer functions, including a first transfer function when voicing is absent and a second when voicing is present.
    • A process wherein acoustic noise is removed using the first transfer function and a combination of the first and second transfer functions.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058 - "Detecting Voiced and Unvoiced Speech Using Both Acoustic and Nonacoustic Sensors"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058, titled "Detecting Voiced and Unvoiced Speech Using Both Acoustic and Nonacoustic Sensors," issued on July 17, 2007 (Compl. ¶7).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The invention addresses the technical challenge of accurately distinguishing between three types of sound in a noisy environment: voiced speech (e.g., vowels), unvoiced speech (e.g., sibilants like "s"), and background noise (’058 Patent, col. 1:21-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The system combines inputs from at least two microphones and at least one "voicing sensor" that detects physiological information (Compl. ¶52). To identify voiced speech, a processor generates "cross correlation data" between the physiological sensor data and an acoustic signal. To distinguish unvoiced speech from noise, the processor generates "difference parameters" based on the relative signal gain between the two microphones, identifying unvoiced speech when the difference exceeds a threshold and noise when it is below the threshold (Compl. ¶52; ’058 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This multi-modal sensing and processing allows for a more granular classification of sounds, which can lead to more effective noise suppression techniques (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • At least two microphones that receive acoustic signals.
    • At least one voicing sensor that receives physiological information.
    • At least one processor that:
      • Generates cross correlation data between the physiological information and an acoustic signal.
      • Identifies voiced speech when the cross correlation data exceeds a threshold.
      • Generates difference parameters based on relative signal gain between the microphones.
      • Identifies unvoiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a gain threshold.
      • Identifies noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,779,080 - "Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA)"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,779,080, "Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA)," issued September 15, 2020 (Compl. ¶8).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a noise suppression system using an array of omnidirectional microphones to form "virtual microphones." These virtual microphones are designed to have a similar response to noise but a dissimilar response to speech, allowing an adaptive filter to reduce noise without distorting the desired speech (Compl. ¶22).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶71).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are HTC products, such as the VIVE Focus 3, that allegedly use two physical omnidirectional microphones and a processing component to generate two beamformed virtual microphones with similar noise response and dissimilar speech response (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357 - "Forming Virtual Microphone Arrays Using Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA)"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357, "Forming Virtual Microphone Arrays Using Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA)," issued September 14, 2021 (Compl. ¶9).
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology involves acoustic noise suppression using an array of physical microphones to form an array of "virtual microphones." Signals from physical and/or virtual microphones are combined by filtering and summing to suppress noise in an output signal (Compl. ¶24).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶86).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that HTC products like the VIVE Focus 3 infringe by using physical MEMS microphones to form virtual beamformed microphones, which are then combined to reduce signal noise (Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543 - "Microphone and Voice Activity Detection (VAD) Configurations For Use with Communications Systems"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543, "Microphone and Voice Activity Detection (VAD) Configurations For Use with Communications Systems," issued June 18, 2013 (Compl. ¶10).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system with a voice detection subsystem and a denoising subsystem. It details microphone configurations where one microphone is oriented toward a user's mouth and another is oriented away. The denoising system subtracts an estimated noise waveform from the main signal when the VAD indicates voicing is occurring (Compl. ¶26).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶99).
  • Accused Features: The HTC VIVE Focus 3 is accused of infringing by having microphones oriented towards and away from the user's mouth and using sensors to detect tissue vibration in tandem with beamforming to suppress noise (Compl. ¶27).

U.S. Patent No. 8,503,691 - "Virtual Microphone Arrays Using Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA)"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,503,691, "Virtual Microphone Arrays Using Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA)," issued August 6, 2013 (Compl. ¶11).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the ’357 Patent and describes acoustic noise suppression using arrays of physical and virtual microphones. The signals are combined by filtering and summing in the time domain to apply a varying linear transfer function, thereby suppressing noise (Compl. ¶24).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 23 is asserted (Compl. ¶116).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses HTC products with physical MEMS microphones that form virtual beamformed microphones, such as the VIVE Focus 3, of infringement (Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Patent No. 8,321,213 - "Acoustic Voice Activity Detection (AVAD) for Electronic Systems"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,321,213, "Acoustic Voice Activity Detection (AVAD) for Electronic Systems," issued November 27, 2012 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: The technology involves acoustic voice activity detection based on a ratio of energies between virtual microphones formed from a physical microphone array. This method creates virtual microphones with similar noise responses but dissimilar speech responses, allowing for accurate VAD by comparing the energy ratio to a threshold (Compl. ¶28).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶132).
  • Accused Features: The HTC VIVE Focus 3 is accused of infringing by forming virtual microphones and detecting user speech (e.g., a wake word) by comparing a ratio of energies of the beamformed microphones to a threshold (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 8,326,611 - "Acoustic Voice Activity Detection (AVAD) for Electronic Systems"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,326,611, "Acoustic Voice Activity Detection (AVAD) for Electronic Systems," issued December 4, 2012 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the ’213 Patent and describes acoustic voice activity detection using a ratio of energies between virtual microphones. The system is designed to create virtual microphones with similar noise response magnitudes but dissimilar speech response magnitudes, enabling accurate voice detection (Compl. ¶28).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶146).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses HTC products of using virtual microphones to detect wake words by comparing a ratio of energies from beamformed microphones to a threshold (Compl. ¶29).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint primarily identifies the HTC VIVE Focus 3 virtual reality headset as an exemplary infringing product (Compl. ¶21). The allegations also extend to a broader category of "Accused Products," including other HTC VR headsets (e.g., VIVE XR Elite, VIVE Pro), home devices (e.g., HTC 5G Hub), and smartphones (e.g., Exodus 1, HTC U12+) (Compl. ¶31).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The relevant functionality of the Accused Products is their inclusion of noise suppression and voice activity detection systems (Compl. ¶¶21, 23, 25, 27, 29). The complaint alleges the HTC VIVE Focus 3 incorporates an "accelerometer and voice pickup unit" that acts as a voice activity detector, along with an array of beamforming microphones (Compl. ¶21). It is alleged to contain at least two physical microphones positioned in different locations. The complaint includes a diagram showing microphones on the top and bottom of the headset (Compl. pp. 10, 11, 16, 17, 23, 24, 52, 53).
  • A graphic in the complaint identifies the processor in the HTC VIVE Focus 3 as a "Qualcomm® Snapdragon™ XR2" (Compl. p. 15). Another graphic lists sensors including a "G-sensor" and "Gyroscope," and the text alleges the presence of an accelerometer (Compl. p. 12, ¶38). The complaint alleges these components work in concert to implement the infringing noise cancellation features (Compl. ¶31).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091 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 HTC VIVE Focus 3 allegedly comprises a receiver and a microphone array with at least two microphones in different positions. The complaint includes a "Top view" diagram identifying a microphone location (callout 13). ¶37, p. 10 col. 3:51-55
at least one sensor that receives human tissue vibration information associated with human voicing activity of a user; The HTC VIVE Focus 3 allegedly includes an accelerometer and voice pickup unit sensor that receives human tissue vibration associated with voicing activity. ¶38 col. 4:36-41
a processor coupled among the receiver and the at least one sensor that generates a plurality of transfer functions, wherein the plurality of transfer functions includes a first transfer function representative of a ratio of energy of acoustic signals received... The processor in the Accused Products allegedly utilizes the microphone array to generate transfer functions, including one representative of a ratio of energy of acoustic signals received at different microphones. ¶39 col. 2:25-34
wherein the first transfer function is generated in response to a determination that voicing activity is absent from the acoustic signals for a period of time, The HTC VIVE Focus 3 allegedly generates the first transfer function when its voice pickup unit, accelerometer, and/or sensor indicate that voicing activity is absent. ¶40 col. 1:44-51
wherein the plurality of transfer functions includes a second transfer function representative of the acoustic signals, wherein the second transfer function is generated in response to a determination that voicing activity is present... The HTC VIVE Focus 3 allegedly generates a second transfer function when its voice pickup unit, accelerometer, and/or sensor detects human tissue vibrations, indicating voicing activity is present. ¶41 col. 1:51-56
wherein acoustic noise is removed from the acoustic signals using the first transfer function and at least one combination of the first transfer function and the second transfer function to produce the denoised acoustic data stream. The HTC VIVE Focus 3 allegedly removes noise by applying the first transfer function when voicing is absent and a combination of the first and second transfer functions when voicing is detected. ¶42 col. 2:19-24
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the data from the accused "accelerometer and voice pickup unit" (Compl. ¶38) constitutes "human tissue vibration information associated with human voicing activity" as required by the claim, or if it measures more general head motion that falls outside the patent's scope.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused product uses a "least mean squares method to suppress acoustic noise" (Compl. ¶42). A key evidentiary question will be whether this method, as implemented, actually performs the specific two-part process claimed: applying a first transfer function during non-speech periods and a combination of first and second transfer functions during speech periods.

U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
at least two microphones that receive the acoustic signals; The HTC VIVE Focus 3 allegedly contains at least two MEMS microphones that receive acoustic signals. ¶53 col. 3:2-3
at least one voicing sensor that receives physiological information associated with human voicing activity; The HTC VIVE Focus 3 allegedly includes an accelerometer that receives human tissue vibration associated with voicing activity. ¶55 col. 3:4-6
at least one processor...generates cross correlation data between the physiological information and an acoustic signal received at one of the two microphones; The processor of the HTC VIVE Focus 3 allegedly generates cross correlation data between the tissue vibration information and an acoustic signal from one of the microphones. ¶57 col. 4:15-19
identifies information of the acoustic signals as voiced speech when the cross correlation data...exceeds a correlation threshold; The processor allegedly identifies acoustic signals as speech when the cross correlation data exceeds a threshold based on vibration and/or acoustic signals. ¶58 col. 4:20-22
generates difference parameters between the acoustic signals received at each of the two receivers, wherein the difference parameters are representative of the relative difference in signal gain... The processor allegedly generates difference parameters between acoustic signals from each microphone, representing the relative difference in signal gain. ¶59 col. 4:23-27
identifies information of the acoustic signals as unvoiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a gain threshold; The processor allegedly identifies signals as unvoiced speech when the difference parameter exceeds a gain threshold. ¶60 col. 4:27-30
and identifies information of the acoustic signals as noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold. The processor allegedly identifies signals as noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold. ¶61 col. 4:30-32
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A question may arise as to whether an "accelerometer" (Compl. ¶55) that detects general motion meets the more specific limitation of a "voicing sensor that receives physiological information."
    • Technical Questions: The claim requires a specific three-part classification logic: voiced speech (via cross-correlation), unvoiced speech (via signal gain difference > threshold), and noise (via signal gain difference < threshold). It will be a key factual question whether the accused processor performs these distinct calculations as claimed, or if it uses a different, more generalized algorithm for classifying sounds.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "human tissue vibration information" (’091 Patent, claim 11)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement case for the ’091 Patent hinges on whether the signal from HTC's accelerometer constitutes this claimed information. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendant could argue its sensor measures general head motion incidental to movement, not the specific physiological vibrations related to speech production as taught in the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Language in the specification referring to a "sensor," "VAD," or "vibration" in general terms, without limitation to a specific physiological source like the glottis, could support a broader construction (’091 Patent, col. 1:44-46).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent abstract refers to receiving information on "the vibration of human tissue associated with human voicing activity," which could suggest a narrower meaning tied directly to the act of producing voice, as opposed to incidental head movement (’091 Patent, Abstract). Specific embodiments discussing contact microphones or sensors placed near the larynx could also support a narrower reading.

  • Term: "cross correlation data" (’058 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term recites a specific mathematical operation. Its construction is critical because the infringement allegation depends on the accused processor actually performing this calculation. Defendant may argue its system uses a different method to compare the sensor and acoustic signals that does not meet the definition of "cross correlation."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's general description of comparing the two signals to find a relationship might be argued to support a broader meaning that encompasses any form of signal comparison (’058 Patent, col. 5:11-13).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent details a specific "NAVSAD" (Non-Acoustic Sensor Voiced Speech Activity Detection) algorithm that explicitly calculates "XCORR of m1, gems" (cross-correlation), suggesting the term refers to this specific, well-defined mathematical process (’058 Patent, Fig. 4).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges HTC induces infringement by providing customers with products like the VIVE Focus 3 along with "instruction manuals, websites, promotional materials, advertisements, and other information" that allegedly demonstrate how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶44, 63, 79, 92, 108, 124, 138, 152).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge. It claims HTC has known of the patents and its infringement "since at least 2017" following the liquidation of the original patent owner, Jawbone, Inc., when the portfolio was allegedly "marketed to HTC" (Compl. ¶¶18, 46, 65, 110, 126, 140, 154). An additional alleged notification in October 2019 is also cited (Compl. ¶18).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic correspondence: does the accused system's noise suppression, which the complaint alleges uses methods like "beamforming" and "least mean squares," actually perform the specific multi-step logical processes required by the asserted claims, such as generating distinct transfer functions for voiced versus non-voiced states (’091 Patent) or using both cross-correlation and signal-gain parameters to separately classify voiced speech, unvoiced speech, and noise (’058 Patent)?
  • A core issue will be one of sensor functionality: can the data from the accused product's general-purpose accelerometer be proven to constitute the claimed "human tissue vibration information associated with human voicing activity" (’091 Patent) and "physiological information associated with human voicing activity" (’058 Patent), or does it primarily capture undifferentiated head movement that falls outside the scope of the patents' teachings?
  • A third question will center on knowledge and intent: what evidence will emerge regarding the alleged communications with HTC in 2017 and 2019, and can Plaintiff establish that these communications provided sufficient notice to support its claim for willful infringement?