DCT

2:23-cv-00078

Jawbone Innovations LLC v. LG Electronics Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00078, E.D. Tex., 02/28/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation, which may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s earbuds and smartphones infringe eight patents related to acoustic noise suppression and voice activity detection technologies.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves using multiple microphones and non-acoustic sensors to distinguish human speech from background noise, thereby improving voice clarity in electronic communication devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the technology was developed by AliphCom dba Jawbone, which went into liquidation in 2017. Following the liquidation, the patent portfolio was allegedly marketed to LG, an event Plaintiff asserts provided Defendant with knowledge of the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-07-13 U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091 Priority Date
2001-05-30 U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058 Priority Date
2002-03-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543 Priority Date
2007-06-13 U.S. Patent Nos. 10,779,080, 11,122,357, 8,503,691, 8,321,213, and 8,326,611 Priority Date
2007-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058 Issued
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 Alleged timeframe of Jawbone, Inc. liquidation and LG's awareness of patents begins
2019-09-01 Defendant allegedly received correspondence regarding the Jawbone portfolio
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," Issued September 13, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional noise suppression systems that rely on acoustic-only voice activity detectors (VADs) struggle to distinguish speech from noise, particularly in loud environments, which can lead to speech distortion when noise is incorrectly filtered (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20; ’091 Patent, col. 1:21-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses a non-acoustic sensor to detect "human tissue vibration" associated with speech, providing a highly accurate VAD signal. This signal allows the system to apply different noise removal algorithms—a "first transfer function" when only noise is present and a "second transfer function" when speech is present—to more effectively remove noise without distorting the desired speech signal (Compl. ¶¶ 19-20, 35; ’091 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The use of a non-acoustic VAD was intended to overcome the limitations of acoustic-only systems in noisy environments, enabling more aggressive and accurate noise cancellation (Compl. ¶20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶35).
  • Claim 11 requires a system comprising:
    • a receiver for at least two acoustic signals from at least two microphones;
    • at least one sensor that receives human tissue vibration information;
    • a processor that generates a first transfer function when voicing activity is absent and a second transfer function when voicing activity is present; and
    • a process wherein acoustic noise is removed using the first transfer function and a combination of the first and second transfer functions to produce a denoised data stream.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058 - "Detecting Voiced and Unvoiced Speech Using Both Acoustic and Nonacoustic Sensors," Issued July 17, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The technical challenge is to reliably distinguish not only between speech and noise, but also between different types of speech sounds—"voiced" (e.g., vowels, which involve vocal cord vibration) and "unvoiced" (e.g., consonants like "s", which do not) (’058 Patent, col. 1:21-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention combines data from a non-acoustic "voicing sensor" with signals from two acoustic microphones. The system generates "cross correlation data" between the sensor's physiological information and an acoustic signal to identify voiced speech. To distinguish unvoiced speech from ambient noise, it generates "difference parameters" based on the relative signal gain between the two microphones, working on the principle that unvoiced speech will have a different acoustic signature than background noise (Compl. ¶52; ’058 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This hybrid approach provides a more granular classification of sounds, allowing a system to denoise signals while preserving the subtle, non-vibratory components of human speech that are critical for intelligibility (Compl. ¶19).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).
  • Claim 1 requires a system comprising:
    • at least two microphones;
    • at least one voicing sensor for 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 two microphones;
      • identifies unvoiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a gain threshold; and
      • identifies noise when the difference parameters are below the gain threshold.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,779,080 - "Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA)," Issued September 15, 2020

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes using an array of two physical omnidirectional microphones to create two "virtual microphones." These virtual microphones are configured to have substantially similar responses to ambient noise but substantially dissimilar responses to the user's speech, enabling an adaptive filter to more effectively separate speech from noise (Compl. ¶22; ’080 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶70).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the LG TONE Free T90 earbuds use two physical omnidirectional microphones and a processor to generate two "beamformed virtual microphones" with the claimed response characteristics (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357 - "Forming Virtual Microphone Arrays Using Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA)," Issued September 14, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the ’080 Patent and similarly describes forming an array of virtual microphones from physical microphones. It details combining physical and/or virtual microphone signals by filtering and summing them to apply a varying linear transfer function, which suppresses noise in the output signal (Compl. ¶24; ’357 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶85).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the LG TONE Free T90 earbuds' use of physical microphone arrays and beamforming to reduce noise infringes this patent (Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543 - "Microphone and Voice Activity Detection (VAD) Configurations for Use with Communication Systems," Issued June 18, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a communication system with a voice detection subsystem and a denoising subsystem. It specifies a microphone configuration where a first microphone is oriented toward a talker's mouth and a second is oriented away, allowing the system to subtract an estimated noise waveform from the mixed speech-and-noise signal (Compl. ¶26).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶98).
  • Accused Features: The LG TONE Free T90 is accused of infringing by having at least one microphone oriented towards the user's mouth and another away from it, and by using accelerometer/VPU sensors to detect tissue vibration in tandem with beamforming microphones to suppress noise (Compl. ¶27).

U.S. Patent No. 8,503,691 - "Virtual Microphone Arrays Using Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA)," Issued August 6, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’080 and ’357 patents, also describes noise suppression using physical omnidirectional microphones to form virtual directional microphones. The signals are combined by filtering and summing to apply a varying linear transfer function that suppresses noise (Compl. ¶24).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 23 is asserted (Compl. ¶115).
  • Accused Features: The LG TONE Free T90 earbuds are accused of infringing by combining the outputs of physical microphone arrays into beamformed microphones to reduce noise (Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Patent No. 8,321,213 and U.S. Patent No. 8,326,611 - "Acoustic Voice Activity Detection (AVAD) for Electronic Systems," Issued Nov. 27, 2012 and Dec. 4, 2012

  • Technology Synopsis: These related patents describe detecting voice activity by comparing a ratio of energies between virtual microphones formed from an array of physical microphones. The virtual microphones are designed to have similar noise response magnitudes but dissimilar speech response magnitudes, making the energy ratio a reliable indicator of speech (Compl. ¶28).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 of the ’213 Patent and claim 1 of the ’611 Patent are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 131, 145).
  • Accused Features: LG products, including the TONE Free T90, are alleged to infringe by using virtual/beamformed microphones to detect wake words by comparing a ratio of energies to a threshold (Compl. ¶29).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names "LG earbuds and smartphones" generally, with specific allegations directed at the LG TONE Free T90 earbuds (the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 21, 31).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Accused Products incorporate noise suppression and voice activity detection features. The LG TONE Free T90 is described as having a "4-mic system" where an "outer mic" reduces ambient noise, a "voice mic" records the user's voice, and an "inner mic" reduces noise inside the user's ear (Compl. ¶21). The complaint includes a diagram from LG's materials illustrating the location of these microphones. This diagram labels an Outer Mic, Voice Mic, Inner Mic, and VPU Mic on the earbud (Compl. p. 8). Crucially, the system is alleged to include a "unique voice pick up unit (VPU) sensor" that "detects vibrations," which the complaint asserts comprises a voice activity detector like an accelerometer (Compl. ¶21). The T90 is also alleged to use "beamforming microphones" to generate transfer functions representative of energy ratios between microphones (Compl. ¶21). The complaint alleges these features are used for functions including noise cancellation during calls and wake word detection for voice commands (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 29).

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 system for removing acoustic noise from the acoustic signals, comprising: a receiver that receives at least two acoustic signals via at least two acoustic microphones positioned in a plurality of locations; The LG TONE Free T90 receives acoustic signals via a microphone array with at least two microphones (e.g., outer mic, voice mic) in different locations. A diagram in the complaint illustrates this physical arrangement (Compl. p. 16). ¶36-37 col. 4:50-58
at least one sensor that receives human tissue vibration information associated with human voicing activity of a user; The LG TONE Free T90 includes a Voice Pickup Unit (VPU) and/or accelerometer that allegedly detects human tissue vibrations associated with voicing. ¶38 col. 14:55-67
a processor...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 using at least two different acoustic microphones... The processor in the LG products allegedly utilizes the microphone array to generate transfer functions, including one representative of a ratio of energy between signals at different microphones. ¶39 col. 6:29-37
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 LG TONE Free T90 allegedly generates the first transfer function when the VPU/accelerometer indicates that voicing activity is absent. ¶40 col. 6:37-41
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 in the acoustic signals for the period of time, The LG TONE Free T90 allegedly generates a second transfer function in response to the VPU/accelerometer detecting human tissue vibrations, indicating voicing activity is present. ¶41 col. 6:50-56
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 LG TONE Free T90 allegedly removes noise by applying the first transfer function when voicing is absent and a combination of transfer functions when voicing is detected. ¶42 col. 6:56-65

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused product's processor generates two distinct "transfer functions" that are selected based on the binary state (voicing vs. non-voicing) of the VPU sensor? The complaint alleges the T90 uses methods like "least mean squares" (Compl. ¶42), but it raises the question of whether this method implements the specific two-state, function-switching logic required by the claim.
  • Scope Questions: Does the accused VPU, described as a sensor that "detects vibrations," meet the claim limitation of a sensor that "receives human tissue vibration information associated with human voicing activity"? The dispute may center on whether any vibration detection is sufficient, or if the patent requires a more specific type of physiological monitoring.

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

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a system for detecting voiced and unvoiced speech...comprising: at least two microphones that receive the acoustic signals; Each LG TONE Free T90 earbud comprises at least two MEMS microphones. A table provided in the complaint specifies the product has "4 pairs" of mics (Compl. p. 22). ¶53 col. 13:30-32
at least one voicing sensor that receives physiological information associated with human voicing activity; The LG TONE Free T90 allegedly includes an accelerometer that receives human tissue vibration associated with voicing activity. ¶54 col. 13:32-34
and at least one processor coupled among the microphones and the voicing sensor, wherein the at least one processor; The LG TONE Free T90 comprises a processor coupled between the microphones and the accelerometer. ¶55 col. 13:35-37
generates cross correlation data between the physiological information and an acoustic signal received at one of the two microphones; The processor of the T90 allegedly generates cross correlation data between the tissue vibration from the sensor and the acoustic signal from one of the microphones. ¶56 col. 14:1-5
identifies information of the acoustic signals as voiced speech when the cross correlation data...exceeds a correlation threshold; The T90 processor allegedly identifies acoustic signals as speech when the cross correlation data exceeds a threshold based on vibration and/or acoustic signals. ¶57 col. 14:6-10
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 T90 processor allegedly generates difference parameters between the signals from each MEMS microphone, representing the relative difference in signal gain. ¶58 col. 14:11-16
identifies information of the acoustic signals as unvoiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a gain threshold; The T90 processor allegedly identifies signals as unvoiced speech when the difference parameter exceeds a gain threshold. ¶59 col. 14:17-19
and identifies information of the acoustic signals as noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold. The T90 processor allegedly identifies signals as noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold. ¶60 col. 14:20-22

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: Does the complaint provide evidence that the accused processor performs the distinct and separate calculations of (1) "cross correlation data" between sensor and acoustic signals and (2) "difference parameters" between two acoustic signals? The infringement theory hinges on the accused product performing these two specific, different algorithmic steps to classify three different sound types (voiced, unvoiced, noise).
  • Scope Questions: What is the scope of a "voicing sensor"? The complaint alleges an accelerometer meets this limitation. The patent's specification may provide context that either supports a broad interpretation (any sensor detecting physiological vibration) or a narrower one that could create a non-infringement argument.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091:

    • The Term: "human tissue vibration information"
    • Context and Importance: This term is central because infringement depends on whether the accused VPU, which "detects vibrations," provides the specific type of information claimed. The construction will determine if any vibration sensor suffices or if a more specific physiological link to voicing is required.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification may discuss various types of non-acoustic sensors like accelerometers or contact microphones as examples of devices that can detect such vibrations, suggesting the term is not limited to one specific sensor type ('091 Patent, col. 8:7-22).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description may link the term specifically to the vibrations produced by the vocal cords, as detected by a sensor placed on the user's skin, potentially narrowing the scope to exclude more general motion artifacts that a simple accelerometer might detect ('091 Patent, col. 14:55-67).

  • For U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058:

    • The Term: "cross correlation data"
    • Context and Importance: The claim requires the processor to generate this specific type of data. The dispute will likely focus on whether the accused product's algorithm for detecting voiced speech performs a mathematical cross-correlation between sensor and microphone signals, or if it uses a different, non-infringing method. Practitioners may focus on this term because it implies a specific, defined mathematical operation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent may use the term "cross correlation" in a general sense to describe any method of comparing the timing and similarity of two signals to determine if they have a common source, which could encompass various signal processing techniques ('058 Patent, col. 5:1-15).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification might provide a specific mathematical formula or algorithm for calculating the cross-correlation, potentially limiting the claim to systems that implement that specific formula or its direct equivalent ('058 Patent, col. 13:5-15).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges inducement of infringement against LG based on its provision of instruction manuals, websites, and promotional materials that allegedly demonstrate to customers how to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶ 43-44, 61-62). It is alleged that LG is aware that the normal and customary use of the products would infringe the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 44, 62).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges willful infringement based on LG's alleged knowledge of the patents-in-suit since at least 2017. This knowledge is alleged to have arisen after the liquidation of the original patent owner, Jawbone, Inc., at which time the patent portfolio was allegedly marketed to LG, putting it on notice of the patents and its ongoing infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 46, 64).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the patent terms "human tissue vibration information" and "voicing sensor" be construed to cover the generalized "vibration" detection allegedly performed by the accused product's VPU and accelerometer, or do the patents require a more specific type of physiological sensing that the accused products do not perform?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of algorithmic equivalence: does the accused products' noise cancellation software, alleged to use methods like "least mean squares," actually perform the specific, multi-step logical functions required by the claims, such as generating and selectively applying distinct "transfer functions" based on a VAD signal (as in the '091 patent) or separately generating "cross correlation data" and "difference parameters" to classify sounds (as in the '058 patent)? The case may turn on whether there is a fundamental mismatch in the claimed versus accused technical operations.