DCT

2:23-cv-00079

Jawbone Innovations LLC v. Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00079, E.D. Tex., 05/07/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that Defendants are foreign corporations, which may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ smartphones and wireless earbuds 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 using microphone arrays and non-acoustic sensors to distinguish human speech from ambient noise.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the patented technology was originally developed by AliphCom (dba Jawbone) for a U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) contract before being commercialized. It further alleges that following the 2017 liquidation of Jawbone, Inc., Defendants were made aware of the patent portfolio and their alleged infringement, which may be relevant to the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-07-19 U.S. Patent 8,019,091 Priority Date
2001-05-30 U.S. Patent 7,246,058 Priority Date
2002-01-01 AliphCom wins DARPA contract to research noise suppression
2002-03-27 U.S. Patent 8,467,543 Priority Date
2004-01-01 AliphCom launches "Jawbone" mobile headset
2007-06-13 U.S. Patents 10,779,080, 11,122,357, and 8,503,691 Priority Date
2007-07-17 U.S. Patent 7,246,058 Issues
2008-10-24 U.S. Patents 8,321,213 and 8,326,611 Priority Date
2011-09-13 U.S. Patent 8,019,091 Issues
2012-11-27 U.S. Patent 8,321,213 Issues
2012-12-04 U.S. Patent 8,326,611 Issues
2013-06-18 U.S. Patent 8,467,543 Issues
2013-08-06 U.S. Patent 8,503,691 Issues
2017-01-01 Jawbone, Inc. forced into liquidation
2017-01-01 Defendants allegedly became aware of patents-in-suit and infringement
2019-10-01 OPPO allegedly received correspondence regarding Jawbone patent portfolio
2020-09-15 U.S. Patent 10,779,080 Issues
2021-09-14 U.S. Patent 11,122,357 Issues
2024-05-07 First Amended 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, “Voice Activity Detector (VAD)-Based Multiple-Microphone Acoustic Noise Suppression,” issued September 13, 2011.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of accurately removing acoustic noise from a signal that also contains desired speech, a task complicated by the difficulty of distinguishing speech from noise, especially in dynamic environments (Compl. ¶¶ 22-23; ’091 Patent, Abstract).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system using at least two microphones and a non-acoustic sensor to detect human tissue vibration, which serves as a highly accurate Voice Activity Detector (VAD) (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 38). The system generates a first "transfer function" to model the noise when the VAD indicates speech is absent. When the VAD indicates speech is present, it generates a second transfer function. It then uses combinations of these functions to produce a denoised audio stream (’091 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:1-26).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for more aggressive and accurate noise suppression by providing a reliable, non-acoustic determination of when speech is occurring, which is particularly advantageous when multiple noise sources are present (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶38).
  • Essential elements of claim 11 include:
    • A receiver for at least two acoustic signals from at least two microphones.
    • At least one sensor for human tissue vibration information associated with voicing activity.
    • A processor that generates a plurality of transfer functions.
    • A first transfer function, based on a ratio of energy between microphones, is generated when voicing activity is determined to be absent.
    • A second transfer function is generated when voicing activity is determined to be present.
    • 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 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, “Detecting Voiced and Unvoiced Speech Using Both Acoustic and Nonacoustic Sensors,” issued July 17, 2007.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the technical challenge of accurately distinguishing not only between speech and noise, but also between different types of speech (voiced and unvoiced) in environments with varying levels of background noise (’058 Patent, Abstract).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that uses both acoustic data from at least two microphones and physiological data from a non-acoustic "voicing sensor" (’058 Patent, col. 1:57-61). A processor identifies voiced speech by find a cross-correlation between the sensor's physiological data and the acoustic signal. It identifies unvoiced speech by analyzing the relative difference in signal gain between the two microphones. Sound is classified as noise when this gain difference is below a certain threshold (Compl. ¶55; ’058 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This hybrid acoustic and non-acoustic method provides a system for classifying sounds into three distinct categories (voiced speech, unvoiced speech, and noise), enabling more nuanced and effective noise suppression algorithms (Compl. ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶55).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • At least two microphones receiving acoustic signals.
    • At least one voicing sensor receiving physiological information.
    • At least one processor coupled to the microphones and sensor.
    • The processor generates cross-correlation data between the physiological information and an acoustic signal to identify voiced speech when a correlation threshold is exceeded.
    • The processor generates difference parameters (representing relative signal gain) between the acoustic signals from the two microphones.
    • The processor identifies unvoiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a gain threshold.
    • The processor 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.

Multi-Patent Capsules

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

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes using an array of two physical omnidirectional microphones to form two distinct "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. ¶25; ’080 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶73).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the OnePlus Buds Pro 2 earbuds, which comprise physical omnidirectional microphones and a processing component, generate two "beamformed virtual microphones" with the claimed similar noise and dissimilar speech response characteristics (Compl. ¶26).

  • 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 relates to forming virtual microphone arrays from an array of physical microphones for acoustic noise suppression. The signals from the physical microphones are combined through filtering and summing to create distinct virtual directional microphones that enable the attenuation of noise relative to speech content (’357 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶27).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶88).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, such as the OnePlus Buds Pro 2, utilize arrays of physical microphones whose outputs are combined into "beamformed microphones" that apply a varying linear transfer function to reduce noise (Compl. ¶¶ 28, 92).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543: "Microphone and Voice Activity Detection (VAD) Configurations For Use with Communications Systems," issued June 18, 2013.

    • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a communications system with a voice detection subsystem and a separate denoising subsystem. The invention includes specific microphone configurations, such as orienting a first microphone toward a talker's mouth and a second away from it, allowing the denoising subsystem to subtract noise based on signals from the voice detection subsystem (Compl. ¶29).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶101).
    • Accused Features: The OnePlus Buds Pro 2 is alleged to have at least one microphone oriented toward the user's mouth and another oriented away. It is also alleged to use accelerometers or bone conduction sensors as a voice detection subsystem that works with the beamforming microphones to suppress noise (Compl. ¶¶ 30, 104, 108).

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

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes forming two virtual microphones from two physical omnidirectional microphones. The first virtual microphone is configured to have a linear response to speech, while the second is configured to have a null oriented toward the speech source, creating dissimilar speech responses but similar noise responses to facilitate noise cancellation (’691 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶27).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 23 (Compl. ¶118).
    • Accused Features: The OnePlus Buds Pro 2 is alleged to create a first beamformed microphone with a linear response to speech and a second beamformed microphone with a null oriented toward the user's mouth, thereby practicing the claimed invention (Compl. ¶¶ 119-122).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,321,213: "Acoustic Voice Activity Detection (AVAD) for Electronic Systems," issued November 27, 2012.

    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for acoustic voice activity detection that relies on comparing a ratio of energies between two virtual microphones. The virtual microphones are formed from physical microphones and are designed to have similar noise responses but dissimilar speech responses, making the energy ratio a reliable indicator of voicing activity (Compl. ¶31).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶134).
    • Accused Features: The OnePlus Buds Pro 2 is alleged to detect user speech, such as a "wake word," by forming an array of virtual microphones and comparing a ratio of energies of the beamformed microphones to a threshold (Compl. ¶32).

  • U.S. Patent No. 8,326,611: "Acoustic Voice Activity Detection (AVAD) for Electronic Systems," issued December 4, 2012.

    • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the ’213 Patent, this patent describes a method for acoustic voice activity detection by generating an energy ratio between two virtual microphones. The method involves forming the virtual microphones by combining signals from physical microphones and then detecting speech when the energy ratio exceeds a threshold (Compl. ¶31).
    • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶148).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges the OnePlus Buds Pro 2 performs the claimed method by determining voicing activity is present when a ratio of energies between its beamformed microphones is greater than a threshold value associated with a wake word (Compl. ¶152).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint names a range of OPPO and OnePlus smartphones and earbuds as the "Accused Products," with the OnePlus Buds Pro 2 wireless earbuds identified as a primary exemplary infringing device (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 34).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products are consumer electronics that incorporate noise cancellation and voice detection features for clearer calls and voice-activated functions (Compl. ¶34). The OnePlus Buds Pro 2 earbuds are alleged to contain three microphones on each earbud, an accelerometer, and a voice pickup unit (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 41). The complaint includes a marketing image from Defendants' website illustrating the placement of a feed-forward (FF), feedback (FB), and talk microphone on the earbud (Compl. ¶24, p.8). The complaint further alleges, based on teardown reports, that these products use a "BES BES2600YP bluetooth audio SoC" which supports "AI noise cancellation" (Compl. ¶30, p.12).

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 OnePlus Buds Pro 2 comprises a receiver and a microphone array with at least two microphones (e.g., FF Mic, Talk Mic, FB Mic). ¶40 col. 15:52-57
at least one sensor that receives human tissue vibration information associated with human voicing activity of a user; The OnePlus Buds Pro 2 contains an accelerometer and a voice pickup unit sensor alleged to receive human tissue vibration. ¶41 col. 15:58-61
a processor coupled among the receiver and the at least one sensor that generates a plurality of transfer functions... The BES2600YP SoC processor is coupled to the microphones and sensors and is alleged to generate transfer functions via beamforming. ¶42 col. 16:1-3
wherein the plurality of transfer functions includes a first transfer function representative of a ratio of energy... wherein the first transfer function is generated in response to a determination that voicing activity is absent... The processor allegedly generates a first transfer function when the accelerometer/sensor indicates voicing activity is absent. ¶43 col. 16:4-10
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 processor allegedly generates a second transfer function when the accelerometer/sensor detects human tissue vibrations. ¶44 col. 16:11-14
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 OnePlus Buds Pro 2 allegedly removes noise by applying the first transfer function when voice is absent and a combination of functions when voice is detected, using a least mean squares method. ¶45 col. 16:15-22

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; Each earbud of the OnePlus Buds Pro 2 comprises at least two MEMS microphones. A teardown image shows two distinct MEMS microphones used for feed-forward and call functions. ¶56, p. 25 col. 1:57-58
at least one voicing sensor that receives physiological information associated with human voicing activity; The OnePlus Buds Pro 2 contains an accelerometer alleged to receive human tissue vibration associated with voicing activity. ¶57 col. 1:59-61
at least one processor coupled among the microphones and the voicing sensor, The OnePlus Buds Pro 2 contains a processor (BES2600YP SoC) coupled between the microphones and accelerometers. ¶58 col. 2:1-3
wherein the 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 allegedly generates cross correlation data between the tissue vibration information and the acoustic signal from one of the microphones. ¶59 col. 2:4-7
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. ¶60 col. 2:7-10
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 processor allegedly generates difference parameters between the signals received at each MEMS microphone. ¶61 col. 2:11-15
identifies information of the acoustic signals as unvoiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a gain threshold; The processor allegedly identifies speech which does not cause significant tissue vibration as unvoiced speech when the difference parameter exceeds a gain threshold. ¶62 col. 2:15-17
and identifies information of the acoustic signals as noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold. The processor allegedly identifies unwanted background noise as noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold. ¶63 col. 2:18-20
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations regarding the specific internal operations of the accused processor (e.g., generating distinct transfer functions based on VAD state, performing cross-correlation) are made "upon information and belief." A central question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused "AI noise cancellation" algorithms perform the specific steps recited in the claims, rather than achieving a similar outcome through a different, non-infringing technical process.
    • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether the accused "accelerometer and voice pickup unit" meets the claim definitions of a "sensor that receives human tissue vibration" ('091 Patent) or a "voicing sensor that receives physiological information" ('058 Patent) as those terms are used and defined within the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091

  • The Term: "transfer function"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the alleged method of noise cancellation. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendants could argue that their "AI" or machine learning-based noise cancellation does not calculate a "transfer function" in the traditional signal-processing sense described in the patent, even if it achieves a similar result. The dispute may turn on whether the term is limited to the specific mathematical implementations in the specification or can be construed more broadly to cover modern algorithmic equivalents.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent may define the term generally, for example, as a mathematical representation of the relation between the input and output of a system, which could potentially encompass a wider range of algorithms.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific equations and embodiments for calculating the transfer functions based on ratios of energy (’091 Patent, e.g., col. 7:1-67). Defendants may argue these specific embodiments limit the term's scope to those explicit mathematical forms.

For U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058

  • The Term: "generates cross correlation data between the physiological information and an acoustic signal"
  • Context and Importance: This is a highly specific data processing step required to identify voiced speech. The infringement case for the '058 Patent may depend heavily on whether the Plaintiff can prove that the accused processor performs this exact mathematical operation, as opposed to using another method to combine the data streams from the sensor and microphone.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff might argue that "cross correlation" should be construed to mean any process that determines a relationship or similarity between the two signals over time, not just a specific textbook formula.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "cross correlation" has a well-understood mathematical meaning in the field of signal processing. Defendants will likely argue that the term should be given this plain and ordinary meaning, which would require Plaintiff to show evidence of that specific calculation occurring in the accused products.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendants provide the Accused Products with instruction manuals, websites, and promotional materials that instruct and encourage end-users to use the infringing noise cancellation features in their normal and intended manner (Compl. ¶¶ 47, 65).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the patents since at least 2017. The complaint asserts that following the liquidation of Jawbone, Inc., the patent portfolio was marketed to Defendants, putting them on notice of the patents and their alleged infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 67, 112, 128, 142, 156).

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

  • A central issue will be one of algorithmic implementation: what evidence will show that the accused "AI noise cancellation" systems perform the specific, multi-step signal processing methods recited in the claims—such as generating distinct VAD-dependent transfer functions ('091 Patent) or performing a direct cross-correlation between sensor and audio data ('058 Patent)—as opposed to achieving a similar noise-reduction result through a technically different, potentially non-infringing process?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of pre-suit knowledge: can Plaintiff substantiate its allegation that Defendants were aware of the patents-in-suit and their alleged infringement as early as 2017, which would be critical to its claim for willful infringement and potential enhanced damages?
  • The case may also present a question of definitional scope: can the components identified in product teardowns, such as an "accelerometer" and a "voice pickup unit," be proven to meet the specific functional requirements of a "sensor that receives human tissue vibration" and a "voicing sensor that receives physiological information" as those terms are defined by the intrinsic evidence of the patents?