DCT

2:23-cv-00081

Jawbone Innovations LLC v. Panasonic Holdings Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00081, E.D. Tex., 08/21/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendants are foreign companies that may be sued in any judicial district and are subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas, where they have allegedly committed acts of patent infringement.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s consumer electronics, including earbuds, headphones, and smartphones, infringe eight patents related to acoustic noise suppression and voice activity detection technologies.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems and methods for improving audio clarity in communication devices by distinguishing a user's speech from ambient noise and actively suppressing that noise.
  • Key Procedural History: The patents-in-suit originated with AliphCom (later Jawbone, Inc.), which developed noise-suppression technology under a 2002 DARPA contract for military applications before commercializing it. Following Jawbone, Inc.'s 2017 liquidation, the complaint alleges that Panasonic was notified of the patent portfolio and its potential infringement on multiple occasions prior to the suit's filing.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-05-30 U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058 Priority Date
2002-03-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543 Priority Date
2002-01-01 AliphCom wins DARPA contract
2004-01-01 AliphCom launches "Jawbone" headset
2007-06-13 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,019,091; 10,779,080; 11,122,357; 8,503,691 Priority Date
2007-07-17 U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058 Issued
2008-01-01 AliphCom launches Bluetooth "Jawbone" headset
2008-10-24 U.S. Patent Nos. 8,321,213; 8,326,611 Priority Date
2011-01-01 AliphCom changes name to Jawbone, Inc.
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. forced into liquidation
2017-01-01 Panasonic allegedly notified of infringement
2019-09-01 Panasonic receives correspondence regarding Jawbone portfolio
2020-09-15 U.S. Patent No. 10,779,080 Issued
2021-09-14 U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357 Issued
2023-08-21 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”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional multi-microphone noise suppression systems struggle to distinguish desired speech from unwanted noise, as the underlying mathematical problem has more unknown variables (the speech and noise signals) than knowns (the signals received at the microphones) (’091 Patent, col. 1:47-2:25; Compl. ¶¶27-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses a highly accurate Voice Activity Detector (VAD) that senses human tissue vibration to determine precisely when a user is speaking. This VAD signal allows the system to generate a first "transfer function" representing the relationship between microphones when only noise is present and a second transfer function when speech is present, enabling more effective noise removal (’091 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶28).
  • Technical Importance: By using a VAD independent of the acoustic signal itself, the system can more reliably and aggressively remove noise without distorting the user's speech, even when multiple noise sources are present (Compl. ¶28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶43).
  • Essential elements of claim 11 include:
    • A receiver for receiving at least two acoustic signals from two microphones.
    • At least one sensor that receives human tissue vibration information.
    • A processor that generates a plurality of transfer functions, including:
      • A first transfer function, generated when voicing activity is absent, representing a ratio of energy between the microphones.
      • A second transfer function, generated when voicing activity is present.
    • The processor removes acoustic noise using the first transfer function and at least one 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”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty in correctly identifying not just the presence of speech, but in distinguishing between voiced speech (e.g., vowels, which involve vocal cord vibration) and unvoiced speech (e.g., consonants like 's' or 'f', which do not) in noisy environments (’058 Patent, col. 1:21-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention employs a hybrid system. It uses a non-acoustic "voicing sensor" to receive physiological information (e.g., tissue vibration) and cross-correlates this with an acoustic signal from a microphone to reliably identify voiced speech. It then analyzes the "difference parameters" (relative signal gain) between two microphones to distinguish unvoiced speech from background noise (’058 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶60).
  • Technical Importance: This system provides a more granular classification of sounds—voiced, unvoiced, or noise—allowing a noise suppression algorithm to apply different rules for each, thereby improving its accuracy and preserving the quality of unvoiced consonants that might otherwise be mistaken for noise (Compl. ¶¶27, 60).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶60).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • At least two microphones that receive acoustic signals.
    • At least one voicing sensor that receives physiological information associated with human voicing activity.
    • At least one processor that:
      • Generates cross correlation data between the physiological information and an acoustic signal from one microphone.
      • Identifies voiced speech when the cross correlation data exceeds a correlation threshold.
      • Generates difference parameters (representative of relative signal gain) between the signals from the two 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. ¶10).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes using an array of two physical omnidirectional microphones to create two "virtual microphones" through signal processing. These virtual microphones are designed to have substantially similar responses to ambient noise but substantially dissimilar responses to the user's speech, allowing an adaptive filter to more effectively separate the two (’080 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶30).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶78).
  • Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to use two physical omnidirectional microphones and a processing component to generate two beamformed virtual microphones with different signal combinations, having similar noise responses and dissimilar speech responses (Compl. ¶31).

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. ¶11).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes forming distinct "virtual directional microphones" from two physical microphones. The virtual microphones have similar responses to noise but dissimilar responses to speech. A signal processor then combines the signals from the virtual microphones using filtering and summing to generate an output with attenuated noise (’357 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶32).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶93).
  • Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to combine signals from two physical microphones to create two distinct virtual directional (beamformed) microphones with similar noise responses and dissimilar speech responses, which are then processed to reduce noise (Compl. ¶¶33, 94-97).

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. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a system with a VAD subsystem and a denoising subsystem. The denoising subsystem uses a microphone array where one microphone is oriented toward a talker's mouth and another is oriented away. When the VAD indicates speech is occurring, the system subtracts an estimated noise waveform from the mixed speech-and-noise signal (’543 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶34).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶106).
  • Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to use a VAD (accelerometers) and an array of microphones, with at least one microphone oriented toward the user's mouth and another away, to suppress noise (Compl. ¶¶35, 107-109). A diagram in the complaint shows microphones for calls on the accused RZ-S500W earbud (Compl. p. 15, item 6).

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. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes forming two virtual microphones from two omnidirectional microphones. One virtual microphone has a linear response to speech that is devoid of a null (a point of zero sensitivity), while the second has a linear response with a single null oriented toward the speech source. This allows the system to capture both speech and noise effectively while having a reference signal where speech is minimized (’691 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶32).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 23 (Compl. ¶123).
  • Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to form two beamformed virtual microphones from two omnidirectional microphones, where one has a linear response to speech and the other has a response with a null directed toward the user's mouth (Compl. ¶¶33, 124-127).

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. ¶14).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes an AVAD system that uses two physical microphones to form two virtual microphones. The system determines that voice activity is present when a ratio of the energies of the two virtual microphones is greater than a threshold value (’213 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶36).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶139).
  • Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to form an array of virtual microphones via filter-and-sum beamforming and detect user speech (such as a wake word) by comparing a ratio of energies from the beamformed microphones to a threshold (Compl. ¶37).

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. ¶15).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for acoustic voice activity detection. It involves forming a first virtual microphone, forming a filter that describes the relationship for speech between the physical microphones, forming a second virtual microphone using that filter, and then detecting voice activity when an energy ratio between the two virtual microphones exceeds a threshold (’611 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶36).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶153).
  • Accused Features: The accused products are alleged to form virtual microphones via beamforming and detect user speech by comparing a ratio of energies from the beamformed microphones to a threshold associated with a wake word (Compl. ¶¶37, 157).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint names Panasonic earbuds (e.g., RZ-S500W, RZ-S300W), headphones (e.g., Technics EAH-A800), and smartphones (e.g., TOUGHBOOK N1) as the "Accused Products" (Compl. ¶39). The Panasonic RZ-S500W earbuds are used as a primary exemplar throughout the complaint (Compl. ¶29).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products are alleged to incorporate noise suppression and voice activity detection technologies (Compl. ¶29). Specifically, the Panasonic RZ-S500W is alleged to include an accelerometer, a voice pickup unit, and a sensor that collectively function as a voice activity detector by sensing vibration in human tissue (Compl. ¶¶29, 46). The RZ-S500W earbuds are also alleged to comprise an array of beamforming MEMS microphones that generate transfer functions based on received acoustic signals (Compl. ¶¶29, 31). A product diagram in the complaint identifies "Microphones for calls" and a specific "Microphone for noise cancelling" on the RZ-S500W earbud (Compl. p. 15, items 4 & 6). Panasonic marketing material cited in the complaint states that the S500W uses "[s]ix high-performance MEMS microphones" and "beamforming technology" so the user's "voice to come through loud and clear" (Compl. ¶36). Another visual shows the product's "Feedforward Noise Cancelling Mic" and "Beamforming Technology" (Compl. p. 14).

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 Panasonic RZ-S500W comprises a receiver that receives signals from a microphone array with at least two microphones. ¶45 col. 10:52-56
at least one sensor that receives human tissue vibration information associated with human voicing activity of a user; The Panasonic RZ-S500W comprises at least one accelerometer and voice pickup sensor that receives human tissue vibration associated with voicing activity. ¶46 col. 11:15-19
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 using at least two different acoustic microphones... The processor utilizes a microphone array to detect speech with a beamformed microphone, which includes the generation of transfer functions, including a first transfer function representing a ratio of energy of acoustic signals. ¶47 col. 11:27-35
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 Panasonic RZ-S500W generates the first transfer function when a voice pickup unit, accelerometer, and/or sensor indicate that voicing activity is absent. ¶48 col. 11:36-40
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 Panasonic RZ-S500W generates a second transfer function in response to a determination that voicing activity is present, based on detection of human tissue vibrations by the voice pickup unit, accelerometer, and/or sensor. ¶49 col. 11:41-45
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 Panasonic RZ-S500W removes noise by applying at least a first transfer function generated when voicing activity is absent, and a combined transfer function when voicing activity is detected. ¶50 col. 11:46-52
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the "beamformed microphone" functionality alleged to be in the accused product generates a "transfer function representative of a ratio of energy" as specifically required by the claim (Compl. ¶47). The analysis may focus on whether beamforming, a spatial filtering technique, is equivalent to calculating an energy ratio between distinct microphones.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the accused product generates a first transfer function when voicing is absent and a second when it is present (Compl. ¶¶48-49). A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused product's processor actually calculates and applies two distinct types of transfer functions based on the VAD state, as opposed to using a single, continuously adapting noise removal algorithm that is merely informed by the VAD.

’058 Patent 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 Panasonic RZ-S500W comprises at least two MEMS microphones that receive acoustic signals. ¶61 col. 11:13-14
at least one voicing sensor that receives physiological information associated with human voicing activity; The Panasonic RZ-S500W comprises an accelerometer that receives human tissue vibration associated with voicing activity. ¶62 col. 11:15-17
at least one processor coupled among the microphones and the voicing sensor, 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 of the Panasonic RZ-S500W generates cross correlation data between the physiological information (tissue vibration) and an acoustic signal (speech). ¶64 col. 11:21-26
identifies information of the acoustic signals as voiced speech when the cross correlation data corresponding to a portion of the acoustic signal received at the one receiver exceeds a correlation threshold; The processor of the Panasonic RZ-S500W identifies the acoustic signals as speech when the cross-correlation data exceeds a correlation threshold based on vibration and/or acoustic signals. ¶65 col. 11:27-31
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 between portions of the received acoustic signals; The processor of the Panasonic RZ-S500W generates difference parameters between the acoustic signals received at each MEMS microphone representative of the relative difference in signal gain. ¶66 col. 11:32-37
identifies information of the acoustic signals as unvoiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a gain threshold; The processor of the Panasonic RZ-S500W identifies information of the acoustic signals as unvoiced speech when the difference parameter exceeds a gain threshold. ¶67 col. 11:38-41
and identifies information of the acoustic signals as noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold. The processor of the Panasonic RZ-S500W identifies acoustic signals as noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold. ¶68 col. 11:42-45
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: An issue for construction may be the term "difference parameters...representative of the relative difference in signal gain" (Compl. ¶66). The dispute may turn on what specific calculation or output from the accused product's processor constitutes these "parameters" and whether that calculation aligns with the patent's description of comparing signal gains.
    • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused product's processor performs the claimed three-part classification logic: identifying voiced speech via cross-correlation with a physiological sensor, while separately identifying unvoiced speech and noise based on whether "difference parameters" are above or below a "gain threshold" (Compl. ¶¶65, 67-68). The analysis will question if the accused system uses this specific multi-step, threshold-based logic or a different, more integrated classification method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

From the ’091 Patent (Claim 11):

  • The Term: "transfer function representative of a ratio of energy"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement theory, as the complaint alleges the accused beamforming microphones generate such a function (Compl. ¶47). The definition of this term will determine whether the accused product's spatial filtering techniques fall within the claim's scope, or if the claim requires a more specific mathematical calculation of energy ratios.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the transfer function H1(z) in general terms as the ratio of the signal at one microphone to the signal at another when only noise is present, without limiting it to a single method of calculation (’091 Patent, col. 2:32-38). This may support an argument that any function describing the relative acoustic relationship between microphones, including one derived from beamforming, meets the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a function "representative of a ratio of energy," which could be construed to require a specific calculation based on the power or amplitude of the signals. An embodiment describes calculating a transfer function using "any of the available system identification algorithms," which may suggest a specific class of mathematical operations distinct from beamforming (’091 Patent, col. 2:40-45).

From the ’058 Patent (Claim 1):

  • The Term: "difference parameters"
  • Context and Importance: The claim requires the system to generate these "parameters" and then use them to distinguish unvoiced speech from noise based on a "gain threshold" (Compl. ¶¶66-68). The construction of this term is critical to determining if the accused product performs the claimed method of identifying unvoiced speech.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines the term functionally as being "representative of the relative difference in signal gain between portions of the received acoustic signals." This functional language could be argued to cover a variety of signal comparison metrics, not just a literal subtraction or ratio of gain values.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description, when discussing the PSAD system, refers to calculating the gain of a differential transfer function, H1(z), and notes that for speech originating near one microphone, "the gain increases" (’058 Patent, col. 8:15-25). This could support a narrower interpretation requiring a calculation directly related to the gain of a transfer function between the two microphones.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Panasonic provides instruction manuals, websites, and promotional materials that "demonstrate to...customers...how to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner" (Compl. ¶¶52, 70).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents. It asserts that Panasonic knew of the patents "at least since they were marketed to Panasonic following Jawbone, Inc.'s liquidation" in 2017 (Compl. ¶¶54, 72). The complaint also references a September 2019 correspondence notifying Panasonic of the portfolio's availability (Compl. ¶20).

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Do the accused products' "beamforming" and noise cancellation algorithms, as they actually operate, perform the specific multi-step processes recited in the claims? This includes whether the accused systems generate and apply distinct "transfer functions" based on the VAD state as required by the ’091 patent, and whether they perform the three-way classification of voiced, unvoiced, and noise using the specific correlation and "difference parameter" thresholds required by the ’058 patent.
  • A second key question will be one of claim scope and construction: Can terms like "transfer function representative of a ratio of energy" (’091 patent) and "difference parameters" (’058 patent) be construed broadly enough to read on the signal processing techniques used in modern consumer audio products? The case may turn on whether these claim terms, rooted in patents with priority dates from over a decade ago, can encompass the accused beamforming and noise suppression functionalities.
  • A third dispositive question will center on knowledge and intent. Given the allegations that Panasonic was directly notified of the patent portfolio and its potential infringement as early as 2017, the court will likely examine what steps, if any, Panasonic took to assess the infringement allegations, which will be central to the claims for indirect and willful infringement.