Wyoming Technology Licensing LLC v. Apple Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Wyoming Technology Licensing, LLC (Wyoming)
  • Defendant: Apple Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garteiser Honea, PLLC; Sinergia Technology Law Group, PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00128, E.D. Tex., 02/22/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Apple Inc. has consented to venue in the district by regularly filing its own lawsuits there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Siri intelligent voice assistant system infringes a patent related to systems and methods for voice-based information discovery and retrieval.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for improving the accuracy and utility of voice-command systems used to search for and retrieve digital information, a foundational technology for modern virtual assistants.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was examined and allowed over numerous prior art references. It also notes the patent's nominal expiration date is November 12, 2028, and asserts the right to recover damages for past infringement.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,521,766: "SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION DISCOVERY AND RETRIEVAL" (Issued Aug. 27, 2013)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a state of the art where it was challenging for consumers to "quickly and intuitively search for, locate, retrieve, and display or play desired media" from numerous, disparate online sources ('766 Patent, col. 1:36-41). It further notes that existing speech recognition systems were "notoriously unreliable and limited in word-scope," especially when dealing with background noise, accents, or proper names, making them an unviable alternative to keyboard input ('766 Patent, col. 2:7-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a server-based system that receives a user's information request (e.g., a voice command), decodes it using a multi-stage process, discovers the requested information, prepares instructions for accessing it, and communicates these instructions back to the user's device ('766 Patent, Abstract). A key aspect of the solution is a layered approach to speech recognition that first uses a broad process (Statistical Language Model or SLM ASR) to determine a general context (e.g., "music"), and then uses a more specific process (Context Free Grammar or CFG ASR) with a grammar module tailored to that context to recognize specific keywords (e.g., an artist or song title) ('766 Patent, col. 8:24-59; Fig. 3).
• Technical Importance: This context-driven, multi-stage decoding method was aimed at overcoming the unreliability of then-current speech recognition systems, thereby enabling more natural and referential user requests for information retrieval ('766 Patent, col. 1:41-52).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1, 29, and 30, and dependent claims 2-3, 5-10, and 13 (Compl. ¶29).
• Independent Claim 1, a method claim, includes the following essential elements:
  • receiving an information request;
  • decoding the information request;
  • discovering information using the decoded information request;
  • preparing, using one or more processing devices instructions for accessing the information, where the instructions include:
    • one or more Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) grammar codes;
    • one or more short text string matching codes; and
    • one or more information formatting codes operative to format a consumer device display; and
  • communicating the prepared instructions.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶29).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as "at least an intelligent voice assistant system ('Siri')" (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Siri "receives voice commands from a user through a mobile device (such as, for example, an iPhone or iPad) or a desktop or laptop computer (such as, for example, a MacBook Pro), and retrieves information related to the voice command" (Compl. ¶24). Plaintiff supports its venue allegations with a visual exhibit. Figure 1 is a screenshot from a prior court filing in an unrelated case, which Plaintiff asserts shows Apple consenting to venue in the Eastern District of Texas (Compl. p. 3, Figure 1). The complaint does not provide further details on Siri's market context or commercial importance.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that a claim chart is attached as Exhibit B, which purportedly identifies how the Accused Instrumentalities infringe the claims (Compl. ¶29, ¶36). However, this exhibit was not filed with the public version of the complaint.

In its narrative allegations, Plaintiff claims that Apple infringes by "manufacturing, using, importing, selling, offering for sale, and/or providing...the Accused Instrumentalities that identify and provide information about drugs" (Compl. ¶29). The complaint alleges that Siri performs the functions claimed in the ’766 Patent, broadly asserting that the system receives voice commands, retrieves information, and thereby satisfies all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶24, ¶35-36). The specific factual basis for how Siri's functionality allegedly maps to each claim element is incorporated by reference from the unprovided Exhibit B (Compl. ¶36).

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary technical question is what evidence the Plaintiff will present to show that Apple's Siri performs the specific functions recited in the claims. For instance, what proof demonstrates that Siri "prepar[es]...instructions" that contain "ASR grammar codes" and "short text string matching codes" for communication to a device, as required by Claim 1?
• Scope Questions: The patent specification is heavily focused on the retrieval of digital media like music, videos, and movies ('766 Patent, col. 1:20-25). The complaint, however, includes an allegation of infringement in the context of retrieving "information about drugs" (Compl. ¶29). This raises the question of whether the claims, interpreted in light of the specification, are limited to the media retrieval field or can be read more broadly to cover general-purpose information retrieval.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "instructions for accessing the information" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term will be critical. The infringement analysis depends on whether the data Siri sends back to a user's device can be characterized as "instructions" that include the three specific types of codes recited in the claim (ASR grammar codes, short text matching codes, formatting codes).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes preparing an "active metadata response" which contains "access instructions for the media content" such as a URL, login information, or digital rights management codes ('766 Patent, col. 6:31-34, col. 12:18-24). This could support an interpretation where any data enabling retrieval qualifies as "instructions."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 itself qualifies the term by requiring the "instructions" to include a specific list of components: "ASR grammar codes," "short text string matching codes," and "information formatting codes" ('766 Patent, col. 16:45-49). The patent's Figure 12 explicitly shows "Active metadata tags" (1250) that include fields like "Artist ASR Grammar Code" (1255) and "Artist Short Message Code" (1260), which may be used to argue that the claimed "instructions" must contain these specific, structured data types.

The Term: "decoding the information request" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term describes the core analytical step of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent teaches a specific, two-part "decoding" process, and infringement will hinge on whether Siri's method of processing voice commands falls within that definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general, and a party could argue it encompasses any method of processing a voice command to understand its meaning. The patent summary simply lists "decoding the information request" as a step ('766 Patent, col. 2:37).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description outlines a specific method for "decoding" that involves a first ASR process to determine a general "context" and a second ASR process that uses a context-specific grammar to recognize keywords ('766 Patent, Fig. 23, steps 14062, 14063). An argument could be made that "decoding" must be construed to require this specific multi-stage, context-driven architecture.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, asserting that Apple provides "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use Siri in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶33). It also alleges contributory infringement (Compl. ¶29).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint constitutes actual knowledge of infringement (Compl. ¶32) and that Apple's continued infringement despite this knowledge is intentional (Compl. ¶33-34). This provides a basis for alleging post-filing willfulness, though no pre-suit knowledge is alleged.

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency. As the complaint's specific infringement theory relies on an unprovided claim chart, a central question will be whether Plaintiff can produce sufficient factual evidence to show that the proprietary Siri system practices the specific, multi-part "preparing...instructions" and "decoding" steps required by the asserted claims.
2. Claim Scope vs. Accused Functionality: The case will likely involve a key question of technical scope: can the term "decoding," as defined by the patent's specific two-stage ASR architecture, be construed to read on the method of voice processing actually employed by Siri? Resolution will depend on a detailed comparison between the technical operations described in the patent and the evidence of how the accused system functions.