DCT

2:24-cv-00828

VB Assets LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00828, E.D. Tex., 10/09/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there. Venue over Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is alleged on the basis that it is a foreign corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Bixby 2.0 voice assistant platform infringes six patents related to cooperative conversational voice user interfaces and natural language understanding technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves conversational artificial intelligence that enables more natural, human-like interaction with electronic devices, a critical feature in the competitive market for smartphones, smart speakers, and other consumer electronics.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint details a prior business relationship beginning in 2013, during which Plaintiff’s predecessor allegedly supplied Natural Language Understanding technology to Samsung. The complaint also alleges that prior to and during this partnership, Samsung expressed interest in purchasing or licensing the patents-in-suit. These negotiations were unsuccessful, and Plaintiff alleges Samsung subsequently developed and released its Bixby 2.0 products using the patented technology without a license.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-10-16 Priority Date for ’681, ’765, ’341, and ’699 Patents
2007-02-06 Priority Date for ’176 and ’536 Patents
2010-10-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,818,176 Issues
2011-12-06 U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681 Issues
2012-12-01 Approx. date Samsung allegedly offered to buy the ’681 Patent
2013-06-01 Approx. date Plaintiff and Samsung executed partnership agreement
2013-08-20 U.S. Patent No. 8,515,765 Issues
2014-11-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536 Issues
2017-10-18 Samsung announces Bixby 2.0 voice assistant
2018-08-09 Samsung launches Bixby 2.0 on the Galaxy Note 9
2019-12-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,510,341 Issues
2020-08-25 U.S. Patent No. 10,755,699 Issues
2024-10-09 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A COOPERATIVE CONVERSATIONAL VOICE USER INTERFACE

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681, "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A COOPERATIVE CONVERSATIONAL VOICE USER INTERFACE," issued December 6, 2011 (Compl. ¶44).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes existing speech interfaces as rigid and non-intuitive, forcing users to learn specific commands and "dumb down their requests" rather than engaging in a natural, cooperative dialogue (U.S. Patent 10,510,341, col. 1:45-51, 2:8-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a conversational model that uses both "short-term shared knowledge" from the current conversation and "long-term shared knowledge" about the user from past interactions. By combining these two knowledge pools, the system can identify the context of a user's utterance, disambiguate words with multiple meanings, and generate an appropriate, adaptive response, creating a more human-like interaction ('341 Patent, col. 5:15-44; Compl. ¶45).
  • Technical Importance: This approach represented a move away from simple command-and-control voice recognition toward context-aware conversational AI capable of understanding user intent more deeply (Compl. ¶28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 25 (Compl. ¶63).
  • The essential elements of Claim 25 include:
    • A system with a voice input device to receive an utterance containing words with different meanings in different contexts.
    • A conversational speech engine configured to:
      • Accumulate short-term shared knowledge about the current conversation.
      • Accumulate long-term shared knowledge about the user from past conversations.
      • Identify a context for the utterance using both short-term and long-term knowledge.
      • Establish an intended meaning within that context to disambiguate user intent.
      • Generate a grammatically or syntactically adapted response based on the established meaning.
  • The complaint anticipates identifying additional asserted claims (Compl. ¶63).

U.S. Patent No. 8,515,765 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A COOPERATIVE CONVERSATIONAL VOICE USER INTERFACE

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,515,765, "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A COOPERATIVE CONVERSATIONAL VOICE USER INTERFACE," issued August 20, 2013 (Compl. ¶47).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional voice interfaces lack a model for managing the flow of a conversation, treating each user input as a standalone command rather than part of a collaborative exchange ('341 Patent, col. 2:8-15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a system that determines a "conversation type" by identifying whether the user has a "leader role" (e.g., asking for specific information) or a "supporter role" (e.g., responding to system prompts). The system then adapts the format of its response based on this role, for instance by generating a more constrained response to guide a user who is in a "supporter role" ('341 Patent, col. 15:5-14; Compl. ¶48).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides a framework for dynamic, role-based dialogue management, allowing a voice assistant to either direct or be directed by the user to achieve a conversational goal.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶74).
  • The essential elements of Claim 10 include:
    • A system with a speech engine that receives a natural language utterance.
    • The processor is configured to determine a "conversation type" based on whether the user has a "leader role" or a "supporter role" in the interaction.
    • A response builder generates a response with a format based on the determined conversation type.
    • The response format is adapted to "limit the user's future input" if the user has the "supporter role."
  • The complaint anticipates identifying additional asserted claims (Compl. ¶74).

U.S. Patent No. 10,510,341 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A COOPERATIVE CONVERSATIONAL VOICE USER INTERFACE

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,510,341, "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A COOPERATIVE CONVERSATIONAL VOICE USER INTERFACE," issued December 17, 2019 (Compl. ¶50).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a system that manages conversational memory by accumulating short-term knowledge from recent utterances and long-term knowledge from older utterances. The system is configured to "expire" items from short-term knowledge after a time period but move at least some of that expired information into the long-term knowledge base, using both to interpret new user requests (Compl. ¶51).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 10 is asserted (Compl. ¶85).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Samsung’s Bixby 2.0 Products of infringing the ’341 patent (Compl. ¶85).

U.S. Patent No. 10,755,699 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A COOPERATIVE CONVERSATIONAL VOICE USER INTERFACE

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,755,699, "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR A COOPERATIVE CONVERSATIONAL VOICE USER INTERFACE," issued August 25, 2020 (Compl. ¶53, ¶96).
  • Technology Synopsis: The invention describes a system that adapts its responses based on the user's "manner of speaking." The system uses both short-term conversational knowledge and long-term user knowledge to identify the manner in which an utterance was spoken (e.g., tone, pace, inflection) and generates a response based on both the literal meaning and this identified manner (Compl. ¶54).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 12 is asserted (Compl. ¶95).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Samsung’s Bixby 2.0 Products of infringing the ’699 patent (Compl. ¶95).

U.S. Patent No. 7,818,176 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SELECTING AND PRESENTING ADVERTISEMENTS BASED ON NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING OF VOICE-BASED INPUT

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,818,176, "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SELECTING AND PRESENTING ADVERTISEMENTS BASED ON NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING OF VOICE-BASED INPUT," issued October 19, 2010 (Compl. ¶56).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to a system for voice-based advertising. The system processes a natural language utterance to recognize words, establish a context for the utterance, and then select and present an advertisement that is relevant to that established context (Compl. ¶57).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 27 is asserted (Compl. ¶105).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Samsung’s Bixby 2.0 Products of infringing the ’176 patent (Compl. ¶105).

U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536 - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DELIVERING TARGETED ADVERTISEMENTS AND TRACKING ADVERTISEMENT INTERACTIONS IN VOICE RECOGNITION CONTEXTS

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536, "SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DELIVERING TARGETED ADVERTISEMENTS AND TRACKING ADVERTISEMENT INTERACTIONS IN VOICE RECOGNITION CONTEXTS," issued November 11, 2014 (Compl. ¶59).
  • Technology Synopsis: The invention claims a system that provides promotional content in response to an incomplete or ambiguous user request. The system presents the promotional content, monitors how the user interacts with it, and then uses that interaction to interpret the original ambiguous request (Compl. ¶60).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 38 is asserted (Compl. ¶116).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Samsung’s Bixby 2.0 Products of infringing the ’536 patent (Compl. ¶116).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is "Bixby 2.0 Products," collectively defined as Samsung's second-generation voice assistant, the software and cloud infrastructure that implements it, and the Samsung hardware products on which it is deployed (Compl. ¶2, fn. 1). These products include smartphones (Galaxy S, Note, Fold, Flip series), tablets, earbuds, smartwatches, smart TVs, and other appliances (Compl. fn. 1).

Functionality and Market Context

  • Bixby 2.0 is a voice-controlled personal assistant that uses Natural Language Understanding ("NLU") to process user speech and perform tasks or retrieve information (Compl. ¶¶2, 41). The complaint alleges that Bixby 2.0 was developed after Samsung's partnership with Plaintiff's predecessor, VoiceBox Technologies, which had provided NLU technology for Samsung's first voice assistant, "S Voice" (Compl. ¶¶37, 41). The complaint includes Figure 1, which shows a physical prototype of an early voice-controlled speaker developed by Plaintiff's predecessor, illustrating the technology's long development history (Compl. p. 7). Bixby 2.0 functions as a core feature across Samsung's extensive ecosystem of consumer electronics, putting it in direct competition with other major voice assistants in the market.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’681 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a voice input device configured to receive an utterance...wherein the utterance includes one or more words that have different meanings in different contexts Bixby 2.0 operates on devices with microphones that receive spoken user commands, which can contain ambiguous words. ¶45 '341 Patent, col. 2:35-39
accumulate short-term shared knowledge about the current conversation Bixby 2.0 maintains conversational context, remembering information from immediately preceding user interactions to inform its responses. ¶45 '341 Patent, col. 5:15-24
accumulate long-term shared knowledge about the user Bixby 2.0 learns and stores user-specific data and preferences over time to personalize the user experience. ¶45 '341 Patent, col. 5:35-44
identify a context associated with the utterance from the short-term shared knowledge and the long-term shared knowledge Bixby 2.0 allegedly uses both immediate conversational context and historical user data to determine the topic of a user’s request (e.g., music, navigation). ¶45 '341 Patent, col. 4:5-13
establish an intended meaning for the utterance within the identified context to disambiguate an intent Bixby 2.0 allegedly uses the determined context to resolve ambiguity in a user’s command and understand the user's specific intent. ¶45 '341 Patent, col. 4:55-62
generate a grammatically or syntactically adapted response Bixby 2.0 provides audible or visual responses to the user's request based on its understanding of the user's intent. ¶45 '341 Patent, col. 6:26-34
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question may be how the terms "short-term shared knowledge" and "long-term shared knowledge" are defined. The analysis may focus on whether Bixby's architecture maintains two distinct types of knowledge that are used together to identify context, as recited in the claim, or if it uses a more generalized, monolithic context model.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that Bixby’s system specifically uses "long-term shared knowledge" to "identify a context," rather than simply using it for personalizing a response after the context has already been determined from the immediate utterance?

’765 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a speech engine configured to receive a natural language utterance...the natural language utterance corresponding to a conversation type Bixby 2.0 receives voice commands from users, which initiate different types of conversational interactions. ¶48 '341 Patent, col. 2:45-51
determine the conversation type...based on whether a user...has a leader role...or has a supporter role Bixby 2.0 allegedly determines the nature of the conversation by assessing whether the user is directing the interaction (leader) or responding to system prompts (supporter). ¶48 '341 Patent, col. 15:5-14
a response builder configured to generate a response...with a format based on the conversation type Bixby 2.0 generates different kinds of responses (e.g., direct answers, clarifying questions) depending on the conversational situation. ¶48 '341 Patent, col. 6:26-34
wherein the format is adapted to limit the user's future input to interjecting queries or requests for clarification if the user has the supporter role When Bixby 2.0 asks a clarifying question (placing the user in a "supporter role"), its response is allegedly formatted to guide the user toward a narrow set of expected answers. The complaint includes Figure 4, a screenshot of a mobile assistant providing a list of restaurants, which is a format that may guide or limit subsequent user input (Compl. p. 8). ¶48 '341 Patent, col. 6:50-65
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on the construction of "leader role" and "supporter role." A key question will be whether these terms, as described in the patent, can be read onto the functional states of the Bixby 2.0 system.
    • Technical Questions: Does the complaint offer evidence that Bixby 2.0 makes an explicit determination of a user's "role" and then adapts its response format as a result of that determination? Or, does Bixby 2.0 simply use standard dialogue management techniques (e.g., asking clarifying questions) that are not tied to the specific role-based framework claimed in the patent?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’681 Patent

  • The Term: "short-term shared knowledge" and "long-term shared knowledge"
  • Context and Importance: The distinction between these two types of knowledge is foundational to claim 25. The infringement theory requires showing that Bixby accumulates and uses both distinct types of knowledge to establish context. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue that Bixby's context engine is a unitary system that does not align with the claim's specific two-part knowledge structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes "short-term knowledge" as accumulating "during a single conversation" and "long-term shared knowledge" as accumulating "over time to build user... or other long-term knowledge models," suggesting a general temporal distinction ('341 Patent, col. 5:15-18, 35-41).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that "short-term session data may be expired after a psychologically appropriate amount of time," while noting that relevant information from an expired session can be added to "long-term knowledge models," suggesting a functional distinction related to memory expiration and persistence ('341 Patent, col. 5:30-35).

For the ’765 Patent

  • The Term: "leader role" and "supporter role"
  • Context and Importance: These terms define the core inventive concept of claim 10. Proving infringement will require mapping Bixby's operational states to these specific, defined roles. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine whether standard guided-dialogue features of a voice assistant meet the claim limitation, or if a more specific, role-aware architecture is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes different conversation types, such as a "Query" where a "leader" has a specific goal and a "supporter" provides information, which could be interpreted to cover any user-initiated question and system response ('341 Patent, col. 15:40-45).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a diagrammatic model of conversation types ("Query," "Didactic," "Exploratory") tied to the allocation of information, suggesting these roles are part of a specific, structured conversational framework rather than just a description of any user-system interaction ('341 Patent, col. 16:1-20). This may support a narrower construction requiring proof of such a framework in the accused system.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Samsung induces infringement by designing the Bixby 2.0 software to operate in an infringing manner and providing instructions and technical support that encourage infringing use (Compl. ¶¶67, 78, 88, 98, 109, 119). It further alleges contributory infringement, stating that Bixby 2.0 is not a staple article of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use and is especially adapted for practicing the patented inventions (Compl. ¶¶68, 79, 89, 99, 110, 120).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Samsung had pre-suit knowledge of the patents based on a multi-year history of business dealings, including a partnership to supply NLU technology and specific licensing and acquisition negotiations regarding the patents-in-suit beginning around 2012 (Compl. ¶¶36-38, 64). Further, it is alleged that the parent patent of a majority of the patents-in-suit, the ’681 patent, was cited during the prosecution of Samsung’s own U.S. Patent No. 10,891,968, allegedly establishing knowledge no later than April 25, 2018—before the launch of Bixby 2.0 (Compl. ¶¶65, 76, 86, 96).

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

  • A central issue will be one of historical conduct and intent: How will the detailed allegations of a prior business partnership, failed licensing negotiations, and citation of the patents in Samsung's own patent prosecution influence the claim of willful infringement? The extensive pre-suit history alleged by the plaintiff suggests this narrative will be a focal point of the litigation.
  • A key question will be one of definitional scope: Can abstract conversational concepts from the patents, such as a user's "leader role" versus "supporter role" ('765 Patent) or the specific architecture of "short-term" and "long-term" knowledge ('681 Patent), be construed to read on the technical implementation of the accused Bixby 2.0 system?
  • A critical evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: What technical evidence will be presented to demonstrate that Bixby's internal operations perform the specific steps recited in the claims, such as explicitly adapting a response format based on a determined user "role," versus employing generalized dialogue management techniques common in the field of conversational AI?