DCT

2:25-cv-00758

Cerence Operating Co v. TCL Industries Holdings Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00758, E.D. Tex., 08/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper for the non-U.S. defendants as they are not resident in the United States, allowing suit in any judicial district. For the U.S.-based defendant, TTE Technology, Inc., venue is based on its registration to do business in Texas and the presence of regular and established places of business in the district, allegedly through repair shops that perform warranty services.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart televisions infringe four patents related to voice control, audio signal processing, and hybrid (local/cloud) natural language processing.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves voice-activated virtual assistants and natural language understanding, a central feature in the competitive market for smart home and entertainment devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff Cerence was spun out from Nuance Communications, Inc., a company focused on speech and language solutions, in October 2019. It also cites a prior case in the district where a TCL entity allegedly submitted to the court's jurisdiction.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-11-12 ’810 Patent Priority Date
2004-12-14 ’598 Patent Priority Date
2005-12-12 ’579 Patent Priority Date
2009-11-10 ’541 Patent Priority Date
2010-11-23 ’579 Patent Issue Date
2011-02-22 ’598 Patent Issue Date
2012-05-29 ’810 Patent Issue Date
2015-10-27 ’541 Patent Issue Date
2019-10-01 Cerence becomes a separate public company (approx. date)
2025-08-01 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,840,579 - “Mobile Device Retrieval and Navigation”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge users face when trying to navigate and retrieve information from large libraries (e.g., the internet) using devices with limited input capabilities, such as mobile phones with reduced-entry keypads (’579 Patent, col. 1:20-27).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where user input is structured into one or more "stems," which can be entered separately and designated by a "separator." For instance, a user could input a first stem ("Springfield"), a separator, and a second stem ("IL"). The system then relates these distinct stems to a library of candidates to render more accurate results than a single continuous input might provide (’579 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:30-41). This allows for more efficient multi-part queries on constrained devices.
  • Technical Importance: This method of structured, multi-stem input offered a more efficient user experience for searching complex databases on early mobile devices, where typing full, precise search queries was cumbersome.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint reserves the right to assert various claims but does not specify which independent claims are asserted (Compl. ¶37). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Receiving a first input from a user and structuring it as a "first stem."
    • Receiving a "separator" designating subsequent input as a second input.
    • Receiving the second input and structuring it as a "second stem."
    • Relating the first and second stems to a "library of candidates."
    • Rendering one or more results based on this relationship.

U.S. Patent No. 7,894,598 - “System for Limiting Received Audio”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of acoustic echo in communication systems like speakerphones, where audio from a loudspeaker is picked up by a nearby microphone (’598 Patent, col. 1:10-25). This problem is made worse when high volume causes the microphone signal to "clip," introducing non-linearities that prevent traditional echo cancellation systems from working effectively (’598 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that proactively prevents clipping. It uses a model of the acoustic environment to estimate the audio power that will be received at the microphone if a signal is played over the loudspeaker. If this estimated power exceeds a known clipping threshold, a "soft limiter" attenuates the audio signal before it is played, ensuring the microphone receives a clean, non-clipped signal that can be effectively processed for echo cancellation (’598 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-34).
  • Technical Importance: This technology improves the quality and reliability of hands-free audio communication by ensuring echo cancellation systems can function properly even at higher volumes, a key requirement for devices like in-car phone systems and speakerphones.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which independent claims are asserted (Compl. ¶44). Independent claim 1 is a representative system claim.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An "echo power estimator" for estimating audio power received at the microphone when an output signal is reproduced by a speaker.
    • A "limiter" adapted to limit the output signal to the speaker when the estimated audio power exceeds a threshold.

U.S. Patent No. 8,819,810 - “System for Processing Microphone Signals to Provide an Output Signal with Reduced Interference”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,819,810, titled “System for Processing Microphone Signals to Provide an Output Signal with Reduced Interference,” issued May 29, 2012.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for improving the quality of voice capture by estimating the value of user data and the likelihood of a user forgetting authentication data to automatically select an appropriate password reset procedure (’810 Patent, Abstract). This appears to be a mismatch, as the complaint alleges it relates to microphone signal processing. The complaint's description of the patent's title appears correct, but the abstract of the provided patent document is for a different technology. Assuming the title is correct, the technology likely relates to noise reduction or beamforming for microphone inputs.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified independent claims (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: The voice input and control functionalities of TCL's smart televisions (Compl. ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 9,171,541 - “System and Method for Hybrid Processing in a Natural Language Voice Services Environment”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,171,541, titled “System and Method for Hybrid Processing in a Natural Language Voice Services Environment,” issued October 27, 2015.
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the limitations of voice user interfaces that are constrained to a single device or a finite set of applications (’541 Patent, col. 2:20-24). It proposes a hybrid system where multiple devices (e.g., a local client and a remote server) cooperatively process a natural language request, coordinated by a "virtual router" that analyzes the request to determine user intent and orchestrates a response using the capabilities of the various connected devices (’541 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified independent claims (Compl. ¶58).
  • Accused Features: The voice control functionalities of TCL's smart televisions, which utilize both embedded (on-device) and cloud-based processing for their virtual assistants (Compl. ¶57).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused products are TCL televisions with smart features, including the exemplary "TCL 50” QM5K Series QD-Mini LED 4K UHD Smart TV – 50QM5K" (which uses Google TV) and the "TCL 55" F35 Class 4K UHD HDR LED Smart TV with Fire TV – 55F35" (Compl. ¶36, ¶43, ¶50, ¶57).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these smart televisions incorporate voice assistant functionality, such as Google Assistant and Amazon Alexa (Compl. ¶38 n.2, ¶45 n.3). This enables users to issue voice commands to control the television (e.g., power, volume, channel), search for content, and interact with other compatible smart home devices (Compl. ¶38 n.2). These voice interaction features are central to the modern smart TV user experience and are a key area of competition among manufacturers.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits that are not provided; therefore, the narrative infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

  • ’579 Patent Infringement Allegations Summary: The complaint alleges that the voice control systems in TCL's smart TVs infringe the ’579 patent (Compl. ¶36). The narrative theory suggests that when a user issues a multi-part voice command, such as asking to find a movie and then refining the search, the TV's software "structures" these inputs into separate "stems." It then relates these stems to a "library of candidates" (e.g., a media database) to retrieve and display the requested content, thereby practicing the patented method for retrieval and navigation.
  • Identified Points of Contention (’579 Patent):
    • Scope Question: A potential dispute may arise over whether a conversational, natural-language query and refinement can be characterized as the distinct "first stem," "separator," and "second stem" required by the claim, which was described in the patent in the context of discrete, character-based inputs on a keypad.
    • Technical Question: What specific evidence demonstrates that the accused TVs' natural language understanding (NLU) systems perform the claimed function of "structuring" inputs into "stems," as opposed to holistically analyzing the semantic meaning of the user's continuous speech?
  • ’598 Patent Infringement Allegations Summary: The complaint alleges that the accused smart TVs infringe the ’598 patent's system for limiting audio (Compl. ¶43). The theory posits that the TVs, which contain both loudspeakers and far-field microphones for voice commands, must manage their own audio output to prevent it from overwhelming the microphone. It is alleged that the TVs perform the patented method of estimating the speaker's acoustic power at the microphone and limiting the audio output before playback to prevent signal clipping, thereby ensuring the microphone can accurately receive user commands even when the TV is producing sound.
  • Identified Points of Contention (’598 Patent):
    • Scope Question: The court may need to consider whether the patent’s claims, which address acoustic echo cancellation in a two-party communication context (e.g., a speakerphone), read on the "barge-in" problem of a single device's microphone needing to hear commands over its own speaker output.
    • Technical Question: Does the accused TV's audio management system actually perform the claimed predictive function of an "echo power estimator," or does it use a different, perhaps reactive, technique for ducking audio or filtering its own output from the microphone signal?

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • ’579 Patent, Claim 1:
    • The Term: "structuring the first input as a first stem"
    • Context and Importance: This term is central because infringement hinges on whether the processing of a natural language voice command by an NLU engine constitutes "structuring" it into a "stem." Practitioners may focus on this term because TCL could argue that modern NLU is a holistic semantic analysis, not the discrete partitioning implied by the patent's text-entry-focused examples.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language refers broadly to "receiving a first input from a user" without limiting it to text, which may support application to voice inputs (’579 Patent, col. 26:52-53).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's examples heavily feature character-by-character entry on a reduced-entry keypad, which could be used to argue that a "stem" is a piece of text input, not a conceptual component of a spoken utterance (’579 Patent, col. 5:8-13).
  • ’598 Patent, Claim 1:
    • The Term: "echo power estimator"
    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core inventive concept of a predictive system. The dispute may turn on whether the accused TVs include a component that performs this specific estimation function. TCL may argue its system does not "estimate" power in the manner claimed but uses a different audio management approach.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires an "estimator" but does not limit it to a single implementation, potentially covering any component that prospectively calculates expected audio power at the microphone (’598 Patent, col. 7:4-7).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes implementing the model using a "low order infinite impulse response (IIR) filter" derived from the echo cancellation filter, which could support a narrower construction tied to this specific type of predictive model (’598 Patent, col. 4:50-53).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for inducement is TCL's alleged dissemination of product manuals, advertising, and website content that instruct and encourage end-users to operate the smart TVs' voice features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶38 & n.2; ¶45 & n.3; ¶52 & n.4; ¶59 & n.5). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the assertion that the accused products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use (Compl. ¶39, ¶46, ¶53, ¶60).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The allegations are based on "information and belief" that TCL has knowledge of the patents and their infringement "at least as of the filing date of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶40, ¶47, ¶54, ¶61). This suggests a primary reliance on post-suit conduct for the willfulness claim.

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical analogy: can patented methods developed for the technical contexts of 2000s-era mobile devices—namely, structured text input for search (’579 Patent) and echo cancellation for telephone calls (’598 Patent)—be construed to cover the distinct technical problems of natural language understanding and self-audio interference ("barge-in") in a modern, AI-powered smart television?
  • A second central question will be one of architectural equivalence: for the patent on hybrid processing (’541 Patent), does the accused TVs' use of third-party cloud services like Google Assistant and Alexa constitute the claimed "hybrid processing" system coordinated by a "virtual router," or does it represent a fundamentally different client-server architecture that falls outside the patent's scope?
  • Finally, the case will present an evidentiary question of operational proof: beyond marketing materials describing voice features, what technical evidence can be presented to show that the accused TCL televisions internally perform the specific, granular steps required by the claims, such as structuring voice commands into "stems" or using a predictive "echo power estimator"?