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: 1:24-cv-00347, W.D. Tex., 04/01/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Apple has continuous business contacts with the state, purposefully places products into the stream of commerce in the district, and operates retail stores there. The complaint supports this by providing screenshots of Apple's retail store locations in Austin.
• 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 concerns server-based speech recognition systems that process user voice commands to find and provide access to information, a foundational capability for modern digital assistants and smart devices.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was examined and allowed by the USPTO after consideration of numerous prior art references. Unusually, the complaint cites case law regarding the enforceability of expired patents for past damages, though the patent-in-suit, which includes a 610-day patent term adjustment, does not appear to be expired.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-11-12	'766 Patent Priority Date
2013-08-27	'766 Patent Issue Date
2024-04-01	Complaint Filing Date

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 August 27, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a state of the art where searching for digital media was challenging due to a proliferation of different interfaces and where voice commands were unreliable ('766 Patent, col. 1:22-40). Existing speech recognition systems were described as "notoriously unreliable and limited in word-scope," particularly when faced with background noise, atypical pitch or accent, ambiguous terms, or proper names ('766 Patent, col. 2:9-16; Compl. ¶15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a client-server system that improves voice-based information retrieval ('766 Patent, Fig. 1). A server receives an "information request" (e.g., a voice command) from a consumer device, "decodes" it, "discovers" the relevant information, and then prepares and communicates a set of "instructions for accessing the information" back to the device ('766 Patent, Abstract). The patent elaborates on a multi-stage decoding process, where a broad, initial speech recognition pass (SLM ASR) is used to determine a general context, which then informs a second, more constrained and accurate recognition pass (CFG ASR) to identify specific keywords ('766 Patent, col. 2:42-56).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to improve the accuracy and user experience of voice search by using a more sophisticated, context-aware, and iterative decoding process, moving beyond the limitations of then-current single-pass speech recognition systems ('766 Patent, col. 2:17-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 29, along with dependent claims 2-3, 5-10, 13, and 30 (Compl. ¶29).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • 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, the instructions including: 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.
• Independent Claim 29 (System):
  • a processor module configured to perform the steps of: receiving an information request from a consumer device; decoding the request; discovering information; preparing instructions (including ASR grammar codes, short text string matching codes, and formatting codes); and communicating the prepared instructions back to the consumer device, which is configured for retrieving and presenting the information.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "at least an intelligent voice assistant system ('Siri') that 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).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the accused functionality of Siri as receiving voice commands from users and retrieving related information (Compl. ¶24). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on Siri's operation or its market context beyond its inclusion in widely used Apple products. The complaint includes screenshots of Apple's retail stores in Austin to demonstrate Apple's presence in the district (Compl. p. 3, Figs. 1-2). Figure 1 shows the storefront of the "Apple Barton Creek" retail location (Compl. p. 3, Fig. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint’s substantive infringement allegations are made by reference to a "Claim Chart attached hereto as Exhibit B," which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶29, 35, 36). The body of the complaint itself does not contain specific factual allegations mapping the features of the Accused Instrumentalities to the elements of the asserted claims. The complaint therefore does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-by-claim analysis in a chart format.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the scope of the claim phrase "instructions for accessing the information." The claims require these instructions to contain three specific types of data: "ASR grammar codes," "short text string matching codes," and "information formatting codes" ('766 Patent, cl. 1, 29). A central question will be whether the data packets Apple’s servers send to a device in response to a Siri query can be shown to contain these specific "codes," as opposed to simply containing display-ready content. The patent specification describes these codes as part of a structured "active metadata" package ('766 Patent, Fig. 12).
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the plaintiff can demonstrate that Apple’s Siri system performs all steps of the asserted method claims. The patent discloses a client-server architecture ('766 Patent, Fig. 1). The allocation of processing steps between the user's device and Apple's servers raises the question of whether a single actor (i.e., Apple) directly infringes, or if the allegations depend on a theory of joint infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "instructions for accessing the information"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the asserted independent claims. Infringement appears to depend on whether the data sent by Apple's servers to a user's device in response to a Siri query constitutes these specific "instructions." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the type of evidence needed to prove infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the instructions can include elements like a "URL, URI, login, password, digital rights management access keys, or digital rights management rules" ('766 Patent, col. 11:20-24), which could support a construction covering a wide range of data used to retrieve content.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself requires the "instructions" to include three distinct types of codes ('766 Patent, cl. 1). The specification’s depiction of "Active metadata tags" in Figure 12 shows these as specific fields within a data header, separate from the media content itself, which may support a narrower construction limited to such a structured metadata package ('766 Patent, Fig. 12).

• The Term: "decoding the information request"

  • Context and Importance: The patent specification describes a particular multi-stage "decoding" process as a solution to the prior art's failings. The scope of this term will determine whether any form of speech-to-text processing infringes, or only systems using the more specific methods disclosed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general, and a plaintiff may argue it should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any method of converting a voice request into a machine-executable query.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly highlights a specific approach of using "CFG ASR that is assisted by SLM ASR" ('766 Patent, col. 2:45-47). A defendant may argue that this disclosed two-stage process is definitional of the invention's contribution and that the term "decoding" should be construed to be limited to this technique, particularly as it is recited in several dependent claims (e.g., 20-28).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Apple distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '766 Patent" (Compl. ¶33). The complaint notes that its (unfiled) Exhibit B extensively references these materials (Compl. ¶33).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that Apple has knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present complaint" (Compl. ¶27) and "continues to make, use, test, sell, [and] offer for sale" infringing products despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶33). These allegations lay the groundwork for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

• A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's reliance on an unfiled exhibit, the case will depend on whether discovery reveals that Siri’s internal architecture actually generates and transmits data packets that meet the specific claim requirement of "instructions" containing "ASR grammar codes," "short text string matching codes," and "information formatting codes."
• The case will also turn on a question of claim construction: can the term "instructions for accessing the information," which is recited with a list of specific included "codes," be construed broadly to cover the data streams used by modern voice assistants like Siri, or will it be limited to the specific "active metadata" package structure disclosed in the patent's embodiments? The resolution of this issue may be dispositive for the infringement analysis.