Songbird Tech LLC v. Tesla Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Songbird Tech, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Tesla, Inc. (Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Daignault Iyer, LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00279, W.D. Tex., 02/05/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant is a "foreign corporation."
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s vehicle infotainment and voice-control systems infringe a patent related to an audio message-driven customer interaction and queuing system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for locally recording, storing, and transmitting audio messages from a user's device, a process relevant to modern in-vehicle voice assistants and data-logging features.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of an application filed in 2010, which itself is a continuation of an application filed in 2003 that claims priority to a 2002 provisional application. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or post-grant validity challenges.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,825,787, "Audio message Driven Customer Interaction Queuing System," issued September 2, 2014 (’787 Patent).

U.S. Patent No. 8,825,787 - "Audio message Driven Customer Interaction Queuing System"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the state of web-based customer interaction in the early 2000s as unsatisfactory, citing issues like inconvenient wait times, the unnatural paradigm of text-based chat, and the poor quality and high infrastructure cost of Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) systems ’787 Patent, col. 2:46-52 These problems led to "customer dissatisfaction and customer service organization frustration" ’787 Patent, col. 3:6-8
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "connectionless" store-and-forward system for voice messages, described as being akin to a "Walkie-Talkie" residing on a user's web browser ’787 Patent, abstract ’787 Patent, col. 4:39-44 A user can record an audio question, which is saved as a file and transmitted to a server. The message is then queued and distributed to a customer service agent who can review the query and record an audio response, which is sent back to the user’s device for playback. This avoids the need for a persistent, real-time connection between the user and the agent ’787 Patent, col. 4:36-52
• Technical Importance: By avoiding real-time, connection-oriented sessions, the invention aimed to improve audio fidelity (which was often poor with early VoIP) and reduce the staffing and infrastructure costs associated with traditional call centers ’787 Patent, col. 4:53-61

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 10 ’787 Patent, col. 15:1-15 Compl. ¶10
• The essential elements of claim 10 are:
  • An electronic device of a user, comprising:
  • a non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store a client application;
  • at least one processor communicatively coupled to the storage medium and configured to execute the client application;
  • at least one input device communicatively coupled to the processor, where the input device comprises a microphone; and
  • the client application configuring the processor to:
    • locally record an audio query message received through the microphone;
    • store the recorded audio query message on the electronic device; and
    • transmit the stored audio query message.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Products" are Tesla automobiles, including the Model S, Model Y, Model 3, Model X, and Cybertruck Compl. ¶7 Specifically, the complaint targets their infotainment systems and associated voice-enabled features Compl. ¶7

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products contain infotainment systems that enable various voice-based interactions Compl. ¶7 These features include general voice commands for navigation and media, the Grok AI Assistant, and a "voice drive-notes" feature for Full Self-Driving (FSD) Beta and Supervised modes Compl. ¶11 The complaint alleges these features allow a user to speak queries or notes that are recorded as audio, stored locally on the vehicle's hardware, and then transmitted to external servers for processing, analysis, or feedback Compl. ¶11 The complaint also lists numerous third-party media applications available on the infotainment system that may utilize the vehicle's microphone Compl. ¶¶11, 13

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

8,825,787 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The patent specification heavily describes the invention in the context of a customer service interaction occurring within a personal computer's web browser ’787 Patent, abstract ’787 Patent, col. 7:6-11 This raises the question of whether the claimed "electronic device" and "client application" can be construed to cover an integrated automotive infotainment system, which operates in a different technical environment.
• Technical Questions: Claim 10 requires that the system "transmit said stored audio query message." The complaint alleges that for Grok AI interactions, the system transmits "data (including processed audio or transcripts)" Compl. ¶13 This raises a factual question as to whether the original audio file is transmitted, as the claim may require, or if only a derivative data product (like a text transcript) is sent. The complaint alleges that FSD voice drive-notes do include transmission of the "audio clip," which may more closely align with the claim language Compl. ¶13

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "client application"

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is central to the scope of the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s specification consistently describes the "client application" as a component resident in a web browser, such as a "Macromedia Flash interface driving an ActiveX control" ’787 Patent, abstract Defendant may argue that this context limits the claim to browser-based software, potentially excluding the integrated, native software of the accused vehicle infotainment systems.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 10 does not limit the "client application" to a web browser environment, referring more generally to an application stored on a non-transitory medium and executed by a processor ’787 Patent, col. 15:1-4
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract, detailed description, and figures consistently depict the invention operating on a personal computer within a web browser ’787 Patent, abstract ’787 Patent, Fig. 10 The summary of the invention also refers to a "browser-resident recorder/player application" ’787 Patent, col. 4:6-8

The Term: "audio query message"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining whether the user interactions with the accused systems fall within the claim. The patent describes a system for "customer interaction" where web visitors "utter questions" to "customer service agents" ’787 Patent, abstract The accused functionality includes general vehicle commands (e.g., for navigation) and FSD "drive-notes," which are messages describing reasons for system disengagements Compl. ¶13
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The word "query" can mean any request, and "message" is a general term. Plaintiff may argue that any voice command is a "query" for the system to perform an action and is therefore a "query message."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly frames the invention in a customer service context, solving problems associated with traditional call centers ’787 Patent, col. 3:15-19 This context suggests an "audio query message" might be limited to a user's request for help or information directed to a human agent, rather than a machine command or a data log entry.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides "user manuals, software updates, and support encouraging use of these voice features" Compl. ¶14
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a specific count for willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285," which could entitle the plaintiff to an award of attorneys' fees Compl., Prayer C

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "client application", which is described in the patent’s specification as a browser-resident tool for customer service, be construed broadly enough to cover the integrated, native software of an in-vehicle AI assistant and voice command system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: what form of data do the accused systems transmit to servers? The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the systems transmit the "stored audio query message" itself, as the claim language recites, or if they transmit processed data such as text transcripts, which may not satisfy the claim limitation.