Songbird Tech LLC v. X Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Songbird Tech, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: X Corp. (Nevada, with a principal place of business in Texas)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Daignault Iyer LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00281, W.D. Tex., 02/05/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has a principal place of business in the district and because Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s social media platform infringes a patent related to a system for locally recording, storing, and transmitting audio messages on a user's electronic device.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns the client-side architecture for capturing and sending asynchronous audio messages, a feature now common in messaging and social media applications.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of prior applications, but the complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent family.

Case Timeline

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

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 support in the early 2000s as frustrating for both customers and service organizations (ʼ787 Patent, col. 3:7-21). Existing methods like email, text chat, and VoIP were seen as suffering from issues such as slow response times, the inconvenience of text entry, the requirement for users to wait in a queue for a live agent, and poor audio quality for real-time voice connections ʼ787 Patent, col. 1:59 - col. 2:56
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an asynchronous, "store and forward" system for voice communications, analogized to a "Walkie-Talkie" ʼ787 Patent, abstract ʼ787 Patent, col. 4:3-11 A user on a website can locally record an audio message on their device, which is then transmitted to a server for queuing and distribution to a customer service agent. This "connectionless" approach avoids the need for a persistent real-time session, aiming to improve voice quality and eliminate user wait times before asking a question ʼ787 Patent, col. 4:53-61
• Technical Importance: The described technology sought to merge the efficiency of asynchronous messaging (like email) with the expressiveness and ease of voice communication, aiming to reduce customer service center costs while improving the user experience ʼ787 Patent, col. 4:20-36

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 10 Compl. ¶10
• Independent Claim 10 Elements:
  • An electronic device of a user, said electronic device comprising:
  • a non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store a client application;
  • at least one processor communicatively coupled to said non-transitory computer readable storage medium, said at least one processor configured to execute said client application;
  • at least one input device communicatively coupled to said processor, wherein said input device comprises a microphone; and
  • said client application configuring said at least one processor to:
    • locally record an audio query message received through said microphone;
    • store said recorded audio query message on said electronic device; and
    • transmit said stored audio query message.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• Defendant X Corp.’s social media platform, including its mobile, desktop, and web applications, and specifically its voice messaging features within Direct Messages (DMs) and as voice posts/tweets (collectively, the "Accused Products") Compl. ¶7

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the Accused Products contain features that permit users to record audio messages using their device's microphone Compl. ¶12 The alleged process involves local recording of the audio, temporary storage on the user's device, and subsequent transmission to Defendant's servers for delivery to other users or for posting publicly Compl. ¶¶12-13

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary: U.S. Patent No. 8,825,787

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The asserted patent is titled and described as an "Audio message Driven Customer Interaction Queuing System" '787 Patent, title '787 Patent, abstract A central question will be whether the term "audio query message" in Claim 10 is limited by this customer service context, or if it can be read more broadly to cover general-purpose voice notes and social media posts, as alleged by the complaint.
• Technical Questions: While the complaint alleges the fundamental steps of record, store, and transmit, a technical question may arise as to whether the "temporary buffers" mentioned in the complaint Compl. ¶14 constitute "stor[ing] said recorded audio query message on said electronic device" in the manner contemplated by the patent, or if it is merely a transient part of the transmission stream.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "audio query message"

• Context and Importance: The interpretation of this term appears central to the dispute. The patent's specification is heavily focused on a customer service context where users submit "questions" to "agents." If "query" is construed to require a question seeking an answer, it may present a challenge for infringement allegations against general social media communications. If construed more broadly as any audio utterance intended for transmission, the infringement theory may be more viable.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 10 itself recites the functional steps of recording, storing, and transmitting an "audio query message" without any explicit limitation requiring it to be a question or part of a customer service interaction '787 Patent, col. 16:9-15 A plaintiff may argue that the claim language should govern and not be limited by preferred embodiments in the specification.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's title, abstract, and background repeatedly frame the invention as a system for customers to "utter questions" to "customer service agents" '787 Patent, abstract The specification consistently describes the user's utterance in the context of a "question" and the system as a "customer interaction queuing system" '787 Patent, col. 1:23-26 '787 Patent, col. 3:26-32 A defendant may argue that this consistent context defines the scope of the claims.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides "user guides, help documentation, and software updates encouraging the use of voice messaging features" Compl. ¶15
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support a claim of willful infringement, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent. The prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 Compl. ¶C, Prayer for Relief

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

The resolution of this case may depend on the answers to two primary questions:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "audio query message," which originates in a patent focused entirely on a customer service system, be construed to cover general-purpose voice notes and public posts on a social media platform?
• A related legal question will be the extent to which the claim language governs over specification context: The case appears poised to test the balance between the broad, seemingly generic language of the asserted device claim and the highly specific, context-rich disclosure of the patent's specification.