Songbird Tech LLC v. Zoho Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Songbird Tech, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Zoho Corporation (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Daignault Iyer LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00282, W.D. Tex., 02/05/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Zoho Cliq secure chat platform infringes a patent related to a system for recording, storing, and transmitting audio messages on an electronic device.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the architecture for capturing audio on a user device and transmitting it over a network, a fundamental feature in modern messaging and communication applications.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

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

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the state of web-based customer service as unsatisfactory, citing the delays of email, the inconvenience of "web call back" systems, and the poor quality and expense of real-time Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and text chat systems (ʼ787 Patent, col. 1:47-col. 2:62). These systems often result in customer frustration due to waiting in queues and "unnatural interaction paradigms" (ʼ787 Patent, col. 3:9-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "connectionless" audio messaging system to solve these problems (ʼ787 Patent, col. 3:52-56). A user on a website can record an audio question using a browser-resident application described as being "akin to a Walkie-Talkie" (ʼ787 Patent, abstract). This audio message is then sent to a server, queued, and distributed to a customer service agent who can review the message and the user's web context before recording and sending an audio response back to the user (ʼ787 Patent, abstract; ʼ787 Patent, col. 4:37-44). The system is designed for an asynchronous, store-and-forward exchange, avoiding the need for a persistent real-time connection (ʼ787 Patent, col. 3:52-56).
• Technical Importance: The approach aimed to combine the immediacy of voice communication with the efficiency of asynchronous messaging, thereby reducing customer wait times and lowering operational costs for service centers by eliminating the need for expensive, real-time call-handling infrastructure (ʼ787 Patent, col. 4:28-32).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 10 Compl. ¶10
• Claim 10 recites an electronic device 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 comprising a microphone, communicatively coupled to the processor; 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 Zoho's Cliq secure chat platform, including its mobile, desktop, and web-based applications (collectively, the "Accused Products") Compl. ¶7

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint focuses on the "voice messaging features" (referred to as "voice notes") within the Cliq platform Compl. ¶12 This functionality allows users to record spoken messages using their device's microphone, with recordings of up to 15 minutes in length Compl. ¶12 The process, as described in the complaint, involves locally recording the message, temporarily storing it on the user's device, and then transmitting it to Zoho's servers for delivery to other users in chats or channels Compl. ¶¶12, 14 The complaint notes that these communications are often encrypted Compl. ¶¶12, 14

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

Claim Chart Summary

• The complaint provides a narrative infringement theory for claim 10, which is summarized in the table below Compl. ¶14

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The asserted patent is titled Audio message Driven Customer Interaction Queuing System and its specification is heavily focused on a customer service context (ʼ787 Patent, title; ʼ787 Patent, abstract). A central question may be whether Claim 10, which does not explicitly recite a customer service limitation, should be interpreted in light of this context. The Defendant may argue that the claim's scope is limited to the specific customer-service application described, while the Plaintiff will likely argue the claim covers any electronic device performing the recited functions, regardless of context.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the general-purpose "voice notes" feature of the Zoho Cliq platform meets the "audio query message" limitation of the claim Compl. ¶14 A point of contention may be whether a generic "voice note" in a chat application is technically and legally equivalent to an "audio query message" as that term is used and described in the patent's specification.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "audio query message"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute. Its construction will determine whether the claim is limited to the customer service context detailed in the patent or broadly covers any recorded audio message. The infringement allegation hinges on whether Zoho Cliq's general-purpose "voice notes" can be considered an "audio query message."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 10 itself does not contain any explicit limitation to a customer service context or require that the audio message actually be a "query" in the interrogative sense (ʼ787 Patent, col. 16:10-12). A party could argue that any audio message sent from one user to another could be construed as a "query" for a response.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly and consistently describes the system in the context of a user ("web page visitor") sending questions to "customer service agents" (ʼ787 Patent, abstract; ʼ787 Patent, col. 4:37-44). The patent's title itself refers to a "Customer Interaction Queuing System" (ʼ787 Patent, title). This pervasive contextual language may support an argument that an "audio query message" is not just any audio file, but one created for the specific purpose of seeking assistance in a structured customer service environment.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by "providing user guides, help documentation, and software updates encouraging the use of voice messaging features" Compl. ¶15
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit count for willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests a "declaration that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" Compl., Prayer C, which is the statutory basis for awarding attorney's fees, often sought in cases involving allegations of willful infringement or other litigation misconduct.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions for the court:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the term "audio query message," as used in Claim 10, carry an implicit limitation to the customer service context that permeates the patent's specification, or does its plain meaning cover any recorded audio message, such as the general "voice notes" in the accused chat platform?
• A related question will be one of contextual limitation: Can the overall purpose and detailed description of the invention as a "Customer Interaction Queuing System" be used to narrow the scope of a claim that, on its face, recites the general architecture of a modern electronic device capable of recording and sending audio?