DCT
6:23-cv-00158
Jawbone Innovations LLC v. Meta Platforms Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Jawbone Innovations, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Meta Platforms, Inc. (California)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Mort Law Firm, PLLC; Fabricant LLP
- Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00158, W.D. Tex., 02/28/2023
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Meta is registered to do business in Texas, has regular and established places of business in the district, has transacted business there, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Meta Portal devices and virtual reality headsets infringe eight patents related to acoustic noise suppression and voice activity detection technology.
- Technical Context: The technology involves advanced audio processing using multiple microphones and sensors to distinguish human speech from background noise, a critical function for modern communication devices and augmented/virtual reality headsets.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges the patented technology was developed by Jawbone, Inc. (formerly AliphCom), which liquidated in 2017. Plaintiff alleges that Meta was notified of the patent portfolio and potential infringement as early as 2017, following the liquidation, and was again notified in 2019 regarding opportunities for purchase or licensing. These allegations form the basis of the willful infringement claims.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-01-01 | AliphCom (predecessor to Jawbone, Inc.) was founded |
| 2001-05-30 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058 |
| 2002-01-01 | AliphCom won a DARPA contract for noise suppression research |
| 2002-03-27 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543 |
| 2002-09-19 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091 |
| 2004-01-01 | AliphCom launched the "Jawbone" mobile headset |
| 2007-06-13 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 10,779,080; 11,122,357; 8,503,691 |
| 2007-07-17 | U.S. Patent No. 7246058 Issued |
| 2008-01-01 | Bluetooth version of the "Jawbone" headset launched |
| 2008-10-24 | Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,321,213; 8,326,611 |
| 2011-01-01 | AliphCom changed its name to Jawbone, Inc. |
| 2011-09-13 | U.S. Patent No. 8019091 Issued |
| 2012-11-27 | U.S. Patent No. 8321213 Issued |
| 2012-12-04 | U.S. Patent No. 8326611 Issued |
| 2013-06-18 | U.S. Patent No. 8467543 Issued |
| 2013-08-06 | U.S. Patent No. 8503691 Issued |
| 2017-01-01 | Jawbone, Inc. was forced into liquidation |
| 2017-01-01 | Meta allegedly became aware of the Patents-in-Suit |
| 2019-09-01 | Meta allegedly received correspondence regarding the patent portfolio |
| 2020-09-15 | U.S. Patent No. 10779080 Issued |
| 2021-09-14 | U.S. Patent No. 11122357 Issued |
| 2023-02-28 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091 - “Voice Activity Detector (VAD)-Based Multiple-Microphone Acoustic Noise Suppression”
- Issued: September 13, 2011
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Conventional noise suppression systems struggled to distinguish speech from noise, particularly in dynamic noise environments, leading to distorted speech or insufficient noise removal (’091 Patent, Background).
- The Patented Solution: The invention combines inputs from at least two acoustic microphones with a separate non-acoustic sensor that detects "human tissue vibration" associated with speech (’091 Patent, Abstract). This non-acoustic sensor provides a highly reliable Voice Activity Detection (VAD) signal. The system uses this VAD signal to determine when speech is absent versus present, generating different "transfer functions" for each state to more accurately remove noise from the acoustic signals (’091 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:29-43).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a more robust method for voice activity detection than acoustic-only systems, enabling more aggressive and accurate noise cancellation without inadvertently distorting the user's speech (’091 Patent, col. 5:29-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 11 (Compl. ¶36).
- Claim 11 requires a system for removing acoustic noise, comprising:
- a receiver that receives at least two acoustic signals from at least two microphones;
- at least one sensor that receives human tissue vibration information associated with human voicing activity;
- a processor that generates a plurality of transfer functions, including:
- a first transfer function (representative of a ratio of energy of acoustic signals) generated when voicing activity is absent;
- a second transfer function generated when voicing activity is present;
- wherein acoustic noise is removed using the first transfer function and a combination of the first and second transfer functions.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058 - “Detecting Voiced and Unvoiced Speech Using Both Acoustic and Nonacoustic Sensors”
- Issued: July 17, 2007
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of correctly identifying not only the presence of speech but also its specific type (voiced vs. unvoiced) in noisy environments, which is critical for many speech applications (’058 Patent, Background).
- The Patented Solution: The invention uses a multi-modal approach. It combines at least two microphones with at least one "voicing sensor" that receives "physiological information" (e.g., tissue vibration) (’058 Patent, Abstract). The system identifies voiced speech by cross-correlating the physiological information with the acoustic signal. It identifies unvoiced speech and noise by analyzing the "relative difference in signal gain" between the two microphones, applying different thresholds to distinguish between them (’058 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:1-17).
- Technical Importance: This method provided a more granular classification of acoustic signals, allowing a system to differentiate between voiced speech, unvoiced speech, and background noise, which can enable more sophisticated and tailored noise suppression techniques (’058 Patent, col. 3:1-17).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶53).
- Claim 1 requires a system for detecting voiced and unvoiced speech, comprising:
- at least two microphones;
- at least one voicing sensor that receives physiological information;
- at least one processor that:
- generates cross correlation data between the physiological information and an acoustic signal;
- identifies voiced speech when the cross correlation data exceeds a correlation threshold;
- generates difference parameters based on relative signal gain between the microphones;
- identifies unvoiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a gain threshold;
- identifies noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 10,779,080 - “Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA)”
- Issued: September 15, 2020
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes using an array of omnidirectional microphones to form "virtual microphones" that have a similar response to noise but a dissimilar response to speech. This allows an adaptive filter to significantly reduce noise without distorting the desired speech signal (Compl. ¶23; ’080 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶71).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Meta products, including the Meta Quest Pro, utilize omnidirectional MEMS microphones to form virtual beamformed microphones to reduce noise (Compl. ¶24).
U.S. Patent No. 11,122,357 - “Forming Virtual Microphone Arrays Using Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA)”
- Issued: September 14, 2021
- Technology Synopsis: The patent relates to acoustic noise suppression using an array of physical microphones to form an array of virtual microphones. The physical and virtual microphone signals can be combined by filtering and summing to suppress noise in the output signal (Compl. ¶25; ’357 Patent, Abstract).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶86).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Meta products, including the Meta Quest Pro, use arrays of physical microphones whose outputs are combined into beamformed microphones to reduce noise (Compl. ¶26).
U.S. Patent No. 8,467,543 - “Microphone and Voice Activity Detection (VAD) Configurations For Use with Communications Systems”
- Issued: June 18, 2013
- Technology Synopsis: The patent describes communication systems with a voice detection subsystem and a denoising subsystem. It includes specific microphone configurations, such as one microphone oriented toward a talker's mouth and a second oriented away, allowing the denoising subsystem to subtract noise from the acoustic signal (Compl. ¶27).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶99).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges the Meta Quest Pro infringes by having microphones oriented towards and away from the user's mouth and by using sensors (e.g., accelerometers) to detect voice activity for noise suppression (Compl. ¶28, 102).
U.S. Patent No. 8,503,691 - “Virtual Microphone Arrays Using Dual Omnidirectional Microphone Array (DOMA)”
- Issued: August 6, 2013
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is related to the '357 Patent, also describing noise suppression with an array of physical microphones that form an array of virtual microphones. The signals are combined by filtering and summing to suppress noise (Compl. ¶25).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 23 (Compl. ¶116).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Meta products, including the Meta Quest Pro, use arrays of physical MEMS microphones to form virtual beamformed microphones to reduce noise (Compl. ¶26).
U.S. Patent Nos. 8,321,213 and 8,326,611 - “Acoustic Voice Activity Detection (AVAD) for Electronic Systems”
- Issued: November 27, 2012 and December 4, 2012, respectively
- Technology Synopsis: These patents describe acoustic voice activity detection based on a ratio of energies between virtual microphones formed by an array of physical microphones. The system creates virtual microphones with similar noise responses but dissimilar speech responses, allowing a ratio of their energies to be compared to a threshold to detect voicing activity (Compl. ¶29).
- Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 of the ’213 Patent and claim 1 of the ’611 Patent (Compl. ¶132, 146).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Meta products, including the Meta Quest Pro, form virtual microphones and detect user speech (e.g., a wake word) by comparing a ratio of energies of the beamformed microphones to a threshold (Compl. ¶30).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Accused Products include "at least all versions and variants of Meta Portal devices (e.g., Portal 10”, Portal Go, Portal Plus, etc.) and Meta virtual reality headsets (e.g., Meta Quest 2, Meta Quest Pro, etc.)" (Compl. ¶32). The complaint uses the Meta Quest Pro as its primary exemplary product.
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the Accused Products incorporate noise suppression and voice activity detection features (Compl. ¶22, 32). Specifically, the Meta Quest Pro is alleged to include an "enhanced 3-mic array" for noise canceling and beamforming (Compl. ¶22), as well as an accelerometer and "voice pickup unit" that function as a voice activity detector (Compl. ¶22, 39). The complaint provides a teardown image of the Meta Quest Pro's mainboard, identifying the Qualcomm Snapdragon processor allegedly coupled between the microphones and accelerometers (Compl. p. 18, ¶56). These components are alleged to work in tandem to generate transfer functions and use physiological information (tissue vibration) to suppress noise and detect speech (Compl. ¶22, 28, 40).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,019,091 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 11) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a receiver that receives at least two acoustic signals via at least two acoustic microphones positioned in a plurality of locations | The Meta Quest Pro comprises a receiver that receives signals from a microphone array with at least two microphones (e.g., an enhanced 3-mic array). | ¶38 | col. 4:50-57 |
| at least one sensor that receives human tissue vibration information associated with human voicing activity of a user | The Meta Quest Pro comprises at least one accelerometer and a voice pickup unit sensor that allegedly receives human tissue vibration associated with voicing activity. | ¶39 | col. 4:57-61 |
| a processor coupled among the receiver and the at least one sensor that generates a plurality of transfer functions, wherein the plurality of transfer functions includes a first transfer function representative of a ratio of energy of acoustic signals received using at least two different acoustic microphones... | The processor in the Meta Quest Pro allegedly utilizes the microphone array to detect speech and generates transfer functions, including one representative of a ratio of energy of acoustic signals received at different microphones. | ¶40 | col. 5:1-12 |
| ...wherein the first transfer function is generated in response to a determination that voicing activity is absent from the acoustic signals for a period of time... | The Meta Quest Pro allegedly generates the first transfer function when the voice pickup unit, accelerometer, and/or sensor indicate that voicing activity is absent. | ¶41 | col. 5:1-6 |
| ...wherein the plurality of transfer functions includes a second transfer function representative of the acoustic signals, wherein the second transfer function is generated in response to a determination that voicing activity is present... | The Meta Quest Pro allegedly generates a second transfer function in response to a determination that voicing activity is present, based on detection of human tissue vibrations by the voice pickup unit/accelerometer. | ¶42 | col. 5:6-12 |
| ...wherein acoustic noise is removed from the acoustic signals using the first transfer function and at least one combination of the first transfer function and the second transfer function to produce the denoised acoustic data stream. | The Meta Quest Pro allegedly removes noise by applying at least a first transfer function generated when voicing is absent, and a transfer function generated by combining the first and second transfer functions. | ¶43 | col. 5:29-43 |
U.S. Patent No. 7,246,058 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| at least two microphones that receive the acoustic signals | Each Meta Quest Pro comprises at least two MEMS microphones that receive acoustic signals. | ¶54 | col. 4:32-34 |
| at least one voicing sensor that receives physiological information associated with human voicing activity | The Meta Quest Pro comprises an accelerometer that allegedly receives human tissue vibration associated with voicing activity. | ¶55 | col. 4:34-36 |
| at least one processor coupled among the microphones and the voicing sensor, wherein the at least one processor; generates cross correlation data between the physiological information and an acoustic signal received at one of the two microphones | The processor of the Meta Quest Pro allegedly generates cross correlation data between the physiological information (tissue vibration) and an acoustic signal from one of the microphones. | ¶56-57 | col. 4:36-42 |
| identifies information of the acoustic signals as voiced speech when the cross correlation data...exceeds a correlation threshold | The processor of the Meta Quest Pro allegedly identifies acoustic signals as speech when the cross correlation data exceeds a threshold based on vibration and/or acoustic signals. | ¶58 | col. 4:42-46 |
| generates difference parameters between the acoustic signals received at each of the two receivers, wherein the difference parameters are representative of the relative difference in signal gain... | The processor of the Meta Quest Pro allegedly generates difference parameters between signals from each MEMS microphone, representative of the relative difference in signal gain. | ¶59 | col. 4:46-51 |
| identifies information of the acoustic signals as unvoiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a gain threshold | The processor of the Meta Quest Pro allegedly identifies acoustic signals as unvoiced speech when the difference parameter exceeds a gain threshold. | ¶60 | col. 4:51-54 |
| and identifies information of the acoustic signals as noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold. | The processor of the Meta Quest Pro allegedly identifies acoustic signals as noise when the difference parameters are less than the gain threshold. | ¶61 | col. 4:54-56 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question for both patents will be whether a general-purpose accelerometer and processor in a modern VR headset, which perform numerous functions including motion tracking, meet the claim limitations for a "sensor that receives human tissue vibration information" or a "voicing sensor that receives physiological information." The analysis may turn on whether the claims require a component specifically dedicated to or optimized for this purpose.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused products' software performs the specific logical steps recited in the claims. For the ’091 Patent, what evidence shows that two distinct types of transfer functions are generated based on a binary voiced/unvoiced determination from the sensor? For the ’058 Patent, what evidence shows that the system applies three distinct thresholds ("correlation threshold," "gain threshold," and a "less than the gain threshold" condition) to separately identify voiced speech, unvoiced speech, and noise, as opposed to using a more integrated or different noise suppression algorithm? Many of these technical allegations are made "upon information and belief" and will depend on evidence produced during discovery (Compl. ¶39, 40, 55, 57).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "sensor that receives human tissue vibration information" (’091 Patent, Claim 11) / "voicing sensor that receives physiological information" (’058 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because it defines the non-acoustic input that is a core element of the claimed inventions. The scope of this term will determine whether a standard, multi-purpose component like an accelerometer in a VR headset, which detects any movement, can satisfy the limitation, or if a more specialized sensor is required. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges infringement by a general-purpose accelerometer (Compl. ¶39, 55).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specifications may describe the sensor in functional terms, suggesting that any device capable of detecting the relevant vibrations could suffice. The ’058 Patent, for example, refers to "non-acoustic sensors" generally (Compl. ¶8).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specifications may describe specific embodiments that could imply a narrower scope, such as sensors placed in direct contact with the user's cheek or throat to specifically capture speech-related vibrations, as opposed to head movements. The ’058 patent abstract refers to sensors that "receive physiological information to aid in identifying voiced speech," potentially suggesting a purpose-built function.
Term: "transfer function" (’091 Patent, Claim 11)
- Context and Importance: The claim requires generating a "first transfer function" when voicing is absent and a "second transfer function" when it is present. The definition will be central to determining if the accused system’s alleged noise suppression technique, which may not use these exact labels or discrete modes of operation, infringes.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent may define "transfer function" according to its ordinary meaning in signal processing, which could encompass a wide range of mathematical relationships between microphone signals (’091 Patent, col. 5:1-6).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification could provide specific equations or algorithmic examples (e.g., relating to transfer functions H1(z) and H2(z)) that might be used to argue for a more limited construction tied to those specific mathematical forms (’091 Patent, col. 5:29-43).
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all asserted patents. This is based on Meta allegedly providing the Accused Products along with "instruction manuals, websites, promotional materials, advertisements, and other information" that instruct customers and end-users on how to use the infringing noise cancellation features (Compl. ¶45, 63, 79, 92, 108, 124, 138, 152).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The claims are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that Meta has known of the patents and its alleged infringement "since at least 2017," when the patent portfolio was allegedly "marketed to Meta following Jawbone, Inc.’s liquidation" (Compl. ¶19, 47, 65, 110, 126, 140, 154).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: many of the complaint's allegations regarding the specific internal software operations of the Accused Products—such as the generation of distinct transfer functions based on VAD state or the application of separate thresholds for voiced, unvoiced, and noise signals—are made "upon information and belief." The case may turn on whether discovery reveals source code or technical documents that confirm the accused systems function in the precise manner required by the claims.
- A core issue will be one of technological scope: can claim terms rooted in the dedicated audio processing hardware of the early 2000s, such as a "voicing sensor" or a processor that generates specific "transfer functions," be construed to read on the multi-purpose sensors (e.g., accelerometers for motion tracking) and integrated systems-on-a-chip (SoCs) found in modern VR headsets that perform a multitude of functions simultaneously?
- A central question for damages will be willfulness: given the specific allegations that Meta was made aware of the patent portfolio in 2017 and 2019, the court will need to examine the facts surrounding Meta's alleged knowledge and intent to determine if any infringement was willful, which could lead to enhanced damages.