Songbird Tech LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Songbird Tech, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Republic of Korea) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Mort Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00537, W.D. Tex., 07/26/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendants have committed acts of infringement in the district and maintain regular and established places of business there, including corporate facilities and retail points of sale.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that a wide range of Samsung's electronic products incorporating voice assistant technology infringe a patent related to a system for queuing and responding to user audio messages.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that allow a user to record a voice query on a local device, which is then transmitted for processing, aiming to improve upon traditional web and telephone-based customer service channels.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation of prior applications, claiming an earliest priority date of a provisional application from 2002. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent.

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 (’787 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes dissatisfaction with then-current web-based customer service methods, such as email (long delays), web call-backs (disruptive), text chat (requires typing), and Voice over IP (poor quality and expensive infrastructure) ( Compl. ¶12; ’787 Patent, col. 1:47-59, col. 2:6-25). These methods created frustration for customers and high operational costs for service centers (’787 Patent, col. 3:6-19).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "walkie-talkie-like" system where a user on a website can record an audio question using a browser-resident application. This audio message is then transmitted to a server, queued, and distributed to a customer service agent. The agent can then record a response that is sent back to the user's device for playback, all designed to occur within a short service interval without requiring a real-time, connection-oriented session (’787 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:4-16). The system architecture involves client, server, and agent elements, with the client comprising a user interface driving scripts and controls to manage audio recording and transfer (’787 Patent, col. 7:6-14).
• Technical Importance: The described approach sought to combine the natural interaction of voice with the efficiency of an asynchronous, message-based system, thereby reducing customer wait times and lowering service center staffing and infrastructure costs (’787 Patent, col. 4:11-19, 53-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (’787 Patent, Compl. ¶16).
• 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, wherein 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 complaint names a broad array of Samsung products, including but not limited to: Galaxy smartphones (S series, Note series, etc.), Galaxy Tab tablets, QLED Smart TVs, Galaxy Watches, and Family Hub refrigerators (Compl. ¶13). The common element is the inclusion of a voice virtual assistant application, such as Bixby, Google Assistant, or Alexa (Compl. ¶13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint focuses on the functionality of the integrated voice assistants, using the Galaxy S23 with the Bixby application as an exemplary product (Compl. ¶18).
• It is alleged that these applications allow a user to speak audio queries into the device's microphone. The application then records the query, stores it in the device's memory, and transmits it to a network server for processing (Compl. ¶18). The complaint alleges these products are made, used, sold, and imported in the United States by the Defendants (Compl. ¶14, ¶17).
• No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'787 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether a general-purpose voice assistant (like Bixby) falls within the scope of the claims, given the patent's title (“Audio message Driven Customer Interaction Queuing System”) and detailed description, which consistently frame the invention as a tool for asynchronous communication with a human customer service agent. The court will need to determine if the claims are limited to that specific context.
• Technical Questions: Claim 10 recites an "electronic device" with client-side-only steps (record, store, transmit). This differs from other claims in the patent, such as claim 1, which also recite server-side steps for distribution and agent response. A key question is whether the term "transmit said stored audio query message" in claim 10 requires transmission to a "host server" for the purpose of "customer service" as described in the specification, or if any transmission to any "network server" for any purpose (e.g., voice-to-text conversion for a web search) is sufficient to infringe.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "client application"

• Context and Importance: The infringement theory hinges on whether general-purpose voice assistants like Bixby, Google Assistant, or Alexa can be considered the claimed "client application." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either limit the patent to the specific customer service context described in the specification or broaden it to cover a wide range of modern voice-enabled software.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is generic. Plaintiff may argue that Claim 10 deliberately omits any limitations regarding the purpose of the application or the destination of the transmission, and any software application performing the recited functions of recording, storing, and transmitting audio qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the "client application" as a specific tool ("Blurt Client") embedded in a web page for interacting with a customer service system, featuring a "walkie-talkie-like" interface for asynchronous communication with human agents (’787 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:4-16, col. 7:6-14). Defendant may argue this context limits the term to applications with this specific functionality.

• The Term: "transmit said stored audio query message"

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term will determine the type of system architecture that infringes. The dispute will likely center on whether the act of "transmitting" implies a specific destination and purpose aligned with the patent's overall disclosure.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue the plain meaning of "transmit" requires only sending the data from the device, without limitation as to its destination or purpose, especially since Claim 10, unlike other claims, omits any "host server" or "host agent" limitations.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that, in the context of the entire patent, "transmit" must be understood as part of the disclosed "customer interaction queuing system." This would imply a transmission to a server that performs the queuing and distribution functions central to the invention, even if those functions are not explicitly recited in this particular device claim (’787 Patent, col. 1:22-37, col. 13:56-59).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of induced or contributory infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. It requests a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285," but does not plead any specific facts regarding pre- or post-suit knowledge by the Defendant that would typically support a willfulness claim (Compl. ¶C, p. 8).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court’s answers to two fundamental questions of claim construction and scope:

1. A core issue will be one of "definitional scope": Can the term "client application", which the patent describes in the narrow context of a web-based customer service tool, be construed broadly enough to read on a general-purpose, system-level voice assistant like Samsung’s Bixby?

2. A related evidentiary and legal question will be one of "contextual limitation": Does the broad, device-focused language of Claim 10—which only recites recording, storing, and transmitting an audio query—nevertheless implicitly require the specific "customer interaction queuing" purpose that is described as the central problem and solution throughout the rest of the patent specification?