Songbird Tech LLC v. ASUSTeK Computer Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Songbird Tech, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. (Taiwan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: THE MORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00041, W.D. Tex., 01/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s computer products incorporating voice assistant technology infringe a patent related to an audio message-driven customer interaction system.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns systems for capturing, storing, and transmitting audio messages from a user device, particularly in the context of web-based customer service interactions.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of prior applications dating back to 2003. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to 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.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes conventional web-based customer service channels—such as email, text chat, and VoIP—as suffering from significant drawbacks, including long response times, inconvenient real-time connection requirements, poor voice quality, and high operational costs for service centers (’787 Patent, col. 1:47-2:67). These issues are described as leading to "customer dissatisfaction and customer service organization frustration" (’787 Patent, col. 3:6-8).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an asynchronous, "store and forward" system for audio messages to overcome these problems (’787 Patent, col. 5:1-5). A user on a website can utilize a "browser-resident recorder application akin to a Walkie-Talkie" to record an audio question, which is then queued and sent with contextual data to a customer service agent without requiring a live connection (’787 Patent, col. 3:25-32). The agent can then review the message and send an audio response back to the user's device for later playback, improving efficiency and user experience (’787 Patent, col. 4:36-44).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to merge the user-friendliness of voice communication with the efficiency of asynchronous messaging, thereby reducing customer wait times and lowering the staffing and infrastructure costs associated with real-time, connection-oriented support channels (’787 Patent, col. 4:11-17, 4:56-61).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶10).
• The essential elements of independent claim 10 are:
  • An electronic device of a user comprising a non-transitory storage medium, a processor, and an input device comprising a microphone.
  • A client application stored on the medium and executed by the processor.
  • The client application configures the processor to perform the steps of:
    • locally recording an audio query message received through the microphone;
    • storing the recorded audio query message on the electronic device; and
    • transmitting the stored audio query message.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert additional claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the "Zenbook Pro Duo UX581 (Alexa), Zenbook Pro Duo UX581 (Cortana), and Chromebook series" as the Accused Products (Compl. ¶7). The infringement analysis focuses on the Zenbook Pro Duo UX581 as an exemplary device (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused functionality centers on the inclusion and operation of voice virtual assistant applications, specifically "Windows Cortana" (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges that these applications record audio queries from a user, store those queries in the device's memory, and subsequently transmit the stored audio to a network server (Compl. ¶12, p. 4-5). The complaint does not provide further detail on the market context or commercial importance of the accused products beyond identifying them as computer products offered for sale by the Defendant (Compl. ¶7). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’787 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question is whether a general-purpose voice assistant like Cortana, which performs broad information retrieval, falls within the scope of the patent. The asserted claim is directed broadly to an "electronic device of a user," while the patent’s specification extensively details a system for a specific "customer interaction queuing" context involving users and service agents (’787 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:20-32). This raises the question of whether the claims should be interpreted as being limited to that customer service environment.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges a specific "record-store-transmit" sequence of operations (Compl. ¶12). A key factual question will be whether the accused Cortana application actually "store[s] said recorded audio query message on said electronic device" as a discrete step before transmission, or if it operates via a near-real-time streaming protocol where audio data is buffered transiently but not "stored" in the manner contemplated by the patent's "store and forward" architecture (’787 Patent, col. 5:1-5).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "client application"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical. The infringement theory equates general-purpose voice assistants (Cortana, Alexa) with the "client application" of the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either limit the patent to the specific customer-service-oriented "Blurt" application described in the specification or allow it to cover a much wider range of voice-enabled software.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "client application" is not explicitly defined with limiting language within claim 10 itself. The plain language of the claim recites a generic application that performs three basic functions (record, store, transmit).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "client application" as part of an "audio message driven customer interaction queuing system" for a "retail or customer support context" (’787 Patent, Abstract, col. 1:23-27). A party could argue that these descriptions limit the scope of "client application" to software intended for this specific purpose, rather than any application capable of handling audio.

• The Term: "store said recorded audio query message"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to distinguishing the claimed method from real-time communication. Infringement depends on showing the accused products perform this explicit "store" step, rather than simply streaming audio.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "store" could be construed broadly to include any placement of data into memory, including temporary buffering that occurs before or during transmission.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly emphasizes a "store and forward service delivery" model (’787 Patent, col. 5:1-2) and the creation of "acceptably small files for transfer" (’787 Patent, col. 5:41-42). This may suggest that "store" requires the creation of a complete, discrete message file on the device before the transmission step is initiated, as distinct from the transient buffering inherent in streaming.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not allege indirect or induced infringement. It contains a single count for direct infringement (Compl. ¶¶9-12).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement or seek enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. It does, however, request a declaration that the case is "exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285" and an award of attorneys' fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "client application" in claim 10, which recites only device-side functions, be construed to cover general-purpose voice assistants like Cortana, when the patent’s specification appears to exclusively contemplate an application designed for a multi-party customer service queuing system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Cortana application perform the specific, sequential steps of first "stor[ing]" a complete audio query on the device and then "transmit[ting]" that stored message, as required by claim 10, or does its architecture rely on a fundamentally different, near-real-time streaming model that falls outside the claim language?