Songbird Tech LLC v. LG Electronics Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Songbird Tech, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: LG Electronics, Inc. (South Korea)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Mort Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00042, W.D. Tex., 01/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) on the basis that the Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart devices equipped with voice assistants (e.g., Alexa, Google Assistant) infringe a patent related to an audio message-driven customer interaction and queuing system.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems for capturing, storing, and transmitting a user's audio query from a client device for asynchronous processing, as an alternative to real-time voice communication.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority back to a provisional application filed in 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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,825,787, "Audio message Driven Customer Interaction Queuing System," issued September 2, 2014. (Compl. ¶6).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies deficiencies in web-based customer service methods like email (slow), web call-back (disruptive), text chat, and VoIP (both requiring expensive, real-time staffing and subject to quality issues). (’787 Patent, col. 1:47 - col. 2:55). These methods are described as causing "customer dissatisfaction and customer service organization frustration." (’787 Patent, col. 3:6-8).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "connectionless" or asynchronous system where a user on a website can record an audio question using a browser-resident tool that functions like a "Walkie-Talkie." (’787 Patent, col. 3:25-32, col. 3:54-56). This recorded message is then sent to a server, queued, and distributed to a customer service agent. The agent can research the question and send an audio response back to the user's device for later playback, avoiding the need for a persistent, real-time connection. (’787 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: This "store and forward" approach was designed to reduce customer wait times and service center costs by decoupling the user's request from an agent's immediate availability, thereby improving on the economic and user-experience limitations of then-current real-time interaction models. (’787 Patent, col. 4:20-37).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 10. (Compl. ¶10).
• Claim 10 requires:
  • An electronic device of a user, comprising a non-transitory storage medium with a client application, a processor to execute it, and a microphone.
  • The client application configures the processor to perform a sequence of three steps:
    • Locally record an audio query message from the microphone.
    • Store the recorded audio query message on the electronic device.
    • Transmit the stored audio query message.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names a range of LG products, including the CX 65 inch Class 4K Smart OLD TV, Gram 16" Laptop, K40 and G8 ThinQ smartphones, and the InstaView Door-in-Door fridge. (Compl. ¶7). These are collectively referred to as the "Accused Products."

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused functionality common to these products is the integration and operation of third-party voice assistants, specifically Alexa, Google Assistant, and Cortana. (Compl. ¶7). The complaint alleges that these applications, exemplified by the "Alexa application" on an LG TV, perform the infringing function of recording, storing, and transmitting users' spoken audio queries. (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’787 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The patent describes a "store and forward" system for asynchronous communication with human customer service agents to overcome the burdens of real-time interaction. (’787 Patent, col. 5:1-5). A central question may be whether the term "client application", in this context, can be construed to read on modern voice assistants like Alexa, which often engage in near-real-time, automated interactions rather than queuing messages for human review.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 10 requires the device to "store said recorded audio query message" and then "transmit said stored audio query message". The complaint alleges the accused products do this. (Compl. ¶12). A potential point of contention is whether the accused voice assistants, which may utilize real-time audio streaming, perform this discrete store-then-transmit sequence on a complete "message," or if their technical operation (e.g., buffering short data packets) is fundamentally different from the "message file" transfer model contemplated by the patent. (’787 Patent, col. 9:4-6).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "client application"

  • Context and Importance: Plaintiff's infringement theory identifies modern voice assistants like Alexa and Google Assistant as the "client application". (Compl. ¶12). The definition of this term is therefore foundational to whether the accused products can fall within the scope of the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification mentions that the client could be implemented with various technologies, including a "Flash interface," a "Java applet," or "JavaScript," suggesting the term is not limited to a single technological embodiment. (’787 Patent, col. 7:8-9, col. 8:20-26).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "client application" as a "browser-resident recorder/player application akin to a Walkie-Talkie" used in a customer service queuing system. (’787 Patent, col. 4:5-7). A party could argue that the term is implicitly limited to applications that facilitate this specific asynchronous, human-mediated interaction model, rather than general-purpose, automated voice assistants.

• The Term: "store said recorded audio query message on said electronic device"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines a key step in the claimed process. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the momentary handling of audio data by a modern voice assistant constitutes "storing" a "message" as required by the claim.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "store" is not explicitly defined and could be interpreted broadly to encompass any placement of the audio query data into the device's memory, however transient.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's overall "store and forward" framework (’787 Patent, col. 5:1-2) and its discussion of transferring a "message file" (’787 Patent, col. 9:4-6) may suggest that "store" requires holding the entirety of the "recorded audio query message" as a discrete unit on the device before the subsequent "transmit" step begins. This could be contrasted with a system that streams audio data in packets as it is being recorded.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not plead any specific facts to support willful infringement, such as pre-suit knowledge of the patent or its infringement. The prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but this is not supported by factual allegations in the body of the complaint. (Compl. p. 5, Prayer C).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "client application", which the patent describes as a "Walkie-Talkie"-like interface for an asynchronous human customer service queue, be construed to cover modern, near-real-time, and largely automated voice assistants like Alexa and Google Assistant?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused voice assistant technology, which may stream audio data for immediate processing, perform the discrete sequence of "stor[ing]" a complete "audio query message" and then "transmit[ting]" that "stored" message as required by Claim 10, or is there a fundamental mismatch in its technical operation compared to the "store and forward" model disclosed in the patent?