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-00121, W.D. Tex., 03/07/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that the defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smart devices, including televisions, laptops, refrigerators, and smartphones equipped with voice assistants, infringe a patent related to an audio message capture and transmission system.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves client-side devices that record, store, and transmit a user's audio query, a foundational process for modern voice-activated digital assistants.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of earlier applications, with a priority claim tracing back to a 2002 provisional application. 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 (the ’787 Patent), "Audio message Driven Customer Interaction Queuing System," issued September 2, 2014.

• The Invention Explained:

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the state of web-based customer service in the early 2000s as frustrating and inefficient, citing the long delays of email, the disruption of "web call back" systems, the expense of staffing real-time text chat, and the poor quality of contemporary Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) (’787 Patent, col. 1:49-2:40). The core issue identified is the reliance on "connection-oriented" systems that require a user and a customer service agent to be available simultaneously (’787 Patent, col. 3:53-56).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an asynchronous, "connectionless" system where a user on a website can record an audio question using a "browser-resident recorder application" (’787 Patent, Abstract). This audio message is then sent to a server, queued, and assigned to a customer service agent who can review it and record a response at a later time. The response is then sent back to the user's device for playback, creating a "store and forward" communication flow that avoids the need for a live, real-time connection (’787 Patent, col. 5:1-5; Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: The described message-based architecture was designed to offer improved voice fidelity over early VoIP and reduce the high staffing costs associated with real-time, connection-oriented customer support channels (’787 Patent, col. 4:25-32).

• Key Claims at a Glance:

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (’787 Patent, col. 15:5-16:14; Compl. ¶10).
  • The essential elements of independent 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, where 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 range of LG products, including the "CX 65 inch Class 4K Smart OLD TV w/ AI ThinQ (Alexa)," "CX 65 inch Class 4K Smart OLD TV w/ AI ThinQ (Google Assistant)," "Gram 16" Ultra-Lightweight Laptop (Cortana)," "K40, G8 ThinQ (Google Assistant)," and "InstaView Door-in-Door fridge (Alexa)" (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶7).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused functionality is the inclusion of voice assistants such as Alexa, Google Assistant, and Cortana (Compl. ¶7). The infringement theory, exemplified by the LG TV with the Alexa application, is that these products contain a microphone, a processor, and memory to run an application that records a user's spoken audio queries, stores those queries in memory, and transmits them (Compl. ¶12). The complaint does not provide specific details on the products' market context or commercial importance. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’787 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The ’787 Patent is titled and described almost exclusively in the context of a "Customer Interaction Queuing System" involving customer service "agents" (’787 Patent, Title; col. 1:22-38). The asserted claim 10, however, recites a generic "electronic device of a user" without any explicit limitation to a customer service environment. This raises the question of whether the claim's scope can be read to cover general-purpose voice assistant technology, or if it will be interpreted as being implicitly limited to the customer service context pervading the specification.
  • Technical Questions: A key technical question concerns the meaning of "locally record" and "store said recorded audio query message." Modern voice assistants often begin streaming audio data to a cloud server for processing almost instantly, potentially using only transient buffering on the local device. The infringement analysis may turn on whether this near-real-time streaming process meets the claim requirements of first "recording" and then "storing" a discrete "audio query message" on the device before transmission, as contrasted with the "store and forward" architecture described in the patent (’787 Patent, col. 5:1-5).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "client application"

  • Context and Importance: The plaintiff’s theory identifies the "Alexa application" as the infringing "client application" (Compl. ¶12). The definition of this term is critical because the defense may argue that "client application," in the patent's context, refers to a specific type of browser-based software component and not a modern, operating-system-integrated voice assistant.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is not explicitly defined in the patent, and the claim language itself is general, referring only to an "application."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the preferred embodiment as a "browser-resident" client consisting of a "Macromedia Flash interface driving an ActiveX control and JavaScript" (’787 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:6-10). This specific, detailed embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to that type of browser-based plug-in architecture.

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

  • Context and Importance: This limitation is central to the alleged infringement. Whether the accused devices "store" a "message" will depend on their precise technical operation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the functionality of modern streaming voice assistants may differ from the "store and forward" file-based system described in the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "store" could be construed broadly to include any form of temporary data retention in memory, such as buffering data before or during transmission. The complaint alleges the accused application "stores audio queries in memory" (Compl. ¶12).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s description of a "store and forward" system and the use of terms like "message file" suggest the storage of a complete, discrete data file prior to initiating transmission (’787 Patent, col. 3:4-6, col. 5:1-5). This could support a narrower definition that excludes the transient buffering of streaming data.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain counts or specific factual allegations for either induced or contributory infringement, focusing instead on direct infringement (Compl. ¶11).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement or a request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. It does request a declaration that the case is "exceptional" for the purpose of recovering attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C).

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

This case appears to hinge on two fundamental questions of claim interpretation and application.

• A core issue will be one of contextual scope: Can Claim 10, which on its face describes a generic process for audio capture and transmission, be broadly applied to modern, general-purpose voice assistants, or will its scope be construed as implicitly limited by the patent's detailed and consistent framing within a "customer interaction" and "service agent" environment?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Do the accused voice assistants, which may rely on near-real-time data streaming, actually perform the distinct claim steps of "locally record[ing]" and then "stor[ing] said recorded audio query message on said electronic device," or is there a fundamental mismatch between their architecture and the "store and forward" model that appears to be contemplated by the patent?