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-00122, 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 computers, when using voice assistant software like Windows Cortana or Amazon Alexa, infringe a patent related to locally recording, storing, and transmitting audio queries.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of voice-based user interfaces and digital assistants, a common feature in modern consumer electronic devices.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

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 the state of web-based customer service as unsatisfactory. It identifies existing methods like email as too slow, and real-time channels like Web Call Back, Text Chat, and Voice over IP (VoIP) as expensive for service providers (due to connection-oriented staffing models) and inconvenient for users (due to queuing, potential service disruptions, and poor voice quality) ('787 Patent, col. 2:7-51).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "connectionless," "store and forward" audio messaging system. A user on a website can record an audio query using a "browser-resident recorder application akin to a Walkie-Talkie" without needing to wait for a live agent ('787 Patent, col. 4:36-40). The recorded message is then sent to a server, queued, and routed to an agent who can respond later. This asynchronous model aims to decouple the user's query from the agent's immediate availability, thereby reducing costs and improving the user experience ('787 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:36-49).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to make voice-based customer support on websites more economically viable and user-friendly by avoiding the costs and quality issues associated with real-time, connection-oriented voice sessions ('787 Patent, col. 4:20-35).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 10 ('787 Patent, col. 15:1-14; 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 coupled to the storage medium and configured to execute the client application;
  • at least one input device coupled to the processor, where the input device is 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 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 specifically on the Zenbook with the Windows Cortana application (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges the accused Zenbook is an electronic device containing standard components such as system memory (storage medium), a microprocessor (processor), and a microphone (input device) (Compl. ¶12). The relevant functionality is provided by voice assistant software, such as Windows Cortana, which allegedly runs on the device and enables a user to record audio queries that are then stored in the device's memory and transmitted to a network server (Compl. ¶12, pp. 4-5). 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 specification extensively describes a system for a specific "customer interaction queuing" context ('787 Patent, Abstract). The infringement allegations, however, target a general-purpose voice assistant (Windows Cortana) on a general-purpose computer. This raises the question of whether Claim 10, which recites only client-side actions, can be enforced outside the specific customer service environment that the patent describes as its inventive focus.
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires the application to "store said recorded audio query message on said electronic device" before it is transmitted. The complaint alleges Cortana "stores audio queries in memory" (Compl. ¶12). A potential point of dispute is whether the accused functionality involves storing a discrete message file, consistent with the patent's "store and forward" architecture, or if it performs real-time streaming to a server with only transient buffering, which may not satisfy the "store" limitation as understood in the context of the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "client application"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is central because the patent's specification consistently frames the "client application" as a tool for a specific purpose: interacting with a "customer interaction queuing system" ('787 Patent, Abstract). Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether a general-purpose operating system feature like Cortana qualifies as the claimed "client application".
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 10 itself does not limit the "client application" to any particular purpose beyond the recited functions of recording, storing, and transmitting an audio query ('787 Patent, col. 15:1-14).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes the application in a specific context, referring to it as a "browser-resident recorder application akin to a Walkie-Talkie" used in a "retail or customer support context" ('787 Patent, col. 4:5-6, col. 4:37-40). This consistent contextual framing may support a narrower construction limited to applications designed for such a purpose.

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

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the patent's core concept of a "store and forward" system, which it distinguishes from the prior art's real-time, "connection-oriented" systems like VoIP ('787 Patent, col. 3:53-56, col. 2:40-44). The meaning of "store" will determine whether real-time streaming technologies fall within the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that any writing of the audio data to local memory or a buffer, however temporary, satisfies the plain meaning of "store."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contrasts its message-based approach with real-time sessions ('787 Patent, col. 3:53-56). The description of the client-side process flow includes steps like "capture messages and prepare for transfer" and "saves to file," suggesting a deliberate, complete storage action prior to transmission ('787 Patent, FIG. 3; col. 6:56-57). This may support a narrower construction that excludes transient buffering incidental to a real-time data stream.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It requests a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but pleads no specific facts regarding pre- or post-suit knowledge by the Defendant that would typically underpin a willfulness claim (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 elements of Claim 10, which describe general client-side functions, be interpreted broadly enough to read on a general-purpose digital assistant, or will they be limited by the patent's specification, which is narrowly focused on a "customer interaction queuing system"?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Cortana application perform the discrete steps of recording, then "storing" a complete message on the device, and then "transmitting" it, as contemplated by the patent's "store and forward" architecture? Or does it operate via a continuous data stream that is technically distinct from the claimed method, creating a functional mismatch?