Lab Technology LLC v. Google LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Lab Technology LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00334, W.D. Tex., 06/21/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the district and having committed acts of alleged infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain unidentified Google products infringe a patent related to a method and system for delivering and updating audio announcements.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for delivering dynamic audio content, such as news or alerts, to a user device in a structured, updatable format over a network.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention 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. 8,498,388 - Method and system for announcement

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,498,388, Method and system for announcement, issued July 30, 2013.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art methods of receiving audio announcements—such as dialing a telephone number to reach a machine, listening to radio broadcasts, or navigating web pages—as being deficient in effectiveness and timeliness (’388 Patent, col. 1:21-col. 2:2).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system where a client device (an "announcer") receives a structured "announcement package" from a server over a network (’388 Patent, Fig. 1). This package contains metadata like a package identity and update time, along with one or more "announcement items," each having its own identity and associated audio data (’388 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:63-col. 4:5). The system is designed to receive updates that can modify the announcement package by replacing, deleting, or adding content, enabling timely delivery of dynamic information (’388 Patent, col. 2:13-20).
• Technical Importance: The patented approach provides a framework for managing and updating discrete pieces of audio content on a client device, potentially allowing for more dynamic and efficient information delivery than static recordings or monolithic broadcast streams (’388 Patent, col. 2:1-2).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referencing "Exemplary '388 Patent Claims" in an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, 16). Independent claim 1 is a representative method claim.
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • Receiving a first announcement item by a telephone, the item comprising a first item identity and first audio data;
  • Receiving a second announcement item by the telephone, the item comprising a second item identity and second audio data;
  • Determining by the telephone if the second item identity matches the first item identity; and
  • In response to a match, updating the first audio data with the second audio data by the telephone.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in charts within an external Exhibit 2, which was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide any description of the relevant features, technical functionality, or market context of the accused products. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the accused products "practice the technology claimed" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain specific infringement allegations or claim charts within the body of the document. It incorporates by reference an external "Exhibit 2," which allegedly contains charts comparing the "Exemplary '388 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶¶16-17). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed analysis of the infringement theory is not possible. The complaint's narrative theory is limited to the assertion that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '388 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent claims and the general nature of the dispute, the infringement analysis may raise several questions.

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the accused products, likely modern smart devices or software platforms, fall within the scope of the term "telephone" as recited in independent claims 1 and 12 (’388 Patent, col. 13:50; col. 14:12).
• Technical Questions: A key technical question will be what evidence exists that the accused products implement the specific claimed process. For example, regarding claim 1, the analysis will question whether the accused products receive discrete data packets that constitute a "first announcement item" and a "second announcement item," and whether they perform an update by matching a specific "item identity" as required by the claim, rather than using a different content update mechanism (’388 Patent, col. 13:51-col. 14:11).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "telephone"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in the preamble of independent claims 1 and 12 and is the receiving device for the claimed method and system. The viability of the infringement case may depend on whether likely accused products, such as smartphones or smart speakers running Google software, are properly classified as a "telephone" under the patent's definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party may argue for a broad construction, noting the specification contemplates that the "announcer can be included in a... smart-phone" (’388 Patent, col. 12:34-35). This could support an interpretation covering modern, network-connected communication devices.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party may argue that the patent's background section frames the invention in the context of traditional telecommunications, such as dialing a number to connect to an "Interactive Voice Recorder (IVR)" (’388 Patent, col. 1:25-29). This could support a narrower construction limited to devices with more traditional telephony functions.

The Term: "announcement item"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental unit of content being managed by the claimed system. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement requires showing that the data structures used by the accused products meet the specific definition of an "announcement item."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a wide variety of examples for announcements, including news reports, weather, alerts, and advertisements, suggesting the term could cover any discrete piece of audio content (’388 Patent, col. 2:46-61).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims and specification require an "announcement item" to comprise an "item identity" and audio data, and this identity is used for matching and updating (’388 Patent, col. 5:55-59; col. 14:3-5). A party could argue this requires a specific data structure with a field explicitly designated as an "item identity" for the purpose of replacement, not merely a generic identifier or file name.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶14-15). The complaint notes that these materials are referenced in the un-provided Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that the service of the complaint provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" and that Defendant's continued alleged infringement thereafter is done despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶13-14). This forms a basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "telephone," which is rooted in the patent's 2006 priority date and its discussion of IVR systems, be construed to cover the modern software ecosystems and smart devices that are the likely targets of the lawsuit?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: assuming the definitional scope is met, can Plaintiff produce evidence showing that Defendant's content delivery architecture operates according to the specific claimed steps? This includes demonstrating the use of a discrete "item identity" to match and replace a "first announcement item" with a "second announcement item," as opposed to other methods of updating or streaming dynamic content. The complaint itself provides no factual allegations on this point.