DCT
6:24-cv-00618
Songbird Tech LLC v. TCL Technology Group Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Songbird Tech, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: TCL Technology Group Corp. (China)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Mort Law Firm, PLLC
- Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00618, W.D. Tex., 12/04/2024
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because the defendant is a foreign company.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s BlackBerry Q5 smartphone infringes a patent related to an audio message-driven customer interaction and queuing system.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns asynchronous audio messaging systems, designed to allow users to record and send voice queries for later response, as an alternative to real-time voice calls or text-based support.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-03-08 | '787 Patent Priority Date |
| 2014-09-02 | '787 Patent Issue Date |
| 2024-12-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
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 notes that real-time voice interactions like VoIP suffer from poor quality and high infrastructure costs, while other methods like email are too slow and text-based chat can be cumbersome for users (ʼ787 Patent, col. 2:37-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "connectionless" system where a user on a website can utilize a "browser-resident recorder application" to record an audio message, which is then sent to a server, queued, and assigned to a customer service agent. The agent can then record an audio response that is sent back to the user, who can play it back after a "brief service interval" (ʼ787 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:37-44). This "store and forward" approach is designed to avoid the need for a persistent, real-time connection between the user and the agent (ʼ787 Patent, col. 4:52-57).
- Technical Importance: The described technology offered a way to conduct voice-based customer support over the internet that was not dependent on the quality of a real-time connection, aiming to combine the convenience of voice with the flexibility of asynchronous messaging (ʼ787 Patent, col. 5:1-5).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶11).
- Independent Claim 10 recites an electronic device 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 via the microphone, store the recorded audio query message on the device, and transmit the stored audio query message.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the "BlackBerry Q5" as the Accused Product (Compl. ¶8). Specifically, the infringement allegations focus on the device's "BlackBerry Assistant application" (Compl. ¶13).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges the BlackBerry Q5 is an electronic mobile phone that includes the BlackBerry Assistant application (Compl. ¶13). The accused functionality involves the application's ability to record audio queries spoken by a user, store those queries in the device's memory, and transmit the stored audio to a network server (Compl. ¶13). The complaint does not provide further detail on the product's market context or commercial importance. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'787 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An electronic device of a user... | The Q5 is an electronic mobile phone... | ¶13 | col. 14:66 |
| a non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store a client application; | The Q5 includes system memory that stores applications including the BlackBerry Assistant application. | ¶13 | col. 15:1-2 |
| at least one processor communicatively coupled to said non-transitory computer readable storage medium, said at least one processor configured to execute said client application; | The Q5 includes a microprocessor that executes stored applications including the BlackBerry Assistant application. | ¶13 | col. 15:3-6 |
| at least one input device communicatively coupled to said processor, wherein said input device comprises a microphone; | The Q5 has a microphone... | ¶13 | col. 15:7-9 |
| and said client application configuring said at least one processor to: | The Q5 includes the BlackBerry Assistant application... | ¶13 | col. 15:9-10 |
| locally record an audio query message received through said microphone; | The BlackBerry Assistant application records audio queries spoken by a user of the device... | ¶13 | col. 15:10-11 |
| store said recorded audio query message on said electronic device; | The BlackBerry Assistant application stores audio queries in memory... | ¶13 | col. 15:12-13 |
| and transmit said stored audio query message. | The BlackBerry Assistant application encrypts stored audio to a network server... | ¶13 | col. 15:13 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the scope of the term "client application". The patent's specification repeatedly describes the application in the context of a web browser, referring to it as a "browser-resident recorder application" and detailing embodiments using Flash, ActiveX, and JavaScript embedded in web pages (’787 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:5-11). The infringement allegations, however, target a native mobile operating system application (the "BlackBerry Assistant application") (Compl. ¶13). The dispute may focus on whether the term "client application", as used in the patent, is limited to a browser-based context or is broad enough to read on a native OS application.
- Technical Questions: Claim 10 is a claim for a user's electronic device, and its language does not explicitly require a customer service context. However, the patent is titled "Audio message Driven Customer Interaction Queuing System" and the specification pervasively frames the invention as a tool for customer service interactions with agents (’787 Patent, Title; Abstract; col. 3:20-33). A potential point of contention is whether the functionality of a general-purpose voice assistant, which is accused of recording and transmitting "audio queries" (Compl. ¶13), performs the same function as the claimed invention, which is described as a specific system for queuing and responding to customer questions.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "client application"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term may be dispositive. The patent's embodiments describe a "Blurt Client" that is embedded in web pages and built with web technologies like Flash and ActiveX (’787 Patent, col. 8:5-19). The accused instrumentality is a native application on a mobile phone (Compl. ¶13). Practitioners may focus on this term because the defendant will likely argue that "client application" should be limited to the browser-based environment explicitly and repeatedly described in the specification, while the plaintiff may argue for a broader construction covering any application on a user device that performs the recited functions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The language of claim 10 itself does not include the "browser" limitation, simply reciting "a client application" stored on a "non-transitory computer readable storage medium" (’787 Patent, col. 15:1-2).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Abstract explicitly refers to a "browser-resident recorder application." The detailed description states, "The Blurt Client appears embedded in web pages" and describes its components as a "Macromedia Flash interface driving JavaScript and an ActiveX control" (’787 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:5-9, 17-19). This consistent framing could be used to argue that the invention is limited to that specific web-based context.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific factual allegations to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege pre- or post-suit knowledge of the patent to support a claim for willfulness. The prayer for relief includes a request for a declaration that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but provides no supporting factual basis in the body of the complaint (Compl. p. 5, ¶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 specification consistently describes as a "browser-resident" tool built on web technologies, be construed to cover the accused "BlackBerry Assistant," a native mobile operating system application?
- A second key question will be one of contextual application: although asserted claim 10 is a device claim without an explicit "customer service" limitation, the patent as a whole is framed as a "Customer Interaction Queuing System." The case may turn on whether the general-purpose functionality of the accused voice assistant is legally equivalent to the specific, asynchronous customer-service-oriented system described and claimed in the patent.