DCT

1:24-cv-02146

Orion Labs Tech LLC v. Talkdesk Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Orion Labs Tech, LLC (Washington)
- Defendant: TalkDesk, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Kaleo Legal; Rozier Hardt McDonough, PLLC
Case Identification: 1:24-cv-02146, E.D. Va., 11/27/2024
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Defendant maintains an established and regular place of business in McLean, Virginia, and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud-based contact center platform and its associated virtual agent and agent-assist products infringe seven patents related to the use of intelligent agents, bots, and real-time transcription and translation within group communication systems.
Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the field of AI-enhanced communication platforms for enterprise and customer service applications, a market focused on improving customer experience and operational efficiency through automation.
Key Procedural History: The asserted patents form a family with multiple priority relationships; for example, U.S. Patent No. 10,462,003 is a continuation of the application that led to U.S. Patent No. 10,110,430, and U.S. Patent No. 10,924,339 claims priority to both. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2015-05-27	Priority Date for ’430, ’003, ’339 Patents
2017-03-27	Priority Date for ’433, ’636 Patents
2017-10-03	Priority Date for ’733 Patent
2017-11-06	Priority Date for ’130 Patent
2018-10-23	’430 Patent Issued
2019-10-29	’003 Patent Issued
2021-01-19	’433 Patent Issued
2021-02-16	’339 Patent Issued
2021-09-21	’636 Patent Issued
2022-02-22	’733 Patent Issued
2022-05-10	’130 Patent Issued
2024-11-27	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,110,430 - “Intelligent Agent Features For Wearable Personal Communication Nodes”

Issued: October 23, 2018.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty and distraction for users of communication devices who must provide multiple inputs and preferences before and during communications, particularly when busy performing other tasks (ʼ430 Patent, col. 1:26-38).
The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a system where an "intelligent agent" can be instantiated as a virtual member of a communication group. This agent can then provide automated services to the group, such as recording conversations, auditing communications for compliance, providing audio transcription, and other forms of assistance, thereby enhancing the functionality of the group communication session (ʼ430 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:40-54). Figure 1 of the patent illustrates this concept, showing an "Agent System" (130) instantiating an intelligent agent "Node 106" into "Group B" alongside human-operated nodes ('430 Patent, Fig. 1).
Technical Importance: This approach integrates automated, AI-driven services directly into the fabric of a real-time communication group, treating the agent as a peer-level participant rather than a separate, post-hoc analysis tool.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 13.
Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A method of managing a communication group comprising a plurality of personal communication member nodes.
- Receiving instructions from at least one of the member nodes to instantiate an intelligent agent.
- Instantiating the intelligent agent as a virtual assistant communication member node in the group.
- The instantiated intelligent agent recording and auditing communications among and between the member nodes.
The complaint also asserts dependent claims 5 and 17 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶31).

U.S. Patent No. 10,462,003 - “Intelligent Agent Features For Wearable Personal Communication Nodes”

Issued: October 29, 2019.

The Invention Explained

Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '430 patent, this patent addresses the same challenge of making group communications more efficient and powerful by reducing the need for manual user input (ʼ003 Patent, col. 1:26-38).
The Patented Solution: This patent focuses more specifically on the functional services provided by the intelligent agent after it joins a communication group. The invention covers a method where instructions are received not only to instantiate an agent but also where to instantiate it, after which the agent performs a specific service—such as recording, auditing, search, transcription, or annotating communications—for the group members (ʼ003 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:45-56).
Technical Importance: The invention claims the method of dynamically introducing an agent into a communication group to perform a discrete, specified service for the benefit of the human participants.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 15.
Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A method of managing a communication group comprising a plurality of personal communication member nodes.
- Receiving instructions from a member node to: (a) instantiate an intelligent agent; and (b) where to instantiate the intelligent agent.
- Instantiating the agent as a virtual assistant communication member node in the group.
- The instantiated agent performing a service for one or more member nodes in the group.
The complaint also asserts dependent claims 4 and 6 and reserves the right to assert others (Compl. ¶50).

U.S. Patent No. 10,897,433 - “Bot Group Messaging Using General Voice Libraries”

Issued: January 19, 2021.

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a method for integrating a bot into a group messaging service. A user sends an audio message intended for a bot; the service selects a voice library containing a speech-to-text engine and a natural language unit to process the audio into "enhanced text," sends this structured text to the bot, receives a reply, and distributes the reply to group members (Compl. ¶70).

Asserted Claims

At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶69).

Accused Features

The TalkDesk CX Cloud and Copilot products are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶69).

U.S. Patent No. 10,924,339 - “Intelligent Agent Features For Wearable Personal Communication Nodes”

Issued: February 16, 2021.

Technology Synopsis

This patent, related to the '430 and '003 patents, specifically claims a method where an instantiated intelligent agent transcribes communications for the group. The transcription can be either audio-to-text or text-to-audio, providing a specific functional implementation of the agent's services (Compl. ¶¶86-87).

Asserted Claims

At least claims 1, 4, 6, 15, and 18 are asserted (Compl. ¶85).

Accused Features

The TalkDesk CX Cloud and Autopilot products are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶86).

U.S. Patent No. 11,127,636 - “Bot Group Messaging Using Bot-Specific Voice Libraries”

Issued: September 21, 2021.

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a system where a message containing recorded audio and a bot identifier is sent to a group messaging service. The service uses the identifier to look up the specified bot, access a voice library specifically associated with that bot, process the audio using that library to create a modified message, and send the message to the bot (Compl. ¶106).

Asserted Claims

At least claims 1, 5, and 16-18 are asserted (Compl. ¶105).

Accused Features

The TalkDesk CX Cloud and Copilot products are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶105).

U.S. Patent No. 11,258,733 - “Transcription Bot For Group Communications”

Issued: February 22, 2022.

Technology Synopsis

This patent discloses a method where a group communication service receives an audio transcription request from a user. In response, it determines and launches a "bot node member" specifically to deliver transcribed content to an external "destination service" (e.g., a collaboration platform or database). The system then receives audio content from a user and delivers the transcribed version to the destination service via the bot (Compl. ¶126).

Asserted Claims

At least claims 1 and 5 are asserted (Compl. ¶125).

Accused Features

The TalkDesk CX Cloud, TalkDesk Studio, and Voice IVR products are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶125).

U.S. Patent No. 11,328,130 - “Translational Bot for Group Communication”

Issued: May 10, 2022.

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a process for providing real-time translation in group communications. A remote server receives speech input from a user with a first language preference, determines the preferred languages of other group members, translates the input into those languages, and distributes the translated speech to the appropriate members (Compl. ¶143).

Asserted Claims

At least claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶142).

Accused Features

The TalkDesk CX Cloud and Copilot products are accused of infringing (Compl. ¶142).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products as the TalkDesk CX Cloud, TalkDesk Autopilot, TalkDesk Copilot, TalkDesk Studio, and TalkDesk Voice IVR application (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the Accused Products as components of a cloud-based contact center platform. Talkdesk Autopilot is identified as a conversational assistant or "virtual agent" for handling customer interactions (Compl. ¶21). TalkDesk Copilot is described as a solution that transcribes call interactions in real time, using Natural Language Understanding (NLU) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) to provide recommendations to human agents (Compl. ¶22). Talkdesk Studio is presented as a tool for designing and deploying customer interaction flows (Compl. ¶23). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website, which lists a "Virginia office," to support its venue allegations (Compl. ¶16, Fig. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits that were not provided with the filing; therefore, the narrative infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

’430 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products, specifically the TalkDesk CX Cloud and Autopilot, perform the method of Claim 1. The theory is that the system receives instructions (e.g., when a customer journey is designed in Studio or initiated by a user) to instantiate an intelligent agent (Autopilot). This agent is then instantiated as a "virtual assistant communication member node" within the communication session (the "group"). The complaint further alleges that this instantiated agent performs the claimed steps of "recording and auditing communications" between the participants (e.g., the customer and the agent) (Compl. ¶32).

’003 Patent Infringement Allegations

The infringement theory for the ’003 patent is similar, alleging that the Accused Products receive instructions to instantiate the Autopilot intelligent agent as a virtual member of a communication group. The complaint alleges that this agent then performs a "service" for the group members, mapping this to the product's functions of recording, auditing, searching, audio transcription, and annotating communications (Compl. ¶¶51-52).

Identified Points of Contention

Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the patents' claim term "personal communication member nodes," which is described in the context of wearable devices, can be construed to cover the participants in a cloud-based contact center session (e.g., a customer on a phone and a remote software agent). A related question is whether the interaction between a customer, an agent, and a virtual assistant constitutes a "communication group" as defined by the patents.
Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on the interpretation of "instantiate an intelligent agent." A point of contention may be whether the pre-configuration and deployment of a virtual agent like Autopilot constitutes "receiving instructions... to instantiate" the agent in the dynamic, on-demand manner suggested by certain patent embodiments, or if it is merely the operation of a pre-set system. Further, the complaint's allegation that the agent performs "auditing" in addition to "recording" will likely require specific evidence showing a function that maps to the patent's definition of auditing, which involves tracking various properties of the communication (ʼ430 Patent, col. 8:58-67).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "instantiate an intelligent agent"

Context and Importance: This term is the core active step in several independent claims. Its construction will determine whether the routine operation of Defendant’s virtual agent products falls within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on whether "instantiate" requires a dynamic, real-time creation of a new software process in response to a user command, or if it can cover the activation of a pre-configured bot within a defined workflow.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the agent can be instantiated by a "communication group management system" or "by one or more of the communication group members, for example by executing software," which could support a view that system-level configuration is included (ʼ430 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Embodiments describe a user node "initiat[ing] an intelligent agent, resulting in instantiation of node 106 as a member of a new group," suggesting an on-demand, user-driven action analogous to adding a person to a call (ʼ430 Patent, col. 5:11-14).

The Term: "personal communication member nodes"

Context and Importance: The definition of the "nodes" that form the "communication group" is fundamental. The dispute may turn on whether a software agent and a customer on a standard telephone can be considered "nodes" in the manner described by the patents, which repeatedly reference "wearable personal communication nodes" (ʼ430 Patent, Title, col. 1:40).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves use the broader term "personal communication member nodes" without the "wearable" limitation. The specification also describes "personal communication devices" more broadly to include "cellphones, smartphones, ... personal computers, tablet computers" (ʼ430 Patent, col. 2:8-10).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The title, abstract, and detailed description frequently emphasize "wearable" devices and push-to-talk functionality, which could be used to argue that the invention is tethered to that specific technological context and does not extend to general-purpose cloud software (ʼ430 Patent, col. 2:48-49).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendant provides the Accused Products and encourages infringement by distributing instructions, advertising, and promotional materials that guide customers to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶37, 56, 72).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the Asserted Patents as of the filing of the complaint. The complaint also pleads pre-suit willful blindness, alleging on information and belief that Defendant has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (Compl. ¶¶39-42, 58-61).

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

This case will likely present several key questions for the court's determination:

A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the patent claims, which arise from a specification focused on "wearable personal communication nodes," be construed to cover the fundamentally different architecture of a cloud-based customer service platform where the "group members" are customers, agents, and server-side software bots?
A key legal and factual question will be one of action versus configuration: Does the deployment of a pre-configured virtual agent within a customer service workflow, as allegedly performed by TalkDesk Studio and Autopilot, constitute "receiving instructions... to instantiate an intelligent agent" as required by the claims, or does this claim language require a more dynamic, on-demand creation initiated by a group member during a communication session?
An evidentiary question will center on functional equivalence: Will the Plaintiff provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accused products' features, such as real-time transcription and agent assistance, perform the specific, and sometimes conjunctive, functions recited in the claims, such as both "recording and auditing" communications?