DCT

2:24-cv-00320

SoundClear Tech LLC v. Amazon.com Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00320, E.D. Va., 05/01/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia because Amazon has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business there, namely its "HQ2" in Arlington. The complaint further cites a prior ruling from the same court finding venue proper for Amazon and Amazon's own prior arguments for venue in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Amazon Echo products and associated Alexa services infringe three patents related to audio signal processing, including directional noise reduction, visual user feedback for communication status, and adaptive volume control.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves audio processing and user interface design for voice-controlled devices, a field of central importance to the competitive smart speaker and virtual assistant market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the patents-in-suit were developed by JVC Kenwood (“JVCK”), described as a major audio processing company, and were subsequently acquired by Plaintiff SoundClear after JVCK divested them as part of a strategic realignment.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-09-15 ’259 Patent Priority Date
2012-02-20 ’374 Patent Priority Date
2015-05-12 ’259 Patent Issued
2015-06-30 ’374 Patent Issued
2015-12-07 ’819 Patent Priority Date
2017-10-31 ’819 Patent Issued
2024-05-01 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,031,259 - “Noise Reduction Apparatus, Audio Input Apparatus, Wireless Communication Apparatus, and Noise Reduction Method”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,031,259, issued May 12, 2015 (Compl. ¶30).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section states that conventional noise-canceling functions do not perform well in environments with high noise levels, making it difficult to achieve high-quality voice sound for communications (’259 Patent, col. 1:26-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention uses at least two microphones to improve noise reduction. An apparatus first determines whether a captured sound is a "speech segment." If speech is detected, a "voice direction detector" determines the direction from which the voice is coming, based on the signals from both microphones. Finally, an adaptive filter performs a noise reduction process that utilizes both the speech segment information and the voice direction information to better isolate the desired voice from background noise (’259 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This method allows for more intelligent noise cancellation by using spatial information (direction) to distinguish a primary speaker from ambient noise, a technique intended to improve voice clarity in challenging audio environments (Compl. ¶36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • A speech segment determiner configured to determine whether a sound from a first or second microphone is a speech segment and to output speech segment information.
    • A voice direction detector configured to detect a voice incoming direction based on signals from the first and second microphones and to output voice incoming-direction information.
    • An adaptive filter configured to perform a noise reduction process using the signals from both microphones, based on the speech segment information and the voice incoming-direction information.

U.S. Patent No. 9,070,374 - “Communication Apparatus and Condition Notification Method for Notifying a Used Condition of Communication Apparatus by Using a Light-Emitting Device Attached to Communication Apparatus”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,070,374, issued June 30, 2015 (Compl. ¶37).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: For handheld communication devices like transceivers, the changing position relative to the user's mouth can create a "bad input condition" for noise cancellation, leading to the transmission of unclear voice sounds without the user's awareness (’374 Patent, col. 1:36-52).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method to notify a user about the device's operational state. The apparatus can switch between a "standby mode" and a "transmission mode." It determines the "pick-up state" of a voice sound (e.g., its quality) and uses a light-emitting device to provide visual feedback to the user based on both the current communication mode and the determined pick-up state (’374 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:9-24).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides real-time, visual feedback on audio capture quality, enabling a user to adjust their use of the device (e.g., position) to ensure clear communication, especially in noisy environments (Compl. ¶¶ 41, 46).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least Claim 9 (Compl. ¶79).
  • Independent Claim 9 requires:
    • A first pick-up unit to pick up a voice sound.
    • A transmitter unit to transmit the voice sound as a speech signal.
    • A communication-mode switching unit to switch between a standby mode (no transmission) and a transmission mode.
    • A sound pick-up state determination unit to determine a pick-up state of the voice sound.
    • A light emission device to emit light.
    • A control unit to control the light-emitting device based on the communication mode and the pick-up state.

U.S. Patent No. 9,804,819 - “Receiving Apparatus and Control Method”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,804,819, issued Oct. 31, 2017 (Compl. ¶47).

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the problem of preventing "an unintentional volume level" output when a volume lock is canceled (’819 Patent, col. 1:30-40). It discloses a volume controller with a "locked state" where volume is fixed and a "non-locked state" where it is variable. The system allows for temporary switching from the locked to the non-locked state when a "predetermined operating part is turned on," enabling temporary volume adjustments without losing the original locked setting (’819 Patent, col. 2:1-16).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts at least Claim 8 (Compl. ¶101).

Accused Features

Plaintiff alleges that Amazon's "Whisper Mode" and "Adaptive Volume" features infringe by temporarily overriding a user's set volume level, which corresponds to the claimed method of switching from a "locked state" to a "non-locked state" for a period of time (Compl. ¶¶ 106, 107, 108).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses a broad range of Amazon's voice-activated devices, including numerous generations of the Amazon Echo, Echo Dot, Echo Show, and others, collectively referred to as the "Echo Products." The Amazon Alexa voice service is also implicated (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are smart speakers and devices that utilize "far-field voice recognition with an array of seven microphones" to receive user commands from a distance (Compl. ¶65). Key accused technical features include "beamforming technology" to identify the direction of a user's voice, "keyword spotting" to recognize the "Alexa" wake word, and adaptive noise cancellation to filter out background noise (Compl. ¶¶ 65, 66, 74). The devices employ an LED light ring to provide users with visual cues, such as indicating the direction of a detected voice or showing that the device is actively listening (Compl. ¶¶ 70, 92). The complaint also targets specific software features, "Whisper Mode" and "Adaptive Volume," which automatically adjust Alexa's response volume based on ambient noise or the user's tone (Compl. ¶107).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

9,031,259 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a speech segment determiner configured to determine whether or not a sound picked up by at least either a first microphone or a second microphone is a speech segment... The "keyword spotting" algorithm used in Echo devices to detect the "Alexa" wake word and subsequent voice commands (Compl. ¶63). ¶66 col. 2:18-20
a voice direction detector configured...to detect a voice incoming direction indicating from which direction a voice sound travels, based on a first sound pick-up signal...and a second sound pick-up signal... The "SIR Beam Selector" algorithm and beamforming technology that use the microphone array to learn and predict the location of audio sources and determine the direction of a user's voice (Compl. ¶¶ 68, 71). ¶70 col. 2:20-27
an adaptive filter configured to perform a noise reduction process using the first and second sound pick-up signals based on the speech segment information and the voice incoming-direction information. The adaptive noise cancellation ("ANC" or "S-ANC") process that uses signals from the selected microphone beams (based on direction) to suppress ambient noise after a wake word is detected (Compl. ¶¶ 73, 74). ¶74 col. 2:27-32

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "speech segment," as used in a patent for general voice communication, can be construed to read on a specific, predefined "keyword" or "wake word" used to activate a virtual assistant.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint relies on Amazon's scientific papers to describe the accused functionality. A key factual dispute may be whether the "SIR Beam Selector" and "S-ANC" systems as described in those papers, and as implemented in the actual products, perform the specific, interconnected steps required by Claim 1.

9,070,374 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first pick-up unit configured to pick up a voice sound The MEMS microphones within the Echo devices that capture spoken commands (Compl. ¶81). ¶81 col. 4:55-57
a transmitter unit configured to transmit the voice sound...as a first speech signal The component in the Echo device that transmits the captured wake word and voice request to Amazon's secure cloud for processing (Compl. ¶82). ¶82 col. 5:11-13
a communication-mode switching unit configured to switch a communication mode between a standby mode...and a transmission mode The Alexa Voice Assistant software that switches from an "idle-state" (standby mode) to a "listening-state" where it streams voice input for processing upon detection of the wake word (transmission mode) (Compl. ¶¶ 84, 86). ¶86 col. 2:11-15
a sound pick-up state determination unit configured to determine a pick-up state of the voice sound The combination of hardware and software modules (e.g., acoustic echo canceller, adaptive noise canceller, SIR beam selector, and keyword spotting algorithm) that together determine the signal characteristics of the captured voice (Compl. ¶¶ 87, 89). ¶89 col. 2:16-18
a light emission device configured to emit light The LED ring light integrated into the Echo devices (Compl. ¶90). ¶90 col. 2:19-20
a control unit configured to control the light-emitting device...based on the communication mode...and the pick-up state... The unit that controls the LED ring light to display different animations or colors (e.g., cyan spotlight for listening, red for microphone off) corresponding to the device's operational mode and audio pickup status (Compl. ¶¶ 91, 92). ¶92 col. 2:20-24

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory equates the patent's "standby" and "transmission" modes, which are described in the context of a push-to-talk (PTT) device, with the automated idle and listening states of an Alexa device. A dispute will likely arise over whether an automated, wake-word-triggered transition constitutes "switching a communication mode" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint defines the "sound pick-up state determination unit" as a combination of several distinct software and hardware components. A factual question will be whether these components work together in the manner required to meet the single, integrated limitation of the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "speech segment" (’259 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The plaintiff’s infringement theory for the ’259 Patent relies on equating Amazon’s "keyword spotting" for the "Alexa" wake word with the claimed determination of a "speech segment." The viability of this theory will depend on whether this term is construed broadly enough to cover a specific, predefined keyword, rather than just any segment of human speech.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to determining if "a sound picked up...is a speech segment (voice component)" (’259 Patent, col. 4:41-43), which suggests the term could encompass any sound identified as human speech.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description focuses on detecting features common to general speech, such as "a vowel sound that is a main component of a voice sound" and its "formant" structures (’259 Patent, col. 4:60-61, col. 5:35-36). A defendant may argue this context limits the term to general speech detection, not the specific task of recognizing a single, pre-programmed wake word.

  • Term: "communication-mode switching unit" (’374 Patent, Claim 9)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the patent’s specification and figures describe this element as a physical push-to-talk (PTT) unit on a transceiver. The accused products use an automated, software-based process triggered by a wake word. The construction of this term will determine whether the claim can reach beyond the PTT embodiment to cover modern voice-activated systems.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional ("configured to switch a communication mode") and does not explicitly recite a "button" or "manual" operation, which may support an interpretation that covers automated software switches.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "PTT unit" as the embodiment for this element, stating it is "pushed...to switch the communication mode from the standby mode...to the transmission mode" (’374 Patent, col. 6:65-67; Fig. 4). A defendant will likely argue that the claim scope should be understood in light of these specific disclosures.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of indirect infringement. The counts do not allege specific facts supporting inducement or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not allege that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. While the prayer for relief requests enhanced damages for "willful infringement," the factual allegations in the body of the complaint do not appear to establish a basis for such a claim (Prayer for Relief ¶d).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can claim terms rooted in the context of push-to-talk transceivers and general noise cancellation (e.g., "communication-mode switching unit," "speech segment") be construed to cover the automated, keyword-driven functionalities of a modern, cloud-connected virtual assistant? The case may test the boundary between applying established patent claims to new technology and impermissibly extending them beyond their intended scope.
  • A second issue will be one of evidentiary mapping: the complaint’s infringement theories rely heavily on Amazon's public-facing technical papers to describe how the accused products work. A key evidentiary question for the court will be whether discovery confirms that the commercial products operate precisely as described in these papers and whether that operation meets every element of the asserted claims.
  • A final question will be one of functional equivalence: does the accused system of automated volume adjustments in "Whisper Mode" and "Adaptive Volume" operate in a substantially similar way to achieve a substantially similar result as the claimed method for temporarily overriding a "locked" volume state, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation and purpose?