DCT
2:10-cv-02102
Allvoice Developments US LLC v. Microsoft Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Allvoice Developments US, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Microsoft Corp. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
- Case Identification: 6:09-cv-00366, E.D. Tex., 08/14/2009
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas based on Microsoft's business contacts, sales of accused products within the district, and the cause of action arising from those activities.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Windows XP and Windows Vista operating systems, specifically the integrated Text Services Framework, infringe a patent related to a speech recognition interface that links dictated text to its original audio for proofreading.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of editing computer-dictated text while maintaining the ability to play back the original audio corresponding to any given word, even after edits have altered the document's structure.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit was previously litigated against other competitors, with its validity reportedly being confirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The plaintiff also alleges that other competitors who challenged the patent ultimately took a license.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1996-09-27 | ’273 Patent Priority Date and Application Filing Date |
| 1997-01-01 | Approximate date Microsoft allegedly learned of pending application |
| 1998-08-25 | ’273 Patent Issue Date |
| 1999-01-01 | Approximate date Microsoft allegedly notified of issued patent |
| 2001-01-01 | Approximate date Microsoft allegedly notified of patent again |
| 2007-01-01 | Year of Federal Circuit decision confirming patent validity in separate litigation |
| 2009-08-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,799,273, "Automated Proofreading Using Interface Linking Recognized Words To Their Audio Data While Text Is Being Changed," issued August 25, 1998.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a problem with speech recognition systems at the time: users could dictate text, but if they edited that text (e.g., by inserting or deleting words), the system would lose the connection between the now-modified text and the original audio recording, preventing audio playback for proofreading (Compl. Ex. A, ’273 Patent, col. 1:49-56).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is an interface between a speech recognition engine and a separate application (like a word processor). The interface generates "link data" that connects each recognized word to its specific segment in the stored audio file. Critically, the interface monitors changes to the text and dynamically updates this link data, ensuring that the connection between text and audio is preserved even after extensive editing (Compl. Ex. A, ’273 Patent, col. 2:7-19, FIG. 7).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for robust, application-independent proofreading of dictated text, enhancing usability by permitting a user to select any word in a document, regardless of edits, and hear how it was originally spoken (Compl. Ex. A, ’273 Patent, col. 2:27-36).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "the inventions claimed in the ‘273 patent" but does not assert any specific claims (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim that is representative of the core invention.
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 include: an input for receiving recognition and audio data, storage for the audio, a display, selection means for a user to pick a word, audio playback means, and an "interface application program means" that performs the functions of:
- placing recognized words into a text processing application;
- determining and monitoring the positions of the words; and
- forming and, crucially, "updating" link data that connects the words to the audio data in response to changes in the words' positions (Compl. Ex. A, ’273 Patent, col. 25:21-col. 26:27).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are Microsoft's Windows XP and Windows Vista operating systems, and other Microsoft products that include the "Text Services Framework ('TSF')" (Compl. ¶¶ 6, 11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the TSF "provides a software interface between a speech recognition engine, either the engine provided by Microsoft or an engine chosen by the end user, and the end user's word processing or other application" (Compl. ¶11).
- The complaint asserts that these operating systems employ the inventions of the ’273 patent, but it does not provide specific technical details on how the TSF is alleged to perform the claimed linking and updating functions (Compl. ¶11).
- The complaint notes that the Microsoft Windows operating system had been on the market for years prior to the patent's filing, and alleges that Microsoft's failure to implement such an interface inspired the inventors (Compl. ¶9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted or provide a detailed mapping of accused functionality to claim limitations. The following table summarizes the infringement theory by mapping the complaint’s general allegations to the core elements of the representative independent claim 1 of the ’273 patent.
’273 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An "interface application program means" for receiving input recognised words and placing the recognised words into positions in text in a processing application program means. | The complaint alleges the Text Services Framework (“TSF”) provides a “software interface between a speech recognition engine” and an “end user’s word processing or other application.” | ¶11 | col. 26:6-12 |
| The interface program includes "means for forming link data" linking the audio data to the recognised words... and "means for updating said link data" in response to monitored changes in the positions of the recognised words. | The complaint alleges that the accused operating systems are “employing, without authorization, the inventions claimed in the ‘273 patent,” which centrally describe forming and updating links between text and audio after edits. | ¶11 | col. 26:15-19 |
| "User operable selection means" for selecting at least one word in the displayed words, and "audio playback means" for playing back any identified audio components... which are linked to the at least one selected word. | The complaint alleges that the ’273 patent describes an interface that provides for improvements enhancing usability, which the patent specification links to the ability to play back audio for corrected text to aid proofreading. | ¶8 | col. 26:20-27 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint’s allegations are conclusory. A central question for the court will be an evidentiary one: does the architecture of Microsoft's Text Services Framework (TSF) actually perform the specific functions of (1) creating "link data" to associate text with corresponding audio segments, and (2) dynamically updating that link data when the text is edited? The complaint does not provide factual support detailing how TSF allegedly performs these functions.
- Scope Questions: The patent utilizes means-plus-function claim language (e.g., "interface application program means"). This raises the question of whether the specific software algorithms and structures within TSF are structurally equivalent to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent's specification, such as the flowcharts in Figures 5-7.
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "link data"
Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the patent. The dispute will likely center on whether any data structure used by TSF meets the definition of "link data" as claimed. The patent's value rests on its method of creating and, more importantly, maintaining these links after text processing.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the term functionally as "linking the audio and identifiers to the characters component positions in the character string" (Compl. Ex. A, ’273 Patent, col. 2:11-13). A party could argue this covers any data structure that achieves this link.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 4 and the accompanying description detail a specific file structure for the link data, including fields for character number, a tag, score, word length, and the word itself (Compl. Ex. A, ’273 Patent, col. 7:4-25, FIG. 4). A party may argue that "link data" is limited to a data structure possessing these or equivalent specific fields.
The Term: "interface application program means"
Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 (pre-AIA). Its scope is not limitless but is confined to the structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will require a direct comparison between the software architecture of TSF and the specific algorithms disclosed in the patent.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is the "speech recognition interface application 12" and the algorithms detailing its operation, as illustrated in the system diagram of Figure 2 and the process flowcharts of Figures 5, 6, and 7 (Compl. Ex. A, ’273 Patent, FIG. 2, col. 5:42-44, FIGs. 5-7). The scope will be defined by these disclosed algorithms and their equivalents.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Microsoft induces and contributes to infringement by "supplying others with Infringing Products and instructing them to install those products on computers" with knowledge of infringement (Compl. ¶12).
- Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim is based on allegations of Microsoft’s pre-suit knowledge of the patent and the underlying technology. The complaint alleges that an inventor on the patent, John Mitchell, discussed the pending application with Microsoft as early as 1997 and made further contact in 1999 and 2001 after the patent issued (Compl. ¶10). This alleged long-standing knowledge forms the basis for the claim of objective recklessness (Compl. ¶14).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can the plaintiff demonstrate through technical evidence that Microsoft's Text Services Framework (TSF) performs the specific, dynamic linking-and-updating function that is the cornerstone of the ’273 patent? The complaint makes the allegation but provides no supporting facts regarding TSF's actual operation.
- The case will also turn on a question of structural equivalence: Because the claims are written in means-plus-function format, a key legal and technical question will be whether the software architecture of the accused TSF is the same as or equivalent to the specific algorithms and system structures disclosed in the patent’s specification.
- A significant strategic question relates to litigation history: How will the prior Federal Circuit decision confirming the patent's validity and the alleged licensing by other competitors influence settlement negotiations and the court’s perspective on the case, particularly on issues of infringement and damages?