Microsoft Corp v. Dialect LLC

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00657
• Patent #: 9,263,039
• Filed: March 24, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Microsoft Corporation
• Patent Owner(s): Dialect, LLC
• Challenged Claims: 13-15, 17-18

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Processing Speech and Non-Speech Communications
• Brief Description: The ’039 patent discloses methods for processing user commands by combining information from both speech and non-speech interfaces. The system aims to improve the reliability of determining a user's intent by transcribing and merging inputs from both modalities to form a query, which is then processed using domain-specific agents and context grammars.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Maes and Ross - Claims 13-15 and 17-18 are obvious over Maes in view of Ross.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Maes (Patent 6,964,023) and Ross (Application # 2002/0133354).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Maes, a multi-modal conversational computing system, discloses the core steps of independent claim 13, including receiving and processing both speech (audio) and non-speech (e.g., video of lip movements) communications. Maes taught transcribing these inputs into separate textual representations (“decoded text” and “visemes sequence”) and then merging or synchronizing them to understand a user's intent, thereby generating a query. While Maes taught a complete system, Petitioner contended it lacked an express disclosure of comparing the resulting query against a "context description grammar" to select a domain agent and generate a relevance score. Petitioner asserted that Ross supplied these missing elements. Ross taught a system for interpreting spoken commands by testing a transcribed utterance against multiple application-specific "context grammars" organized in a priority list. Ross explicitly disclosed comparing text combinations to entries in these grammars, generating a relevance score based on recency of access, selecting a target application (“domain agent”) based on the score, and arranging content in an order based on that score. Petitioner argued that combining Ross’s grammar-based context determination with Maes’s multi-modal input processing system rendered claim 13 obvious.
  • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Maes and Ross to improve the functionality of both systems. A POSITA would have integrated Ross's sophisticated grammar-based context determination and ambiguity resolution into Maes's multi-modal framework to enhance its accuracy in selecting the correct application to handle a user's command. Conversely, Maes's unified I/O subsystem solved a problem identified in Ross, where multiple independent speech-enabled applications could conflict. The combination was presented as an arrangement of known elements from analogous arts, each performing its known function to yield a predictable and improved result.
  • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the proposed modifications were minimal and predictable. Maes already disclosed using a "grammar database" and a "context stack," making the integration of Ross's "context grammars" and "context list" a straightforward application of a known technique to a similar system for an improved, predictable outcome.
  • Key Aspects: Petitioner asserted that dependent claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 were also obvious over the combination. Claim 14's "aggregate response" was taught by Ross's process of selecting between two capable grammars. Claim 15's "follow-up" communications were taught by Maes's iterative process for disambiguating user intent. Claims 17 and 18, relating to generating and using a "context stack" and "dialog history," were allegedly disclosed by Maes's use of a context stack to store historical event data and apply probabilities.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• §325(d) - Same or Substantially the Same Art or Arguments: Petitioner argued against denial, asserting that while Maes and Ross were cited in an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) during prosecution, they were part of over 670 references and the Examiner never substantively reviewed them or considered them in combination. Therefore, the specific invalidity ground presented in the petition was never before the Examiner, constituting a material difference that warrants review.
• §314(a) - Fintiv Factors for Co-pending Litigation: Petitioner argued that the Fintiv factors weigh strongly against discretionary denial.
  • The district court trial involving a real party-in-interest is not scheduled until January 2026, a date likely to be delayed, while a Final Written Decision (FWD) in the IPR would issue months earlier.
  • Petitioner stipulated that if the IPR is instituted, it will not pursue the same grounds or any that could have been reasonably raised in the petition in the co-pending district court case, eliminating concerns of overlapping issues and duplicative efforts.
  • The petition's merits were argued to be particularly strong and compelling, as Maes and Ross allegedly disclose nearly identical functionality to the challenged claims.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and the cancellation of claims 13-15 and 17-18 of the ’039 patent as unpatentable.