Google Infringement Suit Expands Fight Over 'Siri' Digital Assistant Patents
A Canadian intellectual property licensing company on Monday accused Google in Delaware federal court of infringing the technology that underpins Siri.
February 27, 2018 at 03:57 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
A Canadian intellectual property licensing company on Monday accused Google in Delaware federal court of infringing the technology that underpins Siri.
In a 135-page complaint, WiLAN subsidiary IPA Technologies Inc. said that Google Assistant, the voice-activated personal assistant app, and other programs infringed six patents that it acquired from SRI International Inc. in May 2016.
The complaint marks a continued escalation of WiLAN's campaign targeting Silicon Valley's use of personal digital assistant technology.
It brings to 15 the number of big tech companies that have been challenged by the WiLAN subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
According to the complaint, IPA acquired the patent portfolio in two tranches from SRI, a not-for-profit research institute that spun out Siri Inc. in 2007. Before that, SRI had led one of the world's largest artificial intelligence projects, which was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to “create groundbreaking software that could revolutionize how computers support decision-makers.”
SRI granted Siri a nonexclusive license to its patent portfolio in an effort to bring the personal digital assistant and speech-based navigation technology to the marketplace, IPA said in its complaint. The technology was demonstrated as an iPhone app at technology conferences and later released as an iPhone 3GS app in February 2010.
In April 2010, Apple Inc. acquired Siri Inc. and released the Siri personal digital assistant as an integrated feature of the iPhone 4S the following year.
IPA launched an initial round of lawsuits against Dell, HP Inc., Toshiba America Inc., Acer Inc. and ASUS Computer International in October 2016, about five months after it acquired the patents. All of those suits were settled within weeks of their filing.
But that December, IPA brought an infringement suit against Amazon.com Inc., whose personal digital assistant Alexa has become a leading product in the sector. The company has since filed similar cases against Acer, ASUS and a dozen other tech firms that either develop similar technology or incorporate it into their smartphones or tablets.
The defendants include tech heavyweights Sony Electronics Inc., Microsoft Corp., DISH Network Corp. and HTC Corp.
The most recent suit against Google claims direct, indirect and contributory infringement of six patents issued between 2003 and 2006. According to IPA, Google knew about the patented technology through the prosecution of other patents and patent applications.
“When the Google Assistant is initiated, it provides users with instructions (both audio and text) and examples of how to engage and operate Google Assistant in an infringing manner,” attorneys for IPA wrote. “As a further example, defendant instructs users on how to use the infringing products to perform speech-based navigation of an electronic data source.”
Google did not immediately respond Tuesday to a call seeking comment on the lawsuit.
IPA claims jurisdiction in Delaware under the state's long-arm statute. Acer, Amazon and Sony have all moved to dismiss similar lawsuits, arguing that IPA's patents were invalid because they were directed at patent-ineligible subject matter.
Meanwhile, other companies, including ASUS, have asserted affirmative defenses that run the gambit from invalidity and failure to state a claim to noninfringement and unenforceability. ASUS has also argued that venue in Delaware is improper because it lacks sufficient connections to the First State.
IPA is represented by Stephen B. Brauerman and Sara E. Bussiere of Bayard P.A.
The case, captioned IPA Technologies v. Google, has not been assigned to a judge. However, U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews of the District of Delaware is handling the other 14 cases.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
2 minute readPrivate Equity Firm's Counsel to Del. Supreme Court: Forfeiture Provisions Present 'a Choice'
4 minute readDavis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250