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
© 2025 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Divided Eighth Circuit Sides With GE's Timely Removal of Indemnification Action to Federal Court
- 2Former U.S. Dept. of Education Attorney Suspended for Failure to Complete CLE Credits
- 3ArentFox Schiff Adds Global Complex Litigation Partner in Los Angeles
- 4Bittensor Hackers, Accused of Stealing Over $28 Million, Face Federal Lawsuit
- 5In Novel Oil and Gas Feud, 5th Circuit Gives Choice of Arbitration Venue
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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