Del. Federal Judge Invalidates 3 Siri Digital Assistant Patents
A Delaware federal judge has invalidated three patents at the center of a series of lawsuits accusing major companies of infringing upon the technology that underpins Siri, the digital assistant built into Apple products.
April 02, 2018 at 06:08 PM
4 minute read
A Delaware federal judge has invalidated three patents at the center of a series of lawsuits accusing major companies of infringing upon the technology that underpins Siri, the digital assistant built into Apple products.
U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews of the District of Delaware on March 31 said the patents' ”high level of generality” prevented a subsidiary of the Canadian intellectual property firm WiLAN from claiming infringement by a contingent of tech heavyweights, including Amazon.com Inc. and Sony Electronics Inc.
The asserted patents, he said, drew on existing technology and outlined no inventive concepts to support a finding of validity under U.S. patent law.
The ruling delivers a setback to IPA Technologies Inc. in its campaign targeting the use of personal digital assistant technology featured on Apple Inc. devices.
According to court documents, IPA—a California-based subsidiary of WiLAN—acquired the patents-in-suit from SRI International Inc., which had been working on personal digital assistants with a grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. SRI spun off Siri Inc. in 2007 and granted the new company a nonexclusive license to the patent portfolio.
The technology was later released as an iPhone 3GS app in February 2010. That April, Apple acquired Siri Inc. and released the Siri personal digital assistant as an integrated feature of the iPhone 4S the following year. IPA claims to own the patents by assignment.
In 2016, IPA filed suit against Amazon, whose personal digital assistant Alexa has become a leading product in the sector, claiming infringement of the so-called '021, '061 and '718 patents. The company has since brought similar cases against Sony, DISH Network Corp., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., LG Electronics Inc. and Huawei Technologies Co.
This content has been archived.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 All
Eagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
2 minute read
Private Equity Firm's Counsel to Del. Supreme Court: Forfeiture Provisions Present 'a Choice'
4 minute read
Davis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 2Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 3Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 4Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
- 5'It Refreshes Me': King & Spalding Privacy Leader Doubles as Equestrian Champ
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
