Amazon v. VB Assets: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed After 321 Days
Amazon.com challenged VB Assets, LLC at the Federal Circuit over four voice AI patents asserted against Alexa products. The appeal was voluntarily dismissed by agreement of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs, closing the proceeding after 321 days.
Amazon and VB Assets end Federal Circuit voice AI patent fight
Amazon.com, Inc. filed appeal No. 25-1854 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 12 June 2025, challenging VB Assets, LLC in connection with four US patents covering voice AI technology — US7818176B2, US8073681B2, US9626703B2, and US9269097B2 — that VB Assets had asserted against Amazon's Alexa product line. The proceeding was docketed as an infringement action and proceeded before the Federal Circuit.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement of the parties, with each side bearing its own costs. The specific terms underlying the agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The dismissal closed the appeal after 321 days without a merits ruling from the Federal Circuit. What drove the parties to agree on dismissal at this appellate stage — whether through settlement, licensing arrangement, or another resolution — is not apparent from the public record. The four patents in suit remain part of VB Assets' portfolio, and their enforceability status as against Amazon's Alexa products beyond this proceeding is not determinable from the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 321 days
321 days from filing to voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit
US7818176B2 and three further voice AI patents in suit
Any product team building conversational AI assistants, smart speaker hardware, or voice-enabled applications should assess exposure against the four VB Assets patents asserted in this case. The patents were asserted against Amazon Alexa — one of the most commercially mature voice assistant platforms — suggesting broad claim scope that may read on comparable products. FTO analysis is particularly urgent for teams preparing product launches or platform expansions in the voice AI category.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order records a dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) on agreement of the parties, with each side bearing its own costs. The order does not address the merits of the underlying infringement or validity arguments, and does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. The Federal Circuit issued no opinion on the four asserted voice AI patents or on Amazon's Alexa products.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the agreed dismissal means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) voluntary dismissal explained
Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure allows parties to a federal appeal to stipulate to dismissal. The court's order confirms the parties agreed to this course. The dismissal ends the appellate proceeding without a merits ruling. The public record does not disclose whether any conditions or terms accompanied the agreement.
No merits rulingWith or without prejudice? The record is silent
The basis of termination is recorded as Voluntary dismissal, without specifying with or without prejudice. The docket order does not expressly state either. This distinction matters: a dismissal with prejudice bars re-litigation; one without prejudice does not. The available public record does not resolve this question, and practitioners should not assume either characterisation applies.
Prejudice status unconfirmedAppeal ends without Federal Circuit ruling for Amazon
As appellant, Amazon sought a Federal Circuit determination but the proceeding was dismissed by agreement before any such ruling issued. The effect on Amazon's exposure to the four asserted voice AI patents — US7818176B2, US8073681B2, US9626703B2, and US9269097B2 — with respect to Alexa products is not determinable from the public record alone.
No appellate determinationVoice AI patent risk persists across the Alexa ecosystem
The four VB Assets patents cover voice AI technology areas relevant to conversational assistant products. With the appeal closed without a merits ruling, the patents remain in force and their claim scope has not been judicially narrowed or invalidated by the Federal Circuit in this proceeding. Companies operating in the voice AI and smart assistant space should monitor these patents and their prosecution history for FTO purposes.
Patents remain in forceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | VB Assets, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brandon P. Evans | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | J. David Hadden | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Johnathan Chai | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan G. Tamimi | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Saina S. Shamilov | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Todd Richard Gregorian | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fenwick & West, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher D. Mays | Attorney | Counsel for VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Greenbaum | Attorney | Counsel for VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James C. Yoon | Attorney | Counsel for VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jamie Otto | Attorney | Counsel for VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelsey Catina | Attorney | Counsel for VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Ronald Smith | Attorney | Counsel for VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steffen Nathanael Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Greenbaum Law, LLC | Law Firm | Representing VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC | Law Firm | Representing VB Assets, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the voice AI and conversational assistant patent space
Patent intelligence signals derived from Amazon v. VB Assets — tracking voice AI filing trends, portfolio activity, and white-space opportunities around the four asserted patents.
VB Assets' voice AI portfolio: scope and continuation risk
VB Assets, LLC holds at least four granted US patents covering voice AI and conversational assistant technology. Patent assertion entities in this space frequently maintain continuation and continuation-in-part filings that extend claim coverage beyond originally litigated patents. Monitoring VB Assets' prosecution activity and assignee filings can surface new enforcement risk early.
Portfolio watchFiling trends in voice assistant and NLP patent space
The four asserted patents span application dates from the 11/580926 and 11/671526 series through the 14/xxx continuation lineage, suggesting a mature filing programme in conversational AI. Tracking citation patterns and forward citations to US7818176B2 and US8073681B2 reveals which current filers are building in adjacent claim space — a key signal for FTO and competitive intelligence teams.
NLP filing trendsAmazon's defensive patent posture in Alexa voice AI
Amazon has built an extensive patent portfolio around Alexa's voice recognition, dialogue management, and smart home integration capabilities. As the appellant in this Federal Circuit proceeding, Amazon's IP strategy for Alexa suggests active use of both offensive and defensive patent positions. Analysing Amazon's voice AI filings alongside the VB Assets claim scope reveals where design-around opportunities may exist.
Amazon Alexa IPAdjacent claim space around VB Assets' four asserted patents
The four VB Assets patents leave claim white space in areas such as on-device voice processing, multilingual conversational AI, voice AI for accessibility, and personalised assistant context retention. R&D teams building next-generation voice AI products can use forward and lateral citation mapping from US9626703B2 and US9269097B2 to identify filing opportunities in claim areas not already dominated by the litigated portfolio.
White-space opportunitySimilar voice AI patent infringement cases at the Federal Circuit
Explore related Federal Circuit appeals and district court actions involving voice AI, smart assistant, and natural language processing patents asserted against major technology platforms.
What this case signals for the voice AI patent IP landscape
A Federal Circuit appeal over four voice AI patents against Alexa ends without merits ruling — watch what happens next to the patent portfolio.
Voluntary Federal Circuit dismissals leave patent validity unresolved
When a Federal Circuit appeal is voluntarily dismissed by agreement, no precedential ruling issues. The four VB Assets voice AI patents — asserted against Amazon's Alexa — retain their granted claim scope. Voice AI product teams should treat these patents as live risks until a merits ruling, IPR outcome, or expiry changes their status.
Cost-neutrality suggests a negotiated resolution, not a capitulation
The court's order that each side bears its own costs is consistent with a negotiated agreement rather than one party conceding. This pattern — agreed dismissal with own-costs allocation — commonly appears when parties have reached an off-record resolution, though the specific terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Amazon.com v VB — key questions answered
VB Assets, LLC asserted four US patents against Amazon's Alexa products: US7818176B2 (App. No. 11/671526), US8073681B2 (App. No. 11/580926), US9626703B2 (App. No. 14/855334), and US9269097B2 (App. No. 14/537598). All four were at issue in the Federal Circuit appeal filed by Amazon on 12 June 2025.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states the proceeding was dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement of the parties, with each side bearing its own costs. The Federal Circuit issued no merits ruling on the four asserted voice AI patents. The specific terms underlying the agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The basis of termination is recorded as Voluntary dismissal without specifying with or without prejudice. The docket order does not expressly address prejudice. The public record does not resolve this question, and practitioners should not assume either characterisation applies without reviewing the full docket.
A voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) ends the appellate proceeding without a merits determination. The Federal Circuit did not rule on the validity, enforceability, or claim scope of any of the four VB Assets voice AI patents. All four patents remain granted and in force as of the dismissal, unless separately challenged through PTAB or another forum.
Amazon was represented by Fenwick & West, LLP, with counsel including J. David Hadden, Saina S. Shamilov, Todd Richard Gregorian, Brandon P. Evans, Johnathan Chai, and Jonathan G. Tamimi. VB Assets was represented by Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, PC and Greenbaum Law, LLC, with counsel including James C. Yoon, David Greenbaum, Steffen Nathanael Johnson, Ryan Ronald Smith, Christopher D. Mays, Kelsey Catina, and Jamie Otto.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.