Amazon v. VB Assets: Federal Circuit Dismisses Voice AI Patent Appeals for Lack of Jurisdiction
Amazon challenged VB Assets across four patents covering conversational voice interfaces, voice-targeted advertising, and voice commerce. The Federal Circuit consolidated three related appeals and dismissed all of them for lack of jurisdiction in 136 days — without reaching the merits.
Federal Circuit ends Amazon’s voice AI appeal on jurisdictional grounds
Amazon.com, Inc. appealed against VB Assets, LLC at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, with the case filed on 25 October 2024 and closed on 10 March 2025. At issue were four US patents — US7818176B2, US8073681B2, US9626703B2, and US9269097B2 — covering core technologies in conversational voice user interfaces, voice-targeted advertising, natural language processing of voice input, and voice commerce. VB Assets is a patent assertion entity whose portfolio directly targets the voice assistant ecosystem in which Amazon’s Alexa competes.
The Federal Circuit consolidated Appeal No. 2025-1357 with Appeal Nos. 2025-1113 and 2025-1142, then denied Amazon’s motion to stay proceedings before dismissing all three appeals for lack of jurisdiction. A jurisdictional dismissal means the court declined to hear the substance of Amazon’s challenge — not because Amazon’s arguments lacked merit, but because the procedural prerequisites for appellate review were not satisfied at the time of filing. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, consistent with a neutral procedural exit.
The 136-day resolution is notably swift but reflects the procedural rather than substantive nature of the outcome. Jurisdictional dismissals typically arise when an appeal is filed prematurely — for instance, before a final judgment has been entered below — or when the appellant lacks standing at the appellate stage. The public record does not disclose which specific jurisdictional defect the court identified, leaving open the question of whether Amazon may refile once the defect is cured. VB Assets’ four patents remain in play.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 136 days
136 days from filing to dismissal — faster than the median Federal Circuit appeal
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: what this means for both parties
Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — no merits decided
A Federal Circuit dismissal for lack of jurisdiction means the court determined it had no authority to hear the appeal at this stage. This is a purely procedural ruling: the court made no finding on patent validity, infringement, or the correctness of any lower tribunal decision. The underlying dispute over VB Assets’ four voice AI patents remains legally unresolved. Amazon may potentially refile if and when the jurisdictional defect — likely a missing final judgment below — is remedied.
No merits adjudicationAmazon leaves without a ruling — but the door may not be closed
For Amazon, dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is neither a win nor a loss on the patent questions at stake. The consolidation of three appeals suggests Amazon had mounted a multi-front challenge, but none reached the merits. Amazon must now address the jurisdictional deficiency — most likely by awaiting or obtaining a final judgment in the originating proceeding — before the Federal Circuit will consider the substantive appeal. The motion to stay was also denied, suggesting the underlying proceedings continue.
Procedural setback, not a merits lossVB Assets retains its patents — for now
VB Assets emerges from this dismissal with its four voice AI patents unchallenged at the appellate level. The court’s refusal to reach the merits means no adverse validity or enforceability ruling has been made against VB Assets’ portfolio. However, the no-costs order and purely procedural nature of the dismissal provide limited strategic comfort — Amazon’s substantive challenge is deferred, not defeated. The underlying proceeding that generated these appeals likely continues.
Patents survive — temporarilyVoice AI patent risk remains live for the ecosystem
VB Assets’ four patents — spanning conversational voice interfaces, NLP-driven advertising, and voice commerce — cover capabilities embedded in major voice assistant platforms. A jurisdictional dismissal without merits resolution leaves enforcement risk intact for any company operating in the voice AI space. Until a court rules on validity or infringement, competitors and licensees in the conversational AI and smart speaker market should treat these patents as active enforcement risk and conduct FTO analysis accordingly.
Enforcement risk remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | Global e-commerce and cloud technology company — operator of Alexa voice assistant platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | VB Assets, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity holding voice AI and conversational interface patentsSearch 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 | Ravi Ragavendra Ranganath | 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 counsel | Vigen Salmastlian | 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 | 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 | 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 ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order is terse but consequential: three appeals consolidated, a stay denied, and all dismissed for lack of jurisdiction with no cost award. The denial of the stay motion before dismissal suggests the court found no basis to pause the underlying proceedings, implying those proceedings continue to generate the dispute. Crucially, the order is silent on the merits of any patent — validity, infringement, and claim scope remain undecided. For both parties, this is a procedural reset rather than a resolution; the substantive contest over four voice AI patents is deferred, not concluded.
US7818176B2 — Conversational voice user interface systems and methods
US7818176B2 (application no. US11/671526) covers systems and methods for a cooperative conversational voice user interface — the foundational technology enabling turn-based, context-aware spoken dialogue between users and software agents. The three companion patents (US8073681B2, US9626703B2, US9269097B2) extend this into voice-targeted advertising via NLP, advertisement selection from voice input, and voice commerce. Together, they constitute a layered IP stack targeting the core revenue and engagement architecture of modern voice assistant platforms.
This portfolio is strategically significant because it targets not merely the speech recognition layer but the commercial monetisation layer of voice AI — specifically how platforms select ads, deliver them conversationally, and transact commerce through voice. As voice-enabled shopping and in-skill purchasing grow, patents in this space carry material licensing leverage. Any platform or developer deploying conversational AI with ad targeting or e-commerce capabilities should treat this portfolio as a live enforcement risk, particularly given the unresolved status of the Federal Circuit appeal.
Should you run an FTO against US7818176B2 and the VB Assets voice AI portfolio?
Yes — if your product or platform delivers voice-based advertising, processes natural language voice input to serve targeted content, or enables commerce through a conversational interface, these four patents present material FTO risk. VB Assets has demonstrated willingness to assert this portfolio against a major platform defendant like Amazon, and the Federal Circuit’s jurisdictional dismissal leaves all four patents valid and potentially enforceable. Developers of voice assistants, smart speakers, in-car voice systems, and voice-enabled retail applications should prioritise clearance analysis.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s claim-relevant features against the independent and dependent claims of US7818176B2, US8073681B2, US9626703B2, and US9269097B2 simultaneously. Eureka identifies prior art, claim differentiation opportunities, and litigation history across related patents — enabling your IP and R&D teams to assess design-around options and licensing exposure before this dispute re-enters the merits phase at the Federal Circuit or below.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7818176B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar voice AI and conversational interface patent appeals at the Federal Circuit
Cases involving voice AI, NLP-based advertising, and conversational interface patents appealed to the Federal Circuit — relevant precedent for the VB Assets portfolio dispute.
What this case signals for the conversational AI patent landscape
A jurisdictional dismissal without merits resolution keeps four voice AI patents in active play — with major implications for the sector.
Jurisdictional dismissals reset the clock, not the dispute
When the Federal Circuit dismisses for lack of jurisdiction, the underlying patent dispute survives intact. Companies monitoring this case should track the originating PTAB or district court proceeding — once a final judgment is entered, Amazon’s substantive challenge is likely to resume. The four VB Assets patents remain unvalidated and unenforced at the appellate level.
Voice commerce and NLP advertising patents are high-value enforcement targets
VB Assets’ portfolio targets the intersection of voice user interfaces, targeted advertising, and e-commerce — capabilities central to Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant, and Apple Siri ecosystems. Any company monetising voice-driven commerce or serving ads via NLP-processed voice input should assess exposure to US7818176B2, US8073681B2, US9626703B2, and US9269097B2 before this dispute re-enters the merits phase.
Amazon.com v VB — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit dismissed Appeal Nos. 2025-1113, 2025-1142, and 2025-1357 for lack of jurisdiction without specifying the precise defect on the public record. Jurisdictional dismissals at the Federal Circuit typically arise when there is no final judgment in the originating proceeding — for example, if a PTAB inter partes review has not issued a final written decision — making the appeal premature. The dismissal does not resolve any question of patent validity or infringement.
Four patents are at issue: US7818176B2 (cooperative conversational voice user interface), US8073681B2 (voice-targeted advertising via NLP), US9626703B2 (advertisement selection based on voice input), and US9269097B2 (voice commerce). Together they cover core commercial and interaction layers of voice assistant technology, making them relevant to any platform deploying conversational AI with ad-serving or e-commerce capabilities.
No. A dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is a procedural ruling only. The court made no finding on the validity or enforceability of VB Assets’ patents, nor on whether Amazon infringed them. VB Assets’ patents remain unchallenged at the appellate level, but the underlying dispute is unresolved. Amazon may refile its appeal once the jurisdictional defect — most likely the absence of a final judgment below — is remedied.
The Federal Circuit ordered each party to bear its own costs, which is a neutral outcome consistent with a purely procedural dismissal where neither party prevailed on the merits. It does not indicate any finding of bad faith, frivolous filing, or exceptionality. In jurisdictional dismissals, a mutual costs order is standard practice.
With four patents covering conversational voice interfaces, NLP-driven advertising, and voice commerce still unchallenged on the merits, any company operating in the voice AI ecosystem — including smart speaker manufacturers, voice assistant developers, and in-skill commerce platforms — faces residual licensing and litigation risk from this portfolio. Until a court rules definitively on validity or infringement, these patents represent active enforcement exposure, and FTO clearance analysis against the portfolio is advisable.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.