Infringement action filed 1 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and closed 26 Jul 2023, with 8 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Acoustic voice activity detection (AVAD) for electronic systems · Detecting voiced and unvoiced speech using both acoustic and nonacoustic sensors · Dual omnidirectional microphone array (DOMA) · Forming virtual microphone arrays using dual omnidirectional microphone array (DOMA) · Microphone and voice activity detection (VAD) configurations for use with communication systems · Microphone array with rear venting · Voice activity detector (VAD) -based multiple-microphone acoustic noise suppression
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 3:22-cv-06727, United States District Court for the Northern District of California.Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
A dual omnidirectional microphone array noise suppression is described. Compared to conventional arrays and algorithms, which seek to reduce noise by nulling out noise sources, the array of an embodiment is used to form two distinct virtual directional microphones which are configured to have very similar noise responses and very dissimilar speech responses. The only null formed is one used to remove the speech of the user from V2. The two virtual microphones may be paired with an adaptive filter algorithm and VAD algorithm to significantly reduce the noise without distorting the speech, significantly improving the SNR of the desired speech over conventional noise suppression systems.
6 on recordIPR2023-00251 · Patentability · filed by Amazon.com, Inc.IPR2023-01130 · Patentability · filed by META PLATFORMS, INCIPR2023-01134 · Patentability · filed by LG Electronics, Inc.IPR2022-01321 · Other · filed by SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.IPR2022-01124 · Patentability · filed by Google LLCIPR2023-01153 · Patentability · filed by SONY ELECTRONICS INC
Systems and methods are provided for detecting voiced and unvoiced speech in acoustic signals having varying levels of background noise. The systems receive acoustic signals at two microphones, and generate difference parameters between the acoustic signals received at each of the two microphones. The difference parameters are representative of the relative difference in signal gain between portions of the received acoustic signals. The systems identify information of the acoustic signals as unvoiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a first threshold, and identify information of the acoustic signals as voiced speech when the difference parameters exceed a second threshold. Further, embodiments of the systems include non-acoustic sensors that receive physiological information to aid in identifying voiced speech.
6 on recordIPR2023-00222 · Patentability · filed by Amazon.com, Inc.IPR2023-01110 · Patentability · filed by LG Electronics, Inc.IPR2023-01352 · Patentability · filed by META PLATFORMS, INCIPR2022-00623 · Patentability · filed by Google LLCIPR2023-01119 · Patentability · filed by Sony Corp.IPR2022-01021 · Other · filed by APPLE INC.
The docket lists 8 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 6 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Alfred Ross Fabricant · Benjamin T. Wang · Jacob Daniel Ostling · Jennifer Leigh Truelove · Justine M. Park · Minna Y. Chan · Peter Lambrianakos · Richard Matthew Cowell · Samuel Franklin Baxter · Vincent J. Rubino III
Firm
Fabricant LLP, McKool Smith PC (Marshall), McKool Smith PC, Russ, August & Kabat LLP
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"On this day, Plaintiff Jawbone Innovations, LLC (“Jawbone” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendants Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon.com Services Inc. (collectively, “Amazon” or “Defendant”) announced to the Court that they have resolved Jawbone’s claims for relief against Amazon asserted in this case. Jawbone and Amazon have therefore requested that the Court dismiss Jawbone’s claims for relief asserted against Amazon with prejudice, and with all attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses borne by the party incurring same. The Court, having considered this request, is of the opinion that their request for dismissal should be granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Jawbone’s claims for relief against Amazon are dismissed with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses shall be borne by each party incurring the same."
Case 3:22-cv-06727 · N.D. Cal. · closed 26 July 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
3:22-cv-06727 is a patent infringement action brought by Jawbone Innovations, LLC against Amazon.com, Inc., filed on 1 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case closed on 26 July 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 3:22-cv-06727?
US11122357B2 (“Forming virtual microphone arrays using dual omnidirectional microphone array (DOMA)”), assigned to JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC, currently inactive; US7246058B2 (“Detecting voiced and unvoiced speech using both acoustic and nonacoustic sensors”), assigned to JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC, currently inactive; US8467543B2 (“Microphone and voice activity detection (VAD) configurations for use with communication systems”), assigned to JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC; US8280072B2 (“Microphone array with rear venting”), assigned to JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC; US10779080B2 (“Dual omnidirectional microphone array (DOMA)”), assigned to JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC; US8019091B2 (“Voice activity detector (VAD) -based multiple-microphone acoustic noise suppression”), assigned to JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC; US8326611B2 (“Acoustic voice activity detection (AVAD) for electronic systems”), assigned to JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC; US8321213B2 (“Acoustic voice activity detection (AVAD) for electronic systems”), assigned to JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC. The record also lists Acoustic voice activity detection (AVAD) for electronic systems, Detecting voiced and unvoiced speech using both acoustic and nonacoustic sensors, Dual omnidirectional microphone array (DOMA), Forming virtual microphone arrays using dual omnidirectional microphone array (DOMA), Microphone and voice activity detection (VAD) configurations for use with communication systems, Microphone array with rear venting and Voice activity detector (VAD) -based multiple-microphone acoustic noise suppression.
How was case 3:22-cv-06727 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: "On this day, Plaintiff Jawbone Innovations, LLC (“Jawbone” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendants Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon.com Services Inc. (collectively, “Amazon” or “Defendant”) announced to the Court that they have resolved Jawbone’s claims for relief against Amazon asserted in this case. Jawbone and Amazon have therefore requested that the Court dismiss Jawbone’s claims for relief asserted against Amazon with prejudice, and with all attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses borne by the party incurring same. The Court, having considered this request, is of the opinion that their request for dismissa
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 3:22-cv-06727 take?
267 calendar days, from filing on 1 Nov 2022 to closure on 26 July 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 3:22-cv-06727?
Chief Judge Trina L Thompson presided. Alfred Ross Fabricant, Benjamin T. Wang, Jacob Daniel Ostling, Jennifer Leigh Truelove, Justine M. Park, Minna Y. Chan, Peter Lambrianakos, Richard Matthew Cowell, Samuel Franklin Baxter and Vincent J. Rubino III are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Jawbone Innovations. Colin B. Heideman, Colin Barry Heideman, Deron R. Dacus, Jeremy A. Anapol, Joseph R. Re, Logan Young, Mark Lezama and Nathan Reeves appear for defendant Amazon.com.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 3:22-cv-06727 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 3:22-cv-06727 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
