Voice Tech Corp. v. Mycroft AI: Federal Circuit Affirms Patent Unpatentable
Voice Tech Corp. pursued an appeal at the Federal Circuit to salvage US9794348B2 — a patent covering mobile voice-command remote computer access — against open-source AI voice assistant maker Mycroft AI. The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability ruling, closing the case after 572 days with the patent invalidated.
Federal Circuit ends Voice Tech’s mobile voice-command patent bid
Voice Tech Corp. filed this appeal on October 12, 2022 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 23-1033), challenging a lower tribunal’s finding that US9794348B2 was unpatentable. The patent in dispute covers the use of voice commands issued from a mobile device to remotely access and control a computer — a capability central to modern voice assistant ecosystems. The defendant, Mycroft AI, Inc., is known for developing open-source voice assistant technology directly relevant to this patent’s claim scope.
The Federal Circuit issued its order on May 6, 2024, affirming the unpatentability determination. The single-word verdict — AFFIRMED — confirms that the appellate panel found no reversible legal or factual error in the decision below. For Voice Tech Corp., this outcome means US9794348B2 is cancelled and no longer enforceable. For Mycroft AI, the affirmance eliminates the patent as a litigation threat and validates the invalidity position it defended.
The 572-day duration is consistent with standard Federal Circuit briefing and decision cycles for patent validity appeals. The basis of termination — unpatentability — suggests the challenge likely proceeded through an inter partes review or similar post-grant proceeding before reaching the Federal Circuit on appeal. The public record does not disclose claim-by-claim findings, the specific prior art relied upon, or whether any claims survived. Voice Tech’s appellate options at this level are now exhausted.
Filing to Unpatentable in 572 days
572 days from filing to Federal Circuit decision — consistent with typical PTAB appeal timelines
Federal Circuit affirms: what the unpatentability ruling means for both parties
Affirmance means the lower tribunal’s decision stands in full
When the Federal Circuit issues an AFFIRMED order, it signals that the appellate panel reviewed the record and found no reversible error — whether legal, procedural, or factual — in the decision below. The unpatentability finding is now final at this level. The affirming court does not substitute its own reasoning; it endorses the analysis of the tribunal from which the appeal was taken, giving that finding binding effect.
No reversible error foundUS9794348B2 is cancelled — Voice Tech loses enforcement rights
For Voice Tech Corp., the Federal Circuit’s affirmance is a terminal outcome. US9794348B2 is unpatentable and cannot be asserted in future litigation. Any pending licensing discussions premised on this patent lose their legal foundation. Voice Tech would need to pursue a petition for rehearing en banc or a certiorari petition to the Supreme Court — both statistically unlikely avenues — to revive the patent’s validity.
Patent permanently cancelledMycroft AI secures freedom to operate without the shadow of this patent
Mycroft AI and any third party previously exposed to US9794348B2 can now operate freely in the mobile voice-command remote-access space without risk from this specific patent. The affirmance raises the bar for any future attempt to assert equivalent claims. Mycroft’s representation by the Public Interest Patent Law Institute alongside McCurdy Laud, LLC suggests a public-interest dimension to this challenge consistent with defending open-source voice technology.
Appellate defence fully upheldVoice assistant IP landscape: one fewer blocking patent in remote access
The cancellation of US9794348B2 removes a potential licensing toll in the mobile-to-desktop voice command space. Companies developing voice assistant integrations, smart home hubs, or remote-access products can treat this patent as cleared prior art. The ruling may also signal Federal Circuit receptiveness to unpatentability arguments in foundational voice-command claim sets — relevant to any portfolio owner asserting similar remote-access or voice-control patents.
Reduced voice IP risk for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VOICE TECH CORP. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9794348B2 for mobile voice command remote accessSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Mycroft AI, Inc. | Company | Mycroft AI, Inc. — open-source voice assistant developer and IPR petitionerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eric Michael Adams | Attorney | Counsel for VOICE TECH CORP.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Tumey LLP | Law Firm | Representing VOICE TECH CORP.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexandra H. Moss | Attorney | Counsel for Mycroft AI, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sanjiv P. Laud | Attorney | Counsel for Mycroft AI, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Mccurdy Laud, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Mycroft AI, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Public Interest Patent Law Institute | Law Firm | Representing Mycroft AI, Inc.Search 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 — ‘AFFIRMED’ — is terse by design. At the appellate level, affirmance signals that the panel applied the applicable standard of review (typically de novo for legal questions of patentability, substantial evidence for factual findings) and found no basis to disturb the tribunal below. The basis of termination as ‘Unpatentable’ confirms the challenged claims were cancelled on validity grounds. This is a merits disposition — not procedural — meaning the underlying patentability analysis has now received Federal Circuit endorsement.
US9794348B2 — Mobile voice commands for remote computer access and control
US9794348B2 (application no. US11/809998) protects the use of voice commands issued from a mobile device to remotely access and control a computer. This claim space sits at the intersection of mobile telephony, voice recognition, and remote-desktop or remote-session technology — a domain that was commercially significant during the smartphone proliferation era and remains embedded in modern voice assistant ecosystems. The patent’s application date and grant trajectory are relevant to assessing its prior-art exposure relative to early smartphone and voice-UI developments.
Strategically, US9794348B2 was positioned to cover a broad interaction paradigm — any product enabling a user to speak into a phone and trigger actions on a separate computer could potentially fall within its scope. This made it relevant to enterprise remote-access tools, smart-home hubs, and voice assistant platforms such as Mycroft’s. Its cancellation removes a barrier that could have been asserted against a wide range of voice-integrated products. Portfolio owners with similar foundational voice-command claims should note the Federal Circuit’s willingness to affirm unpatentability in this claim category.
Should your team run an FTO check against the US9794348B2 patent family?
Although US9794348B2 itself is now cancelled, product and legal teams developing mobile voice control, remote desktop access, or voice-assistant integrations should verify whether Voice Tech Corp. holds continuation patents, divisional applications, or related family members with overlapping claim scope. A single cancelled patent does not guarantee full clearance across an entire continuation family — particularly where the original claims were broadly drafted around voice-command remote access paradigms.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full patent family around US9794348B2, identify surviving continuations or related filings, surface the prior art cited in the unpatentability proceedings, and flag any pending applications from Voice Tech Corp. that could present future risk. R&D teams building voice-command or remote-access features can run a targeted FTO analysis in minutes rather than hours — with citation graphs and claim charts generated automatically.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9794348B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit voice command and remote-access patent appeals
Browse Federal Circuit appeals involving voice recognition, mobile remote access, and voice-assistant patent validity challenges in the same technology domain.
What this case signals for the voice assistant IP landscape
The Federal Circuit’s affirmance in Voice Tech v. Mycroft AI carries implications beyond the two parties — particularly for anyone operating in the voice command and remote-access technology space.
Cancelled patent = cleared FTO risk for voice-command remote access products
With US9794348B2 now unpatentable, product teams building mobile-initiated voice control or remote computer access features can remove this patent from active FTO watch lists. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance gives this clearance the highest available appellate authority short of the Supreme Court.
Open-source voice AI secured a precedent-level win at the Federal Circuit
Mycroft AI’s use of the Public Interest Patent Law Institute suggests a strategic posture beyond commercial self-interest. The case may encourage further use of IPR or post-grant challenges to clear blocking patents from open-source voice and AI toolchains — a pattern worth monitoring for portfolio managers in adjacent technology areas.
VOICE v Mycroft — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit affirmed the unpatentability of US9794348B2, which covers using voice commands from a mobile device to remotely access and control a computer. The order, issued May 6, 2024, confirmed no reversible error in the lower tribunal’s invalidity finding, effectively cancelling the patent.
No. The Federal Circuit’s affirmance of the unpatentability finding means US9794348B2 is cancelled and no longer enforceable. Voice Tech Corp. would need to petition for rehearing en banc or seek Supreme Court certiorari — both statistically rare outcomes — to reverse this result.
The public record does not specify the precise rationale, but representation by the Public Interest Patent Law Institute alongside McCurdy Laud, LLC suggests the case was viewed as having broader public-interest significance — consistent with defending open-source voice assistant technology against a patent that could have imposed licensing obligations across the voice-AI ecosystem.
US9794348B2 covers the use of voice commands from a mobile device to remotely access and control a separate computer. This claim space is relevant to enterprise remote-access tools, smart-home control systems, and voice assistant platforms. Its breadth made it potentially assertable against a wide range of modern voice-integrated products before its cancellation.
Not necessarily. The cancellation of US9794348B2 removes one specific patent, but Voice Tech Corp. may hold continuation patents, divisional applications, or related family members with overlapping claim scope. Product teams should conduct a full patent family and portfolio analysis before concluding that no further IP risk exists in this technology area.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.