Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, case number 3:25-cv-05666, is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, presided over by Chief Judge Richard Seeborg. The plaintiff is Sanas.AI Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. The defendant is Krisp Technologies, Inc., also a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Berkeley, California. Both companies are operating companies and direct competitors in the real-time speech technology sector, specifically in accent conversion and speech processing. The choice of the Northern District of California as the venue is significant, as it is a prominent forum for intellectual property disputes involving technology companies based in Silicon Valley and the broader California tech ecosystem.

Sanas.AI Inc. alleges that Krisp Technologies, Inc. infringes its intellectual property with Krisp AI Accent Conversion v3, a product launched by Krisp that purportedly offers real-time accent conversion and preservation of speaker identity. The primary patent at issue, 11948550, describes a "Real-time accent conversion model" which employs machine-learning algorithms to convert speech content from a first accent to a second accent while preserving the speaker's vocal characteristics. In addition to patent infringement, the complaint also includes claims for trade secret misappropriation and false advertising.

The case is notable for several reasons, particularly its focus on the burgeoning field of AI-driven speech technology. The procedural posture saw an early challenge from Krisp Technologies, Inc., which filed a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that five of Sanas.AI Inc.'s patents, including the '550 patent, were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming abstract ideas. On February 23, 2026, Chief Judge Seeborg denied Krisp's motion, ruling that the asserted claims recite concrete technical methods that improve speech processing technology, rather than abstract ideas. This ruling provides important guidance on patent eligibility for AI and speech-processing claims, emphasizing that specific technical methods, such as explicit alignment or mapping steps and defined feature taxonomies, are crucial for claims to be deemed eligible. The ongoing litigation between these two competitors also highlights the intense intellectual property landscape within the Speech AI industry.

The patent infringement litigation, Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-05666, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on July 7, 2025. The case involves patent 11948550, among others, and is currently active.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • July 7, 2025: Plaintiff Sanas.AI Inc. filed a complaint against Krisp Technologies, Inc. The complaint alleges patent infringement, including U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550, along with claims for trade secret misappropriation and false advertising. It also seeks declaratory judgment.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • December 1, 2025: The court denied a motion to dismiss trade secret claims, concluding that the complaint sufficiently alleged protectable trade secrets and misappropriation concerning AI-based accent-conversion technology.
  • February 23, 2026: Chief Judge Richard Seeborg denied Krisp Technologies, Inc.'s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, which challenged the patent eligibility of five Sanas patents, including the '550 patent, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court ruled that the asserted claims recite concrete technical methods rather than abstract ideas, thus allowing Sanas' patent claims to proceed.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

  • As of May 30, 2026, no Markman order or claim construction hearing outcomes have been publicly reported. Given the recent denial of the motion for judgment on the pleadings in February 2026, the case is likely still in earlier pre-trial stages.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • No specific significant discovery milestones have been publicly reported.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • Given the case's filing date in July 2025 and ongoing pre-trial motions, the case has not yet proceeded to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • The case is currently active and no final disposition (settlement, dismissal, or judgment) has been reached.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • A search of the USPTO PTAB database for patent 11948550 does not show any instituted or filed IPR or PGR proceedings as of the current date.

Counsel representing the plaintiff, Sanas.AI Inc., in case 3:25-cv-05666 in the California Northern District Court are from the firm Kobre & Kim LLP.

The following attorneys are listed as counsel for Sanas.AI Inc.:

• Michael Kai Ng

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Experience Note: Michael Ng's practice focuses on intellectual property disputes, including patent litigation. He has been involved in significant patent cases, such as representing Sanas.AI Inc. in this patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation case involving AI-based accent-conversion technology.

• Daniel Amon Zaheer

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Experience Note: Daniel Zaheer specializes in complex intellectual property and technology litigation. He is also listed as an attorney for Sanas.AI Inc. in this case, which involves patent eligibility challenges for AI and speech-processing claims.

Other attorneys from Kobre & Kim LLP also listed in initial docket information include Zachary Ritz, Victoria Fordin, Tammy Su, and Jessica Kelly Fender. Their specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, of counsel) are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results beyond being identified as attorneys for the plaintiff.

Counsel for Defendant Krisp Technologies, Inc. in Sanas.AI, Inc. v. Krisp Technologies, Inc.

In the case of Sanas.AI, Inc. v. Krisp Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-05666, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the defendant is Krisp Technologies, Inc.. While the provided information indicates that Kobre & Kim LLP represents the plaintiff, Sanas.AI Inc., details about the defense counsel for Krisp Technologies, Inc. are not explicitly present in the initial search results. To identify the specific attorneys and their roles, a direct review of the court's docket for case 3:25-cv-05666 would be necessary to locate appearances by counsel for the defendant.

As of May 30, 2026, information directly identifying the counsel of record for Krisp Technologies, Inc. (defendant) by name, firm, office, and experience is not readily available from the provided search snippets. While the case has seen activity, including a denied motion to dismiss trade secret claims on December 1, 2025, the specific attorneys representing the defendant were not listed in the provided information.