Untitled case

This is an active patent infringement case, Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under case number 3:25-cv-05666. The plaintiff, Sanas.AI Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California, operating as a developer of a real-time speech AI platform, including accent conversion technology. The defendant, Krisp Technologies, Inc., also a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Berkeley, California, offers AI-powered noise cancellation and accent conversion products. Sanas.AI alleges that Krisp's "Krisp AI Accent Conversion v3" product infringes its intellectual property.

The core of the dispute revolves around U.S. Patent No. 11,948,550, titled "Real-time accent conversion model," which is assigned to Sanas.AI Inc.. This patent describes techniques for real-time accent conversion, where a computing device receives speech with a first accent and converts it into output speech having a second accent, potentially while preserving the original speaker's voice identity. Sanas.AI claims that Krisp's accent conversion product, launched on March 25, 2025, strikingly mimics its patented invention in both system structure and methodologies.

The case was filed on July 7, 2025, and is currently assigned to District Judge Richard Seeborg, with Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore referred. The Northern District of California is a prominent venue for patent litigation, known for its experienced bench, patent local rules, and a tendency to grant early dispositive motions (such as Alice motions challenging patent eligibility) and stays pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. This case is notable not only for involving cutting-edge AI-based accent conversion technology but also because the court denied a motion to dismiss trade secret claims, finding sufficient allegations of protectable trade secrets and misappropriation in the AI context. Furthermore, Krisp Technologies Inc. has initiated parallel challenges against Sanas.AI's patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with IPR filings IPR2026-00272 and IPR2026-00275 linked to this district court case.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies, Inc. (3:25-cv-05666)

The patent infringement case of 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 and remains active. The litigation involves U.S. Patent No. 12125496, among other patents related to accent translation and speech processing technology.

Chronological Summary of Legal Developments:

• 2025-07-07: Complaint Filed. Plaintiff Sanas.AI Inc. initiated the lawsuit, alleging patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and false advertising against Krisp Technologies, Inc. Sanas claimed that Krisp copied its patented technology after confidential discussions under a non-disclosure agreement, leading to Krisp's "AI Accent Conversion v3" product. Sanas also sought a declaration that it is a co-inventor and co-owner of two of Krisp's patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 12,205,609 and 12,223,979).

• 2025-09-08: Answer and Counterclaims Filed. Defendant Krisp Technologies, Inc. filed its answer denying Sanas' allegations and simultaneously filed a countersuit. Krisp's counterclaims alleged patent infringement and unfair competition against Sanas, asserting that Sanas reproduced Krisp's patented noise cancellation technology and offered it for free to attract Krisp's customers. Krisp maintained that its accent conversion technology was developed independently.

• 2025-09-08: Motion to Dismiss Sanas' Claims Filed. Krisp also filed a motion to dismiss certain key claims from Sanas' complaint, specifically targeting trade secret misappropriation and co-inventorship.

• 2025-09-29: Sanas' Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims Filed. Sanas.AI Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Krisp's counterclaims, arguing that offering a free product to gain market share is a legitimate business strategy and not illegal unfair competition.

• 2025-12-01: Krisp's Motion to Dismiss Trade Secret Claims Denied. The court denied Krisp's motion to dismiss the trade secret claims, concluding that Sanas' complaint sufficiently alleged protectable trade secrets and misappropriation.

• 2026-02-23: Krisp's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (101 Eligibility) Denied. Chief Judge Richard Seeborg denied Krisp's Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, which challenged the patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of five Sanas patents, including U.S. Patent No. 12125496. The court found that the asserted claims recite concrete technical methods related to accent translation and speech processing, rather than abstract ideas, allowing Sanas' patent claims to proceed.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

As of the current date, there are no publicly available records indicating that Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings have been filed or instituted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for U.S. Patent No. 12125496.

Current Posture:

The case is active and continues to move forward in the Northern District of California. Key stages such as claim construction (Markman), discovery, trial, and a final disposition are yet to be publicly reported.

Plaintiff Sanas.AI Inc. is represented by attorneys from Kobre & Kim LLP.

Here are the details for the counsel of record for Sanas.AI Inc.:

• Michael Kai Ng
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, based in California.
  • Note: Ng is listed as an attorney for Plaintiff Sanas.AI Inc. in the initial complaint.
• Daniel Amon Zaheer
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, based in California.
  • Note: Zaheer is listed as an attorney for Plaintiff Sanas.AI Inc.
• Zachary Ritz
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, based in California.
• Victoria Fordin
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, based in California.
• Tammy Su
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, based in California.
• Jessica Kelly Fender
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, based in California.

It is worth noting that Sanas.AI Inc. is also represented in a parallel suit in India by Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, along with Naveen Varma and Naqeeb Nawab of the law firm ZeusIP Advocates LLP.

I'll research defense counsel for Krisp Technologies in this matter.

Good initial results. Let me verify the local counsel and get background on the Erise IP team.

Defense Counsel of Record — Krisp Technologies, Inc.

Bottom line: Krisp is represented by a national IP boutique, Erise IP, P.A. (Overland Park, Kansas), acting as lead trial counsel, with Marton Ribera Schumann & Chang LLP (San Francisco) serving as local/N.D. Cal. counsel of record. No in-house Krisp attorney appears in the publicly available party listing. The same Erise team is handling Krisp's six parallel PTAB petitions against Sanas' patents.

---

1. Counsel roster (as reflected on the docket / CourtListener party page)

Source: CourtListener docket 70721220, Parties tab — https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70721220/parties/sanasai-inc-v-krisp-technologies-inc/ ; corroborated by VitalLaw case notes (Dec. 3 and Dec. 5, 2025), which list "Chris R. Schmidt (Erise IP PA) for Krisp Technologies, Inc."

PTAB-only addition: Adam M. Sandwell (Erise IP, Reg. No. 72,484) is designated as Petitioner Krisp's counsel in the IPR/PGR mandatory notices alongside Buresh; he does not appear to be on the district court docket.

---

2. Sourcing detail and docket anchors

• Appearance date: Krisp's responsive pleading — Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims — is Dkt. 28, filed 09/08/2025 (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70721220/28/sanasai-inc-v-krisp-technologies-inc/). Service was waived (waiver sent 7/15/2025, answer due 9/15/2025), so there was no summons-and-appearance sequence.
• Caption/judge confirmation: Filings are captioned 3:25-cv-05666-RS before Chief Judge Richard Seeborg, Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco (see Dkt. 39 notice of motion and Dkt. 63 order).
• Erise service block in the litigation: The April 24, 2026 email in the PTAB record shows chris.schmidt@eriseip.com corresponding with Kobre & Kim, cc'ing eric.buresh@eriseip.com, nick.apel@eriseip.com, michelle.marriott@eriseip.com, ethan.buresh@eriseip.com, and annmarie.hamm@eriseip.com — concrete confirmation of the Erise team composition on the Krisp side. (Ex. 1051, Petitioner's Stipulation, IPR2026-00273, https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2026-00273/Krisp_Technologies_Inc._v._Sanas.AI_Inc/)
• Case name anomaly worth noting: Erise maintains a public case page at krisplitigation.com, which hosts copies of the district court filings (e.g., DE 38). That site is a useful secondary source for documents but is party-controlled, not a court record.

---

3. What is not confirmed

• No in-house Krisp counsel is identified in the CourtListener party listing or in any opinion/service list I reviewed. If Krisp's legal department (or a GC such as the "Susan Shinoff, General Counsel" who signed Sanas' PTAB power of attorney — note that signature is Sanas' GC, not Krisp's) is involved, that attorney has not entered an appearance. Treat any claim of Krisp in-house participation as unsourced.
• Pro hac vice orders for Buresh, Marriott, or Apel were not individually retrieved; their N.D. Cal. admission status is inferred from the party listing and from Erise's standard practice of using a California-barred anchor (Schmidt) plus local counsel (Haack). If precise PHV entry numbers matter, pull the N.D. Cal. docket entries between 7/21/2025 and 9/8/2025 directly from PACER.
• No sealed-filing issue appears to affect counsel identification here; the docket is substantially public.

---

4. Flags against the previously generated sections

1. Patent count mismatch (important). The case metadata lists only U.S. Patent No. 12,125,496, and the earlier "Case overview" centers on the '550 patent. The operative First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 35, filed 9/22/2025) asserts six Sanas patents: the '550, '496, '745, '457, '756, and '561. The prior section's statement that "[a]s of the current date, there are no publicly available records indicating that IPR or PGR proceedings have been filed … for U.S. Patent No. 12125496" is now outdated and incorrect: Krisp has filed IPR2026-00273 on the '496, plus IPR2026-00272 ('550), IPR2026-00274 ('745), IPR2026-00275 ('457), PGR2026-00032 ('561), and PGR2026-00033 ('756). The earlier IPR numbers cited (IPR2026-00272/00275) are correct but incomplete.
2. Case filed-in-court history. The earlier section omits that the case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson (filings bear "TSH") before landing with Judge Seeborg, and that Sanas filed a corrected complaint (Dkt. 2, 7/9/2025) and then a First Amended Complaint (Dkt. 35) after Krisp's first motion to dismiss, which was denied as moot. Krisp's November 19, 2025 motion to dismiss the patent claims and its later successive Rule 12(b)(6) motion were denied (Dkt. 63, 12/19/2025, holding the successive motion procedurally improper under Rule 12(g)(2)).
3. PTAB counsel is distinct from district court counsel on the Sanas side — Sanas uses Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein (Macedo/Gershik/Derenzis) at the PTAB, not Kobre & Kim. That is relevant context but does not change the defense roster.

---

5. One-line strategic read on the defense team

Erise IP is a patent-litigation-only boutique whose model here is classic: a California-barred partner (Schmidt) as docket anchor, a founding partner with heavy PTAB experience (Buresh) running the parallel IPR/PGR campaign, and a small San Francisco IP boutique (Haack at Marton Ribera) for local-counsel coverage — a lean, PTAB-integrated defense consistent with the six-petition stay strategy signaled by Krisp's April 2026 stipulation tying the district court case to institution outcomes.