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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["3:25-cv-05666 defendant counsel Krisp Technologies Inc", "Krisp Technologies Inc legal counsel patent litigation", "Kobre & Kim LLP Sanas.AI Inc. Krisp Technologies Inc. 3:25-cv-05666", "defendant counsel 3:25-cv-05666", "Krisp Technologies Inc v. Sanas.AI Inc. counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking to identify the counsel of record for the defendant, Krisp Technologies, Inc., in case 3:25-cv-05666. I need to find their names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant patent litigation experience. I will use the provided search results to gather this information.

From the previous sections, I know the case number, parties, and the court. I need to specifically look for Krisp Technologies, Inc.'s legal representation.

I will analyze the search results to extract the requested information for each attorney representing Krisp Technologies, Inc.Defendant Krisp Technologies, Inc. is represented by attorneys from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. The firm is known for its expertise in intellectual property and patent litigation, particularly in competitor-versus-competitor tech disputes and post-grant reviews at the PTAB, which is relevant as Krisp has filed IPR and PGR petitions challenging Sanas.AI's patents.

Here are the details for the counsel of record for Krisp Technologies, Inc.:

• Jared Bobrow
  • Role: Lead Counsel (assumed based on experience and firm's profile)
  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Silicon Valley, CA.
  • Note: Bobrow maintains an extensive technology-sector practice, representing clients in IP litigation concerning fields such as medical devices, cloud computing, and semiconductors, and conducts patent litigation and trade secrets cases regarding complex technologies.
• David Gindler
  • Role: Lead Counsel (assumed based on experience and firm's profile)
  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, (office location not specified in provided snippets, but firm has multiple California offices).
  • Note: Gindler is highly experienced in handling patent disputes for emerging and established businesses and non-profit entities, including cases throughout the US and cross-border litigation.
• Alyssa Caridis
  • Role: Counsel (assumed based on experience and firm's profile)
  • Firm: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Caridis is a seasoned litigator with expertise in various technologies, including computer software and medical devices, and brings expertise in a broad spectrum of technologies in the industrial, TMT, and transportation sectors.