Untitled case

Soundclear Technologies LLC, a patent assertion entity (PAE) reportedly backed by an unnamed funder, has initiated patent infringement litigation against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. in the Eastern District of Virginia. The lawsuit, case number 1:24-cv-01283, accuses Amazon's voice assistants and related hardware and software products of infringing three patents that Soundclear acquired from JVCKenwood. The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 9,223,487 ('487 patent), 11,069,337 ('337 patent), and 11,244,675 ('675 patent). The '487 patent relates to protein transduction technology and its applications, including methods for delivering exogenous proteins into mammalian cells. The '337 patent (Method for reducing noise) and the '675 patent (Speech signal processing device) generally concern features related to noise reduction, speech detection/processing, and volume control.

The case is procedurally complex and is being overseen by District Judge Anthony J. Trenga in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia, a venue known for its expeditious litigation timeline. Initially, Judge Trenga granted Amazon's motion to dismiss, finding all three asserted patents (the '487, '337, and '675 patents) invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for patent ineligibility. However, in an unusual development, the court later granted Soundclear's motion to alter the judgment, allowing the '337 and '675 patents to proceed by finding a plausible claim for patent validity for these two patents, while affirming the invalidity ruling for the '487 patent.

This litigation is notable due to Soundclear Technologies LLC's profile as an NPE actively asserting patents acquired from a major electronics manufacturer like JVCKenwood. The initial Alice dismissal and subsequent partial reversal highlight the ongoing challenges and evolving interpretations of patent eligibility under § 101. Furthermore, there are parallel inter partes reviews (IPRs) filed against the asserted patents by Amazon, adding another layer to the dispute. Specifically, Amazon.com, Inc. filed IPR2025-01368 against the '487 patent. IPRs have also been filed by Google and Amazon against other patents in Soundclear's portfolio, indicating a broader assertion strategy and concerted defensive efforts.

The case 1:24-cv-01283 in the Virginia Eastern District Court involves Soundclear Technologies LLC as the plaintiff. The primary defendant is Amazon.com, Inc. et al.. The patent at issue is US9223487B2, among others.

Here's a chronological summary of the key legal developments:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• July 25, 2024: Soundclear Technologies LLC filed the patent infringement complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. et al. in the Eastern District of Virginia. The complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,223,487 ("the '487 patent"), along with U.S. Patent Nos. 11,069,337 ("the '337 patent") and 11,244,675 ("the '675 patent").

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• September 23, 2024: A Rule 16(b) Pretrial Conference was scheduled for October 17, 2024. The court also set a discovery completion deadline of February 14, 2025, and a final pretrial conference for February 20, 2025.
• November 8, 2024: District Judge Anthony J. Trenga issued an order granting a motion to dismiss, based on Alice challenges to the eligibility of the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically invalidating the '487, '337, and '675 patents. This ruling was later cited by Google in a related case as supplemental authority.
• January 10, 2025: The court granted in part and denied in part Soundclear's motion to alter judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The court affirmed its November 8, 2024, order regarding the '487 patent (Count III), maintaining its invalidation. However, the motion was granted for the '337 and '675 patents (Counts I and II), allowing Soundclear to file an amended complaint with newly discovered evidence (deposition testimony from an Amazon witness) to support their validity, at least at the pleading stage.
• Post-January 2025: Both defendants (Amazon and Google in related cases) filed motions to transfer for convenience to the Northern District of California.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• January 30, 2025: Amazon.com, Inc. et al. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-00565, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,223,487.
• July 30, 2025: Another IPR petition, IPR2025-01368, was filed by Amazon.com, Inc. et al. against Soundclear Technologies LLC regarding US9223487B2. This IPR was terminated on December 11, 2025.
• September 24, 2025: In a related case (IPR2025-01080 concerning U.S. Pat. No. 9,804,819), Amazon opposed Soundclear's request for discretionary denial of the IPR, referencing the 1:24-cv-01283 case and stating that the district court litigation was in its early stages and had been stayed pending IPR.
• September 29, 2025: Google LLC filed an IPR petition, IPR2025-01597, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337. This IPR was terminated on March 17, 2026.
• October 17, 2025: Institution of IPR2025-01080.
• December 11, 2025: IPR2025-01368, targeting US9223487B2, was terminated.
• March 17, 2026: IPR2025-01597, targeting US11069337B2, was terminated.

Current Posture:

• The case 1:24-cv-01283 is still active, though it appears to have been stayed pending the outcome of IPR proceedings. The '487 patent has been invalidated at the motion to dismiss stage, which was affirmed even after a motion to alter judgment. The '337 and '675 patents, however, were allowed to proceed with an amended complaint. There were also motions to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.The patent infringement litigation, Soundclear Technologies LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., case number 1:24-cv-01283 in the Virginia Eastern District Court, concerns U.S. Patent No. 9,223,487, alongside U.S. Patent Nos. 11,069,337 and 11,244,675.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

• July 25, 2024: Complaint Filed
  Soundclear Technologies LLC initiated the lawsuit by filing a patent infringement complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. et al. in the Eastern District of Virginia.
• September 23, 2024: Pretrial Conference Scheduled & Discovery Plan
  The court scheduled a Rule 16(b) Pretrial Conference for October 17, 2024. It also set a deadline of February 14, 2025, for the completion of discovery, with a final pretrial conference slated for February 20, 2025.
• November 8, 2024: Initial Motion to Dismiss Granted (Alice Challenges)
  District Judge Anthony J. Trenga granted a motion to dismiss, ruling that all three asserted patents ('487, '337, and '675) were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on Alice challenges.
• January 10, 2025: Motion to Alter Judgment Granted in Part
  The court partially granted Soundclear's motion to alter the judgment. While the previous invalidation of the '487 patent (Count III) was affirmed, the court reversed its decision regarding the '337 and '675 patents (Counts I and II). This allowed Soundclear to file an amended complaint with new evidence to demonstrate the patent eligibility of the latter two patents at the pleading stage.
• January 30, 2025: First IPR Filed Against the '487 Patent
  Amazon.com, Inc. et al. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-00565, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,223,487 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• Post-January 2025: Motions to Transfer Venue
  The defendants, including Amazon in this case and Google in related parallel litigations, filed motions seeking to transfer the cases to the Northern District of California for convenience.
• July 30, 2025: Second IPR Filed Against the '487 Patent
  Amazon.com, Inc. et al. filed another IPR petition, IPR2025-01368, targeting U.S. Patent No. 9,223,487.
• September 24, 2025: District Court Case Stayed Pending IPRs
  In related PTAB proceedings, it was noted that the district court case (1:24-cv-01283) had been stayed pending the outcome of IPRs, indicating that the litigation was still in its early stages.
• September 29, 2025: IPR Filed Against the '337 Patent
  Google LLC filed an IPR petition, IPR2025-01597, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337.
• October 17, 2025: IPR2025-01080 Instituted
  The PTAB instituted IPR2025-01080, another IPR proceeding related to Soundclear patents.
• December 11, 2025: IPR2025-01368 Terminated
  IPR2025-01368, which challenged U.S. Patent No. 9,223,487, was terminated.
• March 17, 2026: IPR2025-01597 Terminated
  IPR2025-01597, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337, was terminated.

Outcome and Current Posture:
The '487 patent remains invalidated at the pleadings stage. However, the '337 and '675 patents were allowed to proceed with an amended complaint after Soundclear successfully argued for reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence. The district court litigation is currently active but has been stayed pending the resolution of parallel IPR proceedings. Motions to transfer the case to the Northern District of California have also been filed by the defendants.

I have searched for "PACER docket 1:24-cv-01283 E.D. Va. Soundclear Technologies LLC attorneys" and similar queries in an attempt to directly identify the counsel of record for the plaintiff. One search result states, "SoundClear Tech LLC v. Amazon.com Inc, 1:24-cv... Attorney. No Attorneys. Show all (-10 more). Patents3 ... 8. NOTICE of Appearance by Kevin Sprenger on behalf of..." This snippet is incomplete and doesn't explicitly name Kevin Sprenger as counsel for the plaintiff, Soundclear Technologies LLC, nor does it list other attorneys. Without direct access to the PACER docket or a more complete public docket record, it is challenging to definitively identify all counsel of record for the plaintiff and their specific roles. However, the presence of "NOTICE of Appearance by Kevin Sprenger" suggests he might be involved.

The previous searches for "Soundclear Technologies LLC v. 1:24-cv-01283 counsel", "1:24-cv-01283 PACER docket Soundclear Technologies LLC", "Scott E. Stevens patent litigation experience", "Michael L. Doane patent litigation experience", "Steven S. Smith patent litigation experience", "Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP Alexandria VA patent litigation", and "Oliff PLC patent litigation" did not yield a definitive list of counsel of record for the plaintiff in this specific case. While some searches provided general information about attorneys and firms known for patent litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia, they did not confirm their representation of Soundclear Technologies LLC in 1:24-cv-01283.

Given the limitations, I need to try a more targeted search to find an attorney list for the plaintiff in this specific case number, explicitly looking for docket entries related to appearances.

Updated plan:
Conduct a very specific web search for attorney appearance lists within the docket for case 1:24-cv-01283 for Soundclear Technologies LLC.
If a definitive list of attorneys for the plaintiff is still not found, state that the information is not publicly available or sealed.
If attorneys are identified, then for each, determine their role, firm, and office location, and provide a one-line note on relevant patent litigation experience using the previously gathered information.## Counsel of Record for Soundclear Technologies LLC in Soundclear Technologies LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. (1:24-cv-01283)

As of the current date, identifying a comprehensive and definitive list of all counsel of record specifically representing Soundclear Technologies LLC in case 1:24-cv-01283 directly from publicly accessible docket snippets or firm websites has proven challenging without direct PACER access. While the case is active in the Eastern District of Virginia, specific attorney appearance filings for the plaintiff are not readily detailed in the general search results.

However, a partial snippet from a public docket-like source indicates a "NOTICE of Appearance by Kevin Sprenger". Without further details from the official docket, the exact role (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) of Kevin Sprenger for the plaintiff cannot be definitively determined from the available information, nor can his firm or detailed experience be confirmed as linked to this specific plaintiff.

General information about law firms active in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia, such as Oliff PLC, often serve as local counsel in this jurisdiction due to their proximity to the court and the USPTO. However, a direct link between Oliff PLC and Soundclear Technologies LLC as plaintiff's counsel in this specific case 1:24-cv-01283 could not be established from the provided search results. Similarly, while prominent patent litigators like Stephen S. Smith of Cooley LLP and M. Scott Stevens of Alston & Bird have extensive experience in patent litigation, including in the Eastern District of Virginia, their specific appearances for Soundclear Technologies LLC in this particular case are not explicitly confirmed in the provided snippets. Michael L. Doane is also noted for his extensive IP enforcement experience.

Given the limitations, the full list of counsel of record for Soundclear Technologies LLC, along with their specific roles and firms in this case, cannot be provided definitively without direct access to the court's ECF docket. It is possible that these filings are not fully indexed or publicly detailed in the general search results.

Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. are represented by a team of attorneys from Fenwick & West LLP. While a comprehensive list for this specific case wasn't immediately available, patent litigation teams representing Amazon in similar matters often include:

• David Hadden (Partner, Fenwick & West LLP - San Francisco/Mountain View, CA): Experienced in patent litigation, he has represented Amazon in Federal Circuit victories.
• Todd Gregorian (Partner, Fenwick & West LLP - San Francisco/Mountain View, CA): Also a patent litigation partner, Gregorian has represented Amazon in various patent disputes.
• Saina Shamilov (Partner, Fenwick & West LLP - San Francisco/Mountain View, CA): A patent litigation partner who has been involved in representing Amazon.
• Ravi Ranganath (Partner, Fenwick & West LLP - San Francisco/Mountain View, CA): Another patent litigation partner with experience representing Amazon.
• Allen Wang (Partner, Fenwick & West LLP - San Francisco/Mountain View, CA): A patent litigation partner who has represented Amazon.
• Jonathan Tamimi (Associate, Fenwick & West LLP): An associate in patent litigation, Tamimi has been part of Amazon's defense teams.
• Daniel Rabinowitz (Associate, Fenwick & West LLP): An associate in patent litigation, Rabinowitz has also been involved in representing Amazon.
• Olivia Wheeling (Associate, Fenwick & West LLP): An associate in patent litigation, Wheeling has contributed to Amazon's litigation efforts.

Amazon also maintains an in-house legal team for intellectual property matters. Scott Sanford is noted as a senior in-house patent lawyer at Amazon.com Inc.. Additionally, Amazon employs various corporate counsel with intellectual property expertise.

It's important to note that specific local counsel in the Eastern District of Virginia would also be involved, though their names were not immediately found in the provided search results. Filings in the case 1:24-cv-01283 would contain the definitive list of counsel of record.