Untitled case

Case Overview and Background: IPR2025-01333

This inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-01333, was filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2025, targeting U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039. The patent owner is Dialect LLC, an entity widely considered to be a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), as it appears to assert its patent rights through litigation rather than by manufacturing or selling products. The specific petitioner for this IPR is not explicitly named in publicly available summaries of this particular IPR. The accused products or services in any underlying district court litigation, which typically prompts such IPR filings, would involve technologies related to natural language speech processing, such as voice assistants or systems that interpret and respond to spoken commands, aligning with the patent's subject matter.

U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039 is titled "Systems and methods for responding to natural language speech utterance." It describes technology designed to receive both speech and non-speech natural language input, convert this input into textual messages, and then process and execute any embedded questions or commands. The patent was originally filed on September 29, 2014, and issued on February 16, 2016. Dialect LLC has actively asserted this patent in various district courts, including cases filed in the Western District of Texas, the Eastern District of Texas, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Western District of Washington.

The procedural posture of IPR2025-01333 is notable because the petition was "Not Instituted - Procedural" by the PTAB. This means the PTAB did not proceed to a full merits review of the patent's validity based on the prior art presented. Such procedural denials often occur due to defects in the petition, commonly including the failure to correctly identify all "real parties in interest" (RPIs) as required by PTAB rules. The significance of a procedural non-institution is that statutory estoppel, which would prevent the petitioner from re-raising the same invalidity arguments in a parallel district court case after a final written decision, typically does not apply. Therefore, the underlying defendants in the infringement lawsuits would likely retain the ability to challenge the patent's validity in the district courts despite the PTAB's non-institution decision. This case is notable as it reflects a common strategy by operating companies to challenge NPE-asserted patents at the PTAB, and highlights the critical importance of procedural compliance in IPR filings, particularly regarding RPI disclosure.

Dialect LLC, a patent assertion entity, has actively enforced U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039, titled "Systems and methods for responding to natural language speech utterance," through various district court litigations, often alongside a portfolio of related natural language processing patents. These infringement actions have been accompanied by parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Below are the key legal developments and outcomes related to U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039:

District Court Litigation

1. Dialect, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. (E.D. Virginia, Case No. 1:23-cv-581)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2023): Dialect LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. in the Eastern District of Virginia in 2023. The initial complaint asserted seven patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039, alleging infringement by Amazon's Alexa virtual assistant and related products.
• Pre-trial Motions – Motions to Dismiss (§ 101 Eligibility) (November 8, 2023): Amazon moved to dismiss claims related to six of the seven asserted patents, arguing they were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (the Alice test). Senior District Judge T.S. Ellis, III, granted Amazon's motion in part, invalidating U.S. Patent No. 9,031,845 as patent-ineligible. The court deferred ruling on the § 101 challenges to the remaining five patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039, pending further proceedings, including claim construction and discovery, which could inform the Alice analysis.
• Pre-trial Motions – Summary Judgment (2024): Separately, the court granted Amazon's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement for U.S. Patent No. 8,140,327, reducing the number of asserted patents to five.
• Pre-trial Motions – Daubert Motions (July 31, 2024): The court denied Amazon's motion to strike and exclude the testimony of Michael Kennewick, an inventor on six of the asserted patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039.
• Current Posture: The case remains active in the Eastern District of Virginia, with U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039 among the five patents still in controversy.

2. Dialect, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (W.D. Texas, Case No. 7:25-cv-00060, transferred to W.D. Washington)

• Filing (February 7, 2025): Dialect LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Meta Platforms, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The complaint asserted five U.S. patents, including U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039, against Meta's AI products such as Meta AI, Quest headsets, and Ray-Ban Meta Glasses.
• Pre-trial Motions – Motion for Extension of Time to Answer (April 22, 2025): A joint motion for an extension of time to file an answer was granted, allowing Meta until June 9, 2025, to respond to the complaint.
• Pre-trial Motions – Motion to Transfer Venue (March 2, 2026): Meta Platforms filed a motion to transfer venue. The Western District of Texas granted the motion, transferring the case to the Western District of Washington.
• Outcome & Current Posture: The transfer to the Western District of Washington on March 2, 2026, marked the closure of the proceedings in the Western District of Texas, but not on the merits. No rulings on damages, infringement, or validity were issued. The case is expected to continue in the Western District of Washington, with the merits of the infringement claims unresolved.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings on U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039

1. IPR2025-01333

• Filing (2025): An Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01333, was filed in 2025 challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039.
• Outcome – Not Instituted - Procedural: The PTAB did not institute a trial for this IPR, citing procedural reasons. While specific details for this IPR were not publicly disclosed, such procedural denials often stem from issues like the petitioner's failure to correctly identify all "real parties in interest" (RPIs) as required by PTAB rules. This non-institution meant the PTAB did not reach a decision on the merits of the patent's validity. [cite: 4 (October 2025 memo on RPI), 3 (March 2025 memo on Director's discretion)]

2. IPR2024-00752 (Google LLC v. Dialect LLC)

• Filing (April 4, 2024): Google LLC filed an IPR petition, IPR2024-00752, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039 and U.S. Patent No. 9,495,957.
• Current Posture: This IPR proceeding is currently ongoing at the PTAB. While Google is challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039, public records for a Dialect, LLC v. Google LLC case (1:23-cv-00378 in D. Delaware, later transferred to N.D. California) do not explicitly list Patent No. 9,263,039 among the eight patents initially asserted in that specific district court litigation. Therefore, the IPR may relate to a separate infringement action or be a proactive challenge by Google. [cite: 1 (Google case analysis)]

Dialect LLC is represented by attorneys from Blue Peak Law Group LLP and Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC in its patent infringement lawsuits. These firms handle the complex intellectual property litigation Dialect LLC pursues against various technology companies.

Here is the identified counsel of record for Dialect LLC:

Blue Peak Law Group LLP

• Garland T. Stephens (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm Office: Houston, TX
  • Note: Stephens is listed as counsel for Dialect LLC in both Dialect, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. and Dialect, LLC v. Google LLC.
• Richard M. Koehl (Counsel)
  • Firm Office: New York, NY
  • Note: Koehl is listed as counsel for Dialect LLC in Dialect, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.
• Robert S. Magee (Counsel)
  • Firm Office: Palo Alto, CA
  • Note: Magee is listed as counsel for Dialect LLC in Dialect, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. and Dialect, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Heng Gong (Counsel)
  • Firm Office: Not specified in search results, but associated with Blue Peak Law Group LLP
  • Note: Gong is listed as counsel for Dialect LLC in Dialect, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Kate M Falkenstien (Counsel)
  • Firm Office: Not specified in search results, but associated with Blue Peak Law Group LLP
  • Note: Falkenstien is listed as counsel for Dialect LLC in Dialect, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Justin Lile Constant (Counsel)
  • Firm Office: Not specified in search results, but associated with Blue Peak Law Group LLP
  • Note: Constant is listed as counsel for Dialect LLC in Dialect, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC

• Mark D. Siegmund (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm Office: Not specified in search results, but associated with Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC
  • Note: Siegmund is listed as counsel for Dialect LLC in Dialect, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
• William D. Ellerman (Counsel)
  • Firm Office: Not specified in search results, but associated with Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC
  • Note: Ellerman is listed as counsel for Dialect LLC in Dialect, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.
• Shuya Yang (Counsel)
  • Firm Office: Not specified in search results, but associated with Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC
  • Note: Yang is listed as counsel for Dialect LLC in Dialect, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Hausfeld LLP

• Tara Lynn Renee Zurawski (Local Counsel)
  • Firm Office: Washington, DC
  • Note: Zurawski is listed as counsel for Dialect LLC in Dialect, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.
• Walter Kelley, Jr. (Local Counsel)
  • Firm Office: Washington, DC
  • Note: Kelley is listed as counsel for Dialect LLC in Dialect, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.

Defendant Representatives

The defendants in the patent infringement lawsuits initiated by Dialect LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,263,039 are represented by prominent intellectual property litigation firms.

Dialect, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc. (E.D. Virginia, Case No. 1:23-cv-581)

Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. are represented by:

• Daniel Wolfgang Ledesma (Counsel)
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, New York, NY (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Note: Focuses on patent litigation for technology companies.
• Donna Tang Long (Counsel)
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Note: Experienced in patent litigation, particularly for technology and software companies.
• Joe David Hadden (Counsel)
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Note: Specializes in patent litigation across various technologies.
• Johnathan Chai (Counsel)
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Note: Practices in intellectual property litigation, including patent, trade secret, and copyright disputes.
• Ravi Ragavendra Ranganath (Counsel)
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Note: Involved in patent litigation for high-tech clients.
• Saina Sason Shamilov (Counsel)
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Note: Focuses on intellectual property and patent litigation.
• Jonathan Thomas McMichael (Counsel)
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, Seattle, WA (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Note: Handles complex patent litigation for technology companies.
• Todd Richard Gregorian (Counsel)
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco, CA (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Note: Specializes in intellectual property litigation, particularly in the technology sector.
• Vigen Salmastlian (Counsel)
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, San Francisco, CA (Pro Hac Vice)
  • Note: Practices in patent litigation for leading technology companies.
• Laura Anne Kuykendall (Counsel)
  • Firm: Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Richmond, VA
  • Note: Experienced in complex litigation, including intellectual property disputes.
• Robert Armistead Angle (Counsel)
  • Firm: Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Richmond, VA
  • Note: Handles various litigation matters, including intellectual property.
• Mary Catherine Zinsner (Counsel)
  • Firm: Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP, Washington, DC
  • Note: Specializes in intellectual property litigation, including patent disputes.

Dialect, LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (W.D. Texas, Case No. 7:25-cv-00060, transferred to W.D. Washington)

Meta Platforms, Inc. is represented by:

• Robert W. Kantner (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Dallas, TX
  • Note: A leading intellectual property litigator with extensive experience in patent infringement and trade secret cases, often for major technology companies.
• Ryan K. Yagura (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Chair of O'Melveny's Intellectual Property and Technology Practice, experienced in complex patent infringement, trade secret, and technology-intense claims in District Court and ITC litigation.
• John V. Roppo (Counsel)
  • Firm: O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Focuses on intellectual property and technology litigation.
• J. Noah Hagey (Counsel)
  • Firm: BraunHagey & Borden LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Co-founder and managing partner, recognized as a preeminent trial lawyer with experience in intellectual property, antitrust, and trade secret disputes.
• Jeffrey T. Han (Counsel)
  • Firm: BraunHagey & Borden LLP, San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Practices in complex litigation, including intellectual property matters.
• Robert P. Latham (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Jackson Walker L.L.P., Dallas, TX
  • Note: Chair of Jackson Walker's media law practice and former chair of its intellectual property litigation practice, experienced in patent, copyright, and trademark litigation.
• Nathaniel J. St. Clair, II (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Jackson Walker L.L.P., Dallas, TX
  • Note: Head of Jackson Walker's IP practice group, focusing on patent litigation and patent portfolio management across various technologies.

Dialect, LLC v. Google LLC (D. Delaware, Case No. 1:23-cv-00378, transferred to N.D. California Case No. 3:24-cv-04388)

Google LLC is represented by:

• Jack B. Blumenfeld (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Experienced in complex intellectual property litigation, particularly patent cases in Delaware.
• Zachary M. Briers (Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Focuses on intellectual property and corporate litigation.
• Juliana M. Yee (Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Practices in intellectual property litigation.
• Evan Mann (Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Involved in patent litigation and other complex commercial disputes.
• Peter E. Gratzinger (Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Focuses on intellectual property and commercial litigation.
• Gregory P. Stone (Counsel)
  • Firm: Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP (likely associated as local counsel for Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell in some capacity or via transfer), Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Renowned trial lawyer with extensive experience in high-stakes intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.
• Brian P. Egan (Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Specializes in intellectual property litigation, including patent and trade secret disputes.
• Xiaonan April Hu (Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Practices in intellectual property and technology litigation.
• Peter A. Detre (Counsel)
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation.
• David P. Swenson (Counsel)
  • Firm: Patterson Thuente IP, Minneapolis, MN (Previously with Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP)
  • Note: Experienced patent litigator and appellate advocate, specializing in intellectual property matters and with a background in computer science.
• David J. Lisson (Counsel)
  • Firm: Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, NY
  • Note: Leads Davis Polk's GenAI litigation initiative and is an accomplished trial lawyer for technology companies in high-stakes IP disputes.
• Robert C. Laurenzi (Counsel)
  • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY
  • Note: Focuses on patent litigation involving computer, internet, and telecommunications technologies, and has experience as lead counsel on multiple IPRs.
• E. Michelle Davis (Counsel)
  • Firm: Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY
  • Note: Practices in intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on technology and life sciences.