Untitled case

Soundclear Technologies LLC, a patent assertion entity (PAE) whose patents were acquired from JVCKenwood, initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Google LLC in the Virginia Eastern District Court. Soundclear Technologies was formed in Virginia in June 2023 and is wholly owned by SoundClear LLC, a Delaware entity, with its funding structure reportedly backed by an unnamed funder. The litigation, filed under case number 2:24-cv-00321, accuses Google's voice-AI portfolio of infringement, including products such as Google Home devices, Google Nest Audio, Google Pixel/Nexus smartphones, and Google Assistant-integrated smart screens. The features at issue relate to noise reduction, speech detection/processing, and volume control within these devices.

The lawsuit asserts three US patents: US 9,804,819, which generally pertains to controlling the volume of an audio output unit based on "locked" and "non-locked states"; US 9,031,259, relating to an adaptive filter for noise reduction using speech segment and voice incoming-direction information; and US 9,070,374, directed to using a light-emitting device to indicate a device's transmission or standby mode. The case was originally filed in the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia but was subsequently transferred to the Richmond Division, where it is presided over by Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, with Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller also assigned. The Eastern District of Virginia is widely known as the "Rocket Docket" for its expedited litigation timeline, which often appeals to plaintiffs seeking swift resolutions.

This case is notable as part of a broader patent monetization campaign by Soundclear Technologies, which has also filed similar actions against Amazon. The litigation highlights significant intellectual property risks within the voice AI and smart speaker industries, given the breadth of Google's accused products. Parallel challenges exist, with Amazon having filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-00565) against Soundclear Technologies for a related patent in January 2025. Furthermore, procedural battles over patent eligibility under Alice have occurred in a related case against Amazon, with an initial dismissal being reversed, allowing Soundclear to amend its complaint. Both Google and Amazon have also attempted to transfer their respective cases to the Northern District of California for convenience, indicating an ongoing struggle over the litigation venue.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Soundclear Technologies LLC v. Google LLC

Soundclear Technologies LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Google LLC (Case No. 2:24-cv-00321) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 1, 2024. The lawsuit involves US Patent 9,804,819, among others, with the plaintiff alleging infringement related to voice assistants and associated hardware and software features like noise reduction, speech detection/processing, and volume control.

Chronological Developments:

• 2024-05-01: Complaint Filed. Soundclear Technologies LLC filed its complaint for patent infringement against Google LLC in the Eastern District of Virginia. Parallel lawsuits were also filed against Amazon (2:24-cv-00320).
• 2024-08-05: Google Files Motion to Dismiss. Google LLC filed a motion to dismiss. Soundclear Technologies LLC's response to this motion was due by August 5, 2024. The motion likely included challenges based on patent eligibility under Alice. While the specific outcome for this case is not yet publicly detailed in the search results, a parallel case against Amazon saw an initial Alice dismissal, which was later modified to allow Soundclear to file an amended complaint.
• 22024-11-04: Google Files Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer. Google LLC filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California for convenience. A memorandum of law supporting this motion was filed on this date.
• 2025-05-30: Parallel IPR Proceeding Filed (IPR2025-01080). Amazon.com Inc. (not Google LLC directly, but a defendant in a parallel case) filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01080, challenging US Patent 9,804,819. Soundclear Technologies LLC is named as the Patent Owner.
• 2025-08-25: Patent Owner Discretionary Denial Request in IPR2025-01080. Soundclear Technologies LLC submitted a request for discretionary denial of institution for IPR2025-01080.
• 2025-09-24: Patent Owner Preliminary Response in IPR2025-01080. Soundclear Technologies LLC filed its preliminary response to Amazon's IPR petition.
• 2025-10-17: IPR2025-01080 Denied Institution. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Director Discretionary Denial Decision, denying institution of IPR2025-01080. The status is listed as "Discretionary Denial." This means the PTAB chose not to initiate a full review of the patent's validity based on Amazon's petition, which is favorable for Soundclear Technologies LLC.

Current Posture:

As of May 18, 2026, the district court case (2:24-cv-00321) remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. While Google's motions to dismiss and transfer were filed and briefed in 2024, the search results do not yet specify the rulings on these motions. The parallel PTAB challenge against US Patent 9,804,819 by Amazon (IPR2025-01080) was denied institution, suggesting the patent will not undergo PTAB review based on that particular petition. Given the recent filing date, the case is likely still in the pre-trial phase, with discovery and claim construction (Markman) potentially ongoing or anticipated. Further docket monitoring would be required to ascertain the outcomes of the pending district court motions and subsequent developments.

Soundclear Technologies LLC is represented by Daignault Iyer LLP, an intellectual property litigation boutique with an office in Vienna, Virginia.

The following attorneys from Daignault Iyer LLP are identified as representing the plaintiff:

• Ronald M. Daignault

  • Role: Partner (likely lead counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Daignault Iyer LLP, Vienna, VA
  • Experience Note: Has almost thirty years of experience as an intellectual property litigator and trial attorney, representing clients in patent, trademark, false advertising, trade secret, and copyright cases across various industries. He has served as lead counsel or second-chair in over fifteen bench and jury trials and has argued before several U.S. Courts of Appeals, including the Federal Circuit. He is also recognized for his work as a pharmaceutical Hatch-Waxman litigator for generic drug companies. He has been explicitly involved in Federal Circuit appeals representing Soundclear Technologies LLC.

• Chandran Iyer

  • Role: Partner (likely lead counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Daignault Iyer LLP, Vienna, VA
  • Experience Note: Possesses over twenty years of experience assisting patent owners in monetizing their intellectual property through litigation, licensing, and Patent Office proceedings. He has represented clients in U.S. District Courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), with significant experience in patent infringement jury and bench trials, counseling, due diligence, and appellate practice. His prosecution practice focuses on electrical, software, and mechanical arts. He has also been explicitly involved in Federal Circuit appeals representing Soundclear Technologies LLC.

• Jason Charkow

  • Role: Partner (likely lead counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Daignault Iyer LLP, Vienna, VA
  • Experience Note: A patent litigator and legal strategist with nearly twenty years of experience in complex patent litigation and advising on intellectual property business issues. His experience spans various technologies including telecommunications, content delivery networks, and consumer electronics. He has overseen international litigations, litigated U.S. patent cases through trial, and managed multi-million dollar patent licensing programs. He has been explicitly involved in Federal Circuit appeals representing Soundclear Technologies LLC.

• Lisa Phillips

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Daignault Iyer LLP, Vienna, VA
  • Experience Note: Has nearly 25 years of experience in all aspects of litigation in district courts across the country, appeals to the Federal Circuit, and proceedings before the PTAB and the ITC. She has handled patent cases across a wide range of technologies, including computer software, mechanical, pharmaceutical, and biotechnology.

• Stephanie Mandir

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm & Office: Daignault Iyer LLP, Vienna, VA
  • Experience Note: Specializes in Intellectual Property Litigation and has been selected for Super Lawyers or Rising Stars lists.

• Scott R. Samay

  • Role: Partner
  • Firm & Office: Daignault Iyer LLP, Vienna, VA
  • Experience Note: Focuses on Intellectual Property Litigation and General Litigation, and has been selected for Super Lawyers or Rising Stars lists.

• Erin Hadi

  • Role: Associate
  • Firm & Office: Daignault Iyer LLP, Vienna, VA
  • Experience Note: A patent litigation associate focusing on district court and PTAB proceedings, with experience in electronic and network technologies and life sciences. She previously served as a judicial clerk for the PTAB.

• Anderson To

  • Role: Associate
  • Firm & Office: Daignault Iyer LLP, Vienna, VA
  • Experience Note: His practice focuses on patent infringement litigations in district courts, post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, and appeals before the Federal Circuit.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record for this case.

Good initial results. Let me dig deeper into the specific docket for 2:24-cv-00321 and verify the Google-side counsel roster.

I've identified the core defense team. Now let me verify the current docket status (the case appears to have been transferred to N.D. Cal.) and gather experience details on each attorney.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — Google LLC

Defendant in this case: Google LLC (the sole named defendant; the parallel Amazon cases involve separate defense teams — Knobbe Martens and Kaleo Legal — and are not addressed here).

Venue correction flag: Before getting to counsel, one threshold point that affects the caption for all filings. The prior section of this case summary states the case was "transferred to the Richmond Division." That is inconsistent with the docket. Case No. 2:24-cv-00321 is captioned 2:24-cv-00321-AWA-DEM and every substantive filing is headed "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA NORFOLK DIVISION" (the "2" prefix is Norfolk; "3" is Richmond). The case originated as SoundClear Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00729 (Alexandria, filed May 1, 2024) and was transferred intradistrict to Norfolk on May 2, 2024, becoming 2:24-cv-00321. The Richmond case before Judge M. Hannah Lauck, No. 3:24-cv-00540, is a separate second Google suit (transferred from Alexandria No. 1:24-cv-01281, filed July 25, 2024), asserting additional patents including US 11,069,337. Sources: CourtListener docket; DocketAlarm docket entries; Dkt. 71 (Norfolk Division caption).

Lead / trial counsel — Paul Hastings LLP (admitted pro hac vice)

Google's national IP litigation team is from Paul Hastings LLP. All of the following were admitted pro hac vice in this case in August 2024, each certified by local counsel Stephen E. Noona:

Signature block as it appears on Google's filings (e.g., Dkt. 71, Feb. 6, 2025): "Robert W. Unikel (pro hac vice), Douglas L. Sawyer (pro hac vice), Mark T. Smith (pro hac vice) — 71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4500, Chicago, IL 60606 — Counsel for Defendant Google LLC," over the local-counsel signature of Stephen E. Noona.

Local counsel — Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. (Norfolk)

Caveat on experience notes: I was able to confirm roles and admissions from the docket itself, but the research pass was cut short before I could verify individual firm-bio pages for the Paul Hastings attorneys and Mr. Noona. I am therefore not asserting specific prior-representation or notable-case details for them. What is verifiable from this docket is that this same Paul Hastings team (Unikel, Sawyer, Smith, Laurenzi, Yin, Bratton, with Noona as local counsel) appeared for Google in the co-pending Richmond case, No. 3:24-cv-00540, and in the related Google IPR petitions against SoundClear (e.g., IPR2025-00345 on the '259 patent, IPR2025-01123, IPR2025-01597).

In-house / client representative

The Mar. 5, 2025 minute entry for the venue-discovery hearing records: "Ariel Bratton, Robert Unikel, Steve Noona present on behalf of the defendant. Emily Chen, Google representative present." I have not confirmed Ms. Chen's title or whether she is in-house counsel; the docket identifies her only as a "Google representative." No Google in-house attorney has entered an appearance on the ECF docket.

Current status issue that bears on "counsel of record" (flag)

The case metadata supplied for this task lists the court as the Virginia Eastern District Court and the status as Active. However, a PacerMonitor entry for a Northern District of California case, SoundClear Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, No. 3:26-cv-06222 (N.D. Cal., docketed June 23, 2026, assigned to Judge Sallie Kim), reports "Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 2:24-cv-00321" and entry #90: "Case transferred in from District of Virginia Eastern; Case Number 2:24-cv-00321. Original file certified copy of transfer order and docket sheet received." If accurate, Google's motion to transfer (ECF 38, filed Nov. 4, 2024) was ultimately granted and the case is now in N.D. Cal. Source: PacerMonitor case page. (A separate aggregator lists the same June 23, 2026 filing under both "3:26-cv-06222" and "5:26-cv-06222," so the exact N.D. Cal. division is uncertain.)

Two important consequences and caveats:

• The PacerMonitor party listing for the N.D. Cal. case shows the same Paul Hastings attorneys plus Stephen Noona (Kaufman & Canoles), which suggests the defense team carried over — but that listing is not a substitute for the N.D. Cal. docket, and Noona is a Virginia-barred attorney who would be expected to be replaced or supplemented by California local counsel. I could not confirm any new N.D. Cal. pro hac vice applications or new local counsel appearances.
• I could not locate the text of the transfer order or the order lifting the stay. The district court **granted Google's motion to stay