Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding, IPR2025-00565, involves Petitioner Amazon.com, Inc. and Patent Owner SoundClear Technologies LLC. Amazon.com, Inc. is a major operating company known for its e-commerce, cloud computing (Amazon Web Services), digital streaming, and artificial intelligence ventures, including voice-activated devices like Alexa and Echo. SoundClear Technologies LLC appears to be a patent assertion entity (PAE) or non-practicing entity (NPE), formed in June 2023, which acquired a portfolio of patents, including the one at issue, from JVCKenwood in September 2023. SoundClear Technologies has initiated multiple patent infringement lawsuits against major tech companies like Amazon and Google, focusing on voice assistant and related hardware/software products.

The core of this IPR concerns U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337. While a precise one-line technical sketch for this patent isn't fully detailed in the provided search results, it broadly relates to voice recognition and audio processing technologies, likely involving refined voice signal processing or noise cancellation methods. The accused products in related district court litigation, which prompted this IPR, are Amazon's voice assistants and associated hardware and software products, such as the Amazon Echo and devices utilizing Amazon Web Services for voice processing, particularly features related to noise reduction, speech detection/processing, and volume control.

The IPR is currently pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and has been instituted, meaning the PTAB has agreed to review the patentability of the challenged claims. This venue, the PTAB, is significant as it provides an alternative forum to district court litigation for challenging patent validity, often seen as a more efficient and cost-effective way for accused infringers like Amazon to contest patent claims. The case is notable as it is part of a broader litigation campaign by SoundClear Technologies against prominent tech companies in the burgeoning smart speaker and voice AI market, highlighting the increasing monetization pressure on underlying signal processing and recognition patents in this industry. This IPR is also linked to a larger pattern of NPEs asserting patents derived from operating companies like JVCKenwood against major technology platforms.

The case Amazon.com, Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC, IPR2025-00565, involves a challenge to U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The IPR was filed by Amazon.com, Inc. on January 30, 2025, and the PTAB instituted trial on August 26, 2025.

Parallel to this IPR, SoundClear Technologies LLC has been active in district court litigation. On May 1, 2024, SoundClear Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc. in the Eastern District of Virginia, specifically case number 2:24-cv-00320. This lawsuit accused Amazon of infringing three patents, including US11069337B2, related to voice assistants and associated hardware and software products.

Key legal developments in the parallel district court litigation and IPR proceedings include:

• 2024-05-01: SoundClear Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. in the Eastern District of Virginia (Case No. 2:24-cv-00320), asserting patent 11,069,337, among others.
• 2024-11-08: The District Court issued an order (Doc. No. 63) finding that the three patents at issue, including patent 11,069,337, were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and granted Amazon's motion to dismiss.
• 2025-01-10: SoundClear filed a Rule 59(e) motion to alter the judgment. The Court granted this motion in part and denied it in part, specifically allowing SoundClear to file an amended complaint regarding patents 11,069,337 and 11,244,675 based on newly discovered evidence, while retaining the invalidity ruling for a third patent (11,244,447). This suggests the litigation for patent 11,069,337 was allowed to proceed.
• 2025-01-30: Amazon.com, Inc. filed IPR2025-00565 challenging patent 11,069,337 at the PTAB.
• 2025-02-05: SoundClear Technologies LLC filed an appeal to the Federal Circuit (Case No. 25-1288) concerning its litigation against Amazon.com, Inc. The specifics of what was appealed at this stage are not detailed in the available search results, but it likely relates to the § 101 dismissal.
• 2025-08-26: The PTAB instituted trial for IPR2025-00565, challenging patent 11,069,337.
• 2025-09-29: Google LLC, also a target of SoundClear litigation, filed a separate IPR (IPR2025-01597) challenging patent 11,069,337. This IPR was later terminated on March 17, 2026.
• 2026-03-25: A Joint Stipulation to Modify Trial Due Date was filed in IPR2025-00565 by the Patent Owner (SoundClear).

As of May 28, 2026, the IPR2025-00565 proceeding is pending, with the trial having been instituted. The underlying district court litigation between SoundClear and Amazon concerning patent 11,069,337 appears to be active, as SoundClear was granted leave to amend its complaint as to this patent in January 2025. The Federal Circuit appeal (25-1288) filed by SoundClear against Amazon is also still listed as of February 5, 2025.

It is worth noting that SoundClear Technologies LLC also filed a separate patent infringement action against Google LLC on July 25, 2024, in the Virginia Eastern District Court (Case No. 3:24cv540), also asserting patent US11069337B2, among others.## Patent Dispute: Amazon and SoundClear Technologies Navigate IPR and District Court Litigation Over Voice AI Patents

A multi-front legal battle is unfolding between Amazon.com, Inc. and SoundClear Technologies LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337, which relates to voice recognition and audio processing technologies. The dispute involves an active Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and ongoing patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia, which included an appeal to the Federal Circuit.

Key Legal Developments

Parallel District Court Litigation:

• 2024-05-01: SoundClear Technologies LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Case No. 2:24-cv-00320). The complaint alleged infringement of three patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337, by Amazon's voice assistant and related hardware/software products.
• 2024-11-08: The District Court granted Amazon's motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 63), finding all three asserted patents, including the '337 patent, invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
• 2025-01-10: SoundClear Technologies LLC filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment. The Court partially granted this motion, allowing SoundClear to file an amended complaint regarding patents 11,069,337 and 11,244,675 based on newly discovered evidence. However, the invalidity ruling for a third patent (11,244,447) remained. This decision permitted the litigation for patent 11,069,337 to continue.
• 2025-02-05: SoundClear Technologies LLC appealed the District Court's decision in the Eastern District of Virginia to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Case No. 25-1288). The specific issues under appeal were not detailed, but it is presumed to relate to the Section 101 eligibility ruling.

PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR):

• 2025-01-30: Amazon.com, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-00565, with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337.
• 2025-08-26: The PTAB instituted trial in IPR2025-00565, indicating that Amazon had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim of unpatentability.
• 2026-03-25: A joint stipulation to modify the trial due date was filed by SoundClear Technologies LLC (the Patent Owner) in IPR2025-00565.

Other Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

• 2025-09-29: Google LLC, which is also facing a separate infringement lawsuit from SoundClear Technologies LLC involving the '337 patent, filed its own IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337 (IPR2025-01597).
• 2026-03-17: IPR2025-01597, filed by Google, was terminated.

Current Posture

As of today, May 28, 2026, IPR2025-00565 is pending before the PTAB, with trial having been instituted. The related patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia between SoundClear Technologies LLC and Amazon.com, Inc. remains active regarding patent 11,069,337, following the partial reinstatement of the case after the Rule 59(e) motion. The Federal Circuit appeal (25-1288) is also ongoing.

I'll research counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff (Amazon) in IPR2025-00565 and its related litigation.

Key lead found: Amazon's IPR counsel appears to be at Knobbe Martens / Morgan Lewis. Let me confirm counsel specifically in IPR2025-00565.

Counsel of record for the plaintiff/petitioner side — Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

Framing note (important): In this IPR the "plaintiff-side" party per the case metadata is Amazon.com, Inc. — but procedurally Amazon appears as Petitioner, and the Petitioners named in IPR2025-00565 are Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (PTAB petition analysis, IPR2025-00565; and EDVA stay papers describing the petition). The previously generated "Defendant representatives" section covered Patent Owner SoundClear Technologies LLC (Daignault Iyer LLP et al.), which is the defense side of this IPR. Below I therefore identify Petitioner Amazon's counsel, with an explicit caveat about what I could and could not verify.

Sourcing caveat up front: I was unable to retrieve the Power of Attorney or the counsel service list filed in IPR2025-00565 itself from PTAB/PTACTS within this session. The names below are identified from (a) filings by Amazon's counsel in the same patent family and the same litigation campaign, (b) Amazon's PTAB powers of attorney in companion SoundClear IPRs, and (c) the EDVA docket in the parallel case. Where a name is inferred rather than confirmed on the IPR2025-00565 docket, I say so.

Amazon's PTAB counsel (Petitioner side)

Primary evidentiary support for the Morgan Lewis group: the certificate of service in Patent Owner's Preliminary Response in Amazon's companion SoundClear IPR (the '374 patent, Amazon v. SoundClear), dated September 24, 2025, which certifies service on "counsel of record for Petitioner" at: Colin B. Heideman, Jeremy A. Anapol, Christie R.W. Matthaei, Nathan D. Reeves, Logan P. Young — MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, with a campaign-specific service address (amazon-soundclear@morganlewis.com). That strongly indicates the Heideman-led Amazon/SoundClear team moved from Knobbe Martens to Morgan Lewis between the January–May 2025 filings and the September 2025 filings — I could not confirm from the IPR2025-00565 docket which firm was counsel of record at which date in that specific proceeding.

Additional Amazon-side counsel appearing on the related docket (not confirmed in the IPR)

• Joseph Robert Re, Alan Grayson Laquer, Raymond Sirui Lu — admitted pro hac vice for Amazon in EDVA Case No. 2:24-cv-00320 (Knobbe Martens group, per the pro hac vice motions).
• Kendall Marie Loebbaka — pro hac vice for Amazon Web Services Inc., Amazon.com LLC, and Amazon.com, Inc. (EDVA, granted 2025-03-18), certified by local counsel William Rueger Poynter.
• Andrea Lynn Cheek — first notice of appearance for the Amazon entities in EDVA 2:24-cv-00320 (June 2024).

Amazon local counsel (district court, EDVA)

• William Rueger Poynter — local counsel for Defendants Amazon Web Services Inc., Amazon.Com LLC, and Amazon.Com, Inc.; certified the pro hac vice motions noted above.
• Alexandra M. Gabriel (Kaleo Legal, Virginia Beach, VA) — appeared for the Amazon defendants at the March 2025 motion-to-stay hearing in SoundClear v. Amazon, No. 1:24-cv-01283 (hearing transcript).

These are district-court roles; local counsel in EDVA is not typically counsel of record in the PTAB proceeding, so I would not list them as IPR2025-00565 counsel.

Amazon in-house counsel (corporate/POA signatories)

Amazon's IPR powers of attorney in the SoundClear campaign are signed by Amazon in-house attorneys, which identifies the client-side decision-makers but not IPR2025-00565's counsel of record:

• Ajeet Pai, Senior Corporate Counsel, Amazon.com, Inc. — signed the Amazon Power of Attorney in IPR2025-01080 (May 28, 2025); the corresponding POA correspondence went to the SoundClear counsel address.
• Other Amazon in-house signatories across related Amazon IPRs include Clark Oberembt, Corporate Counsel, and Charles Davis, Senior Corporate Counsel, IP Disputes — but I found no Power of Attorney naming the in-house signatory for IPR2025-00565 specifically.

What I could not verify (stated explicitly rather than guessed)

1. The IPR2025-00565 Power of Attorney and counsel service list. Not retrieved; the petition is dated January 31, 2025 in the searchable sources, while the case metadata lists the filing date as 2025-01-30. Treat the one-day discrepancy as unresolved — the metadata controls per the operating rules.
2. The firm attribution as of the petition date in IPR2025-00565. The Heideman declaration in support of Amazon's EDVA stay motion (filed March 2025, Exhibit to the stay motion) describes him as a Knobbe Martens partner and ties that firm to the Amazon IPR filings; the September 2025 service list shows the same lead attorney and team at Morgan Lewis. I cannot confirm the exact substitution date or whether the move was reflected on the IPR2025-00565 docket.
3. Whether any attorney has formally withdrawn or been substituted in IPR2025-00565 (no withdrawal/substitution papers surfaced).

Cross-check / discrepancy flags for the earlier sections

• "Google LLC filed IPR2025-01597 … later terminated on March 17, 2026" — consistent with the Google-side docket page showing IPR2025-01597, filed Sep 29, 2025, with Petitioner counsel Erika H. Arner (Finnegan) and Patent Owner counsel Steven Reynolds (Daignault Iyer). Note that a separate Google filing, IPR2025-01123 ('337 patent), was terminated by unopposed motion dated October 7, 2025 (signed by Erika H. Arner, Finnegan) — so Google had more than one '337 petition, and the earlier section's "one Google IPR, terminated March 2026" is likely incomplete.
• Posture discrepancy: the metadata and the previous sections say IPR2025-00565 is "Pending – Instituted." A Docket Alarm blog post dated July 27, 2026 is titled "PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00565," which would be before the one-year FWD deadline (institution Aug 26, 2025 → FWD due ~Aug 26, 2026). That blog content is generic and lacks document-level citations, so I would not rely on it; it may be an SEO-generated page. Flagging this rather than treating an FWD as established. (The confirmed merits ruling in this campaign is the September 4, 2026 split PTAB decision invalidating the '675 patent in IPR2025-00673, per Law360/Lexology — not the '337 patent.)

Bottom line

For IPR2025-00565, the best-supported identification of plaintiff/petitioner counsel is the Colin B. Heideman-led Amazon team that handled every Amazon IPR against SoundClear — Heideman as lead with Jeremy A. Anapol, Christie R.W. Matthaei, Nathan D. Reeves, and Logan P. Young, now at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (formerly Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, Seattle), with William Rueger Poynter and Alexandra M. Gabriel (Kaleo Legal) as the EDVA-side counsel for the same Amazon entities. To convert this from a well-supported inference into a docket-verified statement, the IPR2025-00565 Power of Attorney and Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices / counsel service list should be pulled directly from PTAB PTACTS.

I'll research the counsel representing SoundClear Technologies LLC (the Patent Owner / defendant-side party in this IPR, and plaintiff in the parallel district court litigation).

I found strong leads. Let me confirm the IPR-specific counsel designations and get attorney backgrounds.

Let me verify the IPR2025-00565-specific counsel designation and check the final written decision, plus attorney backgrounds.

Defendant (Patent Owner) representatives — SoundClear Technologies LLC

Threshold clarification on party roles. In IPR2025-00565 the case-metadata "defendant" is SoundClear Technologies LLC, which appears in the PTAB proceeding as Patent Owner. Note that the roles invert in the parallel district court litigation: SoundClear is the plaintiff there and Amazon is the defendant. Counsel below are therefore the same Daignault Iyer team that has represented SoundClear across every '337-patent venue. No in-house counsel for SoundClear appears in any public PTAB or district court filing; SoundClear Technologies LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of SoundClear LLC, which functions as the real-party-in-interest parent, but no individual in-house attorney is named as counsel of record.

---

IPR2025-00565 (and sibling '337 IPRs) — counsel of record

Per Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, all counsel are at Daignault Iyer LLP, 8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite 450, Vienna, VA 22182. The designation below is drawn from the § 42.8 Mandatory Notices filed by the same firm for the sister '337 proceeding, Google LLC v. SoundClear, IPR2025-01597 (dated Oct. 20, 2025), and from the earlier IPR2025-00345 notices (Feb. 18, 2025), which list an identical team; Daignault Iyer's signature blocks in the Amazon–SoundClear IPR family (e.g., IPR2025-01067/01080/01096 correspondence) match.

Service is coordinated through DI-SoundClear@daignaultiyer.com. Mandatory notices also state that SoundClear's only real party-in-interest is SoundClear Technologies LLC itself (subsidiary of SoundClear LLC).

---

Related district court representation (same client, effect on this IPR)

SoundClear's district court team is drawn from the same firm, with additional pro hac vice counsel:

• Ronald M. Daignault — name partner, Daignault Iyer LLP (Vienna, VA); pro hac vice in the EDVA SoundClear cases and in D. Del. (AccuSearch Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, C.A. No. 1:25-cv-00514). Not listed on the '337 IPR back-up designations.
• Ramachandran Iyer — Daignault Iyer LLP; e-filed the substantive EDVA briefs for SoundClear (opposition to Amazon's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, Dkt. 32; venue discovery motions).
• James J. Hatton, Matthew R. Harkins — Daignault Iyer LLP; admitted pro hac vice in EDVA (orders granting Dkts. 87–88 in the Amazon case).
• Shailendra Maheshwari — Daignault Iyer LLP; pro hac vice (EDVA order granting Dkt. 85/86).
• Austin J. Ciuffo — appears in the transferred N.D. Cal. docket under Spencer Fane LLP, but used a @daignaultiyer.com address in 2024 Daignault Iyer filings (a firm move between matters).

Note: In the Amazon EDVA case, local counsel Alexandra M. Gabriel (Kaleo Legal) and Colin Heideman (Knobbe Martens) appeared for Amazon, not SoundClear — do not attribute them to the defendant/Patent Owner.

---

Corrections and flagged contradictions with the earlier sections

1. "Plaintiff representatives" entry is likely wrong. The prior section names Scott P. McBride (Fish & Richardson) as lead and Jeffrey Love (Greenberg Traurig) as Amazon's IPR2025-00565 counsel. The primary-source record shows Amazon's power of attorney and petition signature blocks are Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP — Colin B. Heideman (Reg. No. 61,513), Joseph R. Re, Jeremy A. Anapol, Christie R.W. Matthaei, Nathan D. Reeves, and Logan P. Young — with earlier correspondence routed through morganlewis.com addresses. I found no source placing Fish & Richardson or Greenberg Traurig on this docket. Treat the earlier section as unverified and flag it for correction.

2. Docket-number mismatch for the '337 district court case. The earlier sections attribute the '337 suit to SoundClear v. Amazon, No. 2:24-cv-00320 (E.D. Va., filed May 1, 2024). SoundClear's own § 42.8 notices identify the '337 patent as asserted in No. 1:24-cv-01283 (E.D. Va., filed July 25, 2024, Judge Trenga), with the May 1, 2024 case (2:24-cv-00320) involving different patents (9,031,259 / 9,070,374 / 9,804,819).

3. Venue change not reflected earlier. Both EDVA SoundClear cases were transferred to the Northern District of California in 2026 — SoundClear v. Amazon, No. 3:26-cv-06223 (N.D. Cal., Judge Peter H. Kang) and SoundClear v. Google, No. 3:26-cv-06222 (N.D. Cal., Judge Sallie Kim) — so the earlier statement that the EDVA case "remains active" is now stale.

4. Posture may have changed again. The case metadata and prior sections say the IPR is "Pending – Instituted" (as of May 28, 2026). Recent legal-news feeds report a PTAB Final Written Decision in IPR2025-00565 dated July 27, 2026, holding the challenged claims of the '337 patent unpatentable as anticipated and obvious (Amazon.com Inc. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC, P.T.A.B., IPR 2025-00565, 7/27/26). If accurate, SoundClear's counsel of record would now be positioned for a Federal Circuit appeal. I could not independently confirm the FWD text from a PTAB or PACER source in this search pass; flag as reported but not primary-source verified.