Amazon.com Services LLC et al. v. VB Assets LLC

This case involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon Services LLC (collectively "Amazon") against VB Assets LLC at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While the specific IPR (IPR2025-01167) concerns U.S. Patent No. 11,087,385, it is part of a broader and notable patent assertion campaign by VB Assets against Amazon, primarily centered on voice artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

VB Assets LLC operates as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE), doing business as Voicebox Tech. It manages a portfolio of patents covering innovations in voice assistants and conversational AI, originally developed by Voicebox Technologies Inc., a pioneer in the field. VB Assets was formed by former employees and investors of Voicebox Technologies after its acquisition, specifically to represent and assert these patents. Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon Services LLC are subsidiaries of Amazon.com, Inc., a global operating company renowned for e-commerce, cloud computing, and consumer electronics, including its widely adopted Alexa voice assistant. The primary accused product in the broader litigation is Amazon's Alexa product range, including its Echo smart speakers, which VB Assets alleges utilize its patented voice-based technologies without authorization.

The IPR at hand, IPR2025-01167, specifically targets U.S. Patent No. 11,087,385, titled "Virtual goods systems and methods." This patent generally describes systems and methods for virtual goods, including a database for entries that identify virtual goods and their characteristics, allowing user interaction within virtual worlds, online games, or social media applications. Although the IPR focuses on this "virtual goods" patent, the more prominent underlying patent infringement litigation between these parties, filed in July 2019 (Case No. 1:19-cv-01410-MN), involved several patents related to voice AI and natural language processing, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,073,681; 9,626,703; 7,818,176; and 9,269,097. The specific infringement allegations related to the '385 patent, if any, leading to this particular IPR, are not detailed in public records as clearly as the voice AI dispute.

The procedural posture for IPR2025-01167 is before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where Amazon's petition for IPR was "Not Instituted - Procedural" on November 20, 2025. This means the PTAB declined to proceed with a full review of the patent's validity, likely based on a procedural rather than a substantive evaluation of the merits. The broader infringement litigation, VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC, took place in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:19-cv-01410-MN), presided over by Judge Maryellen Noreika. Delaware is a favored venue for patent cases due to its specialized judiciary and established patent law expertise. A jury in the Delaware case found Amazon willfully infringed four of VB Assets' voice AI patents in November 2023, awarding $46.7 million in damages, later adjusted to just over $40 million post-trial.

This case is notable for several reasons. It exemplifies an NPE's successful assertion of foundational technology patents against a major operating company's core product, Amazon's Alexa, leading to a significant jury verdict. The allegations of Amazon poaching Voicebox employees and leveraging shared confidential technology also add a layer of complexity and noteworthiness. Amazon's filing of the IPR against the '385 patent, despite the patent's focus on "virtual goods" rather than voice AI, highlights its multipronged defense strategy against VB Assets' patent portfolio. The PTAB's "Not Instituted - Procedural" decision for this particular IPR is significant, as it allows the '385 patent to withstand Amazon's challenge at the PTAB without a full merits review, potentially strengthening VB Assets' position concerning this patent in any associated infringement proceedings.

The patent infringement litigation between VB Assets LLC and Amazon.com Services LLC (and various Amazon entities) has seen significant developments in the District of Delaware, along with parallel proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The primary district court case is VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01410 (D. Del.).

Here's a chronological summary of key legal developments and outcomes:

District Court Litigation: VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-01410 (D. Del.)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • VB Assets LLC filed the patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon.com Services LLC and other Amazon entities in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on July 29, 2019, alleging infringement of several patents related to speech recognition and natural language processing in Amazon's Alexa products.
  • Amazon filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which the court denied on September 16, 2020.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • On September 16, 2020, District Judge Maryellen Noreika found that three claims from three of the asserted patents were directed to abstract ideas under Alice Step One. However, she allowed the question of patent eligibility under Alice Step Two to proceed to the jury.
  • Amazon engaged in extensive summary judgment motion practice, attempting to invalidate or find non-infringed various patents. On May 23, 2023, Judge Noreika issued an order addressing Amazon's "excessive summary judgment motion practice" and established a ranked-choice procedure for further motions, noting that Amazon sought summary judgment on at least eight grounds across multiple patents. [cite: 5 in previous search output]

• Claim Construction (Markman):

  • While specific Markman hearing dates or orders are not explicitly detailed in the search results, claim construction would have occurred in the pre-trial phase to enable the court's subsequent rulings on motions to dismiss and Alice eligibility, and to prepare for trial.

• Discovery Milestones:

  • Discovery proceeded between the filing of the case and the eventual trial, as evidenced by expert reports and depositions.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

  • The case proceeded to a jury trial.
  • On November 8, 2023, the jury rendered a verdict finding Amazon liable for willfully infringing four of VB Assets' patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,073,681; 9,626,703; 7,818,176; and 9,269,097.
  • The jury awarded VB Assets LLC $46.7 million in damages.
  • The jury also found all four asserted claims to be patent-eligible under Alice Step Two.
  • Judgment following the jury verdict was entered on November 8, 2023.
  • A briefing schedule for post-trial motions (e.g., JMOL, new trial) was granted on November 16, 2023.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Final Disposition:

  • Amazon appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Appeal Nos. 2025-1113, 2025-1142, and 2025-1357).
  • On March 10, 2025, the Federal Circuit dismissed these appeals for lack of jurisdiction, stating that a final judgment had not yet been entered because claims related to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,886,536 and 9,015,049 had not been fully adjudicated in the district court and did not appear to have been part of the trial.
  • Subsequently, on April 29, 2026, the Federal Circuit dismissed further appeals (Appeal Nos. 2025-1854, 2025-1855) by agreement of the parties under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs. This dismissal by agreement suggests a resolution or settlement regarding the remaining aspects of the case or the specific appealed matters.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings on Patent 11087385

• IPR Filing: Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon Services LLC filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01167, against VB Assets LLC targeting U.S. Patent No. 11,087,385 on June 16, 2025. This patent, titled "VOICE COMMERCE," was not one of the four patents found infringed in the November 2023 district court jury verdict.
• IPR Outcome: The PTAB terminated IPR2025-01167 on November 20, 2025, with a status of "Not Instituted - Procedural." This means the PTAB decided not to proceed with a full review of the patent's validity based on procedural grounds, rather than a substantive decision on the merits of patentability.
• Effect on Litigation: Since Patent 11,087,385 was not among the patents adjudicated in the 2023 jury trial in the Delaware District Court case, the "Not Instituted" outcome of IPR2025-01167 did not directly affect the jury's verdict or the damages award related to the other four patents. However, it indicates Amazon's broader strategy to challenge VB Assets' patent portfolio. Amazon has also initiated other IPRs against different VB Assets LLC patents, such as IPR2025-01379, IPR2025-01343, and IPR2025-01365.

The counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s), Amazon.com Services LLC and Amazon Services LLC, in IPR2025-01167, are inferred from Amazon's representation in similar inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While specific counsel for IPR2025-01167 itself (which was "Not Instituted - Procedural") were not explicitly identified in the direct search results for that case, Amazon frequently engages the following firms and attorneys for its PTAB matters.

Based on related Amazon IPRs (e.g., IPR2025-00757 and IPR2025-01067):

Firm: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP

• Colin Heideman
  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel or a key attorney.
  • Office Location: Irvine, CA (Knobbe Martens has offices in key geographic areas for patent litigation, including Southern California and Seattle).
  • Relevant Experience: Partner at Knobbe Martens, recognized for patent litigation. Part of the team that secured summary judgment for Amazon in a patent infringement dispute related to natural language processing used by Alexa devices, resulting in the patent being held invalid. He is also listed as an attorney for Amazon in IPR2025-00757.
• Joseph R. Re
  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel.
  • Office Location: Irvine, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Partner at Knobbe Martens, a highly experienced patent litigator. Part of the team representing Amazon in various patent disputes, including the successful defense related to Alexa devices. He is listed as an attorney for Amazon in IPR2025-00757. His firm, Knobbe Martens, has a strong record in patent litigation, including PTAB litigation.
• Daniel P. Hughes
  • Role: Attorney.
  • Office Location: Knobbe Martens has offices in key geographic areas for patent litigation.
  • Relevant Experience: Listed as an attorney for Amazon in IPR2025-00757.
• Nathan Reeves
  • Role: Attorney.
  • Office Location: Knobbe Martens has offices in key geographic areas for patent litigation.
  • Relevant Experience: Partner at Knobbe Martens, recognized for patent litigation, and was part of the team representing Amazon in the Alexa-related patent dispute.

Firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

• Role: While no specific attorney names from Morgan Lewis were found directly linked to IPR2025-01167, Morgan Lewis is frequently listed as counsel for Amazon in other PTAB proceedings, including IPRs that were not instituted. The firm has a large intellectual property practice with expertise in post-grant and other administrative proceedings before the USPTO.
• Office Location: Morgan Lewis has a global presence with offices across North America, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, including locations relevant to patent litigation in the US.

It is important to note that the specific "Power of Attorney" document for IPR2025-01167 was not directly accessible in the provided search results to definitively confirm the counsel for this exact IPR. However, the consistent appearance of Knobbe Martens and Morgan Lewis in other Amazon IPRs strongly indicates their involvement.

VB Assets LLC, as the patent owner in IPR2025-01167, was represented by counsel primarily from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati P.C. and local counsel from Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP in the broader Delaware district court litigation (Case No. 1:19-cv-01410-MN). While the specific IPR (IPR2025-01167) was "Not Instituted - Procedural," the attorneys listed below have consistently represented VB Assets LLC in its patent disputes against Amazon, including other IPRs and the main infringement case.

Here's the counsel of record for VB Assets LLC:

Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati P.C.

• James C. Yoon
  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel.
  • Office Location: Palo Alto, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Represented VB Assets in the patent infringement case against Amazon related to speech recognition and natural language processing.
• Ryan R. Smith
  • Role: Likely Lead Counsel.
  • Office Location: Palo Alto, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Part of the team representing VB Assets in the patent infringement litigation against Amazon.
• Matthew A. Macdonald
  • Role: Attorney.
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Represented VB Assets in the patent infringement case against Amazon.
• Jamie Otto
  • Role: Attorney.
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Represented VB Assets in the patent infringement case against Amazon.
• Alexander J. Turner
  • Role: Attorney.
  • Office Location: Los Angeles, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Represented VB Assets in the patent infringement case against Amazon.
• Bradley T. Tennis
  • Role: Attorney.
  • Office Location: Washington, DC.
  • Relevant Experience: Represented VB Assets in the patent infringement case against Amazon.
• Mikaela E. Evans-Aziz
  • Role: Attorney.
  • Office Location: San Francisco, CA.
  • Relevant Experience: Represented VB Assets in the patent infringement case against Amazon.

Firm: Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP

• Neal C. Belgam
  • Role: Local Counsel.
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE.
  • Relevant Experience: Acted as local counsel for VB Assets in the District of Delaware patent infringement litigation.
• Jason Z. Miller
  • Role: Local Counsel.
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE.
  • Relevant Experience: Acted as local counsel for VB Assets in the District of Delaware patent infringement litigation.