Krisp Technologies, Inc. v. Sanas.AI Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceeding represents a significant clash between two venture-backed startups competing in the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence-driven voice technology. The petitioner, Krisp Technologies, Inc., is an operating company founded in 2017, initially known for its AI-powered background noise cancellation software which is now used in millions of devices. The patent owner, Sanas.AI Inc., is a younger operating company founded in 2020, which has pioneered and patented technology for real-time accent translation, allowing users, particularly in call centers, to modify their accents during live conversations. Both companies are headquartered in California and are vying for dominance in the enterprise and call center markets with overlapping product suites that now include both noise cancellation and accent modification features. This dispute is a textbook example of a strategic conflict between direct competitors where intellectual property is a central battlefield.

The conflict escalated when Sanas.AI filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:25-cv-05666) in July 2025, accusing Krisp of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Sanas alleged that Krisp, after engaging in partnership discussions under a non-disclosure agreement, used confidential information to develop and launch its own competing "AI Accent Conversion" product. In response, Krisp filed this PGR on March 30, 2026, seeking to invalidate Sanas's U.S. Patent No. 12,417,756. The patent at issue, titled "Systems and methods for real-time accent mimicking," generally covers technology for modifying a speaker's accent in real-time while preserving their unique vocal characteristics. Krisp's PGR petition is a defensive maneuver aimed at undermining the intellectual property assertions Sanas is making in the parallel district court litigation.

The case is notable as it highlights the intense competition and high stakes in the rapidly evolving voice AI market. The procedural posture is critical; by filing a PGR, Krisp has chosen the specialized forum of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge the patent's validity on broader grounds than would be available in a later-stage Inter Partes Review (IPR). The PTAB is often seen as a more favorable venue for accused infringers due to its lower burden of proof for invalidation compared to district court. The outcome of this PGR could significantly influence the trajectory of the more comprehensive federal case in the Northern District of California, potentially removing a key patent from the dispute and shaping the competitive landscape for accent modification technology.

Key Legal Developments and Case Outcome

The legal battle between Sanas.AI and Krisp Technologies is proceeding on dual tracks: a patent and trade secret infringement lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and a Post-Grant Review (PGR) of a key Sanas patent before the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The district court case has seen early motion practice, while the PTAB proceeding is in its initial phase.

Chronological Developments:

• 2025-07-07: Initial Complaint Filed. Sanas.AI initiated the conflict by filing a lawsuit against Krisp Technologies in the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:25-cv-05666). The original complaint alleged that Krisp, after engaging in partnership discussions under an NDA, stole confidential information and infringed on four Sanas patents to develop its competing "AI Accent Conversion" product.
• 2025-09-08: Krisp's Answer, Counterclaims, and Motion to Dismiss. Krisp responded by filing an answer denying Sanas's allegations, a motion to dismiss claims of trade secret misappropriation and co-inventorship, and counterclaims for patent infringement and unfair competition. Krisp alleged that Sanas copied its patented noise cancellation technology and offered it for free in an attempt to lure away Krisp's customers.
• 2025-09-23: Sanas Files Amended Complaint. Sanas filed an amended complaint, adding two recently issued patents to the suit, including U.S. Patent No. 12,417,756 (the subject of the later PGR). The amended complaint also added claims of false advertising under state and federal law.
• 2026-02-23: Court Denies Krisp's Motion to Dismiss Patent Claims. In a significant early victory for Sanas, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg denied Krisp's motion to dismiss five of Sanas's patents on patent eligibility grounds under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Krisp had argued the patents were directed at abstract ideas, but the court found they recited concrete technical methods for achieving accent translation. The court's order allowed the patent infringement claims to proceed into the discovery phase.
• 2026-03-30: Krisp Files PGR Petition at the PTAB. In a strategic move to challenge the validity of a key patent outside of the district court, Krisp filed a petition for Post-Grant Review (PGR2026-00033) against Sanas's U.S. Patent No. 12,417,756. This proceeding allows for broader invalidity challenges than are available in an Inter Partes Review (IPR), including on grounds of patent eligibility and indefiniteness.
• Present Posture & Next Steps:
  • District Court (N.D. Cal.): The case is active and in the discovery phase following the denial of Krisp's motion to dismiss. A discovery hearing is on the calendar for May 4, 2026. No trial date has been set. A motion from Krisp to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of the PGR is a probable next step, though no such motion has been reported yet.
  • PTAB: The PGR proceeding (PGR2026-00033) is in its earliest stage and has a "Pending" status. Sanas will have an opportunity to file a Preliminary Response, after which the PTAB will decide whether to formally institute the review. This decision is typically expected within six months of the filing date. The litigation remains ongoing with no final disposition.

Counsel for Petitioner Krisp Technologies, Inc.

Based on the petition for Post-Grant Review, counsel for petitioner Krisp Technologies, Inc. are from the intellectual property law firm Fish & Richardson P.C., a firm known for its extensive patent litigation and PTAB practices. The legal team is composed of principals with significant experience in high-stakes patent disputes.

• David T. Conrad (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Principal in the Dallas and Houston offices.
  • Note: Conrad is an experienced IP litigator who has served as lead counsel in numerous patent infringement and trade secret cases, including extensive practice before the PTAB and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He is noted for his work defending companies against patent assertion entities.

• Wasim K. Gupsar (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Principal in the Silicon Valley office.
  • Note: While specific details on Gupsar's cases were not found in the search results, his position as a Principal at a top-tier IP firm with a leading PTAB practice group suggests deep experience in patent litigation and post-grant proceedings.

• Michael P. Shepherd (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Principal in the Washington, D.C. office.
  • Note: Shepherd's practice focuses on patent prosecution and client counseling in software and computer technologies, with specific expertise in artificial intelligence, neural networks, and machine learning—areas central to the technology at issue.

Counsel for Patent Owner Sanas.AI Inc.

As of May 3, 2026, counsel for the patent owner, Sanas.AI Inc., has not yet filed a notice of appearance in the Post-Grant Review proceeding PGR2026-00033. However, the same legal team representing Sanas.AI in the parallel district court litigation (Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-05666, N.D. Cal.) is expected to represent the company before the PTAB.

Filings in the district court case, including the initial complaint, identify the attorneys from the litigation firm Kobre & Kim LLP.

• Michael K. Ng (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, San Francisco office.
  • Note: Ng is an experienced intellectual property litigator who focuses on high-stakes patent, trade secret, and technology-related disputes.

• Daniel A. Zaheer (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Kobre & Kim LLP, San Francisco office.
  • Note: Zaheer specializes in intellectual property and technology litigation, representing clients in complex patent and trade secret cases.

• Additional Counsel Identified in District Court Filings:

  • Jessica K. Fender, Kobre & Kim LLP
  • Victoria Fordin, Kobre & Kim LLP
  • Zachary Ritz, Kobre & Kim LLP
  • Tammy Su, Kobre & Kim LLP