Petitioner v. Soundclear Technologies LLC

This case, IPR2025-01368, involves a challenge to U.S. Patent No. 9,223,487 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The petitioner is Amazon.com, Inc. and its affiliates, a multinational technology and e-commerce giant. The patent owner, Soundclear Technologies LLC, is characterized as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that acquired a portfolio of patents, primarily focused on audio clarity and voice recognition technologies, from JVCKenwood. Soundclear has initiated patent infringement lawsuits against major technology companies, including Amazon and Google, alleging that their voice-AI products, such as smart speakers (Google Home, Nest Audio) and smartphones (Google Pixel/Nexus), infringe these patents. The '487 patent itself is described as an earlier-generation patent covering foundational claims within the voice recognition or audio processing pipeline.

The IPR was filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, where the validity of an issued patent can be challenged. The procedural posture of "Not Instituted - Procedural" is particularly significant in light of recent policy changes at the USPTO. Under Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart, and later confirmed Director John A. Squires, the PTAB has increasingly exercised discretion to deny institution of IPRs, even when merit-based arguments for unpatentability might exist. Such discretionary denials often stem from factors like the "settled expectations" doctrine regarding a patent's enforceability or the timing of the IPR petition relative to parallel district court litigation (often referred to as Fintiv factors). Director Squires himself plays a central role, personally deciding whether to institute proceedings.

This case is notable as it exemplifies the ongoing trend of NPEs like Soundclear Technologies monetizing patent portfolios acquired from operating companies, asserting them against large technology firms in high-value markets such as voice-AI and smart devices. The IPR challenge by Amazon is a direct response to underlying patent infringement litigation in district courts, highlighting the strategic interplay between district court cases and PTAB proceedings in patent disputes. Furthermore, the procedural non-institution of IPR2025-01368 underscores the evolving landscape of PTAB discretionary denials, which are closely watched by the industry for their impact on patent litigation strategy and the patentability of claims, especially in the context of "settled expectations" and the "Director Review" process.

The underlying patent infringement litigation involves Soundclear Technologies LLC asserting U.S. Patent No. 9,223,487 against Amazon.com, Inc. and its affiliates, as well as against Google LLC. Soundclear has initiated multiple lawsuits in the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA), a venue known for its "Rocket Docket" reputation.

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

SoundClear Technologies LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (E.D. Va. Case No. 2:24-cv-00320 and 1:24-cv-01283)

• 2024-05-01: Complaint Filing & Initial Pleadings. SoundClear Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. in the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division (Case No. 2:24-cv-00320). SoundClear also filed a separate complaint against Amazon in the Alexandria Division (Case No. 1:24-cv-00728), which was later transferred to the Norfolk Division as Case No. 1:24-cv-01283. The complaints alleged infringement of three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,031,259; 9,070,374; and 9,804,819. The case description in the prompt mentions patent 9,223,487, but the initial complaints against Amazon appear to assert other patents. Further details regarding patent 9,223,487's role in the Amazon litigation are not immediately clear from the provided search results.
• 2024-06-24: Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. Amazon defendants filed a consent motion for an extension of time to file their answer to the complaint.
• 2024-11-08: Motion to Dismiss Granted (in part). District Judge Anthony J. Trenga granted Amazon's motion to dismiss based on Alice challenges to the claims of the three patents asserted in one of the cases against Amazon (likely 1:24-cv-01283).
• 2024-12-16: Appeal to Federal Circuit. SoundClear Technologies LLC filed an appeal to the Federal Circuit (Case No. 0:25-cvpri-01288) concerning the motion to dismiss decision against Amazon.com, Inc.
• 2025-01-10: Motion to Alter Judgment Granted (in part). In an unusual turnaround, the court granted SoundClear's motion to alter the judgment, allowing SoundClear to file an amended complaint to add deposition testimony from an Amazon witness that SoundClear contended would change the patent eligibility analysis for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,070,374 and 9,804,819. However, the ruling as to the third patent (9,031,259) remained.
• 2025-02-05: Federal Circuit Appeal Terminated. The appeal to the Federal Circuit (0:25-cvpri-01288) was terminated.

SoundClear Technologies LLC v. Google LLC (E.D. Va. Case No. 2:24-cv-00321, 1:24-cv-00729, and 3:24-cv-00540)

• 2024-05-01: Complaint Filing. SoundClear Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement action against Google LLC in the Eastern District of Virginia (Case No. 1:24-cv-00729).
• 2024-07-25: New Complaint Filing & Transfer. SoundClear Technologies LLC filed another patent infringement action against Google LLC in the Virginia Eastern District Court. Within 24 hours, the case was administratively transferred to the Richmond Division (Case No. 3:24-cv-00540). This complaint targeted Google's voice-AI products, including Google Home devices, Google Nest Audio, Google Pixel/Nexus smartphones, and Google Assistant-integrated smart screens. The patents asserted against Google in this action include US11244675B2, US9223487B2, and US11069337B2.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on US9223487B2

• 2025-01-30: IPR2025-00565 Filed by Amazon. Amazon.com, Inc. and its affiliates filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,223,487 (the '487 patent) under case number IPR2025-00565.
• 2025-02-10: IPR2025-00345 Filed by Google. Google LLC filed an IPR petition challenging a dual-microphone noise reduction patent, IPR2025-00345, which was later discretionarily denied on 2025-08-04. The search result for IPR2025-00345 doesn't explicitly state that the challenged patent is the '487 patent.
• 2025-05-30: IPR2025-01080 Filed by Amazon. Amazon.com, Inc. filed IPR2025-01080, which was later given a discretionary denial on 2025-10-17. The challenged patent for this IPR is not explicitly stated in the provided search results, but the context of Amazon challenging SoundClear suggests it may be one of the patents asserted against them.
• 2025-07-30: IPR2025-01368 Filed by Amazon. Amazon.com, Inc. and its affiliates filed IPR2025-01368 challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,223,487. This IPR was not instituted due to procedural reasons on 2025-12-11.
• 2025-09-29: IPR2025-01597 Filed by Google. Google LLC filed IPR2025-01597 challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,069,337B2, which was discretionarily denied on 2026-03-17.

Current Posture

The substantive patent infringement action against Google (Case No. 3:24-cv-00540) remains active following its procedural transfer within the Eastern District of Virginia. The litigation against Amazon in the Eastern District of Virginia is also ongoing, with SoundClear having been permitted to file an amended complaint regarding two of the asserted patents after a partial grant of a motion to dismiss. Multiple IPRs filed by both Amazon and Google against SoundClear patents have faced discretionary denials at the PTAB.

Soundclear Technologies LLC is represented by Daignault Iyer LLP in its patent infringement litigation.

The identified attorneys representing Soundclear Technologies LLC are:

• Ramachandran Iyer

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP, located in Virginia
  • Note: Ramachandran Iyer is listed as filing the initial complaint for patent infringement on behalf of SoundClear Technologies LLC in related district court cases against Google and Amazon.

• Kevin Sprenger

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP, located in Virginia
  • Note: Kevin Sprenger is noted as local counsel for SoundClear Technologies LLC in district court proceedings.

• Steven J. Reynolds

  • Role: Counsel (appeared pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP, Virginia (listed as VA-NA in one source, potentially indicating an office in Northern Virginia)
  • Note: Steven Reynolds has been granted a motion to appear pro hac vice in district court cases involving SoundClear Technologies LLC.

• Louay K. Meroueh

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP

• Erin M. Hadi

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP

These attorneys represent Soundclear Technologies LLC in its patent infringement lawsuits against Amazon and Google in the Eastern District of Virginia, which involves the '9223487 patent and others.

Soundclear Technologies LLC is represented by Daignault Iyer LLP in its patent infringement litigation against Amazon and Google in the Eastern District of Virginia.

The following attorneys are associated with Soundclear Technologies LLC:

• Chandran B. Iyer (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP (Virginia)
  • Note: Co-founder of Daignault Iyer LLP, specializing in intellectual property litigation. He has signed the patent infringement complaint against Amazon.

• Ronald M. Daignault (Lead Counsel, pro hac vice to be filed)

  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP
  • Note: Co-founder of Daignault Iyer LLP, focusing on complex intellectual property and commercial litigation. He is listed on the complaint against Amazon, with a note that his pro hac vice admission is to be filed.

• Kevin Sprenger (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP (Virginia)
  • Note: Local counsel in the Eastern District of Virginia for SoundClear Technologies LLC.

• Steven Reynolds (Of Counsel, pro hac vice granted)

  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP (VA-NA)
  • Note: His pro hac vice motion was granted in the district court case against Amazon in October 2024.