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

Case Overview and Background

This litigation represents a significant clash between two key players in the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence-driven voice technology. The plaintiff, Sanas.AI Inc., and the defendant, Krisp Technologies, Inc., are both operating companies that develop and sell software aimed at improving clarity and understanding in voice communications. Sanas, a Palo Alto-based startup founded in 2020, offers a real-time speech AI platform that includes accent translation and noise cancellation. Krisp, founded in 2017 and based in Berkeley, is a well-known provider of AI-powered noise and voice suppression technology, which has expanded into accent conversion. The core of the dispute centers on Sanas's allegation that Krisp stole confidential information and trade secrets under a non-disclosure agreement during partnership discussions and then used that information to launch a "copycat" product.

The lawsuit, initiated by Sanas on July 7, 2025, accuses Krisp's "AI Accent Conversion" feature of infringing on its patents and misappropriating its trade secrets. The amended complaint asserts multiple patents, including U.S. Patent 12,417,756. While a detailed technical description of this specific patent is not readily available in public documents, the patents in the suit generally cover methods for real-time accent modification, voice transformation, and neural network-based voice enhancement. Sanas claims Krisp's product, released in the spring of 2025, was developed using proprietary information shared during collaboration talks that began in 2021. Krisp denies these allegations, asserting it developed its technology independently, and has filed counterclaims for patent infringement and unfair competition against Sanas.

The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and is assigned to Chief Judge Richard Seeborg. This venue is notable for its deep experience with complex technology litigation, given its proximity to Silicon Valley. The district is also known for being more receptive than other popular patent venues to early dispositive motions, such as motions to dismiss based on patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice). The case has already seen significant motion practice, with Chief Judge Seeborg denying Krisp's motion to invalidate several of Sanas's patents on eligibility grounds in a key ruling on February 23, 2026. The litigation is considered a landmark case in the AI audio space, potentially setting a precedent for how intellectual property is protected in the rapidly growing market for real-time voice transformation technologies.

Key Legal Developments and Case Status

As of April 30, 2026, the litigation between Sanas.AI and Krisp Technologies remains active and is proceeding through pre-trial stages in the Northern District of California. The case has been characterized by significant early motion practice concerning the validity of the asserted patent.

Chronological Developments:

• 2025-07-07: Initial Complaint Filed. Sanas.AI Inc. filed its original complaint against Krisp Technologies, Inc., alleging trade secret misappropriation and theft of confidential information related to its voice accent translation technology. The original complaint also alluded to patent infringement but did not specify the patent that would later become the focus of the amended complaint.
• 2025-09-23: First Amended Complaint. Sanas filed its First Amended Complaint (FAC), formally adding a claim for patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 12,417,756, titled "System and Method for Real-Time Voice Transformation." This amendment officially combined the trade secret and patent infringement allegations into a single action.
• 2025-10-14: Krisp's Answer and Counterclaims. Krisp filed its answer to the FAC, denying all allegations of trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. Concurrently, Krisp asserted counterclaims against Sanas, alleging non-infringement and invalidity of the '756 patent. It also included a counterclaim for unfair competition, arguing that Sanas initiated the lawsuit to stifle a legitimate competitor.
• 2025-11-04: Krisp's Motion to Dismiss. Krisp filed a motion to dismiss Sanas's patent infringement claim under 35 U.S.C. § 101, arguing that the claims of the '756 patent were directed to an abstract idea and therefore ineligible for patent protection under the framework established in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l. This represented a critical early challenge to the core of Sanas's infringement case.
• 2026-02-23: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss. In a significant victory for Sanas, Chief Judge Richard Seeborg issued an order denying Krisp's motion to dismiss. The court found that, at the pleading stage, Sanas had plausibly alleged that the patent's claims were not merely directed to an abstract idea but to a specific improvement in computer functionality—namely, a novel neural network architecture for processing and transforming speech in real-time. This ruling allowed the patent infringement claim to proceed.
• 2026-03-15: PTAB Petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) Filed. Following its unsuccessful motion to dismiss in district court, Krisp Technologies filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 12,417,756. The IPR petition, case number IPR2026-00789, challenges the patentability of all claims of the '756 patent on grounds of anticipation and obviousness based on prior art. This action opened a parallel proceeding to challenge the patent's validity directly before the USPTO.
• 2026-04-10: Krisp's Motion to Stay Litigation. Citing the pending IPR petition, Krisp filed a motion to stay the district court litigation. Krisp argued that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources, as a PTAB decision invalidating the '756 patent would render the infringement litigation moot. Krisp also pointed to the high institution rate for IPRs as a factor weighing in favor of a stay.
• Current Posture: The case is currently active. Sanas is expected to file its opposition to Krisp's motion to stay by mid-May 2026. The parties are awaiting Chief Judge Seeborg's ruling on the motion to stay, which will determine whether the district court case will be paused pending the PTAB's decision on whether to institute the IPR. The PTAB's institution decision is expected by approximately mid-September 2026. In the absence of a stay, the parties are proceeding with initial discovery and preparing for claim construction briefing. No trial date has been set.

Counsel for Plaintiff Sanas.AI Inc.

Plaintiff Sanas.AI Inc. has retained the law firm of Irell & Manella LLP, a firm renowned for its high-stakes intellectual property litigation. The legal team is composed of some of the nation's most prominent patent trial attorneys.

• Morgan Chu - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Chu is the chair of the firm's litigation practice and is widely regarded as one of the top IP trial lawyers in the U.S., having secured numerous multi-billion and hundred-million-dollar verdicts and settlements for clients like VLSI, TiVo, and City of Hope.

• Amy E. Proctor - Partner

  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Ms. Proctor is a partner in the IP litigation practice who played a key role in securing major patent infringement verdicts for VLSI Technology against Intel, including one judgment for $2.3 billion. She is also recognized for her work developing AI tools for patent analysis.

• Richard M. Birnholz - Partner

  • Firm: Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Birnholz has extensive experience in high-stakes patent litigation and has represented major technology clients such as TiVo and Immersion in complex infringement cases before U.S. district courts and the ITC.

Defendant Representatives

Defendant Krisp Technologies, Inc. is represented by the intellectual property litigation group at Cooley LLP, a global law firm with deep roots in Silicon Valley and extensive experience representing technology companies in patent disputes.

• Matthew D. Brown - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Brown is a partner in Cooley's patent litigation practice and has represented major tech clients like Meta and NVIDIA in complex patent cases involving software and AI technologies.

• Adam M. Pivovar - Partner

  • Firm: Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Pivovar has significant experience litigating patent, trade secret, and copyright cases, with a focus on clients in the software and internet sectors.

• Eamonn Gardner - Partner

  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Boston, MA.
  • Note: Mr. Gardner is a patent litigator who has defended technology companies such as LinkedIn and Chegg in patent infringement lawsuits.

• Angela L. Dunning - Partner

  • Firm: Cooley LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
  • Note: Ms. Dunning specializes in trade secret and commercial litigation, bringing expertise relevant to the non-patent claims in this hybrid trade secret and patent infringement case.