Soundclear Technologies LLC v. Alphabet (Google)

Soundclear Technologies LLC, the plaintiff in this case, is a patent assertion entity (PAE), also known as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). It was formed in Virginia on June 29, 2023, and is wholly owned by SoundClear LLC, which was formed in Delaware on June 28, 2023. Little public information is available regarding SoundClear's management or personnel, and the identity of its funder has been obscured. Soundclear Technologies acquired the asserted patents from JVCKenwood, which has divested batches of US patents to other NPEs over the past couple of years.

The defendant, Alphabet (Google), is a global technology conglomerate known for its market-leading voice AI and smart speaker products, including Google Home, Nest, Pixel, and Assistant. Soundclear Technologies has accused Alphabet (Google) of infringing three patents originally developed at JVCKenwood by targeting the provision of Google's voice assistants and related hardware and software products. The alleged infringing features relate to noise reduction, speech detection/processing, and volume control. The specific patent at issue in this case is US9070374, which broadly relates to signal processing technology. While a detailed one-line technical sketch for patent 9070374 specifically isn't immediately available from the search results, related asserted patents from Soundclear in similar cases against Amazon also involved noise reduction, speech detection/processing, and volume control in audio devices.

The case, 1:24-cv-00729, was initially filed in the Virginia Eastern District Court (EDVA). While the initial filing occurred in the Alexandria Division, a related patent case (3:24-cv-00540) against Google was administratively transferred to the Richmond Division within 24 hours of filing. The EDVA is notable as a venue for patent litigation due to its reputation for a speedy docket, employing local rules and pre-trial orders that compress trial preparation. However, the EDVA does not have specific patent local rules, and each of its three divisions (Alexandria, Richmond, and Norfolk) and judges handles patent cases differently, creating potential complexities for litigants. The court's willingness to grant summary judgment and its strict approach to continuances further characterize the procedural posture.

This case is notable due to Soundclear Technologies' status as a patent assertion entity asserting patents against major tech companies like Google and Amazon in the rapidly expanding smart speaker and voice AI market. The lawsuit reflects a broader industry trend where underlying signal processing and recognition patents become targets for monetization as voice interfaces become ubiquitous. Furthermore, both Amazon and Google have initiated Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) against patents asserted by Soundclear Technologies, indicating an active invalidity challenge strategy in parallel to the district court litigation. For instance, Amazon has filed IPR2025-00565 and IPR2025-01080 against Soundclear, and Google has filed IPR2025-01597 against a different Soundclear patent. The case also saw an unusual turnaround in a related Amazon case where a motion to dismiss based on Alice challenges was initially granted but then Soundclear was allowed to file an amended complaint, suggesting an active legal battle over patent eligibility. Motions to transfer venue have also been filed by defendants, seeking transfer to the Northern District of California, highlighting common challenges in EDVA patent litigation, especially for out-of-state companies.

Legal Developments and Outcome for Soundclear Technologies LLC v. Alphabet (Google) (1:24-cv-00729)

The patent infringement lawsuit, Soundclear Technologies LLC v. Alphabet (Google), initially filed under case number 1:24-cv-00729 in the Virginia Eastern District Court, has undergone a significant procedural change and is now active under a new case number in a different division of the same court.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• Complaint Filed (2024-05-01): Soundclear Technologies LLC initiated the lawsuit against Alphabet (Google) in the Eastern District of Virginia. The initial complaint, filed under case number 1:24-cv-00729, asserted infringement of three U.S. patents: 9,031,259; 9,070,374; and 9,804,819. The plaintiff accused Google's voice assistants and related hardware and software products of infringement.
• Case Transfer (2024-07-25): Shortly after its initial filing, the substantive infringement action, including all three asserted patent claims, was administratively transferred to the Richmond Division of the Virginia Eastern District Court. The original docket number 1:24-cv-00729 was subsequently marked as closed due to this intradistrict transfer, and the case continues under the new docket number 3:24cv540.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

As of May 15, 2026, the case (under 3:24cv540) is in its early stages, and no claim construction or merits ruling has yet been issued. Therefore, substantial pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer (beyond the initial administrative transfer), stay pending IPR, or for summary judgment have not been publicly reported as having been decided.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

The case has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage, and no Markman ruling exists as of May 15, 2026.

Discovery Milestones:

No significant strategic discovery milestones have been publicly reported due to the early stage of the transferred litigation.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

The case has not proceeded to trial, and therefore, no verdict or post-trial motions have occurred.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

• Present Posture: The substantive patent infringement action remains active under the transferred case number 3:24cv540 in the Richmond Division of the Eastern District of Virginia. There has been no merits-based verdict, settlement, or dismissal at this stage.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

As of the current date, there are no publicly available records of an Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) specifically initiated against U.S. Patent 9,070,374. While some reports mention IPRs against other patents potentially involved in Soundclear Technologies' broader patent portfolio (e.g., US11069337B2, under IPR2025-01597), there is no indication of such a proceeding for patent 9,070,374 affecting this specific litigation.

I am unable to identify the counsel of record representing Soundclear Technologies LLC in this patent infringement case at this time. My web search, including attempts to find PACER docket information or summaries from legal news sources directly pertaining to this specific case (1:24-cv-00729), did not yield the names of the attorneys who have entered appearances for the plaintiff.

Therefore, I cannot provide their names, roles, firms, office locations, or relevant patent litigation experience. It is possible that the initial filings are not yet publicly detailed in readily searchable legal news, or direct PACER access would be required to view the latest docket entries for appearances.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["Soundclear Technologies LLC v. Alphabet (Google) 1:24-cv-00729 EDVA docket counsel", "Soundclear Technologies LLC v. Alphabet (Google) 1:24-cv-00729 counsel appearances", "alphabet google patent litigation counsel", "Kirkland & Ellis patent litigation team", "WilmerHale patent litigation team", "Alston & Bird patent litigation team"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) (Alphabet/Google) in the case Soundclear Technologies LLC v. Alphabet (Google), case number 1:24-cv-00729 in the EDVA.
I need to find the names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant experience for each attorney.
I will use web search to look for docket entries, firm websites, and legal news sources.

Here's my plan:

1. Search the case docket for appearances by counsel for Alphabet (Google).
2. Identify the names of attorneys and their associated firms.
3. For each attorney, try to determine their role (lead, local, in-house, of counsel).
4. For each attorney, research their firm's office location.
5. For each attorney, search for their patent litigation experience or notable cases.Despite extensive web searches for publicly available docket information, the specific counsel of record representing Alphabet (Google) in the patent infringement case 1:24-cv-00729 in the Virginia Eastern District Court could not be definitively identified.

While search results revealed major law firms such as WilmerHale, Kirkland & Ellis, and Alston & Bird are known for their patent litigation practices and have represented Google in other patent-related matters, including Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) involving Soundclear Technologies, these results do not specifically list the attorneys who have entered appearances for Alphabet (Google) in this particular case.

One search result showed a document snippet mentioning "MARK C. BURNSIDE" and "ANNIE S. ZHANG" from DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, but the context of that snippet (a "NOTICE OF REMOVAL") and associated "ciphers" indicated it was related to a case involving "AMAZON.COM, INC." and a slightly different case number format ("2:24-cv-00729- TLN-SCR" versus the specified "1:24-cv-00729" for Google). This suggests the snippet was from a related, but distinct, case or a generalized document not directly pertaining to the specific Google case in question.

Without direct access to the official docket for 1:24-cv-00729, the names, roles, firms, and office locations of the attorneys representing Alphabet (Google) in this specific action remain unconfirmed through public web searches. It is possible that filings related to counsel appearances are not publicly indexed in a way that is easily discoverable through general web searches, or the information is primarily available through a PACER search.