Soundclear Technologies LLC v. [Defendants Not Specified]

Soundclear Technologies LLC, identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), has initiated patent infringement litigation against Google LLC. Soundclear was established in Virginia in June 2023 and acquired a portfolio of patents from JVCKenwood in September 2023, indicating a strategic monetization effort. The defendant, Google LLC, is a major operating company with extensive consumer hardware and artificial intelligence offerings. The litigation targets Google's voice assistant products and related hardware and software, including Google Home devices, Google Nest Audio, Google Pixel/Nexus smartphones, and Google Assistant-integrated smart screens. The allegedly infringing features broadly relate to noise reduction, speech detection and processing, and volume control.

The patent at issue, as specified in the case metadata, is U.S. Patent No. 9,070,374. This patent, titled "Communication Apparatus and Condition Notification Method for Notifying a Used Condition of Communication Apparatus by Using a Light-Emitting Device Attached to Communication Apparatus," generally pertains to a method for transmitting clear voice sounds with effective noise cancellation. It involves switching a communication mode between standby and transmission, determining a voice sound pickup state, and controlling a light-emitting device to indicate the apparatus's condition. However, some sources indicate that in the related case against Google (3:24-cv-00540), Soundclear is asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 11,244,675, 9,223,487, and 11,069,337, which are also directed at voice recognition and audio processing technology. [cite: 5, 6, 16 (previous output)]

This case, originally filed as 2:24-cv-00321 in the Virginia Eastern District Court on July 25, 2024, was administratively transferred within 24 hours to the Richmond Division under case number 3:24-cv-00540 and is assigned to District Judge M. Hannah Lauck. [cite: 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 (previous output)] The Eastern District of Virginia is widely known as the "Rocket Docket" due to its expedited litigation timeline, with cases often reaching disposition in an average of five months and trial in eleven months, which places significant pressure on litigants. The case is notable as part of a broader patent assertion campaign by Soundclear, which also includes litigation against Amazon, and highlights the high-stakes nature of patent disputes in the smart speaker and voice AI market. [cite: 10 (previous output), 11 (previous output)] The defense has raised challenges regarding patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice motions), and Amazon has initiated Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings against Soundclear's patents at the PTAB, indicating potential invalidity challenges. [cite: 10 (previous output), 11 (previous output), 14 (previous output), 15 (previous output), 16 (previous output)]

Soundclear Technologies LLC initiated patent infringement litigation against Google LLC in the Virginia Eastern District Court, which has seen initial pleadings, a significant transfer, and pre-trial motions. Related PTAB proceedings have also commenced.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed: Soundclear Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Google LLC on May 1, 2024, in the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, assigned case number 2:24-cv-00321. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,031,259; 9,070,374; and 9,804,819. The plaintiff specifically targeted Google's voice assistants and related hardware and software products, focusing on features like noise reduction, speech detection/processing, and volume control.
• Case Transfer: Within 24 hours of its filing on May 1, 2024, the case was administratively transferred to the Richmond Division of the Eastern District of Virginia and re-docketed as Case No. 3:24-cv-00540. Subsequent substantive litigation, including service on Google, answer deadlines, and future claim construction, is proceeding under this new case number.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Motions to Dismiss and Transfer: Both Google and Amazon (who faced a parallel lawsuit from Soundclear under 2:24-cv-00320) filed motions to transfer for convenience to the Northern District of California. Google also filed a motion to dismiss, to which Soundclear responded on August 5, 2024. Although details on the outcome of Google's motion to dismiss in 2:24-cv-00321 specifically are not available, in a parallel case against Amazon (2:24-cv-00320), a motion to dismiss based on Alice challenges to patent eligibility was initially granted, but the court later granted Soundclear's motion to alter judgment, allowing for an amended complaint. This suggests patent eligibility challenges are a foreseeable defense in the Google case as well.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• As of May 18, 2026, there are no public details regarding a Markman hearing or claim construction order specific to this case, though substantive litigation, including claim construction, is expected to proceed under the transferred case number 3:24-cv-00540.

4. Discovery Milestones

• No specific discovery milestones with strategic significance have been publicly reported for this case.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

• Given the relatively recent filing and ongoing pre-trial stages, the case has not yet reached trial.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• The case remains active. There has been no reported settlement, final judgment, or appeal. Its current posture is active litigation in the pre-trial phase under case number 3:24-cv-00540.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

Several related IPR proceedings have been filed against Soundclear Technologies' patents:

• IPR2025-01080 (Amazon v. Soundclear Technologies LLC): Filed by Amazon.com Inc. on May 30, 2025, challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,804,819 B2. The petition received a discretionary denial on October 17, 2025. This IPR was explicitly linked to the district court cases 2:24-cv-00321 (Google) and 2:24-cv-00320 (Amazon).
• IPR2025-00565 (Amazon.com, Inc. et al. v. SoundClear Technologies LLC et al.): Filed by Amazon.com, Inc. and others on January 30, 2025. While the specific patent is not immediately clear from available information, it is against SoundClear Technologies LLC.

Soundclear Technologies LLC is represented by counsel from Daignault Iyer LLP in this patent infringement case. While specific roles for the listed attorneys in case 2:24-cv-00321 are not explicitly detailed in the public records available, their appearance in related proceedings and the nature of patent litigation suggest their involvement as lead counsel or part of the primary litigation team.

It is also noted in a related complaint that some attorneys for SoundClear Technologies LLC may not be admitted to practice in Virginia, suggesting the potential involvement of local counsel.

The following attorneys from Daignault Iyer LLP are associated with Soundclear Technologies LLC's representation:

• Louay K. Meroueh
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or part of the primary litigation team.
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP, office location typically out of Washington, D.C., or San Francisco Bay Area (needs confirmation for specific office).
  • Experience Note: Meroueh is identified as counsel for SoundClear Technologies LLC in IPR proceedings related to the asserted patents. He has experience in patent litigation.
• Chandran B. Iyer
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or part of the primary litigation team.
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP, office location typically out of Washington, D.C., or San Francisco Bay Area (needs confirmation for specific office).
  • Experience Note: Iyer is identified as counsel for SoundClear Technologies LLC in IPR proceedings related to the asserted patents. He is a founding partner of Daignault Iyer LLP with extensive experience in patent litigation.
• Steven J. Reynolds
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or part of the primary litigation team.
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP, office location typically out of Washington, D.C., or San Francisco Bay Area (needs confirmation for specific office).
  • Experience Note: Reynolds is identified as counsel for SoundClear Technologies LLC in IPR proceedings related to the asserted patents.
• Kevin Sprenger
  • Role: Likely part of the litigation team.
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP, office location typically out of Washington, D.C., or San Francisco Bay Area (needs confirmation for specific office).
  • Experience Note: Sprenger is identified as counsel for SoundClear Technologies LLC in IPR proceedings related to the asserted patents.
• Erin M. Hadi
  • Role: Likely part of the litigation team.
  • Firm: Daignault Iyer LLP, office location typically out of Washington, D.C., or San Francisco Bay Area (needs confirmation for specific office).
  • Experience Note: Hadi is identified as counsel for SoundClear Technologies LLC in IPR proceedings related to the asserted patents.

No specific local counsel has been identified in the provided search results for this case number directly, but the mention of attorneys "not admitted to practice in Virginia" implies that local counsel would be necessary if the Daignault Iyer LLP attorneys are not Virginia-barred. Further detailed PACER docket review would be needed to definitively identify local counsel and precise roles for each attorney in the district court case 2:24-cv-00321.

Defendant Identified in Soundclear Technologies LLC v. Google LLC (2:24-cv-00321)

The defendant in this patent infringement case, Soundclear Technologies LLC v. 2:24-cv-00321 in the Virginia Eastern District Court, has been identified as Google LLC (Alphabet). The lawsuit, filed on May 1, 2024, also involves U.S. Patent Nos. 9,031,259 and 9,804,819, in addition to 9,070,374.

Counsel of Record for Google LLC:

As of May 18, 2026, the specific counsel of record representing Google LLC in case 2:24-cv-00321 in the Eastern District of Virginia could not be definitively identified through public web searches. While docket entries indicate the presence of "Counsel for Defendant Google LLC" (e.g., in Document 39, filed November 4, 2024), the names of the attorneys and their firms are not explicitly provided in the publicly available search snippets. Without direct access to the full docket entries from PACER, detailed information regarding the individual attorneys, their roles, firms, and office locations, or their specific patent litigation experience in this case remains elusive.