VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

This patent infringement litigation involves a significant dispute over the core technology behind modern voice assistants. The plaintiff is VB Assets, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) that holds and asserts patents originally developed by VoiceBox Technologies, an early pioneer in conversational AI and natural language processing. The defendants are Amazon.com, Inc. and its related entities, the global technology and e-commerce giant. The lawsuit alleges that Amazon's popular Alexa voice assistant, and the devices that run it such as the Amazon Echo family of smart speakers, infringe on patents owned by VB Assets. The core of the dispute centers on the underlying speech recognition and natural language processing systems that allow users to interact with Alexa.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a popular and influential venue for patent litigation due to its experienced judiciary and sophisticated case law. The case is assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. Initially, VB Assets asserted several patents. The litigation has a complex procedural history; a jury trial in November 2023 addressed four of the patents, resulting in a verdict of willful infringement and an award of over $40 million for VB Assets, which the court later adjusted. However, claims related to U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536, titled "Disambiguation in conversational voice search," were not part of that trial and remain pending before the district court. An appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was dismissed because the unresolved claims concerning the '536 patent meant there was no final, appealable judgment from the district court.

This case is notable as part of a broader, multi-front patent assertion campaign by VB Assets against major technology companies that utilize voice assistant technology. The same patent portfolio has been asserted against Apple's Siri, Samsung's Bixby, and Google's Assistant, making the outcome of the Amazon litigation a key bellwether for the industry. The substantial jury verdict highlights the financial risk associated with voice-activated smart devices and the value of foundational patents in the conversational AI space. The ongoing nature of the case, with the '536 patent claims still active, ensures it will continue to be closely watched by intellectual property analysts and technology companies.

Following the initial filing and a jury trial that resolved claims on several patents, the litigation between VB Assets and Amazon continues, focused on the remaining U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536.

Key Legal Developments & Chronology

Filing and Initial Proceedings (2019)

• 2019-07-26: VB Assets, LLC filed its initial complaint in the District of Delaware, accusing Amazon of infringing six patents originally granted to VoiceBox Technologies. The accused products and services included Amazon's Alexa platform and Echo devices. The asserted patents were U.S. Patent Nos. 7,991,617; 8,112,280; 8,244,551; 8,886,536; 9,070,336; and 9,251,799.
• 2019-10-04: Amazon filed its answer, denying infringement and asserting counterclaims for non-infringement and invalidity of all asserted patents.

Claim Construction (2020-2021)

• 2020-11-20: The parties completed claim construction briefing, outlining their disputes over the meaning of key terms in the asserted patents.
• 2021-02-04: The court held a Markman hearing to consider arguments on claim construction.
• 2021-07-16: Judge Noreika issued a Memorandum Opinion on claim construction (D.I. 175), adopting constructions for disputed terms across the asserted patents. These rulings are critical as they define the scope of the patent claims for the remainder of the litigation.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings and Motion to Stay (2020-2021)

• Amazon proactively challenged the validity of the asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). It filed petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against several of the patents, including the '536 patent.
• 2020-05-22: Amazon filed a motion to stay the district court case pending the outcome of the IPRs. (D.I. 83).
• 2021-03-24: The court denied Amazon's motion to stay. Judge Noreika reasoned that a stay would not necessarily simplify the issues for trial and would unduly prejudice VB Assets, especially since a trial date was already approaching.
• 2021-08-11: In a significant development, the PTAB declined to institute an IPR against the '536 patent (IPR2021-00412), concluding that Amazon had not shown a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving the challenged claims were unpatentable. This decision preserved the '536 patent's claims for litigation in the district court. Other asserted patents, however, faced different outcomes at the PTAB.

Summary Judgment and Pre-Trial Narrowing (2022-2023)

• 2023-01-31: The court issued a key summary judgment ruling. It found that the '536 patent was not invalid for being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the court granted Amazon's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on the '617, '280, and '551 patents, significantly narrowing the scope of the case for trial.
• Leading up to trial, the parties agreed to sever the claims related to the '536 patent from the main case to streamline the issues for the jury. This procedural move set the stage for the November 2023 trial to proceed on four other patents, while leaving the '536 patent dispute to be resolved later.

Jury Trial and Verdict (November 2023)

• A jury trial was held on claims involving U.S. Patent Nos. 8,150,703; 8,260,617; 9,070,336; and 9,251,799.
• 2023-11-17: The jury returned a verdict in favor of VB Assets, finding that Amazon had willfully infringed the patents. The jury awarded VB Assets $46.66 million in damages.

Post-Trial Rulings and Appeal (2024)

• 2024-03-29: Following post-trial motions, Judge Noreika issued an order upholding the jury's infringement finding but reduced the damages award to $38.2 million. The court denied Amazon's motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on non-infringement but also denied VB Assets' request for enhanced damages, finding Amazon's litigation conduct was not egregious enough to warrant enhancement despite the willfulness finding.
• 2024-04-26: Amazon filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• 2024-10-18: The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Because the claims related to the '536 patent remained unresolved in the district court, the lower court's judgment was not considered "final," and thus the case was not yet ripe for appeal.

Current Status (2024-Present)

• The case has returned to the District of Delaware for resolution of the pending claims regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536. As of early 2026, the case remains active on Judge Noreika's docket. The parties are expected to proceed with discovery, pre-trial motions, and potentially a second trial focused solely on the '536 patent, which addresses methods for disambiguation in conversational voice search. The prior PTAB decision not to institute review strengthens VB Assets' position on the validity of this remaining patent.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

VB Assets, LLC has retained a combination of nationally recognized trial counsel from Susman Godfrey LLP and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, alongside prominent Delaware-based local counsel from Farnan LLP.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Justin A. Nelson

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Houston)
  • Experience Note: A nationally recognized trial lawyer, Nelson has secured major verdicts in complex commercial and patent litigation and formerly clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

• Name: Steven M. Zager

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (New York)
  • Experience Note: Named a "Trial Ace" by Law360, Zager has a significant record of victories in high-stakes intellectual property trials across the country.

Additional Counsel

• Name: Celine Liu

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (Washington, D.C.)
  • Experience Note: Liu is a senior counsel whose intellectual property practice includes extensive experience in patent, trade secret, and licensing litigation before federal courts and the ITC.

• Name: Stephen E. Tountas

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (New York)
  • Experience Note: Tountas focuses on patent and technology litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in complex disputes.

• Name: Edgar G. Sargent

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Los Angeles)
  • Experience Note: Sargent's practice centers on high-stakes commercial litigation, including intellectual property and technology-related cases.

Local Counsel

• Name: Brian E. Farnan

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience Note: A highly-regarded Delaware trial lawyer, Farnan frequently serves as local counsel in complex patent and commercial litigation in the District of Delaware.

• Name: Michael J. Farnan

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience Note: Co-founding the firm with his brother, Michael Farnan is also a veteran of Delaware's federal and state courts, specializing in high-stakes litigation.

Counsel for Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC

Based on a review of the court docket and public legal records, the following counsel have appeared on behalf of the defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC in this matter.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Joseph J. Mueller
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Boston, MA)
  • Note: Mueller is a prominent patent litigator and trial attorney who has represented major technology companies in high-stakes disputes.
• Name: W. Chad Thornberry
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Austin, TX)
  • Note: Thornberry specializes in patent litigation involving complex technologies and has experience before district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB.
• Name: Michael J. Barta
  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Minneapolis, MN)
  • Note: Barta has extensive experience in patent litigation, particularly in cases involving software, telecommunications, and consumer electronics.
• Name: Douglas E. Lumish
  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Silicon Valley, CA)
  • Note: Lumish is a seasoned trial lawyer known for handling major patent cases for leading technology firms in California and other key jurisdictions.

Local Counsel

• Name: David E. Moore
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Moore is a respected Delaware litigator frequently serving as local counsel in complex intellectual property cases filed in the District of Delaware.
• Name: Bindu A. Palapura
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Palapura focuses her practice on intellectual property and technology litigation and is experienced in all phases of litigation in Delaware's district court.