VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC

Case Overview: NPE Asserts Voice-Assistant Patents Against Tech Giant

This litigation is part of a large-scale patent assertion campaign by VB Assets, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE), against Amazon.com Services LLC, a subsidiary of the global technology and e-commerce leader. VB Assets was formed to monetize the intellectual property of VoiceBox Technologies, an early innovator in conversational artificial intelligence and natural language processing that was acquired by Nuance Communications in 2018. The plaintiff alleges that Amazon's popular Alexa digital assistant and its ecosystem of enabled devices, such as the Echo smart speaker, infringe on its patents. The dispute has its roots in meetings between VoiceBox and Amazon in 2011 where VoiceBox presented its technology, years before Amazon launched Alexa. VB Assets claims Amazon then incorporated this proprietary technology into its products and recruited key VoiceBox engineers.

The patent at issue in this specific appeal, U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536, is titled "System and method for providing a voice-user interface with a user-turn and a system-turn in a conversational manner," and generally covers technology for managing conversational dialogue between a user and a voice-controlled system. This litigation is highly notable as it represents a significant front in the battle over foundational voice assistant technology, with VB Assets launching parallel lawsuits against other major players like Apple, Google, and Samsung over the same patent portfolio. The underlying district court case in Delaware, a key venue for patent disputes, saw a jury award VB Assets over $40 million in November 2023 for infringement of other patents in the same family, though that amount was later trimmed by the presiding judge, Maryellen Noreika.

The appeal to the Federal Circuit, docketed as case number 25-1142, was ultimately short-lived. It was dismissed on March 10, 2025, not on the merits of the infringement claims, but for a lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court found that the District of Delaware had not yet issued a final judgment on all of the claims and for all the parties involved in the litigation. Specifically, the court noted that the claims related to the '536 patent had not been adjudicated in the trial that led to the jury verdict on other patents. This procedural dismissal highlights the complexities of appealing large, multi-patent cases before every issue has been fully resolved at the district court level. The parties in the broader underlying case later reached a settlement, leading to the dismissal of a subsequent appeal in April 2026.

Legal Developments and Case Outcome

The patent infringement litigation between VB Assets and Amazon, centered on foundational voice-assistant technology, progressed through several key phases from its inception in the District of Delaware to a brief appeal and eventual resolution.

District Court Proceedings (D. Del. Case No. 1:19-cv-01410)

• 2019-07-29: Complaint Filed
  VB Assets, LLC initiated the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, accusing Amazon.com Services LLC of infringing multiple patents originating from VoiceBox Technologies. The complaint detailed a 2011 meeting where VoiceBox allegedly disclosed its confidential technology to Amazon, which later launched its Alexa-powered Echo device in 2014 with "strikingly similar" features. VB Assets also accused Amazon of poaching key VoiceBox engineers.

• 2020-09-16: Amazon's Motion to Dismiss Denied
  Amazon filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the asserted patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming ineligible subject matter (i.e., abstract ideas). Judge Maryellen Noreika denied the motion, finding that Amazon's arguments were overly simplistic and that there were factual issues preventing dismissal at such an early stage. The court criticized Amazon for characterizing the claims at an improperly high level of abstraction and determined that at least two claims survived the patent eligibility challenge, allowing the case to proceed.

• 2023-11-02 to 2023-11-08: Jury Trial
  A five-day jury trial was held on several patents from the VoiceBox portfolio. Notably, the patent at issue in the later Federal Circuit appeal, U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536, was not among the patents that went to the jury in this trial.

• 2023-11-08: Jury Verdict
  The jury returned a verdict in favor of VB Assets, finding that Amazon willfully infringed four patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,073,681, 9,626,703, 7,818,176, and 9,269,097. The jury awarded VB Assets $46.7 million in reasonable royalty damages and also found that Amazon had failed to prove the asserted patent claims were invalid.

• 2024-09-30: Ruling on Post-Trial Motions
  Judge Noreika ruled on the parties' post-trial motions. While the full details of this order are not publicly available, it addressed requests for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and other post-verdict issues.

• 2024-12-12: Order on Ongoing Royalties
  Following the verdict, Judge Noreika addressed VB Assets' motion for ongoing royalties for Amazon's continued infringement. The court awarded VB Assets a royalty of $0.25 per new Alexa shopping user for two of the patents and $0.45 per new Alexa user for a third patent.

Appeal to the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case No. 25-1142)

• Appeal and Jurisdictional Defect:
  An appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, the appeal was premature.

• 2025-03-10: Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
  The Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction because the district court had not yet issued a final judgment on all claims in the case. Specifically, claims related to the '536 patent, among others, had not been adjudicated, meaning the lower court's decisions were not final and appealable.

Final Disposition

• Settlement and Final Dismissal:
  Although not explicitly detailed in public records, the procedural history, including the dismissal of a subsequent appeal in April 2026 as noted in the case overview, indicates the parties reached a settlement. The underlying district court case was officially terminated on 2025-05-16. This resolution ended the litigation across all asserted patents, including the '536 patent.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

No publicly available information was found regarding any Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings filed by Amazon at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) specifically against U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536. While such proceedings are common defense tactics, it appears they were not a dispositive factor in this specific dispute concerning the '536 patent.

Counsel for Plaintiff VB Assets, LLC

While public docket information for the short-lived appeal (No. 25-1142), which was procedurally dismissed, does not specify which attorneys formally entered an appearance, the counsel of record from the underlying district court case and a subsequent, related appeal provide a clear picture of the legal team representing VB Assets, LLC. The team is led by the national firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, with local representation in Delaware by Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP.

Based on filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and a related appeal at the Federal Circuit, the following attorneys represented the plaintiff, VB Assets, LLC.

---

Lead Counsel

• Name: James C. Yoon

  • Role: Lead Trial Counsel
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (Palo Alto, CA)
  • Note: Yoon is a leader in Wilson Sonsini's patent trial practice with over 25 years of experience, having litigated more than 200 patent cases. He publicly commented on the trial strategy that led to the significant jury verdict against Amazon in the underlying district court case.

• Name: Matthew A. Macdonald

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Macdonald was part of the lead team that secured the $46.7 million jury verdict for VB Assets, which was recognized as one of Law.com's "Top 100 Verdicts of 2023."

• Name: Ryan R. Smith

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (Palo Alto, CA)
  • Note: Smith was a key member of the trial team alongside James Yoon and has been listed on numerous court filings for VB Assets.

• Name: Bradley T. Tennis

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: Tennis was a member of the lead trial team that achieved the jury verdict against Amazon.

• Name: Jamie Otto

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Otto is listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in post-trial memorandum and orders issued by the Delaware district court.

Appellate Counsel

While no notices of appearance for appeal 25-1142 are publicly available, counsel in a subsequent appeal (No. 25-1854) included the trial team members above and added the following appellate specialist:

• Name: Steffen N. Johnson
  • Role: Appellate Counsel
  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (Washington, D.C.)
  • Note: Johnson co-chairs the firm's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice and has extensive experience arguing before federal circuit courts and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Local Counsel

• Name: Neal C. Belgam

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Belgam is listed on key filings in the Delaware district court case, fulfilling the role of local counsel in a popular patent litigation venue.

• Name: Jason Z. Miller

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Miller is also listed on filings alongside Neal Belgam as local counsel for VB Assets in the district court proceedings.

Amazon's Defense Team Headlined by Fenwick & West

In the patent infringement litigation brought by VB Assets, LLC, defendant Amazon.com Services LLC assembled a defense team led by prominent intellectual property litigators from Fenwick & West LLP, with local counsel support from Ashby & Geddes, P.A. in Delaware.

Based on court filings and media reports from the underlying district court case (VB Assets, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC, C.A. No. 19-1410-MN in the District of Delaware), the following attorneys have represented Amazon:

• J. David Hadden | Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP (Mountain View, CA)
  • Note: Hadden is a veteran patent litigator and chair emeritus of Fenwick & West, known for representing major technology companies in high-stakes IP disputes.

• Ravi R. Ranganath | Counsel

  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP (Mountain View, CA)
  • Note: Ranganath is a partner in the litigation group, focusing on patent and complex technology cases for clients like Amazon and Google.

• Saina S. Shamilov | Counsel

  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP (Mountain View, CA)
  • Note: A litigation partner at Fenwick, Shamilov specializes in patent infringement and trade secret litigation for technology clients.

• Vigen Salmastlian | Counsel

  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP (Mountain View, CA)
  • Note: Salmastlian is a litigation associate whose practice centers on patent and technology-related disputes.

• Steven J. Balick | Local Counsel

  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes, P.A. (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Balick is a director at Ashby & Geddes and a seasoned Delaware attorney frequently serving as local counsel in major patent cases.

• Andrew C. Mayo | Local Counsel

  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes, P.A. (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Mayo is a director at Ashby & Geddes with a practice focused on corporate and intellectual property litigation in Delaware's district and bankruptcy courts.

This legal team represented Amazon through a November 2023 jury trial in Delaware that resulted in a significant verdict for VB Assets, as well as in post-trial motions. While appearances for the specific, short-lived appeal at the Federal Circuit (Case No. 25-1142) are not detailed in publicly available, non-PACER sources, the trial counsel typically continues to represent the client on appeal.