VB ASSETS, LLC v. Apple Inc.

Case Overview and Background

Important Note on Case Caption: Public court records, including filings at the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, definitively show that case number 1:19-cv-01410 is captioned VB ASSETS, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC. The defendant listed in the prompt, Apple Inc., is the subject of a separate lawsuit filed by VB Assets in late 2024 (1:24-cv-01368). This analysis proceeds based on the correct defendant, Amazon, for the specified case number.

The plaintiff, VB Assets, LLC, is a non-practicing entity (NPE) that holds and asserts patents originating from VoiceBox Technologies, a company described as a pioneer in conversational AI and natural language processing. VB Assets was formed by former investors and employees of VoiceBox after it was acquired by Nuance Communications in 2018. The defendant is Amazon.com Services LLC, a major operating company and provider of the Alexa virtual assistant and Echo line of smart speakers. This lawsuit is part of a broader litigation campaign by VB Assets, which has also sued other major technology companies, including Samsung, Google, and Apple, over the same portfolio of former VoiceBox patents.

The lawsuit alleged that Amazon's Alexa-enabled products, such as the Amazon Echo, infringed on multiple patents related to voice-based technology and natural language understanding. The core of the infringement allegation centered on the claim that Amazon had incorporated VoiceBox's patented innovations into the Alexa ecosystem after engaging in licensing discussions in 2011 that did not result in a deal, years before Alexa was launched. The asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,269,097, titled "Systems and methods for contextual voice search," generally relates to technology that allows a voice-based system to understand and process user queries within a specific context. This case proceeded to a jury trial in November 2023, where Amazon was found to have willfully infringed, resulting in a significant damages award for VB Assets.

The case was litigated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and was assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. This venue is notable in patent litigation, particularly following standing orders issued by Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly requiring heightened transparency from litigants regarding their corporate ownership and any third-party litigation funding. While this case was before Judge Noreika, the broader Delaware venue has become a focal point for examining the practices of NPEs. The case is also notable for the substantial jury verdict—initially $46.7 million, later reduced slightly by the judge—and the subsequent appeals and post-trial motions concerning ongoing royalty rates, which are closely watched in the technology industry given the ubiquity of voice-assistant technology. The litigation between VB Assets and Amazon formally concluded in April 2026 when the parties agreed to dismiss the appeal at the Federal Circuit, suggesting a settlement was reached.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for VB ASSETS, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC

Note on Case Caption: As detailed in the "Case Overview," the correct defendant for case number 1:19-cv-01410 is Amazon.com Services LLC, not Apple Inc. This summary pertains to the litigation against Amazon.

This litigation proceeded through a full trial, post-trial motions, and an appeal before its final resolution. The key developments are outlined chronologically below.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2019-07-29: VB Assets, LLC filed its initial patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Amazon and several of its subsidiaries. The lawsuit alleged that Amazon's Alexa-powered devices, like the Echo, infringed on six patents originally developed by VoiceBox Technologies related to natural language processing and voice-based search.
• Amended Complaint & Answer: The operative complaint was the First Amended Complaint. VB Assets contended that Amazon learned of VoiceBox's technology during business discussions in 2011, only to later launch the "strikingly similar" Alexa platform in 2014 and poach dozens of VoiceBox engineers. Amazon denied the allegations and asserted counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents.

Pre-Trial Motions and Proceedings

• Motion to Dismiss (2020): Amazon filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the asserted patent claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to ineligible subject matter (abstract ideas).
• 2020-09-16: Judge Maryellen Noreika denied Amazon's motion to dismiss. The court found that Amazon's arguments were premature and oversimplified the claims, concluding that factual issues precluded dismissal at the pleading stage.
• Summary Judgment (2023): In early 2023, Amazon filed motions for summary judgment, seeking rulings of non-infringement and invalidity on multiple grounds, including patent ineligibility under § 101 for three patents.
• 2023-05-23: Finding Amazon's summary judgment practice "excessive," the court ordered Amazon to rank its arguments. Judge Noreika warned that if the court reached an argument on the list and denied summary judgment on that ground, it would deny the rest of the motions without further review to curb "shotgun theories and voluminous submissions." Ultimately, the key issues were not resolved at this stage and proceeded to trial.

Parallel PTAB/IPR Proceedings

• IPR Petitions Filed (2020): Amazon filed inter partes review (IPR) petitions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of several VB Assets patents, including some asserted in the district court case.
• PTAB Rulings: The PTAB issued mixed results. For instance, in IPR2020-01346, the Board invalidated claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,015,049, which was subsequently dropped from the district court case before trial. However, other challenged patents survived the IPR process, allowing them to be litigated at trial.

Trial and Verdict

• Trial Dates (2023): A five-day jury trial was held from November 2 to November 8, 2023, before Judge Noreika. The patents at issue by the time of trial included U.S. Patent Nos. 8,073,681; 9,626,703; 7,818,176; and 9,269,097.
• Verdict (2023-11-08): The jury returned a verdict in favor of VB Assets. It found that Amazon had willfully infringed all four asserted patents and failed to prove the claims were invalid. The jury awarded VB Assets $46.7 million in reasonable royalty damages. This verdict was recognized as one of Law.com's "Top 100 Verdicts of 2023."

Post-Trial Motions and Rulings

• JMOL Motions (2023-12-06): Both parties filed post-trial motions. Amazon renewed its motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), asking the court to overturn the verdict on grounds of non-infringement and invalidity. VB Assets moved for an ongoing royalty, enhanced damages for the willful infringement finding, and interest.
• 2024-09-30: Judge Noreika issued a key ruling on the post-trial motions. She granted in part Amazon's JMOL, finding that no reasonable jury could have concluded that one of the patents (the '703 patent) was infringed. This decision reduced the total damages award from $46.7 million to $40,007,600. The court denied Amazon's other JMOL arguments and granted VB Assets' request for an ongoing royalty, ordering further briefing on the rate.
• Ongoing Royalty Ruling (2024-12-12): After supplemental briefing, the court set the ongoing royalty rates. It awarded VB Assets $0.25 per net new Alexa shopping user for patents '176 and '097, and $0.45 per net new Alexa user for patent '681. The court slightly increased the per-user rates from what the jury had implicitly used, citing factors like post-verdict inflation.

Appeal and Final Disposition

• Appeal to the Federal Circuit: Following the district court's final rulings, both parties filed appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
• Procedural Dismissal (2025-03-10): An early appeal attempt was dismissed by the Federal Circuit for lack of jurisdiction because some patent claims in the original case had not been fully adjudicated, meaning there was no "final decision" from the district court.
• Settlement and Dismissal (2026-04-29): After a final judgment was properly entered and appealed (No. 25-1854), the parties reached an agreement. They filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. The Federal Circuit officially dismissed the case "The parties having so agreed," with each side to bear its own costs. This indicates the parties reached a final settlement, concluding the litigation.

Counsel for Plaintiff VB ASSETS, LLC

NOTE ON CASE CAPTION: As established in the "Case Overview & Background" section, the case corresponding to docket number 1:19-cv-01410 is VB ASSETS, LLC v. Amazon.com Services LLC. This list of plaintiff's counsel reflects the attorneys who appeared in that matter.

VB Assets was represented by attorneys from the national intellectual property and technology firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., and the Delaware-based intellectual property firm Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP, which served as local counsel.

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.

This firm acted as lead counsel for VB Assets. A December 2024 Memorandum Opinion from the court identifies the specific attorneys involved. The team was recognized by Law.com for securing one of the "Top 100 Verdicts of 2023" in this case.

• James C. Yoon (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Office: Palo Alto, CA
  • Note: Yoon is a seasoned patent trial lawyer who has led numerous high-stakes technology cases for both plaintiffs and defendants.

• Matthew A. Macdonald (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Office: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Macdonald has extensive experience in patent litigation and was part of the lead team recognized for the top 100 verdict against Amazon.

• Ryan R. Smith (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Office: Palo Alto, CA
  • Note: Smith focuses on patent and intellectual property litigation and was a key member of the trial team that secured the jury verdict.

• Bradley T. Tennis (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Office: Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Tennis was a senior member of the trial team and has significant experience in complex patent litigation.

• Mikaela E. Evans-Aziz (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Office: San Francisco, CA
  • Note: Her practice focuses on patent litigation, and she was listed as an attorney for the plaintiff in key court filings.

• Jamie Otto (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Office: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Otto's involvement is noted in court opinions related to post-trial motions.

• Alexander J. Turner (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Office: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Turner is listed as one of the attorneys for VB Assets in the court's opinion on post-trial royalty rates.

• Celine Liu (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Office: Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Liu is a senior counsel at Wilson Sonsini specializing in IP litigation and has represented VB Assets in this matter.

Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP

This firm served as local counsel in Delaware for VB Assets.

• Neal C. Belgam (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP
  • Office: Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Belgam is a partner at his firm with extensive experience serving as Delaware counsel in patent infringement litigation.

• Jason Z. Miller (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP
  • Office: Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Miller is an attorney at the firm, also appearing on court filings as counsel for the plaintiff.

Counsel for Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC

Correction to Case Caption: As noted in the "Case Overview & Background," the defendant in case number 1:19-cv-01410 is Amazon.com Services LLC, not Apple Inc. The following counsel represented Amazon in this matter.

Based on a review of court filings, including the initial complaint, notices of appearance, and subsequent trial and appellate documents, the following law firms and attorneys have appeared on behalf of defendant Amazon.com Services LLC.

Fish & Richardson P.C.

This firm served as lead trial counsel for Amazon.

• David M. Barkan (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Redwood City, CA.
  • Note: A principal at Fish & Richardson, Barkan has extensive experience leading high-stakes patent trials for major technology companies, including Google and Microsoft.

• Ricardo Bonilla (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Dallas, TX.
  • Note: Bonilla is a principal who focuses on patent litigation in federal courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC), often representing tech-sector clients.

• Grace E. F. D'Arcy (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Boston, MA.
  • Note: D'Arcy is an associate whose practice focuses on patent litigation in the technology and life sciences sectors.

• Michael R. Headley (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Redwood City, CA.
  • Note: Headley is a seasoned patent litigator and principal at the firm, known for handling complex technology cases for clients like Adobe and Microsoft.

Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP

This firm served as local counsel for Amazon in the District of Delaware.

• David E. Moore (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: Moore is a partner at the firm and frequently serves as Delaware counsel in major intellectual property disputes, representing a wide range of national and international clients.

• Bindu A. Palapura (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: Palapura is a partner specializing in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation in Delaware's district and bankruptcy courts.

• Stephanie E. O'Byrne (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: O'Byrne is a partner whose practice includes intellectual property litigation, and she is recognized as a leader in the Delaware bar.