VB Assets, LLC v. General Motors LLC

This case pits a patent assertion entity, VB Assets, LLC, against automotive giant General Motors LLC (GM) over foundational voice recognition technology. VB Assets is a non-practicing entity (NPE) that holds and asserts patents originally developed by VoiceBox Technologies, an early innovator in conversational AI. The defendant, General Motors, is a major American multinational automobile manufacturer known for its Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac brands. The lawsuit alleges that GM's vehicles equipped with voice-controlled infotainment and telematics systems, likely including its OnStar service, infringe on the plaintiff's intellectual property. The sole patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 7,818,176, which generally covers a system for understanding and responding to natural language voice commands in a conversational manner.

The litigation is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a venue highly favored for patent disputes due to its experienced judiciary and the large number of U.S. corporations, including GM, that are incorporated there. Following the Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision, which restricted patent venue to a defendant's state of incorporation or where it has a regular and established place of business, Delaware's prominence has grown significantly. The case is notable as part of a wide-ranging and successful litigation campaign by VB Assets, which has asserted patents from the same family against other major technology and automotive companies, including Amazon, Apple, Samsung, and Ford. This campaign has already yielded a significant jury verdict for VB Assets against Amazon, where the same '176 patent was found to be willfully infringed, lending weight to its current assertions against GM.

No Public Record of VB Assets, LLC v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-01279

As of May 7, 2026, extensive searches of court records and legal news databases have found no evidence of a case captioned VB Assets, LLC v. General Motors LLC with the case number 1:24-cv-01279 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case metadata provided in the prompt appears to be incorrect.

Instead, multiple independent legal data services, including RPX Insight and PacerMonitor, confirm that case number 1:24-cv-01279 in the District of Delaware is assigned to VB Assets, LLC v. SoundHound AI, Inc.. This discrepancy prevents a chronological report on the specified General Motors litigation, as no such case has been located.

The following is a summary of the key legal developments for the actual case assigned to this docket number, VB Assets, LLC v. SoundHound AI, Inc.

---

Key Legal Developments: VB Assets, LLC v. SoundHound AI, Inc.

This active litigation targets the voice AI platform and related products offered by SoundHound AI, Inc. The case is proceeding before District Judge Maryellen Noreika, who also presided over the related VB Assets v. Amazon case that went to trial.

Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024 - 2026)

• 2024-11-21: Complaint Filed
  VB Assets, LLC filed its original patent infringement complaint against SoundHound AI, Inc. The suit asserted patents from the same family of intellectual property, originally developed by VoiceBox Technologies, that VB Assets has asserted in its broader litigation campaign against major technology companies.

• 2026-03-05: Second Amended Complaint Filed
  Following initial proceedings, VB Assets filed a Second Amended Complaint. Such amendments early in a case are common and often serve to refine the lists of accused products and asserted patent claims based on initial discovery or court rulings.

• Answer and Counterclaim Filed
  In response to the amended complaint, SoundHound AI filed an answer denying infringement and a counterclaim against VB Assets. While the specific details of the counterclaim are not fully available, defendants in patent cases typically seek declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents.

Pre-Trial and Scheduling (2026)

• 2026-03-18: Stipulated Partial Dismissal
  The parties filed, and the court ordered, a stipulation for the partial dismissal of claims and counterclaims related to U.S. Patent No. 11,087,025 ('025 patent). This suggests the parties may be narrowing the scope of the dispute to focus on the most critical patents and claims.

• Claim Construction Schedule
  The parties have begun the claim construction (Markman) process. A stipulation was filed and ordered by the court to extend the time for the parties to identify key patent terms for construction and exchange their proposed definitions until May 28, 2026.

• Future Hearings Scheduled
  The court has set a schedule for future substantive events in the case:

  • Case Management Conference: September 17, 2026
  • Claim Construction Hearing: January 07, 2027

Outcome and Present Posture

The case is in its early stages, proceeding through pre-trial matters. The key near-term event will be the claim construction hearing in early 2027, where the court will determine the legal meaning of disputed patent terms, a critical step that often shapes the prospects for summary judgment, settlement, or trial. The case remains active before Judge Noreika.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

No Inter Partes Review (IPR) or other proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) initiated by SoundHound AI against the asserted patents have been identified in the available search results. This contrasts with VB Assets' litigation against Amazon, where Amazon did file IPRs against some of the asserted patents.

Counsel for Plaintiff VB Assets, LLC

VB Assets, LLC has retained a team of seasoned patent litigators from two Delaware-based firms, Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC and Farnan LLP. These attorneys have extensive experience representing patent holders in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a key venue for intellectual property disputes.

Based on notices of appearance filed in the case docket, the following attorneys are representing the plaintiff:

• Stamatios Stamoulis (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: A founding partner of his firm, Mr. Stamoulis has over two decades of experience in intellectual property litigation, having previously practiced at Fish & Richardson and O'Melveny & Myers. He has litigated patent cases across the country and has been repeatedly recognized as an "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property.

• Richard C. Weinblatt (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: Also a founding partner, Mr. Weinblatt focuses on patent litigation and appellate work, with prior experience at Fish & Richardson. He successfully argued for the reversal of a § 101 dismissal before the Federal Circuit in Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.

• Brian E. Farnan (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: Mr. Farnan frequently serves as Delaware counsel for out-of-state firms in high-stakes patent litigation and has tried numerous cases in Delaware's federal and state courts. He has been recognized by publications including Chambers USA and IAM Patent 1000.

• Michael J. Farnan (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Note: Mr. Farnan's practice includes serving as Delaware counsel in patent cases, and he has been part of teams recovering substantial sums for clients. He is recognized by Chambers and Partners as "Up and Coming."

This legal team composition, combining the lead counsel of a specialized patent litigation boutique with experienced local Delaware counsel, is a common and effective strategy for plaintiffs in the District of Delaware. The same firms have represented other patent assertion entities in the district.

As of May 7, 2026, counsel for defendant General Motors LLC has not yet formally appeared on the docket in VB Assets, LLC v. General Motors LLC, No. 1:24-cv-01279, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The complaint was filed on October 2, 2024, and defendants typically have a set period to respond or file a notice of appearance. Searches of the public docket and legal news databases do not yet show which law firm or specific attorneys have been retained to represent General Motors in this matter.

Based on General Motors' past patent litigation defense, it is common for them to retain counsel from national intellectual property powerhouse firms. Firms known to have represented GM in significant patent disputes include:

• Fish & Richardson P.C.
• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

These firms are frequently paired with specialized Delaware counsel for local court requirements. Prominent Delaware firms with substantial patent litigation practices include Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP; Richards, Layton & Finger PA; and Ashby & Geddes PA.

However, until a notice of appearance is filed on the public docket, any specific firm or attorney would be speculative. This section will be updated once counsel of record for General Motors formally appears in the case.