VB Assets, LLC v. SoundHound AI, Inc.

An overview of this patent infringement litigation reveals a targeted assertion by a non-practicing entity (NPE) against a key player in the voice recognition industry. The plaintiff, VB Assets, LLC, is a patent assertion entity that holds and litigates patents originally developed by VoiceBox Technologies, a company described as a pioneer in conversational AI. The defendant, SoundHound AI, Inc., is a prominent operating company that develops and sells voice AI and speech recognition software. The lawsuit alleges that SoundHound's core technology—specifically the SoundHound Voice AI platform, its music and chat applications, and enterprise solutions—infringes on a portfolio of patents related to natural language processing and voice command technology.

The litigation is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (D. Del.), a popular and influential venue for patent cases due to its experienced judiciary and the fact that many U.S. corporations are incorporated there. The case (1:24-cv-01279) is assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika, and as of early 2026, the parties are engaged in claim construction, the process of defining the specific meaning of patent terms that will be used for the remainder of the case. VB Assets has asserted six patents against SoundHound, all related to conversational AI:

• U.S. Patent No. 8,886,536: "System and method for providing dynamic context-sensitive grammar for a speech recognition system" relates to updating the vocabulary of a speech recognition system based on the context of the conversation.
• U.S. Patent No. 8,073,681: "System and method for a cooperative conversational voice user interface" describes a voice-controlled user interface that uses context and shared knowledge to understand user utterances.
• U.S. Patent No. 9,269,097: This patent, which sources indicate has been part of a previous jury verdict against Amazon, generally relates to conversational voice user interfaces.
• U.S. Patent No. 9,502,025: While a search did not yield a specific technical abstract for this patent number, it is part of the same family of conversational AI patents asserted by VB Assets in other litigations. Its specific contribution is not well-sourced.
• U.S. Patent No. 11,087,385: The technical details of this patent are not readily available in the search results but it is identified as part of the broader assertion campaign.
• U.S. Patent No. 11,222,626: Similarly, this patent is part of the asserted portfolio, with specific technical details not clearly available from the search results.

This case is notable as part of a broader litigation campaign by VB Assets against major technology companies that utilize voice assistants. VB Assets has filed similar suits against Amazon, Apple, Samsung, and most recently Google, asserting overlapping patents. The action against SoundHound is particularly significant because it is being overseen by Judge Noreika, the same judge who presided over VB Assets' successful jury trial against Amazon, which resulted in a verdict of over $40 million for infringement of related patents. This history suggests a proven litigation strategy and places significant pressure on SoundHound as it defends against claims from a well-financed and experienced patent plaintiff.

Legal Developments & Case Outcome

As of May 2026, VB Assets, LLC v. SoundHound AI, Inc. remains an active case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, with the parties currently engaged in the early stages of claim construction. The litigation's progression has been methodical, marked by standard procedural steps and a narrowing of the asserted patents.

Chronological Developments:

• 2024-11-21: Complaint Filed. VB Assets, LLC initiated the lawsuit, accusing SoundHound AI, Inc. of infringing six patents through its Voice AI platform and related applications. The asserted patents were U.S. Patent Nos. 8,073,681; 8,886,536; 9,269,097; 9,502,025; 11,087,385; and 11,222,626. The case was assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika, who notably presided over VB Assets' successful trial against Amazon involving related patents.
• 2025-01-16: Motion to Dismiss. In lieu of an answer, SoundHound filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a common early defense strategy in patent litigation. The briefing for this motion appears to have been rendered moot by subsequent amended pleadings.
• 2026-03-05: Second Amended Complaint. Following stipulations between the parties, VB Assets filed a Second Amended Complaint. This is often done to cure potential pleading deficiencies or adjust the asserted claims or patents.
• 2026-03-06: Answer and Counterclaims. SoundHound filed its answer to the amended complaint, denying infringement and asserting counterclaims against VB Assets. In patent cases, counterclaims typically seek a declaratory judgment that the patents are invalid and not infringed.
• 2026-03-18: Partial Dismissal of One Patent. The parties stipulated to the dismissal of all claims and counterclaims related to U.S. Patent No. 9,502,025. Judge Noreika signed the order, formally removing the '025 patent from the litigation. This action narrows the scope of the case to the five remaining patents.
• 2026-03-09: Claim Construction Schedule Set. The court ordered a schedule for the claim construction process, which determines the legal scope of the patent claims. The parties subsequently agreed to extend the deadline for identifying key terms and exchanging proposed constructions to May 28, 2026.

Current Posture & Next Steps:

The case is in the claim construction stage. The parties are preparing for the Markman hearing, a critical pre-trial proceeding where the judge hears arguments and rules on the meaning of disputed patent claim terms. According to the docket, a Case Management Conference is scheduled for September 17, 2026, and the Claim Construction Hearing is set for January 7, 2027.

No substantive motions for summary judgment or motions to stay have been filed or decided as of early May 2026. The case has not proceeded to discovery disputes of public note, trial, or final judgment.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

A search of PTAB records did not reveal any inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by SoundHound AI against the patents asserted in this litigation, including the '536 patent. It is common for defendants in patent suits to challenge the validity of asserted patents at the PTAB. While SoundHound has not yet taken this step, other defendants sued by VB Assets, such as Amazon, have filed IPRs against patents from the same family. Should SoundHound file IPRs, it could lead to a motion to stay the district court case pending the PTAB's review. The absence of such filings to date allows the district court litigation to proceed without interruption from parallel administrative challenges.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

VB Assets, LLC has retained a team of experienced patent litigators from both a national firm known for plaintiff-side patent cases and a well-regarded Delaware firm for local counsel. The team has a history of representing VoiceBox Technologies and its successor, VB Assets, in its broad litigation campaign.

• Name: Stamatios "Stam" M. Stamoulis

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)

• Note: Stamoulis is a veteran Delaware patent litigator who has represented VB Assets in its successful litigation against Amazon before the same judge, Judge Noreika.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

• Role: Of Counsel

• Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)

• Note: Weinblatt frequently collaborates with Stamoulis on patent cases in Delaware and was also counsel in the related Amazon litigation.

• Name: Brian E. Farnan

• Role: Local Counsel

• Firm: Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)

• Note: Farnan is a prominent Delaware local counsel, son of a former D. Del. judge, and has extensive experience in the district's patent litigation landscape.

• Name: Michael J. Farnan

• Role: Local Counsel

• Firm: Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)

• Note: Michael Farnan, like his brother Brian, is frequently retained as local counsel in significant Delaware patent disputes.

• Name: Robert A. Cote

• Role: Lead Counsel

• Firm: McKool Smith (Austin, TX)

• Note: Cote has been a central figure in the VB Assets (formerly VoiceBox) litigation campaign for years, serving as lead counsel in the successful jury trial against Amazon.

• Name: Scott R. Cole

• Role: Of Counsel

• Firm: McKool Smith (Los Angeles, CA)

• Note: Cole is a principal at McKool Smith with a focus on intellectual property and commercial litigation and was part of the trial team against Amazon.

• Name: Christopher P. De La Cruz

• Role: Of Counsel

• Firm: McKool Smith (Austin, TX)

• Note: De La Cruz is an associate at McKool Smith whose practice focuses on patent litigation. His involvement in this case continues the firm's representation of the VoiceBox patent portfolio.

Initial appearances for the plaintiff were filed on October 25, 2024, by Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC and Farnan LLP. The pro hac vice motions for the McKool Smith attorneys were filed shortly thereafter, indicating their lead role in the proceedings. This counsel structure, combining a national trial firm with experienced Delaware local counsel, is typical for major patent litigation in this district.

Counsel for Defendant SoundHound AI, Inc.

SoundHound AI, Inc. has retained a team from the law firm Perkins Coie LLP to lead its defense in this patent infringement action. The specific attorneys who have filed notices of appearance on the docket are listed below.

• Name: Christina L. Richards

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP (Seattle, WA)
  • Experience Note: Richards is a seasoned patent litigator with extensive experience defending technology companies in complex infringement cases, including those involving AI and software.

• Name: Scott M. E. Carlson

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP (Seattle, WA)
  • Experience Note: Carlson has over two decades of experience in patent litigation and has represented major technology clients in federal courts across the country and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Name: Stephen C. Chang

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP (Palo Alto, CA)
  • Experience Note: Chang focuses his practice on patent litigation for software and high-tech companies, bringing experience from numerous cases in key patent venues like the District of Delaware.

• Name: R. Ryan Bonham

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience Note: As a partner in the Wilmington office, Bonham frequently serves as Delaware counsel in patent disputes, providing essential expertise on local court rules and practices.

• Name: April L. Abele Isaacson

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience Note: Isaacson is a director in the Wilmington office and has significant experience serving as Delaware counsel in patent infringement litigation before the District Court.

As of the current date, no in-house counsel for SoundHound AI, Inc. has formally filed a notice of appearance on the public docket (D. Del. Case No. 1:24-cv-01279). The defense is being managed externally by the team at Perkins Coie LLP.