VB Assets LLC v. Success Foods Management Group LLC

VB Assets LLC, operating as Voicebox Tech, has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Success Foods Management Group LLC in the Eastern District of Texas. VB Assets LLC is identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) that owns and licenses a portfolio of intellectual property covering innovations in voice assistants and conversational AI, originating from Voicebox Technologies Inc., an early pioneer in this field. Voicebox Technologies developed speech recognition and natural language technologies, with past customers including Toyota and Samsung, and was acquired by Nuance Communications in 2018. VB Assets was formed by former employees and investors of VoiceBox to manage and assert these patents. In contrast, Success Foods Management Group LLC operates the "Torchy's Tacos" restaurant chain, is involved in real estate development in the Midland-Odessa area, and is based in Austin, TX. There is no publicly available information directly linking Success Foods Management Group LLC or Torchy's Tacos to voice AI technology or indicating what specific product or service is accused of infringing US Patent 8527274. This lack of a clear connection between a conversational AI patent and a restaurant management group makes the specific grounds for infringement in this case currently unclear from public records.

The asserted patent, US Patent 8527274, is titled "Systems and methods for responding to natural language speech utterance". A one-line technical sketch describes it as covering systems and methods for receiving and processing natural language speech and non-speech communications to execute questions and commands, utilizing context, prior information, domain knowledge, and user-specific profile data for a natural user experience across multiple domains. This patent falls within the core technology area of Voicebox, which focused on conversational voice technology for various applications.

The case, 2:25-cv-00621, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue known for its high volume of patent litigation filings, particularly by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs). The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a popular forum for patent plaintiffs due to its case management culture that often leads to faster progression to trial and a reputation for juries that issue significant damage awards. The specific judge assigned to this case is not immediately identifiable from the provided search results, but patent cases in this district are often heard by judges known for their experience in patent law. This particular case is notable due to the highly unusual pairing of a patent assertion entity focused on advanced conversational AI with a defendant primarily known for operating a restaurant chain. This suggests either an indirect infringement theory, a claim against a specific technology used by the restaurant (e.g., a voice ordering system), or a broad interpretation of the patent claims against general business operations that may incorporate some form of voice technology. VB Assets has a history of successful litigation against major tech companies, including a $46.7 million jury verdict against Amazon related to its Alexa products. This case extends VB Assets' assertion pattern beyond traditional tech companies to a seemingly unrelated industry, making it noteworthy for its potential implications for businesses that might unknowingly incorporate patented voice technologies.

Key Legal Developments in VB Assets LLC v. Success Foods Management Group LLC

This patent infringement lawsuit, filed by VB Assets LLC against Success Foods Management Group LLC, is currently active in the Eastern District of Texas under Judge Rodney Gilstrap. As of June 1, 2026, the case is in its relatively early stages, approximately one year after filing.

Chronological Summary of Developments:

• 2025-06-11: Case Filing
  VB Assets LLC, operating as Voicebox Tech, filed a patent infringement complaint against Success Foods Management Group LLC (doing business as Torchy's Tacos) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00621. The lawsuit asserts infringement of US Patent 8527274, along with potentially other patents such as US10510341B1, US12236456B2, and US8145489B2. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

• Initial Pleadings (Details Not Publicly Available)
  While the complaint was filed, specific details regarding the defendant's answer, any counterclaims, or the timeline for these initial pleadings are not available through general public web searches. The case docket shows activity as late as April 20, 2026, but without specifics of the entries.

• Pre-Trial Motions of Substance
  As of the current date, no information regarding substantive pre-trial motions such as motions to dismiss, transfer, stay pending IPR, or for summary judgment in this specific case has been identified in publicly accessible records.

• Claim Construction (Markman)
  The case has not yet reached the claim construction (Markman) stage, nor have any outcomes been publicly reported.

• Discovery Milestones
  No specific strategic discovery milestones have been publicly reported for this case.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions
  Given the filing date and current posture, the case has not proceeded to trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal
  The case remains active and open as of the latest available information. There has been no reported settlement, dismissal, or judgment.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

A direct search for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically targeting US Patent 8527274 by Success Foods Management Group LLC, or any other party, did not yield any results in publicly available PTAB databases. While VB Assets LLC is involved in other extensive patent litigation, including IPRs against different patents (e.g., IPR2025-01365 against US10297249B2 and IPR2025-01167 against US11087385B2 by [Amazon.com Services LLC](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Amazon.com%20Services%20LLC)), there is no public record of a PTAB challenge against the 8527274 patent. It is noteworthy that US Patent 8527274 is also being asserted by VB Assets LLC in a separate patent infringement lawsuit against Google LLC (Case No. 1:26-cv-00443) filed in the District of Delaware on April 17, 2026.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff VB Assets LLC

In the patent infringement case VB Assets LLC v. Success Foods Management Group LLC (2:25-cv-00621) in the Eastern District of Texas, Shaun W. Hassett has appeared as counsel for the plaintiff.

• Name: Shaun W. Hassett
• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Potter Minton
• Office Location: Tyler, Texas
• Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Mr. Hassett's practice focuses on complex patent litigation, encompassing a wide array of technologies such as wireless and telecommunications devices, semiconductors, computer systems, and network security. He has significant experience litigating in the Eastern District of Texas, as well as other District and State Courts throughout Texas, California, and Delaware, and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. His notable experience includes obtaining a stipulation of non-infringement for a major computer and electronics manufacturer and securing a defendant's jury verdict and favorable appeal outcome in an Eastern District of Texas patent case. He was recognized as a "Texas Super Lawyer Rising Star" from 2017-2022.

I'll research the defense counsel for Success Foods Management Group LLC in this case.

Let me dig deeper into the defense counsel names appearing on the docket and the case status.

Defendant's Counsel of Record — VB Assets LLC v. Success Foods Management Group LLC, 2:25-cv-00621 (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: The public docket shows two attorneys have appeared for Defendant Success Foods Management Group, LLC d/b/a Torchy's Tacos. Melissa R. Smith of Gillam & Smith, LLP (Marshall, Texas) is the attorney of record who filed the defendant's substantive papers; Kevin Brown is the other name appearing for the defendant, on the first extension application. Notably, no formal "Notice of Attorney Appearance" for the defense appears in the public docket snapshot I retrieved, and the record is thin — direct PACER review is warranted.

Attorneys identified on the docket

Important caveats

• Sourcing limit. These names come from the Justia docket mirror for this case, which states it was last retrieved on August 8, 2025 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2025cv00621/[238518](/patent/238518)). Any appearances, substitutions, or notices filed after that date — including any pro hac vice applications, co-counsel, or in-house counsel entries — are not captured in the sources available to me. The docket entries themselves confirm the filer names (Melissa Smith on Dkts. 10–12; Kevin Brown on Dkt. 8) and the fact that both defendant-side filings reference the defendant's full name, but they do not list firm affiliations, which is why I have flagged Mr. Brown's firm as unverified.
• No sealed-filing inference should be drawn automatically. The defense filings at Dkts. 10–12 appear to be ordinary public filings (answer, corporate disclosure, jury demand), and the docket does not indicate that counsel identities are under seal. The gap is simply a stale public docket snapshot, not a sealing order.
• Discrepancy to flag. The Ex Parte case-tracking page for 2:25-cv-00621 lists the case Status as "Closed" (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/txed/2:25-cv-00621/vb-assets-llc-v-success-foods-management-group-llc), which conflicts with the case metadata here ("Active") and with the previously generated "Key legal developments" section. I could not resolve this discrepancy within the available searches; it may be a third-party data artifact. A PACER docket pull is the appropriate way to confirm the current posture and the complete counsel-of-record list.
• Potential indemnity counsel (speculative). The previously generated summary and the complaint analysis both indicate the accused "Torchy's Tacos Voice AI Smart Ordering Systems" are powered by SoundHound AI, Inc. (Compl. ¶¶45–46). If the defendant tendered its defense to SoundHound under an indemnity obligation, separate or additional counsel could enter the case. I found no public evidence of such an appearance or tender, so this is noted only as a risk factor for the counsel picture, not as a fact.

Practical recommendation

To finalize the counsel-of-record list, pull the live docket for 2:25-cv-00621 in E.D. Tex. (Judge Rodney Gilstrap) and check: (1) the full "Attorneys" / participant list at the top of the docket sheet, (2) any Notice of Attorney Appearance or Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice for the defendant filed after Aug. 8, 2025, and (3) whether Mr. Brown's entry was superseded by Ms. Smith's firm as lead. If the docket remains unchanged, Melissa R. Smith (Gillam & Smith LLP) should be treated as defendant's counsel of record, with Kevin Brown as an additional attorney appearing for the defendant whose affiliation is unconfirmed.