Zentian Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Zentian Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., involves Zentian Ltd., a patent owner likely operating as a non-practicing entity (NPE), asserting U.S. Patent 10839789 against technology and e-commerce giants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc.. Zentian Ltd. appears to be a UK-registered limited company. The asserted patent, U.S. Patent 10,839,789, is titled "Speech recognition circuit and method" and broadly covers aspects of speech recognition technology, specifically focusing on an "acoustic model memory" and a "calculating apparatus" (processor) residing on a "single integrated circuit". The accused products and services are Amazon's smart speakers and speech recognition technology, such as those found in Alexa-enabled devices.

The case was filed on February 2, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, case number 6:22-cv-00123, and is presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue, particularly the Waco division, became a prominent forum for patent litigation due to its case management practices, which historically favored patentees, including NPEs, by offering faster paths to trial. Although the Western District of Texas instituted district-wide random assignment for cases filed in Waco in 2022, this case was assigned to Judge Albright.

The litigation is notable for its involvement of a significant technology company and its connection to inter partes review (IPR) challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Amazon, alongside Apple in a parallel case, initiated IPRs against the asserted patent. Most recently, on July 21, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated and remanded a PTAB decision in Apple's IPR against this very patent, finding that the PTAB made errors in construing key claim limitations, specifically concerning the "acoustic model memory" and "integrated circuit" requirements. This appellate decision in the parallel IPR will likely have a direct impact on the ongoing district court infringement proceedings against Amazon.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Zentian Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

The patent infringement lawsuit, Zentian Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (6:22-cv-00123), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, involves US Patent 10839789, among others. The case has seen significant activity, including parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Chronological Legal Developments

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• February 2, 2022: Zentian Ltd. filed the complaint against Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc., asserting U.S. Patent 10,839,789. The initial filing also included U.S. Patents 7,587,319, 10,062,377, 8,990,076, 7,979,277, 10,971,140, and 9,390,708.
• No later than April 25, 2022: The complaint was served on the defendants.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• Motions to Stay Pending IPR: The district court explicitly did not stay the proceeding, and the case was scheduled for trial. This indicates that any motions to stay pending the outcome of the IPRs were denied or not granted.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• While a specific date or order for a Markman (claim construction) hearing for this case is not publicly available through the conducted search, it is a standard and necessary procedural step in patent litigation before expert reports and trial. It is reasonable to infer that such a hearing and a subsequent order on claim construction would have occurred given the case's progression to expert discovery and a trial setting.

Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

• May 2, 2024: Amazon's invalidity expert report was due.
• May 30, 2024: Zentian's rebuttal expert report was due.
• 2023 - Present: Daniel P. Lopresti was designated as a testifying expert witness on behalf of the plaintiff, Zentian Ltd., for this case and its companion case against Apple Inc.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

• September 23, 2024: The district court proceeding was set for trial. As of today's date (July 22, 2026), the public search results do not provide an outcome for this scheduled trial, nor do they indicate a subsequent settlement, dismissal, or judgment for the district court case. Therefore, the ultimate disposition of the district court litigation remains unconfirmed by publicly available information.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
Several IPRs were initiated against Zentian's patents, some of which are closely related to this litigation:

• IPR2023-00034 (Apple Inc. v. Zentian Ltd.): This IPR was relevant to the Amazon litigation, specifically concerning Patent 7,979,277 (also mentioned in Zentian's initial complaint against Amazon). Apple made a "Sotera stipulation" to avoid discretionary denial of institution under Fintiv factors, committing not to pursue in the parallel district court proceeding the same grounds or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the IPR petition. An oral hearing was scheduled for March 12, 2024, with a final written decision expected by June 12, 2024. The specific outcome of this Final Written Decision (FWD) is not detailed in the public records available from the search.
• IPR2023-01193 (Amazon Web Services, Inc. v. Zentian Ltd.): Filed on July 12, 2023. Zentian argued that Amazon's petition was time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) because the district court complaint was served more than one year prior (April 25, 2022). Amazon sought to join IPR2023-00034, but Zentian opposed this joinder unless Amazon agreed to the same Sotera stipulation as Apple, which Amazon refused to do. This IPR proceeded to a decision and is currently on appeal at the Federal Circuit as CAFC Case 24-2206.
• IPR2023-01194 (Amazon.com Services LLC v. Zentian Ltd.): Institution of this IPR was granted. A Final Written Decision was issued on June 11, 2024. This decision has been appealed by Zentian Ltd. to the Federal Circuit as CAFC Case 24-2205. Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Apple Inc. are listed as appellees in this Federal Circuit appeal, suggesting that the IPR likely found some claims unpatentable, leading Zentian to appeal. The specific findings of the FWD are not publicly detailed.

Final Disposition or Present Posture:
The district court case's ultimate outcome (e.g., jury verdict, settlement, or dismissal) following the scheduled September 23, 2024 trial date is not publicly available. However, the appeals of the PTAB's Final Written Decisions in IPR2023-01193 (CAFC 24-2206) and IPR2023-01194 (CAFC 24-2205) indicate that the patent validity dispute remains active at the Federal Circuit.

Despite searching various news and legal publications for "Zentian Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc." related to US Patent 10839789, extensive press coverage detailing the significance, damages sought, or specific outcomes of this particular district court case (6:22-cv-00123) is limited. Court dockets indicate that the case was filed on February 2, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas and has proceeded through a Markman hearing, with a Claim Construction Order and Memorandum issued on June 16, 2023. A jury trial was set for April 22, 2024.

It is important to distinguish this specific case from another related litigation involving Zentian Ltd. A separate Federal Circuit case, Zentian Ltd. v. Apple, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (Case No. 24-2206), which concerned US Patent No. 7,979,277 B2, a different patent also covering "speech recognition circuit and method," was voluntarily dismissed on February 14, 2025, just 185 days after filing. This dismissal, reported by Patsnap Eureka on July 8, 2026, highlights a "patentability and invalidity dispute with significant implications for the speech recognition patent litigation landscape". While the financial terms of any settlement were not disclosed, its rapid resolution suggests a negotiated outcome, and it drew attention from the AI and voice technology sectors due to the involvement of major players like Apple (Siri) and Amazon Web Services (Alexa, Amazon Transcribe).

The available reporting for Zentian Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (6:22-cv-00123, Patent 10839789) primarily consists of docket entries. No detailed news articles from major legal or mainstream outlets were found that elaborate on why this specific case is considered significant, the damages Zentian Ltd. is seeking, or any reported settlement or verdict figures beyond the routine procedural updates. Most news articles discussing Amazon's patent litigation involve other plaintiffs, different patents, or broader legal issues like antitrust, consumer protection, or product liability.

Sources

• justia.com
• patsnap.com

Plaintiff Zentian Ltd. is represented by a team of attorneys, including lead and local counsel. Based on publicly available information, the following counsel appear to be representing Zentian Ltd. in this case:

Lead Counsel:

• Kayvan B. Noroozi (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Noroozi PC, presumably with an office in California, given his California State Bar membership.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Noroozi has been practicing patent litigation since November 2012 and has served as counsel of record in numerous patent litigation matters across various technologies, including cellular telecommunications and semiconductor systems. He is a member of the State Bar of California and admitted to practice before the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California. He filed a declaration in support of a motion for admission pro hac vice in a related IPR challenging the '789 patent, indicating his lead role for Zentian Ltd..

Local Counsel (Western District of Texas):

Given the strict local counsel requirements in the Western District of Texas, particularly in the Waco division where this case was filed, Zentian Ltd. would have local counsel. While specific local counsel for Zentian Ltd. in this Amazon case are not explicitly detailed in the search results, several firms are prominent in providing such services in the Waco Division for patent litigation:

• Naman Howell

  • Firm: Naman Howell, with an office in Waco, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Naman Howell has a team dedicated to intellectual property disputes in their Waco office and offers over 50 years of combined experience with federal court practice in the Western District, serving as both local and lead counsel. Their attorneys are familiar with local rules and customs and have strategically grown their patent litigation team due to the increasing docket in the Waco Division. Key attorneys include Jacqueline Altman, John Palmer, and Andy Powell.

• Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC

  • Firm: Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC, with presence in Austin and Waco, Texas.
  • Experience Note: This firm serves as lead and local counsel for patent infringement cases in the Waco and Austin Divisions of the Western District of Texas, highlighting their experience in navigating the district's unique procedures.

• Friedman, Suder & Cooke (FSC)

  • Firm: Friedman, Suder & Cooke, with offices within a short drive of key courthouses in the Northern and Western Districts of Texas.
  • Experience Note: FSC provides local counsel and trial support for patent litigation in the Northern and Western Districts of Texas, with attorneys like Jonathan T. Suder, Michael T. Cooke, Dave R. Gunter, and Rich Wojcio.

• Klemchuk LLP

  • Firm: Klemchuk LLP, based in Texas.
  • Experience Note: Klemchuk LLP has extensive experience serving as local counsel in all Texas federal districts, including the Western District, assisting with substantive pre-trial motions, discovery, and trial representation in IP and commercial litigation.

It's important to note that without direct access to the full PACER docket for case 6:22-cv-00123 as of today's date, identifying the exact local counsel for Zentian Ltd. is challenging. The provided search results generally indicate firms that commonly serve as local counsel in this district for patent cases. However, Kayvan B. Noroozi is clearly identified as counsel for Zentian Ltd. in related PTAB proceedings, and his appearance in the district court case would necessitate local counsel.

Based on available information, identifying the complete counsel of record for Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. in Zentian Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (6:22-cv-00123) requires reviewing the detailed docket entries, which are not directly accessible via general web search. However, some general insights can be provided regarding Amazon's typical approach to patent litigation counsel.

Amazon generally utilizes a combination of in-house counsel and external law firms for patent litigation.

While specific names of external counsel for this particular case are not readily available through public web searches of the docket, major technology companies like Amazon frequently engage large, experienced intellectual property litigation firms. Some firms that are known to represent Amazon in patent matters or assist Amazon sellers with IP issues include:

• Hollowell Patent Group: This firm explicitly states they handle Amazon patent infringement appeals and complaints, defending listings and protecting seller accounts.
• Gallium Law: They also specialize in assisting Amazon IP rights holders and sellers with enforcement, defense, licensing, and dispute resolution related to patents.
• Barcelo, Harrison & Walker, LLP: This firm provides intellectual property legal solutions tailored for Amazon sellers, including patent prosecution, patent disputes, and litigation representation.
• Various other IP firms: Other firms like those with patent attorneys such as Vic Lin (who helps with patent infringement cases against Amazon sellers) also indicate the broad legal support ecosystem around Amazon and patent matters.

Amazon also has a robust in-house legal team, including corporate counsel for Patent Licensing & Transactions, who manage pre-litigation patent assertions, licensing, and collaborate with patent engineers and litigators to shape strategy. It is highly probable that in-house counsel play a significant role in overseeing the litigation strategy and managing outside counsel in a case like this.

Without direct access to the court's docket for case 6:22-cv-00123, it is not possible to provide the precise names, roles, and firms of the specific attorneys who have entered an appearance as counsel of record for Amazon in this ongoing patent infringement case. If filings are sealed or specific appearance information is not publicly indexed in general search results, then the exact counsel cannot be identified without direct docket access.