Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.
2:19-cv-00123
E.D. Tex.Apr 6, 2020Background
- Vocalife sued Amazon alleging infringement of U.S. Reissue Patent RE47,049 ("microphone array system") asserting claims directed to enhancing a target sound using an array of sound sensors, a digital signal processor (DSP) integrating a sound-source localization unit, adaptive beamforming unit, and noise reduction unit.
- Claim 1 recites providing an array ("linear, circular, or other configuration"), receiving sounds, "determining a delay … wherein said determination of said delay enables beamforming," estimating spatial location, performing adaptive beamforming to steer a directivity pattern, and noise reduction.
- The parties disputed multiple claim constructions and definiteness issues (e.g., meaning/scope of "determining a delay…", "digital signal processor", "sound source localization unit" and whether §112 ¶6 applies), and the court held a claim-construction hearing on March 24, 2020.
- Key factual/prosecution context: patentee distinguished prior art (Tashev, Erten) during prosecution; specification contains embodiments and some definitions (e.g., "target sound signal") and describes algorithms (SRP‑PHAT, TDOA, SRP) and "auditory transform" concepts.
- The court issued a detailed Markman opinion construing terms largely to their plain and ordinary meaning with targeted clarifications (e.g., DSP, geometric "configurations", meaning of 2D vs 3D plane, adaptive beamforming capability) and rejected several proposed narrowing limitations and means-plus-function treatment for the localization unit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution disclaimer excluded an approach of "identifying the direction exhibiting maximum energy among beams" from the "determining a delay … enables beamforming" limitation | No disclaimer; patentee merely distinguished Tashev for not teaching the claimed delay calculation | Prosecution statements disclaimed the max‑energy/beamsearch approach and thus that approach should be excluded | Court: No clear, unmistakable disclaimer; term given plain and ordinary meaning (no exclusion) |
| "digital signal processor" — is it any processor that processes digital signals or a specialized DSP? | Plain meaning: device that processes digital signals; no negative limitation excluding ARM/x86 | DSP is a term of art: a microprocessor specialized for mathematical signal processing; should exclude generic standard microprocessors | Court: construes as "microprocessor that is specialized for mathematical processing of digital signals" (rejects overly broad plain‑English construction and also rejects strict negative exclusion of ARM/x86) |
| "for said array ... in a plurality of configurations" — geometric vs broader meanings | Broad/plain meaning (not limited to physical layouts) | Refers to physical/geometric layouts (linear, circular, etc.) | Court: means "a plurality of geometric layouts of the sound sensors" (ties to claim context) |
| "origin of said array" — may a sensor be at the origin? | Plain meaning; origin can be any reference point (sensor may be located at origin) | Origin must be a point where no sensor is located because angles would be undefined otherwise | Court: plain and ordinary meaning; rejects negative limitation — a sensor at the origin is not excluded |
| "steering a directivity pattern" — requires changing direction? | Plain meaning; "steering" need not require an actual change of direction | Requires changing the directivity pattern to point toward target | Court: plain and ordinary meaning; "steering" does not necessarily mandate an actual change in direction |
| "target sound signal" — is it defined in spec and limited to speech? | No need to construe; should not be limited to exemplary embodiment | Specification defines "target sound signal" as sound from a desired/target source, e.g., a person’s speech | Court: adopts the definitional core but excludes the exemplary speech limitation — "sound signal from a desired or target sound source" |
| "sound source localization unit" — is this means‑plus‑function under §112 ¶6 and, if so, what is corresponding structure? | Not governed by §112 ¶6: term denotes structure (unit integrated in DSP) and claims supply operational context; if §112 ¶6 applied, multiple algorithms (not just SRP‑PHAT) correspond | §112 ¶6 applies (nonce "unit" + function); structure is the SRP‑PHAT algorithm disclosed | Court: not governed by §112 ¶6; term is structural and given plain and ordinary meaning (no means‑plus‑function treatment) |
| "adaptive beamforming" — requires target in motion and must include beam steering and null steering? | Should not be limited to moving targets or forced to include both beam and null steering; claim language and dependent claims show motion is optional | Spec definition says adaptive beamforming "refers to" steering toward a moving target and adaptively performs beam and null steering; thus should be construed to require those features | Court: construes as a capability — "a beamforming process where the directivity pattern ... is capable of being adaptively steered in the direction of a target sound signal emitted by a target sound source in motion" (capability, not a requirement to always be moving or to mandatorily perform null steering) |
| Whether claim steps (Claims 1 & 20) must be performed in the recited order | Steps may be performed in any order or concurrently except where claims explicitly require sequence | Steps require the recited order (defendants initially urged strict ordering) | Court: rejects special ordering apart from any explicit ordering in the claim language; no additional sequencing imposed |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims construed in light of intrinsic evidence; ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art)
- Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. 318 (2015) (courts may consult extrinsic evidence to understand technical terms and make subsidiary factual findings)
- Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014) (definiteness standard: claims must inform with reasonable certainty)
- Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (means‑plus‑function presumption and analysis)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (means‑plus‑function claim construction steps: identify function then corresponding structure)
- Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claim language governs construction)
- Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (specification usually dispositive for claim construction)