This case was last updated from PACER on 06/01/2021 at 09:07:46 (UTC).

Vocalife LLC v. Google LLC

Case Summary

On April 2, 2021, Vocalife, LLC (“Vocalife” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Alfred Ross Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos and Vincent J. Rubino, III of Fabricant LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Google LLC (“Google” or “Defendant”), seeking declaratory and monetary relief, with accounting of damages and consequential damages for the infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE47,049 (the “’049 Patent”) and RE48,371 (the “’371 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). This case was filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Eastern District of Texas with Judge Rodney Gilstrap presiding. 

 

For the purposes of this complaint, “the Patents-in-Suit were developed at Li Creative Technologies, Inc. by Dr. Manli Zhu and Dr. Qi (“Peter”) Li who have been at the forefront of audio processing technology for over two decades. Their work resulted in the issuance of the Patents-in-Suit.”

 

In its complaint, Vocalife alleged that “On May 20, 2015, Dr. Li submitted the ’756 Patent to Google’s Patent Purchase Promotion Program. Dr. Li’s submission of the ’756 Patent was declined.” “The Patents-in-Suit generally cover systems and methods for use in a microphone array system. The invention described in the Patents-in-Suit was developed by Dr. Manli Zhu and Dr. Qi Li. For example, the invention is implemented by infringing virtual assistant smart speakers. Upon information and belief, Google makes, uses, sells, and/or imports infringing virtual assistant smart speakers, such as the Google Home products.” “Google has also infringed and is continuing to infringe the Patents-in-Suit by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing, and by actively inducing others to make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or importing, products including microphone array systems technology and associated software that infringe the Patents-in-Suit. Such products include at least the Google Assistant-enabled products including, but not limited to, the Google Home products. Vocalife manufactures and sells the CrispMic II, a smart microphone as a module for voice interactive products. The CrispMic II is a multiple-microphone array module for smart speakers, robotic devices, smart appliances, and other IoT platforms that require far-field voice capture, speech recognition, and voice control. The CrispMic II is powered by Vocalife’s advanced DSP algorithms developed over the past decade to suppress background noise, enhance speech intelligibility, and improve automatic speech recognition accuracy.”

 

Vocalife further alleged that “Vocalife marks the CrispMic II product with the Patents-in-Suit and has complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287.” “Google’s infringement of Patents-in-Suit is willful. Google continues to commit acts of infringement despite a high likelihood that its actions constitute infringement, and Google knew or should have known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement.”

 

There are two claims for relief laid down by Vocalife. The first claim is for the alleged direct and indirect infringement of ’049 Patent. The second claim is for the alleged direct and indirect infringement of ’371 Patent.

 

In its prayer for relief, Vocalife has requested the court to declare that Google has infringed one or more claims of each of the Patents-in-Suit, and the infringement of the Patents-in-Suit is willful; order compensatory damages not less than a reasonable royalty, including supplemental damages post-verdict, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs; order enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284; and award Vocalife its costs and reasonable attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.









Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    2:21-CV-00124

  • Filing Date:

    04/02/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Patent

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Rodney Gilstrap

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Vocalife LLC

Defendant

Google LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Alfred Ross Fabricant

Attorney at Fabricant LLP - NY

230 Park Avenue, 3Rd Floor W.

New York, NY 10169

Peter Lambrianakos

Attorney at Fabricant LLP - NY

230 Park Avenue, 3Rd Floor W.

New York, NY 10169

Vincent J Rubino, III

Attorney at Fabricant LLP - NY

230 Park Avenue, 3Rd Floor W.

New York, NY 10169

Enrique William Iturralde

Attorney at Fabricant LLP - NY

230 Park Avenue, 3Rd Floor W.

New York, NY 10169

Jennifer Leigh Truelove

Attorney at McKool Smith, P.C. - Marshall

104 East Houston St, Suite 300

Marshall, TX 75670

Samuel Franklin Baxter

Attorney at McKool Smith, P.C. - Marshall

104 East Houston St, Suite 300

Marshall, TX 75670

Justine Minseon Park

Attorney at Fabricant LLP - NY

230 Park Avenue, 3Rd Floor W.

New York, NY 10169

Defendant Attorney

Michael E Jones

Attorney at Potter Minton, a Professional Corporation

110 North College Avenue, Suite 500

Tyler, TX 75702

 

Court Documents

#15

#14

#13

#12

#11

#10

#9

#8

#7

#6

#5

#4

#3

#2

1 #4

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #3

Exhibit C

1 #2

Exhibit B

1 #1

Exhibit A

8 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/20/2021
  • DocketDefendant's Unopposed SECOND Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Google LLC to 6/11/2021. 15 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( ch, ) (Entered: 05/20/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • Docket(#15) Defendant's Unopposed Second Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Google LLC.( Jones, Michael) (Entered: 05/20/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2021
  • Docket***FILED IN ERROR. PER ATTORNEY Document # 13, Notice of Appearance. PLEASE IGNORE.*** (ch, ) (Entered: 05/03/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2021
  • Docket(#14) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jennifer Leigh Truelove on behalf of Vocalife LLC (Truelove, Jennifer) (Entered: 05/03/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2021
  • Docket(#13) ***FILED IN ERROR***NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jennifer Leigh Truelove on behalf of Vocalife LLC (Truelove, Jennifer) Modified on 5/3/2021 (ch, ). (Entered: 05/03/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2021
  • Docket(#12) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Samuel Franklin Baxter on behalf of Vocalife LLC (Baxter, Samuel) (Entered: 05/03/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2021
  • Docket(#11) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Justine Minseon Park on behalf of Vocalife LLC (Park, Justine) (Entered: 04/22/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2021
  • Docket(#10) NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Enrique William Iturralde on behalf of Vocalife LLC (Iturralde, Enrique) (Entered: 04/22/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2021
  • DocketDefendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is granted pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for Google LLC to 5/27/2021. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( nkl, ) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2021
  • Docket(#9) Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re Google LLC.( Jones, Michael) (Entered: 04/08/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
9 More Docket Entries
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Vocalife LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Google LLC is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Michael E Jones