Apple iDevices Targeted in new Patent Troll Lawsuit
Two New Highly Detailed iPhone 5S Touch ID Patents Surface

Apple's Siri on iDevices Targeted in new Patent Lawsuit

5. Patently Legal
A Connecticut company by the name of Voice Domain Technologies has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple. The patent infringement lawsuit concerns Apple's Siri.


Plaintiff Voice Domain Technologies, LLC is a Connecticut limited liability company founded by inventor Bruce Barker in 1999. Mr. Barker is the inventor of several patents relating to portable data entry, voice dictation, and digital recording devices, and Voice Domain is the assignee of his inventions. The company is suing Apple with 2001 patent 6,281,883 titled "Data Entry Device."


2. Voice Domain Technologies Sues Apple with Patent 6,281,883

Overview of the Formal Complaint


Voice Domain Technologies formal complaint alleges that Apple has infringed, and continues to infringe their patent by "manufacturing, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing products that embody the patented invention described and claimed in the '883 Patent through the inclusion of the Siri functionality in devices, including, but not limited to iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5C, iPhone 5S, iPad (3rd generation), iPad (Fourth generation), iPad Air, iPad Mini (First generation), iPad Mini (second generation), and iPod Touch (Fifth generation) ("the infringing products") throughout the United States.


Technically speaking, the infringing products allegedly embody a data entry system comprising a handheld peripheral and a processing system wherein the handheld peripheral comprises a microphone for providing a microphone signal representative of a user's voice, as described and claimed in the '883 Patent; wherein the handheld peripheral comprises a voice command button for providing a command notification signal indicating whether the voice command button is asserted; wherein the handheld peripheral comprises a voice data button for providing a data notification signal indicating whether the voice data button is asserted; wherein the handheld peripheral comprises a cursor position transducer for providing a cursor signal representative of a desired cursor position on a display screen of a processing system; wherein the handheld peripheral comprises a coupling mechanism for providing a microphone signal, a command notification signal, a data notification signal, and a cursor signal to a processing system; wherein the processing system comprises a microphone interpretation mechanism which, in response to command and data notification signals, determines when the microphone signal represents command and when it represents data, as described and claimed in the '883 Patent.


According to Voice Domain Technologies, "Apple obtained actual notice of its infringement of the '883 Patent on or about January 11, 2013. 21. Apple's conduct constitutes willful infringement, as Apple has acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the '883 Patent, and Apple knew or should have known that its actions held an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of the 883 Patent."


Stating "Willful infringement" means that the Plaintiff is asking the judge to punish Apple by trippling the damages if they're found to be guilty of infringement. 


The patent infringement case presented in today's report was filed in the Massachusetts District Court, Worcester Office. At present, no Judge has been assigned to the case.


PA - Bar - Notice

Patently Apple presents only a brief summary of certain legal cases/ lawsuits which are part of the public record for journalistic news purposes. Readers are cautioned that Patently Apple does not offer an opinion on the merit of the case and strictly presents the allegations made in said legal cases / lawsuits. A lawyer should be consulted for any further details or analysis. About Comments: Patently Apple reserves the right to post, dismiss or edit comments. On most legal cases, comments will be closed. See our Legal Archives for other patent infringement cases.




The comments to this entry are closed.