CAFC says Amazon’s Alexa does not infringe voice technology patent
Appeals court denies tech giant’s claim that patent is unenforceable due to ‘inequitable conduct’ | Freshub fails to prove Alexa shopping list feature fell within scope of patent | Judge Albright denies Freshub’s ‘baseless’ allegations of antisemitism, orders attorneys to attend legal ethics training.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has ruled that Amazon did not infringe a voice-processing patent owned by Freshub in its Alexa devices, while denying Amazon’s attempt to get the patent invalidated.
Yesterday (February 26), the CAFC also rejected Freshub’s allegation that Amazon’s attorneys made prejudicial statements about it being an Israeli company at the trial, which took place at the US District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Smart kitchen commerce company Freshub sued Amazon in 2019 in Texas, claiming that the tech giant had infringed patents covering voice-processing technology, including US patent number 9,908,153.
Amazon denied infringement and said that the ‘153 patent should be declared unenforceable based on “inequitable conduct” allegedly committed by Freshub’s parent company, Ikan.
Amazon alleged that Ikan had intentionally misrepresented to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that the parent application of the ‘153 patent had been unintentionally abandoned, when it had instead been intentionally abandoned.
A Texas jury found that Amazon had not infringed Freshub’s patents and rejected Amazon’s invalidity challenge, and the district court later denied Freshub’s post-trial motions contesting the verdict.
‘Baseless anti-semitic attacks’
Freshub sought a new trial for reasons including the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a), stating that Amazon had made prejudicial statements at trial, with references to the fact that it was an Israeli company.
This included allegations that Amazon “advanced ‘us versus them’ arguments along national and religious lines that biased the jury” and “blew this Jewish stereotype ‘dog whistle’ at every opportunity”.
Denying this motion in December 2021, US District Judge Alan Albright wrote that these “serious allegations are particularly disturbing” and deemed the claims to be “baseless attacks”.
Counsel for Freshub who signed the motion for a new trial were sanctioned and ordered to complete 30 hours of continuing legal education (CLE) in legal ethics.
Upon appeal, Freshub “briefly argued” that Amazon “made prejudicial statements at trial by referring to the US Constitution and making ‘us versus them’ arguments that appeal to ‘community conscience’ necessitating a new trial”.
However, the panel of circuit judges drew the same conclusions as the district court on this point, affirming the earlier decision to deny a new trial on this ground.
Motions denied
Circuit Judges Reyna, Taranto and Chen were satisfied that Amazon had proved non-infringement of the ‘153 patent, pointing out the lack of a claim construction that could show that the shopping list feature of Amazon’s Alexa came within the asserted claims.
“With no claim construction narrowing the meaning of the language, the jury was free to find that the shopping list feature, unlike the shopping cart feature, does not ‘identify an item corresponding to the text’ and therefore does not come within the asserted claims of the ’153 patent,” Judge Taranto wrote.
However, the panel was unconvinced by Amazon’s argument of inequitable conduct by Ikan before the USPTO
Regarding deceptive intent, Amazon had focused entirely on the intent of Ikan’s counsel, rather than on any intent on Ikan’s part separate from that of its counsel, the judges said.
The CAFC ordered the parties to bear their own costs.
In Freshub v Amazon, Freshub was represented by Paul Andre of Kramer Levin. David Hadden of Fenwick & West argued for Amazon.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
