Sky avoids voice recognition patent infringement with invalidity ruling
UK broadcast service Sky dodged patent infringement claims after the English High Court ruled to invalidate the contested voice recognition patent.
Promptu Systems claimed that Sky infringed its patent with its Sky Q subscription television service, which featured voice-command technology. Sky denied the infringement and argued that the patent should be invalidated for obviousness over prior art.
The Promptu patent refers to a “System and Method of Voice Recognition Near a Wireline Node of Network Supporting Cable Television and/or Video Delivery”. The technology allows users to give speech commands using microphones in remote controls.
The complaint was also levied towards Comcast, but Promptu dropped its claim against the US network prior to the trial.
The judgment handed down on Monday, 19 July, sided with Sky, invalidating the patent, but noting that, if the patent were valid, SKy Q would have infringed.
Patent amendments
Promptu asked to amend the patent prior to the trial, admitting that it would not oppose a finding that all of the claims of the patent, aside from its amended claim 13, were invalid over prior art submitted by Sky.
The amended claim 13 covered the usage of a “push-to-talk” button on the remote control that is used to activate the voice commands.
Sky opposed these amendments as “added matter”—an argument that the amended claims introduce subject-matter extending beyond the application as filed. However, High Court Justice Meade was unconvinced by this argument.
Obviousness argument
Meade was left one task, to determine the validity of Promptu’s patent over the prior art submitted by Sky, referred to as “Houser”.
Houser is a US patent issued in 1998 which covers “Information System Having a Speech Interface” related to video-on-demand and subscription television systems.
Promptu claimed that Sky’s “attack” on its patent was illegitimate and that the comparison was “conceptual” and “not rooted in the real level of detail” found in the specificities of Houser.
The court found Promptu’s “illegitimacy” claim unconvincing and that Promptu’s point that Sky’s attack was “too conceptual” was lacking.
Therefore, Meade ruled that the amended claim 13 is obvious over Houser and since no other claim was defended by Promptu, that the patent should be revoked.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox
Today’s top stories
