RE:Case against Amazon dead?Not good. Case is closed. Probably will affect teh Google/MFST action, but maybe not. Wilan may appeal. Have to wait.
Here is the Judge's rationale:
DISCUSSION
One of Amazon's multiple non-infringement arguments is that Alexa does not meet the ICL service request limitation.
All asserted claims require an "inter-agent language" or "interagent communication language" ("ICL"). (' 115 patent, claims 1, 29; ' 560 patent, claims 26, 50). I construed both "inter-agent language" and "ICL" as "an interface, communication, and task coordination language." (D.I. 128 at 2). IPA and its expert Dr. Medvidovic argue that the combination of Alexa's SIRF and BIF/NIF formats is the "ICL." (D.I. 335 at 2; D.I. 337-1, Ex. A, ,r,r 126--128, 137).
Each asserted claim also requires a service request expressed in the ICL. (' 115 patent, claims 1, 29; ' 560 patent, claims 26, 50). Claim 1 of the '115 patent, for example, recites "receiving a request for service ... in the inter-agent language."3 Dr. Medvidovic contends that SIRF represents the user's utterance and thus is the claimed service request. (D.I. 337-1 , Ex. A, ,r,r 209-211 ). Amazon argues that based on this theory, SIRF must meet all the requirements of the ICL, which it does not. (D.I. 282 at 8). Specifically, the asserted claims require a layer of conversational protocol within the ICL. (' 115 patent, claims 1, 29; ' 560 patent, claims 26, 50). Dr. Medvidovic contends that the claimed layer of conversational protocol is present in BIF, but not in SIRF. (D.I. 337-1 , Ex. A, 1160). Thus, Amazon argues that Alexa does not have a service request in the ICL because SIRF does not include the layer of conversational protocol required in the ICL. (D.I. 282 at 8).
IPA responds that the claims do not require that the service request "contain every component ofICL, only what is needed to represent the request." (D.I. 335 at 7). IPA also contends that it is sufficient that the service request adheres to the SIRF portion of the ICL. (Id. ). IPA's arguments are not supported by the claim language. For example, asserted claim 50 of the ' 560 patent requires "the service request adhering to the [ICL], the ICL including a layer of conversational protocol" among other limitations. This claim language shows that the service request must be recited in the claimed ICL and must meet every requirement of the claimed ICL. Nothing in this claim language supports a service request adhering only to a selected portion of the ICL. Since it is undisputed that the SIRF format does not include a layer of conversational protocol, Alexa cannot meet the ICL service request limitation. SIRF also cannot be the claimed ICL service request because, as IPA concedes, SIRF is a format, not a language. (D.I. 335 at 4; D.I. 401 at 23:10, 22-25). Thus, a service request received as an instance of the SIRF format cannot be a service request expressed in ICL. (See D.I. 374 at 1, 3). IPA has no evidence of a limitation that is present in every asserted claim. 6 Case 1:16-cv-01266-RGA Document 405 Filed 10/28/21 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 83080
For the foregoing reasons, I grant Amazon's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on all asserted claims.
Footnote
3 Claim 29 of the ' 115 patent recites "the service request adhering to an Interagent Communication Language (ICL)." Claim 26 of the ' 560 patent recites "the service request formed according to an Interagent Communication Language (ICL)." Claim 50 of the '560 patent recites "the service request adhering to the Interagent Communication Language (ICL)." The parties treat these limitations as the same for purposes of this motion, and I see no reason to differentiate them in this regard. Thus, I will apply the same analysis for each claim. (See D.I. 282 at 8; D.I. 335 at 7-8). 5 Case 1:16-cv-01266-RGA Document 405 Filed 10/28/21 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 83079