Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 21107
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`VOCALIFE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00123-JRG
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court are the Motion for Additional Findings Regarding Inequitable Conduct
`
`and to Amend or Alter the Judgment (the “Inequitable Conduct Motion” or “IC Motion”) (Dkt.
`
`No. 356) and the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law of Non-Infringement Under Rule 50(b)
`
`(the “JMOL Motion”) (Dkt. No. 357) filed by Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com
`
`LLC (collectively, “Defendants” or “Amazon”). Having considered these Motions, and for the
`
`reasons stated herein, the Court finds that the Motions should be DENIED.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Vocalife LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Vocalife”) filed suit against Amazon, alleging that
`
`certain of Amazon’s Echo products1 (the “Accused Products”) infringe U.S. Patent No. RE47,049
`
`(the “’049 Patent”). (See Dkt. No. 1). A jury trial was held in the above-captioned case beginning
`
`on October 1, 2020. (Dkt. No. 328). At the close of evidence, the parties moved for judgment as a
`
`matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). (See Dkt. Nos. 318, 339, 342).
`
`1 At trial, the Accused Products were: the Amazon Echo 1st Generation, Amazon Echo 2nd Generation, Amazon Echo
`3rd Generation, Amazon Echo Dot 1st Generation, Amazon Echo Dot 2nd Generation, Amazon Echo Dot 3rd
`Generation, Amazon Echo Dot Kids Edition 1st Generation, Amazon Echo Dot Kids Edition 2nd Generation, Amazon
`Echo Look, Amazon Echo Show 2nd Generation, Amazon Echo Spot, Amazon Echo Plus 1st Generation, Amazon
`Echo Plus 2nd Generation, and Amazon Echo Studio. (Dkt. No. 340 at 1307:4–12).
`
`IPR PETITION
`US RE48,371
`Sonos Ex. 1040
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 21108
`
`Among the Rule 50(a) Motions heard by the Court was Amazon’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter
`
`of Law of No Induced Infringement, which the Court denied. (Dkt. No. 339 at 1255:16–18; Dkt.
`
`No. 342 at 2).
`
`On October 8, 2020, the jury returned a verdict finding that Amazon infringed one or both
`
`of Claims 1 or 8 of the ’049 Patent (the “Asserted Claims”) and that neither of the Asserted Claims
`
`were invalid. (Dkt. No. 323). The Court entered a Final Judgment reflecting the jury’s unanimous
`
`verdict. (Dkt. No. 343). The Court additionally considered Amazon’s assertion of unenforceability
`
`of the ’049 Patent on the basis of inequitable conduct, holding a bench trial on October 8, 2020
`
`while the jury deliberated on their verdict. (See Dkt. No. 341). The Court subsequently issued an
`
`Order containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to inequitable conduct,
`
`ultimately holding that Amazon did not establish inequitable conduct by clear and convincing
`
`evidence. (Dkt. No. 353).
`
`II.
`
`AMAZON’S JMOL MOTION
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b), Amazon filed its JMOL Motion seeking
`
`judgment as a matter of law of no induced infringement. (Dkt. No. 357). The Court finds that
`
`substantial evidence exists supporting the jury’s verdict.
`
`A. Legal Standard
`
`“Judgment as a matter of law is proper when ‘a reasonable jury would not have a legally
`
`sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.’” Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega, 708
`
`F.3d 614, 620 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)). The non-moving party must identify
`
`“substantial evidence” to support its positions. TGIP, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 527 F. Supp. 2d 561,
`
`569 (E.D. Tex. 2007). “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 21109
`
`evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Eli Lilly & Co.
`
`v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`“The Fifth Circuit views all evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict and will
`
`reverse a jury’s verdict only if the evidence points so overwhelmingly in favor of one party that
`
`reasonable jurors could not arrive at any contrary conclusion.” Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
`
`v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Bagby Elevator Co. v. Schindler
`
`Elevator Corp., 609 F.3d 768, 773 (5th Cir. 2010)). A court must “resolve all conflicting evidence
`
`in favor of [the verdict] and refrain from weighing the evidence or making credibility
`
`determinations.” Gomez v. St. Jude Med. Daig Div. Inc., 442 F.3d 919, 937–38 (5th Cir. 2006).
`
`B. Discussion
`
`Amazon bases their JMOL Motion on the following grounds: first, that Vocalife did not
`
`present substantial evidence that Amazon knew its customers were infringing; second, that
`
`Vocalife did not present substantial evidence that Amazon’s customers directly infringed. (See
`
`Dkt. No. 357).
`
`1. AMAZON’S KNOWLEDGE OF CUSTOMERS’ INFRINGEMENT
`
`Amazon argues that Vocalife failed to present substantial evidence that Amazon knew that
`
`its customers were literally infringing the ’049 Patent. (Id. at 9–10). Amazon argues that the only
`
`evidence presented by Vocalife was the testimony of Joseph McAlexander, who concluded that
`
`Amazon indirectly infringed by offering to sell and selling the Accused Products and instructing
`
`users on how to set up and use the Accused Products. (Id. at 10) (citing Dkt. No. 357-5 at
`
`652:4–17). Amazon contends that the exhibit Mr. McAlexander referred to, PTX-1372, does not
`
`suggest Amazon’s knowledge with respect to the ’049 Patent. (Id.). Further, Amazon argues that
`
`PTX-1372 does not provide instructions for setting up or using an Amazon Echo in the manner
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 21110
`
`described by Mr. McAlexander. (Id.). Amazon argues that Vocalife failed to show that Amazon
`
`had specific intent for its customers to infringe. (Id. at 15).
`
`
`
`Additionally, Amazon argues that its own evidence showed that it believed its customers
`
`were not infringing. (Dkt. No. 357 at 11). At trial, Amazon’s corporate representative, Phil Hilmes,
`
`testified that he believed the Accused Products did not infringe because they used fixed
`
`beamforming, rather than adaptive beamforming. (Id. at 12) (citing Dkt. No. 357-7). Mr. Hilmes
`
`referred to the lab notebook of Dr. Amit Chhetri and Amazon’s internal decisions regarding
`
`beamforming, including testimony that Amazon determined that adaptive beamforming was too
`
`complex and costly to implement in the Accused Products. (Id. at 12–13) (citing Dkt. No. 357-7;
`
`DTX-314; DX-27.12). Mr. Hilmes further testified that he believed the Accused Products did not
`
`satisfy the “sound source localization” or “determining a delay” claim limitations due to Amazon’s
`
`use of fixed beamforming. (Id. at 13). Amazon’s expert witness, Dr. Sayfe Kiaei, opined that the
`
`Accused Products did not infringe for many of the same reasons that Mr. Hilmes believed the
`
`Accused Products did not infringe. (Id. at 14). Amazon argues that its evidence of a good-faith
`
`belief that its products did not infringe precludes a finding of induced infringement. (Id. at 14–15).
`
`
`
`Vocalife argues that, at least as of the time the complaint was filed, Amazon knew of the
`
`’049 Patent, and that the jury could reasonably rely on Mr. McAlexander’s testimony that Amazon
`
`knew or should have known that its instructions would result in infringement of the ’049 Patent.
`
`(Dkt. No. 363 at 5) (citing Summit 6 LLC v. Research in Motion Corp., No. 3:11-CV-367-O, 2013
`
`WL 12124321, at *5 (N.D. Tex. June 26, 2013)). Vocalife points to PTX-1377, an Amazon
`
`presentation, and PTX-130, an article written by Mr. Hilmes and other Amazon employees. (Id. at
`
`6) (citing Dkt. Nos. 363-4, 363-5). Vocalife argues that these exhibits showed that all of the
`
`Accused Products operated in the same manner and that the article described algorithms designed
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 21111
`
`to perform claim limitations, including adaptive beamforming. (Id.). Vocalife further points to
`
`PTX-111, which includes user manuals and support for the Accused Products, as evidence
`
`presented to the jury showing that Amazon instructed its customers on how to use the Accused
`
`Products in an infringing manner. (Id. at 7). Vocalife argues that the jury would have been justified
`
`in discounting Amazon’s belief in its noninfringement position, since Mr. Hilmes lacked personal
`
`knowledge of Dr. Chhetri’s notebook and because the notebook was “limited to the time period
`
`from February to June 2011.” (Id. at 8). Vocalife additionally points to PTX-1378, an exhibit
`
`containing Amazon’s source code. (Id.).
`
`
`
`“Whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b). “[L]iability for inducing infringement attaches only if the defendant knew of
`
`the patent and that ‘the induced acts constitute patent infringement.’” Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco
`
`Sys., Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920, 1926 (2015) (quoting Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`
`563 U.S. 754, 766 (2011)). It is undisputed that Amazon knew of the ’049 Patent as of the date
`
`Vocalife filed its complaint.2 Additionally, there is substantial evidence in the record that Amazon
`
`knew that acts it induced its customers to undertake were infringing acts.
`
`
`
`Vocalife’s expert witness, Mr. McAlexander, testified that he examined Amazon
`
`marketing materials, including PTX-111, a document titled “All Things Alexa” found on
`
`Amazon’s website. (Dkt. No. 331 at 567:2–570:6). Mr. McAlexander tested the behavior of certain
`
`Accused Products in the manner described in Amazon’s materials. (Id. at 567:24–568:2). Mr.
`
`McAlexander cited PTX-1372, an instruction provided by Amazon to its users on how to set up
`
`the Echo products. (Dkt. No. 332 at 604:18–21) (“And so the person who is installing and using
`
`this system has been informed by Amazon to turn it on and use it in a way that they specify . . .”).
`
`
`2 Amazon acknowledges it “knew of the ’049 [P]atent after the Complaint was filed . . .” (Dkt. No. 357 at 10).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 21112
`
`Citing PTX-1372, Mr. McAlexander concluded that Amazon indirectly infringed the ’049 Patent.
`
`(Id. at 652:4–17).
`
`
`
`“While proof of intent is necessary, direct evidence is not required; rather, circumstantial
`
`evidence may suffice.” Water Techs. Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
`
`Reasonable jurors could find that Amazon had the requisite intent based on the evidence presented
`
`during this trial. Amazon knew of the ’049 Patent when Vocalife filed its complaint. Evidence was
`
`presented showing that Amazon instructed its customers to use Echo products in an infringing
`
`manner. Notwithstanding Amazon’s evidence on this issue, the Court views the evidence in the
`
`light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, the Court concludes that substantial
`
`evidence of Amazon’s intent was presented, and JMOL on this ground should be denied.
`
`2. DIRECT INFRINGEMENT BY AMAZON’S CUSTOMERS
`
`Amazon additionally argues that Vocalife failed to present substantial evidence that
`
`Amazon customers directly infringed the Asserted Claims. (Dkt. No. 357 at 16).
`
`“In order to succeed on a claim of inducement, the patentee must show . . . that there has
`
`been direct infringement . . . .” Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semic. Co., Ltd., 090 F.3d
`
`398, 407 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294,
`
`1304–05 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “Literal infringement requires that every limitation of the patent claim
`
`be found in the accused device.” Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Machinery Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d
`
`1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (quoting Gen. Mills., Inc. v. Hunt-Wesson, Inc., 103 F.3d 978, 981
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997)).
`
`Claim 1 of the ’049 Patent recites:
`
`A method for enhancing a target sound signal from a plurality of sound
`signals, comprising:
`providing a microphone array system comprising an array of sound sensors
`positioned in . . . a linear, circular, or other configuration, a sound
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 21113
`
`source localization unit, an adaptive beamforming unit, and a noise
`reduction unit, wherein said sound source localization unit, said
`adaptive beamforming unit, and said noise reduction unit are
`integrated in a digital signal processor, and wherein said sound
`source localization unit, said adaptive beamforming unit, and said
`noise reduction unit are in operative communication with said array
`of said sound sensors;
`receiving said sound signals from a plurality of disparate sound sources by
`said sound sensors, wherein said received sound signals comprise
`said target sound signal from a target sound source among said
`disparate sound sources, and ambient noise signals;
`determining a delay between each of said sound sensors and an origin of
`said array of said sound sensors as a function of distance between
`each of said sound sensors and said origin, a predefined angle
`between each of said sound sensors and a reference axis, and an
`azimuth angle between said reference axis and said target sound
`signal, when said target sound source that emits said target sound
`signal is in a two dimensional plane, wherein said delay is
`represented in terms of number of samples, and wherein said
`determination of said delay enables beamforming for . . . said array
`of sound sensors . . . in a plurality of . . . configurations . . . ;
`estimating a spatial location of said target sound signal from said
`received sound signals by said sound source localization unit;
`performing adaptive beamforming for steering a directivity pattern of said
`array of said sound sensors in a direction of said spatial location of
`said target sound signal by said adaptive beamforming unit, wherein
`said adaptive beamforming unit enhances said target sound signal
`and partially suppresses said ambient noise signals; and
`suppressing said ambient noise signals by said noise reduction unit for
`further enhancing said target sound signal.
`
`
`(Dkt. No. 1-3 at 21:26–22:3).
`
`
`
`Claim 8 of the ’049 Patent recites:
`
`The method of claim 1, wherein said noise reduction unit performs noise
`reduction in a plurality of frequency sub-bands, wherein said
`frequency sub-bands are employed by an analysis filter bank of said
`adaptive beamforming unit for sub-band adaptive beamforming.
`
`
`(Id. at 22:58–62).
`
`
`
`Amazon argues that Vocalife did not present substantial evidence that Amazon customers
`
`perform the “determining a delay” step, the “determining a delay based on said target sound signal”
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 21114
`
`step, the “delay represented in terms of number of samples” step, the “plurality of configurations”
`
`step, the “estimating a spatial location” step, and the “performing adaptive beamforming” step.
`
`(Dkt. No 357 at 16–29).
`
`i.
`
`“Determining a delay”
`
`The “determining a delay” steps include determining a delay (1) between each of said
`
`sound sensors and an origin of said array of said sound sensors; (2) as a function of distance
`
`between each of said sound sensors and said origin, a predefined angle between each of said sound
`
`sensors and a reference axis, and an azimuth angle between said reference axis and said target
`
`sound signal; (3) when said target sound source that emits said target sound signal is in a two-
`
`dimensional plane; (4) wherein said delay is represented in terms of number of samples; and (5)
`
`wherein said determination of said delay enables beamforming for said array of sound sensors in
`
`a plurality of configurations. Amazon argues that Vocalife did not present sufficient evidence that
`
`the Accused Products perform the steps associated with “determining a delay.” (Dkt. No. 357 at
`
`17).
`
`Amazon argues that PTX-1377, which Mr. McAlexander relied upon, described audio
`
`algorithms used by third parties making different products able to access Amazon’s Alexa voice
`
`service. (Id.) (citing Dkt. No. 357-6 at 723:5–725:20; Dkt. No. 357-7 at 911:13–912:6, 912:20–24;
`
`PTX-1377 at 60). Amazon further argues that Mr. McAlexander’s testimony related merely to the
`
`occurrence of each microphone in a circular array receiving sound at different times, rather than
`
`any determination of delay by the Accused Products. (Id. at 18) (citing Dkt. No. 357-5 at 613:21–
`
`25). Amazon further argues that Mr. McAlexander did not identify source code executing on the
`
`Accused Products that determines a delay, and instead relied on source code used by Amazon in
`
`simulations and modeling. (Id.) (citing Dkt. No. 357-5 at 615:11–618:22, 696:20–23).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 21115
`
`Additionally, Amazon argues that any delays determined were not based on receipt of sound
`
`signals—if there is any delay determined at all, Amazon argues, such was done in the lab and not
`
`after receiving any target sound signal. (Id.).
`
`Vocalife argues that substantial evidence was presented showing that the Accused Products
`
`practice the “determining a delay” limitation. (Dkt. No. 363 at 12). In particular, Vocalife points
`
`to Mr. McAlexander’s testimony that the delays are calculated in the Fast Fourier Transform
`
`(“FFT”) function, as well as documentary and source code evidence presented. (Id.) (quoting Dkt.
`
`No. 363-11 at 686:21–687:3). Vocalife further argues that Amazon attempted to argue a
`
`construction contrary to the Court’s construction, by requiring that “determining a delay” includes
`
`“calculating a delay” and requiring a particular order of steps. (Id. at 14–15).
`
`The Court addressed the order of steps in its Claim Construction Order. (See Dkt. No. 83
`
`at 38–40). Amazon argued in favor of a construction that required the target sound signal be
`
`received before the steps of determining a delay based on the azimuth angle. (Id. at 39; see Dkt.
`
`No. 69 at 33–34). The Court rejected Amazon’s proposed construction and held that no specific
`
`ordering was required beyond the limitations expressed in the claims. (Id. at 40). The Court again
`
`rejects Amazon’s arguments that the Accused Products were required to receive a target sound
`
`signal prior to determination of a delay. Further, the Court construed the “determining a delay”
`
`claim language as having its plain and ordinary meaning. (Id. at 15–16).
`
`Mr. McAlexander testified that the Accused Products formed beams “based upon
`
`weighting factors that were pre-determined in the laboratory from a simulation model,” but noted
`
`that “[t]he MATLAB code is not running on the Amazon product, just like none of the source code
`
`is running on the Amazon product. It’s what is compiled and provided to the device. That’s what’s
`
`executed.” (Id. at 617:21–618:3, 696:10–16).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 21116
`
`Mr. McAlexander testified at length regarding how the Accused Products satisfied the
`
`“determining a delay” claim limitations. At a high level, and referring to the depiction in the AWS
`
`slides in PTX-1377,3 Mr. McAlexander described to the jury that an Echo device with an array of
`
`six microphones would “pick up the sound signal that is targeted from that sound source” and that
`
`“the microphone that’s identified as first is going to be the first microphone that picks up the
`
`signal.” (Dkt. No. 332 at 613:8–9, 13–14). Continuing, Mr. McAlexander stated that “each
`
`microphone is going to be picking up the signal at a different time. It’s a delay.” (Id. at 613:24–
`
`25). Referring to PTX-386, Mr. Chhetri’s notebook, Mr. McAlexander described how Amazon
`
`took the layout of the microphone array, simulated sound signals coming from different directions
`
`(i.e., various azimuths and elevations) in MATLAB, and determined “weighting factors” to be
`
`used by the devices in beamforming. (Id. at 616:22–617:15). Mr. McAlexander testified that
`
`“determining is done by execution of code, considering the different parameters that are required,
`
`which is the angle, the distance, and the azimuth” and identified in the “mLocM” part of the source
`
`code which identifies the location of the sound signal. (Id. at 689:10–15, 690:19–21).
`
`The Court finds that Vocalife presented substantial evidence that the Accused Products as
`
`used met the “determining a delay” step.
`
`ii.
`
`“Determining a delay based on said target sound signal”
`
`Amazon additionally argues that insufficient evidence was presented that the Accused
`
`Products “determine a delay as a function of ‘an azimuth angle between said reference axis and
`
`said target sound signal.’” (Id. at 19). Amazon argues that Mr. McAlexander’s testimony that
`
`MATLAB code used in simulations satisfied the claim limitation was not substantial evidence. (Id.
`
`at 19–20) (citing PTX-386; Dkt. No. 357-5 at 621:14–622:16).
`
`
`3 The Court preadmitted PTX-1377 at the pretrial conference, finding the exhibit was a statement by a party opponent.
`(Dkt. No. 308 at 47:6–12).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 21117
`
`Addressing the claim limitation of determining a delay of “an azimuth angle between said
`
`reference axis and said target sound signal,” Mr. McAlexander identified in PTX-386 the source
`
`code portions micTune and micLook, testifying that “all of that is covered and—and meets the
`
`limitation of the angle between the sound sensors and the azimuth of the target sound signal that’s
`
`coming out.” (Dkt. No. 332 at 621:5–622:16). The Court finds that Vocalife presented substantial
`
`evidence that the Accused Products determined a delay based on the “said target sound signal.”
`
`iii.
`
`“Represented in terms of number of samples”
`
`Amazon next argues that Vocalife did not present substantial evidence that, once delay is
`
`determined, the Accused Products represented delay in terms of number of samples. (Dkt. No. 357
`
`at 20). Amazon argues that Mr. McAlexander’s testimony that the source code used a sampling
`
`rate of 16 kHz is insufficient because sampling rate is not the same thing as number of samples.
`
`(Id. at 20–21) (citing Dkt. No. 357-5 at 625:1–628:1).
`
`Vocalife argues that Mr. McAlexander’s testimony regarding the conversion of 16,000
`
`samples per second from the time domain satisfies the “number of samples” limitation. (Dkt. No.
`
`363 at 16).
`
`Mr. McAlexander pointed to the audio front end code in PTX-1378 to support his opinion
`
`that the claim limitation “said delay is represented in terms of number of samples” was satisfied
`
`as signals “sampled at 16,000 bits—16,000 samples per second.” (Dkt. No. 332 at 624:24–626:11).
`
`Mr. McAlexander then testified that the FFT function converted such samples from the time
`
`domain and created sample output. (Id. at 627:8–15). The Court finds that Vocalife presented
`
`substantial evidence that the Accused Products represented delay in terms of number of samples.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 21118
`
`iv.
`
`“Plurality of configurations”
`
`Amazon argues that Vocalife did not present substantial evidence that the Accused
`
`Products perform the limitation that “said determination of said delay enables beamforming for
`
`said array of sound sensors in a plurality of configurations.” (Dkt. No. 357 at 21). Amazon argues
`
`that Mr. McAlexander’s testimony that the limitation was met by code capable of being utilized
`
`across multiple different products was not sufficient. (Id.) (citing Dkt. No. 357-5 at 630:20–631:1).
`
`Amazon argues that “the claim requires first receiving a target sound signal, then determining a
`
`delay based on that target sound signal, and then the determination of ‘said delay’ enables
`
`beamforming for sound sensors in a ‘plurality of configurations.’” (Id.). Further, Mr. McAlexander
`
`testified that the delay is determined by the “weighting factors,” which are designed for a particular
`
`microphone array. (Id. at 21–22) (citing Dkt. No. 357-5 at 616:14–617:18, 618:4–11, 618:18–22,
`
`619:24–620:16; Dkt. No. 357-6 at 728:4–14). Amazon argues that, even if the Accused Products
`
`determine a delay in the manner Vocalife contends, such is done for a single geometric layout of
`
`microphones and not for a plurality of layouts. (Id. at 22).
`
`Vocalife argues that the “plurality of configurations” limitation is met based on testimony
`
`from Mr. McAlexander regarding the geometric arrangements of microphones. (Dkt. No. 363 at
`
`12–13; Dkt. No. 366 at 7–8).
`
`Mr. McAlexander also testified that the “said determination of said delay enables
`
`beamforming for said array of sound sensors in a plurality of configurations” limitation was met
`
`when “samples that are received by the microphones are sent in . . . then processed in the frequency
`
`domain . . . and the output of that is beamforming.” (Id. at 629:8–13). Mr. McAlexander testified
`
`that this manner of determining a delay to enable beamforming worked across a plurality of
`
`configurations. (Id. at 630:21 – 631:1) (“The reason it’s done in a plurality of configurations is
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 21119
`
`because . . . the Doppler can be utilized across two different products . . . . The MPAF can be
`
`provided across all the other products . . . .”). The Court finds that Vocalife presented substantial
`
`evidence that the “plurality of configurations” limitation was met.
`
`v.
`
`“Estimating a spatial location”
`
`Amazon argues that Vocalife did not present substantial evidence that the Accused
`
`Products meet the claim limitation of “estimating a spatial location of said target sound signal from
`
`said received sound signals by said sound source localization unit.” (Dkt. No. 357 at 22–23). First,
`
`Amazon argues that the evidence presented by Vocalife only showed that the Accused Products
`
`determined the direction of sound signals, rather than the spatial location. (Id. at 23) (citing Dkt.
`
`No. 357-5 at 634:15–18, 635:1–8). Second, Amazon argues that Vocalife’s evidence did not show
`
`that the Accused Products estimate the spatial location using a “sound source localization unit.”
`
`(Id. at 23–24). Amazon also argues that the evidence relied on by Mr. McAlexander, which
`
`included PTX-1377, PTX-301, and source code, did not show that a sound source localization unit
`
`performed the limitation. (Id.) (citing Dkt. No. 357-5 at 633:22–640:23). Amazon points to
`
`testimony by its own witness, Mr. Hilmes, stating that there was no sound source localization unit
`
`because inclusion of such unit would delay detection of the “wake word,” require a more powerful
`
`processor, and that such unit was unnecessary because the Accused Products use fixed beams. (Id.
`
`at 24) (citing Dkt. No. 357-7 at 898:12–899:1, 900:4–17, 905:6–19). Hilmes also testified
`
`regarding PTX-301, a research paper relied upon by Mr. McAlexander, and stated that the paper
`
`did not describe how the Accused Products actually work. (Id.) (citing PTX-301; Dkt. No. 357-7
`
`at 906:13–908:22).
`
`Vocalife argues that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict with
`
`respect to the spatial location limitation. (Dkt. No. 363 at 16). Vocalife points to Mr.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 21120
`
`McAlexander’s testimony that PTX-1377 showed how the Accused Products light up when
`
`detecting a sound signal. (Id. at 17) (citing PTX-1377; Dkt. No. 363-11 at 635:1–8). Additionally,
`
`Mr. McAlexander relied on source code, pointing to certain code modules and PTX-301. (Id.)
`
`(citing PTX-301; Dkt. No. 363-11 at 634:16–18, 635:16–23, 640:14–20). Vocalife also argues that
`
`Amazon is rewriting the Court’s construction of the “spatial location” term to exclude “direction.”
`
`(Id. at 18).
`
`Amazon argues that “no claim construction was necessary” for “spatial location,” yet also
`
`argues that direction is not sufficient to meet the spatial location limitation. (Dkt. No. 365 at 8).
`
`The Court instructed the jury to apply the plain and ordinary meaning of “spatial location.” (Dkt.
`
`No. 340 at 1310:22–1311:2). Vocalife presented evidence, through the opinion testimony of Mr.
`
`McAlexander, that in the Accused Products “each one of the microphones is going to pick up that
`
`incoming sound signal . . . it will determine which microphone is showing the least delay.” (Dkt.
`
`No. 332 at 634:20–24). Mr. McAlexander pointed to the source code, stating that “there will be a
`
`decision process made as to which one of [the input beams] is oriented in the . . . closest direction
`
`to the incoming signal.” (Id. at 636:8–11).
`
`The parties presented conflicting testimony as to this limitation. However, the Court views
`
`the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. The jury was entitled to weigh the
`
`evidence and the credibility of that evidence. The Court finds that Vocalife presented substantial
`
`evidence that the Accused Products meet this claim limitation.
`
`vi.
`
`“Performing adaptive beamforming”
`
`Amazon argues that Vocalife did not present substantial evidence that the Accused
`
`Products meet the “performing adaptive beamforming for steering a directivity pattern of said array
`
`of said sound sensors in a direction of said spatial location of said target sound signal” step. (Dkt.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 21121
`
`No. 357 at 24). The Court construed the limitation to mean “a beamforming process where the
`
`directivity pattern of the microphone array is capable of being adaptively steered in the direction
`
`of a target sound signal emitted by a target sound source in motion.” (Dkt. No. 83 at 51). The
`
`Accused Products were presented at trial as falling into “Doppler” or “MPAF” categories,4 both
`
`of which are addressed by Amazon in its JMOL Motion. (Dkt. No. 357 at 25).
`
`Regarding the Doppler products, Amazon argues that Mr. McAlexander’s testimony that
`
`the Accused Products use a beam selector to “orient and steer the beams in the direction of the
`
`sound input” was “false, misleading, conclusory, and unsupported by the evidence.” (Id.) (quoting
`
`Dkt. No. 357-4 at 573:18–24; Dkt. No. 357-5 at 642:13–17). Amazon argues that the Court’s
`
`construction requires a steering of the array’s directivity pattern, rather than the selection of a beam
`
`from a set of fixed beams. (Id. at 26).
`
`Regarding the MPAF products, Amazon argues that Mr. McAlexander “admitted that the
`
`MPAF-based products create eight beams and there is ‘again, a selection’ in a ‘similar fashion’ to
`
`the Doppler-based products.” (Id.) (quoting Dkt. No. 357-5 at 586:2–16, 643:23–644:4). Amazon
`
`also argues that Mr. McAlexander’s reliance on an “AdaptiveBeamFormer” code module was
`
`insufficient because Mr. McAlexander did not explain how the module worked or met the claim
`
`limitation. (Id. at 26–27). Amazon points to testimony by Mr. Hilmes and Carlo Murgia, another
`
`Amazon witness, who testified as to Amazon’s “internal and non-traditional use of the phrase
`
`‘adaptive beamformer.’” (Id. at 27).
`
`Vocalife argues that Mr. McAlexander’s testimony was sufficient because he identified the
`
`manner in which the Accused Products performed the adaptive beamforming limitation using the
`
`“filter-and-sum technique,” and how the code executed on the devices determined the delay and
`
`
`4 The Doppler products are the Amazon Echo 1st Generation and Amazon Echo Dot 1st Generation; the remaining
`Accused Products are MPAF products. (See Dkt. No. 332 at 588:21–589:14).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00123-JRG Document 370 Filed 04/14/21 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 21122
`
`then reached “the conclusion as to how to weight the beams in accordance with what direction of
`
`the sound signal coming in.” (Dkt. No. 363 at 18–19) (quoting Dkt. No. 363-11 at 629:8–14,
`
`630:7–10, 12–19). Vocalife points to PTX-79, a document describing the audio front end software
`
`architecture for MPAF-based products, which contains a block labe