Natural Language Processing — US PTAB Patent Cases
5 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 5 total
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
The PTAB found Claim 12 unpatentable as obvious over the combination of Kennewick and Ross. The Board concluded that a POSITA would have been motivated to combine these prior art references with reasonable expectation of success, particularly regarding context management in speech recognition.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC filed an IPR challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,398,209 held by Dialect LLC, asserting that the claims are obvious over existing conversational AI prior art. The petition details multiple grounds of obviousness (Grounds 1-5), combining references like Coffman, Kanevsky, and Redfern to demonstrate predictability in speech recognition techniques.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC challenges Dialect LLC's U.S. Patent No. 8,015,006 B2 in a PTAB petition, arguing that the patent claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The petitioner asserts that the claimed speech recognition and domain agent methods are merely predictable combinations of existing prior art references like Coffman, Kanevsky, and Zadrozny.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC filed a Petition challenging Dialect LLC's patent (8447607) on grounds of obviousness and anticipation. The petition targets 15 claims related to conversational AI, arguing the technology is well-known in speech-enabled interfaces.
Google LLC v.Dialect LLC
Google LLC filed an IPR petition challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,849,652 held by Dialect LLC. The petitioner argues that the patent claims are obvious over prior art references, primarily Coffman and Kennewick. This challenge relates to speech recognition and conversational AI systems.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.