IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Judgment on pleadings denied in audio analysis patent dispute, (May 16, 2025)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claims relating to audio processing were not shown to be invalid because the moving party failed to support its argument with legal authority and argument or to address the “ordered combination” portion of the patent ineligibility analysis.

A mobile phone manufacturer failed to show that claims of an audio processing patent asserted against it were invalid, the U.S. District Court in Wilmington has held. The manufacturer’s arguments were unsupported by citations to the record or legal authority (VoiceAge EVS LLC v. HMD Global Oy, No. 19-1945-GBW (D. Del. May 14, 2025)).

VoiceAge EVS, LLC (VoiceAge) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 8,990,073 (the ’073 patent) and 9,852,741 (the ’741 patent), both of which were related to audio processing. VoiceAge brought suit for infringement against HMD Global OY (HMD). HMD moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the asserted claims were directed to unpatentable subject matter. After briefly noting that the motion was timely because it was filed early enough to not delay trial and that no claim had been shown to be representative, the court applied the two-step Alice test.

The ’073 patent. VoiceAge described the invention of the ’073 patent as directed to the technical problem of “sound activity detection, background noise estimation and sound signal classification where sound is understood as a useful signal.” HMD argued that it was instead directed simply to “an algorithm to estimate a property of a sound signal” and noted that the patent itself described how the claimed activity could be performed with pen and paper.

The court held that HMD had made only cursory allegations on this point, unsupported by legal authority or substantial argument, and had therefore failed to meet its burden on step one of the Alice test. The court therefore did not reach step two.

The ’741 patent. VoiceAge described the ’741 patent as directed to “efficient interpolation of LP parameters between two frames at different internal sampling rates,” while HMD argued that it was directed to the generic concept of converting parameters from one sample rate to another.

The court declined to decide the question, assuming for the sake of argument that the asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea. On step two of the Alice test, HMD had not presented argument as to why the claims did not present an inventive concept when considered as an ordered combination. Accordingly, the court held that HMD had failed meet its burden on the ineligibility analysis.

The court denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The Case is No. 19-1945-GBW.

Judge: Williams, G.

Attorneys: Brian E. Farnan (Farnan LLP) for VoiceAge EVS LLC. Nathan Roger Hoeschen (Shaw Keller LLP) for HMD Global Oy.

Companies: VoiceAge EVS LLC; HMD Global Oy

Cases: Patent DelawareNews