IP Law Daily, TRADE SECRETS—D. Del.: AI Accent Translation Pioneer Sanas’ trade secret case survives motion to dismiss, (Dec 3, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

Claims for trade secret misappropriation, co-inventorship and co-ownership, and false advertising survived dismissal because they were adequately pled.

In a misappropriation of trade secrets suit, the federal district court in San Francisco mostly allowed claims and counterclaims by two competitors in the market for voice communication software. The court denied defendant Krisp Technologies, Inc.’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Sansas.AI, Inc.‘s claims for trade secret misappropriation, patent co-inventorship and co-ownership, and false advertising, finding them adequately pleaded. However, Sansa AI’s motion to dismiss Krisp’s state-law counterclaims for violations of the California’s Unfair Practices Act and Unfair Competition Law was denied in part (Sansas.AI, Inc. v. Krisp Technologies, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-05666-RS (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2025)).

Background. Sanas and Krisp are competitors in the market for voice communication software. Krisp entered the market first with background noise suppression software. Sanas AI was founded a few years later and focussed on accent conversion. They developed a software that translates accents between parties in real-time, fast enough and at a high enough quality that normal conversation can be carried out, leveraging unique student-teacher machine learning architecture and parallel data generation. They launched their first product in 2021 and a provisional patent application titled Real-Time Accent Conversion Model was filed in May 2021.

Between October 2021 and November 2022, the parties explored collaboration, and Sanas provided, upon Krisp’s solicitation, technical details about Sanas’ accent conversion technology. Upon Sanas’ request, the parties entered a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) on November 17, 2021.

On July 21, 2023, Krisp filed two provisional U.S. patent applications, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,205,609 (’609 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 12,223,979 (’979 Patent and, together with the ’609 Patent, the Krisp Accent Conversion Patents). The Krisp Patents cite Sanas’ accent conversion technology patents and patent applications. Sanas alleged that the Krisp Patents rely and build upon information provided by Sanas employees, including co-founder Serebryakov, such that they should have been named as joint inventors.

In March 2025, Krisp launched “Krisp AI Accent Conversion v3.” Krisp also markets a product called “Accent Localization” (together, the Accused Products). In July 2025, Sanas filed suit against Krisp. The first amended complaint brought claims for infringement of six of Sanas’ accent conversion technology patents, including four instances of alleged willful infringement; misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), and California’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA); false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, and California’s False Advertising Law (FAL); and unfair competition in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

Krisp brought counterclaims against Sanas for patent infringement with regard to its noise cancellation technology and violations of the California Unfair Practices Act (UPA) for allegedly giving away that technology for free as a loss leader in order to injure Krisp and competition generally. Both parties filed cross-motions to dismiss. Krisp moved to dismiss Sanas’ trade secret, co-inventorship and co-ownership claims, and false advertising claims. Sanas moved to dismiss Krisp’s state-law counterclaims for violations of the California’s UPA and UCL.

Trade secret claims. Krisp moved to dismiss Sanas’ trade secret claims, count six and seven for misappropriation of trade secrets under DTSA and under CUTSA, respectively. Krisp argued that Sanas did not plead reasonable secrecy measures, the alleged categories of information were not trade secrets, and Sanas had not pled any independent economic value. However, the district court noted that Sanas’ allegations met the pleading threshold. The allegations established that both parties found economic value in the trade secrets. The district court found that Krisp made significant efforts to obtain the information, following up with Sanas repeatedly, and indicated that the possibility of a business partnership depended on the information. The district court noted that Sanas itself spent years conducting market research and developing and testing its technology to develop the alleged trade secrets. Further, Sanas also took efforts to protect the information through the NDA and use of secure communication channels. This established independent economic value.

Co-inventorship and co-ownership claims. Krips moved to dismiss Sanas’ patent co-inventorship and co-ownership claims, arguing Sanas made threadbare and conclusory allegations regarding Sanas’ inventors and, as a matter of law, the contributions are well-known concepts in the art insufficient for inventorship.

To plead a co-inventorship claim and associated claims of co-ownership properly, a plaintiff must overcome the presumption that the patent’s named inventors are correct. A plaintiff does this by alleging facts from which a court can infer (1) the plaintiff made a more-than-insignificant contribution to the conception of at least one claim and (2) the plaintiff and named inventors engaged in some joint behavior, such as collaboration or working under common direction. Sanas met this burden by alleging that Sanas co-founder Serebryakov described specific features, e.g., teacher-student machine learning models and parallel data generation, to Krisp, and these features are key to the claims of Krisp’s ’609 and ’979 Patents, for which Sanas claims co-inventorship. Sanas co-founder Serebryakov shared much of this information in response to Krisp’s solicitation via meetings, emails, and a Slack channel created by Krisp. Therefore, Sanas alleged facts sufficient to establish co-inventorship and co-ownership.

False advertising claims. Krisp also moved to dismiss Sanas’ false advertising claims, counts ten and eleven under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and California’s FAL respectively. The district court noted that Sanas identified over 30 specific statements in Krisp’s 2025 Accent Conversion, 2024 Noise Cancellation, and 2025 Noise Cancellation Blog Posts that it alleges are false with regard to Sanas technology. Sanas also alleged that Krisp manipulated the methodology on which it based these comparisons, rendering the performance statements themselves as well as Krisp’s statements about its “objective” methodology false and misleading. Further, Sanas contended that these statements were false and misleading at the time they were made, as they informed Krisp through cease-and-desist letters. Accordingly, the district court concluded that this was sufficient at this stage to state a claim for false advertising.

Loss leader, giveaway, and UCL state-law counterclaims. Sanas moved to dismiss Krisp’s state-law counterclaims, counts two and three for violations of California’s UPA, respectively, and count four for violation of California’s UCL. Sanas argued that Krisp has not pled and cannot adequately plead the elements of these claims.

The district court noted that by alleging that Sanas gave away its noise cancellation technology for free, Sanas fails to state a claim under § 17044. Accordingly, Sanas’ motion to dismiss count three was granted. However, the district court found that the elements of § 17043 are satisfied, and Sanas’ motion to dismiss count two was denied.

California’s UCL prohibits unfair competition, which means any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising. The properly alleged violation of § 17043 provides a predicate violation that would satisfy the unlawful prong of the UCL. Accordingly, questions as to whether Sanas’ conduct was also unfair need not be reached at this time. Therefore, Sanas’ motion to dismiss count four was also denied.

Accordingly, Krisp’s motion to dismiss was denied and Sanas’ motion to dismiss is granted in part, as to count three, and denied as to the rest.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-05666-RS.

Judge: Seeborg, R.

Attorneys: Daniel Amon Zaheer (Kobre & Kim LLP) for Sanas.AI Inc. Chris R. Schmidt (Erise IP PA) for Krisp Technologies, Inc.

Companies: Sanas.AI Inc.; Krisp Technologies, Inc.

Cases: AINews TechnologyInternet TradeSecrets Patent CaliforniaNews