Jump to content

Zentian Ltd v Apple Inc

From AI Law Wiki

AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.

Case Information
Case name Zentian Ltd. v. Apple Inc.[1]
Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit[1]
Docket 24-2205; PTAB IPR2023-00035 and IPR2023-01194[1]
Filed Appeal docketed in 2024; exact filing date not established from the opinion.[1]
Judge(s) Timothy B. Dyk, Haldane Robert Mayer and Sharon Prost; opinion by Judge Prost[1]
Plaintiffs Zentian Ltd. (patent owner and appellant)[1]
Defendants Apple Inc. (IPR petitioner and appellee)[1]
Case type Appeal from inter partes review of a speech-recognition patent[1]
Claims / issues Obviousness of U.S. Patent No. 10,062,377; construction of “feature vector” in a speech-recognition system[1]
Status September 25, 2026: Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's finding that all claims of the patent are unpatentable for obviousness; nonprecedential opinion.[1]

'Zentian Ltd. v. Apple Inc. is a Federal Circuit appeal concerning a patent for speech-recognition technology that identifies spoken words using hidden Markov models or neural networks. On September 25, 2026, the court affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding all claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,062,377 unpatentable for obviousness. The opinion is nonprecedential.[1]

Background

Apple petitioned for inter partes review of the patent. The claimed system converts audio into feature vectors, compares those vectors with acoustic-model states and uses the resulting distances to identify words. The parties disputed whether the claimed “feature vector” could include a vector-quantized codeword representing quantities derived from the audio stream. Zentian argued that only quantities directly extracted from the stream qualified.[1]

Federal Circuit decision

The court held that the claim language covers both extracted and derived quantities. It agreed with the Board that codewords representing derived audio quantities fall within the claimed feature vector and affirmed the Board's obviousness determination. The ruling concerns this patent and these prior-art findings; it does not decide the validity of speech-recognition patents generally.[1]

Sources