I Won a $45 Million Verdict Against Amazon With a Great Story

In a Wilmington, Del. courtroom, a jury ordered Amazon to pay $45 million after finding that Amazon Alexa willfully infringed my client’s patents. The case—VB Assets v. Amazon—was more than a fight about intellectual property. It underscored a truth every trial lawyer should know: Verdicts turn on narratives, not just evidence.

As lead trial counsel for VB Assets, successor to the pioneering company VoiceBox, I watched the jury weigh not only technical details, but also which story felt more human and just. In modern jury trials, the side that wins the story often wins the case.

Amazon’s Story

Amazon told jurors Alexa’s real breakthrough was its microphone arrays, which captured voices from across a room. VoiceBox, they argued, had nothing to do with this innovation. The patents VB Assets asserted, Amazon said, were tied to outdated “rules-based” technology. Alexa, by contrast, relied on artificial intelligence. The message was clear: VoiceBox was trying to claim credit for a revolution it hadn’t sparked.

To drive this point home, Amazon’s lawyers used a simple graphic in its opening argument. A soccer ball represented VB Assets’ rules-based approach; a football represented Alexa’s AI system. Both were sports equipment, they argued, but only one matched the patents’ requirements. Alexa was the football—different shape, different game, no infringement.

VB Assets’ Story

We told a different story. VoiceBox, founded by three brothers, was a pioneer in voice technology. Its patents captured a core insight: Speech only makes sense in context. A phrase like “six thirty” could mean morning, evening, or June 30—and only contextual understanding could tell the difference.

We also reminded the jury that Amazon had recognized VoiceBox’s promise. It met with the company, requested detailed demonstrations, and later hired its chief technology officer. At trial, Amazon’s own documents and witnesses showed that Alexa did use rules to interpret speech—precisely the approach it claimed was obsolete. Without context, we argued, even the most sensitive microphone could only capture sounds, not meaning.

Turning the Tables

In closing, we then used Amazon’s own soccer ball–football graphic to our advantage.

We replayed their analogy of VB Assets’ rules-based approach as a soccer ball, and Amazon’s AI system as a football, and then introduced an animation of Alexa’s actual processing. It showed two simultaneous paths: a rules-based path and an AI path. Soccer balls traveled the rules path; footballs traveled the AI path.

The rules-based path moved quicker and delivered the answer first. As the animation concluded, the soccer balls filled the screen, coalescing into a single, unmistakable image of a large soccer ball.

I told the jury: “Amazon is a soccer ball.” The point was unmistakable. Amazon had argued Alexa was a football, but its own technology showed otherwise—and Amazon’s own analogy drove the point home.

We enhanced this point by pointing out that Amazon didn’t bring the engineer responsible for their use of rules because it didn’t want the jury to hear from its most important engineers. Jurors nodded. The story now fit the evidence.

Winning the Narrative

That moment was the culmination of a broader strategy:

Humanize the Innovation: Introduce jurors to the inventors as real people, not abstractions.

Tell the Company’s Story: Show the jury a pioneering start-up chasing a bold vision.

Expose Amazon’s Deep Dive: Detail how Amazon studied VoiceBox before launching Alexa and tried to hire away VoiceBox’s employees.

Connect Conduct to Harm: Explain how Alexa’s success undermined VoiceBox’s future.

Turn Opponent’s Evidence Against Them: Use their documents and witnesses to prove infringement.

Highlight the Missing Witnesses: Point out the absence of key Alexa engineers from trial.

The Broader Lesson

The $45 million verdict against Amazon demonstrates a larger truth about modern litigation. Courtrooms aren’t just laboratories of technical detail; they are theaters of persuasion. Juries evaluate stories that connect evidence to human motives and values.

For trial lawyers, the takeaway is clear: Master the narrative first. Technical arguments matter, but only as part of a story jurors can understand and believe. And sometimes, the most powerful way to win isn’t to reject your opponent’s visual, but to turn it against them.

In VB Assets v. Amazon, the jury concluded that Amazon had taken a pioneering vision—and they acted to right that wrong. The lesson for litigators is simple: In the courtroom, the best story usually wins.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Tax, and Bloomberg Government, or its owners.

Author Information

James Yoon is partner at Wilson Sonsini and leader of the firm’s patent trial and litigation practice. Yoon was an honoree of Bloomberg Law’s inaugural Unrivaled award, celebrating litigators who lead the legal industry in high-stakes trials and settlements on impactful matters for clients.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines