Perplexity AI has been sued by startup DaVoice in a California federal court over allegations that it misappropriated trade secrets related to wake word technology used in AI assistants.
DaVoice filed the complaint on September 24 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The heavily redacted lawsuit alleges that Perplexity gained access to confidential technology during a collaboration between the two companies and later used that information without authorisation.
The allegations have not been proven in court, and neither company had publicly responded to Reuters’ request for comment at the time of reporting.
Proposal for Conducting Cyber Crisis Drill, Tabletop Exercise (TTEx) & CCMP Readiness Exercise
DaVoice says collaboration exposed proprietary technology
DaVoice specialises in technology that allows devices to continuously listen for specific “wake words” and activate an AI assistant when those words are detected.
The company alleges that its collaboration with Perplexity involved technology built using DaVoice’s proprietary source code, inference logic, network architecture, training approaches and training data.
According to the lawsuit, that access gave Perplexity knowledge of confidential technical methods that DaVoice considers trade secrets.
The complaint is heavily redacted, so the exact technical details of what DaVoice says was copied or used improperly are not yet public.
What wake word technology actually does
A wake word is a short phrase used to activate a voice-controlled device or assistant.
Examples include phrases such as “Hey Siri” or “Alexa”.
The device continuously listens for the specific activation phrase while trying to avoid sending or processing all surrounding audio as a full user command.
That requires specialised models designed to detect a particular phrase quickly, accurately and with low power consumption.
The technology must also avoid false activations caused by background conversations, television audio or similar-sounding words.
For AI assistants, this capability is increasingly important because companies want users to interact with software through voice without repeatedly opening an app or pressing a button.
Lawsuit centres on trade secrets, not copyright alone
The case is framed as a trade-secret dispute.
Trade secrets can include confidential technical processes, source code, algorithms, model architecture, training methods and internal business information that provide a competitive advantage.
A trade-secret lawsuit generally requires the plaintiff to show that the information was genuinely confidential and that the defendant obtained or used it improperly.
That makes this different from a standard copyright dispute.
Copyright focuses on protected expression, such as software code or written material. Trade-secret law can cover confidential know-how even where the underlying idea itself is not protected by copyright.
DaVoice will therefore have to establish what information it disclosed to Perplexity, what confidentiality protections existed and how the alleged information was later used.
DaVoice has worked with Volkswagen and Samsara
DaVoice says its wake word technology has been used in collaborations with companies including Volkswagen and internet-of-things company Samsara.
That background is relevant because wake word systems are used far beyond consumer smart speakers.
Cars, industrial devices, logistics systems and connected equipment increasingly rely on voice interfaces that must recognise commands reliably in noisy environments.
As AI assistants become embedded in more products, wake word technology can become strategically important because it sits at the first stage of the interaction between the user and the assistant.
Perplexity faces another legal challenge
Perplexity is best known for its AI-powered search engine, Comet browser and AI assistant.
The DaVoice case adds to a growing list of legal disputes surrounding AI companies over intellectual property, data use and competitive practices.
Perplexity is already involved in separate litigation with publishers and other companies over issues including copyright and the use of online content.
The DaVoice lawsuit is different because it concerns technology allegedly obtained through a direct business relationship rather than material collected from the public internet.
That could make questions about confidentiality agreements, technical access and the scope of the collaboration particularly important.
Case could test how AI partnerships handle confidential technology
AI companies increasingly depend on partnerships with smaller startups that provide specialised models, infrastructure and technical components.
Those collaborations can require startups to reveal sensitive source code, training methods or architecture to much larger partners.
If the DaVoice allegations proceed, the court may have to examine how clearly the companies defined ownership and confidentiality during their work together.
The case may also show how courts treat disputes where advanced AI systems combine technology from multiple companies.
For startups, the issue goes beyond this single lawsuit.
When proprietary technology is shared during pilots, integrations or joint development, the terms governing access, reuse and ownership can become as important as the technical product itself.
The case is DaVoice v. Perplexity AI Inc., No. 3:26-cv-10909, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
What this means for you: The lawsuit does not establish that Perplexity stole DaVoice’s technology. But it highlights the legal risks that arise when AI companies collaborate and exchange confidential code, models and training methods without clear boundaries over how that technology may later be used.
Follow for daily updates on cybercrime, corporate fraud, DFIR, hacking, investigations, and digital forensics
