Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 1 of 41 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Joshua M. Wolff (134426)
`WOLFF MASCARO LLP
`9160 Irvine Center Dr., Suite 200
`Irvine, CA 92619
`T: 949-769-3600 | F: 949-769-3601
`jwolff@wolffmascaro.com
`
`Jonathan T. Suder (pro hac vice to be filed)
`Dave R. Gunter (pro hac vice to be filed)
`Richard A. Wojcio, Jr. (pro hac vice to be filed)
`FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE
`Tindall Square Warehouse No. 1
`604 East 4th Street, Suite 200
`Fort Worth, Texas 76102
`Telephone: (817) 334-0400
`Facsimile: (817) 334-0401
`Email: jts@fsclaw.com
`Email: gunter@fsclaw.com
`Email: wojcio@fsclaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Centre One, a Nevada corporation
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`CENTRE ONE, a Nevada corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. f/k/a
`CENTURYLINK, INC., a Louisiana
`corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 2 of 41 Page ID #:2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Plaintiff CENTRE ONE files this Original Complaint against Defendant
`LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. f/k/a CenturyLink, Inc. alleging as follows:
`THE PARTIES
`CENTRE ONE (“Plaintiff” or “Centre One”) is a corporation organized
`1.
`and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, authorized to do business in
`California, with a principal place of business in Aliso Viejo, California.
`Defendant LUMEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. , f/k/a CenturyLink, Inc.
`2.
`(“Defendant”) is a corporation organized under the laws of Louisiana with a principal
`place of business at 100 CenturyLink Drive, Monroe, Louisiana 71203. Lumen may be
`served with process by serving C T C orporation System at 3867 Plaza Tower Drive,
`Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70816.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This is an action for infringement of several United States patents. Federal
`3.
`question jurisdiction is conferred to this Court over such action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`and 1338(a).
`4.
`Defendant is among the largest telecommunications companies in the
`United States. Defendant operates and maintains a nationwide voice and data network
`through which it sells, leases, and offers for sale or lease products and services to
`businesses, consumers, and government agencies, including the Accused Products as
`described herein, within the Central District of California. Defendant maintains several
`regular and established places of business within the Central District of California
`including at 17836 Gillette Avenue, Irvine, California 92614 and at 200 N. Nash Street,
`El Segundo, California 90245. Defendant offers for sale and sells telecommunications
`products and services, including the Accused Products as described herein, from these
`locations.
`Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with the Central District of
`5.
`California such that this venue is fair and reasonable. Defendant has offered for sale and
`sold telephony products and services within Orange County, California and continues
`2
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 3 of 41 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`to do so today. Defendant has committed such purposeful acts and/or transactions in
`this District that it reasonably should know and expect that they could be hailed into
`this Court as a consequence of such activity. Defendant has transacted and, at the time
`of the filing of this Complaint, continues to transact business within the Central District
`of California.
`6.
`For these reasons, personal jurisdiction exists and venue is proper in this
`Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), respectively.
`BACKGROUND
`7.
`Centre One is the owner of all rights and title in and to U.S. Patent No.
`8,724,643 (“the ‘643 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,486,667 (“the ‘667 Patent”). The ‘643
`and ‘667 Patents are sometimes referred to collectively hereinafter as “the Asserted
`Patents.” Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to assert additional patents against
`Defendant in this or subsequent lawsuits.
`8.
`The inventor behind the patent applications that issued as the Asserted
`Patents is Donald S. Feuer, an early pioneer in the development of VoIP telephony. Mr.
`Feuer founded Centre One in 2006 and serves as its CEO. All rights in and title to the
`patent applications subsequently issuing as the Asserted Patents, including the rights of
`enforcement and to seek past damages, have been assigned to Centre One.
`9. Mr. Feuer began working in telecommunications in the early 1990s,
`founding and managing several companies in the telecom space, including Newport
`Telecom, a company that branded cellular phones through the hospitality industry
`throughout the United States, including major hotels and car rental companies.
`10.
`In or around 1995, Mr. Feuer developed and implemented a system for car
`rental companies to track their fleet of vehicles via cellular signals. Mr. Feuer also
`developed and implemented cellular services that interfaced with installed vehicles,
`which allowed the rental companies to communicate with the vehicle occupants in
`emergency situations, notify 911, and provide other services such as unlocking doors.
`
`3
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 4 of 41 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`11.
`In 1997, Mr. Feuer founded CentreCom Inc. (“CentreCom”) to offer circuit
`switched-based one number “follow-me” services causing calls to be simultaneously
`routed to several phones. Mr. Feuer sought to incorporate this “follow me” functionality
`within a unified messaging service accommodating the forwarding voice messages as
`text to email addresses and vice versa. Mr. Feuer’s work on these systems led to his
`work in VoIP technology and development of systems and methods for interfacing
`telephone, facsimile, email, and voicemail systems to accommodate real time call
`control over the Internet. Mr. Feuer invested considerable time and resources toward
`this pursuit over the following several years. Mr. Feuer focused on a system that would
`interface a telephone call with the internet, and then would send a notification to an
`interface connected to system when a call was received.
`12.
`In early 1998, Mr. Feuer began working with engineers at Microsoft Corp.
`to refine aspects of the alpha version of its NetMeeting client that was intended to
`provide video through a computer-to-computer connection. Mr. Feuer also worked with
`Cisco Systems and Ethereal exploring signal conversions necessary to modify and
`integrate Cisco gateway and gatekeeper components with a switch to make and receive
`a call between a computer and a telephone on the Public Switched Telephone Network
`(“PSTN”), which were then incompatible communications systems. This invention
`became the basis of, and is utilized today in, nearly all Class 5 Communications,
`including cellular and commercial and home phone services.
`13. By late 1998, Mr. Feuer had designed and developed a system of hardware
`and software capable of making and receiving phone calls using Internet Protocol (“IP”)
`communications, making connections between a telephone on the PSTN and his
`computer on an IP network. Mr. Feuer continued to further refine this system to improve
`its reliability, call quality, and services until it approached that of a standard telephone
`call made over the PSTN.
`14. Mr. Feuer began demonstrating his inventions to Cisco, Microsoft, Sun
`Microsystems, Verizon, and others beginning in late January 1999 and throughout the
`4
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 5 of 41 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`year. This led to Cisco funding and financing equipment and services for CentreCom to
`provide VoIP service, and CentreCom raised an additional round of funding and
`investments from other companies and individuals.
`15. CentreCom was marketed as a Virtual Local Exchange Carrier to provide
`its Centre One phone-to-PC, PC-to-phone, and phone-to-phone telecommunications
`service through the Internet, and enhanced calling services for VoIP service including
`voice messaging, call screening, conference calling, unified messaging (faxes and
`emails as voicemails), and one number follow-me. In the fall of 1999, Microsoft
`showcased CentreCom at its booth at Comdex, a major industry gathering. This led to
`an article in Business Wire titled Microsoft Showcases Innovative Telecommunications
`Solutions from CentreCom in Comdex Booth. The article called CentreCom “one of the
`most
`innovative voice-over-Internet Protocol
`(VoIP) and
`switched global
`telecommunications service providers.”
`16.
`In addition to his time with CentreCom, which concluded in 2002, Mr.
`Feuer continued to work in the telecom industry over the next two decades. Of note, he
`was employed by Defendant as a Tier 3 Engineer, participating in the implementation
`of network equipment, along with maintenance and troubleshooting of the network.
`ASSERTED PATENTS AND TECHNOLOGY
`17. The Asserted Patents are directed to VoIP technology, and systems and
`methods for providing real-time voice communication between devices connected to an
`IP network and devices connected to a PSTN, and providing advanced services and
`features.
`18. VoIP refers to a collection of technologies that digitize analog voice and
`transmit it over digital data channels using Internet Protocol (IP). VoIP involves,
`generally, conversion of analog voice to digital data which is then packetized as IP
`packets in accordance with certain standards, or protocols, for transmission over a
`packet-switched network. This transmission mode differs greatly from the circuit-
`switched transmission mode for voice signals on the PSTN.
`5
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 6 of 41 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`19. Application layer protocols implicated by VoIP include Session Initiation
`Protocol (SIP), Session Description Protocol (“SDP”), Media Gateway Control
`Protocol (“MGCP”), H.323, and others. These protocols define how connections are
`made between endpoints to initiate and route calls, the format and content of packetized
`data to be transmitted, and operation of media gateways for interfacing IP networks
`with the PSTN. These standards are created by standards organizations, such as the
`Internet Engineering Task Force (“IETF”), and are adhered to by all telecom providers
`to ensure the ability to communicate among and between devices regardless of service
`provider. Defendant’s telecom infrastructure and related hardware and software
`components providing for the Accused Products defined below, for example, are
`configured to ascribe to the standards of each of these protocols, and others.
`20. At the time Mr. Feuer was developing the invention of the Asserted
`Patents, various local PSTN networks were connected to allow for communication of
`voice signals from one device connected to a PSTN to any other device connected to a
`PSTN; and computers with access to an IP network and voice packetization software
`could packetize voice data and transmit the data to another computer over the IP
`network. However, the voice networks of the PSTN were unable to be successfully
`integrated with the data networks of an IP network to allow for real-time voice
`communication between devices connected to the PSTN and devices connected to an
`IP network. The inventions embodied in the claims of the Asserted Patents provide for
`hardware or software component embodiments that include some or all of: a voice
`response unit that can packetize PSTN voice signals or depacketize IP voice data; a
`gateway which can interface the voice signals and data for transmission over an IP
`network or a PSTN; and, a gatekeeper which performs address translation, admission
`control, bandwidth management, and zone management functions for call control and
`quality.
`21.
`In 2009, Centre One filed a lawsuit asserting patent infringement of the
`‘667 and other patents against Vonage Holding Corp., Vonage America Inc., Verizon
`6
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 7 of 41 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Communications Inc., and DeltaThree Inc. in Case No. 6:08-cv-00467-LED, filed in
`the Eastern District of Texas. The ‘667 and other patents were placed in reexamination
`during pendency of the lawsuit and were later confirmed as patentable after resolution
`of the lawsuit.
`22. Subsequently, Centre One has filed lawsuits asserting patent infringement
`of the Asserted Patents and other related patents it owns against several telephone
`service providers, including AT&T, Charter, Cox, Comcast, among others which have
`each been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the respective parties.
`23. On June 8, 2020 (and again on July 7, 2020) Plaintiff wrote to Defendant,
`outlining its allegation of infringement. To date, Plaintiff has received no response from
`Defendant.
`
`ACCUSED PRODUCTS
`24. Defendant makes, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale VoIP products and
`services which directly infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents. More
`specifically, Defendant makes, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale subscriber-based
`products and wholesale services which are referred to herein as “the Accused Products.”
`25. By way of example, Defendant makes, uses, sells, and/or offers for sale
`subscriber-based products and wholesale phone services including its Digital Home
`phone, Engage, Business Continuity, IQ SIP Trunking, IP Voice 8XX, and Voice 1+
`Termination branded commercial products and services.
`26. The Accused Products are provided over Defendant’s global
`telecommunications network and
`infrastructure. Defendant’s network and
`infrastructure was initially built as a purely circuit-switched architecture but was later
`modified to add hardware and software accommodating packet-switched VoIP
`telephony, and interoperability between its legacy PSTN and VoIP network elements.
`The resulting combined network and infrastructure remains compatible with legacy
`telephony equipment for TDM calling on the PSTN as well as routing calls over IP
`networks and supports interoperability between PSTNs and IP networks.
`7
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 8 of 41 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`27. Defendant began as a local telephone service provider in Louisiana
`providing circuit-switched voice calling over the PSTN. It has since changed names
`several times (formerly CenturyLink, CenturyTel, and Century Telephone Enterprises)
`and grown its coverage area to span the United States.
`28. Defendant acquired other telecom companies and telephone service
`providers over the last two decades, including merging with Qwest in 2010 and
`acquiring Level 3 Communications in 2017. Through these acquisitions and
`overbuilding, Defendant incorporated additional equipment within its networks to
`accommodate long distance transport of telecom traffic over Defendant’s network and
`to accommodate offering VoIP telephony services in both new and existing markets.
`29. At this time, Defendant’s telecommunications network spans the globe and
`comprises legacy circuit switches providing primary line subscriber and wholesale
`telephony service to several markets and softswitches providing telephony service via
`VoIP technology to several additional markets. In 2010, Defendant (f/k/a CenturyLink)
`announced that it would “incorporate both legacy TDM and IP voice traffic on the same
`infrastructure” through “deployment of Sonus Networks media gateways, policy
`management and session border control.”1 More specifically, Defendant integrated
`Sonus GSX9000 Media Gateways, Sonus PSX Call Routing and Policy Servers, Sonus
`Insight Element Management Systems, and Sonus Network Border Switches (NBS-
`9000) into its existing network.
`30. Defendant later announced its “successful completion of phase one
`implementation of CenturyLink’s IP voice infrastructure… [which] brings traffic from
`CenturyLink’s voice network into one secure, cost-effective, easy to manage IP
`
`
`1 See,
`https://www.cbronline.com/news/centurylink_sonus_networks_deploy_voice_over_ip_network_1005
`04/; and, https://news.lumen.com/CenturyLink-and-Sonus-Networks-Achieve-Successful-Major-New-
`Deployment-of-Voice-Over-IP-Network.
`
`8
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 9 of 41 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`network.”2 The resulting hybrid network is operable to route and connect calls over both
`IP networks and the PSTN, and therebetween, as shown in the network maps and system
`architecture graphics shown below:
`
`
`
`31.
`In this architecture, the “CenturyLink IP Network” is communicatively
`connected to both local and wide area IP networks via edge routers and session border
`
`
`2 See, https://news.lumen.com/CenturyLink-and-Sonus-Networks-Achieve-Successful-Major-New-
`Deployment-of-Voice-Over-IP-Network.
`
`9
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 10 of 41 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`controllers to access Defendant’s subscribers; to the Internet; and, to legacy TDM Class
`4 and Class 5 switches via gateway hardware to access legacy subscribers and others
`on the PSTN. As such, the network is operable to use both legacy and soft-switches to
`receive and route calls to and from devices connected to either of the IP network or the
`PSTN communicatively coupled to Defendant’s network.
`32. As shown above, customer premise gateways and network edge routers are
`interposed between subscriber phones and the remainder of the VoIP architecture to
`performs all necessary signal conversion of voice signals for IP transmission. PSTN
`Gateways interface the PSTN with IP networks to connect Defendant’s VoIP and IP
`Networks to the PSTN and thereby enable Defendant’s subscribers to make calls to and
`receive calls from subscribers on the PSTN or an IP network.
`33. The Sonus GSX9000 Media Gateway, for example, comprises PNS41
`Packet Network Server Cards which are each touted as “support[ing] nearly 20,000
`concurrent circuit-to-packet or packet-to-circuit G.711 sessions, and up to 7,500 packet-
`to-packet G.711 sessions” according to the product datasheet published by Ribbon
`Communication (f/k/a Sonus). See Exhibit C attached hereto.
`34. Likewise,
`into Defendant’s
`the
`Sonus
`PSX
`implemented
`telecommunications network is operable to “deliver[] the call routing and session policy
`management for Ribbon’s industry-leading session border controller, media gateway
`and Class 5 access solutions” according to its product datasheet. Its functionality
`includes “[s]upporting a wide variety of signaling standards, the PSX server can also be
`deployed in heterogeneous networks as a centralized call routing engine using SIP
`Proxy Server, SIP Redirect Server, H.323 Proxy Gatekeeper, and ENUM Server
`capabilities...” and “function[ing] as the Border Gateway Control Function (BGCF) in
`IMS networks.” The PSX is implemented within a telecommunications network as
`shown in the graphic below to interface with gateways, switches, session border
`controllers, and servers to effect call routing and call control:
`
`10
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 11 of 41 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`
`
`35. The Sonus Network Border Switch (NBS-9000) implemented within
`Defendant’s telecommunications network “is a widely deployed SBC solution amongst
`tier-one service provider networks and enterprises globally [that] allows service
`providers to offer both IP to IP session management and TDM to IP capabilities on the
`same platform.”3 They are touted as offering “an elegant way for customers to migrate
`from TDM-based networks to all IP networks by simultaneously supporting both TDM
`to IP and IP to IP networks with software upgrades to the GSX.”
`36. While Defendant has since grown and modified its IP backbone to increase
`transmission speed and capacity, upon information and belief, the architecture,
`components, operation, and use are substantially the same as shown above with respect
`to interconnection between IP networks and the PSTN for making and routing calls
`therebetween.
`37. Defendant offers the Accused Products and associated services over its
`network and infrastructure described above and, in the manner described above. For
`
`
`3 See, https://www.lightreading.com/ethernet-ip/voip-systems/sonus-improves-nbs-9000/d/d-
`id/676724.
`
`11
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 12 of 41 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`example, with regard to long distance calling, Defendant describes operation of its
`network for call routing and transport as follows4:
`
`
`
`38. The Accused Products include “Digital Home Phone” branded telephony
`service offered to Defendant’s internet customers. Setup and use of Digital Home Phone
`service requires installation of a customer premise gateway device operable to perform
`necessary signal conversion of voice signals output from a phone for IP transmission
`over the Defendant network. These devices are sometimes referred to as an MTA,
`eDVA, or a modem with embedded phone adapter.
`39. Digital Home Phone unlimited plans come with enhanced features,
`including: call waiting, caller ID, call waiting ID, voicemail; 3-way calling, call
`rejection, call forwarding, call return, among others. The voicemail feature allows for
`
`
`4 https://www.centurylink.com/wholesale/pcat/natipvoiceterm.html
`12
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 13 of 41 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`receipt and storage of messages as audio files, written transcripts, or as emails delivered
`to a subscriber’s inbox. Defendant provides instructions for activating and configuring
`readable voicemail via its Message Manager web interface. Subscribers can have up to
`five email addresses to which text versions of voicemails received will be sent.
`40. Defendant offers several types of business VoIP telephony service which
`are provided over its network, including its Engage, Continuity, IQ SIP Trunking, IP
`Voice 8XX, and Voice +1 Termination products and services. Upon information and
`belief, each of these products are operable with “CenturyLink Converged IP Services”
`(CIPS) or other similar services package offered by Defendant in connection with its
`commercial phone products. CIPS provides a personal online dashboard providing
`voice mail, call logging, find-me/follow-me capabilities as well as portal access via
`Microsoft Outlook integration providing unified messaging and integrated email and
`voice messaging capabilities.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`U.S. Patent No. 7,486,667
`41. Centre One repeats and re-alleges all preceding paragraphs of this
`Complaint, as though fully set forth herein.
`42. On September 16, 2013, an Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate
`affirming the validity of claim 14 of the ‘667 Patent was duly and legally issued for
`“Method and Apparatus for Interfacing a Public Switched Telephone Network and an
`Internet Protocol Network for Multi-Media Communication.” A true and correct copy
`of the ‘667 Patent with the Reexamination Certificate appended thereto is attached as
`Exhibit A to this Complaint and made a part hereof.
`43. Plaintiff is the owner of all right and title in the ‘667 Patent, including all
`rights to enforce and prosecute action for infringement of the ‘667 Patent and to collect
`damages for all relevant times against infringers of the ‘667 Patent. Accordingly,
`
`13
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 14 of 41 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Plaintiff possesses the exclusive right and standing to prosecute the present action for
`infringement of the ‘667 Patent by Defendant.
`44. The ‘667 Patent discloses and claims methods for routing real-time voice
`communications to a subscriber received from an Internet-connected device and
`delivering a message if the call is not picked up. The real-time communication may be
`routed from or to devices connected to either a PSTN or an IP network via conversion
`of voice signals to digital tones by a voice response unit and gateway communicatively
`connected to a switch. Received calls may be routed to each of a predesignated IP
`address and a PSTN number assigned to the subscriber. The communication may be
`received as a message in voice, e-mail, or facsimile form as determined by the
`subscriber.
`45. Defendant, without authority, consent, right, or license, has made, used,
`sold, and offered to sell Accused Products, which operate on Defendant’s network and
`infrastructure which comprise each of the components and functional steps of the
`method claimed in at least claim 14 of the ‘667 Patent. Defendant therefore directly
`infringes, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, claim 14 of the ‘667
`Patent.
`46. Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct.
`Defendant is, thus, liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates for their
`infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with
`interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`U.S. Patent No. 8,724,643 B2
`47. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint,
`as though fully set forth herein.
`48. On May 13, 2014 the ‘643 Patent was duly and legally issued for
`“Providing Real-Time Voice Communication Between Devices Connected to an
`14
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 15 of 41 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Internet Protocol Network and Devices Connected to a Public Switched Telephone
`Network.” A true and correct copy of the ‘643 Patent is attached as Exhibit B to this
`Complaint and made a part hereof.
`49. Plaintiff is the owner of all right and title in the ‘643 Patent, including all
`rights to enforce and prosecute action for infringement of the ‘643 Patent and to collect
`damages for all relevant times against infringers of the ‘643 Patent. Accordingly,
`Plaintiff possesses the exclusive right and standing to prosecute the present action for
`infringement of the ‘643 Patent by Defendant.
`50. The ‘643 Patent discloses and claims systems operable to accommodate
`and methods accommodating real-time voice communication between and among
`devices connected to an IP network and devices connected to a PSTN. Such operation
`entails conversion of voice signals to packetized digital data signals and vice versa to
`interface the IP network and PSTN. Hardware and software components claimed effect
`call control functions such as address translation, admission control, bandwidth
`management, and zone management. Calls are routed to any of the one or more
`destination addresses on the IP network or PSTN stored for a subscriber.
`51. Defendant, without authority, consent, right, or license, has made, used,
`sold, and/or offered for sale the Accused Products which operate on Defendant’s
`network and infrastructure comprising the components and functional steps of the
`method claimed in at least claims 10 and 11 of the ‘643 Patent. Defendant therefore
`directly infringes, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, at least claims 10
`and 11 of the ‘643 Patent. Plaintiff expressly reserves the right to assert additional
`claims of the ‘643 Patent against Defendant.
`52. Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of Defendant’s infringing conduct.
`Defendant is, thus, liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates for their
`infringement, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with
`interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`15
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 16 of 41 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`b.
`
`d.
`
`d.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the Court find in its favor and against
`Defendant, and that the Court grant Plaintiff the following relief:
`a.
`Judgment that one or more claims of the Asserted Patents have been
`directly infringed, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by
`Defendant;
`Judgment that Defendant account for and pay to Plaintiff all damages to
`and costs incurred by Plaintiff because of Defendant’s infringing
`activities and other conduct complained of herein, including enhanced
`damages as permitted by 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused by
`Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;
`A declaration that this an exceptional case warranting an award to
`Plaintiff of its reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with 35
`U.S.C. § 285; and
`A finding that Defendant, its officers, agents, servants and employees,
`and those persons in active concert and participation therewith, be
`permanently enjoined from infringement of one or more claims of the
`Asserted Patents or, in the alternative, if the Court finds that an injunction
`is not warranted, Plaintiff requests an award of post judgment royalty to
`compensate for future infringement; and
`Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`
`
`16
`Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`

`

`Case 8:21-cv-01130-CJC-ADS Document 1 Filed 06/29/21 Page 17 of 41 Page ID #:17
`
`Dated: June 28, 2021
`
`WOLFF MASCARO LLP
`FRIEDMAN, SUDER & COOKE
`
`By:
`
`Joshua M. Wolff
`Jonathan T. Suder
`Dave R. Gunter
`Richard A. Wojcio, Jr.
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Centre One
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`Plaintiff Centre One hereby demands a trial by jury, pursuant to Rule 38 of the
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on all claims so triable.
`
`Dated: June 28, 2021
`
`By:
`
`Joshua M. Wolff
`Jonathan T.