throbber
Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 1 of 30
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.;
`
`AMAZON.COM, SERVICES LLC; and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.;
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00272-ADA
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”), for its First
`
`Amended Complaint against Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com, Services, Inc., and
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc. (collectively “Amazon Defendants”), alleges as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) is a Nevada corporation with its
`
`principal place of business located at 10900 NE 4th Street, Suite 2300, Bellevue, Washington
`
`98004.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Amazon.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business at 410 Terry Ave. North, Seattle, Washington 98109. Amazon.com,
`
`Inc. may be served through its registered agent Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls
`
`Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Amazon.com Services, LLC is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 410 Terry Ave. North, Seattle, Washington 98109.
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 2 of 30
`
`Amazon.com Services, LLC may be served through its registered agent Corporation Service
`
`Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701. On information and belief,
`
`Amazon.com Services, LLC is registered to do business in the State of Texas and has been since
`
`at least December 30, 2019. On information and belief, Amazon.com Services, LLC is a wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc.
`
`4.
`
`On information and belief, Amazon Web Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 410 Terry Ave. North, Seattle, Washington 98109.
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc. may be served through its registered agent Corporation Service
`
`Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701. On information and belief,
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc. is registered to do business in the State of Texas and has been since
`
`at least May 3, 2006. On information and belief, Amazon Web Services, LLC is a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc.
`
`5.
`
`On information and belief, the Amazon Defendants regularly conduct and transact
`
`business in the State of Texas, throughout the United States, and within this District, and as set
`
`forth below, have committed and continue to commit, tortious acts of infringement within and
`
`outside the State of Texas and within this District.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This action is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws
`
`of the United States, Title 35, United States Code (“U.S.C.”) §1 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`271 and 281-285. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this case for patent
`
`infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Amazon Defendants by virtue of
`
`their systematic and continuous contacts with this jurisdiction, as alleged herein, as well as
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 3 of 30
`
`because the injury to VoIP-Pal occurred in the State of Texas and the claim for relief possessed
`
`by VoIP-Pal against the Amazon Defendants for that injury arose in the State of Texas. On
`
`information and belief, the Amazon Defendants have purposely availed themselves of the
`
`privileges of conducting business within the State of Texas, such business including but not
`
`limited to: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; (ii) purposefully and
`
`voluntarily placing one or more infringing products into the stream of commerce with the
`
`expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in this forum; or (iii) regularly transacting
`
`or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, or deriving or attempting
`
`to derive substantial revenue and financial benefits from goods and services provided to
`
`individuals residing in the State of Texas and in this District. Thus, the Amazon Defendants are
`
`subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction under due process and the Texas
`
`Long Arm Statute.
`
`8.
`
`Personal jurisdiction also exists specifically over the Amazon Defendants because
`
`the Amazon Defendants, directly or through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including customers,
`
`distributors, retailers, and others), subsidiaries, alter egos, and/or agents – ships, distributes,
`
`offers for sale, sells, imports, advertises, or markets in the State of Texas and in this District, one
`
`or more products that infringe the patent-in-suit, as described particularly below. The Amazon
`
`Defendants have purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of their infringing products, as
`
`described below, into the stream of commerce with the awareness and/or intent that these
`
`products will be purchased by consumers in this District. The Amazon Defendants have
`
`knowingly and purposefully shipped infringing products into and within this District through an
`
`established distribution channel. These infringing products have been and continue to be
`
`purchased by consumers in this District.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 4 of 30
`
`9.
`
`VoIP-Pal’s claim for relief for patent infringement arises directly from the
`
`activities of the Amazon Defendants in this District. On information and belief, the Amazon
`
`Defendants, directly and/or through their customers have transacted business in this District and
`
`has committed acts of patent infringement in this District. The Amazon Defendants maintain a
`
`corporate offices in this District at 11501 and 11601 Alterra Parkway, Austin, Texas 78758.
`
`Thus, the Amazon Defendants have a regular and established place of business in this District.
`
`Thus, venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE PATENT-IN-SUIT
`
`10.
`
`United States Patent No. 10,218,606 (the “’606 patent”) entitled “Producing
`
`Routing Messages For Voice Over IP Communications” was duly and legally issued by the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office on February 26, 2019. A copy of the ’606 patent is
`
`attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`The ’606 patent is referred to in this Complaint as the “Patent-in-Suit.”
`
`The inventions of the Patent-in-Suit originated from breakthrough work and
`
`development in the internet protocol communications field.
`
`13.
`
`VoIP-Pal has provided significant improvements to communications technology
`
`by the invention of novel methods, processes and apparatuses that facilitate communications
`
`across and between internet protocol based communication systems and networks, such as
`
`internally controlled systems and external networks (e.g., across private networks and between
`
`private networks and public networks), including the classification and routing thereof.
`
`14.
`
`The earliest telephone systems to receive public use within the United States
`
`involved a telephone directly connected to a human operator. A portion of the phone rested on a
`
`mechanical hook such that the operator was signaled when the portion was lifted from the hook.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 5 of 30
`
`A caller would then say the name of the person they wished to call to the operator. If the callee
`
`was connected to the same telephone switch board the operator would physically pull out a cable
`
`associated with the caller’s phone and plug the cable into a socket associated with the callee’s
`
`telephone. If the callee was associated with a different switchboard, and thus out of reach of the
`
`operator, a second operator would be involved to bridge the gap to the appropriate switchboard.
`
`While initially very effective compared to no telephone service, this structure quickly proved
`
`error prone (operators would connect the wrong party) and limiting to the number of possible
`
`telephones because of the physical limits of switchboards and cable to be pulled. This basic
`
`system corresponds to the introduction of a Plain Old Telephone Service (“POTS”) connection to
`
`the operator. In these configurations, there was a dedicated, point-to-point electrical connection
`
`between the caller and the callee.
`
`15.
`
`Rotary dialing eventually was introduced, beginning at around the turn of the 20th
`
`century, where a rotary disk was marked with numbers from zero to nine. A caller would spin the
`
`wheel and a mechanical device in the telephone would cause a sequence of electrical pulses to be
`
`sent to the network corresponding to the digit dialed, for example, four pulses would be sent for
`
`the number four. Rather than speaking to a human operator, an electric device would count the
`
`pulses and begin to route a call once an appropriate and valid sequence of digits was dialed by
`
`the caller. This advancement improved reliability of call routing and reduced the time required to
`
`initiate a call. But, even so, there was a dedicated, point-to-point electrical connection between
`
`the caller and the callee. As multiple companies entered the market of telephone service and the
`
`number of customers increased, an issue emerged where a caller would be a customer of one
`
`telephone company and the callee would be a customer of another. The solution that emerged to
`
`this problem was to introduce trunk lines connecting one company to another.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 6 of 30
`
`16.
`
`Eventually, as the number of companies continued to increase and telephone
`
`services spread over much larger geographic areas, the notion of a Public Switched Telephone
`
`Service (“PSTN”) emerged. The term derives from the notion, at least in part, that the dedicated
`
`wires used to connect the caller and callee were “circuit-switched” to connect the two parties.
`
`The PSTN developed gradually into the middle of the 20th century, still built around the notion
`
`of rotary dialing and POTS connections to the individual telephones. These calls involved analog
`
`communications over circuit-switched electrical connections. A circuit-switched network
`
`involves assigning dedicated resources, such as switch settings and specific wires, to establish a
`
`link from the caller to the callee. While the call is ongoing, these resources cannot be used for
`
`any other communications.
`
`17.
`
`The next important advancement for consumer telephone service, introduced
`
`broadly during the second half of the 20th century, was the introduction of push-button
`
`telephones. With such telephones the rotary dial was replaced by a matrix of buttons, each
`
`labeled with a digit from zero through nine along with the additions of ‘*’ and ‘#’. The
`
`underlying signaling technology was called dual-tone multiple-frequency (“DTMF”) and
`
`involves two different audible tones being sent simultaneously from the telephone into the
`
`telephone network. A receiver within the network decoded these tones and formed them into a
`
`sequence of digits indicating the number of the callee.
`
`18.
`
`Around this same time a scheme for international telephone addressing was
`
`introduced, with a numeric protocol for identifying one country from another and providing
`
`country-specific routing within the destination country. The E.164 standard now documents how
`
`a caller anywhere in the world, for example, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, can identify a telephone
`
`number at any other location, such as Avignon, France. While many of these advances, such as
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 7 of 30
`
`DTMF dialing and automated international routing, may have been originally introduced via ad
`
`hoc methods, eventually they required multiple parties (companies and governments) to agree on
`
`protocols to enable wide-spread reliable use and inter-operability among different telephone
`
`communications networks. Even with all these advances, the systems still relied on circuit-
`
`switched technology that dedicated resources between the caller and the callee for the duration of
`
`a call. The move to take human operators out of the loop, with the introduction of rotary dialing,
`
`combined with the fast increase in demand for telephone services throughout the 20th century,
`
`resulted in the development of automated telephone switches. These devices comprised a set of
`
`input ports, each dedicated to, and associated with a specific caller, and output ports, each
`
`capable of being associated with a callee. A small local telephone system may have had a single
`
`switch while a larger service would use a large number of switches that were connected to each
`
`other. A switch from a local service provider would be connected to a trunk line which then
`
`connected to an input switch of another service provider. These switches originally supported
`
`analog voice calls initiated via rotary dialing and dedicating input and output ports as well as
`
`physical wires for each circuit-switched call.
`
`19.
`
`Eventually analog voice services were replaced within the network with digital
`
`voice. Digital voice is communicated using a sequence of chunks (or packets) of data. This
`
`advancement allowed physical resources to be shared among multiple calls over short bursts of
`
`time. For example, a physical wire can move a packet for one call at a specific instance in time
`
`and then move a packet for a totally different call subsequently, only to later return to transfer a
`
`new packet for the original call. This advance is called packet-switched communications and
`
`provided an important increase in network reliability and efficiency while driving down the cost.
`
`However, in most situations throughout the 20th century (and often still today), the connection to
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 8 of 30
`
`the end user’s physical telephone is analog. While network switches operate via digital circuitry,
`
`and often comprise programmable processors executing software, they tend to be dedicated
`
`special-purpose devices. The conversion between analog and digital encoding is typically done at
`
`the point where the PSTN network switch connects to the POTS handset, for example, at a
`
`device called a Class-5 telephone switch, which connects the customer POTS handset to the
`
`PSTN network of a service provider’s central office.
`
`20.
`
`The Internet became important to consumers, via broad deployment, during the
`
`late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Eventually available bandwidth and reliability increased to the
`
`point where pioneers began to experiment with techniques to carry voice communications over
`
`the Internet. These early efforts began to focus on techniques called Voice Over Internet Protocol
`
`(VOIP) and session initiation protocol (SIP). VOIP provided a consistent set of protocols and
`
`mechanisms for moving digital voice packets between two callers using the Internet rather than
`
`existing PSTN networks. SIP provided a mechanism for establishing and terminating
`
`communication sessions such as calls between users of a VOIP service. For example, a callee
`
`could register with a VOIP service so that an identifier (such as their name, email address or a
`
`nickname) could be associated with the computer to which they are logged in. Eventually VOIP
`
`services increased to provide interoperability with the existing PSTN services. For example, the
`
`company Skype began to allow a user to call a PSTN number using a feature marketed as “Skype
`
`out”. However, the user was required to explicitly classify the call as a PSTN call by specifying a
`
`real physical telephone number. In this case the VOIP system must include a gateway to bridge
`
`from the VOIP network to the PSTN network in order to route to the physical telephone. Calls
`
`that use a proprietary non-PSTN user identifier such as an email or nickname remain within the
`
`VOIP network and are not routed to the PSTN network and do not connect to a POTS telephone.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 9 of 30
`
`21.
`
`The advent of VOIP technology allowed customers to physically move their
`
`telephones from one location to another, even from one continent to another, with no
`
`fundamental change in its operation from the point of view of a caller once a connection to the
`
`Internet was established. However, the integration of network gateways to route between
`
`different types of networks using VOIP, for example from a VOIP caller in Europe to a PSTN
`
`callee in the United States, introduced a number of new complications. The VOIP service needed
`
`to be able to distinguish between callees that were within the VOIP network and those that were
`
`outside of it and thus required different methods for identifying callees and routing to them
`
`depending on whether the callees were within or outside the VOIP network. One way to identify
`
`callees on the VOIP network was to use a predefined proprietary user identifier such as an email
`
`or nickname. The VOIP service provider also needed to interpret dialed PSTN numbers in order
`
`to correctly route calls to a PSTN callee. A VOIP caller had to use different types of callee
`
`identifier depending on whether or not the destination (callee) they were calling was within the
`
`VOIP network or not. The caller’s choice of the type of callee identifier thus specified the
`
`network of the destination to be called. However, the asserted Patent-in-Suit discloses and
`
`claims a distinct manner of call routing.
`
`22.
`
`Digifonica, a wholly owned subsidiary of patent owner VoIP-Pal, starting in 2004
`
`eventually came to employ over a dozen top professionals (e.g., software developers, system
`
`administrators, QA/test analysts) including three Ph.D.’s with engineering backgrounds, to
`
`develop innovative software solutions for communications. Digifonica spent over $15,000,000
`
`researching, developing, and testing a communication solution capable of seamlessly integrating
`
`a private voice-over-IP (“VoIP”) communication network with an external network (i.e., the
`
`“public switched telephone network” or “PSTN”), by bridging the disparate protocols,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 10 of 30
`
`destination identifiers and addressing schemes used in the two networks. By the mid-2000’s,
`
`Digifonica had successfully tested intra- and inter-network communications (i.e.,
`
`communications within the private Digifonica system and between the Digifonica system and the
`
`PSTN) by implementing high-capacity communication nodes across three geographic regions,
`
`including actual working communication nodes in Vancouver (Canada) and London (UK). See
`
`’606 patent at Fig. 1 (nodes 11, 21) and 13:19-35. Digifonica’s R&D efforts led to a number of
`
`patent grants, including U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815, to which the Patent-in-Suit claims priority.
`
`23.
`
`Prior to the ‘815 patent, private branch exchange (PBX) systems typically enabled
`
`users to call destinations internal to the PBX by dialing an extension (i.e., “private number”) and
`
`destinations external to the PBX on the public switched telephone network (PSTN) by dialing a
`
`“public number.” Such PBX systems relied on a user-specified classification of the dialed
`
`number to interpret the number and route the call. For example, it was a well-known practice to
`
`require that a user placing a call to the public network dial a predefined prefix such as “9” to
`
`indicate that subsequent digits were to be interpreted as a public PSTN number. If no prefix was
`
`dialed, the dialed digits were to be interpreted as a private PBX extension. The number alone, as
`
`dialed, dictated how the call was routed. Thus, the user made an affirmative decision when
`
`placing a call as to whether the call would be routed over a public or private network.
`
`24.
`
`Digifonica’s system employed an approach fundamentally different from
`
`traditional PBX’s: it did not rely on a caller-specified classification (e.g., a prefix digit) to
`
`distinguish private calls from PSTN calls. Rather, Digifonica provided flexible, user-specific
`
`dialing features and could decouple the type of number being called from the manner in which
`
`the call would be handled. For example, even if a public PSTN number was dialed, Digifonica’s
`
`system could determine that the call should be routed to an internal destination on its private
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 11 of 30
`
`network, thus allowing the advantages of private network calling even if callers were unaware
`
`that the call recipient (“callee”) was a Digifonica system subscriber. If, on the other hand, the
`
`PSTN number represented a destination on an external network (e.g., the public network), the
`
`Digifonica system facilitated the routing of the call to the destination through a gateway.
`
`25.
`
`VoIP-Pal’s/Digifonica’s technology and patents represent fundamental
`
`advancements to Internet Protocol (“IP”) based communication, including improved functioning,
`
`classification, routing and reliability of Voice-over-IP (VoIP) and IP-based transmission of
`
`video, photographs, messages and mixed media, as well as improved interoperability of IP-based
`
`private communication networks with external networks, such as the public switched telephone
`
`network (PSTN), interconnected with the private communication networks via one or more
`
`gateways.
`
`26.
`
`The Patent-in-Suit provides, inter alia, improvements in routing controllers,
`
`processes, networks and systems. Several illustrative examples of such improvements are briefly
`
`described below, although the patented invention is not limited to these specific improvements or
`
`examples.
`
`27.
`
`The public switched telephone network (PSTN) connected callers through nodes
`
`such as central offices or exchanges. Because these nodes were limited to providing services
`
`only to subscribers in a “local calling service area,” they required callers to place calls in a
`
`specific manner, e.g., by requiring the use of certain dialing patterns and conventions associated
`
`with that local area. See ’606 patent at 1:42-46. For example, it was known to persons of skill in
`
`the field of the invention that PSTN nodes conventionally required PSTN callers to dial in a
`
`manner compatible with a local numbering plan (e.g., in the U.S., a plan consistent with the
`
`“North American Numbering Plan” or “National Numbering Plan,” in use by AT&T as early as
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 12 of 30
`
`about the 1940’s and further developed in later years) as well as to dial in a manner compatible
`
`with international standards such as those of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
`
`Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T). See ’606 patent at 19:52-66. For example,
`
`it is known in the field of telephony that early numbering plans assigned an “area code” of 312
`
`for calling Illinois, and that this area code (312) remains in use even today as an area code for
`
`Chicago. To take another example, the ITU designates “44” as a “country code” for calling the
`
`United Kingdom. Id. at Fig. 12 (“County Code” attribute for London user is “44”).
`
`28.
`
`Large organizations were able to avoid PSTN dialing constraints, at least for
`
`internal calls, by using private branch exchanges (PBXs) and private numbering plans for their
`
`internal private telephone networks, but these PBXs also needed to provide caller access to the
`
`PSTN. See ’606 patent at 1:35-48. As Andy Valdar has explained in his textbook, “Businesses
`
`which have more than a few telephones use a private branch exchange system, known as a PBX,
`
`to provide call connections between each telephone (which become ‘extensions’) and links into
`
`the PSTN... The PBX is really a small version of the PSTN exchanges, typically ranging in sizes
`
`from 10 up to 5,000 extensions. A private numbering scheme is required to enable extension to
`
`extension dialing, also special codes (e.g. ‘dial 9’) are required to enable calls to be made to the
`
`PSTN. [...] In the case where a company extends over two or more sites (e.g. office or factory
`
`buildings) the PBXs on each site can be linked by private circuits, thus enabling calling between
`
`all the extensions. This is known as a ‘private corporate network’ (or just ‘private network’). In
`
`this case the private numbering scheme extends across all the PBXs and usually each PBX is
`
`linked to the PSTN.” (See Valdar, Andy, Understanding Telecommunications Networks, The
`
`Institution of Engineering and Technology, London, UK, 2006, p. 38 (emphasis added)).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 13 of 30
`
`29.
`
`It was well-understood, routine and conventional for PBXs to require users to dial
`
`a special code (e.g., a prefix digit of “9”) if they wanted to place a call on the PSTN, as noted by
`
`Valdar and numerous other sources. For example, one telecom dictionary distinguishes between
`
`dialing an “internal PBX station number” and an “external number,” wherein in the latter case,
`
`“the user must dial an access code in order to gain access to an external trunk connected to the
`
`public switched telephone network (PSTN)... The conventional access code is nine (9) in the
`
`United States and Canada, and zero (0) in most other countries”. (See Ray Horak, Webster’s
`
`New World Telecom Dictionary, Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, 2008, p.133
`
`[emphasis added]). To take another example, U.S. Patent No. 3,725,596 to Maxon et al.
`
`(“Maxon”), filed in 1971, discloses an discloses an early private branch exchange (PBX) having
`
`equipment for automatically generating and transmitting calling station and trunk number
`
`information to a central office on outgoing calls. Maxon indicates that “a calling party at station
`
`ST10... dials a prefix digit, such as the conventional prefix digit 9, to initiate an outgoing call to
`
`the central office. The digit 9 is... detected by the dial 9 detector 152. Upon the detection of this
`
`digit, the register control circuit 153 advises common control that the digit 9 has been dialed for
`
`a central office call.” [emphasis added]. Maxon at 9:66-10:6; see also Fig. 1B (152), 8:58-68,
`
`9:21, 9:38-40, 13:3-6, 14:6-7 and at 14:59. Webster’s New World Telecom dictionary and
`
`Maxon both confirm that it was considered “conventional” to use a prefix digit such as “9” to
`
`place a PSTN call from a PBX. The Patent-in-Suit eschewed such well-understood, routine and
`
`conventional approaches to integrating these two networks.
`
`30.
`
`A person of skill in the art (POSITA), upon review of the Patent-in-Suit, would
`
`have understood that the disclosed embodiments are inherently computer-based. The POSITA
`
`would further appreciate that the asserted claims of the Patent-in-Suit are necessarily rooted in
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 14 of 30
`
`computer technology for the operation of communication networks, and provide technical
`
`improvements to overcome certain technical limitations of prior art routing processes, systems
`
`and networks, viz., that the asserted claims provide technology solutions for one or more of: (1)
`
`user-specific communication handling, (2) transparent routing, and (3) network resiliency and (4)
`
`communication blocking.
`
`31.
`
`User-Specific Communication Handling: Many prior art communication systems
`
`required users to place a call by using a specific callee identifier format or by following certain
`
`dialing conventions with no opportunity for defining a user-specific manner of placing calls. For
`
`example, as discussed above, PSTN nodes were typically limited to supporting only the dialing
`
`conventions of their local calling service area, processed calls locally (See ’606 patent at 1:42-
`
`46), and did not support user-specific calling. The technology disclosed in the Patent-in-Suit and
`
`recited in the asserted claims overcomes such technical limitations and supports user-specific
`
`calling styles, e.g., calling styles from any continent or country based on the application of user-
`
`specific attributes and network classification criteria to callee identifiers to route a call. It is
`
`unnecessary for the user to do anything special to “trigger” such user-specific call processing.
`
`See, e.g., ’606 patent at 15:48-60 and 19:36-51 (disclosing storing user-specific parameters in
`
`association with each subscriber/user), 19:18-42 (describing a user-specific dialing profile
`
`capable of supporting numerous global styles of dialing), and Figs. 8A-8D (disclosing steps for
`
`processing a routing request based in part on user-specific parameters). By evaluating a called
`
`party identifier based on profile settings or “attributes” associated with the calling party, the
`
`technology provides an individually customizable manner of initiating a communication to a
`
`destination party. To be clear, it is not merely a calling party’s identifier (i.e., “caller ID” or
`
`“caller identifier”) that is used to evaluate the called party’s identifier (e.g., “callee identifier”);
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 15 of 30
`
`rather, a caller-specific profile, identifying caller-specific parameters/attributes, is used to
`
`evaluate the called party’s identifier, to determine the routing destination and to engage the
`
`appropriate infrastructure for effecting the communication. A skilled person in the field of the
`
`invention would recognize, in light of the patent specification, that this approach is capable of
`
`fulfilling various individual service preferences among users for initiating communications (e.g.,
`
`any desired PSTN dialing style, unconventional dialing styles, and even use of special callee
`
`identifiers such as usernames). See id. at 19:36-48; 20:33-47; 22:3-23:22. To give just one
`
`illustrative example, the profiles of two different users may specify different ways of dialing an
`
`international call (e.g., an “IDD” attribute in two different user’s profiles may differ: see id.,
`
`“IDD” attributes in the user profiles shown in Figs. 11 and 12 are set to “011” and “00”,
`
`respectively; compare blocks 257-259 in Fig. 8B). All of the asserted claims of the Patent-in-Suit
`
`enable user-specific handling of communications; in particular, every claim recites relies on
`
`user-specific attributes, associated with a user-specific profile of the calling party, for
`
`determining and establishing routing to the destination. Enabling a communication system,
`
`node, or routing controller to provide customized, user-specific communication handling to each
`
`individual user represents a technological improvement over conventional prior communication
`
`systems, nodes, and devices, which simply imposed “one-size-fits-all” methods of
`
`communication on all users.
`
`32.
`
`Routing Transparency: Some prior art communication systems required a user to
`
`explicitly signal how a call should be processed or to manually “trigger” special call handling.
`
`For example, as discussed above, it was well-understood, routine and conventional for PBX
`
`systems in large organizations to rely on a user-specified classification of the dialed number to
`
`interpret the number and route the call—e.g., a user placing a call to the PSTN would dial a
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 31 Filed 07/31/20 Page 16 of 30
`
`predefined prefix such as “9” to indicate that subsequent digits were to be interpreted as a PSTN
`
`number. If no prefix was dialed, the dialed digits were interpreted as a private PBX extension.
`
`The dialed digits alone dictated how the call was routed, and thus the user made an affirmative
`
`decision when placing a call as to how the call’s routing would take place. Furthermore, when a
`
`PSTN number was dialed, the PSTN number itself identified which PSTN node within the public
`
`switched telephone network was connected to the called party. In the foregoing example, the
`
`PBX failed not only to provide user-specific call handling, but it also lacked routing
`
`transparency. In contrast, the asserted claims of the Patent-in-Suit use a caller’s attributes to
`
`evaluate a callee identifier

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket