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