Verizon Patent Lawsuit - Questions Answered

Posts: 153 · Vonage Forum Master Joined: Jan 11, 2007 Posts: 153

And to the best of my knowledge, the claims of '711 and '574 are implemented by Vonage and all other SIP-based Voip providers using standard protocols specified in the internet RFCs, primarily RFC3261 which superseded RFC2543.
RFC2543 includes the SIP REGISTER method, which is how a Vonage Voip phone makes its presence and current location known, and RFC2543 pre-dates the Vonage patents.

Posts: 8 · New Forum Member Joined: Jan 23, 2007 Posts: 8

More details. Individual items within patents:

Quote:

"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Claude M. Hilton : Jury Trial cont'd on 3/8/2007.

Appearances as previous. Jury question rec'd 3/7/07 addressed w/counsel. Jury reinstructed re: name translation and given the definition of 'method comprising'. The jury returned to the jury room to continue deliberations.

The jury returned to the courtroom at 2:50 w/a verdict finding infringement of claim 27 of the '574 patent, claim 20 of the '711 patent and Claims 1, 6, 7, and 8 of the '880 patent and finding that the infringement was not willful.

The jury did not find infringement of claims 1 & 2 of the '869 patent and Claims 1 & 2 of the '275 patent. The jury found none of the claims at issue in patents '574, '711, '869, '275, or '880 to be invalid. The jury awarded plaintiffs damages in the amount of $58,000,000.00 and found the reasonable royalty percentage to be 5.5%. Judgment to be entered in accordance with the verdict. plaintiffs motion for Permanent Injunction to heard on 3/23/07 @ 10:00. (Court Reporter Linnell.) (tarm, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)"

Posts: 153 · Vonage Forum Master Joined: Jan 11, 2007 Posts: 153

The claims in the '711 and '574 patents are ENUM, standardized in RFC 3761 (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3761.txt ).

An example of the way it's currently in PUBLIC use, not just within Vonage's network, is as follows.

Quote:

$ nslookup -type=naptr 9.9.9.9.0.7.8.0.0.8.1.e164.org

9.9.9.9.0.7.8.0.0.8.1.e164.org order = 200, preference = 10
flags = "u"
services = "E2U+SIP"
rule = "!^\+1800(.*)$!sip:1641641800\1@sip.tollfreegateway.com!"
replacement = (root)
9.9.9.9.0.7.8.0.0.8.1.e164.org order = 200, preference = 10
flags = "u"
services = "E2U+SIP"
rule = "!^\+1800(.*)$!sip:1800\1@tf.voipmich.com!"
replacement = (root)

As described in the RFC, this is a lookup of the telephone number 1-800-870-9999. Two possible resulting gateways from the Internet to the PSTN are returned, which may be tried randomly or in order.

Again, this is a public database, which anyone can use. ITSP's like Vonage (all of them) use this Open Standard with both public databases (e164.arpa is the official one, e164.org is a public, but unofficial one, and any company can run private internal versions) to determine how to route calls both from the Internet to the PSTN and from the PSTN to the Internet, as applicable.

The claim in the '880 patent is simply NORMAL use of the SIP REGISTER method as defined in RFCs 3261 and 2543. RFC 2543 pre-dates any of Verizon's patent. What Verizon claims as unique is simply doing these operations over a WiFi gateway. It is as though I were to patent using normal eMail protocols when connected to a WiFi Hotspot.

Posts: 8 · New Forum Member Joined: Jan 23, 2007 Posts: 8

jcovert wrote:

The claims in the '711 and '574 patents are ENUM, standardized in RFC 3761 (see http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3761.txt ).

RFC 3761 does not appear to me to be prior art.

RFC 3761 is dated 2004. '711 is dated 2000 and '574 is dated 2001.

Posts: 153 · Vonage Forum Master Joined: Jan 11, 2007 Posts: 153

RFC 3761 obsoletes RFC 2916, dated September 2000.

Whether prior art is applicable or not, obviousness should be.

But in any case, THE ENTIRE Voip INDUSTRY is largely based on routing calls via mechanisms like RFC 3761.

Posts: 8 · New Forum Member Joined: Jan 23, 2007 Posts: 8

jcovert wrote:

RFC 3761 obsoletes RFC 2916, dated September 2000.

'711 was filed March 6, 1997
'574 was filed February 24, 2000

jcovert wrote:

obviousness

Quote:

... 6,282,574 ...

We claim...

19. A method comprising:
receiving a name translation request at a server coupled to a public packet data network; translating a name included in the request into destination address information if the server receives the request within a predetermined time window; and transmitting a reply containing the destination address information to a calling device.

20. A method as in claim 19, wherein the address information comprises a telephone number.

Given that JEEVES was translating names to numbers and such on the ARPANET in 1983 it does look like '574 claim 20 is pretty obvious.

Quote:

History of the Internet and Web (link)

1983 ... November ... Paul Mockapetris publishes RFCs 882 and 883 which outline the Domain Name Service. Paul's first implementation of a DNS server was called JEEVES.

Posts: 153 · Vonage Forum Master Joined: Jan 11, 2007 Posts: 153

'574 claim 20 wasn't returned by the Jury; '711 claim 20 was. It's a little bit less obvious, but I still consider it obvious.

The bottom line is that the entire Voip industry has built its back on this ENUM stuff. The PSTN in Austria now operates using it: If you pick up ANY phone in Austria and dial an "0780" number, an ENUM lookup of <the number backwards>.0.8.7.3.4.e164.arpa takes place, and the call is placed over the Internet in accordance with the data returned.

This patent CANNOT and I predict WILL NOT be allowed to stand. In most countries it's invalid anyway, because you can't patent "a way of doing business" anywhere but the U.S.; you can only patent devices.

/john

Posts: 2252 · Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 8:17 pm Post subject:

This topic is being discussed HERE