[asterisk-biz] Update: Actual Verizon Patent Numbers and ruling from Verizon v. Vonage

[Michael Young]

So if I read these right... If Vonage stops using ENUM they are no
longer in violation of these patents.

On the VERY broad VoIP gateway patent, the jury found in favor of
Vonage.

Michael Young
NetLogic

-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Kristian
Kielhofner
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:51 PM
To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion
Subject: [asterisk-biz] Update: Actual Verizon Patent Numbers and ruling
from Verizon v. Vonage

Hello everyone,

  It seemed like no one could find the actual Verizon patents involved
in the Verizon v. Vonage case that has been making the news.  So I did
a little digging.  Let me tell you - the US Federal Government does
not make these things easy! :)

Here the are...

Vonage Infringed:

Patent #6,282,574:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL
&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6282574.PN.&OS=PN
/6282574&RS=PN/6282574

Patent #6,104,711:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL
&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN
/6104711&RS=PN/6104711

Vonage Infringed, although not willfully:

Patent #6,359,880:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL
&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6359880.PN.&OS=PN
/6359880&RS=PN/6359880


No Infringment:

Patent #6,137,869:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL
&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6137869.PN.&OS=PN
/6137869&RS=PN/6137869

Patent #6,430,275:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL
&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6430275.PN.&OS=PN
/6430275&RS=PN/6430275

Here is the actual text of the judgment:

"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 pltfs 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. Pltfs motion
for Permanent Injunction to heard on 3/23/07 @ 10:00. (Court Reporter
Linnell.) (tarm, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)"

  I'm no attorney.  Hopefully someone else can make more sense out of
this.

  WARNING: Watch this thread - I am sure a long rant is to follow!!!

-- 
Kristian Kielhofner
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --

asterisk-biz mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz