[asterisk-biz] Vonage Vs. Verizon Update

Sat Mar 24 19:14:03 MST 2007

Kristian the astlinux guy and the last name that is almost impossible to
spell posted this one awhile back..  Here's the information.. 

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
<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/628257
4&RS=PN/6282574>
&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6
282574.PN.&OS=PN/6282574&RS=PN/6282574

Patent #6,104,711:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1
<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/610471
1&RS=PN/6104711>
&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6
104711.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
<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/635988
0&RS=PN/6359880>
&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6
359880.PN.&OS=PN/6359880&RS=PN/6359880

No Infringment:

Patent #6,137,869:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1
<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/613786
9&RS=PN/6137869>
&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6
137869.PN.&OS=PN/6137869&RS=PN/6137869

Patent #6,430,275:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1
<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/643027
5&RS=PN/6430275>
&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6
430275.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

-- 

........::::::::::.........

Brian Fertig

Director of Engineering

Molten, Inc.

Delaware Office

Office 800.418.4380 x 160

Direct 302.338.9601

From: asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-biz-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 9:02 PM
To: asterisk-biz at lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [asterisk-biz] Vonage Vs. Verizon Update

I'm curious....   Vonage is using off the shelf (as they say) equipment...
available, probably, from Cisco.   

Can anyone sum up what the patents (3) say, and how Vonage infringed?   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-biz/attachments/20070324/14ffbdd2/attachment-0001.htm