Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Broadsoft, Inc. v. Callwave Communications, LLC

United States District Court, D. Delaware

October 9, 2017

BROADSOFT, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
CALLWAVE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant.

          John G. Day, Esq., ASHBY & GEDDES, Wilmington, DE; Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esq., ASHBY & GEDDES, Wilmington, DE; Andrew C. Mayo, Esq., ASHBY & GEDDES, Wilmington, DE; Jonathan G. Graves, Esq. (argued), COOLEY LLP, Reston, VA; Stephen P. McBride, Esq., COOLEY LLP, Reston, VA. Attorneys for Plaintiff

          James G. McMillan, III, Esq., PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, Wilmington, DE; William D. Belanger, Esq. (argued), PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, Boston, MA; Supama Datta, Esq., PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, Boston, MA; L. Andrew Tseng, Esq., PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, Boston, MA; Megan E. L. Bigelow, Esq., PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, Boston, MA; Gregory S. Bishop, Esq., PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, Redwood City, CA; Charles F. Koch, Esq., PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, Redwood City, CA. Attorneys for Defendant

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          ANDREWS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Patent Ineligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (D.I. 290) and related briefing (D.I. 291, 366, 385) and Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Based on Broadworks (D.I. 304) and related briefing (D.I. 305, 359, 388).[1] The Court held oral argument on July 31, 2017. (D.I. 419) ("Hr'g Tr."). For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Plaintiffs Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Based on Patent Ineligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (D.I. 290) and will grant Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Based on BroadWorks (D.I. 304).

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action on April 23, 2013 seeking a declaration that none of Plaintiff s accused products infringed any valid claims of Defendant's U.S. Patent Nos. 8, 351, 591 ("the '591 patent") and 7, 822, 188 ("the '188 patent"), and further that one or more claims of those patents were invalid. (D.I. 1). Plaintiff had previously licensed the accused software products to Telovations, Inc., which was subsequently acquired by Bright House Networks, LLC. (Id. at 2, 4). As part of that acquisition, Telovations assigned all of its rights under the license agreement to Bright House. (Id. at 4). The license agreement between Plaintiff and Telovations contained an indemnification clause specifying that Plaintiff would defend any intellectual property infringement action brought based on the accused software products. (Id. at 3). After Defendant sued Telovations and Bright House for patent infringement based on the accused software (CallWave Commc'ns, Inc. v. Telovations. Inc., Civ. Act. No. 1:13-cv-00074), those two entities sought indemnification from Plaintiff under their license agreement. (D.I. 1 at 3-4). Plaintiff brought this declaratory judgment action as part of its indemnification of Telovations and Bright House. (Id. at 4).

         The '591 and '188 patents share a common specification and generally relate to "systems and methods for processing and placing telephone calls." ('188 patent at 1:48-50; '591 patent at 1:50-52). The parties separate the asserted claims into two categories: the sequential dialing claims (claims 40 and 41 of the '188 patent) and the single number outcall claims (claims 6, 14, 26, 27, 29, 34, and 37 of the '188 patent and claims 1, 9, 16, and 17 of the '591 patent).

         A. Sequential Dialing Claims

         Claim 40 is an independent claim and reads as follows:

         40. A method of processing calls, comprising:

receiving at a call processing system a message from an Internet protocol proxy regarding a first call from a caller;
determining if the first call is directed to a telephone address of a subscriber of services offered by the call processing system, wherein at least partly in response to determining that the telephone address is that of a subscriber:
accessing an account record associated with the subscriber, the account record including at least one subscriber instruction;
based at least in part on the subscriber instruction, placing a first outcall to a first communication device associated with the subscriber;
if the first outcall is not answered within a first number of rings or period of time, placing a second outcall to a second communication device associated with the subscriber; and
receiving a call connect instruction from the subscriber; and
instructing the call processing system to connect the first call to a third communication device.

         ('188 patent, claim 40). Claim 41 depends from claim 40 and adds the limitation that the internet protocol proxy is a session internet protocol proxy that converts SS7 signaling to SIP protocol.

         ('188 patent, claim 41).

         B. Single Number Outcall Claims

         Claim 1 of the '591 patent reads as follows:

         1. A method of processing calls, the method comprising:

storing in computer readable memory associated with a call processing system a first phone address associated with a first subscriber;
storing in computer readable memory a plurality of phone addresses for the first subscriber;
participating at the call processing system in a first call associated with the first subscriber, the first call associated with a second phone address different than the first phone address;
placing a first outcall from the call processing system to a first called party, wherein the call processing system inserts at least a portion of the first phone address in a callerID field associated with signaling information associated with the first outcall;
causing the first call and the first outcall to be bridged;
participating at the call processing system in a second call associated with the first subscriber, the second call involving a subscriber communication device associated with a third phone address different than the first phone address;
placing a second outcall from the call processing system to a second called party, wherein the call processing system inserts at least a portion of the first phone address in a callerID field associated with signaling information associated with the second outcall; and
causing the second call and the second outcall to be bridged.

('591 patent, claim 1).

         Defendant disagrees with Plaintiffs assertion that claim 1 of the '591 patent is representative of all of the single number ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.