DCT

2:07-cv-04955

Ronald A Katz Technology Licensing L P v. Ameren Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:

  • Case Identification: 2:07-cv-00955, E.D. Mo., 06/06/2007

  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants being Missouri corporations with principal places of business in the district, where they conduct substantial business and operate the accused infringing systems for local customers.

  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ automated call processing systems for customer service infringe a large portfolio of patents related to interactive telephonic call processing technology.

  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves integrating telephonic systems with computer databases to provide interactive services, a foundational technology for modern automated customer service and Interactive Voice Response (IVR) systems.

  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that over 150 companies have licensed the patents-in-suit. It also alleges that Plaintiff repeatedly attempted to engage Defendants in licensing negotiations prior to filing the lawsuit, which may form the basis for the willfulness allegation. Many of the asserted patents expired prior to the complaint's filing, suggesting that the suit seeks damages for past infringement for those patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1985-07-10 Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit
1988-12-20 U.S. Patent No. 4,792,968 Issues
1990-05-29 U.S. Patent No. 4,930,150 Issues
1992-07-07 U.S. Patent No. 5,128,984 Issues
1993-10-05 U.S. Patent No. 5,251,252 Issues
1994-09-27 U.S. Patent No. 5,351,285 Issues
1997-11-04 U.S. Patent No. 5,684,863 Issues
1998-09-29 U.S. Patent No. 5,815,551 Issues
1998-10-27 U.S. Patent No. 5,828,734 Issues
1999-04-27 U.S. Patent No. 5,898,762 Issues
1999-06-29 U.S. Patent No. 5,917,893 Issues
1999-10-26 U.S. Patent No. 5,974,120 Issues
2000-11-14 U.S. Patent No. 6,148,065 Issues
2002-01-01 U.S. Patent No. 6,335,965 Issues
2002-02-19 U.S. Patent No. 6,349,134 Issues
2002-08-13 U.S. Patent No. 6,434,223 Issues
2004-01-13 U.S. Patent No. 6,678,360 Issues
2005-07-10 ’065, ’223, and ’360 Patents Expire
2005-12-20 ’968, ’150, ’285, ’863, ’551, ’762, ’893, ’965, ’134 Patents Expire
2007-06-06 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 5,974,120 - “Telephone Interface Call Processing System With Call Selectivity,” issued October 26, 1999

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the need for a system to control and limit calls to an interactive telephone service, particularly for applications like contests or games, to manage potentially overwhelming call volume and prevent abuse by "zealous or obsessive participants" calling repeatedly (’120 Patent, col. 2:18-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a telephone call processing system that can receive calls in different modes, such as toll-free ("800"), pay-per-call ("900"), or standard area-code dialing, and apply "call selectivity" to qualify callers before connecting them to an interactive session (’120 Patent, Abstract). This selectivity can be based on caller identification (ANI) to limit repeat participation or can require callers to enter pre-arranged qualification numbers, thereby controlling access and use of the system (’120 Patent, col. 4:17-25; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provided a method for managing large-scale, public interactive telephone applications by creating controlled access, which was a key step in making such systems commercially viable for mass-market uses like polling, promotions, and customer service (Compl. ¶12-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’120 Patent but does not identify any specific independent or dependent claims asserted against the Defendants (Compl. ¶40).

U.S. Patent No. 5,251,252 - “Telephone Interface Call Processing System With Call Selectivity,” issued October 5, 1993

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenges of implementing telephonic games and contests, including handling a "vast number of calls" and preventing participants from gaining an "unfair advantage" by calling repeatedly to answer questions (’252 Patent, col. 2:11-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a system that interfaces with callers through distinct modes, including a free "800" service and a caller-charge "900" service (’252 Patent, col. 4:51-56). The system uses caller identification data (ANI) to check if a question has previously been posed to a caller at a specific terminal, thereby preventing repeat plays (’252 Patent, col. 5:1-6). It also describes providing limited-use PIN numbers for "free" access, which are checked to prevent repeated use (’252 Patent, col. 6:48-58).
  • Technical Importance: By providing mechanisms to manage call flow and ensure fairness in interactive contests, the invention helped enable the use of telephone systems for large-scale marketing and entertainment purposes (Compl. ¶12-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" of the ’252 Patent but does not specify which independent or dependent claims are asserted (Compl. ¶40).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 5,828,734 and U.S. Patent No. 5,128,984

  • Patent Identification: ’734 Patent, “Telephone Interface Call Processing System With Call Selectivity,” issued October 27, 1998; ’984 Patent, “Telephone Interface Call Processing System With Call Selectivity,” issued July 7, 1992 (Compl. ¶21, 26).
  • Technology Synopsis: These patents, similar to the lead patents, describe telephonic interface systems that manage and qualify incoming calls based on the calling mode (e.g., toll-free vs. caller-charge) and caller-identifying information. The technology is designed to control access to automated services, particularly in high-volume contexts like contests or promotions, by using "call selectivity" (’984 Patent, col. 1:25-33; ’734 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of each patent without further specification (Compl. ¶40).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Defendants' automated customer service operations that allow users to interact with their utility and stock accounts via telephone (Compl. ¶37, 40).

Multi-Patent Capsule: Additional Patents-in-Suit

  • Patent Identification: The complaint also asserts U.S. Patent Nos. 4,792,968; 4,930,150; 5,351,285; 5,684,863; 5,815,551; 5,898,762; 5,917,893; 6,148,065; 6,335,965; 6,349,134; 6,434,223; and 6,678,360 (Compl. ¶38).
  • Technology Synopsis: These patents are part of the same family and generally relate to "Statistical Analysis" and "Control" systems for telephonic interfaces. They describe various aspects of processing calls, analyzing call data, and controlling the interaction between a caller and an automated system based on different call formats and caller information (Compl. ¶19-34).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts "one or more claims" of each patent without further specification (Compl. ¶39).
  • Accused Features: The accused features are Defendants' automated customer service operations (Compl. ¶37, 39).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Defendants' "automated customer service operations," described as "infringing call processing systems" and collectively referred to as the "Accused Services" (Compl. ¶37, 39).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these systems allow Defendants' utility customers to perform various functions through an automated telephone interface. These functions include accessing and updating information about utility and stock accounts, reporting power outages, making payments, requesting copies of bills, and managing service initiation or termination (Compl. ¶37). The services are provided to customers of an electric utility operating in Missouri and other states (Compl. ¶36). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not assert specific claims against the accused services, nor does it provide a claim chart or detailed infringement theory. The allegations are framed generally, stating that the functionality of the "Accused Services" as a whole infringes "one or more claims" of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶39, 40). The core of the infringement allegation is that Defendants' automated systems for customer account management, payment processing, and service requests embody the patented inventions for interactive call processing (Compl. ¶37).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The specifications of the asserted patents heavily emphasize applications such as contests, games, and polls, and describe architectures with distinct processing units for different payment modes (e.g., free "800" calls vs. paid "900" calls) (’984 Patent, col. 2:42-50). A central legal question may be whether the scope of the claims, when interpreted in light of the specification, is limited to such applications or is broad enough to read on a conventional utility customer service IVR system.
    • Technical Questions: The patents describe "call selectivity" as a key feature for qualifying callers and limiting access. A primary factual question will be what specific functions the accused Ameren IVR performs. The analysis may turn on whether the system merely uses caller identification for routine account look-up, or if it performs a more advanced qualifying or limiting function analogous to the "selectivity" required by the claims to manage system access.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not identify any specific asserted claims, making a definitive analysis of key claim terms for construction speculative. However, based on the technology described across the patent family, the construction of the following term may be central to the dispute.

  • The Term: "call selectivity"
  • Context and Importance: This term appears in the titles of the lead patents and describes the core inventive concept of selectively processing calls. Plaintiff may argue the term covers any system that routes or treats calls differently based on caller information. Defendants may argue that in the context of the patents, the term requires a specific function of limiting or qualifying access for contests or promotions, a function they may contend is absent from their standard customer service IVR.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system in general terms as one where "calls are selectively accepted and interfaced so as to accomplish a desired operating format" (’984 Patent, col. 3:5-7), which could support a broad reading covering any automated call routing.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section frames the problem solved by the invention in the context of managing call-in contests and games, and the embodiments describe distinct hardware for different call modes (e.g., "800" ARU, "900" ARU) (’984 Patent, col. 2:7-26; Fig. 1). This context may support a narrower construction tied to those specific applications and architectures.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes conclusory allegations of active inducement and contributory infringement without providing a specific factual basis, such as instructing users to infringe or providing a component with no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶39, 40).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement "has been and is willful" (Compl. ¶41). This allegation may be based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents arising from Plaintiff's "repeatedly attempted... licensing negotiations" with Defendants prior to the lawsuit (Compl. ¶18).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claims of patents, which are described in the specification with a heavy focus on managing call-in contests and polls via distinct paid and free calling modes, be construed to cover a conventional utility customer service IVR system?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused automated customer service system perform the specific function of "call selectivity" as claimed in the patents—by qualifying or limiting access—or does it merely use caller information for standard account identification and retrieval, potentially creating a mismatch with the claimed functionality?