DCT

2:13-cv-05197

Morris Reese v. Verizon Wireless Services LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:13-cv-05197, C.D. Cal., 07/18/2013
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant transacts business in the Central District of California by providing cellular mobile telephone services, including the accused Caller ID and Call Waiting features.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s provision of Caller ID and Call Waiting services for mobile phones infringes a patent related to methods for handling and displaying caller identification information during a call-waiting scenario.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the network-level processing of caller identification data, particularly differentiating between public and private numbers, for subscribers who receive a second incoming call while already engaged in a first call.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a chain of applications dating back to 1990, reflecting a long prosecution history. The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1990-01-03 ’150 Patent Priority Date
2005-03-15 ’150 Patent Issue Date
2013-07-18 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,868,150 - Method For Use with Caller ID System

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical and privacy challenges presented by early Caller ID services, which disclosed a calling party's number to the called party. This created a need for services that allowed callers to block, on a per-call basis, the disclosure of their number, and a corresponding need for the telephone network to handle both public and private incoming call information systematically. (’150 Patent, col. 2:13-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides methods for a "terminating central office" (the network equipment serving the call recipient) to manage an incoming call from a "third party" to a "first party" who is already on a call with a "second party." The method involves receiving the third party's Caller ID information with a "public" or "private" flag from the "originating central office." If flagged public, the system sends a call-waiting tone to the first party, followed by the third party's Caller ID data during a silent interval. If flagged private, the system sends only the call-waiting tone. (’150 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 2; Fig. 2A).
  • Technical Importance: The patented method provides a framework for integrating Caller ID functionality with the existing Call Waiting service, creating a distinct user experience for calls where the caller's number is available versus when it is intentionally withheld. (’150 Patent, col. 2:28-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 6, 23, and 32. (Compl. ¶¶9, 10, 12).
  • Independent Claim 6 (Public Caller ID):
    • A method for sending caller identification ("Caller ID") information related to a calling third party to a called station of a first party who has Caller ID and Call Waiting services and who is already engaged in a call with a second party,
    • the method including receiving at cellular company terminating central office equipment serving the first party the calling third party Caller ID information flagged as public,
    • that was sent from originating central office equipment serving the calling third party,
    • indicating that the received Caller ID information related to the calling third party is to be disclosed at the called station of the first party.
  • Independent Claim 23 (Private Caller ID):
    • A method for indicating to a first party who subscribes to a Custom Local Area Signaling System (CLASS) service including Caller Identification (Caller ID) and who is engaged in a telephone conversation with a second party an incoming call from a third party calling a telephone number of the first party,
    • comprising the steps of: (a) receiving at a terminating central office (TCO) ... the third party directory telephone number (DN) flagged as private from an originating central office of the third party, indicating that said DN of the third party is not to be disclosed at the first party called station; and
    • (b) said TCO then sending a call waiting (CW) tone signal to the first party, said CW tone signal indicates to the first party the incoming call from the third party.
  • Independent Claim 32 (Private Caller ID):
    • A method for sending a call waiting (CW) tone signal only to a first party who subscribes to a Custom Local Area Signaling System (CLASS) service including Caller Identification (Caller ID) and who is engaged in a telephone conversation with a second party,
    • comprising the steps of: (a) receiving at a terminating central office (TCO) ... a calling third party directory telephone number (DN) flagged as private from an originating central office of the calling third party indicating that said received DN ... is not to be disclosed at the first party called station; and
    • (b) said TCO then sending said CW tone to the first party.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Verizon Wireless Services, LLC’s "cellular wireless mobile telephone services including so-called Caller ID and Call Waiting." (Compl. ¶¶4, 11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused instrumentality is a service offered across the United States that provides subscribers with a call waiting alert for an incoming call while they are on an existing call. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint further alleges that this service "delivers Caller ID information related to the incoming waiting caller to the customer's called station while the customer is already engaged in a call." (Compl. ¶¶11-12). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation of the accused services.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or provide a detailed, element-by-element breakdown of its infringement theory. The infringement allegations are presented in narrative form.

The complaint alleges that Verizon’s Caller ID and Call Waiting services directly infringe the ’150 Patent. (Compl. ¶12). For claim 6, the theory appears to be that Verizon’s system receives and processes "public" Caller ID information for a user in a call-waiting scenario in the manner claimed. (Compl. ¶9). For claims 23 and 32, the infringement theory is that when an incoming call has "private" Caller ID information, Verizon’s system sends an audible call-waiting alert to the user but does not disclose the number, as claimed in the patent. (Compl. ¶10). The complaint asserts broadly that Verizon’s services are "performed in the manner described and claimed in the ’150 patent." (Compl. ¶12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The asserted claims recite actions performed by "terminating central office equipment" or a "terminating central office (TCO)." A potential point of contention may be whether the components of Verizon's modern, distributed cellular network architecture (e.g., Mobile Switching Centers, servers, software-defined network elements) meet this claim limitation, which was drafted in the context of the telecommunications infrastructure of the 1990s.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement based on the handling of Caller ID information "flagged as public" or "flagged as private." A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that Verizon's network specifically receives and processes a discrete data "flag" indicating privacy status from an "originating central office," and then performs the distinct subsequent steps required by the claims based on that flag.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "terminating central office equipment" / "terminating central office (TCO)"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the network component required to perform the central steps of the claimed methods. The outcome of the case may depend on whether this term is construed to cover the architecture of a modern cellular network, or if it is limited to the specific "central office" structure of the legacy telephone systems in which the invention was conceived.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to both "telephone or cellular company terminating central office equipment," and claim 6 explicitly recites "cellular company terminating central office equipment," suggesting the patentee contemplated application beyond traditional landline networks. (’150 Patent, col. 1:39-41; col. 16:50-53).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "central office" had a particular meaning in the art at the patent's priority date. The patent's diagrams and description of operations may be argued to tie the term to a specific type of centralized switching architecture that is technologically distinct from the equipment used in Verizon's accused services. (’150 Patent, Fig. 3; col. 5:1-4).

  • The Term: "flagged as public" / "flagged as private"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation requires the transmission and receipt of a specific type of data indicating the caller's privacy preference. The infringement analysis will turn on whether Verizon's system uses a technically equivalent signal or an entirely different method for handling private calls.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s overall objective is to differentiate the handling of calls where a number is to be disclosed from those where it is not. (’150 Patent, Abstract). This functional goal may support an interpretation where any data mechanism that conveys this binary privacy instruction to the terminating equipment constitutes a "flag."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses privacy features in the context of specific "blocking service[s]" offered by Regional Bell Operating Companies, which utilized particular signaling protocols. (’150 Patent, col. 2:57-68). A party could argue the term is limited to the specific technical implementation of privacy indicators used in the CLASS services of that era, rather than any method of conveying privacy preference.

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

  • A core issue will be one of technological translation: Can the claim term "terminating central office equipment," rooted in the telecommunications architecture of the 1990s, be construed to read on the functionally different and distributed components of a modern wireless network?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: What evidence can be presented to show that the accused Verizon services perform the specific method steps of receiving a distinct "flag" indicating public or private status and then, in response, executing the separate signal-transmission paths required by the asserted claims?