DCT

4:18-cv-06790

RingCentral Inc v. Bright Pattern Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:18-cv-06790, N.D. Cal., 12/07/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of California because Defendant’s principal place of business is located within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud-based contact center software platform infringes five patents related to virtual PBX call routing, call screening, and call queuing management.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves software systems for managing high-volume, multi-channel customer communications in modern call centers, a critical function for enterprise customer service operations.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter to Defendant on or about October 29, 2018, identifying three of the patents-in-suit and the accused products, thereby establishing pre-suit knowledge for those patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-09-28 Earliest Priority Date for ’143, ’968, ’809, ’641 Patents
2008-11-24 Earliest Priority Date for ’926 Patent
2013-10-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,548,143 Issues
2014-03-25 U.S. Patent No. 8,681,968 Issues
2014-11-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,885,809 Issues
2017-02-14 U.S. Patent No. 9,571,641 Issues
2018-01-16 U.S. Patent No. 9,871,926 Issues
2018-10-29 Plaintiff sends cease-and-desist letter to Defendant
2018-12-07 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,548,143 - "Inbound Call Identification and Management," issued October 1, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art call routing techniques as relying on limited information and rigid rules, which limits the ability to effectively route a caller to the appropriate recipient, or "callee" (’143 Patent, col. 1:41-44; Compl. ¶15).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a call management system that identifies attributes of an incoming call (e.g., caller ID, location) and matches them against stored "customized routing rules." If a match occurs, the system bypasses a "default routing rule" and routes the call to a target agent based on this custom rule and location data associated with both the caller and the agent (’143 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶16). This allows for dynamic routing based on a richer set of data than was conventionally used (’143 Patent, col. 5:6-14).
  • Technical Importance: This approach enabled more sophisticated and highly customized call routing, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of virtual PBX call centers over prior art systems (Compl. ¶16).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 8, and 15, with claim 8 detailed as exemplary (Compl. ¶¶32-33).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 8 include:
    • identifying a first attribute from a call received from a caller device and intended for a plurality of callee devices;
    • matching the first attribute against routing criteria specified in a first customized routing rule;
    • substituting the customized routing rule to bypass the use of a default routing rule based on the match; and
    • routing the call from the caller device to a target callee device based on location data for both the caller and target callee devices.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶41).

U.S. Patent No. 8,681,968 - "Techniques for Bypassing Call Screening in a Call Messaging System," issued March 25, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Traditional call screening methods like call waiting are disruptive and inefficient in modern multi-channel call centers where an agent may already be engaged in another communication (e.g., an SMS conversation) when a new call arrives (’968 Patent, col. 1:29-50; Compl. ¶19).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system that stores call screening rules which specify conditions for their application and associated actions. When a call is received that meets those conditions, the system determines if a "bypass condition" exists. If it does, the system connects the call directly to the callee, overriding or "bypassing" the standard screening actions that would otherwise apply (’968 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶20). An example of a bypass condition is a call-back from a recently dropped call (’968 Patent, col. 6:23-28).
  • Technical Importance: This technology allows for dynamic, narrowly-tailored call screening that can be efficiently bypassed under priority conditions, improving responsiveness in complex call center environments (Compl. ¶¶21-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1, 10, and 19, with claim 10 detailed as exemplary (Compl. ¶¶42-43).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 10 (a non-transitory computer-readable media claim) include storing instructions to perform a method comprising:
    • storing a call screening rule for a callee, the rule specifying one or more conditions and one or more call screening actions;
    • receiving an incoming call that meets the one or more conditions;
    • determining whether a bypass condition exists; and
    • in response to determining the bypass condition exists, connecting the incoming call to a device of the callee without taking the one or more call screening actions.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶49).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,885,809 - "Techniques for Bypassing Call Screening in a Call Messaging System," issued November 11, 2014

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is part of the same family as the ’968 Patent and addresses the same technical problem of improving upon traditional call screening methods (Compl. ¶¶18-22). The claimed invention is a method for determining if a bypass condition exists for an incoming call and, if so, connecting the call to a callee without performing the otherwise-applicable call screening action ('809 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 17 are asserted, with claim 1 detailed as exemplary (Compl. ¶¶50-51).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that features such as "Dropped Call Continuity" and routing based on a prior call interaction meet the elements of the claims (Compl. ¶54).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,571,641 - "Techniques for Bypassing Call Screening in a Call Messaging System," issued February 14, 2017

  • Technology Synopsis: Also in the ’968 Patent family, this patent adds the concept of using information from "at least one prior incoming call" to determine whether a bypass condition exists for a current incoming call (Compl. ¶¶22, 59). This allows the system to make bypass decisions based on historical interaction data.
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 11 are asserted, with claim 11 detailed as exemplary (Compl. ¶¶58-59).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "Dropped Call Continuity" feature and the ability to route calls based on prior interactions as infringing technologies (Compl. ¶63).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,871,926 - "Call Queuing for Location-Aware Mobile Devices," issued January 16, 2018

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses challenges in routing queued calls within a virtual PBX system, where agents are no longer physically tethered to a call center building (Compl. ¶24). It claims a method of dispatching a queued call by obtaining data identifying both a "skill level criterion" and a "call center criterion," setting an agent's availability based on satisfying both criteria, and dispatching the call accordingly (Compl. ¶¶25, 68).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are asserted, with claims 1 and 2 detailed as exemplary (Compl. ¶¶66-68, 79).
  • Accused Features: The complaint points to "skills-based routing" and "same-region routing" (based on time zones) as the infringing features (Compl. ¶¶72-73). The complaint provides a screenshot of a user profile database to support its allegation that the accused software stores user data necessary for this functionality (Compl. ¶81, p. 21). A second screenshot is provided to show that agent skill levels are stored within these user profiles (Compl. ¶83, p. 22).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Bright Pattern’s Contact Center Software, including at least release versions 3 and 5 (collectively, the "Infringing Products") (Compl. ¶¶28, 30).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused product is a cloud-based customer service communications platform that provides inbound and outbound voice services as well as other interaction channels (Compl. ¶¶28-29). The complaint alleges infringement by features including "Skills Based, Priority, and Personal Routing," "Dropped Calls Conversation Continuity," and "same-region" routing (Compl. ¶¶29, 35, 40, 48, 70). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant offers this competing software without a license from RingCentral (Compl. ¶28).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 8,548,143 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 8) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
identifying a first attribute from a call received from a caller device... The software identifies the time of an incoming call as an attribute for routing (e.g., triggered by "the arrival of a call"). ¶36 col. 3:6-14
matching the first attribute against routing criteria specified in a first customized routing rule; The software matches the time of the call against "Hours of Operation" criteria defined in a routing "scenario." ¶¶37-38 col. 5:36-40
substituting the customized routing rule to bypass the use of a default routing rule based on the match between the first attribute and the routing criteria; The system applies a different rule (e.g., play announcement and offer voicemail) for calls arriving outside the hours of operation. ¶¶37, 39 col. 5:11-15
and routing the call from the caller device to a target callee device...based on location data representing a first location...and a second location associated with the target callee device. The software's "same-region" or "follow-the-sun" routing sends calls to agents based on a match between the caller's and agent's time zones. ¶40 col. 6:50-57

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the term "location data." The complaint alleges that a "time zone" constitutes "location data" (Compl. ¶40). The patent specification, however, describes location data in terms of "longitudinal and latitudinal positions" and geographic proximity (’143 Patent, col. 6:50-65). This raises the question of whether the patent's disclosure supports construing "location data" broadly enough to read on a time zone.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's theory for the "bypassing" element rests on the system handling calls differently inside versus outside of specified "Hours of Operation" (Compl. ¶37). It remains a question for the court whether implementing conditional logic based on time constitutes "bypassing the use of a default routing rule," or if it is merely the operation of a single, albeit conditional, rule.

U.S. Patent No. 8,681,968 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
storing a call screening rule for a callee; wherein the call screening rule specifies one or more conditions under which the call screening rule applies...and...one or more call screening actions... The software stores various call handling rules, such as skills-based, priority, and personal routing, which specify conditions and actions for screening incoming calls. ¶¶46-47 col. 3:1-12
receiving an incoming call from a device of a caller to the callee under the one or more conditions of the call screening rule; The cloud-based software is capable of receiving incoming calls that are subject to the stored screening rules. ¶47 col. 2:50-55
determining whether a bypass condition exists; The "Dropped Call Continuity" feature determines that a call being "reinitiated within a predetermined interval" after being dropped is a condition to bypass normal screening. ¶48 col. 6:23-28
and in response to determining that the bypass condition exists, connecting the incoming call to a device of the callee without taking the one or more call screening actions. The software reconnects the dropped call, circumventing the "default or custom call screening rules" that would otherwise apply. ¶48 col. 6:28-32

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The infringement theory hinges on whether re-initiating a dropped call constitutes a "bypass condition" as contemplated by the patent (Compl. ¶48). The patent specification provides examples including both a call-back after a dropped call and bypassing screening for a high-priority caller (’968 Patent, col. 6:18-28). The dispute may focus on whether the term requires a pre-defined, affirmative criterion (like a VIP status) or can be met by a system state (a recently dropped call).
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires connecting the call without performing the screening actions that would have otherwise applied. This raises an evidentiary question as to what specific screening actions are being bypassed by the "Dropped Call Continuity" feature and whether those actions would, in fact, have been triggered for that specific call absent the dropped-call status.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’143 Patent:

  • The Term: "location data"
  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical to infringement of claim 8. The complaint's theory relies on this term encompassing time zones (Compl. ¶40). A narrow construction limited to specific geographic coordinates could present a significant challenge to the infringement allegation for this claim element.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself does not explicitly define "location data," which may leave room for an argument that any data correlated with location, such as a time zone, is covered.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that "data received by call management system 106 can represent longitudinal and latitudinal positions" and that calls can be routed to the "nearest callee device 108 in proximity to caller device 102" (’143 Patent, col. 6:50-57). The patent's figures also depict routing based on geographic proximity (e.g., ’143 Patent, FIG. 8), which may support a narrower construction.

For the ’968 Patent:

  • The Term: "bypass condition"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement allegations against the ’968, ’809, and ’641 patents, particularly as applied to the "Dropped Call Continuity" feature. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a pre-defined, logical condition (e.g., caller is CEO) or can simply describe a state of the system (e.g., call was just dropped).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides an example of a bypass condition that supports the Plaintiff's theory: "if a call is disrupted or dropped, the claimed system can recognize that the caller is calling back into the system and implement a bypass rule" (’968 Patent, col. 6:23-26).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The same section of the specification also provides an example of a bypass condition based on a caller's identity, such as the CEO of a valued customer (’968 Patent, col. 6:18-23). A defendant may argue that the "dropped call" scenario is merely one example and that the core inventive concept requires an affirmative, pre-set priority rule rather than a reactive system state.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by providing instructional materials, tutorials, and technical support that guide customers to use the accused features in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶89, 95, 101, 107, 113). It further alleges contributory infringement by asserting that the accused features have no substantial non-infringing uses and were especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶¶90, 95, 101, 107, 113).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge of the ’968, ’809, and ’641 patents based on a cease-and-desist letter dated October 29, 2018 (Compl. ¶27). For the ’143 and ’926 patents, knowledge is alleged as of the date of service of the complaint (Compl. ¶27). These allegations could form the basis for a claim of willful infringement, distinguishing between alleged pre-suit and post-suit conduct for different sets of patents.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "location data," described in the ’143 patent specification with reference to geographic coordinates, be construed to cover the time zones used by the accused product’s "same-region" routing feature?
  • A second key issue will be one of functional interpretation: does the accused product's "Dropped Call Continuity" feature, which reconnects a recently dropped call, meet the claim requirement of responding to a "bypass condition" as that term is used across the ’968, ’809, and ’641 patents, or does the term imply a pre-defined logical rule based on caller identity or priority?
  • An evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: for the ’926 patent, the dispute may focus on whether the accused product's use of skill levels and time zones to determine agent availability constitutes "setting the availability status...based on whether a skill level...satisfies the skill level criterion and the call center satisfies the call center criterion," as required by the claim language.