Eloqui Voice Systems LLC v. Contact Solutions LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Eloqui Voice Systems LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Contact Solutions LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm; Rabicoff Law
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00722, D. Del., 04/22/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Intelligent Self-Service" products infringe a patent related to methods for improving user interaction in spoken user interfaces, such as interactive voice response (IVR) systems.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the field of automated telecommunication systems, specifically IVR technology, which is fundamental to customer service call centers and other automated voice services.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2001-07-18	’986 Patent Priority Date
2009-08-11	’986 Patent Issue Date
2019-04-22	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,573,986 - Method and System for Interjecting Comments to Improve Information Presentation in Spoken User Interfaces

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a problem with conventional interactive voice response (IVR) systems, noting that their audio menus "can become long and monotonous, making it difficult for the user to identify and remember the relevant information" (’986 Patent, col. 1:22-26).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to make IVR systems more user-friendly by presenting information in "multiple modes" within a single interaction turn (’986 Patent, col. 1:33-36). For instance, when a menu option is presented, the system might provide a primary prompt for a voice command (e.g., "For billing, say 'accounts'") and immediately follow it with a secondary prompt offering a keypad alternative (e.g., "you can also press one") (’986 Patent, Fig. 4; col. 4:50-64). This dual-mode presentation is intended to give the user alternative ways to interact without having to first fail at one method.
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to enhance the usability and efficiency of IVR systems, which are a critical technology for managing high volumes of customer interactions in telecommunications and other industries (’986 Patent, col. 1:16-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
  • A method for providing an audio prompt advising a user of the option to use either DTMF (keypad) input or speech input.
  • Presenting a "first audio indicator" for an option in a "first selection mode" (e.g., speech).
  • Presenting a "second audio indicator" for the same option in a "second selection mode" (e.g., DTMF).
  • The first and second indicators must elicit different types of input (one speech, one DTMF).
  • Both indicators are "scheduled and formatted for presentation together prior to detection of a first user input failure."
  • The two indicators must be "audibly distinguishable by at least one audio attribute other than the words used or the mode specified," and this attribute must "attract user attention to the difference" between the modes.
• The complaint notes that infringement of "one or more claims" is ongoing, reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies Defendant's "Intelligent Self-Service" products as the accused instrumentalities (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides minimal technical detail regarding the functionality of the accused products. It refers to them as "Exemplary Products" and alleges that they practice the technology claimed by the ’986 Patent (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). The complaint does not contain specific allegations about the products' market positioning or commercial importance beyond the general assertion of infringement through their making, use, and sale.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Defendant’s "Intelligent Self-Service" products directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ’986 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The pleading states that "the Exemplary Products incorporated in these charts satisfy all elements of the Exemplary ’986 Patent Claim" (Compl. ¶16). However, the complaint references an "Exhibit B" containing claim charts that allegedly detail this infringement, but this exhibit was not included with the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). As such, a detailed, element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations based on the provided documents is not possible. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central factual question will be whether the accused products actually perform the claimed method. Specifically, what evidence will show that the "Intelligent Self-Service" products present users with both a speech-based option and a DTMF-based option within the same initial prompt, before any user error occurs? Further, what evidence establishes that these prompts are "audibly distinguishable" in a manner that "attracts user attention," as the claim requires?
  • Scope Questions: The litigation may turn on whether the functionality of the accused products falls within the scope of the claims. For example, does a system that offers an alternative input method only after a user fails to respond or makes an error meet the "presentation together prior to detection of a first user input failure" limitation?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"audibly distinguishable by at least one audio attribute other than the words used or the mode specified"

• Context and Importance: This limitation is critical as it defines the required technical difference between the primary and secondary prompts. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether any perceptible audio difference suffices, or if a specific, material alteration is required. Practitioners may focus on this term because it links an objective technical feature ("audio attribute") to a more subjective outcome ("attracts user attention").
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue for a broad reading, pointing to the list of attributes in the dependent Claim 2 ("recorded voice, the volume, the inflection, the tone, and the pace") as an illustrative, non-exhaustive list of what constitutes an "audio attribute" (’986 Patent, col. 10:52-55).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the specification requires a deliberate and noticeable audio change. The detailed description states the secondary prompt is played "in such a manner that attracts user attention, such as playing the secondary prompt in a different voice than the primary prompt, with a different volume..." (’986 Patent, col. 4:1-4). This language may support an interpretation that a mere incidental variation is insufficient and a specific, attention-grabbing modification is necessary.

"scheduled and formatted for presentation together prior to detection of a first user input failure"

• Context and Importance: This temporal limitation distinguishes the invention from prior art systems that might offer help or alternative input methods only after a user has already failed. The definition of "together" will be pivotal.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party advocating for a broader scope could cite specification language describing the sequence of prompts with "no pause, or a small pause such as a pause of less than 1 second" between them (’986 Patent, col. 5:51-53). This could suggest that near-sequential presentation within the same conversational turn satisfies the "together" requirement.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower construction might emphasize the phrase "scheduled and formatted for presentation together," suggesting it requires more than mere sequence. This could imply that the prompts must be constructed as a single, compound audio unit, rather than two separate prompts that happen to follow one another.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant provides its "Exemplary Products" to customers with "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patent (Compl. ¶15). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement (Compl. ¶13).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that the filing of the lawsuit constitutes notice and that "Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products despite this notice (Compl. ¶15). This forms a basis for potential post-filing willful infringement. The prayer for relief also seeks a declaration that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Prayer for Relief ¶D).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's reliance on an un-provided exhibit, a primary hurdle for the Plaintiff will be to produce evidence demonstrating that the accused "Intelligent Self-Service" products technically practice each element of the asserted claims. The case will depend on the factual record of how those products actually function.
• The dispute will likely center on claim construction: the viability of the infringement case will turn on how the court defines the boundaries of key limitations. A central question will be one of definitional scope: what specific audio characteristics are sufficient to render two prompts "audibly distinguishable" in a way that "attracts user attention," and what degree of temporal proximity is required for them to be considered presented "together"?