DCT

1:08-cv-00408

Grape Technology Group Inc v. Jingle Networks Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:08-cv-00408, D. Del., 07/03/2008
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s 1-800-FREE411 directory assistance service infringes four U.S. patents related to enhanced telephonic directory assistance, concierge services, call management, and billing.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to the architecture and features of sophisticated telephone directory assistance services, a market that was highly significant before the widespread adoption of internet-connected smartphones.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint identifies Grape Technology Group, Inc. as the assignee of the patents-in-suit and kgb USA, Inc. as the exclusive licensee. No other procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings, are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1994-04-28 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,628,772
1997-03-13 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,775,371
2000-01-31 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,023,969
2003-02-28 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,985,569
2003-09-30 U.S. Patent No. 6,628,772 Issues
2004-08-10 U.S. Patent No. 6,775,371 Issues
2006-01-10 U.S. Patent No. 6,985,569 Issues
2006-04-04 U.S. Patent No. 7,023,969 Issues
2008-07-03 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,775,371 - “Technique For Effectively Providing Concierge-Like Services In A Directory Assistance System”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the limitations of traditional directory assistance, which is focused only on providing telephone numbers, and conventional concierge services (e.g., at a hotel), which are often slow, manual, and geographically limited ('371 Patent, col. 1:11-44). The invention aims to solve the problem of providing efficient, nationwide concierge-type services through a telephonic system.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a networked directory assistance system that can handle requests for "concierge-like services," such as making restaurant reservations ('371 Patent, col. 2:11-16). When a user calls a first directory assistance center with such a request, an operator creates an electronic "ticket" with the request details. The system determines if a different, geographically closer directory assistance center should handle the request and, if so, electronically routes the ticket to a "fulfillment agent" at that second center to complete the task (e.g., by calling the restaurant) ('371 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to transform directory assistance from a simple information retrieval service into a distributed, action-oriented service platform by leveraging a wide area network to manage and delegate tasks.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least one independent claim (Compl. ¶12). Independent claim 1 is a method claim containing the following essential elements:
    • Receiving a customer call at a first directory assistance center with a request for a concierge service for a desired party.
    • Searching a database for a provider of the service.
    • Determining if a second directory assistance center is closer to the provider.
    • If so, sending information regarding the request from the first center to the second center.
    • A "fulfillment agent" at the second center establishing a separate communication with the provider to fulfill the request.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,023,969 - “Communication Assistance System And Method”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a comprehensive directory of wireless phone numbers, which were not traditionally published ('969 Patent, col. 2:1-6). It also addresses the underutilization of the "closing period" in a directory assistance call—the time between when information is found and when the call is either connected or terminated ('969 Patent, col. 2:7-17).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a communication assistance system featuring a database of subscriber information and a "closing prompt module" ('969 Patent, Abstract). This module dynamically selects a specific closing message (e.g., an advertisement or a targeted announcement) to play to the user during the closing period. The selection is based on data associated with the subscriber or the request, allowing the system to provide relevant information other than what the user originally requested ('969 Patent, col. 4:38-54).
  • Technical Importance: The invention proposed to monetize the final moments of a directory assistance call by transforming it into a vehicle for targeted messaging or advertising, based on user data.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least one independent claim (Compl. ¶19). Independent claim 1 is a system claim containing the following essential elements:
    • A telephone switch for receiving calls from requesters.
    • A first database for storing subscriber information.
    • A "closing prompt module" coupled to the database.
    • The closing prompt module selects a "closing prompt code" from a plurality of available codes.
    • The selection relates to subscriber information other than the information the requester originally sought.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,628,772 - “Method For Providing Enhanced Directory Assistance Upon Command Using Out-Of-Band Signaling”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses difficulties faced by wireless users of directory assistance services ('772 Patent, col. 2:4-7). The invention allows a user who has been connected to a destination number to issue a command, such as pressing the "*" key, which is detected by the service provider via an out-of-band signaling channel (e.g., SS7). This command reconnects the user to an operator for further assistance without requiring the user to hang up and redial the directory assistance service ('772 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-45).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (independent method claim) is representative (Compl. ¶26).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Jingle's 1-800-FREE411 service infringes one or more claims of the ’772 Patent (Compl. ¶26).

U.S. Patent No. 6,985,569 - “System and Method for Identifying Parties in Bills for Communications Services”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses customer confusion arising from telephone bills that list only the phone numbers called via directory assistance, which can lead to unnecessary billing disputes ('569 Patent, col. 2:54-62). The patented solution involves identifying the name of the called party during the directory assistance process and inserting that name as an indicator into the Call Detail Record (CDR) that is sent to the billing platform. This allows the final bill to display the name of the party called, rather than just the number ('569 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Claim 1 (method claim) and Claim 16 (system claim) are the independent claims (Compl. ¶33).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Jingle's 1-800-FREE411 service infringes one or more claims of the ’569 Patent (Compl. ¶33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is Defendant Jingle Networks, Inc.’s "1-800-FREE411 service" (Compl. ¶12, 19, 26, 33).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as a directory assistance service provided by the Defendant (Compl. ¶¶5, 8). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical features, architecture, or operation of the 1-800-FREE411 service. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations mapping features of the accused 1-800-FREE411 service to the elements of the asserted claims. The allegations are general, stating that Jingle infringes "one or more claims" of each patent "in connection with" its service (e.g., Compl. ¶12). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the complaint's text.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions ('371 Patent): A central question may be whether the term "concierge service", as used in the patent, can be construed to cover the functionalities of the 1-800-FREE411 service. The analysis will depend on whether the accused service performs tasks beyond telephone number look-up and connection, such as the claimed generation and routing of electronic "tickets" to "fulfillment agents" for task completion.
  • Technical Questions ('969 Patent): The infringement analysis may focus on whether the 1-800-FREE411 service utilizes a "closing prompt module" as claimed. A key question is whether the service provides generic, static end-of-call messages or if it implements a system that dynamically selects a message based on subscriber data for a purpose other than the initial request, such as for targeted advertising.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term for Construction: "concierge service" ('371 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core functionality of the '371 Patent. The viability of the infringement claim will depend on whether the actions performed by the 1-800-FREE411 service fall within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused product is primarily known as a directory assistance service, and its classification as a "concierge service" may be a central point of dispute.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that operator resources in directory assistance environments "would be expected to introduce delays and inefficiencies" if used for concierge-type services, potentially suggesting that any service beyond simple number retrieval could be considered a "concierge-type" service ('371 Patent, col. 3:51-56).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of concierge services, such as making restaurant reservations, ordering flowers, or arranging transportation, which involve an agent actively fulfilling a request with a third party ('371 Patent, col. 5:10-18). These examples may be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to such action-oriented tasks.

Term for Construction: "closing prompt module" ('969 Patent, claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the '969 Patent's inventive concept of monetizing the end of a directory assistance call. The dispute will likely center on whether the accused service's architecture includes a component with the specific dynamic selection capability required by the claim.
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the "closing period" broadly as the time after information is retrieved but before the call ends, and a "closing prompt" as the message provided during that period ('969 Patent, col. 2:11-17). This could support an argument that any system component that provides such a message is a "closing prompt module."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 requires the module to select a prompt code relating to information "other than the subscriber information requested." The specification further describes a system that can "tailor the closing prompt to a particular caller, increasing the advertising and related promotional revenue capacity" ('969 Patent, col. 4:55-59). This suggests the term may be limited to a module with data-driven, dynamic selection capabilities for targeted messaging, rather than one that plays a single, generic sign-off message.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Jingle's infringement is "direct and/or indirect" (e.g., Compl. ¶12). However, it does not plead specific facts to support the knowledge and intent elements required for claims of induced or contributory infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement.

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

  • A core issue will be one of functional scope: does the accused 1-800-FREE411 service, primarily known as a directory assistance platform, perform the specific, advanced functionalities required by the asserted patents—namely, the distributed "concierge service" task fulfillment of the ’371 Patent and the data-driven, targeted "closing prompt" selection of the ’969 Patent?
  • A key evidentiary question will be what discovery reveals about the internal architecture and operational methods of the 1-800-FREE411 service. The case will likely turn on whether Plaintiffs can demonstrate a technical correspondence between the accused system's actual operation and the specific system components and method steps recited in the asserted claims.