Spycurity LLC v. AudioCodes Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Spycurity LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: AudioCodes, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 1:17-cv-00883, D. Del., 07/05/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Enterprise Session Border Controller (E-SBC) and Media Gateway products infringe a patent related to remotely triggering a host computer to connect to a network via a telephone signal.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to on-demand network connectivity, a method to avoid the costs of a continuously active, dedicated internet connection for a host computer or server.
• 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

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,809,118 - System and Method for Triggering Actions at a Host Computer by Telephone

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 5,809,118, "System and Method for Triggering Actions at a Host Computer by Telephone," issued September 15, 1998 (the “'118 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the prohibitive cost for small companies and individuals to lease and maintain a dedicated, "always-on" connection to the Internet for the purpose of hosting services like a Web or FTP server (’118 Patent, col. 1:28-34). Existing remote access systems required the host to answer a call and establish a direct connection, limiting access to one user at a time and suffering from low bandwidth (’118 Patent, col. 2:31-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a simple telephone ring signal, without the call being answered, is detected by a circuit connected to a host computer (’118 Patent, col. 4:9-14). This detection generates a "trigger signal" that causes a control program on the host to execute a "predetermined program" (e.g., an activation script) which connects the host computer to a network like the Internet (’118 Patent, col. 4:14-21; Fig. 1A). Once connected, multiple remote users can access the host's services over the high-bandwidth network connection, rather than the low-bandwidth telephone line used for triggering (’118 Patent, col. 1:35-43).
• Technical Importance: The invention proposed a method for providing on-demand server availability over the Internet without incurring the expense of a dedicated line, a significant barrier for smaller entities in the early commercial Internet era (’118 Patent, col. 1:28-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 6, and dependent claim 13 (Compl. ¶14).
• Independent Claim 1 (Method):
  • dialing the telephone number of a phone line connected to a host system
  • detecting the resulting ring signal on the phone line using a ring detection circuit
  • generating a trigger signal to the host system indicating a phone call has been detected
  • the host system receiving the trigger signal and executing a predetermined program
  • the predetermined program creating a connection between the host system and the Internet using a communication device
• Independent Claim 6 (System):
  • a host computer system including:
    • a communications device connected to a communications network
    • at least one activation program (a script of commands) that causes the host to connect to the Internet
    • a control signal monitor program that detects a trigger signal and causes the activation program to be executed
  • a ring detection and triggering circuit connected to the host and a phone line, which includes:
    • a ring detector that detects a ring signal on the phone line
    • a trigger circuit for generating the trigger signal to the host computer when the ring signal is detected
• The plaintiff reserves the right to assert other claims as discovery progresses (Compl. ¶17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the "Mediant 3000 E-SBC and Media Gateway" as the Accused Product (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as an "E-SBC and Media Gateway" but does not provide further detail on its specific functionality, operation, or market context (Compl. ¶11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Product directly infringes at least claims 1, 6, and 13 of the ’118 Patent, but it does not provide specific factual allegations, claim charts, or a narrative theory mapping the features of the Accused Product to the elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶¶13-14, 16). The complaint states that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the infringement theory from a "plain reading" of the documents (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused "Mediant 3000 E-SBC and Media Gateway," a modern voice-over-IP (VoIP) and network-centric device, operates in a manner consistent with the patent's disclosure. Specifically, does it use a "telephone ring signal" on a conventional phone line to trigger an Internet connection, as described in the patent (’118 Patent, col. 4:9-14), or does it operate entirely within a digital network environment?
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the patent's claim terms, which are described in the context of 1990s-era dial-up modems and serial port signaling, can be construed to read on the functionality of a modern E-SBC. For example, can a network-based Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) "INVITE" message be considered equivalent to a "telephone ring signal on the phone line"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "trigger signal" (Claim 1, 6)

• Context and Importance: This term is the causal link between the external event (the ring) and the internal action (executing the program). Its definition is critical because if the accused product does not generate a "trigger signal" as construed from the patent, there can be no infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if it is limited to the specific electrical signals disclosed or can encompass more abstract software-based notifications in modern systems.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary describes the term functionally as a signal "to the host system indicating that a ring signal has been detected" (’118 Patent, col. 4:12-14). This functional language could support a construction not limited to a specific physical implementation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description repeatedly discloses a specific embodiment where the trigger signal is a voltage level change on a specific pin (pin 8) of an RS-232 serial port interface, generated by a dedicated hardware circuit (’118 Patent, col. 6:60-65; col. 7:10-14). A defendant may argue this context limits the term to a physical electrical signal.

• The Term: "predetermined program" (Claim 1) / "activation program" (Claim 6)

• Context and Importance: This term defines what is executed in response to the trigger. The nature of this program is central to infringement. The question is whether any software routine that establishes a network connection qualifies, or if it must be a specific type of stored script as described in the patent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary describes the program's function broadly, stating it "creates a connection between the host system and the Internet" (Claim 1(c)). This suggests any software that achieves this outcome could qualify.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently refers to this program as an "activation script" and a "script of commands" (’118 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:33-34; Claim 6). This may support a narrower construction requiring a stored, executable script file, as opposed to an integrated, compiled function within a larger software application.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect infringement.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges knowledge of infringement "Since at least the date that Defendant was served with a copy of this Complaint," which may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶18). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

• A core issue will be one of technological equivalence: Does the accused E-SBC and Media Gateway, a modern network device, actually perform the functions recited in the claims, which are rooted in the physical-layer signaling of 1990s-era telephone and serial port technology? The case may depend on whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused product detects an analog ring signal to trigger a network connection in a way that maps to the patent's specific teachings.
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Can terms like "telephone ring signal" and "trigger signal," as defined and described in the context of the ’118 Patent’s specific hardware embodiments (e.g., an RS-232 interface), be construed broadly enough to encompass the purely digital, packet-based signaling protocols likely used by a modern E-SBC? The outcome of claim construction for these terms will likely be dispositive.