Tekvoke LLC v. Voyant Communications LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tekvoke LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Voyant Communications, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'KELLY & ERNEST, LLC
• Case Identification: 1:20-cv-00455, D. Del., 03/31/2020
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware on the basis that Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore deemed a resident of the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud-based Voice over IP (VoIP) and hosted PBX services infringe a patent related to methods for managing and routing multiple simultaneous incoming calls to communication terminals.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns call control logic in internet telephony systems, specifically how a system handles multiple inbound calls intended for different endpoints connected to the same control apparatus.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent was issued with a Certificate of Correction, which corrected a typographical error in the abstract. The complaint alleges knowledge of infringement only as of the date of service, which may limit the scope of any potential willfulness claim to post-filing conduct.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,687,343 - "Internet Communication Control Apparatus And Communication Terminal Calling Method"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,687,343, “Internet Communication Control Apparatus And Communication Terminal Calling Method,” issued February 3, 2004.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of designing an internet communication control apparatus (such as an early VoIP gateway) that can handle incoming calls from multiple parties to multiple connected terminals (e.g., telephones, fax machines) at roughly the same time, without requiring complex and costly parallel hardware for each terminal (’343 Patent, col. 1:58-65, col. 2:1-8).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a single control unit that manages these simultaneous call requests by interleaving the calling signals. When multiple calls are active, the apparatus outputs a calling signal (a ring) to the first terminal for a predetermined interval, then to the second terminal, and so on, alternating between them until one is answered (’343 Patent, col. 2:29-38). This allows a "simple structure" to service multiple incoming calls without needing multiple, dedicated "calling signal output apparatuses" (’343 Patent, col. 2:42-48). The process is detailed in the flowchart of Figure 4, which shows the logic for alternating rings between two terminals (’343 Patent, Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: This method provided a cost-effective way to implement multi-line capabilities in customer-premises equipment that bridged traditional analog devices to nascent IP-based networks.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶10).
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • An Internet communication control apparatus selectively connected to a plurality of communication terminals and to a computer network.
  • A controller configured to transmit calling signals to the terminals.
  • Wherein a single calling signal (with a first predetermined time period) is sent to one terminal when a single calling request is detected.
  • And wherein plural calling signals (with a second predetermined time period) are sequentially transmitted to plural terminals "one after another" when plural calling requests are detected.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but states it may modify its infringement theories as discovery progresses (Compl. ¶20).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Instrumentality" is identified as Defendant’s "internet communication control apparatus," which the complaint characterizes as a "hosted PBX/VoIP system" and "Defendant's cloud VoIP" platform (Compl. ¶¶10, 12, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused system provides VoIP services to endpoints including desk phones and "mobile app installed smart devices" (Compl. ¶12). A key accused feature is an "advance call forwarding feature" that allows users to configure a queue of "agents" to receive an incoming call sequentially (Compl. ¶¶14, 15). The complaint alleges this system is used by Defendant for its services and through internal testing (Compl. ¶¶10, 16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B," but this exhibit was not attached to the filed document. The following analysis is based on the narrative allegations in paragraphs 12-15 of the complaint.

'343 Patent Infringement Allegations

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the claimed "Internet communication control apparatus" can be read to cover a distributed, cloud-based software system, as alleged by the Plaintiff. The patent’s specification and figures consistently depict a single, localized hardware apparatus with physical interfaces connecting to telephones, which may support a narrower construction than the one advanced in the complaint (’343 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 3:25-30).
  • Technical Questions: The infringement theory hinges on whether the accused system's feature of sequentially calling "multiple agents in queue" (Compl. ¶14) performs the same function as the patent's claimed transmission of "plural calling signals... one after another." The patent describes a specific, rapid, alternating ringing sequence between terminals (’343 Patent, col. 5:50-65; Fig. 5). A court may need to determine if a typical "hunt group" or "call forwarding" feature, where one phone may ring for an extended period before the call moves to the next agent, is technically equivalent to the interleaved, short-interval ringing process described in the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "Internet communication control apparatus"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because it determines whether the patent's scope is limited to a physical, on-premises device or can extend to a modern, distributed cloud VoIP service. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's embodiments appear to differ significantly in architecture from the accused cloud-based system.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "apparatus" itself is not inherently limited to hardware, and claim 1 does not specify a physical enclosure or co-location of components.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the invention as a singular "communication control apparatus 1" to which terminals are physically "connected" via "terminal interfaces 11 and 12" (’343 Patent, col. 3:25-33). Figure 1 depicts all core components, including the CPU and interfaces, within a single dotted-line box, suggesting a self-contained unit (’343 Patent, Fig. 1).

• The Term: "plural calling signals being transmitted one after another"

• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the core mechanism for handling multiple calls. The viability of the infringement allegation depends on whether the accused sequential call routing to agents in a queue is the same as the patent's claimed method.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language "one after another" could be interpreted broadly to mean any sequential process, including one where an entire call attempt for a first agent completes before a second call attempt for another agent begins.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification and Figure 4 describe a specific, interleaved process where the system alternates between terminals at short intervals (e.g., a 2-second ring followed by a 1-second pause before checking the other terminal) (’343 Patent, col. 4:55-65; col. 5:61-65). Figure 5 shows the signals for "Ring" being sent alternately to Terminal 2 and Terminal 3, implying a rapid, back-and-forth sequence rather than a prolonged, linear one (’343 Patent, Fig. 5). This suggests a more tightly coupled, alternating signaling process.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (Compl. ¶¶10, 16). While it mentions that users can configure the accused system (Compl. ¶15), it does not plead the specific elements of knowledge and intent required for an induced infringement claim.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had knowledge of its infringement "at least as of the service of the present Complaint" (Compl. ¶17). This allegation, if proven, could support a claim for enhanced damages based on post-filing conduct, but it does not assert pre-suit knowledge, which is typically required for a finding of pre-suit willful infringement.

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

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's interpretation of claim scope and the specific technical operation of the accused system. The central questions are:

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "Internet communication control apparatus", which is described in the patent as a discrete hardware unit, be construed broadly enough to encompass the distributed, software-based architecture of Defendant's accused "hosted PBX/VoIP system"?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does the accused feature of sequentially forwarding a call to different "agents in a queue" perform the same function, in substantially the same way, as the patent's claimed method of transmitting "plural calling signals... one after another," which the specification details as a rapid, interleaved ringing process between terminals?