DCT
1:06-cv-00126
Witness Systems Inc v. Nice Systems Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Witness Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: NICE Systems, Inc. (Delaware) and Nice Systems Ltd. (Israel)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fish & Richardson P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:06-cv-0126, N.D. Ga., 01/19/2006
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants’ business activities within the Northern District of Georgia, including shipments of allegedly infringing products into the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "NICE Perform™" product suite, which analyzes telecommunications, infringes a patent related to systems that monitor voice communications to detect parameters such as emotion.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns automated call center monitoring systems that analyze speech characteristics to assess interaction quality, a key function for managing customer service and operational performance.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings related to the patent-in-suit. The patent-in-suit is identified as a division of a prior, now-abandoned U.S. application.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1996-09-26 | '857 Patent Priority Date |
| 2002-06-11 | '857 Patent Issue Date |
| 2006-01-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,404,857 - "Signal Monitoring Apparatus for Analyzing Communications," issued June 11, 2002
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty for supervisors in large-scale call centers to effectively and confidently monitor the quality of staff performance during customer interactions, noting that existing monitoring methods provide limited data and insight ('857 Patent, col. 1:36-49).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that automatically monitors communications traffic, such as telephone calls, and analyzes the content to identify predefined parameters like speech patterns or emotional indicators. The system records these occurrences, identifies the associated traffic stream, and uses the analysis to control the handling of communications, for instance by flagging specific conversations for review ('857 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). The goal is to identify trends, anomalies, and specific interactions that warrant further investigation by a human supervisor ('857 Patent, col. 2:30-36).
- Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from passive recording of call center conversations to an active, automated analysis intended to provide real-time or near-real-time feedback on the quality and nature of communications ('857 Patent, col. 2:15-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶13). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core technology described.
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A digital voice recorder for monitoring two-way conversation traffic streams.
- A digital processor for identifying a predetermined parameter by analyzing voice communication content.
- A recorder for logging occurrences of the parameter.
- A traffic stream identifier to associate the occurrence with a specific communication.
- A data analyzer to analyze the recorded data.
- A communication traffic controller that, responsive to the analysis, controls the handling of communications traffic.
- The claim further specifies that the predetermined parameter is an "amplitude envelope" of the voice content, and the processor "identifies episodes of anger or shouting by analyzing [the] amplitude envelope."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "NICE Perform™" product suite, which operates in conjunction with other NICE hardware and software (Compl. ¶10, ¶14).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges the accused suite is used to monitor communications and "extract[] non-linguistic information, such as pitch modulation and speech rate to assist the determination of the emotion of the speaker" (Compl. ¶10).
- Plaintiff alleges that Defendants market, develop, offer for sale, and import these products into the United States (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide further details on the products' market position or commercial significance.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a claim chart. The following table summarizes the infringement theory for a representative claim based on the complaint's allegations.
'857 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a digital voice recorder (18) for monitoring two-way conversation traffic streams | The NICE Perform™ suite and related hardware monitor communications. | ¶9, ¶10 | col. 6:3-9 |
| a digital processor (30) connected to said digital voice recorder for identifying at least one predetermined parameter by analyzing the voice communication content | The accused suite analyzes communications to extract non-linguistic information. | ¶10 | col. 9:10-15 |
| wherein said at least one predetermined parameter is an amplitude envelope...and said digital processor further identifies episodes of anger or shouting by analyzing amplitude envelope | The suite determines emotion by analyzing "pitch modulation and speech rate." | ¶10 | col. 3:23-25 |
| a recorder (38) attached to said digital processor for recording occurrences of the predetermined parameter | The complaint alleges a system for monitoring and analyzing, which implies recording of analysis results. | ¶8, ¶10 | col. 9:16-18 |
| a traffic stream identifier (36) for identifying the traffic stream associated with the predetermined parameter | The system allegedly monitors and analyzes specific communications, implying identification of the communication stream. | ¶8, ¶10 | col. 4:16-24 |
| a data analyzer (36) connected to said digital processor for analyzing the recorded data | The system allegedly analyzes communications to detect parameters and determine emotion. | ¶8, ¶10 | col. 6:28-32 |
| a communication traffic controller (34)...for controlling the handling of communications traffic within said monitoring system | The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations for this element. | col. 9:25-29 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A primary question is whether the accused product's analysis of "pitch modulation and speech rate" (Compl. ¶10) constitutes an analysis of the "amplitude envelope" as strictly required by Claim 1. The complaint does not allege that the accused product directly analyzes amplitude.
- Scope Questions: The complaint lacks factual allegations to support the "communication traffic controller" limitation. A key dispute may be whether the accused suite merely logs and reports data for human review, or if it actively "control[s] the handling of communications traffic" in response to its analysis, as the claim requires.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "communication traffic controller ... for controlling the handling of communications traffic"
- Context and Importance: This term appears central to defining the invention's scope. Infringement will depend on whether the accused product performs an active, responsive control function or merely a passive monitoring and reporting function. The presence of this active feedback loop is a potentially significant point of distinction.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the controller may "influence further monitoring actions within the apparatus" ('857 Patent, col. 2:4-5), which could be argued to encompass changing analysis parameters without directly affecting the call itself.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an example where the apparatus allows "ready access to the telecommunications 'line'...so that the conversation can be interrupted or suspended as required" ('857 Patent, col. 4:45-50). This language suggests a more direct and active intervention in the communication path.
The Term: "predetermined parameter is an amplitude envelope"
- Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint alleges the accused product analyzes "pitch modulation and speech rate" (Compl. ¶10), not "amplitude envelope." The viability of the infringement case for Claim 1 may turn on whether these distinct acoustic properties can be construed as falling within the scope of "amplitude envelope."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint does not offer a basis for a broad interpretation. An argument would likely rely on expert testimony that pitch and rate are inherently linked to or a form of amplitude analysis, though this is not supported by the patent's text.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description lists "amplitude envelope of the signals, so as to determine caller anger or episodes of shouting" as one specific parameter among a list that also includes "the frequency spectrum," "speed of interaction," and "frequency and content of prosody" ('857 Patent, col. 3:10-42). This enumeration suggests the patentee treated these as distinct technical parameters, supporting a narrow construction that would not read on pitch or speech rate.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement is willful based on alleged "knowledge of the '857 Patent" (Compl. ¶15). The complaint does not, however, allege any specific facts to support this claim of pre-suit knowledge, such as prior correspondence or industry awareness.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical mismatch: does the accused product, which the complaint identifies as analyzing "pitch modulation and speech rate," meet the express limitation of Claim 1 requiring analysis of the "amplitude envelope"? The resolution may depend on whether discovery uncovers evidence of amplitude analysis in the accused product or if the court must decide whether these terms are technically distinct.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional scope: does the "NICE Perform™" suite contain a "communication traffic controller" that actively controls traffic handling in response to analysis, as required by the claim? The complaint offers no factual allegations to support this claimed feedback loop, making it a likely area of dispute.
- A central challenge for the plaintiff will be to substantiate its claims: the complaint, filed under a notice-pleading standard, is sparse on factual detail. The case's progression will likely depend on the plaintiff's ability to develop evidence during discovery that maps specific functions of the accused product to the patent's claim limitations.