Eloqui Voice Systems LLC v. Aspect Software Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Eloqui Voice Systems, LLC (California)
  • Defendant: Aspect Software, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-02661, N.D. Ill., 04/19/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an office in the Northern District of Illinois.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Interactive Voice Response system infringes a patent related to methods for presenting information in spoken user interfaces.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns interactive voice response (IVR) systems, which automate telephone interactions by presenting users with spoken menus and processing their responses.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) 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 Issued
2019-04-19	Complaint Filed

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"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,573,986, issued August 11, 2009.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies that menus in conventional voice response systems can become "long and monotonous, making it difficult for the user to identify and remember the relevant information" (’986 Patent, col. 1:23-26).
• The Patented Solution: The invention addresses this problem by presenting information to a user in multiple modes for a single menu option, allowing the user to more easily identify available choices (’986 Patent, col. 1:35-37). The core concept involves presenting a "primary prompt" offering one input method (e.g., a spoken instruction like "say 'accounts'") and simultaneously or nearly simultaneously presenting a "secondary prompt" offering an alternative input method (e.g., a spoken instruction like "or press one") (’986 Patent, Fig. 5; col. 7:27-31). The key is that these two prompts for different input modes are presented together for the same underlying menu option and are made "audibly distinguishable" by changing an audio attribute like voice, volume, or tone, thereby attracting the user's attention to the existence of multiple input options (’986 Patent, col. 4:1-7).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to improve the usability and efficiency of IVR systems by making users aware of both speech and DTMF (keypad) input options without requiring separate, lengthy instructional menus.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • presenting a first audio indicator for a first selection mode (e.g., speech input).
  • presenting a second audio indicator for a second selection mode (e.g., DTMF input).
  • the first and second indicators are scheduled and formatted for presentation together, prior to any user input failure.
  • the two indicators are audibly distinguishable by at least one audio attribute beyond just the words or mode specified.
  • the audio attribute attracts the user's attention to the difference between the selection modes.
  • the first selection mode elicits a different type of input than the second (i.e., one elicits speech, the other DTMF).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but references infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant’s "Interactive Voice Response System" and "Intelligent Self-Service" products (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides minimal technical detail, alleging only that these products are IVR systems that "practice the technology claimed" by the ’986 Patent (Compl. ¶16). No specific operational details, version numbers, or market context for the accused products are provided in the complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references "Exhibit B," which it describes as containing charts comparing claim 1 of the ’986 Patent to the accused "Intelligent Self-Service" product (Compl. ¶16). However, this exhibit was not provided with the complaint document. The complaint’s narrative allegations are conclusory, stating that the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '986 Patent Claim" without providing specific factual support for how each claim element is met (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused IVR system performs the specific claimed method of presenting two distinct but paired audio indicators for a single menu option. The dispute may turn on whether merely having a system capable of accepting both speech and DTMF input is sufficient to infringe, or if the system must actively present both options together in an "audibly distinguishable" manner as a "secondary prompt" for each menu item, as the patent describes.
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused system actually generates and presents primary and secondary prompts "scheduled and formatted for presentation together" (’986 Patent, col. 10:39-41). The analysis will require evidence of the specific audio output and call-flow logic of the accused system to determine if it performs the claimed dual-prompting method.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"scheduled and formatted for presentation together"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical to defining the temporal relationship between the primary and secondary prompts. Infringement may hinge on whether the accused system presents the two prompts in immediate succession within a single "machine turn," or if a more attenuated relationship (e.g., a general instruction at the start of a call) would suffice. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the claimed invention from prior art systems that might have offered different input modes at different times.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not specify a maximum time gap, which might support an argument that "together" means within the same general user interaction or menu, not necessarily back-to-back.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests a tight coupling, stating that "no pause, or a small pause such as a pause of less than 1 second, occurs between the playing of the primary prompt and the playing of the secondary prompt" (’986 Patent, col. 5:50-54). This language could support a construction requiring near-simultaneous presentation.

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

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core novelty of how the alternative prompt is presented. The case may depend on whether the accused system uses a specific, altered audio characteristic for its secondary prompts, or if any standard difference in vocal delivery is sufficient.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that any perceptible difference in vocal delivery between two prompts, even if not intentionally programmed, meets this limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific list of distinguishing attributes, such as playing the secondary prompt in "a different voice than the primary prompt, with a different volume..., with a different tone..., with a different speed" (’986 Patent, col. 4:2-6). This may support a construction requiring an intentional and noticeable modification of a specific audio parameter.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement, based on the theory that Defendant sells the "Exemplary Products" to its customers for use in a manner that directly infringes the ’986 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 12-13). The allegations extend to the distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly induce end users (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the word "willful" but alleges knowing infringement and requests that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which permits recovery of attorney's fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶C). The basis for knowledge appears to be post-suit notice, as the complaint states that its filing "constitutes notice" and that Defendant's continued infringement is despite this notice (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the accused "Intelligent Self-Service" system actually practice the specific method of claim 1 by presenting paired, "audibly distinguishable" primary and secondary prompts for a single menu option within the same machine turn? Or does it merely provide a general capability for users to choose between speech and DTMF input, a functionality that may fall outside the scope of the claims?
• A second key question will be one of claim scope: How will the court construe "scheduled and formatted for presentation together"? A narrow construction requiring near-simultaneous presentation could make infringement more difficult to prove, while a broader construction covering prompts presented during the same overall menu interaction could favor the plaintiff's theory.
• Finally, an evidentiary question will be central: Given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations, Plaintiff will need to produce evidence from the accused system's operational logic and audio output that demonstrates, on an element-by-element basis, the performance of the claimed method.