Diorite Technology LLC v. Avaya LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Diorite Technology, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Avaya LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stone Conroy LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-17309, D.N.J., 11/07/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Avaya's principal place of business being located in Morristown, New Jersey, within the district, as well as having a regular and established place of business there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unified communications platforms, including Avaya Cloud Office and Avaya IP Office, infringe a patent related to intelligent, context-aware call routing.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that route incoming communications to a user by analyzing multiple factors—such as caller identity, user location, and calendar status—to select the most appropriate device from a user's plurality of resources (e.g., desk phone, mobile phone, email).
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement via a letter dated October 21, 2025, approximately two weeks prior to filing the lawsuit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-04-16	’746 Patent Priority Date
2014-06-24	’746 Patent Issue Date
2025-10-21	Plaintiff allegedly sent notice of infringement to Defendant
2025-11-07	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,761,746, "Extended Cascaded Ringing," issued June 24, 2014.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty of contacting individuals who utilize multiple communication methods (business phone, cell phone, email, instant messaging) and move between locations. It notes that without a "personal secretary," a person can miss important calls, and existing technologies like simple call forwarding are insufficient to handle the complexities of a user's context and availability (’746 Patent, col. 1:12-32).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that intelligently routes calls by collecting and analyzing various data points. These include the caller's identity, the user's "postulated context" (e.g., from calendar information), an "estimated location" (e.g., based on the last device used), and the types of available communication devices (’746 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:20-30). Based on this information, a "selection policy module" chooses an appropriate "cascaded ringing program" to route the call sequentially or in parallel across different resources, such as first trying a desk phone, then sending a text message, and finally alerting an assistant (’746 Patent, col. 5:36-48; Fig. 4).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to create a more automated and context-aware communication routing system, moving beyond simple "find me/follow me" services to a rules-based engine that could adapt to the user's situation and the caller's identity (’746 Patent, col. 3:36-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶9).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A system with at least one processor.
  • A call server to obtain the caller's identity information.
  • A "selection policy module" that selects a "cascaded ringing program" for routing the call based on the caller's identity.
  • A "routing module" that executes the program to route the call to the user's communication resources.
  • A specific configuration wherein the selection policy module routes the call to a "single communication resource at a user location when it is determined that multiple communication resources are located at the user location."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• "Avaya IP Phone products and services using Avaya Cloud Office and Avaya IP Office platforms" ("Accused Instrumentalities") (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint identifies the Accused Instrumentalities as unified communications platforms that manage voice and data communications for business users (Compl. ¶9). The infringement allegations center on features related to call distribution and handling, such as "Hunt Groups," "skill overview," "incoming call handling for after hours," and "Telephone Redirecting Calls" (Compl. ¶11). These features, as suggested by the URLs in the complaint, allow administrators and users to define rules for how incoming calls are routed to different extensions or devices based on various conditions. The complaint alleges that Avaya derives substantial revenue from these products and services in the District of New Jersey and elsewhere (Compl. ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint references a claim chart in its Exhibit 2, which was not publicly available for analysis (Compl. ¶13). The narrative infringement theory alleges that Avaya’s Cloud Office and IP Office platforms perform the patented method of call routing. The core of the allegation appears to be that these platforms use caller information to apply routing rules—which Plaintiff equates with the claimed "cascaded ringing program"—to direct calls to users' devices (Compl. ¶¶9, 11). The complaint provides several URLs to Avaya's public-facing technical documentation, presumably to serve as evidence that the accused platforms are capable of being configured and operated in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶11).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether Avaya's "Hunt Groups" or other call-handling rules constitute a "cascaded ringing program" as defined by the patent. The patent describes this program as being selected based on a dynamic, multi-factor analysis of user context and location, which may present a different scope than pre-configured call distribution lists (’746 Patent, col. 6:40-52).
  • Technical Questions: A significant technical question is whether the Accused Instrumentalities perform the specific function recited in Claim 1 of detecting that "multiple communication resources are located at the user location" and, in response, routing the call to only a "single communication resource." The complaint's general allegations and references to standard call routing features do not explicitly detail how Avaya's products are alleged to perform this specific device consolidation function.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "cascaded ringing program"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention. Its construction will determine whether conventional call routing features, such as hunt groups or forwarding rules, fall within the scope of the claims.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the program as including "a combination of serial and parallel forking," which could be argued to encompass a wide variety of rule-based call routing sequences (’746 Patent, col. 7:11-12).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also provides detailed examples, including a declarative XML format, where programs are selected based on a rich set of inputs like user context from a calendar, caller priority, and estimated location. A defendant may argue the term is limited to programs that incorporate this level of dynamic, contextual analysis, not just static routing rules (’746 Patent, col. 6:21-34; col. 13:1-67).

• The Term: "route... to a single communication resource at a user location when it is determined that multiple communication resources are located at the user location"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines a specific de-duplication behavior that prevents overwhelming a user by ringing multiple co-located devices simultaneously. Proving infringement of this element appears critical.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This could be read to cover any system behavior that results in only one device at a user's location being activated, regardless of the underlying mechanism.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this functionality in the context of specific "location" and "location suppress" attributes in a metadata module, which are used to "reduce the probability that the phone call is simultaneously directed to multiple resources" (’746 Patent, col. 10:37-45). This may support an argument that the claim requires an affirmative step of identifying co-located resources and then applying a rule to select only one.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement is based on allegations that Avaya instructs customers on how to use the infringing features through "user manuals and online instruction materials" (Compl. ¶11). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the Accused Instrumentalities are "especially made or adapted to infringe" and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for non-infringing use (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: While the complaint does not use the term "willful," it lays the groundwork for such a claim by alleging both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged via a notice letter dated October 21, 2025 (Compl. ¶10), and post-suit knowledge is alleged from the filing of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶11). The prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. p. 6, ¶E).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "cascaded ringing program," which the patent describes as being selected using a rich set of contextual user and caller data, be construed to cover the functionality of Defendant’s allegedly conventional "Hunt Groups" and call-handling rules?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will be presented to show that the accused Avaya platforms perform the specific, nuanced function required by Claim 1 of affirmatively identifying multiple co-located devices for a single user and then programmatically routing a call to only a "single" one of those resources?