Verint Systems Inc v. Red Box Recorders Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Verint Systems Inc. and Verint Americas Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Red Box Recorders Ltd. (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fox Rothschild LLP
• Case Identification: 1:14-cv-05403, S.D.N.Y., 07/17/2014
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendant maintaining a permanent office and regularly soliciting business in the Southern District of New York, constituting the commission of tortious acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s suite of call center recording and analysis software infringes seven U.S. patents related to the monitoring of computer screen and telephone activity, the synchronized recording of voice and data, and the protection of sensitive information.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses systems for capturing, monitoring, and analyzing electronic communications in environments like call centers for purposes of quality control, employee training, and security.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that several of the patents-in-suit are related and share common specifications (e.g., the '798' and '220' patents). It also mentions Plaintiff's "Open Innovation Network" licensing program, suggesting a history of licensing its patent portfolio within the industry. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1996-05-31	Priority Date for '798 and '220 Patents
1996-09-26	Priority Date for RE43,324 and RE43,386 Patents
1998-08-04	'798 Patent Issued
2000-01-13	Priority Date for '285' and '763' Patents
2003-01-21	'220 Patent Issued
2006-03-31	Priority Date for '854' Patent
2007-04-10	'285 Patent Issued
2010-08-10	'854 Patent Issued
2012-04-24	RE43,324 Patent Issued
2012-05-15	RE43,386 Patent Issued
2012-05-29	'763 Patent Issued
2014-07-17	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,790,798 - "Method and Apparatus for Simultaneously Monitoring Computer User Screen and Telephone Activity From a Remote Location"

• Issued: August 4, 1998 (Compl. ¶ 31).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the need for remote monitoring of call center agents that is "transparent" to the agent, noting that an agent who knows they are being actively watched may become nervous and not perform as they normally would, providing an inaccurate basis for evaluation or training (’798 Patent, col. 2:1-8).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that remotely monitors an agent's computer screen by capturing only the localized portions of the screen that change, rather than the entire screen display. It describes accomplishing this by "hooking" into the operating system to intercept low-level graphics commands ("primitives") sent to the display driver, using these commands to define the boundaries of a "Changed Region," copying the pixels only from that region, and transmitting them over a network to a supervisor's workstation (’798 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-49). This method aims to reduce network bandwidth and processing load, making the monitoring less perceptible.
• Technical Importance: This approach of capturing localized screen changes via graphics primitives provided a resource-efficient method for remote workforce monitoring at a time when network bandwidth was a significant constraint.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims asserted against the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶ 30-31). Assuming the assertion of the broadest independent method claim, Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • A) intercepting and interpreting at least one graphics primitive function call made to said display driver to define boundaries of a localized changed screen region sized less than said display screen;
  • B) utilizing said boundaries of said localized changed region to make a copy of said changed region by use of said operating system; and
  • C) transporting said changed region copy to a remote location for view on the screen of a separate, monitoring workstation, such that said screen of said monitoring workstation periodically reflects screen changes made on said monitored workstation (’798 Patent, col. 18:1-22).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,510,220 - "Method and Apparatus for Simultaneously Monitoring Computer User Screen and Telephone Activity from a Remote Location"

• Issued: January 21, 2003 (Compl. ¶ 33).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’798 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem of providing effective, non-intrusive remote monitoring of call center agents (’220 Patent, col. 2:4-12).
• The Patented Solution: The invention described is a method for not only monitoring screen activity but also for recording and playing back the agent's telephone conversation in sync with the corresponding screen changes. It discloses creating a "journal file" that time-stamps voice and screen-change events, allowing a supervisor to later review a synchronized audio-visual recording of the agent's interaction (’220 Patent, Abstract; col. 17:5-16).
• Technical Importance: The invention provided a method for creating a complete, synchronized record of a customer interaction, combining both the audio conversation and the on-screen data entry and navigation for later review and analysis.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims asserted against the Accused Products (Compl. ¶¶ 32-33). Assuming the assertion of the broadest independent method claim, Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • A) determining sequential localized changed screen regions which correspond to at least two sequential screen changes...;
  • B) recording a telephone conversation occurring during said screen changes; and
  • C) playing back said telephone conversation recording in substantial synchronization with said sequential screen changes substantially as they both happened in real time, to allow for simultaneous viewing and listening at a monitoring workstation (’220 Patent, col. 18:20-34).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,203,285 - "System and Method for Recording Voice and the Data Entered by a Call Center Agent and Retrieval of These Communication Streams for Analysis or Correction"

• Issued: April 10, 2007 (Compl. ¶ 35).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for recording communication streams and inferring additional real-time information from an analysis of events like keystrokes, mouse actions, or internet traffic. The invention provides for a graphical display of the call flow, showing the progress of calls through various states and transitions for later analysis (’285 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 13 are available for assertion. The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 34-35).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Red Box's "Quantify" software suite, which provides for recording and analysis of call center communications (Compl. ¶ 24).

U.S. Patent No. 7,774,854 - "Systems and Methods for Protecting Information"

• Issued: August 10, 2010 (Compl. ¶ 37).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the need to protect sensitive information (e.g., social security or credit card numbers) communicated during a recorded interaction. The disclosed system identifies the protected information and prevents unauthorized access during replay by deleting, obfuscating, masking, or encrypting that portion of the communication (’854 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 17 are available for assertion. The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 36-37).
• Accused Features: The "Quantify PCI Suppression" product is accused, which suggests functionality directed at protecting Payment Card Industry (PCI) data (Compl. ¶ 24).

U.S. Patent No. 8,189,763 - "System and Method for Recording Voice and the Data Entered by a Call Center Agent and Retrieval of These Communication Streams for Analysis or Correction"

• Issued: May 29, 2012 (Compl. ¶ 39).
• Technology Synopsis: Related to the '285 patent, this patent describes a communications system with a graphical user interface (GUI) that allows a user to designate a portion of a recorded communication. In response, the system presents the information corresponding to that designated portion, facilitating targeted review and analysis (’763 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is available for assertion. The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 38-39).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Red Box's "Quantify" software suite, which provides for the recording, analysis, and replay of call center interactions (Compl. ¶ 24).

U.S. Patent No. RE43,324 - "VOIP Voice Interaction Monitor"

• Issued: April 24, 2012 (Compl. ¶ 41).
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for monitoring communications traffic, such as Voice over IP (VoIP), to identify predetermined parameters by analyzing signal content (e.g., emotional content, prosody, specific words). The system uses this analysis to control the handling of the communications traffic, for example by identifying certain calls for further review (RE43,324 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 18, 33, and 39 are available for assertion. The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 40-41).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses Red Box's "Quantify" software suite and "Quantify AudioSearch," which provide for the recording and analysis of voice interactions (Compl. ¶ 24).

U.S. Patent No. RE43,386 - "Communication Management System for Network-Based Telephones"

• Issued: May 15, 2012 (Compl. ¶ 43).
• Technology Synopsis: Related to the '324' patent, this patent discloses a method for managing network-based communications by receiving data packets at a switch, identifying the interaction to which the packets belong, and storing a portion of the interaction. The system architecture is designed for capturing and processing packet-based communications like VoIP (RE43,386 Patent, Abstract).
• Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 19, 26, and 27 are available for assertion. The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted (Compl. ¶¶ 42-43).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses the "Quantify Recording Suite," which is alleged to perform recording of call center communications, including network-based calls (Compl. ¶ 24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as a suite of computer software products and systems marketed under the names "Quantify Recording Suite," "Quantify Screen Data Capture," "Quantify Event Reconstruct," "Quantify QM™," "Quantify PCI Suppression," and "Quantify AudioSearch" (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶ 24).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these products are directed to methods involving the analysis, recording, monitoring, transmission, and security of electronic communications, particularly telephonic communications to and from contact centers and call centers (Compl. ¶ 23).
• Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant implements and integrates these products into its customers' contact centers and that the Accused Products compete directly with products sold by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 25).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only general allegations of infringement without specifying which claims are asserted or mapping specific features of the Accused Products to claim limitations (Compl. ¶¶ 25-26). The following analysis assumes the assertion of representative independent Claim 1 of the '798 Patent.

'798 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A) intercepting and interpreting at least one graphics primitive function call made to said display driver to define boundaries of a localized changed screen region sized less than said display screen;	The complaint alleges that the "Quantify Screen Data Capture" product records screen activity. It does not, however., provide any technical details as to whether this is accomplished by intercepting graphics primitives or by another method.	¶24, ¶26	col. 2:39-42
B) utilizing said boundaries of said localized changed region to make a copy of said changed region by use of said operating system; and	The complaint does not specify the mechanism by which the Accused Products copy screen data. It makes a general allegation that the products' operation infringes the patent.	¶26	col. 2:42-45
C) transporting said changed region copy to a remote location for view on the screen of a separate, monitoring workstation...	The complaint alleges the Accused Products are used for remote monitoring in contact centers, but offers no specific facts on the data transport mechanism.	¶23, ¶25	col. 2:45-49
The following analysis assumes the assertion of representative independent Claim 1 of the '220 Patent.

'220 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A) determining sequential localized changed screen regions which correspond to at least two sequential screen changes...;	The complaint alleges the "Quantify" suite records screen data but does not provide details on whether it determines localized changed regions.	¶24, ¶26	col. 18:23-25
B) recording a telephone conversation occurring during said screen changes; and	The "Quantify Recording Suite" product name suggests it performs recording of conversations, but the complaint provides no specific facts about its operation.	¶24, ¶26	col. 18:26-27
C) playing back said telephone conversation recording in substantial synchronization with said sequential screen changes...	The complaint does not allege any specific facts regarding the synchronized playback functionality of the Accused Products.	¶26	col. 18:28-34

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: The primary point of contention will be evidentiary. The complaint makes conclusory allegations of infringement without providing any factual support describing how the Accused Products actually operate. A key question for discovery will be whether the "Quantify Screen Data Capture" product functions by "intercepting... graphics primitive function calls" as required by Claim 1 of the ’798 Patent, or if it uses a different technology (e.g., periodic full-screen bitmap comparisons, higher-level API hooks).
  • Scope Questions: For the ’220 Patent, a central question will concern the scope of "substantial synchronization." The litigation may focus on what technical level of temporal correlation between audio and screen data playback is required to meet this limitation and whether the Accused Products achieve it.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "graphics primitive function call" (from Claim 1 of the ’798 Patent)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis for the ’798 Patent, as it defines the specific technical mechanism for identifying screen changes. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether this term is construed broadly to cover modern screen-capture techniques or is limited to the specific low-level graphics operations contemplated in the patent's 1996-era technical environment.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a non-exhaustive list of such calls, including "draw line", "bitblt", "draw wide border", and "draw text," suggesting the term encompasses a general class of low-level commands that result in visible screen changes (’798 Patent, col. 5:43-44).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of "hooking" the primitives is described specifically in the context of the OS/2 operating system's "Dispatch Table." This specific embodiment could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to the particular software architecture described (’798 Patent, col. 10:11-62).

• The Term: "substantial synchronization" (from Claim 1 of the ’220 Patent)

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term will determine the required degree of temporal alignment between the playback of recorded audio and screen activity. Practitioners may focus on this term because a loose interpretation could be met by simply starting two media streams simultaneously, while a stricter one might require evidence of event-level time-stamping and coordinated playback.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Figure 5 of the patent illustrates a "Recorded Session Journal File" that places "Start Voice" and "Stop Voice" events on a timeline relative to when "Changed Region Data" is received. This could support a construction requiring only a general temporal correspondence between the start and stop of the audio and screen recordings (’220 Patent, Fig. 5).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the system "time stamped" recorded voice events to allow "for later playback of the Changed Region data in time sync with the recorded voice data." This language may support a narrower construction requiring a more precise, event-driven synchronization between the audio and visual data streams (’220 Patent, col. 17:11-16).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that "the use of the Accuse[d] Products by its customers constitutes direct infringement" (Compl. ¶ 25). This statement lays a foundation for a claim of induced infringement, but the complaint pleads no specific facts to support the required elements of knowledge and intent, such as allegations that Defendant's user manuals instruct customers to use the products in an infringing manner.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement. However, it does ask for an award of attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 on the basis that this is an "exceptional case" (Compl. ¶ 29), an allegation often linked to willfulness or other litigation misconduct. The complaint provides no factual basis to support this assertion.

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

1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint is devoid of specific factual allegations mapping the Accused Products' functionality to the patent claims. The case will likely depend on whether facts developed in discovery can substantiate the conclusory infringement claims, particularly regarding the specific technical methods used for screen capture and synchronized playback.
2. A key question will be one of technological scope: The lead patents (’798 and ’220) claim methods rooted in the technical architecture of mid-1990s operating systems. The dispute may turn on whether claim terms like "graphics primitive function call" can be construed broadly enough to read on the screen capture technologies used in modern software, or if technological evolution has placed the Accused Products outside the patents' scope.
3. A third major question will concern the infringement basis for the security-focused patent: For the '854 patent, the case will hinge on whether discovery shows that Defendant's "Quantify PCI Suppression" product practices the claimed method for identifying and preventing access to protected information. This will be a fact-intensive inquiry into the specific software mechanisms used for data masking, deletion, or encryption.