Vusura Technology LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Vusura Technology LLC (Nevada)
  • Defendant: Cisco Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00871, E.D. Tex., 08/25/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant Cisco maintains regular and established places of business in the district, including offices and data centers in Richardson and Allen, employs personnel in the district, and conducts substantial business operations related to the accused technology within the district, including hosting technical summits.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Cisco Webex Contact Center portfolio infringes three patents related to virtual call center architecture and methods for presenting content in association with a telephone call.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves cloud-based contact center solutions that virtualize call routing and management, enabling features like skills-based routing and the presentation of contextual data to callers and agents.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent families of the Asserted Patents have been cited as relevant prior art in patent applications by numerous major technology and financial companies, suggesting their foundational nature in the field. No prior litigation or post-grant proceedings are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2004-03-08	’092 Patent Priority Date
2008-08-26	’092 Patent Issue Date
2009-04-06	’741 and ’303 Patents Priority Date
2018-01-01	Cisco allegedly began developing accused cloud-based contact center
2019-02-05	’741 Patent Issue Date
2020-01-01	Accused Webex Contact Center available in North America
2022-01-18	’303 Patent Issue Date
2025-08-25	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,418,092 - “Virtual Call Center,” Issued August 26, 2008

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the economic inefficiencies and technical limitations of traditional, on-premises call centers, which require expensive, dedicated switching equipment (PBXs) and have limited flexibility for routing calls to remote or off-site agents (Compl. ¶43, ¶47; ’092 Patent, col. 1:9-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention creates a "virtual call center" by separating an incoming telephone call's signaling channel (which contains control information) from its bearer channel (the actual voice content). This separation allows an external, logically centralized routing system to receive the signaling information, make intelligent routing decisions based on factors like agent availability, and then instruct the network carrier on where to connect the bearer channel, all without needing to handle the voice traffic directly ('092 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-12). This architecture enables flexible routing to physically distributed agents while leveraging the carrier's network for voice transport (Compl. ¶51).
• Technical Importance: This architectural approach was a key enabler for shifting call center infrastructure from capital-intensive, on-premises hardware to scalable, cloud-based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) models (Compl. ¶42-¶43).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).
• Independent Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
  • Receiving a call at an incoming gateway of a physically distributed call center.
  • Separating the call into a signaling channel and a bearer channel.
  • Signaling from the incoming gateway to a call control system that the call has been received.
  • Determining a termination point via a call routing system using information from the signaling channel and agent availability.
  • Signaling with control signals from the call control system to an outgoing gateway.
  • Causing the outgoing gateway to connect to the incoming gateway via a digital voice packet connection to carry the bearer channel content.
  • Directing the bearer channel content from the outgoing gateway to the selected termination point.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but provides infringement allegations only for Claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).

U.S. Patent No. 10,198,741 - “Method and Apparatus for Content Presentation in Association with a Communication Connection,” Issued February 5, 2019

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a deficiency in standard telephone calls, which are typically "accompanied by minimal display content" and fail to provide the rich, multimedia experience that users expect from modern electronic devices (’741 Patent, col. 1:29-41).
• The Patented Solution: The invention facilitates the presentation of content on a communication device by delaying the routing of a call after a notification is received. This delay creates an opportunity to select a recipient (a "second operator") and present content. The method again leverages the separation of a call into signaling and voice channels to manage the call flow and connects the voice channel only after the delay has terminated (’741 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:1-12).
• Technical Importance: This technology allows for the integration of contextual data into the call flow, enabling features like presenting a caller's history to an agent before the agent is connected, thereby improving customer service efficiency (Compl. ¶45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶78).
• Independent Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
  • Receiving notification of a call from a first communication device.
  • In response, delaying the routing of the call without soliciting action by the first operator.
  • Selecting a second operator of a second communication device to receive the call.
  • Separating the call into a signaling channel and a voice channel.
  • Connecting the voice channel to the second communication device after the delay terminates.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but provides infringement allegations only for Claim 1 (Compl. ¶74).

U.S. Patent No. 11,227,303 - “Method and Apparatus for Content Presentation in Association with a Telephone Call,” Issued January 18, 2022

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,227,303, “Method and Apparatus for Content Presentation in Association with a Telephone Call,” Issued January 18, 2022 (Compl. ¶33).
• Technology Synopsis: The ’303 Patent discloses a method for enriching a communication connection by pausing its establishment to transmit selected content to one or both parties. The patent specifies that this content can relate to previous or new transactions between the parties, and that additional content can be transmitted after the communication connection is terminated (’303 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶98).
• Asserted Claims: At least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶99).
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that features of the Webex Contact Center, such as the presentation of customer interaction history to agents and the delivery of post-call surveys, infringe the ’303 patent (Compl. ¶¶103-107).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are the components of the "Webex Contact Center portfolio," which includes "Webex Contact Center Enterprise" and "Webex Contact Center" (collectively, "Webex Contact Center") (Compl. ¶41).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Webex Contact Center is described as a "next-generation cloud contact center solution" built as a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) platform (Compl. ¶42). The complaint alleges its key functionalities include queuing calls "in the cloud network, not on-premises," which provides savings in hardware and bandwidth (Compl. ¶43). It allegedly uses intelligent distribution strategies, such as "Skills-based routing," to match incoming calls with agents based on skill sets and availability (Compl. ¶44). The platform also allegedly provides agents with access to a customer's "previous communications... across all channels," a feature referred to as "Agent interaction history" (Compl. ¶45).
• The complaint positions the accused product as a significant player in the market, citing a commissioned study that found it "delivered a 304% ROI and improved contact center operations" for customers who migrated from legacy systems (Compl. ¶47).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

U.S. Patent No. 7,418,092 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
[1A] receiving a call at an incoming gateway (301) of the call control system (10)	The Webex Contact Center receives calls, such as inbound PSTN calls, at an incoming gateway of its cloud-based call control system.	¶56	col. 4:51-67
[1B] separating the call into components of a signaling channel (16) and a bearer channel (18)	The complaint alleges the Webex Contact Center architecture separates the voice media layer (bearer channel) from the application layer where business logic and routing occur (signaling channel).	¶57	col. 4:65-67
[1C] signaling from the incoming gateway to a call control system that said call has been received by the incoming gateway	An inbound call to the Webex Contact Center allegedly signals the call control system that a call has been received to initiate call handling and routing logic.	¶58	col. 5:1-4
[1D] determining via a call routing system (400) the termination point to which said telephone call should be delivered...	The Webex Contact Center allegedly determines the appropriate agent (termination point) using a routing system that considers agent skills and availability. A diagram titled "Routing Call Flow" depicts this process (Compl. p. 34).	¶59	col. 5:4-10
[1E] signaling with control signals from said call control system to an outgoing gateway coupled to said selected termination point	The call control system allegedly sends control signals, using protocols like SIP, to an outgoing gateway to direct the call to the selected agent.	¶60	col. 5:11-14
[1F] causing said an outgoing gateway (308) to connect to the incoming gateway (301) via a digital voice packet connection to carry content of said bearer channel (18)	The system is alleged to connect the call's voice path from an outgoing gateway to an incoming gateway via a digital voice packet (VoIP) connection. A diagram illustrates an inbound call path via a Webex CC Voice POP (Compl. p. 43).	¶61	col. 5:15-18
[1G] directing content of said bearer channel (18) of said call from the outgoing gateway (308) to said selected termination point (500 or 600)	The accused system allegedly directs the voice content (bearer channel) from the outgoing gateway to the selected agent (termination point) for handling.	¶62	col. 5:19-22

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the distributed, cloud-native components of the Webex Contact Center architecture (e.g., Voice POPs, media processing layers) function as the distinct "incoming gateway" and "outgoing gateway" described in the patent. The defense may argue that the accused system is a more integrated platform that does not map onto the patent's specific architectural elements.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint relies heavily on high-level marketing and architectural diagrams from Cisco presentations. A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused system actually performs the claimed separation and reconnection of signaling and bearer channels in the precise manner required by the claim, as opposed to using other known cloud-based call processing techniques.

U.S. Patent No. 10,198,741 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
[1A] receiving notification of a call from a first communication device	The Webex Contact Center allegedly receives notification of an inbound call from a caller's device.	¶80	col. 38:52-53
[1B] in response to the notification: delaying routing of the call without soliciting action by a first operator of the first communication device	The system allegedly delays routing by placing the caller in a queue while it determines the appropriate agent, without requiring action from the caller. A diagram titled "Routing Call Flow" shows a call entering a queue before being assigned to a team/agent (Compl. p. 64).	¶81	col. 38:54-56
[1C] selecting a second operator of a second communication device to receive the call	The system's routing functionality, such as skills-based or longest-available agent routing, selects a specific agent ("second operator") to receive the call.	¶81	col. 38:57-58
[1D] separating the call into a signaling channel and a voice channel	The complaint re-alleges that the Webex architecture separates the call's media processing layer (voice channel) from its application layer where routing logic resides (signaling channel).	¶82	col. 38:59-60
[1E] connecting the voice channel of the call to the second communication device after termination of the delay	After an agent is selected and the call is dequeued (i.e., the delay terminates), the system allegedly connects the voice channel to that agent's device.	¶83	col. 38:61-63

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: The case may turn on the construction of "delaying routing of the call without soliciting action." Cisco may argue that standard call queuing is a conventional part of call processing and not the specific, inventive "delay" contemplated by the patent, which may be tied more directly to the act of content presentation.
  • Technical Questions: What specific technical process constitutes the "delay"? Is it the time a caller spends in a queue, the time an IVR system interacts with them, or another defined period? The complaint's evidence may need to demonstrate that this delay is distinct from conventional call handling and is performed in concert with the other claimed steps.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’092 Patent

• The Term: "physically distributed"
• Context and Importance: This term, appearing in the preamble of Claim 1, is critical for defining the overall architecture to which the method applies. Its construction will determine whether a modern, cloud-based system like the accused product, which may be logically centralized but runs on geographically dispersed hardware, falls within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the defense could argue that a SaaS platform is a single, integrated system, not a "distributed" one in the manner of connecting separate, discrete physical call center sites as might be depicted in the patent's embodiments.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's description of enabling agents to be located anywhere, untethered from a central PBX, could support a broad reading that covers any non-monolithic architecture, including a cloud platform with remote agents.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: If the patent's embodiments exclusively depict multiple, distinct physical call centers, each with its own equipment, this could support an argument that "physically distributed" requires more than just geographically dispersed data centers and remote workers.

For the ’741 Patent

• The Term: "delaying routing of the call"
• Context and Importance: This is the central active step of Claim 1 and its meaning is fundamental to the infringement question. The dispute will likely focus on whether routine call center operations, such as placing a caller in a queue while searching for an available agent, constitute "delaying routing." The patent's validity could also be implicated if the term is construed so broadly as to read on conventional call queuing.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the call processor "may delay signaling of a voice call... to delay establishment of the voice channel" (’741 Patent, col. 5:40-44). This general language could be argued to encompass any period before the voice channel is connected to the final agent.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The flowchart in Figure 9 of the patent shows "Delay signaling of voice channel" as a discrete step (906) that occurs after the call is initiated (902) but before the voice connection is routed (914). This may support an argument that the delay is a specific, intentional step separate from incidental queuing, implemented for the purpose of call control and content presentation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all three patents, asserting that Cisco encourages and instructs its customers and end-users to use the Webex Contact Center in an infringing manner through its promotional literature, user manuals, and technical support (Compl. ¶67-¶68, ¶89-¶90, ¶113-¶114). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement for the ’092 patent, alleging the accused products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶69).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include an explicit claim for willful infringement. However, for all three patents, it alleges that Cisco has had "actual knowledge" of the patent and its infringement "at least as early as the date of filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶66, ¶88, ¶112). This language lays the groundwork for a potential claim of post-suit willful infringement. No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

• Architectural Mapping: A core technical issue will be whether the functional blocks of Cisco’s modern, cloud-native SaaS platform can be mapped onto the more discrete architectural components recited in the patent claims, particularly the ’092 Patent's "incoming gateway," "outgoing gateway," and "call routing system." The outcome may depend on whether the court adopts a functional or a stricter structural comparison.
• The Nature of "Delay": For the ’741 and ’303 Patents, the dispute will likely center on the claim construction of "delaying routing" and "pausing establishment." A key question for the court will be whether these terms encompass standard, inherent latencies in call center operations like queuing and agent selection, or if they require a specific, additional period of delay intentionally imposed for the purpose of call control and content presentation as arguably taught by the patents.
• Evidentiary Sufficiency: The complaint relies heavily on public-facing Cisco marketing materials and high-level presentation diagrams. A key evidentiary question will be whether the plaintiff can produce technical evidence—such as source code, internal design documents, or expert testimony—that demonstrates the accused Webex Contact Center operates in the specific manner required by the claims, rather than simply achieving a similar result through non-infringing means.