Light Reading - Vonage, Verizon Fight to Go Into Late Rounds

ADVANCED SEARCH

Garbage patents

fgoldstein

User Ranking

Tuesday March 27, 2007 1:47:01 PM

Has anyone here actually looked at the patents? Apparently a jury is usually not asked if the patents are any good, merely if they were infringed. So total garbage gets this far, to be overturned on appeal. In this case the jury did hold the patents valid; this is a bit like asking the janitor to diagnose if you have cancer.

Only a few claims actually were upheld. One was claim 27 of the '527 patent (26 included for completeness):

26. A method comprising:

receiving a name translation request at a server coupled to a public packet data network;

translating a name included in the request into a destination telephone number associated with a name included in the request; and

transmitting a reply containing both the destination telephone number and a packet data network address of a telephone gateway coupled between the public packet data network and a telephone network through the public packet data network to a calling device.

27. A method as in claim 26, wherein the address is an Internet Protocol address.

Gee, that's not obvious, or prior art, is it? Boy that American inventiveness sure worked hard for that one! How about the '711 patent, wherein only Claim 20 was found violated:

15. A method comprising:

receiving a name translation request at a server coupled to a public packet data network;

executing a conditional analysis in response to the name translation request;

if the conditional analysis produces a first result, translating a name included in the name translation request into a first destination address;

if the conditional analysis produces a second result, translating the name included in the name translation request into a second destination address; and

transmitting a response message containing the first or the second destination address to a calling device for use in establishing communication at least partially through the public packet data network.

20. A method as in claim 15; wherein:

the first and second destination address includes a numeric Internet Protocol address; and

the second destination address further includes information relating to call routing via a public switched telephone network.

No, sirree, that doesn't look at all like DNS or MX records or anything else invented before 1997!

Finally, the third upheld patent, the "not willfull" violations of the '880 patent, where only claims 1, 6, 7 and 8 were found violated:

1. A method comprising:

registering a wireless telephone terminal in a localized wireless gateway system;

transmitting registration data identifying the gateway system from the localized wireless gateway system to a home location register database through a public packet data communication network;

receiving a request from a calling computer coupled to the public packet data communication network for a call to the wireless telephone terminal;

in response to the request, accessing the home location register database and obtaining a packet data address for the localized wireless gateway system;

using the address to set up a voice communication through the public packet data communication network and the localized wireless gateway system between the calling computer and the wireless telephone terminal.

6. A method as in claim 1, wherein the public packet data communication network is a packet switched network.

7. A method as in claim 6, wherein the packet switched network comprises a system of interlinked data networks using TCP/IP protocol.

8. A method as in claim 7, wherein the system of interlinked data networks comprises the Internet.

Yep, that's Vonage all right, supporting wireless and cordless phones with HLRs! Dead ringer for parasitic broadband VoIP if you ask Mr. Patent Lawyer.

This whole sordid affair is a blot on the already-soiled reputation of the USA's judicial system. I can barely imagine how Vonage mounted a competent defense and lost on those claims. And those are the sum total of their infringements.

Reply | Post a Comment | Message List

The blogs and comments are the opinions only of the writers and do not reflect the views of Light Reading. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.