Verizon sued Vonage in case 1:06-cv-00682-CMH-BRP in the US District Court of the Eastern Virgina region. Verizon has won, for now. As people who make VoIP work, the engineers and operators of VoIP systems need some actual useful information to work with to build networks that observe Verizon’s patents. This posting is just an attempt to collect some of that info in a useful place.
Wikipedia’s page on Vonage actually lists some patent numbers. However, the Talk page doesn’t substantiate where those patent numbers came from.
The actual Federal documents in the case are tucked away in the arcane PACER system. I have cached Document 371, a Court Order on Claim Construction of the Patents-in-Suit.
Russell Shaw of ZDNet has a few articles on three of the patents:
In addition, I have a cache of the Civil Docket for the case. Some interesting entries include:
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Claude M. Hilton : Jury Trial cont’d on 3/7/2007. Appearances as previous. Preliminary matters heard. Exhibits admitted. Jury instruction conference held w/counsel. Closing arguments heard. The Court charged the jury and the jury retired to deliberate (@2:50). The Court rec’d a question from the jury @ 5:50 re: definitions of ‘name translation’ and ‘method comprising’. Question to be discussed w/counsel tomorrow morning. Jury excused to return 3/8/07 @ 10:00 for further deliberations. (Court Reporter Linnell/Thomson.) (tarm, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Claude M. Hilton : Jury Trial cont’d on 3/8/2007. Appearances as previous. Jury question rec’d 3/7/07 addressed w/counsel. Jury reinstructed re: name translation and given the definition of ‘method comprising’. The jury returned to the jury room to continue deliberations. The jury returned to the courtroom at 2:50 w/a verdict finding infringement of claim 27 of the ‘574 patent, claim 20 of the ‘711 patent and Claims 1, 6, 7, and 8 of the ‘880 patent and finding that the infringement was not willful. The jury did not find infringement of claims 1 & 2 of the ‘869 patent and Claims 1 & 2 of the ‘275 patent. The jury found none of the claims at issue in patents ‘574, ‘711, ‘869, ‘275, or ‘880 to be invalid. The jury awarded pltfs damages in the amount of $58,000,000.00 and found the reasonable royalty percentage to be 5.5%. Judgment to be entered in accordance with the verdict. Pltfs motion for Permanent Injunction to heard on 3/23/07 @ 10:00. (Court Reporter Linnell.) (tarm, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)