Witness Systems, Inc. v. Nice Systems, Inc. et al., No. 1:06-cv-126 (N.D. Ga. May, 7, 2007) (Batten, J.)
In this patent infringement action, the Defendants are accused of infringing the patent-in-suit by offering a product suite for use in a contact center that captures phone calls and emails and analyzes their content. The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment contending that the accused product suite does not meet, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, certain limitations in the asserted claims. Specifically, the Defendants argued that the claim limitation “communication traffic controller” required a hardware device that could not be found in the accused product because the accused product used a software application instead of hardware. Further, the Defendants asserted that the limitation “operating responsive to the analysis of recorded data” was not met because the accused product operated in response to input by a human user and not in response to the analysis of recorded data.
The Court appointed a Special Master to consider the Defendants’ Motion. The Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (available here) concluding that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the accused product satisfied the “communication traffic controller” limitation. As for the “operating responsive to the analysis of recorded data” limitation, the Special Master found that an operation performed in response to input from a human user is not literally the same as an operation performed in response to the analysis of recorded data as required by the claim, but determined that a reasonable jury could find that such operations are equivalent. Consequently, the Special Master recommended that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted on the basis that the accused product does not literally satisfy the “operating” limitation but that the Motion be denied on the basis that the accused product does not satisfy the “operating” limitation under the doctrine of equivalents.
In this patent infringement action, the Defendants are accused of infringing the patent-in-suit by offering a product suite for use in a contact center that captures phone calls and emails and analyzes their content. The Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment contending that the accused product suite does not meet, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, certain limitations in the asserted claims. Specifically, the Defendants argued that the claim limitation “communication traffic controller” required a hardware device that could not be found in the accused product because the accused product used a software application instead of hardware. Further, the Defendants asserted that the limitation “operating responsive to the analysis of recorded data” was not met because the accused product operated in response to input by a human user and not in response to the analysis of recorded data.
The Court appointed a Special Master to consider the Defendants’ Motion. The Special Master issued a Report and Recommendation (available here) concluding that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether the accused product satisfied the “communication traffic controller” limitation. As for the “operating responsive to the analysis of recorded data” limitation, the Special Master found that an operation performed in response to input from a human user is not literally the same as an operation performed in response to the analysis of recorded data as required by the claim, but determined that a reasonable jury could find that such operations are equivalent. Consequently, the Special Master recommended that the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted on the basis that the accused product does not literally satisfy the “operating” limitation but that the Motion be denied on the basis that the accused product does not satisfy the “operating” limitation under the doctrine of equivalents.
Both the Plaintiff and the Defendants filed Objections to the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation. Upon review of the pleadings de novo, Judge Batten found that the parties’ objections had no merit and that the Special Master’s factual and legal conclusions were correct. Judge Batten therefore adopted as the Court’s Order the Special Master’s Report and Recommendation on the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement.
0 comments:
Post a Comment