throbber
Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 80 PageID #: 72700
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:14-cv-33-JRG
`












`
`
`GENBAND US LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`METASWITCH NETWORKS LTD;
`METASWITCH NETWORKS CORP.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER AND OPINION WITH
`FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`
`On March 29, 2016, the Court held a bench trial and heard evidence in this patent
`
`infringement case. Before the Court are several equitable remedies and defenses raised by the
`
`Parties, in addition to open questions of law under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`The first set of issues before the Court relate to Genband’s request for a permanent
`
`injunction. As part of this request, Genband filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment to
`
`Include a Permanent Injunction (Dkt. No. 491.) In response, Metaswitch asserts the equitable
`
`defense of laches.
`
`The second set of issues before the Court relate to equitable defenses raised by
`
`Metaswitch: the defense of laches (which Metaswitch contends bars Genband from receiving a
`
`permanent injunction and recovering pre-suit damages) and unenforceability of several patents
`
`due to the equitable doctrines of implied waiver, equitable estoppel, and implied license.
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 80 PageID #: 72701
`
`The parties have submitted briefs, supporting documents, expert reports, and proposed
`
`findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court, having considered the same, now makes and
`
`enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 80 PageID #: 72702
`
`I.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”) .......................................................................................... 6
`A.
`The Parties ...............................................................................................................6
`B.
`The Lawsuit .............................................................................................................7
`1.
`The Patents ...................................................................................................7
`2.
`The Jury Trial .............................................................................................10
`3.
`The Bench Trial .........................................................................................11
`Accused Metaswitch Products ...............................................................................12
`Genband’s Knowledge of Metaswitch and Its Products ........................................13
`1.
`The Court finds that there was delay .........................................................13
`2.
`The Court finds that the minimal amount of Metaswitch’s infringing
`activity and the circumstances surrounding Genband’s CVAS
`acquisition are sufficient to rebut any presumption or showing of
`unreasonable delay. ....................................................................................16
`Nortel’s History and Knowledge of Metaswitch’s Products .................................17
`1.
`The Court finds that the minimal amount of Metaswitch’s infringing
`activity and the circumstances surrounding Nortel’s bankruptcy are
`sufficient to rebut any presumption or showing of unreasonable
`delay. ..........................................................................................................17
`Prejudice to Metaswitch .........................................................................................20
`1.
`Economic Prejudice ...................................................................................20
`2.
`Evidentiary Prejudice .................................................................................23
`Nortel and Genband’s Involvement in CableLabs .................................................26
`1.
`Agreements between CableLabs and NNCSI ............................................26
`2.
`CableLabs IPR Agreement ........................................................................28
`3.
`Metaswitch’s “alter ego” theory ................................................................30
`4.
`Metaswitch’s knowledge ...........................................................................36
`IETF .......................................................................................................................38
`1.
`Metaswitch does not have a license to any asserted claim under the
`IETF Statement because it failed to show that the asserted claims are
`essential to an IETF standard. ....................................................................39
`Metaswitch does not have a license to any asserted claim under the
`IETF Statement because Metaswitch failed to show that Nortel
`contributed a document to the IETF describing the patented
`technology. .................................................................................................41
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`2.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 4 of 80 PageID #: 72703
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Metaswitch does not have a license to any asserted claim under the
`IETF Statement because Metaswitch failed to show that its accused
`products comply with an IETF standard. ...................................................42
`Metaswitch does not have a license to any asserted claim under the
`IETF Statement because it failed to show that the asserted claims are
`essential to an IETF standard. ....................................................................43
`Metaswitch does not have a license to any asserted claim under the
`IETF Statement because Metaswitch failed to show that Nortel
`contributed a document to the IETF describing the patented
`technology. .................................................................................................47
`Metaswitch does not have a license to any asserted claim under the
`IETF Statement because Metaswitch failed to show that its accused
`products comply with an IETF standard. ...................................................48
`ITU .........................................................................................................................51
`1.
`Metaswitch does not have a license to Claim 70 of the ’971 Patent
`under the ITU Declarations because it failed to show that Nortel
`contributed its patented technology to the relevant ITU
`Recommendations. .....................................................................................52
`Metaswitch does not have a license to Claim 70 of the ’971 Patent
`under the ITU Declarations because it failed to prove that its
`accused products comply with the relevant ITU Recommendations. ........52
`Metaswitch does not have a license to Claim 70 of the ’971 Patent
`under the ITU Declarations because it failed to prove that the claim
`is essential to the relevant ITU Recommendations. ...................................53
`CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (“CL”) ............................................................................... 54
`A.
`Permanent Injunction: Availability ........................................................................55
`4.
`Legal Standard ...........................................................................................55
`5.
`Irreparable Harm ........................................................................................55
`Defense of Laches ..................................................................................................58
`1.
`Legal Standard ...........................................................................................58
`2.
`Analysis......................................................................................................61
`Equitable Defense: Implied Waiver .......................................................................62
`1.
`Applicable Law ..........................................................................................62
`2.
`The Court concludes that Metaswitch has not proven by clear and
`convincing evidence that implied waiver bars Genband’s damages. ........63
`Equitable Defense: Equitable Estoppel ..................................................................64
`1.
`Applicable Law ..........................................................................................64
`
`I.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 5 of 80 PageID #: 72704
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`2.
`
`The Court concludes that Metaswitch has not proven by clear and
`convincing evidence that equitable estoppel bars Genband’s
`damages......................................................................................................66
`Equitable Defense: Implied License ......................................................................68
`1.
`Applicable Law ..........................................................................................68
`2.
`The Court concludes that Metaswitch has not proven by clear and
`convincing evidence that implied license bars Genband’s damages. ........68
`Patent Eligible Subject Matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 ..........................................69
`1.
`Legal Standard ...........................................................................................69
`2.
`’561 Patent Asserted Claims are Patent Eligible .......................................72
`3.
`’658 Patent Asserted Claims are Patent Eligible .......................................73
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 6 of 80 PageID #: 72705
`
`I. FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
`
`A.
`
`The Parties
`
`[FF1]
`
`Plaintiff Genband US LLC (“Genband”) is a Delaware corporation and a real
`
`time communications software company formed in 1999, having a principal place of business in
`
`Frisco, Texas. (Dkt. No. 12 at 1; PX4037 (“Bakewell Op. Rpt.”) at ¶ 29.)
`
`[FF2]
`
`Genband was founded in 1999 under the name General Bandwidth. Id. at ¶ 20.
`
`In 2001, General Bandwidth introduced its first product, the VG-100. In 2006, General
`
`Bandwidth was renamed Genband. Id. In December 2009, Genband submitted a bid for Nortel
`
`Networks Inc.’s (“Nortel”) Carrier VoIP and Application Solutions (“CVAS”) business, and
`
`Genband acquired the CVAS business on May 28, 2010. Id. at ¶ 23. Nortel’s CVAS business
`
`offered a variety of voice over packet products (i.e., softswitches and media gateways),
`
`multimedia communication servers, application servers, IMS products, optical products, WAN
`
`switches and digital-based telephone switches. Id. at ¶ 24. As part of the CVAS business unit
`
`acquisition, Genband gained intellectual property assets, including five of the seven patents
`
`asserted in this litigation. Id. at ¶¶ 24–25.
`
`[FF3]
`
`Defendant Metaswitch Networks Ltd (“Metaswitch Ltd”) is a privately held
`
`communications software company formed in 1981 with its principal place of business in the
`
`United Kingdom. (DX-230 at -563.)
`
`[FF4] Metaswitch Networks Corp. (“Metaswitch Corp.”) is a wholly owned U.S.
`
`subsidiary of Metaswitch Ltd with its principal place of business located in San Francisco,
`
`California. (Metaswitch Networks Ltd and Metaswitch Corp., collectively “Metaswitch”). (Dkt.
`
`No. 12 at ¶ 3–4; see also DX-230 at -1608.) Metaswitch provides software solutions for voice
`
`and data communications for telecom equipment manufacturers. Metaswitch offers a line of
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 7 of 80 PageID #: 72706
`
`softswitches, media gateways, application servers, and session border control products to
`
`telecommunication operators. Bakewell Op. Rep. at ¶¶ 43–44.
`
`B.
`
`The Lawsuit
`
`[FF5]
`
`On January 21, 2014, Genband filed the original complaint in this case. Dkt.
`
`No. 1. In this complaint, Genband alleged that certain Metaswitch products infringed U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,772,210, 6,791,971, 6,885,658, 6,934,279, 7,995,589, 7,047,561, 7,184,427 and
`
`7,990,984. Id.
`
`1.
`
`The Patents
`
`[FF6]
`
`Genband asserts seven patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,791,971 (“’971 Patent”);
`
`6,885,658 (“’658 Patent”); 6,934,279 (“’279 Patent”); 7,047,561 (“’561 Patent”); 7,184,427
`
`(“’427 Patent”); 7,990,984 (“’984 Patent”); and 7,995,589 (“’589 Patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“patents-in-suit”).
`
`[FF7]
`
`The ’971 Patent is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Providing a
`
`Communications Service, for Communication and for Extending Packet Network Functionality.”
`
`PX2. The application for the ’971 Patent was filed on December 1, 1999, and the ’971 Patent
`
`issued on September 14, 2004. Id. The inventors listed on the face of the ’971 Patent are
`
`Marwan Osman and Antoine Zoghbi. Id. Genband asserts Claims 70, 80, and 92 of the ’971
`
`Patent.
`
`[FF8]
`
`The ’561 Patent is entitled “Firewall for Real-Time Internet Applications.”
`
`PX5. The application for the ’561 Patent was filed on September 28, 2000, and the ’561 Patent
`
`issued on May 16, 2006. Id. The sole inventor listed on the face of the ’561 Patent is Michael C.
`
`G. Lee. Id. Genband asserts Claims 6, 17, and 20 of the ’561 Patent.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 8 of 80 PageID #: 72707
`
`[FF9]
`
`The
`
`’279 and
`
`’589 Patents are both entitled “Controlling Voice
`
`Communications over a Data Network.” PX0004, PX0008. The ’589 Patent is a continuation of
`
`the ’279 Patent. PX0008. The application for the ’279 Patent was filed on March 13, 2000, and
`
`the ’279 Patent issued on August 23, 2005. PX0004. The application for the ’589 Patent was
`
`filed on August 23, 2005, and the ’589 Patent issued on August 9, 2011. PX0008. The inventors
`
`listed on the face of the ’279 and ’589 Patents are Patrick N. Sollee, David R. Creech, Gregory
`
`T. Osterhout, and Christopher L. Jessen. PX0004, PX0008. Genband asserts Claim 25 of the
`
`’279 Patent and Claim 15 of the ’589 Patent.
`
`[FF10] The ’427 and ’984 Patents are both entitled “System and Method for
`
`Communicating Telecommunication
`
`Information
`
`from a Broadband Network
`
`to a
`
`Telecommunication Network.” PX0006, PX0007. The application for the ’427 Patent was filed
`
`on November 28, 2000, and the ’427 Patent issued on February 27, 2007. PX0006. The
`
`application for the ’984 Patent was filed on February 27, 2007 and issued on August 2, 2011.
`
`PX0007. The inventors listed on the face of the ’427 and ’984 Patents are A. J. Paul Carew and
`
`Brendon W. Mills. PX0006, PX0007. Genband asserts Claim 1 of the ’427 Patent and Claim 1
`
`of the ’984 Patent.
`
`[FF11] The ’658 Patent is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Interworking Between
`
`Internet Protocol (IP) Telephony Protocols.” PX0003. The application for the ’658 Patent was
`
`filed on February 18, 2000, and the ’658 Patent issued on April 26, 2005. PX0003. The
`
`inventors listed on the face of the ’658 Patent are David P. Ress, Xuewen Li, Denise J. Ingram,
`
`and Gregory Robert Utas. PX0003. Genband asserts Claims 1 and 11 of the ’658 Patent.
`
`[FF12] The ’658 Patent claims are directed towards the practice of protocol
`
`interworking through the use of an abstraction or “interworking protocol.” (May 8, 2015 Expert
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 9 of 80 PageID #: 72708
`
`Report of E. Burger, ¶ 130.) The ’658 Patent involves mapping the information contained in an
`
`incoming signal of an inbound signaling protocol into a messages of an intermediary protocol,
`
`which the ’658 Patent calls an “agent interworking protocol.” (Id.) From there, the information,
`
`which is now represented in the format of the interworking protocol, can be mapped to any other
`
`protocol so that the information may be transmitted in an outgoing message of a desired
`
`outbound signaling protocol. (Id.)
`
`[FF13] Claims 1 and 11 of the ’658 Patent, which Genband asserts, recite a call server
`
`and method:
`
`1. A call server comprising:
`(a) a fist protocol agent for communicating with a first internet protocol (IP)
`telephony device according to a first IP telephony protocol;
`(b) a second protocol agent for communicating with a second IP telephony
`device according to a second IP telephony protocol; and
`(c) an interworking agent for providing functions usable by the first and
`second protocol agents to communicate with each other according to a
`third protocol, the functions provided by the third protocol being a
`superset of functions provided by the first and second IP telephony
`protocols, said interworking agent further adapted to determine that a
`first parameter associated with the first IP telephony protocol does not
`map to the second IP telephony protocol and communicating first
`parameter to the second protocol agent without alteration.
`
`11. A method for interworking devices that communicate using different internet
`protocol (IP) telephony protocols, the method comprising:
`(a) receiving, from a first telephony device, a first message formatted
`according to a first IP telephony protocol;
`in response to receiving the first message, generating a second message,
`formatted according to a second protocol, said second protocol being
`distinct from said first protocol, the second message including at least
`one of a media capabilities description and media stream management
`information derived from the first message;
`transmitting the second message to a second protocol agent; and
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 10 of 80 PageID #: 72709
`
`(d)
`
`in response to receiving the second message, generating a third message
`formatted according to a third IP telephony protocol, the third message
`including at least one of the media capabilities description and media
`stream management information derived from the second message.
`(DX-005, ’658 Patent at Claim 1, Claim 11.)
`[FF14] Genband acquired the rights to enforce the patents at different times.
`
`[FF15] Genband owned the ’984 and ’589 Patents at the time they issued in August
`
`2011. PX7 and PX8. Thus, Genband first obtained rights to enforce these patents
`
`approximately three years before the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`[FF16] Genband acquired rights to enforce the ’561, ’658, ’971, and the ’279 Patents
`
`in May 2010. See PX34. Thus, Genband first obtained rights to enforce the ’561, ’658, ’971,
`
`and ’279 Patents approximately four years before the filing of this lawsuit.
`
`[FF17] Genband owned the ’427 Patent at the time it issued on February 27, 2007.
`
`PX6. Thus, Genband first obtained rights to enforce the ’427 Patent approximately seven years
`
`before the filing this lawsuit.
`
`2.
`
`The Jury Trial
`
`[FF18] During January 11–15, 2016, the Court held a jury trial on Genband’s
`
`infringement claims. The Jury also heard Metaswitch’s patent defenses, which included non-
`
`infringement, invalidity, and arguments that it was entitled to a license to certain patents on
`
`royalty-free terms. The patent claims at issue at the jury trial were:
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`’971 Patent: Claims 70, 80, and 92
`’658 Patent: Claims 1 and 11
`’279 Patent: Claim 25
`’589 Patent: Claim 15
`’561 Patent: Claims 6, 17, and 20
`’427 Patent: Claim 1
`’984 Patent: Claim 1
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 11 of 80 PageID #: 72710
`
`(Dkt. No. 465.)
`[FF19] On January 15, 2016, the Jury found that Metaswitch infringes all asserted
`
`claims of Genband’s seven patents and that those claims are valid. (Dkt. No. 465, “Jury
`
`Verdict”). The Jury awarded $8,168,400 in damages. (Id.)
`
`[FF20] On January 26, 2016, the Court entered a Final Judgment in accordance with
`
`the jury verdict. (Dkt. No. 480, “January 26, 2016 Final Judgment.”)
`
`[FF21] On February 5, 2016, the Court set aside the January 26, 2016 Final Judgment
`
`pending a final determination of Metaswitch’s equitable defense to Genband’s patent
`
`infringement claims, noting that those equitable issues would be heard in a subsequent bench
`
`trial, and that after the bench trial, the Court would re-enter judgment in light of both the jury’s
`
`verdict and the bench trial. (Dkt. No. 492.)
`
`3.
`
`The Bench Trial
`
`[FF22] On March 28, 2016, the day before the bench trial, the Parties filed a joint
`
`notice of stipulations for the bench trial. (Dkt. No. 538.) As part of the stipulation, the parties
`
`agreed to waive objections to the admission of any exhibit identified on a bench trial exhibit list
`
`that was “pre-admitted” in the jury trial in this case. (Id.) The parties further agreed to waive any
`
`hearsay objection to expert reports that were timely served in this case. (Id.) The parties therefore
`
`agreed that such expert reports are admissible as evidence in the bench trial and agreed not to
`
`call any expert witnesses live during the bench trial. (Id.)
`
`[FF23] On March 29, 2016, the Court held a bench trial on Genband’s claim for a
`
`permanent injunction, Metaswitch’s equitable defenses (including laches, implied waiver,
`
`equitable estoppel, and implied license), and Metaswitch’s defense of invalidity of the ’561 and
`
`’658 Patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Dkt. No. 543.)
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 12 of 80 PageID #: 72711
`
`[FF24] During the bench trial, the Court also took under advisement Genband’s
`
`motion to alter or amend the judgment to include a permanent injunction (Dkt. No. 491). The
`
`Court also took under advisement Genband’s objections to testimony Metaswitch submitted
`
`relating to the permanent injunction and equitable defenses, i.e.: the declaration of Lance E.
`
`Gunderson (Dkt. No. 510), the declaration of Alastair Mitchell (Dkt. No. 511), and the
`
`declarations of Jennifer Kash (Dkt. No. 545).
`
`[FF25] Pursuant to the Court’s order, the parties filed post-bench-trial briefs on April
`
`12, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 552, 553.)
`
`C.
`
`Accused Metaswitch Products
`
`[FF26] Genband accuses Metaswitch of infringing the following patent claims via
`
`these Metaswitch products:
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`’561 Patent Claims 6, 17, and 20:
`o Perimeta Session Border Controller (Dkt. No. 470, 1/12/2016 P.M. Trial
`Tr. at 29:20–30:16; 38:14–16; 44:15–24);
`’971 Patent Claims 70, 80, and 92:
`o Call Feature Server (id. at 98:24–99:8; 104:23–105:24; 108:25–109:15),
`o Integrated Softswitches VP2510, VP3500, VP3510, VP6010, and VP6050
`(id. at 98:24–99:8; 104:23–105:24; 108:25–109:15),
`o Service Broker (id. at 98:24–99:8; 108:25–109:15);
`’279 Patent Claim 25 and ’589 Patent Claim 15:
`o MTAS platform with Accession Software supporting Call Jump (id. at
`122:16–19; 124:3–8),
`o MTAS platform with CommPortal Software supporting Click to Dial (id.
`at 128:1–19; 130:15–18);
`’658 Patent Claims 1 and 11:
`o Call Feature Server (id. at 138:25–139:15; 149:20–24; 157:12–158:20),
`o Integrated Softswitches VP2510, VP3500, VP3510, VP6010, and VP6050
`(id.);
`’984 Patent Claim 1 and ’427 Patent Claim 1:
`o Universal Media Gateways MG2510, MG3500, MG3510, MG6010, and
`MG6050 (id. at 166:10–167:2; 181:1–4; 187:17–188:7),
`o Integrated Softswitches VP2510, VP3500, VP3510, VP6010, and VP6050
`(id.).
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 13 of 80 PageID #: 72712
`
`[FF27] Mr. John Lazar testified on behalf of Metaswitch that Perimeta was not
`
`available before July 2011. (Dkt. No. 472, 1/13/2016 P.M. Trial Tr. at 205:3–6; PX167.)
`
`D.
`
`Genband’s Knowledge of Metaswitch and Its Products
`
`1.
`
`The Court finds that there was delay
`
`[FF28] As early as 2001, Genband was aware of Metaswitch. The parties participated
`
`in an interoperability consortium called Open VoB. (Dkt. No. 502-4 ¶ 9.) Former Genband
`
`CEO Charlie Vogt, who ran the company for eight and half years up to 2013, knew Metaswitch’s
`
`product offerings and had a general sense of the functionalities included in Metaswitch products.
`
`(Dkt. 503-4 at 37–38, 118–19.) Vogt joined Genband in July 2004. (Id. at 37.) He was aware of
`
`Metaswitch prior to joining Genband. (Id.)
`
`[FF29] Genband contends that, while Genband was aware of Metaswitch prior to filing
`
`its complaint, Genband was not aware that Metaswitch’s products infringed its patents until just
`
`prior to filing its original complaint. (Dkt. No. 503-2, “Jarzemsky Tr.,” at 129:4-7.)
`
`[FF30] However, the Genband marketing department monitored Metaswitch press
`
`releases regarding new Metaswitch products. (Dkt. No. 503-2.) Upon learning of a new product,
`
`the marketing department would conduct a competitive analysis that involved “comparing
`
`Genband products to Metaswitch products.” (Id.)
`
`[FF31] Accordingly, Metaswitch contends that Genband has known about the accused
`
`products, as well as the “features and services claimed by the Metaswitch products,” in this case
`
`since at least as early as the first date that those products were announced by Metaswitch. (Dkt.
`
`No. 503-2.)
`
`[FF32] The Court finds that such knowledge by the marketing department is sufficient
`
`to show that Genband knew of these accused products.
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 14 of 80 PageID #: 72713
`
`[FF33] The accused products were publicly disclosed at least as early as the below
`
`dates. (Dkt. No. 502-4, “Mitchell Feb. 24, 2016 Decl.”)
`
`Product
`
`United States Launch Date
`
`VP3500 Integrated Softswitch
`
`VP3510 Integrated Softswitch
`MG3510 Universal Media Gateway
`
`Call Feature Server
`Enhanced Application Server
`MG3500 Universal Media Gateway
`DC-SBC
`VP2510 Integrated Softswitch
`MG2510 Universal Media Gateway
`CommPortal
`Service Broker
`
`Perimeta Session Border Controllers
`VP6010 Integrated Softswitch
`VP6050 Integrated Softswitch
`Accession Communicator
`MG6010 Universal Media Gateway
`MG6050 Universal Media Gateway
`MetaSphere Multiservice Telephony
`Application Servers
`
`Publicly announced in May 2002. Generally
`available October 2002.
`May 2004
`Publicly announced in June 2004. Generally
`available in December 2004.
`December 2004
`March 2005
`December 2004
`November 2005
`January 2006
`January 2006
`April 2007
`AppTrigger’s launch of Service Broker: at
`least as early as 2007
`Metaswitch launch of Service Broker: March
`2010
`July 2011
`April 2012
`July 2012
`February 2012
`April 2012
`July 2012
`MetaSphere MTAS is a branding name that
`includes Metaswitch’s Call Feature Server and
`Enhanced Application Server. This branding
`change occurred in 2007.
`
`
`
`[FF34] The following features were publicly disclosed at least as early as the dates
`
`described below. (Dkt. No. 502-4.)
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 15 of 80 PageID #: 72714
`
`Feature
`
`Publicly Described
`
`Session Border Controller’s separate handling
`of signaling and media traffic
`Session Border Controller’s application of
`packets associated with the signaling and
`control channels to an application proxy and
`application of packets associated with the
`bearer (media) channel to a packet filter
`Session Border Controller’s intelligent firewall
`functionality for real-time applications, such as
`VoIP
`The ability for softswitches and Call Feature
`Servers to provide intelligent networking
`services, such as toll-free calling, using legacy
`intelligent network equipment in an IP
`Environment
`Click to dial
`
`First publicly described at least as early as
`2005.
`First publicly described at least as early as
`2005.
`
`First publicly described at least as early as
`2005.
`
`First publicly described at least as early as
`2007.
`
`First publicly described at least as early as
`2007.
`First publicly described at least as early as
`2004.
`
`The ability to add support for additional
`protocols to its Call Feature Servers (as stand-
`alone products and as part of an Integrated
`Softswitch) by creating a mapping of the new
`protocol to a common, interworking protocol
`Communicating telecommunication
`information between an IP or ATM broadband
`network and a telecommunication network
`(e.g., the PSTN)
`
`[FF35] Genband produced internal documents dating back to 2007 analyzing
`
`First publicly described at least as early as
`2002.
`
`Metaswitch’s products. (Dkt. No. 503 Exs. 5–9.)
`
`[FF36] Genband’s engineers believed “most of the people in the space,” including
`
`Metaswitch, were infringing Genband patents. (Dkt. No. 503-4 at 113–14.) However, Genband
`
`did not sue Metaswitch or others companies that its engineers believed to be infringing. (Id. at
`
`120–21.) Genband’s former CEO believed it was best to use patents “as a way of defending
`
`ourselves” unless “we were being eliminated in our ability to fairly compete in the market.” (Id.
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 16 of 80 PageID #: 72715
`
`at 122:4–24.) Genband’s current CEO, David Walsh, testified that he personally believed
`
`Metaswitch was potentially infringing in February 2011. (Dkt. No. 503-10 at 141–44.)
`
`2.
`
`The Court finds that the minimal amount of Metaswitch’s infringing activity
`and the circumstances surrounding Genband’s CVAS acquisition are
`sufficient to rebut any presumption or showing of unreasonable delay.
`
`[FF37] Before Genband acquired CVAS in 2010, the only asserted patent owned by
`
`Genband was the ’427 Patent. See [FF14]–[FF17].
`
`[FF38]
`
`It is reasonable that Genband was not aware of and did not investigate any
`
`possible infringement by Metaswitch of the ’427 Patent because the two companies were not
`
`major competitors and any infringement by Metaswitch was minimal. Before Genband acquired
`
`CVAS in 2010, Mr. Lazar testified that Genband and Metaswitch had a friendly relationship:
`
`Q. And could you tell us what the relationship was between Metaswitch and
`Genband during the early to mid 2000s?
`A. We’d run into them sometimes. The relationship was reasonably friendly.
`Q. Did that change at some point in time?
`A. Yeah. I mean, I think during the -- the mid 2000s, I knew the chief executive,
`Charlie Vogt, reasonably well. We -- we would talk to each other a couple of
`times a year. I would say it began to change after the CVAS acquisition.
`Q. And when you say “after the CVAS acquisition,” what do you mean?
`A. I think it began to get a -- it began to get much, much more competitive.
`Q. Because -- and that's because Genband acquired the CVAS unit?
`A. I don't know if it's directly linked to that, but I think so.
`
`1.13.16 p.m. Trial Tr. at 168:2–18. He testified that Genband and CVAS became “fierce
`competitors” in 2013 or 2014:
`Q. . . . and I think that the quotation from your deposition was that -- the fact that
`Genband and Metaswitch were fierce competitors.
`A. Yeah. I think as of 2013, 2014, that would be true.
`Q. Prior to 2013 or 2014, did you view them as a fierce competitor?
`A. Less so.
`
`1.13.16 p.m. Trial Tr. at 168:25–169:6.
`[FF39] After Genband acquired CVAS, it is reasonable that Genband was not aware of
`
`and did not investigate any possible infringement by Metaswitch because (1) Genband was pre-
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00033-JRG Document 582 Filed 09/29/16 Page 17 of 80 PageID #: 72716
`
`occupied with absorbing the newly acquired company; (2) as a much larger company with a
`
`broader product portfolio, Genband did not view Metaswitch as a major competitor; and (3)
`
`Metaswitch’s infringing activity was minimal.
`
`[FF40] Mr. McCready, Genband’s Executive Vice President, testified that the
`
`magnitude of the Nortel acquisition was significant:
`
`Q And how -- how did Genband's business change, if at all, when it acquired
`CVAS?
`A Well, it changed dramatically. You know, the company had effectively one
`main product line.
` Now, it had a broad portfolio of products. The number of employees increased
`by a factor of, I think, four or five times, so did the revenue. Primarily, sales had
`been to these large integrators in the United States.
` Now, Genband had hundreds of companies -- pardon me -- hundreds of
`customers that it was servicing directly, and around the world, it became a global
`company in that step. It was truly transformational.
`
`
`(3/29/2016 Bench Trial Tr., Dkt. No. 542, at 73:12–23.)
`
`[FF41] Genband’s former CEO Mr. Vogt testified that, as of 2008, Genband did not
`
`consider Metaswitch one of the two competitors for the SBC market. (3/29/2016 Bench Trial Tr.,
`
`Dkt. No. 542, at 206:24–207:2.)
`
`E.
`
`Nortel’s Histo

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket