Michael Young
Thu, 08 Mar 2007 20:34:11 -0800
So if I read these right... If Vonage stops using ENUM they are no longer in violation of these patents.
On the VERY broad VoIP gateway patent, the jury found in favor of Vonage. Michael Young NetLogic -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kristian Kielhofner Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 9:51 PM To: Commercial and Business-Oriented Asterisk Discussion Subject: [asterisk-biz] Update: Actual Verizon Patent Numbers and ruling from Verizon v. Vonage Hello everyone, It seemed like no one could find the actual Verizon patents involved in the Verizon v. Vonage case that has been making the news. So I did a little digging. Let me tell you - the US Federal Government does not make these things easy! :) Here the are... Vonage Infringed: Patent #6,282,574: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL &p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6282574.PN.&OS=PN /6282574&RS=PN/6282574 Patent #6,104,711: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL &p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN /6104711&RS=PN/6104711 Vonage Infringed, although not willfully: Patent #6,359,880: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL &p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6359880.PN.&OS=PN /6359880&RS=PN/6359880 No Infringment: Patent #6,137,869: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL &p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6137869.PN.&OS=PN /6137869&RS=PN/6137869 Patent #6,430,275: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL &p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6430275.PN.&OS=PN /6430275&RS=PN/6430275 Here is the actual text of the judgment: "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)" I'm no attorney. Hopefully someone else can make more sense out of this. WARNING: Watch this thread - I am sure a long rant is to follow!!! -- Kristian Kielhofner _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz