Voice Technologies Group, Inc. v. VMC Systems, Inc.
| Decision Date | 08 January 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-1465,97-1465 |
| Citation | 49 USPQ2d 1333,164 F.3d 605 |
| Parties | VOICE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VMC SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Daniel C. Oliverio, Hodgson, Russ, Andrews, Woods & Goodyear, LLP, Buffalo, New York, argued for plaintiff-appellee.
Dennis G. Martin, Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafmann, LLP, Los Angeles, California, argued for defendant-appellant.
Before RICH, NEWMAN, and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.
VMC Systems, Inc. appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York 1 wherein the court ruled on summary judgment that the VoiceBridge II devices made by Voice Technologies Group do not infringe the claims of VMC's United States Patent No. 5,222,124 (the '124 patent). Because Voice Technologies has not established that it is entitled to judgment of noninfringement, we reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.
The '124 patent relates to a device that enables communication between a PBX (Private Branch Exchange) system and an adjunct processor. According to the written description, the invention of the '124 patent enables direct communication between a PBX system and an adjunct processor, without the limitations of an intervening telephone; whereas the prior art enabled communication between a PBX system and an adjunct processor through a dedicated, modified telephone set physically connected to an integration device.
Figure 1 of the patent shows PBX system 10 connected through station line card 11 to PBX communications device 20, in turn connected to adjunct processor 30:
In an embodiment described in the patent, the adjunct processor is a voice mail system. When the PBX system receives an incoming call, the PBX system communicates to the PBX communications device the origin, status, and destination of the incoming call, and the device passes this information to the voice mail system. The voice mail system may connect the caller to the called party's voice mailbox, passing the appropriate data. Once a message is taken, the voice mail system may direct the PBX to activate a message-waiting indicator on the called party's telephone set.
Figure 2 shows an embodiment of the PBX communications device in greater detail. Line card 11 of a PBX system is connected to the PBX communications device 20 by a lead 12 consisting of two pairs of wires, a data pair 13 and a voice pair 14:
The text accompanying Figure 2 explains: '124 patent, col. 5, lines 4-9.
Voice Technologies brought suit against VMC in federal district court asserting various common law torts arising from letters sent by VMC to Voice Technologies' customers charging infringement of the VoiceBridge II devices infringe the complaint was voluntarily dismissed, and the suit proceeded on the patent issues of the counterclaim.
In the course of various pre-trial procedures, including cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court directed the parties to "present arguments and evidence bearing on the claim construction issues." Claim 1 is representative:
1. A telephone communications device for providing communication between a telephone switching apparatus and an adjunct processor, said telephone switching apparatus having at least one telephone switching apparatus station line card connected to said telephone switching apparatus and to said telephone communications device, said telephone communications device comprising:
means for monitoring communications between said telephone switching apparatus and said adjunct processor via said station line card;
means for extracting information from said communications, said information comprising status of incoming calls, status of stations in the telephone switching apparatus and the origin, nature, and destination of said incoming calls;
means for communicating said information from said telephone switching apparatus to said adjunct processor to provide said information in a usable form to the adjunct processor; and
means for communicating other information from the adjunct processor to the telephone switching apparatus via said station line card.
(Emphases added.) The emphasized clauses relate to the disputed claim construction, which concern the means for communicating between the telephone switching apparatus and the adjunct processor.
Voice Technologies argued that it did not infringe the '124 claims because its devices were capable of "telephone emulation" and the specification of the '124 patent disclaimed such devices. Voice Technologies directed the district court's attention to the statement in the '124 specification that the invention does not perform telephone emulation:
Telephone emulation is the imitation of features and functionality of a particular telephone set....
... Since the establishment of a direct talk path is a necessary function of a telephone set, the present invention cannot perform telephone emulation.
Col. 2, lines 51-52 & col. 3, lines 2-4. Voice Technologies asked the court "to rule whether an accused device having the capability of 'direct talk path' does, or does not, 'emulate' a particular telephone set." Voice Technologies stated that integration devices necessarily emulate a telephone and establish a "voice or talk path," and argued that since its devices emulate a telephone, infringement is precluded.
Voice Technologies filed supporting statements of Jacqueline Orr and Robert Fritzinger. Ms. Orr, testifying as an expert, stated that "an integration device must emulate a telephone (i.e., must have the 'electrical signature' and functional characteristics of a particular phone)." According to Orr, a "critical component of the 'electrical signature' and functional characteristics of a particular telephone set is the presence of a voice or talk path." Orr stated that "in the absence of a voice or talk path as part of the 'electrical signature' and functional characteristics of a telephone set, the PBX will disable a particular line."
Discussing the devices, Orr stated that "each of the devices of which I am aware establishes, as it must to be operational, a voice or talk path."
Robert Fritzinger, Voice Technologies' executive vice president and a developer of integration devices, stated that he had reviewed Orr's statements and that he agreed with Orr that " 'telephone emulation' requires the replication of features of a particular telephone set, including the presence or establishment of a talk or voice path." Concerning the devices, Fritzinger stated that "[a]s required for 'telephone emulation' to ensure operability and compatibility with a particular PBX and integration system, each of the integration devices at issue in this case produced by [Voice Technologies] establishes a voice or talk path between the integration device and the PBX."
VMC disputed that the claims of the '124 patent are ambiguous or inconsistent, or the described device inoperable. VMC argued that even if the claims were deemed limited to systems that do not perform "telephone emulation," that term as defined in the specification does not exclude the Voice Technologies devices. The specification states:
It is also an object of the present invention to provide the means to connect an adjunct processor to a PBX system without the limitations of telephone emulation. Telephone emulation is the imitation of features and functionality of a particular telephone set.
The present invention, the PBX communications device, connects directly to a PBX station line card of the PBX in much the same manner as any normal peripheral to a PBX system (e.g., answering machine, telephone station set, etc.). It does not emulate any particular telephone set but rather monitors PBX information present on the line card and transmits information from the adjunct processor....
The present invention does not contain, nor utilize, any voice detection circuitry and thus cannot establish a direct talk path with the PBX system. The invention connects with the data pair of the line card only. Since the establishment of a direct talk path is a necessary function of a telephone set, the present invention cannot perform telephone emulation....
The invention...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v. Cook
...in favor of the non-movant, infringement can be reasonably decided only in favor of the movant. Voice Technologies Group, Inc. v. VMC Systems, Inc., 164 F.3d 605, 612 (Fed.Cir.1999). “Summary judgment on the issue of infringement [or noninfringement] is proper when no reasonable jury could ......
-
Jeneric/Pentron v. Dillon Company, Chemichl Inc.
...the facts." Vivid Tech., Inc. v. American Science & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 806 (Fed.Cir. 1999) (citing Voice Techs. Group, Inc. v. VMC Sys., Inc. 164 F.3d 605, 612 (Fed.Cir. 1999)). On cross-motions for summary judgment, "[e]ach party carries the burden on its own motion to show entitle......
-
Va. Innovation Scis., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
...appropriate where the only real dispute between parties concerns the proper meaning of patent claims. SeeVoice Techs. Group, Inc. v. VMC Sys., Inc., 164 F.3d 605, 612 (Fed.Cir.1999) (considering infringement at summary judgment stage). Although Voice Techs. Group, Inc. concerns the issue of......
-
Leviton Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Universal Sec. Instruments
...of patent infringement involves two steps. First, the court must construe the claims as a matter of law. Voice Tech. Group, Inc. v. VMC Sys., Inc., 164 F.3d 605, 612 (Fed.Cir.1999); Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed.Cir.1995), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, ......