Appeals court denies Vonage quick fix

…The telephone adapter is designed to be used with any traditional phone, including a cordless phone, but according to the injunction, the use of any wireless connection to be used on a public data network for voice transmission (calls) where a call is defined as a real-time duplex conversation by two parties, is infringing upon the wireless patent.

The order of permanent injuction contains:
3. Regarding Claims 1,6,7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,359,880, the Vonage Enjoined Parties are further specifically restrained and enjoined from:
A.Infringing by using devices having wireless capabilities to complete calls to and from Vonage customer over the Vonage Network, inluding Linksys WRT54G2 (sp), Linksys WRTP54G, D-Link VWR wireless routers; ii) the V-Tech IP 8100 cordless telephones and accessory handsets, and the Uniden UIP1869V cordless phone and accessory handsets, both of which are capable of connecting wirelessly to a public packet data communication network, iii) the UT Starcom F1000 wireless telephones which are capable of connecting wirelessly to a publick packet data communication network; iv)the Vonage Softphone Xten X-PRO and the Vonage Talk software, both of which are capabable of being downloaded to or accessed by a wireless computer cable of connecting wirelessly to a public packet data network… or any colorable variation thereof.
This is a very broad, sweeping and loose interpration of the wireless patent. It follows that ANY softphone, including Skype, is infringing upon the wireless patent if it is accessed through a computer that is wirelessly connected to the internet. A colorable variation is cordless phone connected to a vonage telephone adapter. The telephone adapter is designed to be used with any traditional phone, including a cordless phone, but according to the injunction, the use of any wireless connection to be used on a public data network for voice transmission (calls) where a call is defined as a real-time duplex conversation by two parties (???).
HMMMM???

Thanks for the analysis, Mr. Parloff. It is appreciated.

I think Mr. Parloff has been extremely unbiassed and fair at explaining exactly what’s happeneing in light of all the massive attacks and lies about Vonage recently on other forums.
I think that is a more worthy argument and story since I really have never witnessed such a thing at such a news level. Not even Microsoft vs Netscape can compare.

Vonage is still at risk of getting crushed, there is NO doubt about that now, and the only way to stop that is to go through this recent ruling about Microsoft.

I hope they can get through this before the end of June though as this would be a major step forward for the industry to stop these frivolous patent cases and then encourage massive competition and growth.

Degrees from Harvard AND Yale, and a multi-decade background in litigation and legal commentary.

Yeah, what is Parloff thinking with his “uneducated” opinions??

Seriously, Fred, you’re the one showing pro-Vonage bias, aren’t you? Roger doesn’t really have a stake in whoever wins the horse race, as he put it. On the other hand, you seem as if you might?

Fred–
This is a blog, and blogs frequently contain opinion. My qualifications, such as they are, are contained at the “about the author” link under my photo, so readers can evaluate them and give them whatever weight they feel is appropriate. I was trained as a lawyer and have practiced, and do like to give the readers my candid thoughts, since ordinarily they hear from paid advocates for one side or the other, or from “outside experts” who frequently also have axes to grind of one sort or another.)
I have no horse in this race between Vonage and Verizon. (Vonage officials’ own statements about the case have indicated that their survival is at stake.) I assume readers want to know how a court is really likely to rule; they already know how they wish it would rule.
Vonage’s request for an immediate retrial seemed exceedingly weak as a legal matter. One reason was that, as Verizon pointed out in their response, Vonage could just raise any issues they thought KSR had created at the oral argument of the appeal, which has already been set for June 25. In fact, the appeals court agreed with Verizon and denied Vonage’s motion for immediate retrial on those grounds (at a minimum). I also believe, based on the briefs each side as submitted so far, that the KSR issue will be an exceedingly weak one for Vonage on appeal. Maybe Vonage’s briefs on the merits will make a stronger case, either on that issue or on its other appellate issues, but we’ll have to see.
The ‘oops I was wrong’ headlines you suggest all deal with subjects I’ve never written about.

“Well, that didn’t take long.” -May 1 article

“It’s presumptuous for a legal reporter to predict how an august federal appeals panel might rule, but for whatever it’s worth, I like Verizon’s chances at the moment.” -May 2

“Vonage’s survival appears to be at stake.” -May 3

You obviously feel so highly about yourself, that you believe your opinions are newsworthy. They’re not. And yes, you are very presumptuous for inserting them into your “reports” thinking any reader might give a flip what you think! You are a biased reporter, and you allow your bias into your work. Your work smells, Parloff….it smells badly.

Here are some headlines you might have used to balance your bias:

“Verizon Rushed to Patent What Was Public Domain!”

“Vonage Unlikely to be Granted Stay…Ops, Guess I Was Wrong!”

“Vonage Not Allowed New Customers During Stay….Ops, I Was Wrong Again.”

“Members of Public Forum Source of Verizon Patents Prepared to Testify Against VZ…..(naw, I’ll bury this one. Maybe know one will find out.)”

“Court Permits Vonage’s Evidence That Verizon’s Patents are Invalid!…Ops, endgame for VZ”

It is alright to have an opinion, Parloff, but you shouldn’t include it in your “work”, especially when it is not an educated one. It doesn’t make you look very credible…know what I mean?

Since the KSR ruling in the US Supreme Court was announced Monday, Vonage will be able to present their new issues related to the new patent standard of obviousness. Additionally, the most recent appellate opinion clearly states the issues may be raised by Vonage counsel in the briefs. As such, Vonage will be able to rely on new case law that was not previously available. Even if Vonage already filed appeal briefs, US Appeals rules allow additional briefs to be filed on new case law that is material.