Verint Systems Et. Al. v. Voice Print International

8/12/2019 Verint Systems Et. Al. v. Voice Print International

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/verint-systems-et-al-v-voice-print-international 1/27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

ATLANTA DIVISION

)

)VERINT SYSTEMS INC. and )

VERINT AMERICAS INC. )) Civil Action No. ___________

Plaintiffs, )

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDv. )

)VOICE PRINT INTERNATIONAL, INC. )

)Defendant. )

)

)

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Verint Systems Inc. (“VSI”) and Verint Americas Inc. (“VAI”)

(collectively “Verint”), for their Complaint against Defendant, Voice Print

International, Inc. (“VPI”), allege as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff VSI is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of

Delaware, having its principal place of business at 330 South Service Road,

Melville, NY 11747.

2. Plaintiff VAI is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of

Delaware, having its principal place of business at 800 North Point Parkway,



2

Alpharetta, GA 30022. VAI is a wholly-owned subsidiary of VSI.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant VPI is a corporation

organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, having its

principal place of business at 160 Camino Ruiz, Camarillo, CA 93012.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This action arises under Title 35 of the United States Code.

Jurisdiction of this Court is based on 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). Venue is

proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c), and 1400(b).

BACKGROUND

5. Verint is engaged in the business of inventing, developing,

manufacturing, selling, installing, and/or distributing computer software and

hardware products and systems. The products and systems are directed to, inter

alia, the analysis, recording, monitoring, transmission, and/or security of electronic

communications, such as but not limited to telephonic, facsimile, and e-mail

communications to and from contact centers and call centers that handle incoming

and/or outgoing contacts with actual and prospective customers and clients.

Verint’s technology can provide an end user with the ability to capture, analyze

and act on large volumes of complex, and often underused, information sources,

such as voice, video, and unstructured text, which can enhance the ability of



3

organizations of all sizes to make timelier and effective decisions based on such

information.

6. Verint’s products and systems are used by more than 10,000

organizations in over 150 countries, including over 80 percent of the Fortune 100.

For example, Verint’s workforce optimization and voice of the customer solutions

are designed to, inter alia, help organizations enhance customer service operations

in contact centers, branches, and back-office environments, which in turn can

increase customer satisfaction, reduce operating costs, identify revenue

opportunities, and improve profitability. Verint uses its core competencies to

develop highly scalable solutions with advanced, integrated analytics for both

unstructured and structured information. Verint has expended substantial

resources inventing and developing this technology. For example, Verint utilizes

more than 1,000 employees and contractors in research and development

throughout the world, and has obtained more than 600 patents and applications

worldwide. In fiscal year 2012 alone, Verint obtained issuance or allowance of 50

patents in the United States. Verint has licensed one or more of the patents to

others in the industry under reasonable terms, through its Open Innovation

Network TM

(“OIN”) licensing program.

7. On information and belief, VPI manufactures, uses, sells, offers to



4

sell, installs, distributes, exports, and/or imports computer software and hardware

products and systems in Georgia and elsewhere, directed to and for use in

connection with methods involving the analysis, recording, monitoring,

transmission, and security of electronic communications, such as telephonic

communications to and from contact centers and call centers. VPI maintains, or

has maintained, a web site that claims “more than 1,500 loyal customers

worldwide.” A true and correct copy of the relevant web page is attached hereto as

part of Exhibit 1.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO MULTIPLE COUNTS

8. Verint is the sole owner of the entire right, title, and interest in and to

U.S. Patent No. 5,790,798 (“the ‘798 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,510,220 (“the

‘220 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,203,285 (“the ‘285 patent”); U.S. Patent No.

7,376,735 (“the ‘735 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,574,000 (“the ‘000 patent”); U.S.

Patent No. 7,774,854 (“the ‘854 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,852,994 (“the ‘994

patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,130,926 (“the ‘926 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,204,056

(“the ‘056 patent”); U.S. Patent No. RE43,324 (“the ‘324 patent”); and U.S. Patent



5

No. RE43,386 (“the ‘386 patent”) (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”).1, 2

9. The ‘285 and ‘000 patents are related, i.e., share a common effective

filing date and have similar or identical specifications; the ‘324 and ‘386 patents

are related; the ‘798 and ‘220 patents are related.

10. Verint owns all right, title, and interest to the Patents-in-Suit,

including the right to sue for infringement thereof. As the owner of the Patents-in-

Suit, Verint has the right to bring actions for infringement of the Patents-in-Suit.

11. Upon information and belief, VPI has been manufacturing, using,

selling, offering to sell, installing, distributing, exporting, and/or importing

computer software and hardware products and systems directed to and for use in

connection with methods involving the analysis, recording, transmission, and

1 Verint has accused CallCopy, Inc. of infringing the ‘798 patent, the ‘220 patent,

and the ‘386 patent in an action currently in its early stages in the Northern District

of Georgia, Verint Systems Inc. and Verint Americas Inc. v. CallCopy, Inc. d/b/a

Uptivity, 1:14-cv-00523-TWT. Verint has accused Envision Telephony, Inc. ofinfringing the ‘798 patent, the ‘220 patent, the ‘854 patent, the ‘324 patent, and the

‘386 patent in another action currently in its early stages in the Northern District ofGeorgia, Verint Systems Inc. and Verint Americas Inc. v. Envision Telephony, Inc.,

1:14-cv-00260-TWT.2 CallCopy, Inc. filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Petitions for

Inter Partes Review of the ‘994 patent and the ‘324 patent (IPR2013-00490;IPR2013-00492). Both of these petitions were denied in their entirety, with the

Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding that the petitioner did not demonstrate areasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims was unpatentable

based on the grounds asserted in the petitions.



6

security of electronic communications under the following trade designations in,

into, or from the United States: “VPI Empower Suite;” “VPI Capture Essential;”

“VPI Capture;” “VPI Capture Pro;” “VPI Quality”; “VPI Quality Pro;” “VPI Fact

Finder;” “VPI Insight;” “VPI Performance;” “VPI Coaching;” “VPI Foresight;”

and “VPI VirtualSource.”

12. The use of the above-identified products by VPI’s customers

constitutes direct infringement of one or more of the Patents-in-Suit.

13. The VPI product “VPI Empower” is a software suite specifically

adapted for use in workforce management in the contact center industry or other

related industries, and on information and belief has no other substantial use.

Most, if not all, of the other VPI products identified in paragraph 11 are individual

modules that are, or optionally can be provided as part of the Empower suite.

14. VPI on its web site states that the Empower suite provides its

customers with “powerful Call Center Recording systems that deliver actionable

insights and tools for effective Call Center Quality Assurance and real-time

monitoring of contact center performance, with tightly integrated processes for

targeted, timely improvement.” VPI also states that the Empower suite can

“provide proof of regulatory compliance by 100 percent Call Center Recording of

voice and data interactions with optional filtering of sensitive data (PCI-DSS,



8

example, VPI’s web site includes a brochure that depicts the integration of the

Empower software suite into the Cisco Systems Unified Communications Manager

system. VPI’s web site also depicts integration of Empower into Cisco’s Unified

Contact Center Enterprise system. VPI’s web site also depicts integration of VPI

software applications into the Avaya Communication Manager and/or IP Office.

True and correct copies of the relevant web pages are attached hereto as part of

Exhibit 1.

17. On information and belief, VPI implements and integrates its products

into the contact centers of its customers, and the use of the VPI products by its

customers constitutes direct infringement of one or more of the Patents-in-Suit.

For example, VPI’s website includes a pages that states, under the heading

“System Implementation:”

A system engineer and your project manager will help to verify

the completion of your site preparation. The VPI OperationsTeam will be involved in preparing the system build and burn-in testing for your solution, and scheduling an onsite or remote

installation date (acceptable to you or certified dealer) and

technical resource to complete the installation of your solution.

These details will be communicated through your assigned VPI

Project Manager.

A true and correct copy of the above-referenced web page is attached hereto as part

of Exhibit 1.

18. On information and belief, VPI trains the personnel of its customers to



9

use its products. For example, VPI’s website includes a page that states, under the

heading “Installation and Training:”

Your VPI installation technician (or certified dealer) will install

equipment any purhcased [sic] hardware components, loadsoftware, and perform testing of all systems to your satisfaction.

Once system verification is completed, your installationtechnician will train your technical system administrators, and a

VPI Corporate Trainer will be scheduled to train your users on

your new VPI applications.

A true and correct copy of the above-referenced web page is attached hereto as part

of Exhibit 1.

19. On information and belief, VPI has continuous and systematic

contacts with the State of Georgia. On information and belief, VPI maintains a

permanent staff located in and/or supporting its activities in Georgia. Exhibit 2,

which includes a printout from yatedo.com, indicates that VPI maintains a Sales

Engineer in the greater Atlanta area. On information and belief, VPI has hired,

seeks to hire, or has sought to hire personnel who are or will be located in, and/or

support or will support VPI’s activities in Georgia. Exhibit 3, which includes

printouts from linkedin.com, indicates that VPI is seeking, or has sought to hire an

Account Executive–Small Medium Business, in Atlanta, Georgia.

20. On information and belief, VPI participated in the 2013 International

Customer Management Institute (“ICMI”) Contact Center Demo & Conference



10

(“the 2013 ICMI Conference”), which was held on October 21-23, 2013, in

Atlanta, Georgia. On information and belief, the 2013 ICMI Conference included

between 500 and 600 attendees, and on information and belief, VPI offered for sale

and/or sold at the 2013 ICMI Conference one or more of the VPI products

identified in paragraph 11. A true and correct copy of the Media Kit and

Prospectus for the 2014 ICMI Contact Center Demo & Conference, which

indicates VPI’s participation in the Conference, is attached hereto as part of

Exhibit 4.

21. Upon information and belief, one or more companies located in

Georgia, or with operations in Georgia attended the 2013 ICMI Conference. A

true and correct list of at least some of the attendees at the 2013 ICMI Conference

is attached hereto as part of Exhibit 4. See Declaration of Amanda Dingus,

attached hereto as Exhibit 5; see also Verint Systems Inc. and Verint Americas Inc.

v. CallCopy, Inc. d/b/a Uptivity, 1:14-cv-00523-TWT (N.D. Ga.), Dkt. Nos. 1 at ¶

15; 1-9; 1-10; 1-11.

22. On information and belief, attendees at the 2013 ICMI Conference,

including VPI, were allowed opportunities to visit and tour four companies in

Atlanta, Georgia during the 2013 ICMI Conference These companies included

Delta Air Lines, Convergent, AutoTrader.com, and The Home Depot. A true and



11

correct copy of ICMI’s website showing the 2013 ICMI Conference site tours is

attached hereto as Exhibit 6. Further, on information and belief, Atlanta-based

companies such as Delta Air Lines and The Home Depot attended the 2013 ICMI

Conference.

23. On information and belief, VPI has customers in Georgia and/or

customers with operations in Georgia, and on information and belief, VPI has

offered for sale and/or has sold one or more of the VPI products identified in

paragraph 11 to such customers. For example, VPI’s website lists CNN and

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., both of which are headquartered in Atlanta,

Georgia, as VPI’s customers. True and correct copies of the relevant VPI web

pages are attached hereto as part of Exhibit 1. True and correct copies of the

relevant CNN and Turner web pages are attached hereto as Exhibit 7.

24. Further, in the Customer Testimonials section of its website, VPI lists

Manheim Auctions; HealthPort Technologies; and The College Life Fund Division

as VPI customers. Manheim Auctions is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.

HealthPort Technologies is headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia. The College

Life Fund Division has an office in Norcross, Georgia. A true and correct copy of

the relevant VPI web page is attached hereto as part of Exhibit 1. True and correct

copies of the relevant Manheim Auctions, HealthPort Technologies, and College



12

Life Fund Division web pages are attached hereto as Exhibits 8, 9, and 10,

respectively.

25. Further, VPI lists AirTran as one of its “more than 1,500 loyal

customers.” A true and correct copy of the relevant VPI web page is attached

hereto as part of Exhibit 1. Upon information and belief, AirTran operated call

centers in Carrollton, Georgia, and Savannah, Georgia, until July 2013. Upon

AirTran’s merger with Southwest Airlines, AirTran and Southwest Airlines began

operating call centers in Atlanta, Georgia. A true and correct copy of the an on-

line news article referring to Southwest Airlines/AirTran’s Atlanta call center

operations is attached hereto as Exhibit 11.

26. VPI’s web site is interactive. For example, the website allows users to

request a demo, and permits the user to specifically select “Georgia” from a

dropdown menu (after selecting “United States” as the country). The website can

also be used to request quotes or additional information, and again permits the user

to specifically select “Georgia” from a dropdown menu. True and correct copies

of the relevant VPI web pages referenced in this paragraph are attached hereto as

part of Exhibit 1.

27. On information and belief, VPI has resellers in Georgia. For instance,

VetConnexx, a company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, partners with VPI. A



13

true and correct copy of the relevant page from VetConnexx’s website is attached

hereto as Exhibit 12. By way of its partnership with VetConnexx, VPI has offered

for sale and/or sold one or more of the VPI products listed in paragraph 11,

through VetConnexx, to customers in Georgia and/or to customers with operations

in Georgia.

28. On information and belief, VPI plans to host the Public Safety

Answering Points (PSAP) Forum to be held in in Atlanta, Georgia on November

13, 2014. A true and correct copy of the web site for the PSAP Forum is attached

hereto as Exhibit 13.

29. On information and belief, Defendant VPI is infringing and has

infringed the Patents-in-Suit in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 as follows:

a. by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United

States or importing into the United States computer software and/or

hardware and/or systems, including the following products: “VPI Empower

Suite;” “VPI Capture Essential;” “VPI Capture;” “VPI Capture Pro;” “VPI

Quality”; “VPI Quality Pro;” “VPI Fact Finder;” “VPI Insight;” “VPI

Performance;” “VPI Coaching;” “VPI Foresight;” and “VPI VirtualSource.”

(hereinafter, collectively the “Accused Products”), and/or by engaging in or

practicing in the United States methods or processes covered by the Patents-



14

In-Suit, including such methods or processes which utilize one or more of

the Accused Products; and/or

b. by offering to sell or selling within the United States or

importing into the United States a component of a product or system (e.g.,

various components of the “Empower Suite”) covered by one or more of the

Patents-In-Suit; or a component for use in practicing a method or process

within one or more of the aforementioned patents, constituting a material

part of one or more of the aforementioned patents, knowing the same to be

especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of one or

more of the aforementioned patents, and not a staple article or commodity of

commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use; and/or

c. by supplying or causing to be supplied in or from the United

States all or a substantial portion of components (e.g., hardware required to

accomplish to form a product or system covered by one or more of the

Patents-In-Suit), including by supplying or causing to be supplied in or from

the United States the Accused Products, in such a manner as to actively

induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a

manner that would infringe one or more of the Patents-In-Suit if such

combination occurred within the United States; and/or



15

d. by supplying or causing to be supplied in or from the United

States a component of a product or system within one or more of the

Patents-In-Suit that is especially made or especially adapted for use

according to one or more of the Patents-In-Suit and is not a staple article or

commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use,

knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such

component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that

would infringe one or more of the Patents-In-Suit if such combination

occurred within the United States, including by supplying or causing to be

supplied in or from the United States one or more of the Accused Products;

and/or

e. by actively inducing one or more of the activities identified in

subparagraphs (a) through (d) hereof with respect to at least the ‘798 patent;

the ‘220 patent; the ‘285 patent; the ‘735 patent; the ‘000 patent; and the

‘854 patent.

30. VPI actively encourages its customers to purchase third party

equipment for the purpose of using systems and methods covered by one or more

of the Patents-In-Suit. For example, VPI states on its web site that “[w]hen

configured for the Avaya H.323 option, VPI CAPTURE performs recording of



16

VoIP calls by collecting the Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) voice packets

bound for the agents’ IP telephones or softphones.” A true and correct copy of the

relevant VPI web page is attached hereto as part of Exhibit 1.

31. VPI actively induces its customers to directly infringe systems and

methods covered by one or more of the Patents-In-Suit by encouraging and

training those customers to combine software, e.g., the “Empower Suite,” with

telecommunications hardware provided by third party venders. A true and correct

copy of the relevant VPI web page is attached hereto as part of Exhibit 1.

32. VPI contributes to the direct infringement of its customers by

providing software which is specially adapted for use in systems and in performing

methods covered by one or more of the Patents-In-Suit. VPI’s software is not a

staple of commerce and the features of its software are not suitable for any non-

infringing use.

33. VPI had actual knowledge and/or notice of at least the ‘798 patent; the

‘220 patent; the ‘285 patent; the ‘735 patent; the ‘000 patent; and the ‘854 patent

from a time prior to the filing of the present complaint, and/or subjectively

believed that there was a high probability that one or more of the aforementioned

patents existed prior to the filing of the present complaint, and took deliberate

actions to avoid learning of the existence of the aforementioned patents.



17

34. By letter dated August 23, 2010, VSI contacted VPI and invited VPI

to participate in the OIN. A true and correct copy of the August 23rd letter is

attached hereto as Exhibit 14. OIN is a licensing program under which VSI offers

to grant, under reasonable terms, a world-wide license to its extensive portfolio of

patents directed, in part, to the analysis, recording, monitoring, transmission,

and/or security of electronic communications such as telephonic, facsimile, and e-

mail communications.

35. In its August 23rd correspondence, VSI provided VPI with claim

charts showing how VPI’s activities fall within the claim scope of various patents

within the OIN, including the ‘798 patent; the ‘220 patent; the ‘285 patent; the

‘735 patent; the ‘000 patent; and the ‘854 patent. True and correct copies of the

claim charts directed to these patents are attached hereto as Exhibit 15.

36. In its August 23, 2010, correspondence, VSI also provided VPI with a

“Patent Marking Notice,” a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as

Exhibit 16. The Patent Marking notice listed the ‘798 patent; the ‘220 patent; the

‘285 patent; the ‘735 patent; the ‘000 patent; and the ‘854 patent. ( Id .) The Patent

Marking notice also listed the pending applications that subsequently issued as the

‘926 patent (U.S. Application Serial No. 11/608,358) and the ‘056 patent (U.S.

Application Serial No. 11/395,759).



18

37. Verint’s on-line Intellectual Property Notice is updated no less

frequently than yearly. All of the Patents-in-Suit were listed on the on-line

Intellectual Property Notice no later than January 15, 2013. Exhibit 17 attached

hereto is a true and correct copy of the on-line Intellectual Property Notice as of

January 15, 2013.

38. Andrew Marsh, President and CEO of VPI, replied to VSI’s August

23, 2010 letter in correspondence dated September 30, 2010, in which Mr. Marsh

requested additional time to study the documents provided by Verint. A true and

correct copy of the September 30th correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit

18.

39. By letter dated October 14, 2010 from VSI to Mr. Marsh, VSI

acknowledged Mr. Marsh’s correspondence of September 30th, and invited Mr.

Marsh to discuss this matter in a telephone conference. A true and correct copy of

the October 14th correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 19.

40. Upon receiving no further response from Mr. Marsh, Verint on

January 4, 2011 sent follow-up correspondence to Mr. Marsh requesting a

response. A true and correct copy of this correspondence is attached hereto as

Exhibit 20.

41. Having received no response from Mr. Marsh as of March 8, 2012,



19

Verint on that date sent further correspondence to Mr. Marsh informing him that

Verint had recently obtained another participant in the OIN, and once again asking

Mr. Marsh to provide an indication of his availability for a discussion relating to

licensing and business opportunities. A true and correct copy of this

correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit 21.

42. On April 16, 2013, Verint, through its outside counsel, sent

correspondence to Mr. Marsh forwarding a copy of a complaint in which seven of

the patents being asserted in the present complaint were asserted against another

entity, CallCopy, Inc. Verint, in this correspondence, also reiterated its invitation

for VPI to obtain a license relating to Verint’s patent portfolio on reasonable terms.

A true and correct copy of the forwarding correspondence is attached hereto as

Exhibit 22.

43. On August 15, 2013, Verint’s outside counsel sent additional

correspondence to Mr. Marsh forwarding copies of complaints for patent

infringement filed in two other actions. In one of these actions, the named

defendant, Interactive Intelligence, Inc., was accused of infringing all of the patents

being asserted in the present complaint. In the other action, the named defendant,

CallCopy, was accused of infringing three of the patents being asserted in the

present complaint. A true and correct copy of the forwarding correspondence is



20

attached hereto as Exhibit 23.

44. On November 7, 2013, Verint’s outside counsel sent a confidentiality

agreement to Mr. Marsh for his review and signature. Verint’s outside counsel

also indicated that outside counsel would be contacting Mr. Marsh shortly

regarding the OIN. A true and correct copy of the forwarding correspondence is

attached hereto as Exhibit 24. Notwithstanding Verint’s efforts to contact Mr.

Marsh, substantive licensing discussions between Verint and VPI have not

occurred.

45. Despite Verint providing VPI with multiple opportunities for an

amicable resolution, no licensing arrangement has been reached between the

parties.

46. Verint has been damaged as a result of VPI’s acts of patent

infringement in an amount to be determined at trial.

47. Verint will suffer imminent and irreparable injury unless this Court

enjoins VPI from further acts of infringement.

COUNT I

(Infringement of the ‘798 patent)

48. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in paragraphs 1 through 47 above.

49. The ‘798 patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Simultaneously



21

Monitoring Computer User Screen and Telephone Activity From a Remote

Location,” was duly and legally issued on August 4, 1998, and is currently in full

force and effect and has been since the date of issuance. A copy of the ‘798 patent

is attached hereto as Exhibit 25.

COUNT II




51. The ‘220 patent, entitled “Method and Apparatus for Simultaneously

Monitoring Computer User Screen and Telephone Activity From a Remote

Location,” was duly and legally issued on January 21, 2003, and is currently in full



COUNT III




53. The ‘285 patent, entitled “System and Method for Recording Voice

and the Data Entered by a Call Center Agent and Retrieval of These

Communication Streams for Analysis or Correction,” was duly and legally issued



22

on April 10, 2007 and is currently in full force and effect and has been since the

date of issuance. A copy of the ‘285 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 27.

COUNT IV




55. The ‘735 patent, entitled “Method, Apparatus, and System for

Capturing Data Exchanged Between a Server and a User,” was duly and legally

issued on May 20, 2008 and is currently in full force and effect and has been since

the date of issuance. A copy of the ‘735 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 28.

COUNT V




57. The ‘000 patent, entitled “System and Method for Analysing

Communications Streams,” was duly and legally issued on August 11, 2009 and is

currently in full force and effect and has been since the date of issuance. A copy of

the ‘000 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 29.



23

COUNT VI




59. The ‘854 patent, entitled “Systems and Methods for Protecting

Information,” was duly and legally issued on August 10, 2010 and is currently in

full force and effect and has been since the date of issuance. A copy of the ‘854

patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 30.

COUNT VII




61. The ‘994 patent, entitled “Systems and Methods for Recording

Audio,” was duly and legally issued on December 14, 2010 and is currently in full



COUNT VIII






24

63. The ‘926 patent, entitled “Systems and Methods for Recording Data,”

was duly and legally issued on March 6, 2012 and is currently in full force and

effect and has been since the date of issuance. A copy of the ‘926 patent is

attached hereto as Exhibit 32.

COUNT IX




65. The ‘056 patent, entitled “Systems and Methods for Endpoint

Recording Using a Media Application Server,” was duly and legally issued on June

19, 2012 and is currently in full force and effect and has been since the date of

issuance. A copy of the ‘056 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 33.

COUNT X




67. The ‘324 patent, entitled “VOIP Voice Interaction Monitor,” was duly

and legally issued on April 24, 2012 and is currently in full force and effect and

has been since the date of issuance. A copy of the ‘324 patent is attached hereto as

Exhibit 34.



25

COUNT XI




69. The ‘386 patent, entitled “Communication Management System for

Network-Based Telephones,” was duly and legally issued on May 15, 2012 and is

currently in full force and effect and has been since the date of issuance. A copy of

the ‘386 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 35.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

1. That Defendant VPI has been and is infringing, is contributing to the

infringement of, and is actively inducing infringement of the Patents-in-Suit;

2. That Defendant and its officers, agents, and employees and all others

in concert or participation with them be preliminarily and permanently enjoined

from further acts of infringement of the Patents-in-Suit under 35 U.S.C. § 283;

3. That Plaintiffs be awarded damages adequate to compensate them for

Defendant’s infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, together with interest and costs

under 35 U.S.C. § 284;

4. That Defendant be directed to file with this Court and serve on

Plaintiffs within thirty (30) days after service of an injunction, a report in writing,



26

under oath, setting forth in detail the manner and form in which Defendant has

complied with this injunction ordered by this Court;

5. That Defendant be required to pay all of Plaintiffs’ costs and

expenses, including expert witness fees; and

6. That Plaintiffs be awarded such other and further relief as this Court

deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury on all issues raised by the Complaint.



Respectfully submitted, this 11th day of March, 2014.

MEUNIER CARLIN & CURFMAN, LLC

/s/ Walter Hill Levie, III

Stephen M. SchaetzelGeorgia State Bar No. 628653

[email protected] Walter Hill Levie, III

Georgia State Bar No. 415569

[email protected] David S. Moreland

Georgia State Bar No. [email protected]

817 West Peachtree Street, NWSuite 500

Atlanta, Georgia 30308

Telephone: (404) 645-7700

Facsimile: (404) 645-7707

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Verint Systems Inc. andVerint Americas Inc.

Of Counsel:

Joseph F. Posillico, Esq.

Frank T. Carroll, Esq.Ryan N. Miller, Esq.

FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

2000 Market Street, 20th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103-3222Telephone: (215) 299-2000

Verint Systems Et. Al. v. Voice Print International

Documents

Transcript of Verint Systems Et. Al. v. Voice Print International