Anticipation and obviousness found in computerized speech recognition case
Nuance Communications Inc., et al. v. Tellme Networks Inc., Civ. No.06-105-SLR, April 20, 2010.
Robinson, J. Defendant’s motions for summary judgment of noninfringement is granted with respect to direct and contributory infringement and denied as to inducement of infringement. Its invalidity motion based on anticipation is granted as to claims 1, 2, and 4 is granted and denied as to other claims. Its invalidity motion based on obviousness of claims 3 and 5 is granted.
The patent-in-suit is directed to methods and systems for processing spoken information. Defendant is accused of infringement through the provision of telephonic directory assistance services. This dispute concerns the field of computerized speech recognition and, within this field, the application of speech recognition to telephone-based systems. The court finds that calling the accused services may constitute an infringing act. However, there is insufficient evidence that defendant is liable for direct infringement based on the acts of its employees. However, a reasonable jury could find defendant’s customers liable for direct infringement due to the level of contractual control present. Defendant’s knowledge and specific intent to induce infringement can be from the record before the court. Defendant’s provision of hosted services does not support a contributory infringement claim under Pharmastem. Defendant is entitled to judgment that the patent-in-suit is anticipated by prior art with respect to 3 of 5 claims at issue. Plaintiff has failed to rebut defendant’s prima facie case of obviousness in view of demonstrably available techniques for reliable recognition with respect to the two claims found not to anticipate.
