Judge Sleet recently ruled on a motion to dismiss direct and indirect infringement claims in a case involving VoIP technology. IP Communication Solutions, LLC v. Viber Media (USA) Inc., C.A. No. 16-134-GMS (D. Del. Apr. 5, 2017). The defendant argued that the allegations of direct infringement failed to adequately put it on notice of what it was to defend, and cited as support cases in which allegations relating to unidentified products were dismissed. Judge Sleet disagreed with the defendant’s reliance on those cases, and explained that in those cases the alleged infringers marketed a number of products that could possibly infringe product claims. On the contrary, here, the defendant marketed a single mobile VoIP client application supported by a server that together were alleged to perform a number of steps that would infringe method claims, so the defendant could not persuasively argue that it was not on notice of what the claims targeted simply because the claims did not specifically identify the accused instrumentality. With respect to indirect infringement, however, Judge Sleet agreed with the defendant that the evidence relied upon (webpages showing how customers use the VoIP application to make calls) did not rise to the level of showing that the defendant “specifically instructed or directed customers to use the Viber application and corresponding server system in a manner that would infringe.”
Delaware IP Law Blog 