IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Nev.: Phone call routing system was unpatentable as abstract idea, (Oct 21, 2022)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

A system for routing toll-free phone calls by a toll-free ID number instead of the usual phone routing system merely implemented the abstract idea of routing phone calls based on an identification number.

A telecommunications company demonstrated that a competitor’s patent on a certain routing technique using toll-free ID numbers was invalid as directed at an abstract idea, the federal district court in Las Vegas has ruled. The patent did not claim any new technological improvements but merely implemented the existing idea of routing calls using identification numbers using generic computer components (Teliax Technology LLC v. Affinity Network, Inc., October 19, 2022, Silva, C.).

Teliax Technology, LLC (Teliax) was the owner of U.S. Patent No. 9,807,249 (the ’249 patent), which was directed at a system for routing toll-free calls via the recipients’ RESPORG ID, a number provided to all recipients of toll-free calls, rather than using the traditional routing system of a Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN). The invention was purported to increase efficiency for commercial customers by reducing the number of exchanges any call would go through. Teliax alleged that Affinity Network, Inc. (Affinity) infringed the ’249 patent through its Toll-Free Peering Service and brought suit for infringement. Affinity moved to dismiss, arguing that the ’249 patent was invalid as directed at an abstract idea. The court applied the two-step Alice test.

Abstract idea. On the first step of the Alice test, Affinity argued that the patent was directed at the abstract idea of routing a call based on the identification of the called party. Teliax described this as an oversimplification. The court determined that the steps identified in the claim language were abstract and general, identifying what was to be done in broad, generic terms and failing to identify how those ends were to be achieved. The court also analogized the claimed system to practices long carried out by human switchboard operators, and noted that using RESPORG ID numbers, instead of ordinary subscriber phone numbers, to route calls, did not significantly change the process of routing calls based on a number identifying the recipient.

Inventive concept. On step two of the Alice test, the court found that the claimed system for routing based on a RESPORG ID was merely applying the abstract idea already discussed on generic computer components. While Teliax argued that its system was more efficient than the existing systems, the court held that this did not change the fact that the patent was directed at the idea of routing calls based on the identity of the called party, and did so using generic and conventional computer components.

The court ruled that the ’249 patent was invalid and granted Affinity’s motion to dismiss.

The Case is No. 2:22-cv-00362-CDS-DJA.

Attorneys: Erik Foley (Snell & Wilmer, LLP) for Teliax Technology LLC and Toll-Free Exchange, LLC. F. Christopher Austin (Weide & Miller, Ltd.) for Affinity Network, Inc.

Companies: Teliax Technology LLC; Toll-Free Exchange, LLC; Affinity Network, Inc.

Cases: Patent NevadaNews