Verizon loses in jury trial against Cox, two patent claims invalidated

By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published October 7, 2008, 3:41 PM

In a costly loss in US District Court in Alexandria yesterday, a jury found all of Verizon's claims that Cox Communications infringed upon its VoIP-related patents to be without basis, and even invalidated two of eight patent claims.

Back in January, Verizon filed a patent infringement suit against a Virginia division of Cox Communications, which was establishing VoIP service in that state. It was a boilerplate case that asserted its claims to eight US patents in the field of Internet-related voice telephony. Those patents were mostly acquired by Verizon on account of mergers and acquisitions, having been originally issued to such one-time giants as MCI and Bell Atlantic.

Two such patents issued to Bell Atlantic in 1997 were both for an "enhanced name translation server." Imagine a DNS server that was capable of being directed arbitrarily to resolve a domain name resolution request with an alternate IP address. Now imagine if that alternative could be a telephone number, or something which linked to the public service telephone network at that number. That's the basis of these two patent claims.

Yesterday, with a series of checkmarks on a court tally, the jury declared those two Verizon claims invalid. This in a case in which Verizon was the plaintiff.

A Verizon spokesperson's statement yesterday did not specifically indicate whether it would appeal the jury's verdict, though it did reiterate the company's belief that its patents were infringed. The jury's decision does not nullify those patents, though the invalidation of those two claims could be strikes against Verizon should Cox find itself defending against an appeal in a higher court.

View comments by with a score of at least

Not-so-mobile battery life: Time to force the issue

Carmi Levy | Wide Angle Zoom: If power efficiency is important when you buy a car or even a motorcycle, why shouldn't it matter for a smartphone?

Microsoft 'worked with Apple' for Silverlight on iPhone, says Goldfarb

By not making such a big deal out of trying to stream video to the iPhone, Microsoft got a big deal out of it, revealed the Silverlight product manager.

Microsoft's Ray Ozzie: 'Nobody's going to be 100% open'

The mobile apps ecosystems of the world may converge over time, led by apps being ported over across platforms, according to the Chief Software Architect.

Without its own 'iTablet' yet, is Apple missing the boat?

Steve Jobs is on record as dissing "single-purpose" devices like e-readers. But given their recent popularity, was that a mistake?

Apple invokes DMCA, claims Psystar is 'trafficking in circumvention devices'

In trying to close the book on possibly the last attempt at a Mac clone, Apple cites from its own landmark case...but may actually be misinterpreting it.

The fallacy of Facebook privacy

Carmi Levy | Wide Angle Zoom: If an insurance company learns something interesting about its client through the Internet, is that snooping?

Clicker.com cuts through the Web video chaos

In a world where homemade video and Hollywood movies travel the same pipeline, it's good to have a real search engine to cut through the clutter.

A case study in improving software: What Office 2010 can learn from Notion 3

A music composition product gambles with a complete overhaul, in an effort to make headway against two well-known competitors in a tough market.

Kindle 2 update adds battery life, native PDF reader

Amazon has pushed out an update to the Kindle 2 e-reader that lengthens battery life and adds a native PDF viewer.

Safari on iPhone gets competition from a $1 browser app

Apple likes to say it gives iPhone users a full browsing experience, but a new competitor tries to incorporate more desktop browser features.