Before 2017

Verint Systems Files Patent Infringement Action Against Competitor Interactive Intelligence

On August 2, 2013, Verint Systems, Inc. (“VSI”) of Melville, New York, and Verint Americas, Inc. (“VAI”) of Alpharetta, Georgia (collectively “Verint”), filed a complaint in the Northern District of Georgia against Interactive Intelligence, Inc. (“Interactive”) of Indianapolis, Indiana, alleging infringement of a host of patents generally directed to computer software for improved customer service and call-center operations.

According to the complaint, both Verint and Interactive are in the business of providing developing and selling computer software and hardware products and systems directed to the analysis, recording, monitoring, transmission, and security of electronic communications.  This technology is said to provide an end user with the ability to capture, analyze and act on large volumes of  voice, video, and unstructured text, which can enhance customer service operations in contact centers, branches, and back-office environments.  Verint claims that its products are used by over 10,000 organizations in over 150 countries, including over 80 percent of the Fortune 100.

Verint alleges that Interactive’s products infringe a host of patents, as follows:
U.S. Patent No. 5,790,798, titled “Method and Apparatus for Simultaneously Monitoring Computer User Screen and Telephone Activity From a Remote Location”
U.S. Patent No. 7,203,285, titled “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”
U.S. Patent No. 7,376,735, titled “Method, Apparatus, and System for Capturing Data Exchanged Between a Server and a User”
U.S. Patent No. 7,574,000, titled “System and Method for Analysing Communications Streams”
U.S. Patent No. 7,774,854, titled “Systems and Methods for Protecting Information”
U.S. Patent No. 7,852,994, titled “Systems and Methods for Recording Audio”
U.S. Patent No. 7,903,568, titled “Systems and Methods for Providing Recording as a Network Service”
U.S. Patent No. 8,204,056, titled “Systems and Methods for Endpoint Recording Using a Media Application Server”
U.S. Patent No. 8,285,833, titled “Packet Data Recording Method and System”
U.S. Patent No. RE41,534, titled “Utilizing Spare Processing Capacity to Analyze a Call Center Interaction”
U.S. Patent No. RE43,324, titled “VOIP Voice Interaction Monitor”
U.S. Patent No. 8,401,155, titled “Systems and Methods for Secure Recording in a Customer Center Environment”
U.S. Patent No. 8,359,434, titled “Distributive Network Control”
U.S. Patent No. 8,345,828, titled “System and Method for Pooled IP Recording”
U.S. Patent No. 8,275,944, titled “Distributive Network Control”
U.S. Patent No. 8,204,053, titled “Systems and Methods for Providing Network Services for Recording”
U.S. Patent No. RE43,386, titled “Communication Management System for Network-Based Telephones”
U.S. Patent No. 8,130,926, titled “Systems and Methods for Recording Data”
U.S. Patent No. 6,404,857, titled “Signal Monitoring Apparatus for Analyzing Communications”
U.S. Patent No. 6,510,220, titled “Method and Apparatus for Simultaneously Monitoring Computer User Screen and Telephone Activity From a Remote Location”

Verint accuses the following Interactive products of infringing one or more of the above patents: “Customer Interaction Center;” “Bay Bridge Decisions;” “Interaction Analyzer;” “Interaction Dialer;” “Interaction Director;” “Interaction Feedback;” “Interaction Mobilizer;” “Interaction Recorder;” “Interaction Optimizer;” “Interaction Tracker;” “Interaction Web Portal;” “Interaction Monitor;” “Interactive Voice Response;” “e-FAQ;” “CIC for Unified Communications;” “Interaction Conference;” “Interaction Process Automation;” “Content Management;” “Interaction SIP Station;” “Interaction Edge;” and “Interaction SIP Proxy.”  Verint does not specify in the complaint which claims or patents apply to each of the accused products.  Verint seeks an injunction, damages, and an award of costs and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. 285.

The case is Verint Systems, Inc. et al. v. Interactive Intelligence, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-02565-SCJ, United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and is assigned to Judge Steve C. Jones.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s