Diorite Technology LLC v. Avaya LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Diorite Technology, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Avaya LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Stone Conroy LLC; Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-17309, D.N.J., 02/25/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of New Jersey because Defendant has its principal place of business in the district, has a regular and established place of business there, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s enterprise telecommunications platforms, including Avaya Cloud Office and Avaya IP Office, infringe a patent related to advanced, context-aware call routing.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves "find-me/follow-me" systems that intelligently route incoming calls to a user across multiple devices and communication methods based on contextual data.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of infringement via a letter dated October 21, 2025, approximately four months prior to filing suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2009-04-16	'746 Patent Priority Date
2014-06-24	'746 Patent Issue Date
2025-10-21	Alleged Pre-Suit Notice of Infringement
2026-02-25	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,761,746 - "Extended Cascaded Ringing"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies deficiencies in prior art "Find Me Follow Me" (FMFM) call forwarding systems (Compl. ¶10). These legacy systems were described as unable to handle real-time contingencies, such as a user stepping away from their desk, and were limited to routing calls only to other telephone numbers, failing to leverage modern communication methods like email and instant messaging (’746 Patent, col. 3:39-45).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system for routing calls using a multi-module architecture that considers a rich set of contextual information (’746 Patent, abstract). As illustrated in the system diagram of Figure 1, modules for caller identity, user context (e.g., from a calendar), device type, and location provide data to a "selection policy module" (’746 Patent, Fig. 1). This module then selects an appropriate "cascaded ringing program" to intelligently route the call to the user across their various communication resources, improving upon simple sequential forwarding (’746 Patent, col. 5:35-47).
• Technical Importance: The described solution represents an effort to make call routing more dynamic and adaptable by integrating non-telephony data sources and communication protocols, addressing the proliferation of communication methods beyond the traditional desk phone (Compl. ¶10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶12).
• The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
  • A system with at least one processor.
  • A call server to obtain identity information for a phone call.
  • A selection policy module to select a "cascaded ringing program" based on the caller's identity.
  • A routing module to route the call using the selected program.
  • A specific configuration wherein the selection policy module routes the call to a single communication resource at a user's location when it determines multiple resources are co-located, based on user context, location, and attribute settings.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are "Avaya IP Phone products and services using Avaya Cloud Office and Avaya IP Office platforms" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these platforms provide enterprise telecommunications services (Compl. ¶12). The accused functionality appears to relate to features for managing and routing incoming calls, such as "Hunt group" configurations, call handling for after-hours, and telephone redirection services (Compl. ¶14). The complaint points to Defendant's online documentation for these features as evidence of the infringing capability (Compl. ¶14). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an attached claim chart (Exhibit 2) that was not included in the provided filing (Compl. ¶16). The following analysis is based on the narrative infringement allegations in the complaint.

’746 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A system for routing selected phone calls to a user having a plurality of communication resources, comprising: at least one processor; a call server configured to obtain identity information for a phone call received at the call server;	The complaint alleges Avaya’s Cloud Office and IP Office platforms are systems that process incoming calls.	¶12	col. 4:5-8
a selection policy module comprising software for execution by said at least one processor and configured to select a cascaded ringing program for routing the phone call to at least one of the user's plurality of communication resources based on the identity information of the caller;	The complaint alleges Avaya's platforms, through features like "Hunt group" management and incoming call handling rules, select how to route calls.	¶12; ¶14	col. 5:35-38
a routing module comprising software for execution by said at least one processor and configured to route at least one of the phone call and the identity information to at least one of the user's plurality of communication resources using the selected cascaded ringing program,	Avaya's platforms are alleged to execute the selected call handling rules to route calls to users' devices.	¶12; ¶14	col. 15:19-24
wherein the selection policy module is configured to route at least one of the phone call and information related to the phone call to a single communication resource at a user location when it is determined that multiple communication resources are located at the user location...	The complaint does not specify which feature of the accused products performs this function of intelligently selecting a single device among multiple co-located devices.	¶16	col. 15:25-33

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Avaya's "Hunt group" and "call handling" rule sets constitute the "selection policy module" and "cascaded ringing program" as contemplated by the patent. The defense may argue these are conventional routing features, while the plaintiff may argue they meet the claim's structural and functional requirements.
• Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused systems "satisfy all claim limitations" (Compl. ¶16), but it does not provide specific factual allegations explaining how Avaya's platforms perform the crucial step of actively identifying multiple co-located devices and then selecting a single one for routing based on context. The case may turn on whether the accused products contain logic to prevent simultaneous ringing of a user's co-located desk phone and softphone, or if they simply follow a static priority list without the claimed contextual determination.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "selection policy module"

• Context and Importance: This module is the "brains" of the claimed system. Its construction will determine whether conventional call-routing rule engines fall within the claim's scope or if a more complex, context-aware architecture is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself requires only that the module selects a program "based on the identity information of the caller," which could be argued to cover basic caller-ID-based routing rules (’746 Patent, claim 1).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the module as providing policies based on "metadata, policy data, and input from the management..., context..., and location... modules" (’746 Patent, col. 6:1-4). This more detailed description, which integrates multiple real-time data sources, could be used to argue for a narrower construction that excludes simpler, static rule sets.

The Term: "route... to a single communication resource at a user location when it is determined that multiple communication resources are located at the user location"

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears to claim an intelligent de-duplication function to avoid annoying a user by ringing multiple devices in the same room. Proving that the accused systems perform this specific function will be critical for the plaintiff.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any system that ultimately routes to only one device (e.g., by following a sequential hunt list that stops at the first answer) meets this limitation, even without an explicit "determination" step.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses using a "location suppress" attribute to ensure that "the phone call will be routed only to a single device that is present at that location" (’746 Patent, col. 10:5-10). This suggests a specific, configurable logic designed to solve the co-location problem, potentially narrowing the claim scope to systems with an analogous, explicit function.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Avaya encourages infringement by providing "user manuals and online instruction materials on its website" that instruct customers on how to use the accused features (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged to stem from a notice letter dated October 21, 2025 (Compl. ¶13), while post-suit knowledge is based on the filing and service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶14).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "selection policy module," as described in the patent's context-rich architecture, be construed to cover the allegedly infringing "Hunt group" and "call handling" rule engines in Avaya's platforms?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: What evidence will show that the accused Avaya systems perform the specific claimed function of first determining that multiple user devices are co-located and then intelligently selecting only a single device for routing, as opposed to merely executing a pre-set, static call-forwarding sequence?