I reappear here, from the mists of time — long lost, now — to a faded past, to post as a public service (what I believe, based on my recent traffic stats, from middle Tennessee) several visitors are hoping to find: the full 54 page agreed claim construction charts in the long running Mattersight/CallMiner patent wars.
So here is that monster of what Mattersight-now-NICE agrees the patents held by Mattersight, mean — as to each claim. And what… they don’t — more directly. So much old NASA public domain tech claimed by Mattersight, at the start of this suit — so little of that nonsense now left… grin.
Note especially the top of page 36 in the filing; you’ll see that Mattersight claims a very broad set of telephony functions are of its sole invention — yet discloses, or teaches, no method or structure for handling the functions in a useful way — and is thus not properly a patentable “invention” at all (in CallMiner’s cogent view):
“…[Mattersight’s view] Function: a module for analyzing said plurality of computer telephony interpretation events and classifying said plurality of computer telephony interpretation events into a first type and a second, different type
Structure: the general purpose computer [is used]… the method of the present invention searches for and identifies text-based keywords relevant to each of the predefined type categories….
[CallMiner’s view] Structure: insufficient structure disclosed….”
And so, to wax deeply into the obvious — as I read it, the folks at Crystal would have easily prevailed in that late 2015/early 2016 era Chicago litigation. [But settling was… expedient, and wise, in that Jonah vs. the Whale story.] And thus it goes without saying, I still really like CallMiner’s chances here. I will report any final outcome, of course — though that may be about it, for this property.
So, as I say… all are now but “…lost memories, and gray ghosts, off to time out of mind.…”
Be excellent to one another. Onward. [Congrats to the founders of Crystal, BTW.]
What Matters? 