Select Page


DVI staff have served as expert witnesses in various cases for several high-tech corporations in legal matters encompassing patent infringement, trade secrets, product malfunctions Class Action for Service Level Agreements and breach of contract.

Technical subject matter encompassed the following disciplines:

  • Voice digitization/voice processing
  • Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)
  • Voice Mail and Electronic messaging
  • Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) & Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Systems
  • Cellular telephony and data communications
  • Air-to-ground communications (S/L Band)
  • Satellite communications (C and Ku Band)
  • Telephone switching systems
  • Predictive/progressive dialing systems
  • IPTV services

A summary of major cases where DVI staff has supported as either a testifying or consulting expert witness:

  • In a Patent Infringement matter involving (IDDD Blocking for Public Pay Telephones) DVI supported Baker Botts LLP (Houston TX) representing SWBT in the case Gammino v. SWBT (US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas). DVI personnel provided Patent Infringement & Invalidity Analyses, rendered Expert Reports and provided deposition Testimony and Court Testimony at a Markman Hearing for Payphone Blocking patents (Instrument and CO based.)
  • For Steptoe & Johnson LLP (Washington DC) representing Vonage in the matter involving Patent Infringement (VoIP Telephony and Wireless) Vonage v. Verizon (US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria) DVI personnel provided VoIP Patent infringement, Enablement & Invalidity Analyses, rendered Expert Reports, were deposed & provided Expert Testimony at Trial for VoIP/Wireless patents.
  • As part of a Recapture of PE & O Insurance payout for IVR System Patent License DVI supported D’Amato Lynch (NYC) representing AIG in the matter AIG Specialty Lines v. American Century (US District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York City.) We provided Expert consulting services with respect to Computer telephony integration, IVR Systems Development and call center technology.
  • In a Patent Infringement case involving Cellular Telephony), DVI supported Hogan Hartson LLP (Los Angeles) representing Kyocera Wireless Corp. (KWC) in the matter MLR v. KWC (US District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego.) Acting on behalf of this prominent Telecommunications Electronics Manufacturer in Wireless and Cellular Telephony and Data Communications, DVI performed Patent Infringement and Invalidity Analyses on a five (5) patent portfolio.
  • For LaRiviere, Grubman & Payne, LLP (Monterey CA) representing Monster Cable in a patent infringement matter involving Specialty Communications Cabling & Wire Audiovox Corp. v Monster Cable Products Inc. and Counterclaim (US District Court for the Eastern District of New York)DVI reviewed and analyzed extensive amount of documentation and provided consultative expert assistance and rendered an Expert Report.
  • In a Patent Infringement (VoIP and Mobile Telephony) matter involving Stanacard, LLC v Rebtel Networks, AB & Rebtel Mobile, Inc. (US District Court for the Southern District of New York, New York City), working for Ropes & Gray LLC (New York) representing Rebtel DVI reviewed and analyzed extensive amount of documentation; provided consultative expert assistance and rendered an Expert Report.
  • As part of an IP Indemnification case to recapture payments for the RAKTL Patent Portfolio License(s) Bryan Cave (Atlanta, GA) represented American Family Life Assurance Company (AFLAC) in the matter American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus v Intervoice, Inc. (US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, Macon Division.) Bryan Cave retained DVI personnel to provide Expert consulting services with respect to IVR Systems Deployment, Computer telephony integration, and call center technology; our expert performed infringement Analyses for IVR applications patents, rendered Expert Reports and was deposed.
  • Patent Infringement regarding call blocking for cellular telephony K&L Gates LLC (Boston MA), represented Sprint Gammino v. Sprint Communications Co., Sprint Spectrum L.P., Nextel Operations, Inc. & Virgin Mobile USA L.P. (US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.) DVI reviewed and analyzed extensive amount of documentation; provided consultative expert assistance ; provided tutorial to court on cellular technology; and testified at the Markman hearing.
  • In a Patent Infringement case involving Captioned Telephony Baker Botts LLP (Austin TX), represented Caption Call LLC and Sorenson Communications in both litigation Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 3:13-cv-00346 s well as Inter Partes Review instituted by Patent Trial and Appeals Board in the following proceedings: IPR2013-00540 through 00545, as well as 00549, 00550, IPR 2013-00288 and IPR2014-00780. The legal firm retained DVI experts. We Reviewed and analyzed nine (9) patents in suit (20 + claims), numerous pieces of prior art; rendered expert reports on Invalidity and Non-Infringement of Ultratech patents; rendered Expert Reports on Validity and Infringement of Sorenson patents. We also testified at trial and were deposed in both the litigation and related IPR proceedings.

Re: Keir et al v. Unum Provident, et al, which was venued in the United States District Court in Manhattan. DVI Personnel provided testimony and analysis.

“As a witness in the courtroom, Mr. Koltun is unparalleled. I have been trying cases for almost 20 years, and he was certainly one of the best experts I have ever seen on the witness stand. In fact, Judge Cote was so impressed with his testimony that she actually recalled him to the witness stand herself, and propounded a number of questions that Mr. Koltun readily answered. The Judge was very impressed with his ability to communicate clearly on complex technological issues. In summary, I am quite pleased to highly recommend Mr. Koltun and your firm for litigation support for the many areas that are within your firm’s expertise.”

-Richard J. Quadrino, Esq.
Quadrino & Schwartz


Re: Grupo Sit v Harris

“From 1993 to 1999 Ben Occhiogrosso and his staff at DVI served as both our consulting expert and designated trial expert in a complex case involving satellite communications in Mexico. Ben and his staff did an excellent job. When it came time to deliver an expert opinion, Ben and his staff worked tirelessly to get the job done. What. however, was most impressive to me was Ben’s ability to explain and justify his opinions in head to head combat during many days of grueling depositions against highly skilled and knowledgeable attorneys. Although we ultimately settled our case, Ben’s performance during deposition played a significant positive role in the ultimate outcome.”

-John D’Ercole, Esq.


Re: AT&T Wireless v Inflight Phone

“Ben Occhiogrosso and his staff at DVI served as consulting experts for this firm in a complex trade secrets case involving the airto-ground communications industry. The firm represented a major telecommunications company. Ben and his staff did an excellent job. The case involved a wide array of electrical engineering and communications issues. Because DVl had the ability to staff the project with individuals from a variety of disciplines, we were able to use one outside consulting firm to meet virtually all of our technical needs, and each expert was able to collaborate easily with others to enhance his particular knowledge of the entire case. Ben and his colleagues reviewed an extensive amount of evidence to understand fully the particular technology at issue in the Case. They were tireless. On several occasions they had to travel on very short notice to perform particular tasks. No matter what the request, they were willing to drop everything to do it.”

-Charles H.R. Peters, Esq.
Schiff Hardin Waite


Re: MAMS v Davox et al

“This law firm retained Benedict Occhiogrosso, of DVI Communications, to provide consulting services and testimony in patent litigation. … included analysis of a patent involving telecommunications technology and the associated “file wrapper.” analysis of the accused products, technical documentation and source code, providing advice to assist in patent claim construction and summary judgment proceedings, deposition testimony and also trial testimony. Mr. Occhiogrosso and his associate provided outstanding support in this case. Mr. Occhiogrosso was always available and worked well around our schedules, which frequently changed as a-result of the adversarial nature of this cast. As a direct result of Mr. Occhiogrosso’s pre-trial assistance and his testimony at trial. Our client obtained a favorable ruling which led to the successful settlement of the case during the course of the trial.”

-Emmett J. McMahon, Esq.
Robbins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi