EVENT GATEWAYS LAWSUIT - INFO NEEDED

Excellent.  Sigh...  I do get jaded sometimes about such things, having been forced to settle a nuisance suit more than once.

I'd just show exhibits of "pluggable architectures" like you find in the absolutely-ubiquitous "CMS" systems, which take "feeds" from all over the Internet and assimilate them into their content.  This, in itself, is proof-enough that the notion of supporting multiple protocols and freely exchanging information between them is "nothing new."

There is no particular combination of "multiple protocols" that anyone could possibly lay a reasonable proprietary claim to.  "Plug-ins" can be mixed-and-matched in any system.  Whether or not "the case at bar" actually has such an architecture, whatever architecture it does have is basically equivalent to this, in terms of its observable effect.  The essential features could be replicated by picking (three) protocol plug-ins out of any bucket, connecting up a few "hoses and wires" according to the published directions, and ... there you have it.

Have fun in court!

There is nothing "new, novel," or otherwise "patentable" about the notion of a server (in whatever language or implementation) supporting more than one protocol at one time and interchanging data between them.  But if your opponent has a rubber-stamped piece of paper that says otherwise, mark my words, you will have to pay them money to make them go away.  Your lawyer sits in a smoke-filled room with their lawyer.  What you want to make sure of, is that you only pay them money, and that you only pay them money once.  You're not admitting any wrongdoing and they're withdrawing their claim against you with prejudice, and in exchange you ... well ... you hand over the bribe.

Lawyers in intellectual-property cases are not actually stupid.  They always seek settlements, much of which gets paid to the client, but only after racking up as many hours as they can, which gets paid to them.  This is how they make money, and in that respect even "your" lawyers are not on your side.  It will be to your great advantage to cut the hourly charges off as soon as practicable.

I am not a lawyer ("and I never hope to be one"), but if you can demonstrate that many other people in the world have, in fact, hit-upon the idea of doing several different things at once with several different protocols in just one program, it defies me to imagine that Cold Fusion could make any further material difference.  The case should be dismissed with prejudice.

Here's why:  "you can't patent the idea of hammering nails with a pipe-wrench."  Sure, it's "a novel idea" and all that, but if you separate the sentence into its two clauses, neither "hammering nails" nor "using a pipe wrench" is patentable, nor is the combination an "improvement."

The plaintiffs must either argue that their combination of features is "valuable and not obvious to those schooled in the trade" (which it is clearly not, because you have found copious independent examples of just this thing), or that the tool being used, ColdFusion, is the patentable aspect of their process.  Clearly, the use of ColdFusion confers no advantage, nor is the thought of using that particular tool in any way "novel."

But, here's the catch:  you can't say that, no matter how common-sense it may be.  You must pay an attorney to say that, in just the right way, in front of a judge or a chancery ... i.e. more attorneys.  And, I assure you, what they are all aiming for is settlement:   to be paid money, which by the way they will get.  That's what it's going to come down to.  You're going to wind up paying them to go away.

...using COld Fusion gateways to handle SMS, and IM simultaneously ... using a POP gateway at the same time with the same application ... a law suit from someone who claims no one else but them are doing this.

In case that someone has just come out of a long coma, he or she should be told cell phones can do much more than that. Why bother? Just let 'em sue. They'll of course be laughed out of court, and you can then slap 'em with a claim for wasting your time.

This is a situation where you and your company's attorney need to follow the formal civil rules of discovery and subpoena.  And settlement...

The reality, in America and probably everywhere else, is that patent-clerks do not go out on any limbs when they rubber-stamp those "worthless little pieces of paper, suitable for framing."  (I guess their attitude is, "WTF do I care?  Let the judge figure it out..." and to a very great extent I don't blame them.)  So, if you've got an attorney on your company's butt who's utterly convinced that no one could ever have conceived of using a single program to do three different things at once, and who's got "a little piece of paper to prove it," you're going to have to fight fire with fire and none of us can help you.

Either you're going to see a lot of money get gobbled-up by attorney's fees (on both sides...), or you might just-as-well tweak your program in some little way that disarms the fool on some quibbling technicality.

A public forum that is primilary supported by fellow developers not associated with Adobe is not likely a good source for this type of information.  You probably need to initate formal communication with Adobe itself.