DCT
2:13-cv-05198
Morris Reese v. AT&T Mobility II LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Morris Reese (California)
- Defendant: AT&T Mobility II LLC (Georgia)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: In Pro Se
- Case Identification: [Morris Reese](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/morris-reese) v. [AT&T Mobility II LLC](https://ai-lab.exparte.com/party/at-and-t-mobility-ii-llc), 2:13-cv-05198, C.D. Cal., 07/18/2013
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged in the Central District of California on the basis that Defendant AT&T Mobility II LLC transacts business in the district, including the provision of the accused cellular telephone services.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cellular services, which offer Caller ID and Call Waiting features, infringe a patent related to methods for managing and disclosing caller identification information when a call is received while the user is already engaged in another conversation.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the integration of Caller ID and Call Waiting, two foundational features in modern telecommunications that allow users to manage multiple incoming calls and identify callers.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit claims priority back to an application filed in 1990, indicating a long prosecution history. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1990-01-03 | U.S. Patent No. 6,868,150 Priority Date |
| 2005-03-15 | U.S. Patent No. 6,868,150 Issued |
| 2013-07-18 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,868,150 - Method For Use with Caller ID System
(Issued March 15, 2005; hereinafter “’150 Patent”)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the telecommunications landscape following the introduction of Caller ID services, noting the privacy concerns that led to the creation of 'blocking' services allowing a caller to prevent their number from being displayed (’150 Patent, col. 1:47-58). The technical problem is how to manage the delivery of this Caller ID information—or the withholding of it, per a caller's privacy preference—to a user who is already on an active call and receives a second, incoming call via a call-waiting notification ('150 Patent, col. 1:20-46).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method performed by the telephone network's "terminating central office" equipment. When a call comes in for a busy line, the system receives the third-party caller's number (Directory Number or "DN") along with a data "flag" indicating whether the number is "public" or "private" ('150 Patent, col. 2:1-5). If flagged "public," the system sends a call-waiting tone to the busy user, followed by the caller's DN during a silent interval between rings ('150 Patent, col. 8:10-24). If flagged "private," the system sends only the call-waiting tone to indicate an incoming call without disclosing the caller's number ('150 Patent, col. 10:22-35). This allows the network to selectively disclose Caller ID information based on the incoming caller's privacy settings.
- Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a technical framework for integrating the distinct functionalities of Caller ID, Call Waiting, and per-call privacy blocking, which were all significant and evolving network services at the time of the invention ('150 Patent, col. 1:52-65).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts infringement of claims 6, 23, and 32 (Compl. ¶12). Claims 23 and 32 are independent. Claim 6 is dependent on independent claim 1. The complaint's description of "Claim 6" appears to incorporate the substance of independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶9).
- Independent Claim 1 (basis for asserted Claim 6): A method for sending a third party's directory number (DN) to a first party already engaged in a call with a second party, comprising the essential steps of:
- Receiving at a terminating central office the third party's DN flagged as "public."
- Sending a call waiting (CW) tone signal to the first party.
- Transmitting the third party's DN to the first party's station during a silent interval after the CW tone signal.
- Independent Claim 23: A method for indicating an incoming call from a third party to a first party already on a call, comprising the essential steps of:
- Receiving at a terminating central office the third party's DN flagged as "private," indicating the DN is not to be disclosed.
- Sending a call waiting (CW) tone signal to the first party to indicate the incoming call.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "cellular wireless mobile telephone services including so-called Caller ID and Call Waiting" (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the accused services function to alert a customer to an incoming call while they are already engaged in a separate call (Compl. ¶11). Following this alert, the service "if applicable, delivers Caller ID information related to the incoming waiting caller to the customer's called station" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint asserts these are services provided across the United States (Compl. ¶11). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not provide a formal claim chart. The following tables summarize the infringement theory by mapping the complaint's allegations onto the elements of the representative independent claims.
’150 Patent Infringement Allegations (based on Claim 1)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) receiving at a terminating central office... the third party DN flagged as public... indicating that said DN... is to be disclosed... | Defendant's network equipment receives incoming call information for its customers, including Caller ID data that is intended for display. | ¶9, ¶11, ¶12 | col. 8:10-18 |
| (b) said terminating central office sending a call waiting (CW) tone signal to the first party... | Defendant's service "alerts you (the customer) to an incoming waiting caller..." | ¶11 | col. 8:19-20 |
| (c) said terminating central office then transmitting said DN of the third party to the called station of the first party during a silent interval after said CW tone signal. | Defendant's service "delivers Caller ID information related to the incoming waiting caller to the customer's called station..." | ¶11 | col. 8:21-24 |
’150 Patent Infringement Allegations (based on Claim 23)
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 23) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) receiving at a terminating central office... the third party... DN flagged as private... indicating that said DN... is not to be disclosed... | Defendant's services allegedly practice the claimed method for handling calls where Caller ID is flagged as private and not for disclosure. | ¶10, ¶12 | col. 10:22-31 |
| (b) said TCO then sending a call waiting (CW) tone signal to the first party, said CW tone signal indicates to the first party the incoming call from the third party. | Defendant's service provides an "audible notification such as for example a call waiting alert, which indicates an incoming call from a third party..." when the incoming Caller ID is private. | ¶10, ¶11 | col. 10:32-35 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the term "terminating central office equipment," described in a patent with a 1990 priority date and figures depicting landline components, can be construed to read on the architecture of a modern cellular network (e.g., Mobile Switching Centers, IMS core networks).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges infringement in a conclusory manner. A point of contention will likely be what evidence exists to show that Defendant's network uses the specific "flagged as public" and "flagged as private" signaling protocol required by the claims, as opposed to other methods of conveying Caller ID presentation information.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
Term: "terminating central office" / "cellular company terminating central office equipment"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the location where the key steps of the claimed methods occur. The viability of the infringement case depends on mapping this term to a specific component or set of components within the accused cellular network architecture.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent frequently uses the phrase "telephone or cellular company" equipment, and dependent claim 6 explicitly recites "cellular company terminating central office equipment," which may support the argument that the inventor intended the term to cover wireless network infrastructure broadly ('150 Patent, col. 1:24-25; col. 8:40-42).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's detailed description and figures refer to elements like "dial tone" and show block diagrams that may be argued to represent a conventional Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) architecture from the era ('150 Patent, FIG. 3; col. 4:32-34). This could be used to argue for a narrower construction that does not encompass modern, packet-switched cellular network components.
Term: "flagged as public" / "flagged as private"
- Context and Importance: This binary flagging mechanism is the core logic that dictates how an incoming call is handled in the claimed methods. Plaintiff must show the accused system uses this specific type of signaling.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract and summary describe the flags in general terms as "indicating that the directory telephone number... [is/is not] to be disclosed," which could support a construction covering any data that communicates a caller's privacy preference ('150 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:42-46).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background section ties the concept of privacy flagging to the use of specific "access code[s]" dialed by a user on a "per call basis" to override a default status ('150 Patent, col. 2:1-12). This could support an argument that the term is limited to user-initiated, per-call blocking signals rather than other forms of network-level privacy indicators.
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Can the term "terminating central office equipment," which originates in a patent from the traditional telephony era, be construed to cover the distributed and functionally distinct components of a modern cellular telecommunications network?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Can the plaintiff provide evidence that Defendant's Caller ID and Call Waiting services operate using the specific "flagged as public" and "flagged as private" signaling mechanism recited in the claims, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the underlying technical protocol?