DCT
2:13-cv-05199
Morris Reese v. T-Mobile USA Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Morris Reese (California)
- Defendant: T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Washington)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: In Pro Se
- Case Identification: 2:13-cv-05199, C.D. Cal., 07/18/2013
- Venue Allegations: Venue is based on allegations that Defendant transacts business in the judicial district by providing cellular wireless mobile telephone services.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cellular services offering Caller ID and Call Waiting infringe a patent related to methods for selectively disclosing or withholding a third-party caller's information to a user who is already engaged in a call.
- Technical Context: The technology addresses the intersection of Caller ID and Call Waiting services, focusing on network-level handling of user privacy preferences for incoming calls.
- Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is the result of a chain of continuation applications dating back to 1990, suggesting a prolonged period of prosecution before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1990-01-03 | ’150 Patent Priority Date |
| 2005-03-15 | ’150 Patent Issue Date |
| 2013-07-18 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,868,150 - "Method for Use with Caller ID System"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,868,150, "Method for Use with Caller ID System," issued March 15, 2005 (the "’150 Patent").
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the rise of Caller ID services and the resulting privacy concerns, which led public utility commissions to require that telephone companies offer a blocking service, allowing callers to prevent the disclosure of their telephone number on a per-call basis (’150 Patent, col. 1:47-58).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method for a telephone or cellular network's "terminating central office" to manage an incoming call for a subscriber who is already on another line (’150 Patent, col. 1:20-34). The system receives the incoming call information along with a data flag indicating whether the caller's number is "public" (to be disclosed) or "private" (to be withheld) (’150 Patent, col. 2:5-14). If the number is flagged "public," the system sends a call-waiting tone to the subscriber, followed by the caller's telephone number during a silent interval; if flagged "private," the system sends only the call-waiting tone (’150 Patent, Abstract; FIG. 2, 2A).
- Technical Importance: This method provided a technical framework for network operators to simultaneously offer the convenience of Caller ID with the privacy of per-call blocking, balancing competing consumer demands during the widespread adoption of such features (’150 Patent, col. 1:47-58).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts infringement of claims 6, 23, and 32 (’150 Patent, Compl. ¶12). Claim 6 is dependent on independent claim 1. Claims 23 and 32 are independent.
- Independent Claim 1 (parent of asserted Claim 6):
- Receiving at a terminating central office the third party's directory telephone number (DN) flagged as public from an originating central office.
- The terminating central office sending a call waiting tone signal to the first party.
- The terminating central office then transmitting the third party's DN to the called station during a silent interval after the call waiting tone.
- Independent Claim 23:
- Receiving at a terminating central office (TCO) the third party's DN flagged as private from an originating central office.
- The flag indicates the DN is not to be disclosed at the called station.
- The TCO then sends a call waiting tone signal to the first party to indicate the incoming call.
- Independent Claim 32:
- Receiving at a TCO a third party DN flagged as private from an originating central office.
- The TCO then sends a call waiting tone to the first party.
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- T-Mobile USA, Inc.’s "cellular wireless mobile telephone services including so-called Caller ID and Call Waiting" (Compl. ¶4, ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused services function to alert a T-Mobile customer to an incoming call while that customer is already engaged in a different call (Compl. ¶11). The service then "if applicable, delivers Caller ID information related to the incoming waiting caller to the customer's called station" (Compl. ¶11).
- The complaint alleges these services are offered "across the United States" and seeks a reasonable royalty based on T-Mobile's revenue from the Caller ID and Call Waiting services (Compl. ¶11, ¶14).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that T-Mobile's service infringes because it provides call waiting alerts and, where applicable, delivers Caller ID for a new incoming call to a user already on an existing call (Compl. ¶11-12). The complaint's descriptions of the patented methods in paragraphs 9 and 10 mirror the functionality of the accused services.
’150 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) receiving at a terminating central office of the first party... the third party DN flagged as public from an originating central office of the third party... | T-Mobile's network allegedly receives incoming call information, including Caller ID data designated for disclosure, for a customer already on a call. | ¶9, ¶11 | col. 8:10-17 |
| (b) said terminating central office sending a call waiting (CW) tone signal to the first party; | T-Mobile's service allegedly alerts a customer to an incoming waiting call. | ¶11 | col. 8:18-19 |
| (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. | T-Mobile's service allegedly delivers the Caller ID information for the new caller to the customer's device. | ¶11 | col. 8:20-23 |
’150 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 23) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) receiving at a terminating central office (TCO)... the third party directory telephone number (DN) flagged as private from an originating central office... indicating that said DN of the third party is not to be disclosed... | T-Mobile's network allegedly receives incoming call information where the Caller ID is designated as private or blocked. | ¶10, ¶11 | col. 10:21-29 |
| (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. | T-Mobile's service allegedly alerts the customer to an incoming call but does not deliver the Caller ID information. | ¶10, ¶11 | col. 10:30-33 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the term "terminating central office," as defined and used in the patent, can be construed to read on the distributed architecture of a modern cellular network. The patent's terminology is grounded in the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) of its priority era.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that T-Mobile's services differentiate between "public" and "private" calls but does not provide specific technical evidence of how this is accomplished (Compl. ¶9, ¶10). A central question may be whether T-Mobile's system receives and processes a discrete data "flag" as required by the claims, or if it achieves a similar outcome through a technologically different method. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "terminating central office" (TCO)
Context and Importance: This term is foundational to every asserted independent claim, defining the location where the claimed method steps occur. Its construction will be critical to determining whether the patent's scope covers the accused modern cellular infrastructure.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent explicitly contemplates its application to cellular networks, with claims referring to "cellular company terminating central office equipment" and the specification mentioning "telephone or cellular company" systems (’150 Patent, col. 1:21-22, claim 6). This may support a construction that is not limited to traditional landline switching offices.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and figures primarily use terminology and concepts associated with the traditional PSTN and Custom Local Area Signaling System (CLASS) services prevalent at the time of invention (’150 Patent, col. 1:24-28). This could support a narrower construction limited to the specific technological environment described.
The Term: "flagged as public" / "flagged as private"
Context and Importance: These terms define the triggering condition for the differential treatment of calls, which is the core of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether T-Mobile's system receives and acts upon a data element that meets this definition.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the flag as "indicating that the DN is to be disclosed" or "not to be disclosed," suggesting a functional definition rather than a specific data structure (’150 Patent, col. 3:3-5; col. 10:28-29). This could encompass any signaling information that conveys the caller's privacy preference.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently describes the flag as being transmitted from an "originating central office equipment" to a "terminating central office equipment" (’150 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:5-9). This context could support a narrower definition tied to the specific inter-office signaling protocols in use at the time, aotentially excluding different mechanisms used in modern IP-based or cellular networks.
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "terminating central office," rooted in the architecture of the 1990s landline telephone network, be construed to encompass the corresponding functional components of T-Mobile's modern, distributed cellular infrastructure?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: does the complaint provide, or can discovery reveal, evidence that T-Mobile's network performs the claimed methods by receiving and processing a discrete data "flag" indicating a caller’s privacy preference, or does it achieve a similar result through a fundamentally different technical process not contemplated by the patent?