Missed Call LLC v. 8x8 Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:

  • Plaintiff: Missed Call, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: 8x8, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP

• Case Identification: 5:23-cv-06723, N.D. Cal., 12/30/2023

• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed alleged acts of infringement there.

• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunication products and services infringe a patent related to methods for providing users with specific information about the cause of a missed telephone call.

• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that analyze network-level data to distinguish between a call terminated by the caller versus a call terminated by a network timeout, and then provide a corresponding notification to the user.

• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that the Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity. The allegations of willful infringement are based on knowledge of the patent as of the complaint's filing date, with Plaintiff reserving the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,531,872 - "Communication Apparatus For Providing An Indication About A Missed Call, And Method Thereof"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section asserts that conventional telecommunication systems only inform a user that a call was missed, without providing context as to why (e.g., whether the caller hung up quickly or the call timed out after many rings) (’872 Patent, col. 5:36-49). This prevents the called user from being able to "recognize the importance of a missed call" (’872 Patent, col. 5:47-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communication apparatus that analyzes a specific piece of network data—a "cause value" contained within a "cause information element"—that is sent when a call connection is terminated (’872 Patent, col. 6:40-48). This "cause value" indicates whether the call was terminated normally by the calling party (e.g., "NORMAL CLEARING") or by the network itself, for instance, after a time limit expired (e.g., "RECOVERY ON TIME EXPIRY") (’872 Patent, col. 6:49-52). The apparatus then presents a specific indication to the user based on this cause, such as displaying that a network-terminated call was "urgent" (’872 Patent, col. 7:51-56; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The described solution aims to provide a more reliable indication of a missed call's potential urgency by interpreting standardized network signaling codes rather than relying on potentially ambiguous information like ring duration (’872 Patent, col. 5:11-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-13 of the ’872 Patent (Compl. ¶9).
• The key independent claim is Claim 1, which recites:
  • A communication apparatus comprising: receiving means, a control unit, output means, and processing means.
  • The processing means is for "extracting a cause value contained in a cause information element sent from a network."
  • The apparatus outputs an indication that the call "was caused by the caller" when the cause value indicates the caller ended the call.
  • The apparatus outputs an indication that the call "was caused by the network and was urgent" when the cause value indicates the network automatically ended the call.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Defendant’s products and services" and "systems, products, and services that facilitate providing of an indication of a missed telephone call" (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" the accused systems but does not provide specific details on their technical operation or features (Compl. ¶9). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint also references an "exemplary table included as Exhibit A" to support its allegations, but this exhibit was not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in a missing "Exhibit A" and does not provide a narrative claim chart in the body of the complaint (Compl. ¶10). Therefore, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the pleading is not possible. The complaint’s infringement theory rests on the general assertion that Defendant's unidentified products and services "facilitate providing of an indication of a missed telephone call" in a manner that infringes claims 1-13 (Compl. ¶9).

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Question: A threshold issue is whether the complaint provides sufficient factual detail to support a plausible claim for infringement. The complaint does not identify the accused products or provide any technical details explaining how they allegedly meet the specific limitations of the claims, such as the extraction of a "cause value" from a "cause information element."
• Technical Question: Assuming the case proceeds, a central dispute will likely involve whether the accused 8x8 systems, which operate on modern cloud and VoIP infrastructure, use the specific network signaling ("cause information element") described in the patent. The question will be whether the accused systems perform the claimed function or use a different, non-infringing method to log and categorize missed calls.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "cause value contained in a cause information element"

• Context and Importance: This term is the technical core of Claim 1. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused 8x8 systems are shown to access and process this specific type of data. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could confine the patent’s scope to older telecommunication standards.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may argue that the term should be construed to mean any data flag or signal that communicates the reason for a call's termination, regardless of the specific protocol used.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly grounds the invention in the context of established standards, such as "the ITU-T recommendation Q.931 regarding the Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) or in the 3GPP TS 24.008" (’872 Patent, col. 6:58-63). It also identifies specific cause values by name, such as "RECOVERY ON TIME EXPIRY" and "NORMAL CLEARING" (’872 Patent, col. 6:46-52). This may support a narrower construction limited to the data elements found in those specific protocols.

The Term: "an indication that the missed received incoming call was caused by the network and was urgent"

• Context and Importance: This limitation requires a specific, two-part output to the user: the cause ("caused by the network") and the status ("urgent"). The dispute will be whether the accused products provide this compound indication.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff may point to language suggesting flexibility, such as the use of "a particular image or the like" to convey urgency, arguing that any visual cue distinguishing a network-terminated call meets the limitation (’872 Patent, col. 6:37-38).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the claim requires an explicit notification of both cause and status, linked directly to the network termination event. A generic missed call log, even if it displays call duration, may not meet this limitation if it does not explicitly communicate that the call was "caused by the network" and was "urgent" for that specific reason.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induced infringement by instructing customers on how to use its systems and contributorily infringed by providing products with no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶11-12). These allegations are made without reference to specific instructions, user manuals, or other supporting facts.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶11, 12). The complaint reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶11, fn. 1).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• Pleading Sufficiency: A primary procedural question is whether the complaint’s generalized allegations, which lack specific product identification and omit the referenced evidentiary exhibit, satisfy the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss.
• Technical Scope: A core substantive issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "cause value contained in a cause information element," which is described in the patent with reference to specific 2010-era telecommunication standards, be construed to read on the signaling and data logging mechanisms used in Defendant's modern cloud-based communication platforms?
• Functional Linkage: A key evidentiary question will be one of causation: does the accused system present a notification of "urgency" because it has identified that a call was terminated by the network, as required by Claim 1, or is any differentiated display of missed calls based on unrelated factors such as call duration or user-defined sorting rules?