Tellagemini Communication LLC v. Ecovate Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tellagemini Communication LLC (Washington)
  • Defendant: Ecovate, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01663, D. Colo., 06/09/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having an established place of business in the District of Colorado and having committed acts of patent infringement within the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Audio & Web Conferencing products infringe a patent related to a telephone call information delivery system.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for screening telephone calls by first identifying the caller through information they provide, and then presenting that information to the called party to decide whether to answer.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent claims priority to a provisional application filed in 1999, predating the widespread adoption of many modern web conferencing technologies. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-02-06	U.S. Patent No. 7,062,036 Priority Date (Provisional)
2006-06-13	U.S. Patent No. 7,062,036 Issue Date
2019-06-09	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,062,036 - "Telephone call information delivery system," issued June 13, 2006

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies shortcomings in then-existing call screening technologies. It notes that "Caller I.D." is often inaccurate because the caller is not the subscriber associated with the number, and that conventional answering machine screening is ineffective because many callers will not leave a message, denying the user a chance to screen the call (’036 Patent, col. 1:31-41, col. 2:27-31). It also characterizes a user "cutting-in" on an answering machine as an "abrupt/rude" interruption (’036 Patent, col. 2:33-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a system that automatically answers an incoming call, prompts the caller for information (e.g., "Whom can I say is calling?"), attains that information (such as the caller's spoken name), and then "composes" and delivers it to the user, who can then make an informed decision about whether to answer (’036 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:43-60). By actively soliciting identifying information before connecting the call or recording a full message, the system aims to provide a more reliable and smoother screening experience.
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide the "true identity of the actual caller" by capturing their voice, thereby improving upon the limitations of both database-driven Caller ID and the passive screening function of answering machines (’036 Patent, col. 1:48-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint identifies "at least exemplary claims 7" of the '036 Patent as being infringed (Compl. ¶11). Claim 7 is an independent claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 7 are:
  • answering circuitry configured to answer a telephone call and to attain information input by a caller;
  • delay circuitry activated by the answering circuitry to delay answering of the telephone call and
  • an information signal provider configured to provide a composed audio signal while the call remains answered to operate a telephone handset receiver to deliver at least some of the attained information to a user.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert other claims in addition to claim 7 (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "at least Ecovate's Audio & Web Conferencing" products as the accused instrumentalities (the "Exemplary Ecovate Products") (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality of the accused conferencing products. The allegations are conclusory, stating that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '036 Patent" and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Ecovate Products" directly infringe the '036 Patent by satisfying all elements of the asserted claims, including exemplary claim 7 (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). The complaint states that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '036 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Ecovate Products" (Compl. ¶16). However, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint, and thus no specific element-by-element infringement theory is available for analysis. The complaint's infringement allegations are made by incorporating the unattached exhibit by reference (Compl. ¶17).

Identified Points of Contention

The lack of factual detail in the complaint itself raises several high-level questions for the dispute.

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the claim language, drafted in the context of a point-to-point telephone call, can be construed to read on the architecture of a multi-party audio and web conferencing system. For example, it raises the question of whether a modern conference server can be considered "answering circuitry" that "attains information input by a caller" in the manner described by the patent.
• Technical Questions: The presence of "delay circuitry... to delay answering of the telephone call" is a specific limitation in claim 7. The patent describes this as allowing a user's phone to ring for a prescribed time before the system intervenes (’036 Patent, col. 2:3-7). A key factual question will be what, if any, feature of the accused conferencing products performs this specific pre-answer delay function, as opposed to inherent system latency in joining a call.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "delay circuitry activated by the answering circuitry to delay answering of the telephone call"

• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the claimed sequence of operations. Infringement of claim 7 may depend on whether the accused conferencing products perform this specific, timed delay before what is considered "answering." Practitioners may focus on this term because modern conferencing systems, which users often join proactively, may not have an analogous function to a system that deliberately waits a set number of rings before answering an incoming call.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not narrowly define the delay, stating its purpose is to allow the user's phone "to first ring for a prescribed length of time" giving the user an "opportunity to answer the call if they so desire" (’036 Patent, col. 2:3-7). This could arguably cover any system-imposed wait time before a participant is fully connected.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An embodiment described in the specification refers to a specific, programmed delay: "delay 205 implements a fifteen second time delay" (’036 Patent, col. 21:7-8). This may support an interpretation that the claim requires a dedicated, configured delay function, not merely network or processing latency.

The Term: "composed audio signal"

• Context and Importance: The nature of the signal delivered to the user is critical. Whether the accused products generate a "composed" signal, as opposed to simply relaying audio, will be a point of dispute.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the signal provider composing "the attained name of the caller into an audio signal" and sending it to a loudspeaker (’036 Patent, col. 2:49-51). This could be argued to cover the simple capture and playback of a participant's spoken name upon entering a conference.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's primary example of a "composed" signal involves more than simple playback; it includes adding pauses to create a repeating broadcast (e.g., "'John Stolz', followed by a two second pause, and again 'John Stolz'") (’036 Patent, col. 2:52-55). This suggests "composed" requires affirmative modification or structuring of the original audio, not just forwarding it.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶14-15). The factual basis alleged is that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users... to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" (’036 Patent, ¶13).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that its filing provides Defendant with "notice and actual knowledge" of the '036 Patent, and that Defendant's continued infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶12-13). This appears to be a claim for post-suit willfulness, as no allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim terms of the '036 patent, which are rooted in the context of a traditional, two-party telephone call screening device (e.g., "answering circuitry", "delay circuitry"), be construed to read on the distributed, multi-participant architecture of a modern audio and web conferencing platform?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused conferencing system perform the specific, sequential functions required by the asserted claims, particularly the "delay [of] answering" a call, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed process and the way users join and participate in a web conference?
• A threshold issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: given the complaint's skeletal allegations and its reliance on an unattached exhibit for the substance of its infringement theory, the case may turn on whether the Plaintiff can produce specific evidence to plausibly map the functionality of the accused products to each limitation of the asserted claims.