Missed Call LLC v. Freshworks Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Missed Call, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Freshworks Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-02913, D. Colo., 11/03/2023
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Colorado because Defendant Freshworks Inc. has a "regular and established place of business" in the district, conducts substantial business there, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s systems, products, and services for handling telephone communications infringe a patent related to methods for providing an indication about a missed telephone call.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns telecommunication systems that can analyze the reason a call was disconnected (e.g., caller hung up vs. network timeout) to provide the recipient with a more informative missed call notification, such as an indication of urgency.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,531,872, “Communication Apparatus For Providing An Indication About A Missed Call, And Method Thereof,” issued December 27, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In conventional telephone systems, a user receiving a missed call notification cannot distinguish between a call that the caller quickly abandoned and a call that rang for a long time before being disconnected by the network. This ambiguity prevents the user from recognizing the potential importance or urgency of a missed call (ʼ872 Patent, col. 1:36-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communication apparatus (e.g., a mobile phone) and method that analyzes network signals to determine why a call was terminated. It extracts a specific "cause value" from a "cause information element" sent by the network when a call ends (ʼ872 Patent, col. 4:10-16). Based on this value, the apparatus can differentiate between a call "cleared by the calling user" and one terminated by the network (e.g., due to a timeout), and then display a corresponding indication to the user, such as a notice of urgency for network-terminated calls (ʼ872 Patent, col. 4:32-40, 4:48-52). This process is illustrated in the flowchart of Figure 2.
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to add a layer of intelligence to standard missed call alerts by leveraging existing, but typically unused, network protocol data to provide users with more actionable context. (ʼ872 Patent, col. 5:40-45).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-13, with Claim 1 being the sole independent apparatus claim.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A communication apparatus for providing an indication about a missed telephone call
  • "receiving means" for an incoming call
  • a "control unit" to process the call
  • "output means" for outputting information to a user
  • "processing means" for extracting a "cause value" from a "cause information element" sent from a network
  • The "processing means" outputs an indication related to a missed call based on the "cause value"
  • Wherein, when a caller ends the call, the "cause value" indicates this, and the apparatus outputs an indication that the call was caused by the caller
  • Wherein, when the network automatically ends the call, the "cause value" indicates this, and the apparatus outputs an indication that the call was caused by the network and was urgent
• The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims (Compl. ¶9).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not name a specific product, instead referring generally to Defendant’s “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" these accused systems (Compl. ¶9). It further alleges that Defendant "put the inventions claimed by the ’872 patent into service (i.e., used them)" (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide specific details about the technical operation or market position of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s systems directly infringe, induce infringement, and contribute to the infringement of claims 1-13 of the ’872 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11, 12). The pleading states that support for the infringement allegations can be found in an "exemplary table included as Exhibit A" (Compl. ¶10). However, Exhibit A was not filed with the complaint.

Without the referenced claim chart, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the provided documents. The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant's systems perform the patented method of providing a missed call indication, thereby infringing the claims (Compl. ¶9). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused Freshworks systems actually receive and process a "cause value" from a "cause information element" as required by the claims. Plaintiff will need to produce evidence that Defendant’s systems differentiate missed call notifications based on a signal indicating whether the caller or the network terminated the call.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the accused systems' method for logging missed calls, whatever it may be, performs the specific function of outputting an indication that a network-terminated call "was urgent," as explicitly required by the final limitation of Claim 1.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "cause value"

• Context and Importance: This term is the technical core of the invention. Its definition is critical because infringement requires showing that the accused system extracts and uses this specific type of data. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent appears to give it a precise technical meaning tied to specific network protocols.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The defense may argue that any signal indicating the reason for call termination meets the definition, even if not formally labeled a "cause value" in a specific protocol. The claim language itself does not limit the term to a particular telecommunications standard.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of what constitutes a "cause value," such as "RECOVERY ON TIME EXPIRY," "NORMAL, UNSPECIFIED," and "NORMAL CLEARING" (ʼ872 Patent, col. 4:21-22, 4:40, 4:46-47). A court may find that these examples define the scope of the term, limiting it to these or very similar standardized network codes.

• The Term: "processing means for extracting a cause value..."

• Context and Importance: This term is written in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its construction will be legally constrained to the corresponding structures, materials, or acts described in the specification and their equivalents. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused system contains the specific structures disclosed in the patent for performing this function.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the "processing means" (40) is associated with the general-purpose "control unit" (20), potentially allowing for a software-based implementation on a generic processor.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Construction of a means-plus-function claim is limited to the algorithm or structure disclosed in the specification. Here, the corresponding structure is the "processing means 40" as depicted in Figure 1 and described in the specification as performing the specific steps of extracting the value from a network element and associating it with an urgency indication (ʼ872 Patent, col. 4:10-16, 4:36-40). Any accused structure must be equivalent to this disclosed implementation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" to use its systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶11). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that "there are no substantial noninfringing uses for Defendant's products and services" (Compl. ¶12).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’872 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12). This establishes a basis for potential post-filing willfulness but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

1. A central issue will be one of claim construction and technical proof: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused Freshworks systems use a "cause value" or a legally equivalent signal as defined by the patent? This will require discovery into the specific network protocols and data utilized by Defendant's systems.
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: Assuming a "cause value" is identified, does the accused system perform the subsequent claim steps of outputting a distinct indication that a call was "caused by the network" and, critically, that it "was urgent"? The complaint’s lack of detail on the functionality of the accused systems makes this a primary open question.
3. A third question relates to the means-plus-function limitations: The infringement analysis for the "processing means" will be a strict, two-step inquiry into whether the accused systems use a structure that is identical or equivalent to the specific structure and associated algorithms disclosed in the '872 patent's specification.