Tellagemini Communication LLC v. AT&T Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tellagemini Communication LLC (Washington)
  • Defendant: AT&T Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Devlin Law Firm LLC
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-00686, D. Del., 04/12/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s smartphone call-handling features and teleconferencing services infringe a patent related to telephone call information delivery and screening systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems for identifying a telephone caller to a user before the user decides whether to answer the call, aiming to improve upon conventional Caller ID and answering machine screening.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation of a prior application filed in 2000, which itself claimed the benefit of a 1999 provisional application. No other significant procedural history is mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,062,036 - "Telephone Call Information Delivery System"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,062,036, "Telephone Call Information Delivery System", issued June 13, 2006 (’036 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings in prior art caller identification methods. Subscription-based "Caller ID" often fails to identify the actual caller (as opposed to the line's subscriber) and requires monthly fees. Answering machine call-screening is often ineffective because callers may hang up rather than leave a message, and if a user answers during the screening, it can be an "abrupt/rude cut-in" to the caller. (’036 Patent, col. 1:12-2:38).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that automatically answers an incoming call and prompts the caller for identification (e.g., "Whom can I say is calling?"). The system then attains the caller’s response (e.g., a recorded name) and delivers this information to the user, for example by playing the recorded name through a loudspeaker. This allows the user to positively identify the caller and decide whether to take the call before engaging in conversation, creating a smoother and more effective screening process. (’036 Patent, col. 2:42-61, Fig. 9).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to provide more accurate, real-time caller identification than subscription services while avoiding the social and functional drawbacks of traditional answering machine screening. (’036 Patent, col. 3:59-4:15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 4, 7, and 9.
• Independent Claim 4: A telephone comprising:
  • an initiator configured to receive instruction from a user during receipt of an incoming call;
  • answering circuitry activated by the initiator and configured to answer a telephone call and to attain call announce information input by a caller; and
  • an information signal provider configured to provide a signal to deliver the attained information to the user.
• Independent Claim 7: A telephone comprising:
  • answering circuitry configured to answer a call and attain information from a caller;
  • delay circuitry to delay the answering of the call; and
  • an information signal provider configured to provide a composed audio signal to a telephone handset receiver to deliver the information.
• Independent Claim 9: A telephone call information delivery system comprising:
  • answering circuitry to answer a call and attain call announce information;
  • a delay to delay the answering circuitry;
  • an information signal provider configured to provide a live audio signal of the information; and
  • a repeater configured to prompt the answering circuitry to attain the information a plurality of times.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint names two categories of accused instrumentalities:
  1. The AT&T AXIA smartphone (the "AT&T Product") (Compl. ¶17).
  2. AT&T's Teleconference Services (the "AT&T Services") (Compl. ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

• AT&T Product (AXIA Smartphone): The complaint focuses on the smartphone's call-handling functionality. When receiving a call, the user is presented with on-screen icons to answer, decline, or reply with a pre-set text message (Compl. ¶18). The complaint alleges that the feature allowing a user to decline a call and send a text message, and then receive a text response from the original caller, constitutes infringement (Compl. ¶19-20). The complaint includes a screenshot showing the user interface for answering, declining, or replying with a text message. (Compl. ¶18; Fig. 2).
• AT&T Services (Teleconference): The complaint targets the functionality for joining a conference call. It alleges that the service's answering circuitry answers a call to a dial-in number, requires callers to input an access code and/or state their name, and can announce the names of participants as they join the call (Compl. ¶26, ¶34). A screenshot from a university website shows instructions for joining such a conference call, including entering a participant code and stating one's name if prompted. (Compl. ¶27; Fig. 10).
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the products' commercial importance or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’036 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 4 vs. AT&T Product)

’036 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 7 vs. AT&T Services)

’036 Patent Infringement Allegations (Claim 9 vs. AT&T Services)

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question is whether the claim term "call announce information" can be construed to cover a pre-written text message sent in lieu of answering (as alleged for Claim 4) or a numeric access code (as alleged for Claims 7 and 9). The patent’s examples consistently refer to a caller vocally stating their name for identification purposes (’036 Patent, col. 2:45-47).
• Technical Questions: The infringement theory for Claim 4 against the smartphone raises a question of operational sequence. The patent describes a system that first answers a call to screen the caller, whereas the accused feature is an alternative to answering the call. The court may need to determine if this constitutes a functional mismatch.
• Technical Questions: For Claim 9, it may be disputed whether the "Announce Name on Entry/Exit" feature functions as a "repeater" that prompts for information a "plurality of times." The patent describes the repeater as prompting the system to re-send the same request for information to the initial caller in a loop (’036 Patent, col. 22:1-19). The accused feature appears to be a one-time prompt for each distinct participant who joins a call.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "call announce information input by a caller"

• Context and Importance: This term appears in all asserted independent claims and is critical to the scope of the patent. The plaintiff’s theories depend on this term being broad enough to read on a responsive text message for the smartphone and on a numeric access code or recorded name for the teleconference service. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could determine whether the accused functionalities fall within the claims at all.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is not explicitly defined or limited in the claims. The patent abstract refers generally to a system that will "attain information input by a caller." (’036 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's primary embodiment and explanation centers on identifying the caller's true identity to solve the deficiencies of standard Caller ID. The examples describe a system prompting, "Whom can I say is calling?" and attaining the caller's spoken name, "John Stolz." (’036 Patent, col. 2:45-58). This context suggests the "information" is meant to be personal identification provided by the caller for screening purposes.

The Term: "repeater configured to prompt the answering circuitry to attain call announce information a plurality of times"

• Context and Importance: This limitation is unique to Claim 9 and is central to the infringement allegation against the AT&T Teleconference Services. The viability of this claim count may turn on whether the accused "Announce Name on Entry/Exit" feature meets this functional requirement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language requires prompting "a plurality of times" but does not specify that the prompt must be for the same caller or that it must be a re-request for information not yet obtained. Plaintiff may argue that prompting for a name from a first caller and then a second caller constitutes a "plurality of times."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains the repeater's function as a "cycle" that "continues until the user answers the call or the caller hangs up," suggesting a loop to obtain information from a single, initial caller. (’036 Patent, col. 22:9-16). This language may support a narrower construction where the repeater is intended to re-prompt the same caller until information is successfully attained, rather than prompting different callers as they join a conference.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges that AT&T induced infringement of claims 4, 7, and 9 by "actively inducing its customers... to use AT&T's system in an infringing manner." The factual basis alleged is AT&T "providing access to support for, training and instructions for, its system." (Compl. ¶21, ¶29, ¶38).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint includes a prayer for relief seeking enhanced damages for willful infringement, but the factual allegations do not specify a basis for pre-suit knowledge of the ’036 Patent. Any willfulness claim would likely be based on post-suit conduct. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶D).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "call announce information", which in the patent's examples refers to a caller's spoken name for screening, be construed broadly enough to cover either (a) a responsive text message sent after declining a call, or (b) a numeric access code required to enter a teleconference?
• A key technical question will be one of operational equivalence: does the accused smartphone's "decline and text" feature—an action taken instead of answering—perform the same function as the patented system, which is premised on first answering the call in order to screen the caller for the user?
• A central evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: can the accused teleconference service's feature for announcing each participant upon entry be proven to meet the "repeater... prompt[ing]... a plurality of times" limitation of Claim 9, when the patent specification appears to describe this element as a looping re-request for information from a single caller?