RecepTrexx LLC v. ALE USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: ALE USA Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00135, D. Del., 02/02/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain of Defendant's communication products infringe a patent related to the triggered playback of recorded messages for incoming cellular phone calls.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for managing incoming phone calls in environments where immediately answering is inconvenient by playing a message to the caller while keeping the line open.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The asserted patent is a reissue patent.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE42,997 - Triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming telephone calls to a cellular phone, issued December 6, 2011

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of receiving cellular phone calls in public places, such as meetings or theaters, where answering the call would be disruptive or compromise privacy. It notes that if a user delays answering, the caller may disconnect, believing the call attempt has failed (RE42,997 Patent, col. 1:15-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system and method that allows a cellular phone user, upon receiving a call, to trigger the playback of a pre-recorded message to the caller (e.g., "hold on") without immediately engaging in conversation. The system is designed to keep the telephone connection open after the message is played, allowing the user to begin speaking with the caller at any time (RE42,997 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:50-67). This functionality can be implemented in a "distributed" manner, where the message is stored on the phone itself, or in a "centralized" manner, where the phone signals a network-based voice peripheral to play the message (RE42,997 Patent, col. 2:58-61; col. 3:1-6).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide cellular users with greater flexibility and control in managing incoming calls in situations where immediate conversation was not practical (RE42,997 Patent, col. 2:25-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '997 Patent Claims" in an attached exhibit that was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).
• Independent claim 1, a representative system claim, recites the following essential elements for a distributed system:
  • A distributed system to delay answering a call made to a cellular phone.
  • Means to record a message to be provided to a caller.
  • Means to instruct said message to be played to said caller, with the means for instruction being selected from a group including a button on the phone, a keypad entry, a calendar entry, a clock entry, or a location device entry.
  • Wherein the caller is connected, the message is played, and the caller remains connected after the message is played.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but its broad language suggests this possibility.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name any specific accused products in its main body. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in Exhibit 2, an attachment that was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’997 Patent and that they are made, used, sold, and imported by Defendant ALE USA Inc. (Compl. ¶11). No specific details regarding the functionality, operation, or market context of the accused products are provided in the complaint itself.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided in Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). As this exhibit was not included with the filed document, a detailed claim chart analysis is not possible.

The narrative infringement theory is that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology of the ’997 Patent and satisfy all elements of the "Exemplary '997 Patent Claims" either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶16). The complaint provides no specific facts in its body to support this conclusory allegation, such as describing how a particular feature of an accused product meets a specific claim limitation.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Factual Questions: The primary question will be an evidentiary one: once the accused products are identified, does discovery show that they in fact perform the functions required by the asserted claims? Specifically, do they play a pre-recorded message to an incoming caller while maintaining an open, live connection that the receiving user can join at a later time?
  • Scope Questions: Assuming the accused products have a relevant feature, a dispute may arise over whether the mechanism for triggering it falls within the scope of the claims. For instance, in the context of claim 1, a question could be whether an automated network-based trigger in an accused product is equivalent to the user- or device-initiated triggers recited in the claim (e.g., "a button on said cellular phone, a keypad entry").

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "means to instruct said message to be played to said caller" (from claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The scope of this element is not its literal language but the "corresponding structure" described in the patent's specification for performing the recited function, as well as equivalents of that structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the triggering mechanism in the accused products is the same as or equivalent to the specific structures disclosed in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself lists a wide variety of structures that can perform the function: "a button on said cellular phone, a keypad entry to said cellular phone, an entry on a calendar, an entry on a clock, an entry into a location device, and combinations thereof" (RE42,997 Patent, col. 7:45-51). Plaintiff may argue this demonstrates an intent to cover a broad range of user-initiated and automated triggers.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue the scope is limited to the specific embodiments shown, such as a user manually pushing a button to initiate the message for a specific call (RE42,997 Patent, col. 2:61-64), or a software program on the phone that acts based on the phone's own calendar entries (RE42,997 Patent, col. 3:51-61). They may argue that different types of automated triggers, particularly those initiated by network logic rather than the end-user device, are not structurally equivalent.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’997 Patent (Compl. ¶14, ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint's allegation of knowledge appears to be based solely on the filing of the lawsuit itself. It asserts that the "service of this Complaint... constitutes actual knowledge of infringement," which would support a claim for post-filing willful infringement if infringement is ongoing (Compl. ¶13). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

This case, as currently pleaded, presents several fundamental questions that will likely define the litigation's course.

• A central issue will be one of factual proof: Given the complaint’s lack of specificity, the initial and most critical question is whether discovery will produce evidence that Defendant's products—once identified—actually possess the core functionality of the patent: playing a message to a caller while keeping the line live for the recipient to join later.
• The case will likely involve a significant dispute over claim scope: The construction of the "means to instruct" limitation will be pivotal. The key legal question will be whether the triggering mechanisms in Defendant's products are structurally equivalent to the specific button presses, keypad entries, and on-device calendar interactions disclosed in the patent's specification.
• A key procedural question may arise early in the case. The complaint's failure to identify any accused products or specific asserted claims may make it vulnerable to an early motion challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings under the Twombly/Iqbal standard.