RecepTrexx LLC v. Dialpad Iinc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Dialpad, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00136, D. Del., 02/02/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant being a Delaware corporation with an established place of business in the district, where it has allegedly committed acts of infringement.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products and services infringe a patent related to the triggered playback of recorded messages to callers on incoming cellular telephone calls.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses call management for mobile phone users, allowing them to play a pre-recorded message to an incoming caller as an alternative to immediately answering or sending the call to voicemail.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissue patent, which indicates that the original patent was surrendered and re-examined by the USPTO to correct a perceived error, a process that can affect the scope and enforceability of the claims.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE42,997 E - "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 dilemma faced by cellular phone users who receive calls in public places like meetings or theaters, where answering would be disruptive. If the user delays answering, the caller may hang up, assuming the call failed. (RE42,997 E, col. 1:15-35).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where the user, upon receiving a call, can trigger the playback of a pre-recorded message (e.g., “hold on”) to the caller. The system is designed to keep the communication line open after the message plays, allowing the user to begin speaking with the caller at any time. The patent describes both a "distributed" architecture, where the message is stored on the phone itself, and a "centralized" architecture, where it is stored on a network peripheral. (RE42,997 E, Abstract; col. 2:50-65).
• Technical Importance: The technology offered a method for call-screening and delayed answering that provided users with more flexibility than the binary choice of either answering a call immediately or routing it to voicemail. (RE42,997 E, col. 2:25-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ’997 Patent are asserted, instead referring to "the Exemplary '997 Patent Claims" detailed in an exhibit that was not provided with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16).
• The patent contains two independent claims, Claim 1 (a "distributed system") and Claim 2 (a "centralized system").
• As a representative example, independent Claim 2 recites:
  • A centralized system to delay answering a call made to a cellular phone, comprising:
  • means to record a message to be provided to a caller;
  • means to instruct said message to be played, selected from a group including a button on the phone, a keypad entry, an electronic message, or a webpage interface;
  • wherein the caller is connected, the message is played, and the caller remains connected after the message is played.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert infringement of claims beyond the unspecified "Exemplary" claims. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" and "numerous other devices that infringe." (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no description of the accused products' specific functionality. It alleges that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '997 Patent" and that this is detailed in an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17). No allegations regarding the products' market position or commercial importance are made.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain narrative infringement allegations or a claim chart within its body, instead incorporating by reference an unprovided exhibit (Exhibit 2). Therefore, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the provided documents. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions (Means-Plus-Function): The independent claims are drafted in means-plus-function format (e.g., "means to instruct"). The scope of these limitations is restricted to the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. A central dispute may be whether the accused products' software-based user interfaces for triggering messages are structurally equivalent to the "button," "keypad," or "webpage interface" disclosed in the patent. (RE42,997 E, col. 7:47-54).
• Technical Questions (Connection State): The claims require that the "caller remains connected" after the message is played. (RE42,997 E, col. 7:56-58). A key technical question will be whether the architecture of the accused system maintains a connection in the manner contemplated by the patent, which describes a "three-way bridge" allowing the user to interrupt the message and speak at any time. (RE42,997 E, col. 3:15-21). It is an open question whether a modern VoIP system that places a caller into a server-side holding queue before connecting to the user meets this specific limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As the complaint does not specify asserted claims, the following terms from representative independent Claim 2 are identified as likely to be central to the dispute.

The Term: "means to instruct said message to be played to said caller"

Context and Importance

As a means-plus-function limitation, the construction of this term will define the scope of infringing technology. The dispute will focus on whether the structure of the accused products' triggering mechanism is the same as or equivalent to the structures disclosed in the patent's specification.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses a list of corresponding structures, including not only physical inputs like "a button" but also software-based inputs like "an electronic message" and "a webpage interface." (RE42,997 E, col. 7:47-54). Plaintiff may argue this list was intended to be expansive and cover modern software interactions.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue that the disclosed structures must be interpreted in the context of the early 2000s technology described, and that modern software application interfaces operate in a fundamentally different way that is not structurally equivalent.

The Term: "said caller remains connected"

Context and Importance

This term is critical for determining infringement because modern call handling systems may use different technical states than the "connection" envisioned by the patent. Infringement will depend on whether the accused system's call state falls within the definition of this term.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue the term simply means the call is not terminated or sent to voicemail, thus encompassing any form of "hold" state.
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific type of connection: a "three-way bridge" where the "user can begin speaking with the caller at any time, even before the recorded message is finished." (RE42,997 E, col. 3:15-21). A defendant could argue this requires a persistent, real-time, user-interruptible connection, and that a server-side hold queue where the user is not actively bridged on the line does not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant provides "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).

Willful Infringement

The complaint bases its willfulness allegation on post-suit conduct. It asserts that the filing of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement" and that any continued infringement thereafter is willful. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14).

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

1. A central issue will be one of claim construction under § 112(f): Can the "means to instruct" limitation, which is tied to structures disclosed in a 2003-era patent (including a "webpage interface"), be construed to cover the specific software architecture and user interface elements of Defendant's modern cloud-based communication products?

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: Does the accused system's method for handling incoming calls create a state where the "caller remains connected" in the specific, user-interruptible, "bridged" manner described in the patent's specification, or does it utilize a distinct server-side holding architecture that falls outside the claim scope?

3. A threshold procedural question may be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint's failure to identify specific accused products or provide the referenced exhibits containing its core infringement contentions meet the plausibility standard required to state a claim for patent infringement?