RecepTrexx LLC v. RingCentral Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: RingCentral, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00144, D. Del., 02/05/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware, has an established place of business in the District, and has committed alleged acts of infringement in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunications products and services infringe a patent related to the triggered playback of recorded messages for incoming calls to mobile phones.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns telephony systems that provide users with options to manage incoming calls, such as by playing a pre-recorded message to the caller instead of immediately answering.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE42,997, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,975,709. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving this 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 addresses the problem of receiving cellular phone calls in public places like meetings or movie theaters, where answering may be disruptive or compromise privacy. The user may wish to delay answering but not have the caller disconnect under the assumption the call attempt has failed (RE42,997 Patent, col. 1:15-33).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system and method for a cellular phone user to respond to an incoming call by triggering the playback of a pre-recorded message to the caller (e.g., "hold on for a short time"). The system can be "distributed," where the message is stored on the phone itself, or "centralized," where it is stored on a network peripheral (RE42,997 Patent, col. 2:51-65; Abstract). After the message plays, the connection with the caller is maintained, allowing the user to begin speaking at any time (RE42,997 Patent, col. 5:65-col. 6:1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide cellular users with more flexibility in managing incoming calls beyond the binary choice of answering or sending the call to voicemail (RE42,997 Patent, col. 2:25-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims, referring only to the "Exemplary '997 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶11). Independent claims 1, 2, 7, 10, and 13 are available for assertion. Claim 7, a method claim directed to a switch device, is representative.
• Independent Claim 7 (Method):
  • receiving at a switch device a call from a caller communication device;
  • routing the call to a receiving mobile communication device;
  • sending a message to the caller communication device in response to receiving an instruction;
  • The instruction is from a group including an indication of selection of a user interface on the receiving mobile communication device, an electronic message, and combinations thereof;
  • maintaining connection of the receiving mobile communication device to the caller communication device after playing the message.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but requests judgment that Defendant has infringed "one or more claims of the '997 Patent" (Compl. ¶B, Prayer for Relief).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '997 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). Given that Defendant RingCentral is a provider of cloud-based communication and collaboration platforms for businesses, the accused instrumentalities are likely its unified communications services, which include call handling, routing, and messaging features. The complaint alleges these products are made, used, sold, and offered for sale in the United States (Compl. ¶11, ¶14). The complaint does not provide further detail on the technical functionality or market position of the accused products. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products infringe the ’997 Patent, stating that "Exhibit 2 includes charts comparing the Exemplary '997 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶16). However, Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint. Therefore, the specific mapping of accused functionality to claim elements is not available for analysis. The infringement theory must be inferred from the general allegations and the patent’s subject matter. The core allegation is that Defendant’s products provide a mechanism for a user receiving a call to trigger a message to be played to the caller while keeping the line open, thereby infringing one or more claims of the ’997 Patent (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused RingCentral system performs the specific steps of the asserted claims. For a method claim like claim 7, this would involve determining if a "switch device" within RingCentral's architecture sends a "message" in response to a user action on a "mobile communication device" and then "maintain[s] connection" in the manner claimed. Evidence will be needed to show how RingCentral's cloud infrastructure and user applications actually operate.
  • Scope Questions: The interpretation of claim terms will be critical. A key question is whether RingCentral’s modern, cloud-based, software-defined network architecture constitutes the "switch device" contemplated by the patent. Another question may be whether the "message" sent to the caller must be a pre-recorded audio greeting, or if other forms of communication (e.g., system-generated audio, text-to-speech) fall within the claim's scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The following analysis is based on representative independent claim 7.

• The Term: "switch device"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to identifying the infringing entity. Plaintiff will need to map this term to a component of Defendant's infrastructure. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the claim reads on a modern, distributed, cloud-based telecommunications platform or is limited to more traditional, centralized hardware switches common at the time of the invention.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes both "a network switching system" (RE42,997 Patent, col. 3:4-5) and a "Telephone Soft Switch" (RE42,997 Patent, Fig. 3), suggesting the term is not limited to a specific hardware implementation and could encompass software-based solutions.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the "switch device" as a discrete, centralized network component that connects callers, called parties, and voice peripherals (RE42,997 Patent, Figs. 2, 4, 5). This could support an argument that the term requires a single, identifiable network node rather than a diffuse, cloud-based system.
• The Term: "sending a message"
  • Context and Importance: The nature of the "message" is a core part of the invention. The dispute may turn on whether the accused system sends a "message" as contemplated by the patent.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent frequently refers to playing a "recorded message" (RE42,997 Patent, col. 5:40-41) but the claim itself simply recites "sending a message." This could support an interpretation that covers any system-generated communication to the caller, not just a user-pre-recorded audio file.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The "Summary of the Invention" and "Detailed Description" sections repeatedly frame the invention in the context of playing a "recorded audio message" stored either on the phone or a network peripheral (RE42,997 Patent, col. 2:60-61; col. 3:1). This context could be used to argue that "sending a message" is implicitly limited to the playback of a pre-recorded audio greeting.

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 an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-¶15). The complaint notes that Exhibit 2, which was not provided, "extensively referenc[es] these materials" (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge obtained from the service of the complaint itself. The complaint alleges that despite having "actual knowledge of infringement" from the complaint and its (unprovided) claim charts, Defendant "continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products (Compl. ¶13-¶14).

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

1. A primary issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Can the Plaintiff, once discovery commences, produce the necessary evidence to map the specific functionality of RingCentral's complex, cloud-based services onto the elements of the asserted claims, particularly given the complaint’s initial lack of specific product identification and infringement details?
2. The case will likely involve a significant battle over definitional scope: Can the term "switch device," as described in a 2003-priority patent, be construed to encompass the distributed, software-defined architecture of RingCentral's modern Unified-Communications-as-a-Service (UCaaS) platform?
3. A key legal question will be one of infringement allocation: Given that the claims involve interactions between a "caller communication device," a "switch device," and a "receiving mobile communication device," the court will need to determine which party or parties perform each step of the claimed method and whether Defendant is liable for direct or indirect infringement.