RecepTrexx LLC v. Talkdesk Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Talkdesk, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00145, D. Del., 02/05/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant's incorporation in Delaware and having an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified products infringe a patent related to the triggered playback of recorded messages to callers of a cellular phone.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses methods for delaying the answer of a cellular phone call by playing a pre-recorded message to the caller, a function relevant to call management and user convenience.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissue patent, U.S. RE42,997, which reissued from U.S. Patent No. 6,975,709. The prosecution history of the original patent and the subsequent reissue proceeding may inform the construction of the asserted claims.

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"

• Patent Identification: 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 identifies the social and practical problems of receiving cellular phone calls in public places like meetings or movie theaters, where answering immediately may be disruptive or compromise privacy (RE42,997 Patent, col. 1:15-30). A simple delay in answering might cause the caller to hang up, assuming the call attempt failed (RE42,997 Patent, col. 1:31-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system and method allowing a cellular phone user to respond to an incoming call by triggering the playback of a pre-recorded message (e.g., "hold on") to the caller. This action connects the call and plays the message, keeping the line open so the user can begin speaking at any time, while giving them a moment to move to a more private or quiet location (RE42,997 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-65). The system can be implemented in a "distributed" manner (message stored on the phone) or a "centralized" one (message stored on a network peripheral) (RE42,997 Patent, col. 3:1-24).
• Technical Importance: The technology provides an alternative to either immediately answering a call or letting it go to voicemail, offering users greater flexibility in managing real-time voice communications on mobile devices (RE42,997 Patent, col. 2:23-28).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts "one or more claims" without specifying which ones (Compl. ¶11). Independent claims 1 and 2 (system claims), and 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10 (method claims) are available for assertion.
• Independent Claim 1 (Distributed System):
  • means to record a message to be provided to a caller making calls to said cellular phone; and
  • means to instruct said message to be played to said caller, said means to instruct being selected from the group consisting of 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;
  • wherein said caller is connected, said message is played, and, after said message is played, said caller remains connected.
• Independent Claim 2 (Centralized System):
  • means to record a message to be provided to a caller making calls to said cellular phone; and
  • means to instruct said message to be played to said caller, said means to instruct being selected from a list including a button, keypad entry, calendar entry, clock entry, location device entry, telephone order, electronic message, webpage interface, and interaction with a service representative;
  • wherein said caller is connected, said message is played, and, after said message is played, said caller remains connected.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes broad allegations covering the patent generally.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name any specific accused products, referring to them only as "the Defendant products identified in the charts" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the ’997 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). No specific functionalities of any Talkdesk product are described in the complaint itself. Publicly available information indicates Talkdesk provides cloud-based contact center software, but the complaint makes no allegations regarding any specific feature of such software.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement allegations, instead stating that it "incorporates by reference in its allegations herein the claim charts of Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶17). Exhibit 2 was not filed with the complaint. The infringement theory is narratively summarized as Defendant's products practicing the claimed technology and satisfying "all elements of the Exemplary '997 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Lacking specific allegations, the analysis must anticipate likely areas of dispute based on the patent's claims and the general nature of Defendant's business.
  • Scope Questions: A central question will concern the scope of the term "cellular phone" as used in the claims (e.g., in Claim 1, "a distributed system to delay answering a call made to a cellular..."). The patent appears to describe a system where the functionality is either on the handset itself or integrated within the telephony network serving the handset. It will be a point of contention whether Defendant's cloud-based software platform, which may be used by agents on various devices (including cellular phones), constitutes the claimed "distributed system" or "centralized system" for a "cellular phone."
  • Technical Questions: For system claims, a key question will be whether Defendant "makes, uses, [or] sells" the entire claimed system. If infringement of Claim 1 is alleged, a question will be whether Defendant's accused product constitutes the claimed "distributed system" containing both the "means to record" and "means to instruct." If infringement of Claim 2 is alleged, a question may arise as to whether Defendant provides the "centralized system" that interacts with a user's "cellular phone" in the manner claimed. The complaint's lack of detail on the accused product's architecture prevents further analysis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "means to instruct said message to be played to said caller" (Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is not its plain meaning but is limited to the specific structures, materials, or acts described in the specification that perform the recited function, and their equivalents. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the accused products contain a structure identical or equivalent to those disclosed in the patent. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction is a threshold issue for infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself lists a group of possible structures: "a button on said cellular phone, a keypad entry..., 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). A party might argue this list is exemplary, not exhaustive, of the corresponding structure.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Under § 112(f), the scope is strictly limited to the disclosed corresponding structures. The specification describes a user pushing "a button on the telephone" (RE42,997 Patent, col. 2:61-63), entering "a command through the phone keys" (RE42,997 Patent, col. 3:36-37), or a software program on the phone using "electronic calendar entries" to automatically trigger the message (RE42,997 Patent, col. 3:52-60). A party will argue that the claim is limited to these specific physical or software-based user interface components and their equivalents.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users...to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the ’997 Patent" (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's continuation of infringing activities after having received "actual knowledge" of the patent via the service of the complaint and its attached (but un-filed) claim charts (Compl. ¶13, ¶15).

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

1. A core issue will be one of claim construction, particularly the scope of the means-plus-function term "means to instruct." The case may turn on whether the accused software platform contains structures equivalent to the specific user-interface and automation components disclosed in the ’997 Patent’s specification.
2. A second central question will be one of applicability: can claims directed to a "cellular phone" system be read to cover a cloud-based contact center platform? The court will need to determine whether the architecture of the accused product, which is not detailed in the complaint, falls within the scope of the claimed "distributed" or "centralized" systems as understood in the context of the patent.
3. An initial procedural question will be the sufficiency of the complaint's allegations. Given that the infringement theory relies entirely on an exhibit that was not filed, the complaint’s plausibility under the Iqbal/Twombly standard may become an early focus of the litigation.