RecepTrexx LLC v. Yeastar USA Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Yeastar USA, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Garibian Law Offices, P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00146, D. Del., 02/05/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and maintains an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified telecommunications products infringe a patent related to the triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming callers on a mobile device.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns features in telecommunications systems that provide users with alternatives to immediately answering a call or routing it to voicemail.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE42,997, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,975,709, indicating that the original patent's claims were amended or corrected after issuance.

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 identifies the social and practical problem of receiving cellular phone calls in public places like meetings or theaters, where answering may be disruptive or compromise privacy (RE42,997 Patent, col. 1:15-30). A user who delays answering risks the caller disconnecting under the assumption the call attempt has failed (RE42,997 Patent, col. 1:31-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system for a cellular user to respond to an incoming call by triggering the playback of a pre-recorded message (e.g., "please hold on") to the caller. Crucially, the system keeps the call connection open, allowing the user to begin speaking with the caller at any time after the message plays (RE42,997 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:62-67). The system can be implemented in a "distributed" manner, where the message is stored on and played by the user's phone, or a "centralized" manner, where a network component like a voice peripheral handles the message (RE42,997 Patent, col. 2:60-62; col. 3:1-12).
• Technical Importance: The technology offered a third option beyond the binary choice of answering a call immediately or sending it to a passive voicemail system, providing users greater flexibility in managing real-time communications (RE42,997 Patent, col. 2:25-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims it asserts, referring only to "Exemplary '997 Patent Claims" in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claims 1 and 2 represent the two main embodiments of the invention.

• Independent Claim 1 (Distributed System):
  • means to record a message to be provided to a caller making calls to said cellular phone;
  • 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..., 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;
  • means to instruct said message to be played to said caller, said means to instruct being selected from a similar group as claim 1, but adding triggers like "a telephone order, an electronic message, a webpage interface, interaction with a service representative";
  • wherein said caller is connected, said message is played, and, after said message is played, said caller remains connected.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in "charts incorporated into this Count," but these charts are part of an Exhibit 2 that was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context. Based on the allegations, the accused instrumentalities are telephony products or services that allegedly practice the technology claimed by the ’997 Patent (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products infringe the ’997 Patent but incorporates its substantive infringement theories by reference to an unprovided document, Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16-17). The public complaint contains no claim charts, screenshots, or specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to accused product features.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Given the lack of specific infringement allegations, any analysis is preliminary. However, based on the patent's claims, future disputes may center on the following questions:
  • Scope Questions: Do the accused products "connect" a caller and maintain that connection after a message is played, as required by the claims, or do they utilize a different architecture, such as a "call back" or advanced voicemail feature?
  • Technical Questions: What specific hardware or software in the accused products constitutes the "means to instruct" the message to be played? Does this accused structure correspond to the structures disclosed in the ’997 Patent specification, as required for means-plus-function claims?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "means to instruct said message to be played" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its scope is not defined by the functional language alone but is limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent's specification and their equivalents. The case's outcome may depend heavily on what specific structures (e.g., software modules, hardware buttons) are identified as performing this function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself lists a wide variety of inputs that can serve as the "means to instruct," including "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" (’997 Patent, col. 6:49-54). This language may support an argument that any corresponding structure capable of receiving these diverse triggers is covered.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific embodiments, such as a user pushing a button (col. 3:26-29) or a "software program running within the phone" that gathers information from calendar entries (col. 3:51-58). A party may argue the scope is limited to these specific disclosed software and hardware implementations.

• The Term: "remains connected" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is crucial for distinguishing the invention from conventional voicemail systems where a live connection is typically terminated. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will hinge on whether the accused system maintains a live, bridgeable call path or merely places the caller in a queue before disconnecting.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the connection is kept open "so that the user can begin speaking with the caller at any time after the message ends" (’997 Patent, col. 2:65-67). This could support a reading that any system architecture enabling a subsequent live conversation without redialing satisfies the limitation.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the connection as a "three-way bridge, between the voice peripheral, the caller and the user" (’997 Patent, col. 3:15-18). This could support a narrower construction requiring a specific, active bridging architecture, potentially excluding systems that place a caller on a temporary hold without creating a bridgeable connection to the end-user's device.

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 products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The specific materials are referenced as being in the unprovided Exhibit 2.
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s continued infringement after gaining "actual knowledge" of the ’997 Patent via service of the complaint (Compl. ¶13-14). Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the case is exceptional and an award of enhanced damages and attorneys' fees (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶E.i).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The most immediate question is one of pleading sufficiency. Can the case proceed meaningfully when the public complaint fails to identify the accused products or provide any factual basis for the infringement allegations, instead incorporating them by reference into a non-public exhibit?
2. Claim Scope (Means-Plus-Function): A central substantive issue will be the construction of the "means to instruct" limitation. The dispute will likely focus on identifying the specific structures disclosed in the specification that perform the instruction function and determining whether the accused products contain those same structures or their legal equivalents.
3. Technical Operation ("remains connected"): A key factual and legal question will be one of technical operation. Does the accused system's method for handling a call after playing a message meet the "remains connected" limitation as construed from the patent, or does it operate as a functionally distinct system (e.g., an advanced voicemail or automated call-back queue) that falls outside the scope of the claims?