1:25-cv-01274
ReadyComm LLC v. Intermedianet Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: ReadyComm LLC (New Mexico)
- Defendant: Intermedia.net, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01274, D. Del., 10/20/2025
Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has an established place of business in the District.
Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unspecified telecommunication products and services infringe a patent related to systems for managing multiple telephone devices under a single calling identity.
Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of unifying communications across multiple devices (e.g., landline, mobile, work phones) by designating one device as "active" for calls while others remain in "stand-by," with the ability to switch the active device dynamically.
Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation-in-part of an earlier application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,049,275, which may be relevant for evaluating the patent's effective priority date and prosecution history.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-06-24 | U.S. Patent No. 9,179,011 Priority Date |
| 2015-11-03 | U.S. Patent No. 9,179,011 Issues |
| 2025-10-20 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,179,011 - Telephone Communication System and Method of Using
- Issued: November 3, 2015
The Invention Explained
Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the increasing difficulty of contacting a person who uses multiple communication devices (e.g., home phone, mobile phone, work phone), each with a separate phone number. This proliferation of numbers creates memory burdens for callers and contributes to the exhaustion of the available 10-digit number pool (’011 Patent, col. 1:29-32, col. 2:5-14).
The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system of interdependent telephone devices where, at any given time, only one device is in an "active mode" capable of making or receiving calls, while all other associated devices are in a "stand-by mode." (’011 Patent, col. 2:59-63). A core feature is a "switch" that allows a user to change which device is active, including the ability to perform an "on-the-fly redirection" that transfers a live call from one device to another (e.g., from a desk phone to a mobile phone) (’011 Patent, col. 3:17-22; Fig. 2A). This architecture aims to unify multiple devices under a single calling identity, enhancing user availability and privacy.
Technical Importance: The described solution sought to provide the convenience of a single point of contact without the limitations of traditional call forwarding, offering users dynamic control over which physical device would handle communications at any moment (’011 Patent, col. 2:38-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint asserts infringement of one or more unspecified claims of the ’011 Patent (Compl. ¶11). Claim 1, the first independent system claim, is representative of the core technology.
Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
- A group of N telephones (where N is at least two).
- Each telephone is configured to be placed in an "activated mode" or a "stand-by mode."
- In "stand-by mode," a telephone is "incapable of placing or receiving a call unless switched to active mode."
- A "switch" configured to activate one of the telephones, which causes all remaining telephones to be on "standby mode."
- At least one of the stand-by telephones is configured such that it "may be switched to active mode during a telephone call."
The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more 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" that are purportedly identified in an Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶¶11, 16).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint lacks specific allegations regarding the technical functionality of the accused products. It alleges in general terms that Defendant "has been and continues to directly infringe... by making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the accused products (Compl. ¶11). It further alleges that Defendant's own employees "internally test and use these Exemplary Products" (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint’s infringement allegations are made by incorporating by reference "claim charts of Exhibit 2," which was not provided with the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶17). The following chart summarizes the infringement theory for a representative independent claim based on the patent's requirements and the complaint's general allegations.
’011 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a group of N telephones where N is at least two, each of said N telephones configured to be placed in activated mode and alternatively in stand-by mode | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element beyond referencing an unattached exhibit. | ¶¶11, 16, 17 | col. 15:43-46 |
| such that in stand-by mode a telephone is incapable of placing or receiving a call unless switched to active mode | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element beyond referencing an unattached exhibit. | ¶¶11, 16, 17 | col. 15:47-49 |
| a switch configured to activate one of said N telephones to be an active mode telephone such that all remaining N-1 telephones are on standby mode | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element beyond referencing an unattached exhibit. | ¶¶11, 16, 17 | col. 15:51-55 |
| at least one of said standby telephones configured such that it may be switched to active mode during a telephone call | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element beyond referencing an unattached exhibit. | ¶¶11, 16, 17 | col. 15:56-58 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products, likely modern software-based communication systems (e.g., VoIP clients), fall within the scope of the patent's claims, which are described using the language of distinct hardware devices. For instance, does a software client on a smartphone that is merely configured by a server not to receive a call meet the claim limitation of being "incapable of placing or receiving a call"?
- Technical Questions: The complaint provides no factual basis to assess how the accused products perform the claimed "switch" function, particularly the technically complex step of switching a device from standby to active during a live telephone call. The mechanism and timing of this "on-the-fly redirection" will be a key technical point of dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "incapable of placing or receiving a call"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to defining the state of a "stand-by" device. The patent's viability rests on distinguishing its system from simple call forwarding, and the "incapable" status is a key differentiator. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine whether systems that merely re-route calls away from a device (while the device itself remains technically functional) can be found to infringe.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests a functional, rather than absolute, incapability. The system is designed so that a phone in standby "cannot make or receive calls," which could be interpreted as a system-level configuration rather than a hardware-level disability (’011 Patent, col. 2:63-64).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "incapable" itself implies a complete lack of ability. A defendant may argue that this requires the device to be technically unable to perform the function, distinguishing it from a device that remains fully capable but is simply not selected by the network to receive a particular call.
The Term: "switch"
- Context and Importance: The "switch" is the mechanism for user control and is recited as a distinct element in the claims. The dispute will likely focus on what specific component or user action in the accused product meets this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the switch can be of "numerous types, including, but not limited to a toggle switch, a Personal Identification Number (PIN), and/or a menu-type switch," as well as a "voice activated switch." (’011 Patent, col. 4:50-58). This broad description may support finding that a variety of software inputs or commands in an accused product constitute a "switch."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While disclosing multiple embodiments, a defendant could argue that the term requires a discrete, user-initiated command specifically for the purpose of changing the active/standby status, as opposed to a more general system state change.
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 ’011 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint and its (unattached) claim charts provides Defendant with "actual knowledge of infringement," and that any subsequent infringement is therefore willful (Compl. ¶¶13-14). No facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A central issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint's infringement allegations are entirely conclusory and dependent on an unattached exhibit. A primary hurdle for the Plaintiff will be to produce specific evidence demonstrating how the accused products meet each limitation of the asserted claims, especially the requirements that a standby device is "incapable" of communication and that a live call can be transferred "on-the-fly."
The case will also turn on a question of technological scope: Can the term "telephone," as used in a 2008-priority patent, be construed to cover modern, software-based unified communication clients? The court's construction of key terms like "incapable" and "switch" will determine whether the patent's claims, drafted in an era of more distinct hardware, can read on the integrated software and server architecture of the accused systems.