ReadyComm LLC v. Nextiva Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ReadyComm LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Nextiva, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01393, D. Del., 11/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on Defendant's incorporation in that state.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunication products and services infringe a patent related to a system for managing a group of telephone devices by designating one as "active" for handling calls while the others remain in a "stand-by" mode.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the modern challenge of unifying communications across multiple devices (e.g., office phones, mobile devices, softphones) associated with a single user or group.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or post-grant proceedings involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-06-24	’011 Patent Priority Date
2015-11-03	’011 Patent Issue Date
2025-11-17	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,179,011 - "Telephone Communication System and Method of Using"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the increasing difficulty of contacting a person who uses multiple communication devices, such as a home phone, mobile phone, and work phone, each with a different number ('971 Patent, col. 1:20-33). Existing solutions like call forwarding were seen as cumbersome and lacking in privacy ('971 Patent, col. 1:33-54; col. 2:33-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a group of interdependent telephones has only one device in "active mode" at any given time, with all others placed in "stand-by mode" ('971 Patent, Abstract). A device in active mode can make and receive calls, while a device in stand-by mode is described as unable to do so ('971 Patent, col. 2:61-63). A central feature is the ability for a user to use a "switch" on any device to change which phone is active, allowing for "on-the-fly redirection" of a call from one device to another ('971 Patent, col. 3:13-24; col. 5:1-6).
• Technical Importance: The described system aimed to simplify call management by ensuring all calls for a group are routed to a single, user-selected device, while still providing the flexibility to transfer live calls between different physical devices as the user's location or needs changed ('971 Patent, col. 2:38-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "exemplary claims" without specifying claim numbers, but independent claim 1 is representative of the core technology (Compl. ¶11).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A group of at least two telephones configured to be placed in either 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."
  • Each telephone is associated with a "switch" configured to activate one telephone, which places all other telephones in the group into stand-by mode.
  • A standby telephone is configured to be switched to active mode "during a telephone call."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but references "one or more claims" generally (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name, referring to them generally as "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '011 Patent" but provides no specific details regarding their functionality, stating that such details are contained in an attached Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16). This exhibit was not included with the public filing. Given Defendant Nextiva's market position as a provider of Voice over IP (VoIP) and unified communications services, the accused instrumentalities likely encompass its platform that enables users to manage calls across multiple endpoints, such as desk phones, softphones on computers, and mobile applications.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" that purportedly detail the infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶16, 17). The narrative theory suggests that Defendant's products, which likely allow a user to associate multiple devices (e.g., a desk phone and a mobile app) with a single account, constitute the claimed "group of N telephones" ('971 Patent, col. 15:43-44). The infringement theory appears to be that the Defendant's system allows a user to select one of these devices as the primary or "active" device for making and receiving calls, thereby placing the others in a "stand-by" mode where they do not ring or are otherwise unable to take calls directly. The allegation that a user can transfer a live call from one device to another would map to the claim limitation of switching a standby telephone to active mode "during a telephone call" ('971 Patent, col. 15:53-56).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether a system comprising a mix of hardware (desk phone) and software (mobile app, softphone) falls within the scope of a "group of N telephones" as contemplated by the patent ('971 Patent, col. 15:43).
• Technical Questions: The complaint's theory raises the question of how the accused products render a device in "stand-by mode" "incapable of placing or receiving a call" ('971 Patent, col. 15:47-49). A key factual dispute may be whether the accused devices are truly made "incapable" or if they merely forward calls or change a user's presence status, which may not meet the claim's negative limitation. The specific mechanism that functions as the claimed "switch" in the accused system will also require factual development ('971 Patent, col. 15:50).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "stand-by mode such that in stand-by mode a telephone is incapable of placing or receiving a call" (from Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the dispute because the specific degree of "incapability" required by the claim will define the boundary of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern multi-device communication systems often use call forwarding or presence-based routing rather than rendering a device fully inert.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "incapable of... receiving a call" means incapable of receiving a call directed to the group's shared identity or number, even if the device retains other connectivity (e.g., for data or emergency calls) ('971 Patent, col. 4:47-50).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain language suggests a complete operational restriction. The specification states that "A phone in standby mode cannot make or receive calls," which supports a strict interpretation of functional disability ('971 Patent, col. 2:62-63).

• The Term: "switch" (from Claim 1).

• Context and Importance: The definition of "switch" will determine what user action or system component meets this limitation. Whether a simple software setting in a user portal qualifies as a "switch" will likely be a point of contention.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the switch can be of "numerous types," including a "toggle switch, a Personal Identification Number (PIN), and/or a menu-type switch," as well as a "voice activated switch," suggesting the term is not limited to a physical component ('971 Patent, col. 4:50-59).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the examples provided consistently imply a discrete, user-initiated action to change the system's state, as opposed to an automatic or status-based change, thereby narrowing the term's scope ('971 Patent, col. 5:21-31).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating 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 complaint alleges that service of the complaint provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of its infringement and that Defendant's continued infringing activities are willful (Compl. ¶¶13-14). This forms a basis for post-suit willfulness.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "incapable of placing or receiving a call," which implies a complete functional limitation, be construed to cover modern VoIP devices in a "stand-by" state that may still forward calls, maintain data connectivity, or allow outgoing emergency calls?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: what specific feature or process within the accused Nextiva system constitutes the claimed "switch," and does its operation align with the patent's description of placing one device in an "active mode" while concurrently rendering all other associated devices "incapable"?