DCT

8:19-cv-02786

Tellagemini Communication LLC v. Advanced Communications Solutions LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:19-cv-02786, D. Md., 09/20/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged on the basis that Defendant is incorporated in Maryland, 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 “Meet Me” Conferencing services infringe a patent related to telephone call information delivery and screening systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology pertains to systems that intercept incoming telephone calls to identify a caller before connecting the call, aiming to improve upon traditional Caller ID services.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit. The patent claims priority from a 1999 provisional application.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-02-06 U.S. Patent No. 7,062,036 Priority Date
2006-06-13 U.S. Patent No. 7,062,036 Issued
2019-09-20 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,062,036 - “Telephone call information delivery system”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,062,036, "Telephone call information delivery system," issued June 13, 2006. (Compl. ¶8).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings in then-existing call screening technologies like Caller ID, which could be inaccurate if the caller was not the line’s subscriber and required a recurring fee. It also notes that while answering machines offered audio screening, callers would often hang up without leaving a message, defeating the purpose. (’036 Patent, col. 1:21-39, col. 2:25-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a user-owned device or system with "answering circuitry" that actively prompts a caller for identifying information (e.g., asking for their name) before the user decides whether to take the call. An "information signal provider" then delivers this "attained information" (e.g., the caller's recorded voice) to the user, who can then make an informed decision to answer or ignore the call. This approach separates the function of caller identification from passive message recording. (’036 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:38-51).
  • Technical Importance: This technology was intended to provide a more reliable method of identifying the actual caller by capturing their voice, as opposed to just a subscriber name, without incurring a perpetual monthly fee from a telephone service provider. (’036 Patent, col. 3:3-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts "at least exemplary claims 7" of the patent. (Compl. ¶11).
  • Independent Claim 7 recites the following primary elements for "A telephone":
    • Answering circuitry configured to answer a telephone call and attain information input from a caller.
    • Delay circuitry, activated by the answering circuitry, to delay the answering of the call.
    • An information signal provider configured to provide a "composed audio signal" while the call remains answered.
    • The composed audio signal operates a "telephone handset receiver" to deliver the attained information to the user.
  • The complaint’s use of "exemplary" suggests the right to assert additional claims may be reserved. (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies "TurboBridge’s ‘Meet Me’ Conferencing" services as the accused instrumentality. (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not provide specific details on the technical operation of the accused conferencing service. It alleges generally that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '036 Patent" and refers to claim comparison charts in an "Exhibit 2" that was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶¶17-18). No allegations regarding market positioning or commercial importance are made beyond the general claim of infringement.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain claim charts or detailed infringement allegations in its body, instead incorporating them by reference to an un-provided "Exhibit 2". (Compl. ¶¶17-18). The infringement theory is that Defendant’s "Meet Me" Conferencing services directly infringe at least Claim 7 of the ’036 Patent by making, using, selling, or offering the service in the United States. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges that the accused products satisfy all elements of the asserted claim, but offers no specific facts in the body of the complaint to substantiate how each claim element is met. (Compl. ¶17). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A primary issue may be whether the term "a telephone" in the preamble of the asserted apparatus claim can be construed to read on a distributed, software-based conferencing service. The patent specification predominantly illustrates the invention as a physical hardware device connected to a traditional telephone set (’036 Patent, Figs. 1A-4B), raising the question of whether the claim scope extends to Defendant’s modern service architecture.
    • Technical Questions: A central factual dispute will likely concern whether the accused conferencing service performs the specific functions recited in Claim 7. Key questions for the court may include: What evidence demonstrates that the accused service utilizes "delay circuitry" to postpone answering a call? Does the service "attain information input by a caller" and then generate a "composed audio signal" for a "telephone handset receiver" as those terms are described in the patent? The complaint does not provide a factual basis for these technical allegations.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a telephone"

    • Context and Importance: This preamble term defines the claimed apparatus. Its construction is critical to determining whether the patent, which describes physical devices from the late 1990s, applies to a modern, likely software-based, conferencing service.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term should not be limited to the specific embodiments, pointing to the patent's more general statements about applying to "telephone calls" and "telephone service" to argue for a functional definition covering any system performing the claimed telecommunication functions. (’036 Patent, col. 4:16-17).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term is limited by the patent's consistent disclosure of a physical apparatus, such as "telephone 27" shown in numerous figures and described as a physical object that a user can answer. (’036 Patent, Fig. 1A; col. 4:32). The claim is for "A telephone," not a "telecommunications system."

  • The Term: "composed audio signal"

    • Context and Importance: This term describes the information delivered to the user for screening. Defining what constitutes a "composed" signal is central to the infringement analysis, as it distinguishes the invention from a simple live audio feed.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term covers any system-generated audio that conveys the attained information, including a simple playback of a recorded name.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples, such as taking a caller's recorded name ("voice information 289") and replaying it with pauses, or creating a "synthesized voice." (’036 Patent, col. 8:50-65; col. 9:24-33). A party could argue this requires a specific process of storing and manipulating the attained information, not merely passing it through.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement based on Defendant distributing "product literature and website materials" that instruct users on the infringing use of the products. (Compl. ¶14). It also makes a conclusory allegation of contributory infringement. (Compl. ¶16). No specific factual support, such as excerpts from manuals, is provided.
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation appears to be based on post-filing conduct. The complaint asserts that the "service of this Complaint upon Defendant constitutes actual knowledge" and that Defendant's infringement continued "Despite such actual knowledge." (Compl. ¶¶13-14).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the apparatus claim for "a telephone," which is rooted in the patent's disclosure of physical hardware embodiments from the turn of the century, be construed to cover a modern, distributed software-as-a-service conferencing platform?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: As the complaint lacks specific factual allegations, the case will depend on whether discovery reveals evidence that the accused conferencing service performs the precise functions of Claim 7, particularly the use of "delay circuitry" and the generation of a "composed audio signal" for delivery to a "telephone handset receiver" as understood in the context of the patent.