DCT
0:19-cv-00136
Tellagemini Communication LLC v. Nextera Communications LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tellagemini Communication LLC (Washington)
- Defendant: Nextera Communications, LLC (Minnesota)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; Anthony Ostlund Baer & Louwagie P.A.
- Case Identification: 0:19-cv-00136, D. Minn., 01/17/2019
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Minnesota because Defendant is incorporated in Minnesota, has committed alleged acts of infringement in the district, and Plaintiff has suffered harm there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s conference call services infringe a patent related to a system for delivering a caller's information to a user before the call is connected.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns call screening systems that audibly announce a caller's identity, allowing a user to decide whether to accept the call.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation-in-part of a 2000 application and claims priority to a 1999 provisional application, establishing a priority date that may predate many modern teleconferencing technologies.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-02-06 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,062,036 |
| 2006-06-13 | U.S. Patent No. 7,062,036 Issued |
| 2019-01-17 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,062,036 - “Telephone Call Information Delivery System,” issued June 13, 2006
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent identifies shortcomings in prior art call screening methods. It notes that "Caller I.D." services can be inaccurate because the caller may not be the registered subscriber, and that screening calls using a traditional answering machine is often ineffective because callers may hang up rather than leave a message (’036 Patent, col. 1:30-39, col. 2:26-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that automatically answers an incoming call and prompts the caller for information, for example by asking, "Whom can I say is calling?" (’036 Patent, col. 2:45-47). The system then attains the caller's spoken name, and delivers this "call announce information" as an audio signal to the user, who can then make an informed decision about whether to take the call (’036 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:47-61). This process is intended to provide positive identification of the actual caller by voice.
- Technical Importance: The technology aimed to combine the benefits of direct caller identification with the convenience of an automated system, offering a more reliable screening method than subscriber-based Caller ID and a less abrupt user experience than answering machine screening (’036 Patent, col. 3:57-4:6).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 9 (Compl. ¶11).
- The essential elements of independent claim 9 are:
- answering circuitry configured to answer a telephone call and to attain call announce information input by a caller;
- a delay to delay the answering circuitry;
- an information signal provider configured to provide a live audio signal to deliver at least some of the attained call announce information to a user; and
- a repeater configured to prompt the answering circuitry to attain call announce information a plurality of times, each successive time subsequent to the providing of a live audio signal, delivering the at least some of the attained call announce information.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses "Nextera's conference call services" of infringement (Compl. ¶11).
Functionality and Market Context
The accused services provide teleconferencing capabilities. The complaint alleges that when a person calls into a conference, the system answers the call and may prompt the caller to enter a PIN and record their name (Compl. ¶12). A screenshot in the complaint shows instructions for a user to "record your name, which will be announced within the conference to indicate that you have joined or left" (Compl. Fig. 2). When the "Announce New Participants" option is enabled, the system announces the recorded name of each new caller to the existing conference participants (Compl. ¶14, ¶15). The complaint also references a "Waiting Room" feature that delays connecting callers to the conference until a host has arrived (Compl. ¶13). Figure 1 of the complaint shows the cover of a "Conferencing Moderator Guide" for the accused service (Compl. ¶11).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’036 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| [a] telephone call information delivery system | Nextera's conference call services are alleged to be a telephone call information delivery system. A provided moderator guide details the system's operation. (Compl. Fig. 1). | ¶11 | col. 1:1-3 |
| answering circuitry configured to answer a telephone call and to attain call announce information input by a caller | The service's answering circuitry answers calls to a conference bridge number and prompts callers to enter a PIN and record their name as call announce information. (Compl. Fig. 2). | ¶12 | col. 4:57-60 |
| a delay to delay the answering circuitry | The system delays connecting the caller to the conference until a PIN is entered, or, if the "Waiting Room" feature is enabled, until the host arrives. | ¶13 | col. 20:60-61 |
| an information signal provider configured to provide a live audio signal to deliver at least some of the attained call announce information to a user | When the "Announce New Participants" option is enabled, the service provides the recorded name of a new caller as a live audio signal to the conference participants. | ¶14 | col. 8:56-62 |
| wherein the system further comprises a repeater configured to prompt the answering circuitry to attain call announce information a plurality of times, each successive time subsequent to the providing of a live audio signal, delivering the at least some of the attained call announce information | When the "Announce New Participants" option is active for a conference with multiple callers, the system is alleged to use a repeater to attain each successive caller's name, which is then delivered to participants. A screenshot shows the setting to enable these announcements. (Compl. Fig. 3). | ¶15 | col. 21:46-49 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether a multi-participant conference call service, where callers "join" a pre-existing call, constitutes the "telephone call information delivery system" described in the patent, which focuses on a single "user" screening an incoming call to decide whether to answer it (’036 Patent, Abstract). The complaint alleges the conference participants are the "user" receiving the information (Compl. ¶14).
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory for the "delay" element relies on post-answer delays, such as waiting for a PIN or for a host to arrive in a "Waiting Room" (Compl. ¶13). It raises the question of whether this functionality matches the patent's description of a delay that postpones the system's answering of the call to allow the user's phone to ring first (’036 Patent, col. 2:2-6).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges the "repeater" limitation is met by the system prompting multiple, sequential callers for their names (Compl. ¶15). This raises the question of whether prompting different callers as they join a conference is technically equivalent to the patent’s description of a repeater that prompts "circuitry 20 to again send the exemplary message" for a single call event (’036 Patent, col. 22:8-12).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "a delay to delay the answering circuitry"
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the accused functionality appears to be a post-answer delay (waiting for a PIN or host), while the patent specification describes a pre-answer delay. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if there is a fundamental operational mismatch between the accused product and the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the purpose or timing of the delay relative to the system answering the call, which may support an interpretation covering any delay within the overall process of connecting a caller.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s summary states that the "delay postpones the machine's answering of the call, allowing the user's telephone to first ring for a prescribed length of time" (’036 Patent, col. 2:2-6). This language could support a narrower construction requiring the delay to occur before the system answers the call.
The Term: "a repeater configured to prompt the answering circuitry to attain call announce information a plurality of times"
- Context and Importance: This term's construction will determine whether handling a sequence of different callers joining a conference meets the "plurality of times" requirement. The plaintiff's theory depends on this interpretation to read on a standard conference call feature.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language could be argued to cover any scenario where the system is prompted more than once to get information, including from different callers in succession.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explains that the repeater "prompts circuitry 20 to again send the exemplary message... This cycle continues until the user answers the call or the caller hangs up" (’036 Patent, col. 22:8-16). This suggests the repeater's function is to re-prompt or repeat information related to a single, ongoing call attempt, not to handle distinct new callers.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks enhanced damages for willful infringement (Compl. ¶D, p. 6). However, the body of the complaint does not allege specific facts that would typically support such a claim, such as Defendant's pre-suit knowledge of the patent or a refusal to cease infringing activity after being notified.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following core questions:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can a multi-participant conference call service, where new participants join an ongoing call, be construed as the "telephone call information delivery system" contemplated by the ’036 Patent, which is described as a tool for a single user to screen incoming calls before answering?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional equivalence: does the accused system's post-answer "Waiting Room" feature perform the same function as the "delay" required by Claim 9, which the patent specification characterizes as a pre-answer delay?
- The infringement analysis will likely focus on claim construction: does the "repeater" limitation, which the patent describes as re-prompting for information during a single call event, read on the accused feature of prompting a sequence of different callers as they join a conference?