Missed Call LLC v. Cloudtalkio Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Missed Call, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Cloudtalk.io, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-07776, S.D.N.Y., 11/24/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant’s alleged regular and established place of business within the Southern District of New York and the commission of infringing acts in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cloud-based telecommunication services infringe a patent related to analyzing network data to provide users with an indication of a missed telephone call's urgency.
• Technical Context: The technology involves interpreting low-level network communication signals to determine the reason for a call disconnection, a feature relevant to call management and VoIP services.
• Key Procedural History: This filing is a First Amended Complaint, following Defendant’s Answer to the original complaint. The complaint notes that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and discloses prior settlement licenses with other entities, arguing these do not trigger patent marking requirements because they did not involve the production of a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-07-21	’872 Patent Priority Date
2016-12-27	’872 Patent Issue Date
2025-11-03	Defendant Files Answer to Original Complaint
2025-11-24	Plaintiff Files First Amended Complaint

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,531,872 - Communication Apparatus For Providing An Indication About A Missed Call, And Method Thereof

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes a deficiency in existing telecommunication systems where a user receives a missed call notification but has no information about why the call was disconnected. This prevents the user from knowing if the caller hung up after a short time (potentially a low-urgency call) or if the call was terminated by the network after a long ringing period (potentially a high-urgency call). (’872 Patent, col. 5:19-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communication apparatus that analyzes a specific piece of data—a "cause information element"—sent by the telecommunications network when a call is terminated. By extracting a "cause value" from this element, the apparatus can determine if the call was cleared normally by the caller or terminated due to a network timeout. It then presents an indication to the user reflecting this cause, thereby signaling the potential urgency of the missed call. (’872 Patent, col. 6:10-40; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This method provided users with more contextual information than a simple missed call log, allowing for better prioritization of return calls based on the inferred intent of the caller. (’872 Patent, col. 7:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-13. (Compl. ¶10). Independent claim 1 is representative.
• Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A communication apparatus comprising receiving, control, output, and processing means.
  • The processing means is for "extracting a cause value contained in a cause information element sent from a network."
  • The apparatus outputs an indication that the call "was caused by the caller" if the cause value indicates the caller ended the call.
  • The apparatus outputs an indication that the call "was caused by the network and was urgent" if the cause value indicates the network automatically ended the call.
• The complaint alleges infringement of dependent claims, though it does not specify which ones are asserted beyond the general allegation covering claims 1-13. (Compl. ¶10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "systems, products, and services that facilitate providing of an indication of a missed telephone call," identified with the Cloudtalk.io service. (Compl. ¶¶10, 12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" these systems but provides no specific technical details about how the Cloudtalk.io service functions. (Compl. ¶10). The complaint states that support for the infringement allegations can be found in an "exemplary table included as Exhibit A"; however, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint does not describe the commercial importance or market positioning of the accused service beyond general allegations of sales in New York. (Compl. ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an infringement claim chart in a missing "Exhibit A" and does not provide a narrative mapping of the accused product to the claim elements in the body of the complaint. (Compl. ¶11). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The infringement theory appears to be that the Cloudtalk.io service performs the patented method of analyzing call disconnection data to inform users about missed calls. (Compl. ¶10).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Questions: The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations regarding the technical operation of the Cloudtalk.io service, coupled with its reliance on a missing exhibit, raises the question of whether the pleading meets the plausibility standard for patent infringement established by Iqbal and Twombly.
  • Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over whether Defendant's cloud-based, distributed software service constitutes a "communication apparatus" as required by claim 1. The patent specification's primary embodiments are physical devices such as a "mobile phone" or a "fixed phone." (’872 Patent, col. 6:15-18).
  • Technical Questions: A central technical question will be whether the Cloudtalk.io service actually performs the core function of the invention: "extracting a cause value contained in a cause information element sent from a network" to distinguish between a caller-terminated and network-terminated call. (Compl. ¶10; ’872 Patent, cl. 1). The complaint does not provide factual support for this specific allegation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "communication apparatus"

• Context and Importance: The construction of this term will be critical in determining whether the claims, which are directed to an "apparatus," can be asserted against a cloud-based software service.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not limit the apparatus to a specific physical form, and the specification describes it as being "connected to at least a network N," which could be argued as consistent with a cloud-based system. (’872 Patent, col. 6:19-20).
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's preferred embodiment is a "mobile phone," and it also mentions a "fixed phone." (’872 Patent, col. 6:15-18). Figure 1 depicts a singular, self-contained device, which could support a construction limited to user-end hardware. (’872 Patent, Fig. 1).

The Term: "processing means for extracting a cause value"

• Context and Importance: This term is drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), meaning its scope is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the patent specification and its equivalents. Infringement will depend on whether the accused service utilizes an equivalent structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint lacks any description of the accused structure.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The patent identifies the corresponding structure as "processing means 40 associated to said control unit 20." (’872 Patent, col. 6:43-44). The specification describes the function of this structure as analyzing a "cause information element" to identify specific codes, such as "NORMAL CLEARING" or "RECOVERY ON TIME EXPIRY," and associating them with an urgency level. (’872 Patent, col. 6:10-52). The dispute will center on identifying the corresponding structure in the Cloudtalk.io service and assessing its equivalence to the disclosed "processing means 40."

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant instructs its customers on how to use its services in an infringing manner, citing the company's website. (Compl. ¶12). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for the service, though it offers no specific facts to support this conclusion. (Compl. ¶13).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’872 Patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit." (Compl. ¶12). The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages should discovery reveal pre-suit knowledge of the patent. (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

• A primary threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: does the complaint, which relies on a missing exhibit and lacks specific technical allegations about the accused service, provide sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for patent infringement?
• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "communication apparatus," which the patent describes as a physical phone, be construed broadly enough to read on a distributed, cloud-based software-as-a-service system?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: what is the specific structure within the Cloudtalk.io service that allegedly performs the function of extracting network "cause values," and is that structure legally equivalent to the "processing means" disclosed in the patent under the rules for means-plus-function claiming?