Missed Call LLC v. Aircallio Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Missed Call, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Aircall.io, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: David J. Hoffman
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-07794, S.D.N.Y., 09/19/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s business telephony products and services infringe a patent related to systems and methods for providing a user with an indication about the specific cause of a missed telephone call.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves analyzing telecommunication network signals to determine whether a missed call was terminated by the caller or by a network timeout, thereby providing the user with information about the call's potential urgency.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity that has never sold a product. It also discloses that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses related to its patents and argues at length why the marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287 do not apply or have been satisfied.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-07-21	'872 Patent Priority Date
2016-12-27	'872 Patent Issue Date
2025-09-19	Complaint Filing Date

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 that conventional communication devices only indicate that a call was missed, without providing context as to why ('872 Patent, col. 2:11-18). A user is unable to distinguish between a call that the caller quickly terminated (implying lower urgency) and a call that rang for a long time before being disconnected by the network (implying higher urgency) ('872 Patent, col. 2:36-44).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communication apparatus that analyzes network signals to solve this problem. When a call is disconnected, the apparatus extracts a "cause value" from a "cause information element" sent by the telecommunications network ('872 Patent, Abstract). This value specifies the reason for the disconnection, such as the caller hanging up ("NORMAL CLEARING") or the network timing out ("RECOVERY ON TIME EXPIRY"), and the apparatus then outputs an indication to the user reflecting that cause, allowing them to assess the call's importance ('872 Patent, col. 4:10-23; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This approach provides a user with more granular information about the nature of a missed call than a simple notification, enabling better prioritization of return calls ('872 Patent, col. 6:1-8).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-13 (Compl. ¶10). Independent claim 1 is an apparatus claim.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • receiving means for receiving an incoming call;
  • a control unit for processing the call;
  • output means for outputting information to a user;
  • processing means for extracting a "cause value" from a "cause information element" sent from a network regarding a missed call;
  • wherein if a caller ends the call, the apparatus outputs an indication that the call was "caused by the caller"; and
  • wherein if the network ends the call, the apparatus outputs an indication that the call was "caused by the network and was urgent."
• The complaint also asserts independent method claim 10 and associated dependent claims ('872 Patent, col. 8:24-42; Compl. ¶10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint accuses "systems, products, and services" offered by Defendant Aircall.io, Inc. (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" systems that "facilitate providing of an indication of a missed telephone call" (Compl. ¶10). The complaint does not describe the specific technical operation of the accused instrumentality, instead referring generally to Defendant's website (Compl. ¶12). Aircall.io is a provider of cloud-based phone systems and call center software for businesses.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "exemplary table included as Exhibit A" to support its infringement allegations but does not attach the exhibit (Compl. ¶11). The complaint alleges in a conclusory manner that Defendant’s products and services infringe claims 1-13 of the '872 patent by facilitating the provision of an indication about a missed call (Compl. ¶10). No specific technical details about how the accused systems allegedly meet each claim limitation are provided in the body of the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: Claim 1 is written in means-plus-function format (e.g., "processing means for extracting a cause value"). Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), the scope of these elements is limited to the corresponding structures described in the patent's specification and their equivalents. A central question will be whether the software architecture of the accused Aircall system contains structures equivalent to the "control unit" and "processing means" disclosed in the patent ('872 Patent, col. 3:44-45).
• Technical Questions: The infringement theory depends on whether the accused Aircall system actually receives and "extract[s] a cause value from a cause information element" as defined in telecommunication standards referenced by the patent (e.g., ITU-T Q.931) ('872 Patent, col. 4:56-64). A key factual question will be what evidence the complaint provides that Aircall's system uses this specific network signaling mechanism, as opposed to another method (e.g., internal timers or API status codes from upstream VoIP carriers) to determine and report the cause of a missed call.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"processing means for extracting a cause value contained in a cause information element" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: As a means-plus-function limitation, the construction of this term will define the core functionality of the invention. The infringement analysis will turn on whether Aircall’s products contain a corresponding structure performing the identical function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should be construed to cover any software component or module that determines the reason for a missed call based on data received from a network.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the function as being performed by "processing means 40 associated to said control unit 20" ('872 Patent, col. 3:44-45) and explicitly links the "cause information element" to established telecommunication standards ('872 Patent, col. 4:56-64). A party may argue the term is limited to a structure that processes the specific "cause value" codes (e.g., "NORMAL CLEARING") found in those standard network messages ('872 Patent, col. 4:46-47).

"cause value" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is the specific piece of data the invention uses to operate. If the accused system does not process a "cause value" as claimed, the infringement argument may fail.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiff might argue that "cause value" should encompass any data point, code, or flag that indicates a reason for call termination in a modern VoIP or telecommunications system.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification provides specific examples of "cause value" codes, such as "RECOVERY ON TIME EXPIRY," "NORMAL, UNSPECIFIED," and "NORMAL CLEARING" ('872 Patent, col. 4:21-23, 4:46-47). A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to these or similar standardized codes transmitted within a formal "cause information element," not other types of diagnostic data.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

• The complaint alleges inducement by asserting that Defendant instructs its customers on how to use the infringing systems, citing Defendant's website as evidence (Compl. ¶12). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating there are "no substantial noninfringing uses" for Defendant's products (Compl. ¶13).

Willful Infringement

• The complaint alleges that Defendant has known of the '872 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit," which would support a claim for post-suit willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶12-13). The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willfulness and treble damages should discovery reveal pre-suit knowledge (Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: What evidence will emerge in discovery to demonstrate that Aircall's VoIP platform technically operates by "extract[ing] a cause value contained in a cause information element," as required by the claims, rather than using a technologically distinct method to determine and display the reason for a missed call?
• A second key issue will be one of claim construction under § 112(f): Given the patent's reliance on means-plus-function claiming, a central dispute will be defining the specific structures disclosed in the specification corresponding to the claimed "means" and determining whether the software-based architecture of the accused Aircall system can be properly characterized as an "equivalent structure."
• Finally, a significant procedural question will be one of pre-suit damages: Because the complaint identifies the Plaintiff as a non-practicing entity with a history of settlements (Compl. ¶¶15, 16), a threshold issue will be whether Plaintiff can successfully argue, as it does extensively in the complaint, that it is exempt from or has complied with the patent marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287.