Tellagemini Communication

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Tellagemini Communication LLC (Washington)
  • Defendant: Civicom, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 7:20-cv-04963, S.D.N.Y., 06/29/2020
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement and maintains an established place of business in the Southern District of New York.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s unidentified products and services infringe a patent related to telephone call screening and information delivery systems.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that intercept an incoming telephone call, prompt the caller for identification, and then convey that identification to the user, allowing the user to screen calls based on the actual caller's identity rather than just subscriber data.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is a continuation-in-part of a prior application, which itself claims priority to a 1999 provisional application. The complaint is the initiating document in this litigation, and no other procedural events are mentioned.

Case Timeline

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 conventional "Caller I.D." services, which often fail to identify the actual person calling and require perpetual monthly fees. It also notes that while answering machines permit call screening, many callers will not leave a message, defeating the purpose of screening (’036 Patent, col. 1:21-68).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system that automatically answers an incoming call and prompts the caller for identification (e.g., by asking, "Whom can I say is calling?"). The system then attains the caller’s spoken name, composes it into an audio signal, and repeatedly plays it for the user (e.g., through a loudspeaker). This allows the user to hear who is actually on the line and decide whether to take the call, providing more reliable identification than Caller I.D. and compelling a response from the caller in a way a simple answering machine does not (’036 Patent, col. 2:40-67; col. 4:1-6).
• Technical Importance: The technology offered a potential improvement over existing call screening methods by providing the actual caller's voice or name for identification, rather than relying on potentially inaccurate subscriber database information.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims," referring to "Exemplary '036 Patent Claims" in a referenced exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶17). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core technology.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • answering circuitry configured to answer a telephone call incoming from a telephone service provider and to attain call announce information input by a caller;
  • an alert signal provider configured to provide a signal to alert a user;
  • an activator configured to receive instruction from the user while the call remains answered; and
  • an information signal provider operative responsive to the activator and configured to provide at least one signal while the call remains answered to deliver at least some of the attained call announce information to the user.
• The complaint does not specify any asserted dependent claims but makes a general allegation of infringement of one or more claims (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in an external chart (Exhibit 2) which was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market position. It makes only the conclusory allegation that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed by the '036 Patent" (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶17), but this exhibit was not provided. The complaint's narrative allegations are conclusory, stating that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶17). Without the charts or any specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim limitations, a detailed infringement analysis based on the complaint is not possible.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the language of representative Claim 1 of the ’036 Patent and the general nature of the dispute, the infringement analysis may raise several questions:
  • Technical Questions: A central question will be whether the accused products perform the specific, interactive sequence required by Claim 1. What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused products have a distinct "alert signal provider," an "activator" that receives user input after the initial alert, and an "information signal provider" that acts only in response to the activator? The complaint pleads no facts to support this multi-step functionality.
  • Scope Questions: Can the claim elements be read onto the accused functionalities? For example, does a standard notification on a device constitute an "alert signal provider" as claimed, and does a subsequent user interaction with the device meet the specific "activator" limitation, which is claimed as a prerequisite for delivering the caller information?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"activator configured to receive instruction from the user while the call remains answered"

• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it describes the interactive nature of the invention, distinguishing it from a passive screening system that automatically plays a caller's message. The claim requires a specific sequence: the system answers, the user is alerted, the user provides an "instruction" to an "activator," and only then is the caller information delivered. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will hinge on whether an accused device has a component that meets this specific interactive role.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional. A party could argue that any user interaction with the device after a call is answered (e.g., pressing any button, touching a screen) that results in hearing caller information constitutes an "instruction" to an "activator."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification depicts the activator as a discrete component (e.g., activator 75 in FIG. 3A) that receives a specific user input (e.g., from U.I. 77) for the express purpose of triggering the information signal provider (’036 Patent, col. 18:1-20). This could support a narrower construction requiring a dedicated function, not just any user interaction.

"call announce information"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term determines the type of information the system must be capable of "attaining" from the caller. The infringement analysis will depend on what kind of data the accused system collects from a caller and whether that data falls within the scope of this term.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. A party might argue it covers any information input by a caller that serves to announce their presence, including touch-tone inputs or other data signals.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses a caller’s spoken name as the primary example of "call announce information" (e.g., "The name of the caller is then attained from the caller," "caller has given his name, 'John Stolz'") (’036 Patent, col. 2:46-54). This could support an interpretation limiting the term to voice-based identification.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating on information and belief that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). It alleges contributory infringement by stating the accused products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use (Compl. ¶16).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's continuation of infringing activities despite having "actual knowledge" from the service of the complaint (Compl. ¶13-14). The complaint also makes a general allegation of knowing infringement pre-suit (Compl. ¶15-16).

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

• A primary issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: Does the complaint, which lacks specific factual allegations and relies on a missing exhibit, provide a "plausible" claim for relief under the Twombly/Iqbal standard, or is it merely a recitation of claim elements?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: Assuming the case proceeds, can Plaintiff demonstrate that the accused products, once identified, perform the specific, multi-stage interactive process recited in the asserted claims (i.e., an alert, followed by a user instruction to an activator, followed by responsive delivery of information)?
• The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: How broadly will the court construe the interactive terms "alert signal provider" and "activator"? The outcome of claim construction will likely determine whether the functionalities of any accused products can be found to fall within the bounds of the patent's claims.