RecepTrexx LLC v. AT&T Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: AT&T, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00051, E.D. Tex., 01/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business within the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunication products and services infringe a patent related to the triggered playback of recorded messages for incoming cellular telephone calls.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns features for managing incoming phone calls, allowing a user to play a pre-recorded message to a caller (e.g., "please hold") before answering, thereby delaying the start of the conversation without the caller hanging up.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE42,997, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,975,709. Reissue proceedings involve the surrender of an original patent to the USPTO for correction, often involving changes to the claims, which may introduce prosecution history that could be relevant to claim scope.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE42,997 - "Triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming telephone calls to a cellular phone," issued December 6, 2011

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the social and practical problems that arise when receiving cellular phone calls in public places like meetings or theaters. Answering is disruptive, while ignoring the call may cause the caller to disconnect, thinking the call attempt failed (’997 Patent, col. 1:15-33).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system allowing a cellular phone user to respond to an incoming call not by speaking, but by triggering the playback of a pre-recorded audio message to the caller. This message can ask the caller to "hold on," after which the connection is kept open, allowing the user to begin speaking at a more convenient time (’997 Patent, col. 2:51-65). The system can be implemented in a "distributed" manner (message stored on the phone) or a "centralized" manner (message stored on a network peripheral) (’997 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide cellular users with greater flexibility and control in managing incoming communications in environments where immediately answering a call is not feasible (’997 Patent, col. 2:26-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific claims asserted against the Defendant, instead referring to "Exemplary '997 Patent Claims" identified in an external exhibit not attached to the pleading (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). For the purpose of analysis, independent apparatus claim 13 is representative of the invention's scope as applied to a user device.
• Independent Claim 13 (Apparatus): A mobile communication device comprising elements to:
  • Receive a call from a caller communication device through a switch device.
  • Send a signal to the switch device to trigger playing a message to the caller communication device, in response to receiving at least one of a group of specified user inputs (e.g., user interface selection, command from a calendar, etc.).
  • Maintain connection to the caller communication device after the message is played.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint does not name specific accused products or services. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" which are identified in claim charts incorporated by reference as Exhibit 2, but this exhibit was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused products "practice the technology claimed by the '997 Patent" (Compl. ¶16). Based on the patent, this suggests the accused instrumentalities are products and/or services offered by AT&T that allow a user to manage an incoming call by playing a message to the caller, such as an automated response or a call-screening feature. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical functionality of any accused product.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s products directly infringe the ’997 Patent but provides no specific factual allegations in the body of the complaint to substantiate this claim (Compl. ¶11). It instead incorporates by reference "charts comparing the Exemplary '997 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" in an unprovided document, Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). Without this exhibit, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention: Based on the technology and the likely nature of the accused services, several points of contention may arise.
  • Scope Questions: A central question will concern the scope of "sending a signal to the switch device to trigger playing a message" as required by claim 13. The dispute may focus on whether this requires a specific, dedicated signal as contemplated by the patent's embodiments, or if it can read on more general signaling that occurs within a modern, complex telecommunications network (e.g., an API call to a cloud service).
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused AT&T products or services actually perform the claimed steps. For example, does the accused functionality "maintain connection" in the manner claimed after a message is played, or does it use a different technical method, such as placing the original caller on hold and initiating a new connection or routing to a different system like voicemail? The complaint provides no evidence to resolve this question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "sending a signal to the switch device to trigger playing a message" (from claim 13).
• Context and Importance: This phrase captures the core user-initiated action of the invention. The definition of what constitutes the "signal," the "switch device," and the "trigger" will be critical to determining infringement, as modern cellular networks may not use the same discrete components (e.g., a "telephone switch") described in the patent, which was filed in 2007. Practitioners may focus on this term to argue for either a narrow, architecture-dependent construction or a broader, functional one.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim recites a functional outcome ("to trigger playing a message"), which a party could argue covers any underlying technical implementation that achieves the same result in response to a user's command (’997 Patent, col. 8:22-24). The specification also describes multiple embodiments, including a centralized system where a "service control point" is involved, suggesting the "switch device" is not limited to a single type of network component (’997 Patent, col. 4:51-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term is limited by the specific embodiments disclosed. For example, Figure 2 shows the user's phone sending a signal that causes a "telephone switch" to invoke an application on a "service control point," which then instructs a "voice peripheral" to play the message (’997 Patent, Fig. 2). This multi-step, component-specific process could be used to argue for a narrower construction than one covering a monolithic software-based function.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" (’997 Patent, Compl. ¶14). The basis for this allegation is a reference to Exhibit 2, which is not provided (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint's allegations appear to support a claim for post-suit willfulness only. It alleges that Defendant gained "actual knowledge" from the service of the complaint itself and "has actively, knowingly, and intentionally continued to induce infringement" at least since that date (Compl. ¶13, ¶15).

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

This case, as pled, presents a notice of a dispute rather than a detailed factual basis for it. The primary questions will emerge as, and if, the Plaintiff substantiates its allegations.

1. A core issue will be one of technical mapping: Can Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that the architecture and signaling protocols of AT&T's modern network services perform the specific functions recited in the patent's claims, which are rooted in the telecommunications technology of the mid-2000s?
2. A second key issue will be one of claim scope: The case will likely depend on the construction of key claim terms, particularly whether the "signal to the switch device to trigger playing a message" can be interpreted broadly enough to encompass the functionality of AT&T's accused systems, or if it is constrained to the specific network architectures described in the patent's specification.
3. An initial procedural question will be one of sufficiency: Given that the complaint's factual support for infringement is located entirely within an unprovided exhibit, the initial phase of litigation may focus on whether the pleadings meet the plausibility standards required by federal court rules.