RecepTrexx LLC v. Ericsson Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Ericsson Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00053, E.D. Tex., 01/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to methods for playing a recorded message to an incoming caller on a cellular phone while keeping the call connection open.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the problem of receiving cellular phone calls in situations where immediate answering is inconvenient, providing a mechanism to inform the caller to wait without terminating the call.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,975,709. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation or administrative proceedings.

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 addresses the social and practical problems that arise when receiving a cellular call in a public or inconvenient setting, such as a meeting or movie theater (RE42,997 Patent, col. 1:15-28). Answering may be disruptive, but not answering risks the caller disconnecting, assuming the call attempt has failed (RE42,997 Patent, col. 1:30-33).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system and method allowing a cellular phone user to respond to an incoming call by triggering the playback of a pre-recorded message to the caller (e.g., "hold on") instead of immediately speaking. Crucially, the system maintains the connection after the message plays, allowing the user to begin speaking with the caller at any time thereafter (RE42,997 Patent, col. 2:51-65). The playback can be initiated manually by the user (e.g., pressing a button) or automatically based on contextual triggers like the user's location or electronic calendar entries (RE42,997 Patent, col. 3:31-40; col. 3:51-60).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to provide cellular users greater flexibility in managing incoming calls in an era of increasing mobile phone adoption in varied social and professional environments.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '997 Patent Claims" detailed in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶11). Independent claims 1 and 10 are representative of the patent's scope.
• Independent Claim 1 (A distributed system):
  • means to record a message to be provided to a caller;
  • means to instruct said message to be played, selected from a group including a button, keypad entry, calendar entry, clock entry, or location device entry;
  • wherein said caller is connected, the message is played, and after the message is played, the caller remains connected.
• Independent Claim 10 (A method):
  • receiving at a receiving mobile communication device a call from a caller communication device through a switch device;
  • sending a signal to the switch device to trigger playing a message to the caller... in response to receiving an input (e.g., user interface selection, calendar command, location command);
  • maintaining connection of the receiving mobile communication device to the caller communication device after playing the message.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, services, or methods by name (Compl. ¶11). It refers only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are identified in "charts incorporated into this Count" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). These charts were filed as Exhibit 2, which was not provided for this analysis.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the functionality or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports these unspecified products and that its employees internally test and use them (Compl. ¶11-12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶16-17). As this exhibit was not provided, a claim-by-claim analysis is not possible. The narrative alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed by the ’997 Patent and satisfy all elements of the "Exemplary '997 Patent Claims," either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent's claims and the general nature of the allegations, the dispute may focus on several key technical and legal questions once the accused products are identified.

• Scope Questions: A central question may concern the scope of the limitation "said caller remains connected" (RE42,997 Patent, col. 6:58). If the accused functionality is a "decline with text" feature, which typically terminates the voice call for the caller and sends an SMS/MMS message, the court may need to determine if this interaction constitutes a "connection" that "remains" as required by the claim.
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused products, in operation, actually "maintain[] connection of the receiving mobile communication device to the caller communication device after playing the message" (RE42,997 Patent, col. 8:34-36). The patent appears to describe maintaining the original voice channel (RE42,997 Patent, col. 2:63-65), raising the question of whether an alternative implementation (e.g., one that terminates the call and initiates a new communication channel) performs the same function in the same way.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "remains connected" (from independent claims 1 and 2) / "maintaining connection" (from independent claims 7 and 10).
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because it distinguishes the invention from a standard voicemail system or a simple "decline call" function. The definition will determine whether modern "quick reply" or "decline with message" features, which may not keep the original voice line open, fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's core novelty appears to be keeping the caller "on the line" to be spoken with shortly, rather than deferring the conversation entirely.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's objective is to give the user flexibility. Language stating "the user can begin speaking with the caller at any time after the message ends" (RE42,997 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:1) could be argued to support any system that facilitates a near-immediate conversation, regardless of whether the specific voice channel is continuously maintained.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes embodiments where the call is actively bridged. For example, it describes a "three-way bridge, between the voice peripheral, the caller and the user" (RE42,997 Patent, col. 3:17-18) and a process where "the user is bridged onto the call between the caller and the voice peripheral" (RE42,997 Patent, col. 6:22-24). This language may support a narrower construction requiring the initial voice call session to be actively maintained and not terminated.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and direct end users on how to use its products in a manner that infringes the ’997 Patent (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint's allegation of willfulness appears to be based on post-suit conduct. It asserts that the service of the complaint constitutes "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued infringing activities thereafter are willful (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

1. An Evidentiary Question of Fact: The primary initial question is factual: what specific Ericsson products are accused, and what is their precise technical mechanism for handling incoming calls when a user opts to reply with a pre-set message? The absence of this information in the complaint leaves the core of the dispute undefined.

2. A Definitional Question of Claim Scope: The case will likely turn on a question of claim construction: how should the term "remains connected" be interpreted? Does it require the original voice channel to be held open continuously, as suggested by some embodiments, or can it be construed more broadly to cover modern systems where the initial call is terminated and a separate message (e.g., SMS) is sent?

3. A Functional Question of Infringement: Assuming the accused products are identified, a key issue will be one of operational function: does the accused functionality meet the claim limitation of "maintaining connection... after playing the message"? The court will need to compare the specific steps performed by the accused systems against the sequence and function required by the patent's claims.