RecepTrexx LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Verizon Communications Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00057, E.D. Tex., 01/26/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the District.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunications systems and services infringe a patent related to the triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming cellular phone calls.
• Technical Context: The technology provides methods for a cellular user to respond to an incoming call by playing a pre-recorded message to the caller, thereby delaying the need to speak immediately.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE42,997, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,975,709. This reissue history may give rise to questions of claim scope and potential intervening rights for acts that occurred before the reissue date.

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"

• Patent Identification: 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 of receiving cellular calls in public places like meetings or theaters, where answering immediately is disruptive. (’997 Patent, col. 1:15-28). A user delaying an answer risks the caller disconnecting, while answering with a quick "hold on" may still be inconvenient. (’997 Patent, col. 1:33-39).
• The Patented Solution: The invention allows a cellular user, upon receiving a call, to trigger the playback of a pre-recorded message to the caller (e.g., "please hold on"). (’997 Patent, Abstract). Crucially, the system is designed to keep the connection with the caller open after the message plays, allowing the user to begin speaking at any time. (’997 Patent, col. 2:62-68). The system can be implemented in a "distributed" manner, with the message stored on the phone itself, or a "centralized" manner, where the message is stored on a network peripheral. (’997 Patent, col. 2:58-62; Fig. 1-2).
• Technical Importance: The technology offered an alternative to the binary choice of either answering a call or sending it to voicemail, providing users more flexibility in managing incoming communications in real-time. (’997 Patent, col. 2:26-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specifying them, instead referencing an external exhibit not attached to the pleading. (Compl. ¶11, 16).
• For illustrative purposes, independent method claim 7 is representative of a centralized, network-based implementation. Its essential elements include:
  • receiving at a switch device a call from a caller communication device;
  • routing the call to a receiving mobile communication device;
  • sending a message to the caller communication device in response to receiving a trigger signal from the mobile device (e.g., from a user interface selection);
  • maintaining the connection to the caller 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 identify any specific accused products, services, or methods by name. It refers generally to "Defendant products" and "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in an external claim chart exhibit, which was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no specific description of the accused instrumentality's functionality. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the unspecified products "practice the technology claimed by the '997 Patent." (Compl. ¶16). The allegations suggest the accused instrumentalities are telecommunication systems and services offered by Verizon that manage incoming calls to its subscribers' mobile devices. (Compl. ¶11). The complaint further alleges that Verizon provides "product literature and website materials" that instruct users on how to use these infringing features. (Compl. ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference "charts comparing the Exemplary '997 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" but does not attach these charts as an exhibit. (Compl. ¶16-17). The pleading itself contains no specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to features of an accused product. The infringement theory is stated summarily: "the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '997 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '997 Patent Claims." (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 against a mobile carrier, the infringement analysis may raise several key questions:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the meaning of "maintaining connection ... after said message is played" (Claim 7). The question is whether this requires a continuously open voice or data channel, as described in the patent's embodiments (’997 Patent, col. 2:65-68), or if it could be read to cover modern "decline with message" features where the voice call is terminated and a separate SMS text message is sent.
  • Technical Questions: A factual question will be what specific network component in Verizon's architecture constitutes the claimed "switch device" and how it performs the "sending a message" step. (’997 Patent, col. 8:1-2). The complaint provides no evidence regarding the technical operation of Verizon's network infrastructure.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "maintaining connection ... after said message has been played" (from method claim 4) / "after playing the message" (from method claim 7).

• Context and Importance: This limitation appears to be a critical differentiator from simply rejecting a call or sending it to voicemail. Its construction will likely determine whether the claims read on modern smartphone features that decline a call and send an out-of-band text message, or if they are limited to systems that play an audio message over an open call line.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties may argue that "connection" is a general term not explicitly limited to a voice channel and could encompass any logical link between the caller and called party's devices.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly describes a system where the user can "begin speaking with the caller at any time" after the message, implying a live, uninterrupted audio path. (’997 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:1). The description of a "three-way bridge, between the voice peripheral, the caller and the user" further supports an interpretation requiring a persistent, open call. (’997 Patent, col. 3:15-18).

• The Term: "sending a message" (from method claim 7).

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope—whether it is limited to audio or includes text—is fundamental to the infringement analysis. The defendant may argue that common "decline with text" features fall outside the patent's scope if "message" is construed narrowly.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "message" itself is not explicitly limited in the claim language and could arguably encompass various forms of communication, including text.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "Triggered playback of recorded messages" and the abstract describes the ability to "play a message to the caller." (’997 Patent, Title, Abstract). The detailed description consistently refers to "playing" a "recorded audio message" or "greeting," strongly suggesting the invention is directed to audible communications over the call channel. (’997 Patent, col. 2:60-61).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Verizon distributes "product literature and website materials" that direct end users to use its products in a manner that infringes the ’997 Patent. (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The allegation of willfulness is based entirely on post-suit conduct. The complaint asserts that service of the complaint itself provides "actual knowledge of infringement" and that Defendant's continued alleged infringement thereafter is willful. (Compl. ¶13-14).

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to a few central questions of claim construction and evidence.

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the claim limitation "maintaining connection" require a persistent, open audio channel that allows the user to begin speaking at any time, or can it be satisfied by a system that terminates the voice call and sends a separate text message?
• A related question is one of term construction: Is the claimed "message" limited to a played audio message, as the patent's title and specification heavily imply, or can it be construed more broadly to include text-based (SMS) messages?
• Finally, a key evidentiary question will be whether Plaintiff can demonstrate how Verizon's specific network architecture—the accused "switch device"—actually performs the sequence of steps recited in the asserted claims, an issue on which the complaint is currently silent.