CelluPlex LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: CelluPlex LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Philips Electronics North America Corporation (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00790, E.D. Tex., 09/27/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation and has committed acts of patent infringement and caused harm within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products sold by Defendant infringe a patent related to technology for interfacing a cellular phone with a wired telephone network.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the integration of mobile and landline telephony, allowing a user to make and receive calls from their cellular account using a conventional wired telephone system.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,177,664 - "Bluetooth interface between cellular and wired telephone networks," issued February 13, 2007

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the inconvenience faced by individuals who use both cellular and conventional wired telephones. When at home or in an office, a user might turn off their cellular phone to conserve battery, thereby missing calls, or find it less convenient to use than a wired handset. ( '664 Patent, col. 1:11-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an "interconnect device" that forges a wireless link, preferably via Bluetooth, between a user's cellular phone and their existing wired telephone network (e.g., a home or office system). (’664 Patent, Abstract). This device allows the cellular phone to function as an additional "trunk line" for the wired system, enabling a user to make and receive cellular calls using any of the wired telephone handsets connected to that network. (’664 Patent, col. 2:36-46; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to unify a user's communication experience, allowing them to leverage the superior ergonomics and features of a wired phone system (e.g., multiple handsets, speakerphones) while utilizing their single cellular phone number and service plan. (’664 Patent, col. 2:39-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" and "Exemplary '664 Patent Claims" but does not identify any specific claims. (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention's core.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • An interconnect device for coupling a cellular telephone to a wired telephone network.
  • A first short-range radio transceiver for communicating with a second transceiver in the cellular phone.
  • An interface connected to the transceiver for "emulating a wired line connection" to a central office.
  • Means for handling an outgoing call, including indicating line availability, receiving a dialed number from the wired phone, and transmitting it to the cellular phone.
  • Means for handling an incoming call, including applying a ringing signal to the wired network, establishing an audio channel when a wired phone is answered, and disconnecting when it is hung up.
• 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 by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in "charts incorporated into this Count below" and in an "Exhibit 2." (Compl. ¶11, 13). These charts and the exhibit were not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in "charts comparing the Exemplary '664 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" contained in an Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶13). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed claim chart analysis is not possible based on the complaint's text. The infringement theory relies entirely on this external, unfiled document. (Compl. ¶14).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Pleading Sufficiency: An initial question for the court may be whether the complaint, by alleging infringement entirely through incorporation of an unfiled exhibit, meets the requisite pleading standards.
• Technical Questions: Assuming the case proceeds and products are identified, a central technical question will be whether any accused Philips products perform the specific functions required by the claims. For example, the analysis will question what evidence shows that an accused product's Bluetooth functionality extends beyond simple audio streaming to actively "emulating a wired line connection" by generating dial tones, processing on-hook/off-hook signals, and applying ringing voltage to a separate wired network as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "emulating a wired line connection" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This functional language is central to defining the invention's scope. The dispute will likely hinge on what specific actions constitute "emulation." Practitioners may focus on this term because many modern devices use Bluetooth for audio, but far fewer perform the specific telephony interface functions described in the patent.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term should be read broadly to cover any device that allows a wired phone to access a cellular network, pointing to general statements about coupling the two systems. ('664 Patent, col. 1:36-41).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term requires performing specific, traditional telephone functions. The specification provides explicit examples, such as transmitting "a dial tone to the connected wired telephone" when a line is available and applying "a ringing signal" for incoming calls, suggesting a narrow, function-specific definition. (’664 Patent, col. 2:59-62, col. 2:10-12).

The Term: "interconnect device" (from Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the apparatus itself. Its construction will determine whether the claims read on a standalone product, as depicted in the patent's figures, or could potentially cover integrated systems.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not require a physically separate housing, which might support an interpretation that the "device" could be a feature or subsystem within a larger product.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract and detailed description consistently describe a distinct device with an interface, a transceiver, and often a charging cradle, separate from both the cellular phone and the wired phones. (’664 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1). This could support an argument that the term requires a standalone bridging apparatus.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes no allegations of indirect (induced or contributory) infringement. The sole count is for "Direct Infringement." (Compl. p. 2).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a count for willful infringement or allege any specific facts to support a claim of willfulness (e.g., pre-suit knowledge of the patent). The prayer for relief includes a request that the case be declared "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is a related but distinct request from a formal pleading of willfulness. (Compl. Prayer ¶E.i).

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

1. Evidentiary Sufficiency: The most immediate issue is procedural: does a complaint that makes its substantive infringement allegations only by reference to an unfiled external exhibit provide sufficient notice to the defendant and satisfy federal pleading requirements?
2. Functional Scope: Should the case proceed, a dispositive question will be one of functional scope: can Plaintiff show that any accused Philips product performs the specific, bi-directional telephony interface functions of "emulating a wired line connection"—such as generating dial tones and ringing signals for a wired network—or do the products merely offer more common Bluetooth features like audio transmission to a speaker or headset?