ReadyComm LLC v. AT&T Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ReadyComm LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: AT&T, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00302, E.D. Tex., 03/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant maintaining an established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas and committing alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified AT&T products and services infringe a patent related to a telephone communication system for managing multiple devices.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns systems that allow multiple telephone devices to be associated as a group, with one designated as "active" for making and receiving calls while others remain in "stand-by," and enabling users to switch the active device.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation-in-part of an earlier application that issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,049,275 and is subject to a terminal disclaimer. The complaint does not mention any other prior litigation or administrative proceedings.

Case Timeline

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,179,011, "Telephone Communication System and Method of Using," issued November 3, 2015. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 9).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the increasing difficulty of managing and contacting individuals who use multiple communication devices (e.g., home phone, cell phone, work phone), each with its own distinct telephone number. Prior art solutions like conventional call forwarding were seen as cumbersome and contributed to the depletion of available 10-digit phone numbers. (U.S. Patent No. 9,179,011, col. 1:20-33; col. 2:1-15).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a group of telephone devices are interdependent. At any given time, only one device is in "active mode," capable of making and receiving calls, while the other N-1 devices are in "stand-by mode." The system allows a user to switch which device is active, including "on-the-fly" during an ongoing call, thereby redirecting the live call to the newly activated device. (’011 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-68; col. 5:1-7).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to simplify user communications by reducing the number of public-facing phone numbers an individual needed, while improving the chances of locating that individual and maintaining flexibility across their various devices. (’011 Patent, col. 2:39-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" and refers to "Exemplary '011 Patent Claims" identified in an external exhibit, but does not specify any claims in the body of the complaint. (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core technology:
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A telephone communication system comprising a group of N telephones (where N is at least two).
  • Each telephone is configured to be placed in an "activated mode" or a "stand-by mode."
  • In "stand-by mode," a telephone is "incapable of placing or receiving a call unless switched to active mode."
  • Each telephone is associated with a "switch."
  • The switch is configured to activate one of the N telephones, which places the remaining N-1 telephones on standby mode.
  • At least one of the standby telephones is configured such that it "may be switched to active mode during a telephone call."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not specifically name any accused products or services. It refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in an external document, Exhibit 2, which was not filed with the complaint. (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no description of the technical functionality, features, or market context of the accused instrumentalities. It alleges in a conclusory manner that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '011 Patent." (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes only general allegations of direct and indirect infringement, stating that Defendant’s "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted claims. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 15, 16). It incorporates by reference "charts comparing the Exemplary '011 Patent Claims to the Exemplary Defendant Products" contained in an un-provided Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 17). Because the complaint lacks specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to accused product features, and because the referenced claim charts were not provided, a substantive analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible from the complaint itself. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "stand-by mode" (from claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention, as it defines the state of the non-active phones. The scope of "incapable of placing or receiving a call" will be a critical issue. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a complete inability to communicate or a more limited restriction.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself only requires that the device be "incapable of placing or receiving a call," which could be argued to permit other functions like receiving text messages or data. (’011 Patent, col. 15:46-49).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests a standby device is not entirely inert, noting it may ring with a "second ringtone, different from the first ringtone" to alert the user of an incoming call to the system. (’011 Patent, col. 3:4-7). Furthermore, the specification explicitly contemplates that "text messages may nonetheless be placed and received by [a] personal cell phone...even when [it] is in standby mode," suggesting the "incapability" applies specifically to voice calls associated with the system. (’011 Patent, col. 9:1-5).

The Term: "switched to active mode during a telephone call" (from claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This limitation describes the "on-the-fly redirection" feature. The dispute may center on whether any device-to-device call handoff meets this limitation or if a more specific network-level function is required.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any function that successfully transfers a live call from a first device to a second, previously stand-by device within the group meets the plain meaning of the term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific implementation where the switch "sends a signal to a mobile switching device located at a communication service provider location," which then transfers the call. (’011 Patent, col. 5:21-35). This may support an argument that the term requires a specific, network-mediated redirection process rather than a simple device-level feature.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct and encourage end users to use the products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15). Evidence for these materials is purportedly contained in the un-provided Exhibit 2. (Compl. ¶14).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides Defendant with "Actual Knowledge of Infringement." (Compl. ¶13). It further alleges that "Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to make, use, test, sell, offer for sale, market, and/or import" the accused products, which provides a basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement. (Compl. ¶14).

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

1. Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue will be whether the complaint's conclusory allegations, which rely entirely on an un-provided external exhibit for factual support regarding the accused products and infringement, satisfy the plausibility pleading standards required under federal law.
2. Definitional Scope: The case will likely depend on the construction of "stand-by mode." A central question for the court will be whether this term requires a device to be functionally inert, or if it can be construed more narrowly to mean a device that is merely incapable of terminating or originating voice calls for the group's shared identity while retaining other connectivity.
3. Operational Equivalence: A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused AT&T system's method for transferring a live call constitutes being "switched to active mode during a telephone call" as claimed. The dispute may focus on whether the accused functionality is a simple call hand-off or a more integrated, network-level redirection as described in the patent's preferred embodiments.