ReadyComm LLC v. NEC Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ReadyComm LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: NEC Corporation (Japan)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00304, E.D. Tex., Filed 03/14/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the Defendant is claimed to have an established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of patent infringement there.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to telephone communication systems that manage multiple devices by designating one as "active" and others as "stand-by."
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the management of multiple communication devices (e.g., office phone, mobile phone, home phone) for a single user or group, aiming to simplify call routing and enhance user control.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation-in-part of an earlier application and is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of the parent patent and suggests that an obviousness-type double patenting rejection was overcome during prosecution.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,179,011 - Telephone Communication System and Method of Using

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the increasing difficulty of contacting a person who uses multiple communication devices (e.g., home, work, and mobile phones), each with a distinct number. This proliferation of numbers is described as inconvenient for both callers and users and contributes to the exhaustion of available 10-digit phone numbers. (’971 Patent, col. 1:21-33; col. 2:1-14).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system comprising a group of associated telephone devices where, at any given time, only one device is in "active mode" and fully capable of making or receiving calls. The other associated devices are placed in a "stand-by mode," rendering them incapable of placing or receiving calls until a user actively switches one of them to become the new active device. This switching can occur "on-the-fly," allowing a user to redirect a call from one device to another. (’971 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:35-50).
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to provide a unified communication framework that improves a user's reachability and simplifies contact management, while also providing user control over which physical device is "live" at any moment. (’971 Patent, col. 2:39-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referring to "Exemplary '011 Patent Claims" detailed in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16). For the purpose of this analysis, independent claim 1 is presented as a representative example.
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • A group of N telephones (where N is at least two), each configured for placement 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."
  • A "switch" associated with each telephone.
  • The switch is configured to activate one telephone, which places all other (N-1) telephones in standby mode before a call is made or taken.
  • At least one standby telephone is configured to be switchable to active mode "during a telephone call."
    (’971 Patent, col. 15:41-56).
• The complaint is silent on whether it reserves 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 Exhibit 2, an attachment that was not included with the public filing. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality, operation, or market position.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17). As these charts are not available, the narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that the unspecified "Exemplary Defendant Products" directly infringe one or more claims of the ’011 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The core of the infringement theory appears to be that these products implement the patented technology by providing a system that manages multiple endpoints in a way that satisfies all limitations of the asserted claims, including the use of "active" and "stand-by" modes and a mechanism for switching between them (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the architecture of the accused products maps onto the claimed "group of N telephones." For modern unified communications platforms, a dispute may arise over whether different software clients (e.g., a desktop app and a mobile app) constitute distinct "telephones" under the patent's claim language, or are merely interfaces to a single, singular system.
  • Technical Questions: The meaning of a device in "stand-by mode" being "incapable of placing or receiving a call" will be a key point of dispute. The complaint provides no factual allegations regarding how the accused products operate. Therefore, a primary technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused "standby" functionality meets this "incapable" limitation, as opposed to merely re-routing calls or notifications.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "stand-by mode"

• Context and Importance: The distinction between "active" and "stand-by" modes is fundamental to the patent's claims. The construction of this term will likely be dispositive for infringement, as it defines the required state of the N-1 non-active devices.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "incapable of... receiving a call" simply means the device is not the designated endpoint for call completion, even if it receives some form of notification. The patent's goal of allowing user maneuverability could support this view. (’971 Patent, col. 2:48-50).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself, "incapable of placing or receiving a call," suggests a complete inability to perform the function. (’971 Patent, col. 15:46-48). However, the specification creates potential ambiguity by describing a stand-by phone as ringing with a "separate and distinct ring," which suggests it is, in fact, capable of receiving at least the signaling portion of a call. (’971 Patent, col. 6:23-26). Practitioners may focus on this tension between the claim language and the specification's description.

The Term: "telephone"

• Context and Importance: The claims require a "group of N telephones." The definition of "telephone" is critical to determining whether modern software-based communication systems, which the accused products may be, fall within the scope of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly defines the term broadly to include not only traditional hardware but also a "computer," a "SIM card placed in a cellular telephone," and equivalents. (’971 Patent, col. 4:27-30). It further states a "phone for use herein may... include a device having an 'address' and a mobile application (i.e., App) program." (’971 Patent, col. 14:38-42).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the patent's consistent framing of the problem and solution around distinct physical devices (landline vs. cellular) implies that "telephone" should be construed as a discrete piece of hardware, not merely a software instance on a multi-purpose device.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that the Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’011 Patent. (Compl. ¶14).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness claim appears to be based exclusively on post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that "at least since being served by this Complaint," the Defendant has had "actual knowledge" of its infringement and has continued its allegedly infringing activities. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-15).

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

• A threshold issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: given the complaint’s failure to identify any specific accused products and its reliance on unprovided exhibits to detail the infringement theory, the initial focus will be on whether the pleadings provide sufficient factual detail to support a plausible claim for infringement.
• A central dispute will concern definitional scope: can the term "stand-by mode," which requires a telephone to be "incapable of placing or receiving a call," be construed to cover modern unified communication systems where multiple software clients may be simultaneously alerted to an incoming call before one is used to answer it?
• A key technical question will be one of system architecture: does the accused functionality rely on a "group of N telephones" as required by the claims, or does it operate as a single, distributed system with multiple user interfaces, which might place it outside the patent's architectural framework?