ReadyComm LLC v. Avaya LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ReadyComm LLC (NM)
  • Defendant: Avaya LLC (DE)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC; DNL Zito
• Case Identification: 3:25-cv-00640, N.D. Tex., 03/17/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant Avaya LLC maintaining an established place of business within the Northern District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telephone communication products and systems infringe a patent related to managing a group of telephone devices by designating one as "active" for calls while placing others in a "stand-by" mode.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the management of communications across multiple devices (e.g., mobile, landline, office) owned by a single user or group, aiming to centralize call handling and enhance user accessibility.
• Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 9,179,011 is a continuation-in-part of an earlier application, now U.S. Patent No. 9,049,275. The '011 patent is also subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of the parent patent.

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 (the “’011 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies the increasing difficulty of contacting individuals who use multiple communication devices (e.g., home phone, cell phone, office phone) and the proliferation of distinct 10-digit phone numbers for each device ('011 Patent, col. 1:21-33, col. 2:1-14). Conventional call forwarding is described as having limitations, such as requiring each device to have its own number and lacking flexible, real-time user control ('011 Patent, col. 1:44-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a group of telephone devices are functionally linked. At any given time, only one device is in an "active mode," capable of making or receiving calls. The other devices in the group are in a "stand-by mode," rendering them "incapable of making or receive calls" until a user-initiated "switch" designates one of them as the new active device ('011 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:57-65). This switching can occur "on-the-fly," for instance, during an active call, to redirect it to a different device within the user's group ('011 Patent, col. 3:15-24).
• Technical Importance: The described system offers a method for consolidating multiple communication endpoints under a unified control scheme, potentially reducing the number of active phone numbers a person must manage while increasing their reachability across different locations and devices ('011 Patent, col. 2:39-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more unspecified claims of the '011 patent (Compl. ¶11). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core system invention.
• Independent Claim 1: A telephone communication system comprising:
  • a group of N telephones where N is at least two;
  • each of the N telephones is configured to be placed in activated mode and alternatively in stand-by mode;
  • in stand-by mode a telephone is incapable of placing or receiving a call unless switched to active mode;
  • each of the N telephones is associated with a switch;
  • the switch is configured to activate one of the N telephones to be an active mode telephone such that all remaining N-1 telephones are on standby mode prior to making an outgoing call or taking an incoming call; and
  • at least one of the standby telephones is configured such that it may be switched to active mode during a telephone call.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers generally to "one or more claims" (Compl. ¶11).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific products, referring only to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint broadly alleges that Avaya makes, uses, sells, and imports telephone communication products and systems that practice the technology claimed by the '011 Patent (Compl. ¶11, ¶16). It alleges Avaya distributes product literature and website materials related to these products (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific functionality or market positioning of the accused instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references infringement claim charts in an "Exhibit 2" which was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). The following is a summary of the narrative infringement theory.

The complaint alleges that Defendant's products constitute a telephone communication system that infringes the '011 Patent (Compl. ¶11). The theory of infringement appears to be that Avaya's systems allow for the management of multiple telephone endpoints in a manner that creates an "active" and "stand-by" relationship between them, and that these systems include a mechanism for switching which endpoint is active (Compl. ¶16). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question will be the interpretation of the phrase "incapable of placing or receiving a call" as required by claim 1. The dispute may focus on whether a device that is programmed to automatically forward or reject a call, but remains technically connected to the network, meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a more fundamental electronic disabling.
• Technical Questions: What specific feature in the accused products constitutes the claimed "switch"? Plaintiff will need to provide evidence that Avaya's products possess a user-operable function for designating a single device as "active" while rendering all others in the group "incapable" of handling calls, and that this switch can be operated "during a telephone call" as further claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "incapable of placing or receiving a call" ('011 Patent, col. 15:47-49)

• Context and Importance: This term is the core of the "stand-by" state and is critical to distinguishing the invention from conventional call-forwarding or simultaneous-ringing systems. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the accused Avaya systems render non-active devices truly "incapable" or merely redirect calls from them.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s description of call redirection could suggest a functional, rather than absolute, incapability. For example, the specification describes a system where a call to a standby number "is redirected to the active mode telephone" ('011 Patent, col. 8:31-33). This may support an argument that "incapable" means the device is functionally prevented from being the endpoint of the call.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "incapable" suggests a complete inability. The specification contrasts the "active mode" where a phone "may make or receive calls" with the "standby mode" where it "cannot make or receive calls," reinforcing a binary, on/off functionality ('011 Patent, col. 2:62-63).

The Term: "switch" ('011 Patent, col. 15:50)

• Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement requires showing that the accused products contain a component that performs the claimed function of changing a device's status from stand-by to active. The breadth of this term will affect how easily Plaintiff can map it to a feature in Avaya's products.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the "switch" can be of "numerous types, including, but not limited to a toggle switch, a Personal Identification Number (PIN), and/or a menu-type switch" ('011 Patent, col. 4:50-54). This broad definition could encompass a wide range of hardware buttons or software-based user interface controls.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While the specification is broad, a defendant might argue that the term requires a specific, user-initiated action intended to change the active/stand-by state, as opposed to an automatic system-level routing decision that a user does not directly control. The repeated examples of user entry of a "PIN" or making a menu selection support this view ('011 Patent, col. 6:17-18, col. 8:36-39).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Avaya distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users" to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14). The claim for inducement is based on knowledge acquired "at least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15).

Willful Infringement

The basis for willfulness is post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that its service "constitutes actual knowledge" and that Defendant's continued infringement thereafter is willful (Compl. ¶13, ¶14).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "incapable of...receiving a call," as used in the patent, be construed to cover a modern enterprise communication system that may simply reroute, rather than block, calls to a non-primary device? The viability of the infringement claim may depend heavily on this construction.

2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: What specific evidence can Plaintiff present to demonstrate that Avaya’s products contain a user-controlled "switch" that explicitly places one telephone device in an "active mode" while affirmatively placing all other associated devices into the claimed "stand-by mode," as opposed to implementing more conventional call-handling rules?