Missed Call LLC v. Avaya LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Missed Call, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Avaya LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 4:25-cv-04938, S.D. Tex., 10/16/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunication systems, products, and services infringe a patent related to methods for providing a user with an indication about the reason a telephone call was missed.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves analyzing network-level data associated with a terminated call to determine whether the calling party hung up or the network timed out, thereby providing context about the call's potential urgency.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiff identifies itself as a non-practicing entity and notes that it and its predecessors-in-interest have entered into prior settlement licenses related to its patents, though none allegedly involved the production of a patented article.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,531,872 - "Communication Apparatus For Providing An Indication About A Missed Call, And Method Thereof"

• Issued: December 27, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the ambiguity a user faces when receiving a missed call notification. Prior systems did not provide a reliable way to determine the cause of the disconnection, such as whether the calling party intentionally ended the call after a short time or if the call simply timed out after extensive ringing, leaving the user unable to gauge the call's importance or urgency (’872 Patent, col. 2:13-24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communication device that analyzes technical data sent from the telecommunications network when a call is terminated. Specifically, it extracts a "cause value" from a "cause information element" message. This value indicates the reason for the disconnection. The device then presents an indication to the user based on that cause, distinguishing between a call "cleared by the calling user" and one terminated automatically by the network, with the latter signifying a more urgent call because the caller waited until the network timeout occurred (’872 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:11-35).
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to add a layer of intelligence to standard missed call alerts by leveraging existing, but typically unexposed, network protocol data to provide actionable context to the end-user (’872 Patent, col. 1:11-15).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 10, and dependent claims 2-9 and 11-13 (Compl. ¶10).
• Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus): A communication apparatus comprising:
  • "receiving means" for receiving an incoming call;
  • a "control unit" to process the call;
  • "output means" for outputting information; and
  • "processing means" for extracting a "cause value" from a network "cause information element" for a missed call;
  • wherein the apparatus outputs a first indication if the "cause value" shows the call was "cleared by the caller"; and
  • wherein the apparatus outputs a second indication that the call "was urgent" if the "cause value" shows the call was cleared by the "network".
• The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify specific accused products or services by name. It broadly accuses Defendant's "systems, products, and services that facilitate providing of an indication of a missed telephone call" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" these unidentified systems which provide missed call indications (Compl. ¶10). It does not describe the specific technical functionality of any Avaya product, instead making a general reference to Defendant's corporate website (Compl. ¶12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "exemplary table included as Exhibit A" to support its infringement allegations but does not attach it (Compl. ¶11). Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed. The complaint’s narrative theory is that Defendant's unspecified products and services for providing missed call indications practice one or more of claims 1-13 of the ’872 patent (Compl. ¶10).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: A primary issue will be whether Plaintiff can identify specific accused instrumentalities and produce evidence demonstrating that they perform the functions required by the asserted claims. The complaint’s current level of generality may be challenged as insufficient.
• Technical Questions: A central dispute will likely concern whether any accused Avaya system in fact "extract[s] a cause value contained in a cause information element sent from a network," as claimed. The case may turn on whether Avaya’s technology uses these specific network protocol messages (e.g., "NORMAL CLEARING") or employs a different technical method for logging and displaying missed calls (’872 Patent, col. 4:42-49).
• Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites several "means-plus-function" limitations (e.g., "processing means"). The scope of these elements is not their literal meaning but is instead limited to the specific structures disclosed in the patent's specification for performing the claimed function, and their equivalents. This raises the question of whether the corresponding hardware and software components in Avaya's systems are structurally equivalent to those described in the ’872 patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "processing means for extracting a cause value..." (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This is a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Its construction is critical because it defines the core novelty of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend entirely on whether the specific structures in Avaya's products are legally equivalent to the structures disclosed in the patent's specification corresponding to this function.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the term should cover any processor and software module capable of parsing network messages, a conventional function.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly links this function to "processing means 40" which is associated with a "control unit 20" (’872 Patent, col. 3:43-49). The scope will likely be limited to the specific implementation of this module as implicitly described in the patent for analyzing call control messages like a "CC DISCONNECT message" (’872 Patent, col. 4:1-4).

The Term: "indication that the missed received incoming call...was urgent" (Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the functional output of the invention. The dispute will center on what qualifies as an "indication" of "urgency." Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could either limit the claim to explicit notifications (e.g., a flashing red light or the word "URGENT") or allow it to cover more subtle differentiators in a call log.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not define a specific form for the indication, suggesting it could encompass any visual or audible cue that distinguishes one type of missed call from another. The specification mentions a "high indication of urgency, such as a particular image or the like" (’872 Patent, col. 4:36-38).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term's meaning is directly tied to the reason for the call's termination. The claim itself defines an "urgent" call as one "caused by the network" (i.e., a timeout), contrasting it with a non-urgent call "cleared by the caller" (’872 Patent, Claim 1). Any interpretation must be grounded in this specific technical distinction.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement and contributory infringement, asserting that Defendant encourages and instructs its customers on how to use its products in an infringing manner and that the products have no substantial noninfringing uses (Compl. ¶¶12-13). The sole factual support cited for these allegations is a general reference to Defendant's corporate website (Compl. ¶12).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s knowledge of the ’872 patent "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶12). The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willfulness and treble damages should discovery reveal pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶(e)).

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

This dispute appears poised to center on fundamental questions of evidence and claim scope. The key issues for the court will likely be:

• Specificity and Evidence: A threshold question will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: can the Plaintiff move beyond its general allegations to identify a specific Avaya product and demonstrate, with technical evidence, that it actually performs the claimed method of extracting and analyzing network-level "cause values" to differentiate missed calls?
• Claim Scope and Means-Plus-Function: A core legal issue will be one of claim construction: how will the court define the scope of the "processing means" limitation? The outcome will depend on whether the architecture of Avaya's systems is found to be structurally equivalent to the specific implementation described in the ’872 patent specification.
• Technical Mismatch: The case may ultimately turn on a question of operational principle: do Avaya's systems provide missed call context using the patent's claimed method of analyzing network termination codes, or do they rely on a different, non-infringing logic, such as measuring ring duration or other metadata not contemplated by the claims?