Missed Call LLC v. Twilio Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Missed Call, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Twilio Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-01294, W.D. Tex., 10/24/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has a "regular and established place of business" in the district, conducts substantial business there, and has committed acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunication products and services infringe a patent related to methods for providing a user with an indication about the cause of a missed telephone call.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the analysis of network-level data associated with a call's termination to provide the recipient with more context about a missed call, specifically whether the caller hung up or the network timed out.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or specific licensing history concerning the patent-in-suit. The patent-in-suit originated from a PCT application.

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,531,872, issued December 27, 2016.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies a deficiency in conventional telecommunication systems, which only indicate that a call was missed but do not provide information about why the call was disconnected ('872 Patent, col. 2:13-18). This leaves the called user unable to distinguish between a call intentionally terminated by the caller (potentially less urgent) and one disconnected by a network timeout (implying the caller waited, suggesting higher urgency) ('872 Patent, col. 1:42-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communication apparatus that analyzes a specific piece of data, a "cause value," which is contained within a "cause information element" sent from the telecommunications network when a call is terminated ('872 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:3-6). By extracting this value, the apparatus can determine whether the call was cleared by the calling user or by the network and present a corresponding indication to its user, thereby providing context about the missed call's potential importance ('872 Patent, col. 4:36-52; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to add a layer of intelligence to missed call notifications by leveraging existing, but typically unexposed, network signaling data to help users prioritize their communications ('872 Patent, col. 6:1-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-13 (Compl. ¶9). Independent claim 1 is central.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A communication apparatus comprising: receiving means, a control unit, output means, and processing means.
  • The processing means is for "extracting a cause value contained in a cause information element sent from a network."
  • The processing means is also for "outputting to the user, via the output means, an indication related to a missed received incoming call."
  • Critically, the claim specifies two outcomes:
    • When a caller ends the call, the cause value indicates this, and the apparatus outputs an indication that the call was "caused by the caller."
    • When the network automatically ends the call, the cause value indicates this, and the apparatus outputs an indication that the call was "caused by the network and was urgent."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the assertion of claims 1-13 implicitly includes all dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name a specific product or service. It generally accuses Defendant's "systems, products, and services that facilitate providing of an indication of a missed telephone call" (Compl. ¶9). This appears to target the cloud communications platform offered by Twilio.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" systems that perform the infringing methods (Compl. ¶9). The functionality at issue is the provision of information regarding missed calls to Twilio's customers and end-users.

The complaint does not provide specific details about the technical operation of the accused services or their market positioning. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an "exemplary table included as Exhibit A" to support its infringement allegations (Compl. ¶10). However, Exhibit A was not attached to the publicly filed complaint. As a result, a detailed claim-chart analysis is not possible based on the provided documents. The narrative allegations suggest that the plaintiff's theory of infringement is that Twilio's platform, in its entirety, functions as the claimed "communication apparatus" (Compl. ¶9). The complaint alleges that Twilio's systems perform the claimed methods, including providing an indication of a missed call, and that Twilio's customers are instructed on how to use these infringing features (Compl. ¶9, ¶11).

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Twilio's distributed, cloud-based platform constitutes a "communication apparatus" as that term is used in the patent. The patent's preferred embodiment is a self-contained "mobile phone" ('872 Patent, col. 3:15-17), which could suggest a narrower scope than the distributed software services offered by Defendant.
• Technical Questions: A key factual dispute will likely concern whether Twilio's services actually "extract a cause value contained in a cause information element sent from a network" in the manner specified by the patent ('872 Patent, Claim 1). The patent appears to contemplate specific signaling standards like ITU-T Q.931 ('872 Patent, col. 3:58-64). The infringement analysis will depend on whether Twilio's modern VoIP and API-based infrastructure uses this specific mechanism or an alternative method for determining call termination status.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"communication apparatus"

• Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the claims are directed to an "apparatus," while the Defendant provides a cloud-based service. The outcome of the case may depend on whether a distributed software platform can be considered an "apparatus." Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused instrumentality is of the same class of invention as that which was patented.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not limit the apparatus to a physical device, defining it functionally by its "means" (receiving, processing, etc.) ('872 Patent, Claim 1). This could support an argument that any system performing these functions, regardless of its physical form, is covered.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to the apparatus in the context of a singular device, stating that the "preferred" embodiment "comprises a mobile phone" and also mentioning a "fixed phone" ('872 Patent, col. 3:15-18). Figure 1 depicts a single, self-contained unit.

"cause value contained in a cause information element"

• Context and Importance: This is the core technical limitation of the invention. Infringement requires proof that the accused system uses this specific type of data. The dispute will likely center on whether the call termination data used by Twilio meets this definition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any data field that communicates the reason for a call's termination should be considered a "cause value," regardless of its specific name or the protocol used.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly ties the invention to established telecommunication standards, such as "ITU-T recommendation Q.931" and "3GPP TS 24.008" ('872 Patent, col. 3:58-64). The patent also provides specific examples of cause values, such as "RECOVERY ON TIME EXPIRY" and "NORMAL CLEARING" ('872 Patent, col. 4:21-22, 4:45-46). This could support a narrow construction limited to the specific data elements defined in those standards.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed others (e.g., its customers...)" on how to use its services to cause infringement ('872 Patent, Compl. ¶11). It also alleges contributory infringement, claiming there are "no substantial noninfringing uses for Defendant’s products and services" that perform the accused function (Compl. ¶12).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges Defendant has known of the '872 patent and the technology "from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶11, ¶12). This forms a basis for post-filing willfulness. The plaintiff also reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶11, n.1).

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

1. A primary issue will be one of structural scope: can the term "communication apparatus," which the patent specification exemplifies as a mobile phone, be construed to read on Defendant’s distributed, cloud-based software platform?
2. A critical evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: what evidence will show that Twilio's services, which operate in a modern API-driven environment, utilize the specific "cause value contained in a cause information element" as contemplated by telecom standards from the patent's priority era, rather than an alternative, non-infringing method for determining call status?
3. Given the generality of the complaint and the absence of the referenced Exhibit A, a threshold question will be sufficiency of pleading: does the complaint provide enough factual detail about the operation of the accused Twilio services to plausibly allege infringement of the specific technical limitations in the patent's claims?