RecepTrexx LLC v. Honeywell Intl Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Honeywell International Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00380, W.D. Tex., 06/15/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains an established place of business in the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that unspecified products and services from Defendant infringe two patents related to multicast wireless ad hoc network routing and triggered playback of messages for incoming cellular calls.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern methods for managing communications in mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs) and for handling incoming calls on mobile devices in a deferred manner.
• Key Procedural History: The operative pleading is an Amended Complaint. The complaint does not specify what was amended or mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patents-in-suit.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,909,706, "Multicast wireless ad hoc packet routing," issued June 21, 2005

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of routing communications efficiently within a hierarchical organization, such as a military unit, using a mobile ad hoc wireless network. General-purpose routing protocols were not optimized for sending messages to specific roles (e.g., "all squad leaders") or subgroups, or for bi-directional communication (’706 Patent, col. 2:27-55).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where network devices ("LAN radios") are assigned "role based multicast IP addresses." For devices that are close (within a set number of "hops"), routing information is extracted from periodic update messages that detail the network topology. For devices that are farther apart, the system uses modified ad hoc multicast routing protocols to discover a route ('706 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:56-62). This hybrid approach aims to reduce network overhead for common, nearby communications.
• Technical Importance: The described method sought to optimize routing in mobile ad hoc networks by leveraging the inherent organizational structure of the users, reducing the need for constant, network-wide route discovery messages ('706 Patent, col. 5:34-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referring to charts in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶12, ¶17).
• Assuming the assertion of the broadest independent claim, Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • Providing at least a first, second, and third LAN radio, where the first and second are not in direct range but both are in range of the third.
  • Broadcasting a "periodic update message" from the first radio containing information that the second radio is not in its range.
  • The third radio receiving this update message.
  • The third radio determining that both the first and second radios are within its range.
  • The third radio updating its own database with route information indicating a path between the first and second radios via itself.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE42,997 E, "Triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming telephone calls to a cellular phone," issued December 6, 2011

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the social and logistical problem of receiving a cellular phone call in a public setting (e.g., a meeting, theater) where answering immediately is disruptive. Delaying an answer might cause the caller to hang up, assuming the call failed (’997 Patent, col. 1:13-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where the called party can trigger the playback of a pre-recorded message (e.g., "Please hold on") to the caller. Crucially, the system keeps the communication line open after the message plays, allowing the user to begin speaking with the caller at any time. The trigger can be manual (a button press) or automatic (based on location or a calendar entry) ('997 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-65).
• Technical Importance: This technology offered a method for call management that is more interactive than sending a call to voicemail, giving the user flexibility to defer a conversation without terminating the call attempt.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, referring to charts in an unprovided exhibit (Compl. ¶20, ¶25).
• Assuming the assertion of representative independent claims, Claim 1 (a distributed system) includes:
  • A "means to record a message" on the cellular phone.
  • A "means to instruct" the message to be played, selected from a group including a button, keypad entry, calendar entry, or location device.
  • The system connects the caller, plays the message, and "after said message is played, said caller remains connected."
• Claim 7 (a method) includes:
  • Receiving a call at a switch device and routing it to a mobile device.
  • Sending a message to the caller in response to an instruction from the mobile device.
  • "Maintaining connection" of the mobile device to the caller's device after playing the message.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific accused products, methods, or services by name. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" (Compl. ¶12, ¶20).
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint provides no description of the functionality or market context of any Honeywell product. It alleges that "product literature and website materials" induce infringement but provides no examples or citations (Compl. ¶15, ¶23). Given the asserted patents, the accused instrumentalities would presumably involve wireless networking systems and/or telecommunication features for mobile devices. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint makes conclusory allegations that Defendant’s products infringe the patents-in-suit and states that infringement charts are included as Exhibits 3 and 4 (Compl. ¶17, ¶25). As these exhibits were not provided with the complaint, a detailed infringement analysis based on the plaintiff's theories is not possible. The narrative allegations are limited to statements that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed" ('706 Compl. ¶17) and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary... Patent Claims" ('997 Compl. ¶26).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Given the lack of information, any analysis of contention points is speculative. However, disputes in this case may center on the following technical and legal questions:
  • For the ’706 Patent: Does the accused system's routing protocol function as claimed? A central question may be whether the system uses a "periodic update message" to build a two-hop routing table in the specific manner recited by Claim 1, or if it relies on a different, non-infringing ad hoc routing standard.
  • For the ’997 Patent: Does the accused feature meet the "maintaining connection" limitation? The analysis may focus on whether the accused feature keeps a live, bridged call path open for immediate conversation, or if it functions as a call-forwarding or advanced voicemail service that terminates the direct connection between the caller and the called party's device.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term from the ’706 Patent: "periodic update message" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The specific content and function of this message are central to the claimed invention's method for building two-hop routing tables. The case may turn on whether the accused system’s network management communications qualify as a "periodic update message."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any regularly broadcast message that provides network status.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes this "periodic broadcast mode update message (PUM)" as containing specific information, such as the "global positioning system (GPS) location of a given LAN radio and the corresponding RBIP," as well as "IP Address information revealing which LAN radios are within range" ('706 Patent, col. 4:21-26). This could support a narrower construction requiring the message to contain specific types of routing and location data.

• Term from the ’997 Patent: "maintaining the connection" (Claim 3) / "remains connected" (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for distinguishing the invention from conventional voicemail or call-rejection features. Infringement will depend on whether the accused service establishes and keeps a live call path or merely hands the caller off to a separate messaging platform. Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the core user experience of the invention.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any system where the caller is not disconnected and can eventually be connected to the user meets this limitation, even if intermediated by a server.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states that the system is set up "so that the user can begin speaking with the caller at any time, even before the recorded message is finished" ('997 Patent, col. 3:17-20). This suggests a requirement for a persistent, real-time, and bridgeable connection, not merely forwarding to a recording system.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes" the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶15, ¶23).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" from the date of service of the complaint and that "Despite such actual knowledge, Defendant continues to" infringe (Compl. ¶14-15, ¶22-23). This forms a basis for alleging post-suit willful infringement.

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

1. Pleading Sufficiency: A threshold issue for the court will be whether the complaint, which fails to identify any accused products and provides no factual allegations of infringement beyond incorporating unprovided exhibits by reference, meets the plausibility standard required by federal pleading rules.
2. Definitional Scope: For the ’706 patent, a central question will be one of technical definition: do the accused systems employ a "periodic update message" with the specific informational content and function described in the patent, or do they utilize a fundamentally different network management protocol?
3. Functional Operation: For the ’997 patent, the case may turn on a key question of operational function: does the accused feature actually "maintain the connection" in a manner that allows for immediate, live conversation as contemplated by the patent, or does it operate as a distinct call-handling service, such as an enhanced voicemail system, that breaks the continuous communicative link required by the claims?