RecepTrexx LLC v. OnePlus Technology Shenzhen Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: RecepTrexx LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00486, W.D. Tex., 07/07/2023
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant is a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cellular phone products infringe a patent related to the triggered playback of a pre-recorded message to an incoming caller, allowing the user to delay answering.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses call management on mobile devices, particularly for situations where a user cannot immediately answer a call but wishes to keep the caller on the line.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, RE42,997, is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 6,975,709. The prosecution history of a reissued patent, which involves surrendering the original patent and obtaining a new one to correct an error, may be scrutinized for any arguments or amendments that could limit the scope of the asserted claims.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE42,997 - "Triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming telephone calls to a cellular phone"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section identifies the social and practical problems of receiving cellular phone calls in public places like meetings or theaters, where answering is disruptive but ignoring the call may cause the caller to hang up, believing the call attempt failed (’997 Patent, col. 1:15-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a cellular phone user, upon receiving a call, can trigger the playback of a pre-recorded message to the caller (e.g., "please hold on") without immediately engaging in conversation. The system keeps the connection open, allowing the user to begin speaking with the caller at any time after the message is played (’997 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-65). The system can be implemented in a "distributed" manner (logic on the phone) or a "centralized" manner (logic in the network) (’997 Patent, col. 2:57-59).
• Technical Importance: The technology offered a method for mobile phone users to manage incoming calls with more flexibility than the binary choice of either answering immediately or sending the call to voicemail (’997 Patent, col. 2:26-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of "exemplary claims" but does not identify any specific claims in its text, instead referring to an external exhibit not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶11).
• Independent Claim 13, an apparatus claim directed at a mobile device, is representative of the technology and contains the following essential elements:
  • A mobile communication device configured to receive a call from a caller communication device through a switch device.
  • The mobile communication device is configured to send a signal to the switch device to trigger playing a message to the caller communication device.
  • This signal is sent in response to receiving at least one input selected from a group including user interface selections, calendar commands, clock commands, location information, and others.
  • The mobile communication device is configured to maintain connection to the caller communication device after the message is played.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "Exemplary Defendant Products" but identifies them only by reference to charts in "Exhibit 2," which was not filed with the public complaint (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of the accused OnePlus products. The infringement theory appears to target the general call-handling capabilities of modern smartphones, which allow users to respond to incoming calls with automated text messages or other call-rejection options (Compl. ¶11, ¶14). The complaint makes no specific allegations regarding the products' market position beyond their general sale in the United States (Compl. ¶11, ¶14).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement is detailed in claim charts provided in an external "Exhibit 2" (Compl. ¶16-17). As this exhibit was not provided, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The narrative infringement theory is that Defendant's "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology claimed in the ’997 Patent by satisfying all elements of the "Exemplary '997 Patent Claims" (Compl. ¶16). The complaint alleges that this infringement occurs when the products are made, used, sold, or imported, and also when Defendant's employees internally test the products (Compl. ¶11-12).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "...send a signal to the switch device to trigger playing a message..." (from Claim 13)
• Context and Importance: This term is central to the infringement analysis. Its construction will determine whether standard, modern cellular call-handling protocols (e.g., features that reject a call and send an automated SMS, or place a call on hold) fall within the scope of the claim, or if the claim is limited to a more specific, non-standard signaling process. Practitioners may focus on this term because the accused functionality likely relies on standard cellular network operations, whereas the patent describes embodiments that suggest a more bespoke interaction.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself uses the general term "a signal," which could be argued to encompass any type of electronic communication from the phone to the network that results in a message being conveyed to the caller.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific signaling methods, such as using "touch-tones or flashes of the switch hook" for in-band signaling (’997 Patent, col. 3:12-14) or invoking an application on a "service control point" in the network (’997 Patent, col. 4:51-54). A defendant may argue these examples limit the claim's scope to actions that explicitly command a separate voice peripheral, rather than utilizing integrated, standard network features.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶14-15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint's allegations of knowledge and inducement are predicated on the Defendant being served with the complaint and its associated claim charts (Compl. ¶13, ¶15). This frames the willfulness claim as being based on alleged post-suit conduct.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claim phrase "send a signal to the switch device to trigger playing a message" be construed to read on the functionality of modern smartphones that reject calls with automated text messages or use other standard call-management features, or is it limited to the specific "hold-on" message playback systems described in the patent's embodiments?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations detailing how the accused OnePlus phones operate. The case will depend on whether the Plaintiff can produce discovery-based evidence to demonstrate that the accused devices and the cellular networks they operate on perform the claimed steps of triggering a message playback while maintaining an open connection for the user to join later, as required by the claims.