Missed Call LLC v. Dialpad Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Missed Call, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Dialpad, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ramey LLP
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00412, W.D. Tex., 09/08/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant has a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Texas and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s communication products and services infringe a patent related to providing users with an indication about the cause of a missed telephone call.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves analyzing network signaling data to determine whether a missed call was terminated by the caller or by the network, and presenting this information to the user to indicate the call's potential urgency.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff is a non-practicing entity and has entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities, which it contends did not involve the production of a patented article and therefore do not trigger marking requirements.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-07-21	'872 Patent Priority Date
2016-12-27	'872 Patent Issue Date
2025-09-08	Complaint Filing Date

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes a deficiency in conventional missed call notifications. These notifications inform a user that a call was missed but fail to provide any context about why the call was disconnected, such as whether the caller hung up after a short time or the network automatically terminated the call after a long period of ringing. This leaves the user unable to "recognize the importance of a missed call" ('872 Patent, col. 1:46-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a communication device that analyzes specific network signaling data to determine the cause of a call disconnection. The device's "processing means" extracts a "cause value" from a "cause information element" sent by the network. This value explicitly indicates whether the call was cleared normally by the caller or terminated due to a network timeout. The device then outputs a corresponding indication to the user, such as flagging a network-terminated call as "urgent" because the caller waited for the maximum ring duration. ('872 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:10-22).
• Technical Importance: The technical approach sought to add a layer of contextual intelligence to missed call alerts by repurposing specific network-level data fields—originally intended for network operator diagnostics—for a user-facing application. ('872 Patent, col. 4:6-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts claims 1-13 of the '872 Patent (Compl. ¶10).
• Independent Claim 1 recites the essential elements of the apparatus:
  • A receiving means for an incoming call;
  • A control unit to process the call;
  • An output means to provide information to a user;
  • A processing means for extracting a "cause value" from a "cause information element" sent by a network to provide an indication about a missed call;
  • Wherein a "cause value" indicating the call was "cleared by the caller" results in an output indicating the same; and
  • Wherein a "cause value" indicating the call was "cleared by the network" results in an output indicating the call was caused by the network and was "urgent."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other dependent claims beyond the asserted range of 1-13.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint 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 systems and that they provide users with an indication about a missed call (Compl. ¶9-¶10). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused services, nor does it describe how they generate or display missed call notifications. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that infringement allegations are supported by an "exemplary table included as Exhibit A" (Compl. ¶11). However, this exhibit is not attached to the filed complaint. In the absence of a claim chart, the infringement theory is based on the general allegation that Defendant’s services "facilitate providing of an indication of a missed telephone call" (Compl. ¶10, ¶12). The pleading does not specify how the accused services meet the particular limitations of the asserted claims, such as the extraction of a "cause value" from a "cause information element."

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Questions: A primary question for the court will be whether the accused Dialpad services perform the specific functions required by the claims. The complaint does not allege facts showing that the accused system (1) receives a "cause information element" from a network, (2) extracts a "cause value" from that element, and (3) provides a differential output to the user (e.g., an "urgent" notification) based on whether the call was terminated by the caller or the network.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the definition of key claim terms. For example, a question may arise as to whether modern VoIP call termination signals, which may not be identical to the legacy telecommunication standards referenced in the patent specification, can be considered a "cause information element" containing a "cause value" within the meaning of the claims.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "cause value contained in a cause information element sent from a network" (Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This term describes the core technical mechanism of the invention. The outcome of the case may depend on whether Defendant's accused system uses this specific type of network signal to generate missed call notifications. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to tie the invention to a specific implementation detailed in the patent, rather than to the general concept of a missed call alert.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly references established telecommunication standards, stating that "call control procedures are defined in the ITU-T recommendation Q.931...or in the 3GPP TS 24.008" and that the "cause information element" is part of the messages exchanged according to those standards ('872 Patent, col. 4:57-65). This may support an argument that the term is limited to the specific data elements defined in those protocols.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that the term should not be confined to the specific examples in the specification and should be read more broadly to cover any data transmitted from a network that communicates the reason for a call's termination, regardless of the specific protocol used.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant actively encourages and instructs its customers on how to use its services to provide an indication of a missed call (Compl. ¶12). It also alleges contributory infringement on the basis that there are "no substantial noninfringing uses for Defendant's products and services" (Compl. ¶13).
• Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegation is based on post-suit knowledge, asserting that Defendant "has known of the '872 patent and the technology underlying it from at least the filing date of the lawsuit" (Compl. ¶12-¶13). The prayer for relief requests a declaration of willfulness if discovery reveals pre-suit knowledge (Compl. ¶e).

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

• A central evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: Does discovery show that Dialpad’s communication services utilize the specific mechanism recited in Claim 1—extracting a "cause value" from a network "cause information element"—to distinguish between caller-terminated and network-terminated missed calls, or do they use a different, non-infringing method to generate missed call alerts?
• A core legal issue will be one of definitional scope: How will the court construe the term "cause information element"? Will its meaning be limited to the specific telecommunication standards cited as examples in the patent's specification, or can it be interpreted more broadly to encompass analogous call termination data in modern VoIP or other communication systems?