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., 01/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement there and maintains a regular and established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telecommunication products and services infringe a patent related to methods for providing users with an indication about the reason for a missed telephone call.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns call handling in communication devices, specifically differentiating missed calls terminated by the caller from those terminated by a network timeout to convey a sense of urgency.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff and its predecessors have entered into prior settlement licenses with other entities. It argues these licenses do not trigger marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) because the settling parties did not admit infringement or agree to produce a patented article.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-07-21	’872 Patent Priority Date (PCT Filing)
2016-12-27	’872 Patent Issue Date
2026-01-02	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 addresses the inability of conventional communication devices to inform a user why a missed call was terminated (Compl. ¶9; ’872 Patent, col. 2:13-17). Prior art systems only indicate that a call was missed, failing to distinguish between a call intentionally ended by the caller after a few rings and a call that rang for a long time before being automatically disconnected by the network, which may imply greater urgency (’872 Patent, col. 1:36-49).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a communication apparatus (e.g., a mobile phone) that analyzes network signals to determine the cause of a disconnection (’872 Patent, Abstract). When a call is terminated, the network sends a message containing a "cause information element" with a specific "cause value." The patented apparatus is configured to extract this cause value and, based on its content, output a specific indication to the user. For example, if the value indicates the caller hung up (e.g., "NORMAL CLEARING"), the device can show the missed call was not urgent. If the value indicates a network timeout (e.g., "RECOVERY ON TIME EXPIRY"), the device can provide an indication that the missed call was urgent (’872 Patent, col. 4:10-16, 4:35-52; Fig. 2).
• Technical Importance: This solution allows users to better prioritize return calls by providing contextual information about the missed call's termination, which is not available from a simple call log.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-13 (Compl. ¶10). Independent claim 1 is directed to a communication apparatus and recites the following essential elements:
  • receiving means for receiving an incoming call;
  • a control unit to process the call;
  • output means for outputting information to a user; and
  • processing means for extracting a "cause value" from a network "cause information element" for a missed call, and for outputting an indication to the user based on that value, specifically:
    • an indication that the call was "caused by the caller" if the cause value shows the caller ended the call; and
    • an indication that the call was "caused by the network and was urgent" if the cause value shows the network automatically ended the call.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but its assertion of claims 1-13 implicitly includes them.

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). It does not name a specific product but references Defendant's corporate website, Dialpad.com, suggesting the accused instrumentalities are related to Dialpad's business communication and VoIP services (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant "maintains, operates, and administers" the accused systems, which are used by its customers (Compl. ¶10, ¶12). The relevant functionality is the system's handling and notification of missed calls within its service platform. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation of the accused products or their market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that an exemplary claim chart is included as Exhibit B, but this exhibit was not filed with the pleading (Compl. ¶11). The narrative allegations assert that Defendant’s systems infringe claims 1-13 of the ’872 Patent by providing an indication of a missed call (Compl. ¶10). Without a detailed chart or more specific factual allegations, a direct comparison of product features to claim elements is not possible based on the complaint alone.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "cause value contained in a cause information element," which the patent describes in the context of specific telecommunication standards like ISDN and UMTS (’872 Patent, col. 4:58-64), can be construed to read on the call termination signals used in Defendant’s modern VoIP-based services.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be whether Defendant’s system actually performs the claimed function. Specifically, what evidence does the complaint provide that the accused Dialpad services (1) receive and extract a specific value from the network indicating the reason for a call's termination, and (2) use that value to present a differentiated user notification indicating that a network-terminated call "was urgent," as required by claim 1?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "cause value contained in a cause information element"

• Context and Importance: This term is the technical core of the asserted claims. The infringement analysis will likely depend on whether the call termination data used in Defendant's system falls within the scope of this term. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent’s specification links it to specific, standardized codes from legacy telecommunication protocols.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term should be construed functionally to mean any data that communicates the reason for a call's disconnection, regardless of the specific format or protocol. The claims themselves do not recite a specific standard.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly provides examples of cause values, such as "RECOVERY ON TIME EXPIRY," "NORMAL, UNSPECIFIED," and "NORMAL CLEARING" (’872 Patent, col. 4:21, 4:40, 4:46). It also ties call control procedures to established standards like "ITU-T recommendation Q.931" and "3GPP TS 24.008" (’872 Patent, col. 4:58-64). This language could support a narrower construction limited to the types of signals used in those specific protocols.

• The Term: "was urgent"

• Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires that the apparatus output an indication that a network-terminated call "was urgent." The definition of this subjective term will be critical to determining if the accused product’s notifications meet this limitation.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language does not specify the form of the "urgent" indication, which could support an argument that any differentiated notification (e.g., a special icon, a different color, a persistent alert) satisfies the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes associating the network-timeout cause value with "a high indication of urgency, such as a particular image or the like" (’872 Patent, col. 4:35-38). This may suggest that a merely implicit or subtle difference in notification is insufficient, and a more explicit signal of urgency is required.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating Defendant "actively encouraged or instructed" its customers on how to use its systems in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶12). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging there are "no substantial non-infringing uses for Defendant's products and services" (Compl. ¶13).
• 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 complaint reserves the right to amend if pre-suit knowledge is discovered (Compl. ¶12, n.2).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical translation: can the patent's claim limitations, which are described with reference to specific cause codes in standardized telecommunication protocols (e.g., "NORMAL CLEARING"), be proven to map onto the signaling architecture of Defendant's modern VoIP platform? The case may turn on whether the accused system uses a technically analogous mechanism for signaling the cause of call termination.
• A second key question will be evidentiary: beyond general allegations, what proof can Plaintiff offer that Defendant’s systems perform the complete, two-part function required by the claims—first, extracting a specific network-generated reason for a missed call, and second, presenting a differentiated user-facing indication that the call "was urgent" as a direct result?
• Finally, the dispute may raise a question of claim scope: will the term "urgent" be construed to require an explicit notification to the user, or can it be satisfied by any subtle differentiation in how a missed call is presented in the user interface?