ReadyComm LLC v. Openphone Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ReadyComm LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: OpenPhone Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00097, D. Del., 01/28/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation and has an established place of business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s telephone communication products and services infringe a patent related to managing calls across multiple telephone devices associated with a single user or group.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of managing communications for individuals who use multiple devices (e.g., landline, personal mobile, work mobile) by creating a system where only one device is "active" at a time, while others remain on "stand-by."
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of its parent patent, U.S. Patent No. 9,049,275.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,179,011 - Telephone Communication System and Method of Using

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the increasing difficulty of contacting individuals who possess multiple communication devices, each with a separate phone number (e.g., home phone, work phone, mobile phone) ’011 Patent, col. 1:21-32 Conventional solutions like call forwarding were seen as cumbersome and lacking privacy controls ’011 Patent, col. 1:33-54
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system of interdependent telephone devices where only one device is in an "active mode" capable of making or receiving calls at any given time, while the other associated devices are in a "stand-by mode." ’011 Patent, Abstract A call made to any of the devices in the group is automatically routed to the single active device ’011 Patent, col. 7:41-48 A key feature is the ability for a user to switch which device is active "on-the-fly," including during an active call, thereby transferring the call from a previously active device to a newly activated one ’011 Patent, col. 5:1-7 Figures 1A and 1B illustrate this system architecture, distinguishing between the one "active mode" device (126) and the "N-1" devices in "stand-by mode" (128).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to reduce the proliferation of necessary contact numbers and centralize communications for a user, while providing the flexibility to move a call between different devices based on context or preference ’011 Patent, col. 2:40-44

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead referencing "Exemplary '011 Patent Claims" in an unattached exhibit Compl. ¶11 Independent claim 1 is representative of the system's core technology.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A group of N telephones (where N is at least two).
  • Each telephone is configured to be placed in an "activated mode" and alternatively in a "stand-by mode," such that in stand-by mode the telephone is "incapable of placing or receiving a call unless switched to active mode."
  • Each telephone is associated with a "switch."
  • The switch is configured to activate one of the telephones to be an active mode telephone, such that all remaining telephones are on standby mode "prior to making an outgoing call or taking an incoming call."
  • At least one of the standby telephones is configured such that it "may be switched to active mode during a telephone call."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products, referring generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" Compl. ¶11, ¶16

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and imports products that practice the technology claimed by the ’011 Patent Compl. ¶11 No specific details regarding the functionality, features, or operation of the accused products are provided in the complaint itself. The pleading relies entirely on references to an unattached claim chart exhibit to describe the allegedly infringing functionality Compl. ¶16-17

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an external exhibit (Exhibit 2), which was not provided Compl. ¶17 The complaint itself contains no narrative infringement theory or specific mapping of accused product features to claim elements. Therefore, a claim chart summary cannot be constructed and the analysis below is based on the general allegations and the technology described in the ’011 Patent.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Given the technology described in the ’011 Patent and the general nature of the allegations, litigation may focus on the following questions:

• Scope Questions: A central dispute may concern the meaning of a telephone being in "stand-by mode" and "incapable of placing or receiving a call." Modern VoIP systems often cause multiple devices (e.g., a desktop app and a mobile app) to ring simultaneously for an incoming call until a user answers on one. The question for the court will be whether a device that is actively ringing but not yet answered is "incapable of receiving a call" as required by the claim, or if this architecture falls outside the patent's one-active/all-others-inactive model.
• Technical Questions: The complaint provides no facts explaining what feature or user action in the accused products constitutes the claimed "switch" that changes a device from stand-by to active mode. A key factual question will be whether the accused products contain a dedicated function for this purpose or if Plaintiff will argue that a routine action, such as answering a call on a particular device, serves as the claimed "switch."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "stand-by mode such that in stand-by mode a telephone is incapable of placing or receiving a call unless switched to active mode" Claim 1

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention's architecture. Its construction will determine whether the patent reads on modern communication systems where multiple endpoints may be simultaneously alerted to an incoming call. Defendant may argue that a phone that is ringing is, by definition, "receiving a call" and therefore not in the claimed "stand-by mode."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the goal is user-centric control, stating a phone in standby "cannot make or receive calls," which could be interpreted to mean it cannot complete a communication session, even if it can be alerted to one ’011 Patent, col. 2:62-63
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "incapable of ... receiving a call" is restrictive. The specification consistently describes a system where only one phone is made active before a call connects, and all others are inert. For example, it states "one phone will be activated 126 and N-1 telephone devices will be on stand-by 128" as distinct states ’011 Patent, col. 4:30-32

• The Term: "switch" Claim 1

  • Context and Importance: The infringement analysis depends on identifying a corresponding "switch" in the accused products. The breadth of this term's construction will dictate what accused functionality can satisfy this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a wide array of examples, including "a toggle switch, a Personal Identification Number (PIN), and/or a menu-type switch," as well as a "voice activated switch," suggesting the term should not be limited to a physical component ’011 Patent, col. 4:51-58
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While broad, the examples all appear to describe an explicit, discrete user action intended to change the system's state, rather than an implicit or automatic consequence of another action (like answering a call). The patent describes a user entering a PIN or using a menu to "activate that phone" ’011 Patent, col. 6:26-30

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: Plaintiff alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the accused products in a manner that infringes the ’011 Patent Compl. ¶14
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." It alleges that "service of this Complaint, in conjunction with the attached claim charts ... constitutes actual knowledge" Compl. ¶13 This allegation appears to lay the groundwork for a claim of post-suit, but not pre-suit, willful infringement.

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court’s determination of two primary issues:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Does the claim term "stand-by mode," defined as being "incapable of ... receiving a call," describe a modern VoIP architecture where multiple associated devices may ring simultaneously, or is it limited to a system where only a single designated device can be alerted to an incoming call at any one time?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional correspondence: Assuming the complaint's unattached charts provide specifics, the case will examine whether the accused products contain a "switch" that performs the claimed function of explicitly changing a device's status from stand-by to active, or if there is a fundamental mismatch between the patented method of state management and the operation of the accused system.