ReadyComm LLC v. Talkdesk Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ReadyComm LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Talkdesk, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00098, D. Del., 01/28/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is incorporated in Delaware and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s communication products infringe a patent related to systems and methods for managing multiple telephone devices between an "active" mode for making and receiving calls and a "standby" mode.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the management of multiple communication devices, such as landlines and mobile phones, to present a unified user identity and streamline call handling.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation-in-part of an earlier application that issued as a separate patent and is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of the parent patent. The complaint does not reference any other prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving the patent.

Case Timeline

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

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

Issued: November 3, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the increasing difficulty of contacting individuals who possess numerous communication devices (e.g., home phone, work phone, mobile phone), each with a distinct phone number. Traditional call forwarding is presented as a partial but cumbersome solution that fails to address issues like number exhaustion and user privacy. ’011 Patent, col. 1:21-54, col. 2:1-15
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a group of telephone devices are associated with each other. At any given time, only one device is in "active mode," capable of making or receiving calls for the group, while the other N-1 devices are in "standby mode" and are incapable of doing so. The system allows a user to switch which device is active "on-the-fly," including during an active call, thereby redirecting the communication seamlessly from one device to another. ’011 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:51-67; Fig. 2A
• Technical Importance: This approach sought to provide users with greater control and privacy over their communications by centralizing call handling to a single, user-selected device at any given time, while potentially reducing the number of public-facing phone numbers an individual needs. ’011 Patent, col. 2:38-44

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not explicitly identify which claims are asserted, instead incorporating by reference claim charts from an exhibit that was not attached to the publicly filed document Compl. ¶17 Assuming the assertion of the broadest independent system claim, Claim 1 is central.
• Independent Claim 1 requires:
  • A group of at least two telephones, each configured to be placed in an "activated mode" or a "stand-by mode."
  • In "stand-by mode," a 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 telephone, which places all other telephones in standby mode.
  • A standby telephone can be switched to active mode "during a telephone call." ’011 Patent, col. 15:42-56

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not name specific accused products. It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in the unattached Exhibit 2. Compl. ¶¶11, 16

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no description of the accused products' functionality, features, or operation. Compl. ¶¶11-17 Defendant Talkdesk, Inc. operates in the field of cloud-based contact center software and communication services.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '011 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '011 Patent Claims," but provides no specific factual allegations mapping product features to claim limitations in the body of the complaint. Compl. ¶16 It states that this comparison is contained within an unattached exhibit. Compl. ¶17 The narrative alleges both direct infringement through Defendant's making, using, and selling of the products, and through internal testing by Defendant's employees. Compl. ¶¶11, 12

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the patent's claims and the general nature of the Defendant's industry, the infringement analysis raises several questions for the court.

• Scope Questions: The patent’s specification frequently refers to distinct hardware like a "landline telephone" and a "cellular telephone." ’011 Patent, col. 6:3-5 A central question will be whether the term "telephone," as claimed, can be construed to read on software-based endpoints (e.g., a softphone application running on a computer or a mobile app) that are characteristic of modern cloud communication platforms.
• Technical Questions: Claim 1 requires that a device in "stand-by mode" be "incapable of placing or receiving a call." ’011 Patent, col. 15:46-48 A key technical dispute may arise over whether a software endpoint in a cloud system—which typically remains connected to a network and may be able to perform other communication functions—meets the "incapable" limitation, or if it is merely in a state of being logically de-prioritized by the system for a specific type of call.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "telephone"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is fundamental to the infringement analysis. If construed narrowly to mean traditional, self-contained hardware devices, it may present a challenge for allegations against a software- and cloud-based system.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states a telephone device "can be any of a landline telephone, cellular telephone, SIM card placed in a cellular telephone, satellite telephone, computer, car telephone, etc. and equivalents thereof." ’011 Patent, col. 4:26-29 The inclusion of "computer" and "equivalents thereof," as well as later references to "Voice-Over-Internet-Protocol (VOIP)" and mobile software applications ("App"), may support a construction that includes software-based clients. ’011 Patent, col. 10:25-30, col. 14:3-10
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s primary embodiments and figures, such as the flowchart in Figure 2A, focus on the interaction between a "landline phone" and a "cellular phone," suggesting the inventive concept was originally contemplated in the context of distinct physical devices. ’011 Patent, Fig. 2A

The Term: "incapable of placing or receiving a call"

• Context and Importance: This phrase defines the essential functional difference between the "stand-by" and "active" modes. The interpretation of "incapable" will be critical to determining whether the accused system's architecture meets this claim limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: This could be interpreted to mean functionally disabled with respect to the patented system's grouped calls. The specification notes that in standby mode, a phone "cannot make or receive calls." ’011 Patent, col. 2:62-63 A party could argue this refers specifically to the calls associated with the shared identity, not all possible communications.
• Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The plain meaning of "incapable" suggests a total inability. A defendant may argue that if a device, such as a computer running a softphone, can still receive an email or a separate VOIP call while its primary softphone client is in a "standby" state, the device itself is not "incapable" of communication, and therefore this limitation is not met.

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
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that service of the complaint itself provides "actual knowledge of infringement." Compl. ¶13 It further alleges that Defendant has continued its infringing activities "[d]espite such actual knowledge," which establishes a basis for a claim of post-filing willful infringement. Compl. ¶14 The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

1. Definitional Scope: A primary issue will be whether the patent's terminology, conceived in an era of distinct hardware devices (e.g., "landline telephone"), can be construed to cover the software-based, virtualized endpoints of a modern cloud communications platform.
2. Functional Equivalence: A central evidentiary question will be whether the accused system’s method of designating an active user endpoint creates a "stand-by" state that renders other endpoints "incapable of placing or receiving a call" as strictly required by the claim language, or if there is a fundamental mismatch in technical operation.
3. Pleading Sufficiency: Given the complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations and its reliance on an unattached exhibit, an initial question for the court will be whether the pleading meets the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.