ReadyComm LLC v. Net2phone Global Services LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ReadyComm LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Net2Phone Global Services, LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00233, D. Del., 03/05/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is incorporated there, has an established place of business in the district, and has committed acts of patent infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to a telephone communication system that manages multiple telephone devices by designating one as "active" for calls while others remain in "stand-by."
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the management of multiple communication devices (e.g., landline, mobile, work phones) for a single user or group, aiming to simplify call routing and reduce the number of distinct phone numbers in use.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation-in-part of an earlier application, now issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,049,275. No other significant procedural events are mentioned in the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-06-24	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent 9,179,011
2015-11-03	U.S. Patent 9,179,011 Issues
2026-03-05	Complaint Filed

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 '011 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the increasing difficulty of contacting individuals who use multiple communication devices (e.g., home phone, mobile phone, work phone), each with a distinct phone number ʼ011 Patent, col. 1:21-32 This proliferation of numbers creates memory burdens for callers and contributes to the exhaustion of available 10-digit numbers ʼ011 Patent, col. 2:1-15
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a group of telephone devices are associated with each other ʼ011 Patent, col. 2:46-51 Within this group, only one telephone can be in an "active mode" at any given time, capable of making or receiving calls ʼ011 Patent, abstract All other telephones in the group are placed in a "stand-by mode," where they are incapable of making or receiving calls but may still indicate an incoming call with a distinct ringtone ʼ011 Patent, col. 3:3-7 A user can employ a "switch" to change which device is in active mode, a process that can be performed "on-the-fly," even during an ongoing call ʼ011 Patent, col. 2:65-col. 3:2
• Technical Importance: This approach seeks to provide a unified communication identity for a user across multiple devices, improving reachability while potentially reducing the number of public-facing phone numbers required ʼ011 Patent, col. 2:51-54

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, instead referring to "Exemplary '011 Patent Claims" identified in an external exhibit not attached to the complaint Compl. ¶11 As a representative example, independent claim 1 is analyzed below.

• Independent Claim 1: A telephone communication system comprising:
  • a group of N telephones (where N is at least two), with each configured to be placed in an activated mode and alternatively in a stand-by mode;
  • such that in stand-by mode a telephone is incapable of placing or receiving a call unless switched to active mode;
  • each of the N telephones is associated with a switch;
  • the switch is configured to activate one telephone to be an active mode telephone, such that all remaining N-1 telephones are on standby mode prior to making an outgoing call or taking an incoming call; and
  • at least one of the standby telephones is configured such that it may be switched to active mode during a telephone call.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims Compl. ¶11

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products or services by name Compl. ¶11 It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶16 This exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes the '011 Patent by "making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing" the unidentified "Exemplary Defendant Products" Compl. ¶11 The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from Exhibit 2, which are not provided, stating that these charts demonstrate how the accused products "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '011 Patent Claims" Compl. ¶16 Compl. ¶17 Without the specific identification of accused products or the claim charts, a detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible based on the complaint alone. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: A threshold issue will be identifying which of Defendant's products or services are accused of infringement. The complaint's failure to name specific instrumentalities raises the question of what evidence Plaintiff will offer to substantiate its infringement theory.
• Scope Questions: Assuming an accused product is identified, a likely point of dispute will concern the "active mode" and "stand-by mode" limitations. The analysis may focus on whether the accused product renders a device "incapable of placing or receiving a call" in its stand-by state, as required by the claim, or if the device remains fully functional but simply has calls routed elsewhere.
• Technical Questions: A key technical question will be whether the accused products contain a "switch" that performs the claimed function of changing a device from standby to active mode "during a telephone call." The specific mechanism and timing of this functionality in the accused products will be compared against the claim language and patent specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "...in stand-by mode a telephone is incapable of placing or receiving a call unless switched to active mode" (from claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This phrase is the functional core of the invention, defining the essential difference between the two operational states. The construction of "incapable" will be central to determining infringement, as it defines how disabled a "stand-by" device must be.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes stand-by mode as when devices "are not considered to be in active mode" and "cannot make or receive calls" ʼ011 Patent, col. 2:60-62 This suggests a system-level state where the central logic prevents call completion to that device, which could be interpreted broadly to cover modern call-routing or "do not disturb" features where the device itself remains technically operational.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also states that a stand-by device can "alert the users of an incoming call... with a second ringtone, different from the first ringtone" assigned to the active device ʼ011 Patent, col. 3:4-7 This indicates that the stand-by device is not completely inert or offline, as it must be able to receive some form of signal to produce a ringtone. This may support a narrower construction of "incapable of... receiving a call," suggesting it must be unable to complete the voice connection, even if it can receive a notification signal.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant knowingly induces infringement by selling the accused products to customers and providing "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner Compl. ¶14 Compl. ¶15 The knowledge element is predicated on the service of the complaint itself Compl. ¶15
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant gained "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" upon service of the complaint and continued its allegedly infringing activities thereafter Compl. ¶13 Compl. ¶14 This allegation may form the basis for a future claim of post-filing willfulness.

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

This dispute, as framed by the complaint, appears to center on fundamental questions of evidence and claim scope. The key questions for the case will likely be:

• An Evidentiary Question: What specific products or services form the basis of the infringement allegation? Given the complaint's reliance on an unprovided exhibit, the initial phase of litigation may focus on identifying the accused instrumentalities and the precise technical evidence supporting the claim that they operate in the manner described by the patent.
• A Definitional Question: What is the scope of being "incapable" of receiving a call? The case may turn on whether a device that can receive a notification or alert of an incoming call, but cannot establish a voice connection, meets the claim limitation of being "incapable of... receiving a call," or if the term requires a more complete disabling of the device's communication pathway.
• A Functional Question: Does any accused system implement the claimed "on-the-fly" switching that allows a user to transfer a live call from a previously active device to a newly activated stand-by device? The evidence demonstrating this specific, dynamic functionality will be critical to proving infringement of core aspects of the asserted claims.