ReadyComm LLC v. Crexendo Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ReadyComm LLC (New Mexico)
  • Defendant: Crexendo, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Silverman, McDonald & Friedman; Rabicoff Law LLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00234, D. Del., 03/05/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is 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 unidentified products infringe a patent related to telephone communication systems that manage active and stand-by modes across multiple devices.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the management of communications across multiple telephone devices by designating a single device as "active" for making and receiving calls while others remain in a "stand-by" state.
• Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit is a continuation-in-part of a prior application and is subject to a terminal disclaimer, which may limit its enforceable term to that of the parent patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2008-06-24	'011 Patent Priority Date
2015-11-03	'011 Patent Issue Date
2026-03-05	Complaint Filing Date

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

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

• Patent Identification: 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 a person who uses multiple communication devices (e.g., home phone, mobile phone, office phone), each with its own distinct telephone number ʼ011 Patent, col. 1:21-33 Conventional solutions like call forwarding were noted to have limitations, such as requiring each device to have its own number and lacking flexibility ʼ011 Patent, col. 1:45-54
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system of inter-dependent telephone devices where only one device is in an "activated mode" at any given time, capable of making or receiving calls ʼ011 Patent, abstract The other devices in the group are in a "stand-by mode" and are incapable of making or receiving calls until a user operates a "switch" to change which device is active ʼ011 Patent, col. 2:57-67 This switch can be operated "on-the-fly," allowing a user to redirect a call from one device to another even while it is in progress ʼ011 Patent, abstract ʼ011 Patent, col. 3:9-20 The system can be configured so that all devices share an identical calling number ʼ011 Patent, col. 4:23-26
• Technical Importance: The described solution aims to simplify user communications by reducing the number of phone numbers one needs to manage, while simultaneously increasing user control over which physical device is the primary point of contact at any moment ʼ011 Patent, col. 2:39-44

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint does not specify which claims of the ʼ011 Patent it asserts, referring only to "Exemplary '011 Patent Claims" Compl. ¶11 Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A telephone communication system comprising a group of at least two telephones.
  • Each telephone is configured to be placed in an "activated mode" or, alternatively, 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" configured to activate one telephone, which places all other telephones in the group into "standby mode."
  • At least one of the standby telephones is configured to 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 identify any specific accused products or services by name Compl. ¶11 It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly detailed in an "Exhibit 2" attached to the complaint Compl. ¶16 This exhibit was not provided.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint provides no description of the functionality or market context of the accused products. All allegations regarding the technical operation of the accused products are incorporated by reference from the unprovided Exhibit 2 Compl. ¶17

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim charts in an unprovided "Exhibit 2" to support its infringement allegations Compl. ¶16 Compl. ¶17 Without this exhibit, the complaint's narrative infringement theory is conclusory. It alleges that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" practice the technology of the ʼ011 Patent and "satisfy all elements" of the asserted claims Compl. ¶16 The complaint alleges direct infringement through Defendant's making, using, and selling the products, as well as through internal testing by Defendant's employees Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶12 No specific facts detailing how the accused products allegedly meet the claim limitations are included in the body of the complaint.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A potential issue is the scope of the term "telephone." The dispute may involve whether modern software-based communication clients (e.g., VoIP applications) that are not traditional hardware devices qualify as "telephones" under the patent's claims.
• Technical Questions: A central question will be how the accused products implement the claimed "stand-by mode" and whether that mode renders a device "incapable of placing or receiving a call," as required by the claim. Another key technical question is what mechanism in the accused products constitutes the claimed "switch" that transfers a device from stand-by to active mode. The complaint provides no factual basis to analyze these points.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

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

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core functionality of the "stand-by mode." Its construction is critical to determining infringement, as it distinguishes the claimed invention from systems where multiple devices might simply be logged out or have notifications silenced. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a network-level blocking of calls or if a device-level software restriction suffices.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional and does not specify the mechanism of incapability. This may support an interpretation that covers any technical means that prevents a user from successfully placing or answering a call on the stand-by device.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a "mobile switching device" that transfers calls, which could suggest that the "incapability" is a network-level function where calls are not routed to the stand-by device at all, rather than a feature of the end-user device itself ʼ011 Patent, col. 5:20-47

The Term: "switch"

• Context and Importance: This term identifies the mechanism for changing the system's state. The dispute will likely center on what user action or system process in the accused products corresponds to this claimed element.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states the switch can be of "numerous types, including, but not limited to a toggle switch, a Personal Identification Number (PIN), and/or a menu-type switch... voice activated switch, or other switch capable of activating one telephone device" ʼ011 Patent, col. 4:50-59 This language supports a broad definition encompassing various user interface elements.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed examples consistently describe the switch as a deliberate, affirmative user action for the express purpose of changing the active device (e.g., entering a PIN to activate a phone) ʼ011 Patent, col. 6:25-31 A defendant might argue that this precludes interpreting the term to cover automatic or implicit state changes.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant sells the accused products to customers and distributes "product literature and website materials" that instruct end users on how to use the products in an infringing manner Compl. ¶14 Compl. ¶15 The complaint references the unprovided Exhibit 2 for evidence supporting these allegations Compl. ¶14

Willful Infringement

The basis for willfulness is alleged post-suit knowledge. The complaint asserts that its service, along with the unprovided claim charts, provides Defendant with "actual knowledge" of infringement, and any subsequent infringing activities are therefore willful Compl. ¶13 Compl. ¶14 No pre-suit knowledge is alleged.

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

• A primary issue is one of evidentiary sufficiency: The complaint's infringement allegations are entirely dependent on an unprovided exhibit. A threshold question will be whether the plaintiff can produce specific factual evidence to support its conclusory claims that the accused products meet each limitation of the asserted patent claims.
• A key technical question will be one of functional implementation: Assuming an evidentiary basis is established, the case will likely turn on whether the accused system's method for managing multiple clients or devices creates a "stand-by mode" that renders a device truly "incapable of...receiving a call," or if it merely implements a notification or routing preference that falls short of the claim's requirements.
• The dispute may also involve a question of definitional scope: The construction of the term "switch" will be critical. The court will need to determine if it requires a dedicated, user-initiated command intended to change the active device, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover other system state changes, such as logging into a new device.