Missed Call LLC v. Avaya LLC: Infringement Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice in 67 Days
Missed Call LLC filed suit against Avaya LLC in the Southern District of Texas asserting US9531872B2, a patent covering systems for providing missed telephone call indications. The case closed in just 67 days when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), leaving the door open for future litigation.
A 67-Day Patent Skirmish Over Missed Call Technology — Closed, Not Concluded
On October 16, 2025, Missed Call LLC — a patent assertion entity represented by Ramey LLP — filed an infringement action against Avaya LLC in the Southern District of Texas before Judge Keith P. Ellison. The suit centred on US9531872B2, a patent directed at systems and methods for facilitating the provision of missed telephone call indications, a technology directly relevant to Avaya’s enterprise communications and unified communications product portfolio.
The case ended on December 22, 2025, when Missed Call LLC filed a Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Ellison confirmed the dismissal without prejudice and directed the clerk to administratively close the case. Critically, a dismissal without prejudice means no adjudication on the merits occurred — Avaya received no formal vindication, and Missed Call LLC retains the right to reassert these same claims in a future action.
The 67-day lifespan is notably short even for voluntarily dismissed patent cases, suggesting resolution — whether through licensing discussions, a decision to refile in a different venue, or a strategic reassessment — occurred before any substantive court filings such as claim construction or invalidity briefing. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement or licensing agreement was reached between the parties, and that fact remains unknown.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 67 days
67 days — well below the median time-to-termination for patent cases in S.D. Texas, suggesting early resolution before substantive proceedings
Dismissed without prejudice: what this closure means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit before answer
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This procedural mechanism requires no judicial approval and leaves the case without any ruling on the merits. The court’s order here simply confirms what the rule already provides.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the critical distinction the public record confirms
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ explicitly preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims against the same defendant. This contrasts with a ‘with prejudice’ dismissal, which would bar any future suit on the same cause of action. The court’s order here expressly states ‘DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE’, meaning Missed Call LLC’s patent infringement claims against Avaya are not extinguished — they are merely paused.
Refiling right preservedAvaya exits without a ruling — but faces residual risk
Avaya LLC secured no declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity. While the immediate litigation burden is lifted, the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means Avaya cannot treat this case as a resolved threat. A future filing asserting US9531872B2 is legally permissible. Avaya’s counsel at Perkins Coie LLP mounted a four-attorney defence team, suggesting the matter was taken seriously before resolution.
No declaratory judgment wonEnterprise comms sector: missed call IP remains an active assertion vector
The swift dismissal without prejudice is consistent with a licensing negotiation or strategic repositioning rather than a genuine withdrawal. Unified communications providers, VoIP platform vendors, and enterprise telephony developers with products that surface missed call notifications should treat US9531872B2 as a continuing risk asset. Ramey LLP’s pattern of filing and resolving cases quickly is well-documented in the patent assertion landscape.
Ongoing IP risk for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Missed Call, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9531872B2 covering missed call notification systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Avaya LLC | Company | Avaya LLC — enterprise communications and unified communications technology providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Missed Call, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Missed Call, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cory Nicholson Owan | Attorney | Counsel for Avaya LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew J. Moffa | Attorney | Counsel for Avaya LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ruben Tyler Kendrick | Attorney | Counsel for Avaya LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William J. McCabe | Attorney | Counsel for Avaya LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Avaya LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Keith P Ellison | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal precisely, confirming the case closed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a procedural self-dismissal requiring no judicial merits analysis. The phrase ‘DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE’ is legally significant: it means Avaya obtained no ruling on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The administrative closure instruction is standard housekeeping. For practitioners, this order provides no estoppel, no claim construction precedent, and no guidance on the scope of US9531872B2.
US9531872B2 — Missed Telephone Call Indication Systems
US9531872B2, filed under application number US13/811195, protects systems and methods for facilitating the provision of an indication of a missed telephone call. The patent sits at the intersection of telephony signalling and notification delivery — covering the logic by which a communication system detects a missed call event and surfaces an appropriate indication to the called party. This is foundational functionality in unified communications, VoIP, and enterprise telephony architectures.
The commercial relevance of US9531872B2 extends well beyond traditional PSTN telephony. Any UCaaS platform, contact centre solution, mobile VoIP application, or enterprise PBX system that implements missed call detection and notification logic is a potential candidate for infringement analysis. Avaya’s product suite — spanning Avaya Cloud Office, Avaya Experience Platform, and legacy IP Office systems — makes it a natural target. Other vendors in the enterprise communications space face equivalent exposure.
Should your UCaaS or VoIP platform run an FTO against US9531872B2?
Any R&D team or product manager working on enterprise telephony, UCaaS platforms, contact centre software, or VoIP applications that surface missed call notifications should treat US9531872B2 as a live FTO concern. The patent remains fully enforceable, no claim construction has narrowed its scope, and the plaintiff retains the right to refile. The breadth of ‘missed call indication’ as a functional claim anchor means the risk perimeter may be wider than the product name suggests.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US9531872B2 against your product’s technical architecture, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and surface co-pending or related applications that may extend the assertion risk. Given Ramey LLP’s multi-defendant filing patterns, proactive FTO analysis now — before a demand letter arrives — is materially cheaper than reactive litigation defence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9531872B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Missed Call & Telephony Notification Assertions in Federal Courts
Browse related patent infringement actions involving missed call, VoIP notification, and unified communications technology filed in S.D. Texas and peer federal district courts.
What this case signals for the enterprise communications IP landscape
A 67-day lifespan and a without-prejudice exit suggest this case is a negotiation event, not a concluded dispute.
Without-prejudice dismissals by PAEs frequently precede refiling or licensing closes
When patent assertion entities dismiss voluntarily and without prejudice this early in a case, it typically signals one of two things: a licensing agreement was reached privately, or the plaintiff is repositioning to refile in a more favourable venue or against a broader defendant pool. Neither outcome benefits Avaya’s long-term IP posture without a formal resolution on the merits.
US9531872B2 remains fully enforceable — FTO analysis is unresolved
No invalidity ruling, no claim construction, and no court-ordered limitation of claim scope emerged from this case. Any enterprise communications product that surfaces missed call indications — whether VoIP, UCaaS, or contact centre platforms — should treat this patent as an active, unlitigated risk. The patent’s enforceability is entirely intact.
Missed v Avaya — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice. On December 22, 2025, Missed Call LLC filed a Notice of Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and Judge Ellison confirmed the dismissal without prejudice. This means Missed Call LLC retains the right to refile the same patent infringement claims against Avaya in the future.
The single patent asserted was US9531872B2, filed under application number US13/811195. It covers systems and methods for facilitating the provision of an indication of a missed telephone call — foundational functionality relevant to enterprise telephony, VoIP, and unified communications platforms.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. No merits adjudication occurs. In patent cases, this means no ruling on infringement, invalidity, or claim scope — preserving the plaintiff’s right to refile and leaving the defendant without a formal vindication.
No. A without-prejudice dismissal provides no estoppel protection to Avaya. Missed Call LLC can refile the same infringement claims in federal district court. To obtain formal protection, Avaya would need either a with-prejudice dismissal, a settlement agreement with covenant-not-to-sue provisions, or a successful IPR petition challenging the patent’s validity at the USPTO.
Missed Call LLC was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP, a law firm frequently associated with patent assertion entity litigation. Avaya LLC was represented by a four-attorney team from Perkins Coie LLP, including Cory Nicholson Owan, Matthew J. Moffa, Ruben Tyler Kendrick, and William J. McCabe.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.