Missed Call, LLC v. Freshworks, Inc.: Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice in Missed Call Notification Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs in patent litigation analysis:
Learn from this case
Understand the legal analysis, timeline, and key takeaways
RecommendedCheck my product’s risk
Run FTO analysis for your own technology or product
Explore patent landscape
View related patents and competitive intelligence
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Missed Call, LLC v. Freshworks, Inc. |
| Case Number | 1:23-cv-02913 (D. Colorado) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Duration | Nov 3, 2023 – Mar 21, 2024 139 days |
| Outcome | Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Missed call indication features within Freshworks’ communication and customer support software suite |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity (PAE) holding intellectual property rights related to telephony notification technology.
🛡️ Defendant
A publicly traded SaaS company offering customer engagement, IT service management, and CRM software platforms.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on U.S. Patent No. 9,531,872 B2 (application number US13/811195), directed to technology designed to facilitate providing an indication of a missed telephone call. In plain terms, the patent covers methods or systems by which a user or system receives notification that a phone call was missed — a foundational feature embedded in modern communication platforms and CRM tools.
- • US 9,531,872 B2 — Facilitating missed telephone call indications
Developing communication platform features?
Check if your telephony design might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case terminated via **voluntary dismissal with prejudice**, filed by Missed Call, LLC pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal was explicitly designated as **with prejudice as to the asserted patent**, meaning Missed Call, LLC is permanently foreclosed from reasserting U.S. Patent No. 9,531,872 B2 against Freshworks in any future action. Importantly, **each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees** — a standard term in negotiated early dismissals that avoids fee-shifting litigation under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was granted or denied on the merits.
Key Legal Issues
While this case produced no precedential ruling, its procedural outcome carries instructive weight. The formal cause of action was an **infringement action**, but the legal mechanism of termination — voluntary dismissal before responsive pleading — means no court ruling on the merits of infringement, validity, or claim construction was issued. The with-prejudice designation, however, is the analytically significant element here.
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss without prejudice as a matter of right before the defendant answers. Choosing to dismiss **with prejudice** is therefore a deliberate, negotiated concession — not a default outcome. This signals that Freshworks’ legal team, led by Winston & Strawn, likely communicated a compelling defense posture that made continued litigation economically or legally unattractive for the plaintiff. Potential defense considerations may have included: invalidity arguments based on prior art in the telephony notification space, non-infringement positions grounded in claim construction of the ‘872 patent’s key claims, or an inter partes review (IPR) petition threat — a common and effective deterrent deployed by well-resourced defendants facing NPE assertions.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in telephony software. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand Telephony IP Landscape
Learn about patent assertion patterns and related technologies in communication software.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in telephony IP
- Understand claim construction patterns for notification patents
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own communication technology or software.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Missed call and notification features
Active PAE Activity
In telephony notification patents
Proactive Defenses
Can lead to early dismissals
✅ Key Takeaways
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) can serve as a complete resolution tool — but permanently forecloses reassertion against that defendant.
Search related case law →The absence of § 285 fee-shifting is a negotiated outcome, not automatic; experienced defense counsel will evaluate fee motion viability as leverage.
Explore precedents →PAE cases in telephony remain viable but face increasing resistance from well-resourced defendants.
Analyze PAE trends →Frequently Asked Questions
U.S. Patent No. 9,531,872 B2 (application no. US13/811195), directed to technology for facilitating the provision of a missed telephone call indication.
Missed Call, LLC voluntarily filed for dismissal with prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Freshworks answered, permanently barring reassertion of the patent against Freshworks. Each party bore its own fees and costs.
It reinforces that early, aggressive defense posturing by well-resourced defendants can resolve PAE assertions before merits litigation — a strategic model increasingly adopted in the SaaS and communication software sector.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- USPTO Patent Search – US9531872B2
- PACER Case Lookup – D. Colorado 1:23-cv-02913
- Cornell Legal Information Institute – Federal Rule 41 (Voluntary Dismissal)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.