Missed Call LLC v. Freshworks — Patent Infringement Action Closed After 1,263 Days
Missed Call, LLC filed suit against Freshworks, Inc. in the District of Delaware asserting US9531872B2, a patent covering communication apparatus for missed call indication technology. The case ran for over three years before closing in November 2025 under a basis recorded as ‘Other’ — the specific resolution terms are not disclosed in the public record.
A three-year Delaware patent dispute over missed call notification technology
Missed Call, LLC filed its complaint against Freshworks, Inc. on 6 June 2022 in the District of Delaware before Judge Colm F. Connolly, asserting infringement of US9531872B2. That patent — with application number US13/811195 — covers a communication apparatus for providing an indication about a missed call and related methods. The accused products fall squarely within Freshworks’s customer communications and helpdesk platform portfolio, which includes telephony and call management capabilities.
The case was terminated on 20 November 2025, with the basis of termination recorded simply as ‘Other’ in the public docket. This designation is non-standard and does not map cleanly to a voluntary dismissal, consent judgment, or trial verdict. The public record is silent on specific resolution terms, making it impossible to confirm whether the parties reached a licensing arrangement, settlement, or whether the case ended on procedural grounds without merits adjudication.
The 1,263-day duration — more than three and a half years — is notable for a single-patent, single-defendant action at the district court level. The length suggests the parties engaged in substantive motion practice and discovery before reaching resolution, though the ‘Other’ basis of termination leaves the commercial and legal outcome opaque. What drove the ultimate closure, and on what terms, remains unknown from the public record alone.
Filing to Other in 1263 days
1,263 days — over 3.4 years, notably long for a single-patent infringement action at first instance
Case closed on ‘Other’ basis: what the termination record reveals
‘Other’ basis of termination: what it typically signals
When a district court docket records ‘Other’ as the basis of termination, it generally indicates the case ended outside standard procedural categories — neither a trial verdict, voluntary dismissal, nor formal consent judgment was entered in the typical manner. This designation is consistent with confidential settlement terms memorialised without a public consent order, or a joint stipulation of dismissal filed without prejudice or with prejudice language omitted. The substantive outcome is not determinable from the public record alone.
Basis: Other — non-standard terminationMissed Call LLC’s position after closure is undisclosed
Without a recorded judgment or explicit dismissal terms, it is not possible to confirm whether Missed Call, LLC obtained any licence, damages award, or other commercial consideration from Freshworks. The ‘Other’ designation neither confirms nor forecloses a plaintiff-favourable resolution. If the case ended in a confidential licence, the patent US9531872B2 may remain active and enforceable against other parties — a material consideration for any competitor operating in the communications or helpdesk technology space.
Outcome undisclosedFreshworks: no public record of adverse judgment
Freshworks, Inc. faced no publicly recorded adverse judgment or consent decree. If the matter resolved through settlement, any licence terms and financial consideration would be confidential. Freshworks continues to operate its communications platform without a public finding of infringement on the record. However, the absence of a public non-infringement or invalidity ruling means the patent’s validity and scope were not tested to a final merits decision in this proceeding.
No adverse judgment on recordUS9531872B2 may remain a live enforcement risk in communications tech
Where a case involving a patent assertion entity closes on undisclosed terms, the underlying patent typically remains in force and can be asserted against other defendants. Businesses offering call management, helpdesk telephony, or missed-call notification features — particularly cloud-based platforms comparable to Freshworks — should treat US9531872B2 as an active risk. A freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent is advisable for any product team operating in the unified communications or contact centre software sector.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Missed Call, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9531872B2 covering missed call communication apparatusSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Freshworks, Inc. | Company | Freshworks, Inc. — cloud-based customer engagement and helpdesk software providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jimmy C. Chong | Attorney | Counsel for Missed Call, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Missed Call, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Chong Law Firm PA | Law Firm | Representing Missed Call, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David A. Bilson | Attorney | Counsel for Freshworks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John C. Phillips , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Freshworks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rex A. Mann | Attorney | Counsel for Freshworks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall PA | Law Firm | Representing Freshworks, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Colm F. Connolly | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The docket records ‘CASECLOSED’ as the verdict entry, with termination basis listed as ‘Other.’ This is a procedural closure notation rather than a substantive merits disposition. It confirms the case has ended but provides no information on whether infringement was found, whether the patent was challenged on validity grounds, or on what terms the parties parted. For practitioners, this means the public record cannot be used as evidence of non-infringement or invalidity of US9531872B2 in any subsequent proceeding.
US9531872B2 — Missed Call Communication Apparatus and Indication Method
US9531872B2 — filed under application number US13/811195 — covers a communication apparatus configured to provide an indication about a missed call, together with associated methods. The patent sits within the telecommunications and unified communications domain, addressing the problem of reliably notifying a called party of an unanswered or missed communication event. This technology is foundational to modern helpdesk, contact centre, and customer engagement platforms where missed-call handling directly affects service level metrics and customer satisfaction.
From a strategic standpoint, the breadth of ‘communication apparatus’ language in this patent’s claims may extend beyond traditional telephony hardware to encompass software-implemented call management systems — a category that includes virtually every cloud-based CRM, helpdesk, and UCaaS platform operating today. The fact that a patent assertion entity elected to assert this patent against Freshworks, a leading cloud CRM vendor, suggests confidence in the claim scope’s applicability to software-defined telephony features. Any competitor offering similar functionality faces a comparable risk profile.
Should you run an FTO against US9531872B2?
If your product or platform includes any form of missed call notification, callback scheduling, call indication logging, or unanswered call alerting — whether in a helpdesk, contact centre, UCaaS, or CRM context — US9531872B2 warrants a direct freedom-to-operate assessment. This case confirms the patent has been actively asserted against at least one major cloud communications vendor. The absence of a public invalidity finding means the patent’s claims remain presumptively valid and enforceable as of the case closure date.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US9531872B2’s claim elements against your product’s technical architecture, identify prior art that may inform a validity challenge, and surface related patents in the same family or by the same assignee that could represent additional exposure. For R&D teams building call management or notification features, running this analysis before product launch or the next funding round is a standard risk-management step that this litigation record makes more urgent.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9531872B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: missed call and communications technology in US district courts
Cases involving missed call notification and unified communications patents litigated in the District of Delaware and comparable US district courts, including PAE enforcement patterns.
What this case signals for the communications software IP landscape
A three-year Delaware dispute over missed call notification IP, closed without public merits resolution, raises several strategic considerations for communications platform vendors.
PAE litigation in communications tech continues to generate multi-year exposure
The 1,263-day duration of this action demonstrates that even single-patent, single-defendant cases in Delaware can run well beyond typical benchmarks when the technology is commercially sensitive. Communications platform vendors should anticipate protracted timelines when targeted by patent assertion entities and build litigation reserves accordingly.
Undisclosed outcomes preserve enforcement optionality for the patent holder
A closure recorded as ‘Other’ without public dismissal terms means US9531872B2 retains its presumption of validity and is not estopped by any public finding. Competitors of Freshworks in the helpdesk and contact centre software market should not treat this closure as a clearance event — the patent may be actively enforced against new targets.
Missed v Freshworks — key questions answered
Missed Call, LLC asserted US9531872B2 (application number US13/811195), a patent covering a communication apparatus for providing an indication about a missed call and associated methods. The case was filed in the District of Delaware on 6 June 2022.
The case closed on 20 November 2025 with termination basis recorded as ‘Other’ — a non-standard designation that does not correspond to a trial verdict, voluntary dismissal, or consent judgment. The specific resolution terms are not publicly disclosed. This is consistent with a confidential settlement or a procedurally unusual closure, but the public record alone cannot confirm which.
No. The ‘CASECLOSED’ / ‘Other’ termination provides no merits ruling on validity or infringement. The patent retains its statutory presumption of validity. No court finding of non-infringement or invalidity was publicly recorded in this proceeding. Competitors should not treat this closure as a clearance event.
The 1,263-day duration is consistent with substantive motion practice, claim construction proceedings, and discovery in a Delaware patent infringement action. Judge Connolly’s court is known for rigorous disclosure requirements for patent assertion entities, which can extend pre-trial timelines. The specific procedural history driving the duration is not fully visible from the public docket data available.
The case record identifies the relevant product category as ‘Communication apparatus for providing an indication about a missed call, and method thereof,’ consistent with Freshworks’s call management and telephony features embedded in its customer engagement and helpdesk platform. Specific accused product names are not publicly detailed in the available docket data.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.