Missed Call, LLC v. Mitel Network, Inc.
Infringement action filed 20 Oct 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 26 Oct 2023, with US9531872B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US9531872B2
- Application no.
- US13/811195
- Case no.
- 1:23-cv-01281
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Robert Pitman
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 20 Oct 2023 – 26 Oct 2023
- Duration
- 6 days
- Basis of termination
- Voluntary dismissal
- Products & marks
- Communication apparatus for providing an indication about a missed call, and method thereof
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Communication apparatus for providing an indication about a missed call, and method thereof
A communication apparatus for providing an indication about a missed telephone call. The apparatus includes receiving means for receiving an incoming call, a control unit for processing said incoming call, and output means for outputting information to an user. The communication apparatus also includes processing means which extracts a cause value contained in a cause information element sent from a network to the communication apparatus, and which outputs to the user an indication related to a missed call via the output means. The cause value indicates whether the call was cleared by the calling user or by the network. The communication apparatus outputs to the user, via the output means, an indication related to whether the missed call was caused by the calling user or by the network.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 27 Dec 2016
- Est. expiry
- 14 Jul 2031
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- DE CARNEY, CAROLINA
- Classification
- H04M3/42H04M11/04H04M1/725H04M1/724
- Prosecution counsel
- Workman Nydegger
- Examiner
- GODDARD, TAMMY PAIGE
Parties of record
Missed Call, LLC
- Core tech
- H04M3/42H04M11/04H04M1/725H04M1/724
- Counsel
- William P. Ramey III
- Firm
- Ramey LLP
Mitel Network, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| William P. Ramey III | Missed Call, LLC | Plaintiff |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed all claims in this case with prejudice. (Dkt. 5). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant has not served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s notice is therefore “self-effectuating and terminates the case in and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.” In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th Cir. 2015), as revised (May 15, 2015)”
Case 1:23-cv-01281 · W.D. Tex. · closed 26 October 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 1:23-cv-01281?
1:23-cv-01281 is a patent infringement action brought by Missed Call, LLC against Mitel Network, Inc., filed on 20 Oct 2023 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 26 October 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 1:23-cv-01281?
US9531872B2 (“Communication apparatus for providing an indication about a missed call, and method thereof”), assigned to MISSED CALL LLC, currently active. The record also lists Communication apparatus for providing an indication about a missed call, and method thereof.
How was case 1:23-cv-01281 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: “On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed all claims in this case with prejudice. (Dkt. 5). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily 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. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Defendant has not served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s notice is therefore “self-effectuating and terminates the case in and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.” In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th C
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:23-cv-01281 take?
6 calendar days, from filing on 20 Oct 2023 to closure on 26 October 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:23-cv-01281?
Chief Judge Robert Pitman presided. William P. Ramey III is recorded as counsel for plaintiff Missed Call.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:23-cv-01281 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.