Missed Call LLC v. Twilio — Patent Infringement Dismissed After 1,263 Days
Missed Call, LLC asserted US9531872B2 — covering technology for facilitating missed telephone call indications — against Twilio, Inc. in the District of Delaware. The case was filed in June 2022 and closed in November 2025 after 1,263 days, with the court dismissing the action.
Missed Call LLC’s Twilio suit ends in dismissal after 3+ years
Missed Call, LLC filed suit against Twilio, Inc. on June 6, 2022, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, before Judge Colm F. Connolly. The complaint asserted infringement of US9531872B2, a patent covering technology for facilitating the provision of an indication of a missed telephone call. Twilio, a cloud communications platform, was alleged to have deployed functionality falling within the scope of that patent.
The case was closed on November 20, 2025, with the docket recording a dismissal. The basis of termination is listed as ‘Case Dismissed,’ though the public record does not specify whether the dismissal was entered with or without prejudice, or whether it followed a contested motion or a voluntary filing by the plaintiff. That distinction carries material consequences: dismissal with prejudice bars refiling on the same claims, while dismissal without prejudice leaves open the possibility of future action.
The case ran for 1,263 days — more than three and a half years — before resolution, a duration that suggests the parties engaged in substantive pre-trial activity, though no trial or published merits ruling appears in the public record. What drove the eventual dismissal — whether a negotiated resolution, a standing challenge, or a patent-validity dispute — remains unknown from available data. The absence of a fee award or cost ruling is consistent with a negotiated or procedural exit rather than a contested judgment.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 1263 days
1,263 days — well above the median for dismissed patent cases in D. Del.
Case dismissed: what the termination means for both parties
What ‘Case Dismissed’ means without a prejudice qualifier
A dismissal terminates the litigation but its effect on future claims depends on whether it was entered with or without prejudice. With prejudice: the plaintiff is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims. Without prejudice: refiling remains possible. The public docket records only ‘Case Dismissed,’ leaving the prejudice designation unclear. Courts and practitioners treat this distinction as highly significant for downstream risk assessment.
Prejudice qualifier unknownMissed Call LLC exits without a recorded merits win
Missed Call, LLC obtained no published judgment or damages award. If the dismissal was without prejudice, the company retains the theoretical ability to refile or pursue other alleged infringers. If with prejudice, the claims against Twilio are extinguished. The 1,263-day duration may suggest a negotiated exit, potentially including undisclosed commercial terms, though the public record is silent on this point.
No damages recordedTwilio avoids a public liability finding
Twilio, Inc. secured the closing of this case without any recorded finding of infringement or damages liability. A dismissal with prejudice would represent a full resolution of this particular threat. Even under a without-prejudice dismissal, Twilio’s litigation team will have developed detailed invalidity and non-infringement positions regarding US9531872B2 that would be available in any future proceeding. No fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 is recorded.
No infringement findingCPaaS providers face ongoing missed-call patent exposure
US9531872B2 targets a function — missed call notification — that is broadly implemented across cloud telephony and CPaaS platforms. The dismissal without a published merits ruling means the patent’s validity and claim scope were not adjudicated on the record. Other platforms offering similar missed-call or call-status notification features remain potentially exposed until the patent expires or is invalidated. An FTO analysis against US9531872B2 remains advisable for CPaaS and VoIP product teams.
Patent validity unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Missed Call, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9531872B2 covering missed call indication technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Twilio, Inc. | Company | Twilio, Inc. — cloud communications platform provider (CPaaS)Search 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 | Cortlan S. Hitch | Attorney | Counsel for Twilio, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morris James LLP | Law Firm | Representing Twilio, 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 marker, with ‘Case Dismissed’ as the basis of termination. This phrasing is procedural rather than substantive: no claim construction order, no summary judgment ruling, and no trial verdict appear in the public record. The absence of a prejudice qualifier in the available data means the legal effect on Missed Call LLC’s ability to pursue future enforcement of US9531872B2 — whether against Twilio or third parties — cannot be confirmed from this record alone.
US9531872B2 — Missed Telephone Call Indication Technology
US9531872B2 (application number US13/811195) is directed to technology for facilitating the provision of an indication of a missed telephone call. The patent addresses a foundational function in telephony and cloud communications: detecting a missed call event and delivering notification to the appropriate party. This functionality sits at the intersection of traditional PSTN signalling and modern cloud-based CPaaS architectures, making it relevant to a wide range of voice API and notification platform implementations.
The strategic significance of US9531872B2 lies in the breadth of the underlying function it covers. Missed-call indication is implemented across CPaaS platforms, mobile operating systems, enterprise PBX systems, and OTT communication apps. A patent asserting this functionality — if construed broadly — could implicate a large portion of the cloud telephony market. The lack of a merits ruling in this case means claim scope remains judicially untested, preserving enforcement optionality for the patent holder and residual risk for platform operators.
Should your CPaaS or VoIP platform run an FTO against US9531872B2?
Any product team building or deploying missed-call notification features, call-status webhooks, voicemail indicators, or call-event APIs should assess their exposure to US9531872B2. The patent’s claim language around ‘facilitating the provision of an indication of a missed telephone call’ is broad enough to warrant claim mapping against specific product implementations, particularly for cloud telephony providers, mobile app developers, and enterprise UC platform vendors.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim elements of US9531872B2 against your product architecture, surface relevant prior art that could support an IPR petition, and benchmark your exposure against the litigation history of this patent. Given that no court has construed the claims on the merits, early FTO analysis is the most cost-effective risk management step available to product teams in this space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9531872B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar missed-call and CPaaS patent cases in D. Del. and beyond
Related patent infringement cases involving cloud telephony, missed-call notification, and CPaaS platform technology litigated in the District of Delaware and comparable venues.
What this case signals for the CPaaS and cloud telephony IP landscape
A 3.5-year dismissal without a merits ruling leaves US9531872B2 in legal limbo — and other CPaaS providers in uncertainty.
No merits ruling means US9531872B2 remains a live threat to the sector
The dismissal of Missed Call LLC v. Twilio produced no published claim construction, invalidity finding, or non-infringement ruling. Any CPaaS, VoIP, or cloud telephony provider that implements missed-call notification or call-status indication features should treat US9531872B2 as unresolved. An IPR petition or FTO clearance strategy remains the only reliable path to neutralising this risk.
Judge Connolly’s D. Del. docket is a material venue consideration for PAEs
Judge Colm F. Connolly has become known for rigorous standing and disclosure requirements directed at patent assertion entities in the District of Delaware. Cases filed before him by PAEs have faced heightened scrutiny on ownership, standing, and funding disclosure. The extended duration and eventual dismissal here is consistent with that dynamic, though the precise driver is not confirmed by public record.
Missed v Twilio — key questions answered
Missed Call, LLC asserted US9531872B2 (application no. US13/811195), a patent covering technology for facilitating the provision of an indication of a missed telephone call. The case was filed in the District of Delaware on June 6, 2022.
The case was closed on November 20, 2025, after 1,263 days, with the docket recording ‘Case Dismissed.’ The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and no damages award or fee ruling was recorded.
No published merits ruling, claim construction order, or summary judgment decision appears in the publicly available case record. The case was dismissed without a trial or adjudicated judgment on the infringement or validity of US9531872B2.
US9531872B2 is a United States patent (application number US13/811195) directed to facilitating the provision of an indication of a missed telephone call. It covers missed-call notification functionality relevant to CPaaS platforms, VoIP services, mobile telephony applications, and cloud communications infrastructure.
No. A dismissal without a published merits ruling does not constitute a finding of non-infringement or invalidity. The claims of US9531872B2 were not adjudicated on the record in this case, meaning the patent’s enforceability and scope against Twilio or other parties remains legally unresolved based on publicly available information.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.