RecepTrexx LLC v. AT&T, Inc. — Voluntarily Dismissed in 5 Days
RecepTrexx LLC filed a patent infringement action against AT&T, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting reissue patent USRE042997E, which covers triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming cellular calls. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just five days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs.
Ultra-rapid voluntary exit in a cellular call-playback patent suit
On January 26, 2024, RecepTrexx LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against AT&T, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00051), presided over by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The asserted patent, USRE042997E — a reissue patent corresponding to application US12/001974 — covers the triggered playback of recorded messages delivered to incoming telephone calls on a cellular phone, a technology directly relevant to AT&T’s core telecommunications services.
Just five days after filing, on January 31, 2024, RecepTrexx filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, formally closing the case. Critically, the dismissal was entered without prejudice, meaning RecepTrexx retains the legal right to assert the same patent claims against AT&T again in the future. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
A five-day lifespan — from complaint to closure — is exceptionally brief, even by the standards of the Eastern District of Texas, which already processes a high volume of short-lived patent filings. The speed of dismissal suggests either a pre-filing settlement or licensing agreement was reached almost immediately, or that RecepTrexx identified a procedural or strategic reason to withdraw before AT&T had any opportunity to respond. The public record is silent on the underlying commercial terms, if any exist.
Filing to resolution in 5 days
Case closed 5 days after filing — among the shortest-lived cases in E.D. Tex.
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice — what the record shows
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — dismissal as of right before defendant responds
RecepTrexx invoked FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order and without prejudice before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because AT&T had not yet responded, RecepTrexx held an unconditional right to exit. The court’s role was purely administrative: to accept, acknowledge, and direct the clerk to close the case.
Plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismissWithout prejudice — but the public record does not tell the full story
A dismissal without prejudice means RecepTrexx is legally free to refile the same infringement claims against AT&T at any time, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. A dismissal with prejudice would have permanently barred refiling. The court order confirms this is a without-prejudice dismissal; however, whether any private licensing agreement or commercial settlement accompanied the exit is not disclosed in the public docket. The distinction matters: one signals a clean retreat, the other may signal a resolved dispute.
Refiling rights preservedEach party bears its own costs — no fee-shifting ordered
The court ordered that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case) was triggered. This is the standard outcome in early voluntary dismissals and is consistent with neither party having incurred substantial litigation expense. It does not, on its own, indicate whether any financial consideration passed between the parties outside the court proceeding.
No fee-shiftingFive-day filing suggests a pre-litigation negotiation or quick pivot
Filing and dismissing a patent complaint within five days — before service is even confirmed — is a known indicator of either a rapid licensing agreement reached post-filing, a pre-filing deal that was finalised upon suit commencement, or a plaintiff reconsidering its litigation posture. In the Eastern District of Texas, this pattern is observed in NPE assertion campaigns where suit filing itself serves as a negotiation trigger. The reissue nature of USRE042997E may also warrant closer examination of its claim scope.
Rapid exit patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RecepTrexx, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of reissue patent USRE042997E covering cellular call-playback technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | AT&T, Inc. | Company | AT&T, Inc. — major U.S. telecommunications carrier and wireless services providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for RecepTrexx, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Chief Judge | Texas Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order does not adjudicate the merits of any infringement claim — it is purely administrative, confirming RecepTrexx’s procedural right under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to exit before AT&T responded. The phrase ‘ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES’ reflects this ministerial posture. No findings of fact or law were made. The without-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing arrangement leave the substantive patent dispute legally unresolved, preserving RecepTrexx’s full right to refile.
USRE042997E — Triggered Playback of Recorded Messages to Cellular Calls
USRE042997E is a United States reissue patent corresponding to original application US12/001974. Reissue patents are granted when a patentee seeks to correct errors or broaden claims in an originally issued patent, subject to USPTO review under 35 U.S.C. § 251. The subject matter — triggered playback of recorded messages delivered to incoming calls on a cellular phone — sits at the intersection of telephony signalling, call-flow management, and audio playback systems, a space with broad commercial application across carrier and enterprise communications infrastructure.
The reissue designation is strategically significant: broadened reissue claims can extend assertion reach beyond the scope of the original patent, potentially capturing products and services that did not exist when the original application was filed. For the cellular communications sector, this patent is relevant to any system that intercepts or manages an inbound call and triggers the playback of a pre-recorded message — a description that encompasses voicemail prompts, IVR systems, call screening features, and visual voicemail products deployed by major U.S. carriers and their technology partners.
Should your team run an FTO against USRE042997E?
Any company developing or deploying call-management features on cellular networks — including IVR systems, voicemail platforms, call screening tools, auto-attendant services, or UCaaS products — should treat USRE042997E as a patent requiring active freedom-to-operate assessment. The fact that it was asserted against AT&T, one of the largest U.S. wireless carriers, suggests the patent holder views its claims as broadly applicable to mainstream carrier infrastructure, not merely niche implementations.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map the claims of USRE042997E against current product architectures, identify relevant prior art, and assess prosecution history estoppel from the reissue process. Claim monitoring alerts can notify your team if continuation applications or related reissue filings are published, providing early warning of an expanding assertion strategy before litigation is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE042997E to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases in cellular call management and telecom assertion
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the telecom and cellular services IP landscape
A five-day patent suit against AT&T over call-playback technology carries implications beyond this single docket entry.
Reissue patents in telecom are active assertion tools — monitor them closely
USRE042997E is a reissue patent, meaning its claims were broadened or corrected post-grant — a process that can significantly expand assertion scope relative to the original grant. Telecom companies and their vendors operating in the call-management, voicemail, and IVR space should treat reissue patents in this domain as elevated-risk assets worth active monitoring.
Without-prejudice dismissal preserves future threat — AT&T is not in the clear
RecepTrexx’s retention of refiling rights means this dispute may not be permanently resolved. Companies receiving without-prejudice dismissals from patent assertion entities should document their design and prior art positions contemporaneously, in case the same claims are reasserted — potentially in a different venue or against related products.
RecepTrexx v AT&T — key questions answered
RecepTrexx LLC filed a patent infringement action against AT&T, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on January 26, 2024, asserting reissue patent USRE042997E. Five days later, on January 31, 2024, RecepTrexx voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. No merits determination was made.
A dismissal without prejudice means RecepTrexx LLC retains the right to refile the same patent infringement claims against AT&T in the future. AT&T received no binding legal protection against re-assertion of USRE042997E. The dismissal does not constitute a finding that AT&T did not infringe, nor does it extinguish RecepTrexx’s patent rights. AT&T’s exposure to future claims on this patent remains legally intact.
USRE042997E is a United States reissue patent covering triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming telephone calls on a cellular phone. It corresponds to original application US12/001974. As a reissue patent, its claims may differ from — and potentially be broader than — those of the originally issued patent. The technology is relevant to IVR systems, voicemail, call screening, and auto-attendant features deployed by carriers and enterprise communications providers.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the ultra-rapid dismissal. Possibilities consistent with this pattern include: a pre-filing or post-filing licensing agreement being reached; a strategic decision by RecepTrexx to refile in a different venue or reformulate claims; or a recognition of a procedural issue. The five-day timeline — before AT&T had any opportunity to respond — is consistent with patterns observed in NPE assertion campaigns in the Eastern District of Texas.
RecepTrexx LLC was represented by attorney Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. No defendant agents or law firms entered appearances on behalf of AT&T, Inc. before the case was dismissed, consistent with the five-day lifespan of the case. Rabicoff Law LLC is a firm with a track record of patent assertion filings, and monitoring its other active cases may indicate whether this forms part of a broader assertion campaign.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.