RecepTrexx LLC v. Verizon Communications — Dismissed Without Prejudice in 4 Days
RecepTrexx LLC filed suit against Verizon Communications in the Eastern District of Texas asserting USRE042997E, a reissue patent covering triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming cellular calls. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just four days after filing — one of the shortest-lived patent actions on record in that district.
Four-day filing-to-dismissal in a cellular voicemail IP action
On January 26, 2024, RecepTrexx LLC filed an infringement action against Verizon Communications Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00057), asserting U.S. Reissue Patent RE42,997E. The patent covers a system and method for triggered playback of recorded messages delivered to incoming telephone calls on a cellular phone — technology closely associated with voicemail interception and automated message delivery in wireless networks.
On January 30, 2024 — just four days after filing — RecepTrexx filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap accepted the notice, dismissed all claims without prejudice, and ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No answer or motion for summary judgment had been filed by Verizon prior to dismissal, making Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) available as a matter of right.
The four-day lifespan is exceptionally short even by the standards of cases that settle early. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement, a pre-litigation demand, or a procedural concern prompted the rapid withdrawal. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, RecepTrexx retains the option to refile against Verizon — or pursue other carriers — should commercial discussions stall.
Filing to resolution in 4 days
4 days — among the fastest closures in E.D. Texas patent history
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice — what this means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right
Because Verizon had not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, RecepTrexx could dismiss unilaterally under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without seeking court approval. The court’s order formally acknowledges the notice rather than granting permission. This mechanism is only available in the window before the defendant responds — and RecepTrexx used it within four days of filing.
Plaintiff-initiated, no court approval neededWithout prejudice: claims survive for potential refiling
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish RecepTrexx’s patent rights or its ability to assert the same claims again. The public record is silent on whether any settlement or licensing agreement was reached — the notice simply states dismissal without prejudice. This contrasts with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar RecepTrexx from reasserting these claims against Verizon. Verizon obtains no preclusive protection from this order.
RecepTrexx may refile against VerizonEach party bears its own costs — no fee-shifting
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. In patent cases, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 requires the case to be declared ‘exceptional’ — a finding that is unavailable here given the pre-answer dismissal. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with either an amicable resolution or a strategic withdrawal before substantive litigation costs were incurred.
No § 285 exceptional case findingRE42,997E: broader claims after USPTO reissue
USRE042997E is a reissue of an earlier granted U.S. patent, corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 251. Reissue patents are often sought to broaden original claims to cover commercially significant implementations identified after grant — which can make them more potent assertion vehicles. The underlying application number US12/001974 indicates a filing in the 2000s technology generation, relevant to early cellular voicemail and call-handling architectures.
Potentially broadened reissue claimsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RecepTrexx, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of reissue patent USRE042997E in cellular messagingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Verizon Communications, Inc. | Company | Verizon Communications Inc. — major U.S. telecommunications carrier and wireless network operatorSearch 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 reflects a ministerial acceptance of RecepTrexx’s notice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) rather than a substantive ruling on the merits. The phrase ‘dismissed without prejudice’ is legally significant: Verizon obtains no res judicata protection, no invalidity ruling, and no exceptional-case fee award. The mutual cost-bearing term is standard for pre-answer dismissals. The order’s silence on any licensing terms is typical — such arrangements, if they exist, are private contracts not reflected in public court records.
USRE042997E — Triggered playback of recorded messages to cellular calls
U.S. Reissue Patent RE42,997E covers a system and method for triggering the playback of pre-recorded messages to incoming telephone calls directed to a cellular phone. Underlying application US12/001974 suggests an original filing in the mid-to-late 2000s — a period when conditional call forwarding and carrier voicemail interception were being standardised across 3G networks. As a reissue patent, RE42,997E was granted after the USPTO reviewed and corrected the original patent under 35 U.S.C. § 251, potentially with amended or broadened claims.
The technology domain — automated message playback triggered by call state on cellular networks — intersects with carrier voicemail platforms, enterprise PBX systems, and modern cloud communications services. Reissue patents in this space can present elevated assertion risk because broadened claims may reach implementations that were not originally contemplated. Competitors and licensees operating in cellular call-handling, IVR, or voicemail-to-email services should treat this patent as a live assertion risk given the without-prejudice dismissal.
Should your team run an FTO against USRE042997E?
If your product or service involves triggering automated or pre-recorded message playback in response to incoming calls on cellular networks — including voicemail, conditional call forwarding, enterprise auto-attendant, or cloud PBX features — USRE042997E should be part of your freedom-to-operate review. The patent has been actively asserted against a major U.S. carrier, and the without-prejudice dismissal means assertion risk persists. R&D and product teams building on cellular call-state APIs or carrier voicemail infrastructure are particularly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of USRE042997E against your product’s technical implementation, surface prior art that may bear on validity, and identify any related continuation or reissue family members that could present additional risk. Claim monitoring alerts can notify your team if further litigation activity involving this patent or related assertions by RecepTrexx LLC is detected — giving you early warning before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE042997E to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases involving cellular messaging and reissue patents in E.D. Texas
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 cellular messaging IP landscape
A four-day patent suit against a Tier-1 carrier raises pointed questions about assertion strategy, licensing dynamics, and reissue patent risk in telecom.
Pre-answer dismissals often signal off-docket licensing activity
When a plaintiff dismisses within days of filing — before the defendant has even retained local counsel — it frequently suggests that a licensing conversation was already underway or concluded rapidly. The without-prejudice designation preserves leverage. Companies receiving similar early-stage notices from patent assertion entities should assess whether a demand letter preceded the filing.
Reissue patents targeting telecom infrastructure warrant proactive FTO review
RE42,997E covers triggered playback of recorded messages to cellular calls — a function embedded across carrier voicemail, conditional call forwarding, and enterprise communication platforms. Any company offering call-handling or voicemail services on cellular networks should assess whether reissue claims have been broadened to cover their specific implementations.
RecepTrexx v Verizon — key questions answered
RecepTrexx LLC filed a patent infringement action against Verizon Communications in the Eastern District of Texas on January 26, 2024, asserting USRE042997E. Four days later, on January 30, 2024, RecepTrexx voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
Dismissed without prejudice means RecepTrexx retains the right to refile the same patent infringement claims against Verizon in the future. Verizon receives no preclusive protection — there is no invalidity finding, no merits ruling, and no bar on future litigation. The dismissal simply closes the current case without adjudicating the underlying dispute.
USRE042997E is a U.S. reissue patent covering a system and method for triggering the playback of pre-recorded messages to incoming telephone calls directed to a cellular phone. It was reissued by the USPTO under 35 U.S.C. § 251 from underlying application US12/001974, filed in the 2000s. The technology is relevant to cellular voicemail, call forwarding, and automated call-handling systems.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the four-day dismissal. Possible explanations consistent with this pattern include a pre-existing licensing negotiation that concluded rapidly, a strategic decision to refile in a different forum, or a procedural issue identified after filing. The without-prejudice status preserves RecepTrexx’s options, which is consistent with a temporary or strategic withdrawal.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00057) and was presided over by Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap — one of the most experienced patent judges in the federal judiciary, known for the high volume of patent cases managed in that district.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.