RecepTrexx v. Ericsson — Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice After Just 5 Days
RecepTrexx, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Ericsson, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting reissue patent USRE042997E, covering triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming cellular calls. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 5 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs.
Five-day dismissal in a cellular message playback patent action
On January 26, 2024, RecepTrexx, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Ericsson, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00053), assigned to Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The asserted patent, USRE042997E, is a reissue patent related to the triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming telephone calls directed at a cellular phone. Ericsson, a major global telecommunications infrastructure and equipment company, was identified as the defendant in the infringement action.
Only 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, ordering all claims and causes of action against Ericsson to be dismissed without prejudice. Crucially, the court directed each party to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses, meaning no cost-shifting occurred in either direction.
A five-day lifecycle is exceptionally short even by the standards of quick dismissals in the Eastern District of Texas. The dismissal occurred before Ericsson had filed any responsive pleading or motion for summary judgment, which is the procedural prerequisite for a plaintiff to invoke Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) as of right. What drove the near-immediate withdrawal — whether pre-suit settlement negotiations, a licensing agreement, or a tactical reassessment — is not apparent from the public record.
Filing to resolution in 5 days
Case resolved in 5 days — among the fastest closures in E.D. Texas patent dockets
What the voluntary dismissal without prejudice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — dismissal as of right before response
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss its action without a court order at any time before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. RecepTrexx invoked this rule, which confirms Ericsson had not yet filed any responsive pleading. The court’s role was purely administrative — to accept and acknowledge the dismissal, not to approve or evaluate it.
No court discretion requiredWithout prejudice — refiling remains an open option for RecepTrexx
A dismissal without prejudice does not resolve the underlying merits. RecepTrexx retains the legal right to refile substantially the same infringement claims against Ericsson based on USRE042997E in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement, licensing arrangement, or other agreement underpins this dismissal — that distinction matters significantly for assessing re-litigation risk.
Refiling risk remains openEach party bears its own costs — no fee-shifting awarded
The court’s order expressly directed each party to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. This is a standard outcome in voluntary dismissals of this nature and does not signal any finding of bad faith or exceptional case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Ericsson cannot recover its defense costs despite the case being dismissed, and RecepTrexx absorbs its own filing and legal expenses.
Standard cost allocationFive-day window suggests pre-suit dynamics may have driven resolution
The absence of any docket activity beyond the complaint and the voluntary dismissal notice — resolved within five days — is consistent with a case filed to prompt licensing discussions, or one where a pre-existing negotiation concluded rapidly after filing. It may also reflect a plaintiff reassessment of claim scope or defendant identity. None of these explanations can be confirmed from the public docket alone.
Pre-suit dynamics likelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RecepTrexx, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of USRE042997E (triggered cellular message playback)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ericsson, Inc. | Company | Ericsson, Inc. — U.S. subsidiary of global telecom infrastructure and technology group EricssonSearch 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 accepts the dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), confirming it was filed before Ericsson served any responsive pleading — a procedural right requiring no judicial discretion. The ‘without prejudice’ designation is legally significant: no claim has been adjudicated on the merits, and RecepTrexx’s infringement position under USRE042997E remains legally intact. The cost-bearing order is symmetric and carries no adverse inference for either party.
USRE042997E — Triggered Playback of Recorded Messages to Cellular Calls
USRE042997E is a United States reissue patent, reissued from an original grant under application number US12/001974. The patent covers the triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming telephone calls directed at a cellular phone — a technology domain encompassing automated message delivery upon call receipt, relevant to voicemail interception, auto-attendant systems, and cellular call-handling platforms. As a reissue patent, it reflects a post-grant correction or broadening of claims, which typically signals the patentee sought wider enforcement coverage than the original grant provided.
For the telecommunications sector, USRE042997E sits at the intersection of cellular network call management and automated voice response — areas that underpin a significant portion of enterprise and carrier-grade telephony infrastructure. Ericsson’s involvement as defendant suggests the asserted claims may reach network-side or device-side implementations of message triggering functionality. Given that reissue patents can carry broader independent claims, competitors and infrastructure vendors in the cellular call-handling space face non-trivial exposure if their products interact with incoming call routing or pre-recorded message delivery.
Should your product team run an FTO against USRE042997E?
Any company developing or deploying products that involve triggered or automated playback of recorded messages in response to incoming cellular calls should treat USRE042997E as a live FTO concern. This includes carriers implementing voicemail or auto-attendant systems, vendors supplying IVR or call-routing infrastructure, and software developers building telephony integrations. The without-prejudice dismissal against Ericsson means the patent remains fully enforceable and assertion risk has not been extinguished.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of USRE042997E against your product’s technical architecture, identify the broadest independent claims, and flag any prosecution history estoppel from the reissue proceeding. Claim monitoring alerts will notify your team if related continuation or family patents publish, ensuring you stay ahead of any expanded assertion campaign in the cellular message playback space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE042997E to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases in cellular call-handling and message playback technology
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 communications IP landscape
A five-day patent suit against a tier-one telecom vendor is a pattern worth monitoring — it carries distinct signals for licensing strategy and portfolio enforcement.
Reissue patents carry broader claim risk — check USRE042997E scope carefully
USRE042997E is a reissue patent, meaning its claims were broadened or corrected after original grant. Reissue patents can have wider claim scope than the original, making freedom-to-operate analysis more complex. Any company operating in the triggered message playback or cellular call-handling space should audit exposure against the reissued claims specifically.
E.D. Texas Rule 41 dismissals without prejudice warrant ongoing monitoring
Cases dismissed without prejudice in the Eastern District of Texas — particularly against large defendants — frequently precede refiling, licensing demands to third parties, or parallel actions. RecepTrexx retains full rights to reassert USRE042997E against Ericsson or pursue other defendants in the same technology space. Monitoring plaintiff activity post-dismissal is advisable for any telecom vendor in scope.
RecepTrexx v Ericsson — key questions answered
RecepTrexx, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Ericsson, Inc. on January 26, 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting reissue patent USRE042997E. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by RecepTrexx just five days later on January 31, 2024, with each party ordered to bear its own costs.
Dismissal without prejudice means the court did not adjudicate the merits of the infringement claims. RecepTrexx retains the legal right to refile substantially the same claims against Ericsson based on USRE042997E in the future, subject to any applicable statute of limitations. No settlement or licensing agreement was disclosed in the public record.
RecepTrexx asserted USRE042997E, a United States reissue patent based on original application US12/001974. The patent covers the triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming telephone calls directed at a cellular phone — technology relevant to automated voice messaging, IVR systems, and cellular call-handling infrastructure.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the five-day dismissal. The filing of a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal before Ericsson filed any responsive pleading is consistent with several scenarios: pre-suit or post-filing licensing negotiations concluding, a tactical reassessment of claim scope or defendant identity, or other private arrangements between the parties not reflected in the court docket.
A reissue patent is granted when a patentee seeks to correct or broaden the claims of an already-issued patent. USRE042997E’s reissue status means its claims may be wider than the original grant, potentially covering more product implementations. For FTO purposes, the reissued claims — not the original — define the scope of infringement risk, making a dedicated FTO analysis against the reissued patent essential for any company in the cellular call-handling space.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.