RecepTrexx v. Goto Technologies — Dismissed Without Prejudice in 24 Days
RecepTrexx, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Goto Technologies USA, LLC in the District of Massachusetts asserting reissue patent USRE042997E, which covers triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming cellular calls. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 24 days after filing — before the defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment.
A 24-day sprint: cellular call messaging patent dropped before answer
On 5 February 2024, RecepTrexx, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint in the Massachusetts District Court against Goto Technologies USA, LLC (Case No. 1:24-cv-10288), asserting reissue patent USRE042997E. The patent covers the triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming telephone calls directed to a cellular phone — a technology relevant to cloud communications, business telephony, and virtual receptionist platforms.
Just 24 days later, on 29 February 2024, RecepTrexx filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), bringing the action to a close without prejudice. Because Goto Technologies had not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, RecepTrexx was entitled to dismiss as of right, requiring no court order and no consent from the defendant.
The speed of resolution — under four weeks from filing to dismissal — is notable. Cases resolved this quickly typically suggest early-stage settlement discussions, a licensing arrangement reached shortly after service, or a strategic reassessment of litigation targets. The without-prejudice designation means the public record does not reveal whether any commercial agreement was reached; RecepTrexx formally preserves the option to refile identical claims.
Filing to voluntary dismissal in 24 days
Closed in 24 days — well before the median resolution time for patent infringement cases in D. Mass.
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Goto Technologies had done neither, RecepTrexx held an unconditional right to exit. No judicial approval was required, and no prejudice to the defendant’s procedural rights arose.
No court order neededWithout prejudice: what the public record does — and doesn’t — tell us
A dismissal without prejudice means the claims are not extinguished — RecepTrexx may refile the same patent infringement allegations against Goto Technologies in future. A dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar refiling. Here the notice specifies ‘without prejudice,’ but the public record is silent on whether any private settlement, licensing agreement, or covenant not to sue was negotiated. Either outcome — deal reached or strategy reconsidered — is consistent with this filing.
Refiling remains possible24 days from complaint to close — faster than the vast majority of patent suits
Patent infringement cases in the District of Massachusetts typically take 18–36 months to reach final resolution at first instance. A 24-day lifespan suggests the decision to dismiss was made almost immediately after filing — consistent with either rapid post-service negotiation or a pre-planned short-term filing strategy. The case closed before any substantive litigation activity (scheduling orders, claim construction, or discovery) was initiated.
Pre-answer dismissalGoto Technologies exited without answering — but risk is not fully resolved
Goto Technologies never filed an answer, meaning no invalidity arguments, counterclaims, or fee motions were placed on the record. While the dismissal without prejudice relieves immediate litigation pressure, it does not resolve the underlying IP question. If no licence or covenant was secured, Goto Technologies remains exposed to a refiled action asserting the same reissue patent USRE042997E against its cellular communications products.
Residual patent exposureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RecepTrexx, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of USRE042997E covering cellular call message playbackSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Goto Technologies USA, LLC | Company | Goto Technologies USA, LLC — cloud communications and business telephony solutions providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Catherine I. Rajwani | Attorney | Counsel for RecepTrexx, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Paul G. Levenson | Chief Judge | Massachusetts District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly confirms that Goto Technologies had not yet answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment — the precise procedural predicate required for a notice of dismissal as of right. The without-prejudice designation leaves the underlying infringement claims legally unresolved. No findings on validity, infringement, or damages were made. Both parties exit the litigation without a binding merits determination, and RecepTrexx retains full standing to reassert the same claims.
USRE042997E — Triggered recorded message playback for cellular calls
USRE042997E is a United States reissue patent, with corrected application number US12/001974, directed to the triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming telephone calls received by a cellular phone. Reissue patents are granted by the USPTO when a patentee demonstrates that an original patent was wholly or partly inoperative or invalid due to a defective specification or claim scope — the reissue process commonly results in amended or broadened claims relative to the original grant. The underlying technology sits at the intersection of cellular telephony and automated call management.
The patent’s commercial relevance spans the cloud communications, unified communications as a service (UCaaS), and business telephony sectors. Any platform feature that conditionally triggers pre-recorded audio in response to an incoming cellular call — including auto-attendants, IVR systems, voicemail-to-mobile routing, and virtual receptionist services — may fall within the scope of the reissued claims. For competitors active in this space, the assertion against Goto Technologies is a concrete signal that the patent holder is prepared to litigate.
Should your product team run an FTO against USRE042997E?
If your organisation develops, deploys, or sells features that trigger playback of recorded messages to inbound cellular calls — including auto-attendant, IVR, conditional call forwarding with audio, or voicemail interception products — USRE042997E is a patent your IP and product teams should review. The reissue designation suggests the claim set has been revisited and potentially broadened, increasing the likelihood that modern implementations fall within scope. The fact that a major cloud telephony provider was named in this action underscores that the patent holder views commercial UCaaS deployments as within reach.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the asserted claims of USRE042997E, identify relevant prior art, and flag claim elements most likely to present infringement risk. Claim monitoring alerts can notify your team if continuations or related applications publish. For R&D teams building automated call-handling capabilities in the US market, an FTO review against this reissue patent is a proportionate and commercially prudent step before product launch or acquisition.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE042997E to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in cloud telephony and cellular call management
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 cloud telephony IP landscape
A rapid, pre-answer dismissal without prejudice in a cellular messaging patent case raises specific questions for cloud communications competitors and IP teams.
Pre-answer dismissals often precede licensing deals — watch for refilings
When a patent plaintiff dismisses without prejudice before the defendant has answered, it frequently signals that a commercial resolution — licence, covenant, or co-existence agreement — was reached quickly after service. Competitors in the cloud telephony space should monitor whether RecepTrexx refiles against Goto or pursues similar actions against other UCaaS providers asserting USRE042997E.
Reissue patents carry broader claim scope — assess product exposure now
USRE042997E is a reissue patent, a designation that typically signals the patentee sought to broaden or correct original claims during USPTO reissue proceedings. Reissue patents can cover a wider set of products than the original grant. Any company offering triggered or conditional message playback to inbound cellular calls should assess its exposure against the reissued claim set.
RecepTrexx v Goto — key questions answered
RecepTrexx, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Goto Technologies USA, LLC in the District of Massachusetts on 5 February 2024, asserting reissue patent USRE042997E. RecepTrexx voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on 29 February 2024 — 24 days after filing — before Goto Technologies had filed an answer or moved for summary judgment.
Dismissal without prejudice means the infringement claims were not decided on the merits and are not permanently extinguished. RecepTrexx retains the legal right to refile the same claims against Goto Technologies in future. No court findings were made on validity, infringement, or damages. The public record does not disclose whether any private licensing agreement or settlement was reached alongside the dismissal.
The asserted patent is USRE042997E (corrected application number US12/001974), a US reissue patent covering triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming telephone calls received on a cellular phone. Reissue patents have been reviewed by the USPTO for defects in the original grant and may carry broader claim scope than the original patent.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) entitles a plaintiff to dismiss an action as of right — without a court order and without the defendant’s consent — by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a summary judgment motion. Because Goto Technologies had done neither, RecepTrexx could exit litigation unilaterally. The dismissal took effect upon filing of the notice.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:24-cv-10288) and assigned to Judge Paul G. Levenson. Given the pre-answer voluntary dismissal, Judge Levenson was not required to issue any substantive rulings in the matter. Plaintiff RecepTrexx was represented by attorney Catherine I. Rajwani of Harbor Law Group.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.