RecepTrexx v. OnePlus: Infringement Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 179 Days
RecepTrexx, LLC filed suit against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. in the Western District of Texas, asserting reissue patent USRE042997E covering triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming cellular calls. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice before OnePlus answered, closing the case in under six months.
Pre-Answer Dismissal Signals Rapid Resolution in Texas Patent Suit
RecepTrexx, LLC filed this patent infringement action against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. on July 7, 2023, in the Western District of Texas before Chief Judge Orlando L. Garcia. The asserted patent, USRE042997E — a USPTO reissue of application US12/001974 — covers the triggered playback of recorded messages delivered to incoming telephone calls on a cellular phone, a technology relevant to automated call-handling and voicemail-adjacent smartphone features.
The case closed on January 2, 2024, via a voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed by RecepTrexx under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. OnePlus had not yet filed any responsive pleading at the time of dismissal. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, suggesting no formal settlement payment was publicly disclosed.
The 179-day lifespan and pre-answer exit are consistent with a negotiated resolution or a decision by the plaintiff to abandon the claim after early-stage discussions, though the public record does not confirm the underlying reason. The with-prejudice designation is notable: unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, it permanently bars RecepTrexx from reasserting USRE042997E against OnePlus on these facts. What drove the decision — whether licensing talks concluded, invalidity concerns emerged, or commercial priorities shifted — remains undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 179 days
179 days — resolved before defendant filed any responsive pleading
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows exit before defendant responds
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. RecepTrexx invoked this right before OnePlus filed any responsive pleading. The with-prejudice designation, however, goes beyond the rule’s default — a typical Rule 41 voluntary dismissal is without prejudice unless the plaintiff specifies otherwise.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — pre-answer exitWith prejudice bars any future refiling on these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits, permanently extinguishing RecepTrexx’s right to sue OnePlus again on USRE042997E for the same accused conduct. This is a materially stronger outcome for OnePlus than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave the door open for a renewed suit. The public record does not reveal whether OnePlus negotiated the with-prejudice designation as a condition of any agreement reached between the parties.
Permanent bar on refilingRecepTrexx exits early but surrenders future leverage against OnePlus
By filing with prejudice, RecepTrexx permanently closed its enforcement window against OnePlus under USRE042997E for the accused products. The plaintiff retains the patent itself and may continue asserting it against other parties, but any leverage over OnePlus specifically is extinguished. The no-costs agreement means RecepTrexx avoids any fee-shifting exposure — a risk that can arise under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in cases deemed exceptional.
Patent survives; OnePlus claim closedOnePlus secures clean exit; sector watches reissue patent enforcement trend
For OnePlus, the dismissal with prejudice and mutual cost-bearing arrangement represents a clean resolution with no public admission of infringement and no damages exposure. Companies in the smartphone and cellular call-management space should note that USRE042997E remains active and enforceable against other defendants. Reissue patents — which undergo a corrective USPTO examination — can carry broadened claims, making FTO analysis against this patent class particularly important for product teams.
No damages; patent still live against othersFull 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 | OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. | Company | OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. — Chinese consumer electronics and smartphone manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for RecepTrexx, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing RecepTrexx, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Orlando L. Garcia | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly states the action is dismissed with prejudice — a plaintiff-elected permanent bar on refiling. The reference to OnePlus not having answered or moved for summary judgment confirms procedural eligibility for the unilateral notice mechanism. The mutual cost-bearing clause forecloses any post-dismissal fee motion under § 285. Taken together, the verdict language suggests a deliberate, negotiated exit rather than a purely unilateral abandonment.
USRE042997E — Triggered Playback of Recorded Messages to Cellular Calls
USRE042997E is a United States reissue patent, granted after the USPTO conducted a re-examination of the original grant to correct errors or refine claim scope. The underlying application, US12/001974, covers the triggered playback of recorded messages in response to incoming telephone calls on a cellular device — a technology domain spanning automated call answering, voicemail delivery, call screening, and programmable call-handling logic. Reissue patents carry the filing date of the original application, potentially extending their priority date advantage over later art.
For the smartphone sector, this patent’s claimed technology intersects with a range of standard device features: do-not-disturb auto-reply, voicemail drop, conditional call forwarding with recorded responses, and carrier-side call management integrations. As a reissue, the claims have survived one additional layer of USPTO scrutiny, which can complicate invalidity arguments. Competitors and licensees should analyse whether the corrected claims read more broadly than the original grant and whether intervening rights defences apply to pre-reissue product versions.
Should you run an FTO analysis against USRE042997E?
Any product team building features that trigger playback of recorded audio messages in response to incoming cellular calls — including voicemail systems, auto-reply tools, call screening apps, or carrier IVR integrations on mobile — should treat USRE042997E as a live enforcement risk. RecepTrexx has already demonstrated willingness to assert this reissue patent in federal court against a major smartphone OEM, and the with-prejudice dismissal against OnePlus does not extinguish rights against other parties.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map USRE042997E’s claim language against your product’s technical architecture, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface related family members or continuation risks. For in-house teams managing mobile or telecommunications IP, running this analysis before product launch or market entry in the US is significantly less costly than defending a W.D. Texas infringement suit.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE042997E to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cellular call-management patent cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving reissue patents asserted against smartphone OEMs in the Western District of Texas — including cellular call-handling and voicemail technology disputes.
What this case signals for the cellular call-management patent landscape
A pre-answer exit with prejudice in Western District of Texas suggests careful risk calculus on both sides.
Pre-answer dismissals in W.D. Texas often signal early-stage licensing resolution
When a plaintiff files with prejudice before the defendant answers, it typically suggests the parties reached an understanding — or the plaintiff identified a weakness — without full litigation. The Western District of Texas remains a frequent venue for patent assertion entities targeting consumer electronics defendants. Smartphone makers operating in this market should maintain current prior art files for cellular call-handling patents.
Reissue patents carry corrected and potentially broadened claims — conduct FTO early
USRE042997E is a reissue patent, meaning the USPTO has already reviewed and corrected the original grant. Reissue claims may be broader than the original, and intervening rights doctrines can limit some defenses. R&D and product legal teams developing features touching automated call handling, voicemail playback, or triggered message delivery on mobile devices should prioritise freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent family.
RecepTrexx v OnePlus — key questions answered
RecepTrexx LLC filed a patent infringement suit against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. in the Western District of Texas on July 7, 2023, asserting reissue patent USRE042997E. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiff on January 2, 2024 — before OnePlus filed any answer — under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own costs.
A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars RecepTrexx from reasserting USRE042997E against OnePlus for the same accused conduct. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits as to that defendant. RecepTrexx retains the patent and may still assert it against other parties, but its enforcement rights specifically against OnePlus are extinguished.
USRE042997E is a reissue patent covering triggered playback of recorded messages to incoming telephone calls on a cellular phone. The technology is relevant to automated call-handling features, voicemail systems, auto-reply functions, and conditional message playback triggered by call events on mobile devices.
The Western District of Texas — particularly the Waco and San Antonio divisions — has been a popular venue for patent assertion entities due to its historically plaintiff-friendly docket management and judge assignment practices. RecepTrexx, represented by Rabicoff Law LLC, filed suit there under Chief Judge Orlando L. Garcia, consistent with broader PAE filing patterns in that district.
Yes. The explicit agreement that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees forecloses any post-dismissal motion by OnePlus for fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would otherwise require the case to be declared exceptional. By incorporating the cost agreement into the dismissal notice, both parties achieved finality on the economic terms without further court involvement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.