Estech Systems IP, LLC v. Ooma, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 17, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-02527
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION 10 11 ESTECH SYSTEMS IP, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-02527-EJD

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 13 v.

14 OOMA, INC., et al., Re: ECF No. 24 Defendants. 15

16 17 In this patent infringement case, Plaintiff Estech Systems IP, LLC accuses Defendant 18 Ooma, Inc. of infringing three patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,391,298 (the “’298 Patent”), 7,068,684 19 (the “’684 Patent”), and 7,123,699 (the “’699 Patent”) (together, the “Asserted Patents”), directed 20 to systems and methods for providing communications systems, including voice over IP (“VoIP”) 21 telephony. Ooma moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). 22 ECF No. 24. After carefully reviewing the documents, the Court found this matter suitable for 23 decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). For the reasons stated below, 24 the Court GRANTS Ooma’s Motion. 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 Estech, a Texas Corporation, is an affiliate of Estech Systems, Inc. (“ESI”). Compl. ¶ 8. 27 ESI is a US-based provider of end-to-end business phone solutions. Id. ESI offers “a full 1 solutions portfolio of modern business phone systems, including Cloud, Hybrid, Pure IP, and SIP 2 dial tone products.” Id. ¶ 11. ESI’s products include “the most integrated cloud PBX in the 3 market—the award-winning ESI Cloud PBX; Voice over IP (VoIP) products and systems; and on- 4 premises products.” Id. ¶ 12. VoIP transmits and receives voice communications over data 5 networks, such as the internet or private networks, using the internet protocol. Id. ¶ 13. 6 The ’298 Patent is titled “Phone Director in a Voice Over IP Telephone System” and 7 relates to a system that allows a user on one local area network (“LAN”) to view a list of phone 8 extensions associated with another LAN. Estech alleges Ooma directly infringes “at least claim 9 13” of the ’298 Patent. Compl. ¶ 36. Claim 13 recites the following: 10 13. A telecommunications system comprising: a first IP telephone coupled to a first IP server within a first LAN; 11 second and third telephone extensions coupled to a second IP server within a second LAN; 12 a WAN coupling the first LAN to the second LAN, the first LAN, the second LAN, and the WAN communicating using an IP protocol; 13 a third LAN coupled to the first and second LANs via the WAN; means for displaying on the first IP telephone a list of telephone destinations stored in the 14 second IP server in response to selection of a first input on the first IP telephone, wherein the list of telephone destinations is communicated from the second IP server 15 over the WAN to the first IP telephone; 16 means for automatically dialing the selected one of the telephone destinations for a communications link between the first IP telephone and the selected one of the 17 telephone destinations in response to selection of one of the telephone destinations from the displayed list, wherein the selection of one of the telephone destinations from 18 the displayed list is performed in response to selection of a second input on the first IP telephone by a user; 19 means for displaying on the first IP telephone a list of LANs coupled to the WAN, 20 including the second and third LANs; and means for displaying the first list in response to selection of the second LAN from the 21 displayed list of LANs. 22 The ’684 Patent is titled “Quality of Service in a Voice Over IP Telephone System” and 23 relates generally to a method of throttling data to ensure robust audio connection when using a 24 VoIP telephone. Estech alleges Ooma directly infringes “at least claim 42” of the ’684 Patent, 25 which depends from claims 37–41. Compl. ¶ 56. Claims 37–42 recite: 26 37. In an information handling system comprising a hub, a multimedia server (“multimedia server”) coupled to the hub, a telephone coupled to the hub, a workstation coupled to 27 the hub through the telephone, and a data server coupled to the hub, a method comprising the steps of: 1 transferring data from the workstation to the telephone, wherein the data sent from the 2 workstation is addressed for transmission to the data server; communicating audio information between the telephone and the multimedia server; and 3 sufficiently throttling the data sent from the workstation to the telephone to increase a rate of transfer of the audio information during the communicating step, wherein the 4 throttling step further comprises the step of monitoring an amount of the audio information being received by the telephone from the multimedia server, wherein the 5 monitoring step further comprises the step of the telephone sending a congestion 6 message to the multimedia server when the amount of the audio information falls below the predetermined level. 7 38. The method as recited in claim 37, further comprising the step of the multimedia server 8 sending a throttling signal to the telephone in response to receipt of the congestion message. 9 39. The method as recited in claim 38, wherein the throttling step operates in response to 10 receipt of the throttling signal. 11 40. The method as recited in claim 39, wherein the throttling signal includes a mode level. 12 41. The method as recited in claim 40, wherein the throttling step further comprises the 13 step of adjusting a level of throttling of the data in response to the mode level included in the throttling signal. 14 42. The method as recited in claim 41, wherein the step of the multimedia server sending a 15 throttling signal to the telephone in response to receipt of the congestion message further 16 comprises the step of setting the mode level to a most aggressive mode, wherein the throttling step will throttle the future amount of data sent from the workstation at a highest 17 level in response to the mode level being in the most aggressive mode. 18 The ’699 Patent is titled “Voice Mail in a Voice Over IP Telephone System” and relates 19 generally to a method of remotely accessing voicemail by streaming the message from one LAN 20 to another. Estech alleges Ooma directly infringes “at least Claim 1” of the ’699 Patent. 21 Compl. ¶ 69. Claim 1 recites the following: 1. In a telecommunications system, a method comprising the steps of: 22 storing a voice mail message in a voice mail box in a voice mail system within a first LAN; 23 coupling a second LAN to the first LAN over a WAN, wherein the first LAN, the second 24 LAN, and the WAN operate under a routable network protocol; providing a sensory indication on a telecommunications device within the second LAN 25 that the voice message is stored in the voice mail box within the first LAN; and the telecommunications device accessing the voice mail system within the first LAN to 26 listen to the voice message stored in the voice mail box, wherein the step of the telecommunications device accessing the voice mail system within 27 the first LAN to listen to the voice message stored in the voice mail box further comprises the steps of: 1 establishing a channel between the first and second LANs over the WAN; 2 coupling an audio path over the channel between the telecommunications device and the voice mail box; and 3 streaming voice data containing the voice message from the voice mail box to the telecommunications device over the audio path, wherein the establishing step further 4 comprises the steps of: in response to an input at the telecommunications device, sending a user mail box 5 connection message from the second LAN to the first LAN requesting a channel, 6 wherein the user mail box connection message includes an extension associated with the telecommunications device and an identification of the voice mail box; 7 assigning the channel by the first LAN; and sending a connection established message from the first LAN to the second LAN. 8 Estech filed this case on April 26, 20241, alleging Ooma’s telephony products, software 9 telephony products, and VoIP telephony servers and services infringe the Asserted Patents. 10 Compl. ¶ 21. In particular, Estech alleges the following list of Ooma (1) communication 11 equipment and services, and (2) system-design services constitute the “Accused Instrumentalities” 12 in this case: 13 Ooma telephony devices (e.g., Ooma 2602 IP Phone, Ooma 2603 IP 14 Phone, Ooma 2613 IP Phone, Ooma 2624W Wi-Fi IP Phone, Ooma 2670W Wi-Fi IP Phone, Ooma WP825 Cordless IP Phone, Yealink T33G, 15 Yealink T48U, Yealink T48S, Yealink CP925 IP Conference Phone, 16 Yealink T31W Wi-Fi IP Phone, Yealink T34W Wi-Fi IP Phone, Ooma 2624W Wi-Fi IP Phone, Ooma HT812 ATA, Ooma HT814 ATA), Ooma 17 software telephony products (e.g., Ooma Office Mobile App, Ooma Office Desktop App, Talkatone Calling App), Ooma VoIP telephony servers and 18 services (e.g., Ooma AirDial, Ooma Office, Ooma Office Essentials, 19 Ooma Office Pro, Ooma Office Pro Plus), and products and services that incorporate the same or similar technology, that employ VoIP to perform 20 various functions including, but not limited to, voice calling, voicemail, directory services, quality of service, and others using multiple 21 components including, but not limited to, for example, hubs, switches, routers, session border controllers, servers and the like, and the software 22 for operating such components (“Ooma Products and Services”). 23 Compl. ¶ 21; see also id. ¶ 24 (“When this Complaint references ‘Accused Instrumentalities,’ it is 24

25 1 On the same day, Estech filed five separate actions against various defendants in this District based on the same patents with strikingly similar allegations. See Estech Sys. IP, LLC v. v. 8x8, 26 Inc., No. 5:24-cv-2522-EJD (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed); Estech Sys. IP, LLC v. Freshworks Inc., No. 5:24-cv-2525-EJD (N.D. Cal.); Estech Sys. IP, LLC v. Intermedia.net, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-2526-EJD 27 (N.D. Cal.); Estech Sys. IP, LLC v. Zultys, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-2529-EJD (N.D. Cal.) (dismissed); Estech Sys. IP, LLC v. Zoom Video Commc’ns, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-2528-EJD (N.D. Cal.). 1 referring to the telecommunications and information handling systems Ooma offers to sell, sells, 2 and makes for its customers as well as the systems its employees use that are referenced in 3 paragraphs 21–23 above and are incorporated herein by reference”). 4 Estech alleges Ooma directly infringes the Asserted Patents by making, having made, 5 using, importing, providing, supplying, distributing, selling, or offering for sale the Accused 6 Instrumentalities. Estech also brings claims for indirect and willful infringement. 7 Ooma moves to dismiss all claims against it for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. 8 P. 12(b)(6). 9 II. LEGAL STANDARD 10 Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim 11 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “To survive a motion to 12 dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to 13 relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. 14 Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A plaintiff must “plead[] factual content that 15 allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 16 alleged,” which requires “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. 17 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). 18 Although “a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint,” 19 “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory 20 statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). In patent 21 cases, “a plaintiff cannot assert a plausible claim for infringement under the Iqbal/Twombly 22 standard by reciting the [patent] claim elements and merely concluding that the accused product 23 has those elements. There must be some factual allegations that, when taken as true, articulate why 24 it is plausible that the accused product infringes the patent claim.” Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of 25 Am., 4 F.4th 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “A plaintiff is not required to plead infringement on an 26 element-by-element basis.” Id. at 1352 (citing Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 27 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). However, a plausible claim requires at least some factual allegations to 1 support a plausible inference that the product at issue satisfies a claim limitation. See id. at 1355. 2 III. DISCUSSION 3 A. Whether Estech Has Stated a Claim for Direct Infringement 4 Liability for direct infringement arises when a party “without authority makes, uses, offers 5 to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States 6 any patented invention during the term of the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). To plead direct 7 infringement, a plaintiff must recite “some factual allegations that, when taken as true, articulate 8 why it is plausible that the accused product infringes the patent claim.” Bot M8, 4 F.4th at 1353. 9 To satisfy the Iqbal pleading standard in a patent case, “[s]pecific facts are not necessary.” Disc 10 Disease Sols. Inc. v. VGH Sols., Inc., 888 F.3d 1256, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). 11 The complaint needs to only give a defendant “fair notice of what the [infringement] claim is and 12 the ground upon which it rests.” Id. (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)). 13 Estech alleges the “Accused Instrumentalities” infringe certain limitations of the above 14 representative claims using slightly different words than the claim language itself. See Compl. 15 ¶¶ 31–35 (asserting infringement of the ’298 Patent); 52–55 (same as to the ’685 Patent); 65–68 16 (same as to the ’699 Patent). For all three Asserted Patents, Ooma argues that Estech has failed to 17 state a claim of direct infringement because Estech simply parrots the claim language and offers 18 “no support at all for its allegations.” Mot. 7. 19 The Court agrees. The Federal Circuit is clear that “a plaintiff cannot assert a plausible 20 claim for infringement under the Iqbal/Twombly standard by reciting the claim elements and 21 merely concluding that the accused product has those elements.” Bot M8, 4 F.4th at 1353. That is 22 what Estech does here. The complaint lists approximately twenty-three Ooma products and 23 services (Compl. ¶ 21) and then concludes that Ooma has directly infringed the Asserted Patents 24 because Accused Functionalities have some elements of one representative claim of each Asserted 25 Patent (id. ¶¶ 31–35, 52–55, 65–68). This amounts to “a mere recitation of claim elements and 26 corresponding conclusions, without supporting factual allegations” that do not plausibly allege 27 infringement. Bot M8, 4 F.4th at 1355. 1 Although a “plaintiff is not required to plead infringement on an element-by-element 2 basis” as Estech points out (Opp. 6 (quoting Bot M8, 4 F.4th at 1352)), it must do more than 3 simply identify the Accused Instrumentalities, broadly describe “functions” of the Accused 4 Instrumentalities as a whole, and “identify a specific claim from each asserted patent.” Id. at 5–6 5 (arguing that the complaint identifies “Ooma’s Accused Functionalities,” the “functions of 6 Ooma’s Accused Instrumentalities,” and “a specific claim from each asserted patent,” and “[t]hus, 7 the complaint complies with the federal pleading requirements”). 8 Estech contends that it has provided sufficient notice to Ooma because the complaint 9 (1) “specifically identifies each infringed patent” (Opp. 7 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 30, 51, 64)), 10 (2) “identif[ies] exemplary claims of each patent that are infringed by Ooma” (id. (citing Compl. 11 ¶¶ 36, 56, 69)), and (3) “identifies the particular Accused Instrumentalities that Ooma uses or 12 provides in infringing the identified patent claims, along with the constituent parts of the Accused 13 Instrumentalities” (id. at 7–8 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 31–35, 52–55, 66–68)). This argument is no 14 different than saying that Estech has identified the asserted claims of the Asserted Patents and 15 alleged that the Accused Instrumentalities infringe those claims. Without any supporting factual 16 allegations beyond the conclusory allegations above, the complaint does not provide sufficient 17 notice to Ooma. 18 Estech insists that a result for Ooma would impose on Estech a heightened pleading 19 standard. Not so. To be clear, the Court is not endorsing the argument that patent plaintiffs are 20 required at the pleading stage to identify all information that will be later exchanged pursuant to 21 the Local Patent Rules, including claim charts and infringement contentions. Estech must, 22 however, include additional factual allegations to support a plausible claim of infringement 23 beyond simply identifying the products and claiming they infringe. See, e.g., Cyph, Inc. v. Zoom 24 Video Commc’ns, Inc., No. 22-CV-00561-JSW, 2022 WL 1556417, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 25 2022) (dismissing complaint and concluding that direct infringement claims “would not satisfy the 26 pleading requirements under Twombly because they do nothing more than allege Zoom infringes 27 by reciting the relevant claim language verbatim”); see also Atlas IP LLC v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 1 No. 15-CV-05469-EDL, 2016 WL 1719545, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) (dismissing direct 2 infringement claim and explaining that “simply reciting some of the elements of a representative 3 claim and then describing generally how an accused product operates, without specifically tying 4 the operation to any asserted claim or addressing all of the claim requirements, is insufficient.”).2 5 In sum, due to the conclusory, general nature of the allegations which merely track the 6 claim language, Estech does not plausibly allege direct infringement of the Asserted Patents. The 7 Court therefore GRANTS Ooma’s Motion and DISMISSES WITH LEAVE TO AMEND Estech’s 8 claim for direct infringement. 9 B. Whether Estech Has Stated a Claim for Indirect or Willful Infringement 10 Having failed to allege any plausible claim for direct infringement of the Asserted Patents, 11 Estech’s indirect and willful infringement claims also fail. See e.Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc., 12 No. 15-CV-05790-JST, 2016 WL 4427209, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) (dismissing indirect 13 infringement claim where complaint failed to state direct infringement claim); see also Yangtze 14 Memory Techs. Co., Ltd. v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. 23-CV-05792-RFL, 2024 WL 3422598, at *3 15 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2024) (dismissing willful infringement claim where complaint failed to state a 16 claim for direct infringement). 17 The Court therefore GRANTS Ooma’s Motion and DISMISSES WITH LEAVE TO 18 AMEND Estech’s claims for indirect and willful infringement. 19 IV. CONCLUSION 20 For the foregoing reasons, Ooma’s Motion is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 21

22 2 Estech’s cited cases do not change this result. First, the Court does not find persuasive Estech’s 23 reliance on other district court decisions denying motions to dismiss. See Opp. 4. Second, Regents of University of Michigan is equally unhelpful because the court there denied a motion to 24 dismiss a patent infringement complaint where the arguments before it were “more appropriately presented during claim construction.” Regents of Univ. of Michigan v. Leica Microsystems Inc., 25 No. 19-CV-07470-LHK, 2020 WL 2084891, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2020). No similar arguments are before the Court on this Motion. Finally, the court in Windy City Innovations, LLC 26 v. Microsoft Corp. declined to dismiss a patent infringement complaint which contained sufficient factual allegations regarding the accused products and services; factual allegations lacking in 27 Estech’s complaint. 193 F. Supp. 3d 1109, 1115 (N.D. Cal. 2016); see also id. at ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 16–23. ] Any amended complaint must be filed within 21 days of this Order. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: March 17, 2025 EDWARD J. DAVILA 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 qa 12

13 «14

Oo Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 24-cv-02527-EJD ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS