Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`
`TARGET CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-123
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Estech Systems, Inc. (“Estech” or “Plaintiff”) files this original complaint against
`
`Target Corporation (“Defendant”) alleging, based on its own knowledge as to itself and its own
`
`actions, and based on information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Estech Systems, Inc., is a Texas corporation, with its principal place of business at
`
`3701 East Plano Parkway, Suite 100, Plano, Texas 75074.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant is a Minnesota corporation a principal place of business at 1000 Nicollet
`
`Mall #410N, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403. Defendant’s registered agent for service is C T
`
`Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This is an action for infringement of United States patents arising under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 271, 281, and 284–85, among others. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of the action
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338(a).
`
`Ex. 2009
`Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Estech Systems, Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 2
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1391(c).
`
`Defendant is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at least to Defendant’s presence
`
`and substantial business in this forum, including (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged
`
`herein; and/or (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of
`
`conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods and services provided to individuals in
`
`Texas and in this district.
`
`6.
`
`Specifically, Defendant intends to do and does business in Texas, directly or
`
`through intermediaries and offers its products and/or services, including those accused herein of
`
`infringement, to customers and potential customers located in Texas, including in this district.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in this district,
`
`including at 120 West Parker Road, Plano, Texas 75075.
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`8.
`
`For more than 30 years, Estech has been a leading U.S.-based provider of end-to-
`
`end business phone solutions. Estech’s Network Operations Center is located in Plano, Texas.
`
`9.
`
`Since 1987, Estech has sold more than 400,000 solutions to its customers, working
`
`with more than 1500 certified partners nationwide. Its customers include small and large
`
`businesses across the country.
`
`10.
`
`Recognizing that business doesn’t get done without communication, Estech
`
`provides powerful products that that are easy and simple to use. Estech’s products are engineered
`
`to make intelligent technology that is intuitive and user-friendly, empowers employee productivity,
`
`and fuels customer satisfaction.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 3
`
`11.
`
`Estech’s technology is American-engineered. From its Texas headquarters, Estech
`
`provides a full solutions portfolio of modern business phone systems, including Cloud, Hybrid,
`
`Pure IP, and SIP dial tone products. Given Estech’s end-to-end product offerings, Estech
`
`customers are empowered to choose the product features they need and want.
`
`12.
`
`Estech’s products include the most integrated cloud PBX in the market—the award-
`
`winning ESI Cloud PBX; Voice over IP (VoIP) products and systems; and on-premises products.
`
`A cloud-based PBX is a sophisticated telephone exchange system that uses a cloud infrastructure
`
`to provide communication services, such as telephony services.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`Estech cloud-based products have handled billions of call minutes.
`
`Estech also provides U.S.-based, best-in-class technical support for its customers.
`
`The patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,391,298 (the “’298 patent”), 7,068,684 (the
`
`“’684 patent”), 6,067,349 (the “’349 patent”), and 7,123,699 (the “’699 patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Asserted Patents”), are generally directed to systems and methods for providing robust, feature-
`
`rich communications systems.
`
`COUNT I
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,391,298
`
`16.
`
`Estech owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’298 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’298 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly issued the ’298 patent on March 5, 2013. A copy of the ’298 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 4
`
`17.
`
`The ’298 patent describes information processing systems that store a list of phone
`
`numbers and provide those phone numbers to the user of a VoIP telephone. The user can use that
`
`list to dial the telephone number of another user associated with the system.
`
`18.
`
`The claims of the ’298 patent are not directed to an abstract idea. For example,
`
`claim 1 of the ’298 patent recites a specific arrangement of devices and networking components.
`
`Together those devices and networking components enable a user of a first telecommunications
`
`device to observe a list of a plurality of telecommunications extensions. The list of extensions is
`
`stored in a server within a specific networking configuration, and the user can select to view a
`
`subset of the extensions. Taken as a whole, the claimed inventions of the ’298 patent are not
`
`limited to well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. Rather, the claimed inventions
`
`include inventive components that improve upon the functioning and operation of information
`
`processing systems.
`
`19.
`
`The written description of the ’298 patent describes in technical detail each of the
`
`limitations of the claims, allowing a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims and how
`
`the non-conventional and non-generic combination of claim limitations is patently distinct from
`
`and improved upon what may have been considered conventional or generic in the art at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant made, had made, used, imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold,
`
`or offered for sale products and/or systems, including VoIP telephone systems and networking
`
`equipment utilized by Defendant (“Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`21.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include local area networks used in conjunction with
`
`VoIP devices, such as telephones, networking equipment, and servers that provide VoIP
`
`functionality.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 5
`
`22.
`
`By doing so, Defendant has directly infringed (literally and/or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents) at least Claim 1 of the ’298 patent. Defendant’s infringement in this regard is
`
`ongoing.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant has infringed the ’298 patent by making, having made, using, importing,
`
`providing, supplying, distributing, selling, or offering the Accused Instrumentalities for sale.
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that compensates it for such
`
`infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff and/or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations
`
`required to collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the
`
`’928 patent.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant has also indirectly infringed the ’298 patent by inducing others to
`
`directly infringe the ’298 patent. Defendant has induced end-users, including Defendant’s
`
`personnel and contractors, to directly infringe (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents)
`
`the ’298 patent by making and using the Accused Instrumentalities. Defendant took active steps,
`
`directly and/or through contractual relationships with others, with the specific intent to cause them
`
`to use the Accused Instrumentalities in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’298
`
`patent, including, for example, Claim 1 of the ’298 patent. Such steps by Defendant included,
`
`among other things, advising or directing personnel, contractors or end-users to make or use the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner; advertising and promoting the use of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner; and/or distributing instructions that guide users
`
`to use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner. Defendant is performing these steps,
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 6
`
`which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the ’298 patent and with the
`
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Defendant is aware that the normal and
`
`customary use of the Accused Instrumentalities by others would infringe the ’298 patent.
`
`Defendant’s inducement is ongoing.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant has also indirectly infringed by contributing to the infringement of the
`
`’298 patent. Defendant has contributed to the direct infringement of the ’298 patent by its
`
`personnel, contractors, and suppliers. The Accused Instrumentalities have special features that are
`
`specially designed to be used in an infringing way and that have no substantial uses other than
`
`ones that infringe one or more claims of the ’298 patent, including, for example, Claim 1 of the
`
`’298 patent. The special features include, for example, the devices and networking components
`
`recited in Claim 1, including the interrelation between those devices and networking components,
`
`that allow the claimed server to provide a list of extensions and for the user to select to view a
`
`subset of the extensions. The special features constitute a material part of the invention of one or
`
`more of the claims of the ’298 patent and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial
`
`non-infringing use. Defendant’s contributory infringement is ongoing.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant has knowledge of the ’298 patent at least as of the date when it was
`
`notified of the filing of this action.
`
`29.
`
`Furthermore, on information and belief, Defendant has a policy or practice of not
`
`reviewing the patents of others (including instructing its employees to not review the patents of
`
`others), and thus has been willfully blind of Plaintiff’s patent rights.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant’s actions are at least objectively reckless as to the risk of infringing a
`
`valid patent and this objective risk was either known or should have been known by Defendant.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 7
`
`31.
`
`Defendant’s direct and indirect infringement of the ’298 patent is, has been, and
`
`continues to be willful, intentional, deliberate, and/or in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights
`
`under the patent.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Estech in an amount that compensates it for such
`
`infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`33.
`
`Estech has suffered irreparable harm, through its loss of market share and goodwill,
`
`for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Estech has and will continue to suffer this harm by
`
`virtue of Defendant’s infringement of the ’298 patent. Defendant’s actions have interfered with
`
`and will interfere with Estech’s ability to license technology. The balance of hardships favors
`
`Estech’s ability to commercialize its own ideas and technology. The public interest in allowing
`
`Estech to enforce its right to exclude outweighs other public interests, which supports injunctive
`
`relief in this case.
`
`COUNT II
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,068,684
`
`34.
`
`Estech owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’684 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’684 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly issued the ’684 patent on June 27, 2006. A copy of the ’684 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit B.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 8
`
`35.
`
`The ’684 patent describes information processing systems used to transmit voice
`
`using VoIP technology. A VoIP telephone is used to throttle the amount of data being transferred
`
`from a workstation connected to the VoIP telephone.
`
`36.
`
`The claims of the ’684 patent are not directed to an abstract idea. For example,
`
`claim 36 of the ’684 patent recites specific steps performed by a specific arrangement of devices
`
`and networking components and operations performed by those components. Together, those
`
`devices and networking components provide quality of service to audio information by throttling
`
`the amount of data being transferred through a VoIP telephony device. Taken as a whole, the
`
`claimed inventions of the ’684 patent are not limited to well-understood, routine, or conventional
`
`activity. Rather, the claimed inventions include inventive components that improve upon the
`
`function and operation of information processing systems.
`
`37.
`
`The written description of the ’684 patent describes in technical detail each of the
`
`limitations of the claims, allowing a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims and how
`
`the non-conventional and non-generic combination of claim limitations is patently distinct from
`
`and improved upon what may have been considered conventional or generic in the art at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant made, had made, used, imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold,
`
`or offered for sale products and/or systems, including VoIP telephone systems and networking
`
`equipment utilized by Defendant (“Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`39.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include local area networks used in conjunction with
`
`VoIP devices, such as telephones and network-connected devices connected to local area networks
`
`through the VoIP devices.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 9
`
`40.
`
`By doing so, Defendant has directly infringed (literally and/or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents) at least Claim 36 of the ’684 patent. Defendant’s infringement in this regard is
`
`ongoing.
`
`41.
`
`Defendant has infringed the ’684 patent by making, having made using, importing,
`
`providing, supplying, distributing, selling, or offering the Accused Instrumentalities for sale.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it
`
`for such infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff and/or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations
`
`required to collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the
`
`’684 Patent.
`
`44.
`
`Defendant has also indirectly infringed the ’684 patent by inducing others to
`
`directly infringe the ’684 patent. Defendant has induced end-users, including Defendant’s
`
`personnel and contractors, to directly infringe (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents)
`
`the ’684 patent by making and using the Accused Instrumentalities. Defendant took active steps,
`
`directly and/or through contractual relationships with others, with the specific intent to cause them
`
`to use the Accused Instrumentalities in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’684
`
`patent, including, for example, Claim 36 of the ’684 patent. Such steps by Defendant included,
`
`among other things, advising or directing personnel, contractors or end-users to make or use the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner; advertising and promoting the use of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner; and/or distributing instructions that guide users
`
`to use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner. Defendant is performing these steps,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 10
`
`which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the ’684 patent and with the
`
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Defendant is aware that the normal and
`
`customary use of the Accused Instrumentalities by others would infringe the ’684 patent.
`
`Defendant’s inducement is ongoing.
`
`45.
`
`Defendant has also indirectly infringed by contributing to the infringement of the
`
`’684 patent. Defendant has contributed to the direct infringement of the ’684 patent by its
`
`personnel, contractors, and suppliers. The Accused Instrumentalities have special features that are
`
`specially designed to be used in an infringing way and that have no substantial uses other than
`
`ones that infringe one or more claims of the ’684 patent, including, for example, Claim 36 of the
`
`’684 patent. The special features include, for example, the devices and networking components
`
`recited in Claim 36, including the interrelation between those devices and networking components,
`
`that throttle the amount of data being transferred through the telephone. The special features
`
`constitute a material part of the invention of one or more of the claims of the ’684 patent and are
`
`not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Defendant’s
`
`contributory infringement is ongoing.
`
`46.
`
`Defendant has knowledge of the ’684 patent at least as of the date when it was
`
`notified of the filing of this action.
`
`47.
`
`Furthermore, on information and belief, Defendant has a policy or practice of not
`
`reviewing the patents of others (including instructing its employees to not review the patents of
`
`others), and thus has been willfully blind of Plaintiff’s patent rights.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant’s actions are at least objectively reckless as to the risk of infringing a
`
`valid patent and this objective risk was either known or should have been known by Defendant.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 11
`
`49.
`
`Defendant’s direct and indirect infringement of the ’684 patent is, has been, and
`
`continues to be willful, intentional, deliberate, and/or in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights
`
`under the patent.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Estech in an amount that compensates it for such
`
`infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`51.
`
`Estech has suffered irreparable harm, through its loss of market share and goodwill,
`
`for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Estech has and will continue to suffer this harm by
`
`virtue of Defendant’s infringement of the ’684 patent. Defendant’s actions have interfered with
`
`and will interfere with Estech’s ability to license technology. The balance of hardships favors
`
`Estech’s ability to commercialize its own ideas and technology. The public interest in allowing
`
`Estech to enforce its right to exclude outweighs other public interests, which supports injunctive
`
`relief in this case.
`
`COUNT III
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,067,349
`
`52.
`
`Estech owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’349 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’349 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly issued the ’349 patent on May 23, 2000. A copy of the ’349 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit C.
`
`53.
`
`The ’349 patent describes a telephone and voice mail system. When a calling party
`
`calls a user of the system, the system receives the caller’s caller ID information and associates that
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 12
`
`information with a voicemail message. By doing so, the recipient of the voicemail can
`
`automatically call back the caller while listening to the voicemail message.
`
`54.
`
`The claims of the ’349 patent are not directed to an abstract idea. For example,
`
`claim 1 of the ’349 patent recites specific steps performed on specific components of voice
`
`communications. Taken as a whole, the claimed inventions of the ’349 patent are not limited to
`
`well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. Rather, the claimed inventions include
`
`inventive components that improve upon the function and operation of telephone and voice mail
`
`systems.
`
`55.
`
`The written description of the ’349 patent describes in technical detail each of the
`
`limitations of the claims, allowing a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims and how
`
`the non-conventional and non-generic combination of claim limitations is patently distinct from
`
`and improved upon what may have been considered conventional or generic in the art at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`56.
`
`Defendant made, had made, used, imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold,
`
`and offered for sale products and/or systems, including voice mail systems utilized by Defendant
`
`(“Accused Instrumentalities”):
`
`57.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include local area networks, VoIP devices such as
`
`telephones, and voice mail infrastructure.
`
`58.
`
`By doing so, Defendant has directly infringed (literally and/or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents) at least Claim 1 of the ’349 patent. Defendant’s infringement in this regard is
`
`ongoing.
`
`59.
`
`Defendant has infringed the ’349 patent by making, having made using, importing,
`
`providing, supplying, distributing, selling, or offering the Accused Instrumentalities for sale.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 13
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it
`
`for such infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff and/or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations
`
`required to collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the
`
`’349 Patent.
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Estech in an amount that compensates it for such
`
`infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,123,699
`
`63.
`
`Estech owns all substantial rights, interest, and title in and to the ’699 patent,
`
`including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action and enforce the ’699 patent against
`
`infringers, and to collect damages for all relevant times. The United States Patent and Trademark
`
`Office duly issued the ’699 patent on October 17, 2006. A copy of the ’699 patent is attached as
`
`Exhibit D.
`
`64.
`
`The ’699 patent describes a telecommunications system for storing a voice mail
`
`message in a voice mail box in a voice mail system within a first local area network (LAN). A
`
`user can access and listen to the voice mail using a telecommunications within a second LAN by
`
`connecting to the first LAN via a wide-area network (WAN), such as the Internet.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 14
`
`65.
`
`The claims of the ’699 patent are not directed to an abstract idea. For example,
`
`claim 1 of the ’699 patent recites a specific arrangement of devices in a networking environment.
`
`Together those devices enable a user within a second LAN to access and listen to voice mail
`
`messages stored within a first LAN. Taken as a whole, the claimed inventions of the ’699 patent
`
`are not limited to well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. Rather, the claimed
`
`inventions include inventive components that improve upon the functioning and operation of
`
`information processing systems.
`
`66.
`
`The written description of the ’699 patent describes in technical detail each of the
`
`limitations of the claims, allowing a skilled artisan to understand the scope of the claims and how
`
`the non-conventional and non-generic combination of claim limitations is patently distinct from
`
`and improved upon what may have been considered conventional or generic in the art at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`67.
`
`Defendant made, had made, used, imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold,
`
`or offered for sale products and/or systems, including VoIP telephone systems and networking
`
`equipment utilized by Defendant (“Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`68.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include local area networks used in conjunction with
`
`VoIP devices, such as telephones, networking equipment, and servers that provide VoIP
`
`functionality.
`
`69.
`
`By doing so, Defendant has directly infringed (literally and/or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents) at least Claim 1 of the ’699 patent. Defendant’s infringement in this regard is
`
`ongoing.
`
`70.
`
`Defendant has infringed the ’699 patent by making, having made, using, importing,
`
`providing, supplying, distributing, selling, or offering the Accused Instrumentalities for sale.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 15
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff in an amount that adequately compensates it
`
`for such infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff and/or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory obligations
`
`required to collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by law for infringement of the
`
`’699 patent.
`
`73.
`
`Defendant has also indirectly infringed the ’699 patent by inducing others to
`
`directly infringe the ’699 patent. Defendant has induced end-users, including Defendant’s
`
`personnel and contractors, to directly infringe (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents)
`
`the ’699 patent by making and using the Accused Instrumentalities. Defendant took active steps,
`
`directly and/or through contractual relationships with others, with the specific intent to cause them
`
`to use the Accused Instrumentalities in a manner that infringes one or more claims of the ’699
`
`patent, including, for example, Claim 1 of the ’699 patent. Such steps by Defendant included,
`
`among other things, advising or directing personnel, contractors or end-users to make or use the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner; advertising and promoting the use of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner; and/or distributing instructions that guide users
`
`to use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner. Defendant is performing these steps,
`
`which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the ’699 patent and with the
`
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Defendant is aware that the normal and
`
`customary use of the Accused Instrumentalities by others would infringe the ’699 patent.
`
`Defendant’s inducement is ongoing.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 16
`
`74.
`
`Defendant has also indirectly infringed by contributing to the infringement of the
`
`’699 patent. Defendant has contributed to the direct infringement of the ’699 patent by its
`
`personnel, contractors, and suppliers. The Accused Instrumentalities have special features that are
`
`specially designed to be used in an infringing way and that have no substantial uses other than
`
`ones that infringe one or more claims of the ’699 patent, including, for example, Claim 1 of the
`
`’699 patent. The special features include, for example, the devices and networking components
`
`recited in Claim 1, including the interrelation between those devices and networking components,
`
`that allow a user to access and listen to the voice mail using a telecommunications within a second
`
`LAN by connecting to the first LAN via a wide-area network (WAN), such as the Internet. The
`
`special features constitute a material part of the invention of one or more of the claims of the ’699
`
`patent and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.
`
`Defendant’s contributory infringement is ongoing.
`
`75.
`
`Defendant has knowledge of the ’699 patent at least as of the date when it was
`
`notified of the filing of this action.
`
`76.
`
`Furthermore, on information and belief, Defendant has a policy or practice of not
`
`reviewing the patents of others (including instructing its employees to not review the patents of
`
`others), and thus has been willfully blind of Plaintiff’s patent rights.
`
`77.
`
`Defendant’s actions are at least objectively reckless as to the risk of infringing a
`
`valid patent and this objective risk was either known or should have been known by Defendant.
`
`78.
`
`Defendant’s direct and indirect infringement of the ’699 patent is, has been, and
`
`continues to be willful, intentional, deliberate, and/or in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights
`
`under the patent.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 17
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Estech in an amount that compensates it for such
`
`infringements, which by law cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and
`
`costs as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`80.
`
`Estech has suffered irreparable harm, through its loss of market share and goodwill,
`
`for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Estech has and will continue to suffer this harm by
`
`virtue of Defendant’s infringement of the ’699 patent. Defendant’s actions have interfered with
`
`and will interfere with Estech’s ability to license technology. The balance of hardships favors
`
`Estech’s ability to commercialize its own ideas and technology. The public interest in allowing
`
`Estech to enforce its right to exclude outweighs other public interests, which supports injunctive
`
`relief in this case.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Estech Systems, Inc. requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and
`
`that the Court grant Estech the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`Judgment that one or more claims of the Asserted Patents have been infringed,
`
`either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendant and/or all others acting in
`
`concert therewith;
`
`b.
`
`A permanent injunction enjoining Defendant and its officers, directors, agents,
`
`servants, affiliates, employees, divisions, branches, subsidiaries, parents, and all others acting in
`
`concert therewith from infringement of the ’298, ’684, and ’699 patents; or, in the alternative, an
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00123 Document 1 Filed 04/24/20 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 18
`
`award of a reasonable ongoing royalty for future infringement of the Asserted Patents by such
`
`entities;
`
`c.
`
`Judgment that Defendant accounts for and pays to Estech all damages to and costs
`
`incurred by Estech because of Defendant’s infringing activi