Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ESTECH SYSTEMS IP, LLC,
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-cv-00476
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`ABBOTT LABORATORIES,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Estech Systems IP, LLC (“Estech” or “Plaintiff”) files this original complaint
`
`against Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott” or “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 IP, LLC is a Texas corporation, with its principal place of business
`
`at 3701 East Plano Parkway, Suite 300, Plano, Texas 75074.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Abbott Laboratories is a corporation organized and existing under the
`
`laws of Illinois, with a place of business at 100 Abbott Park Road, Abbott Park, IL, 60064. Abbot
`
`may be served through its registered agent, CT Corporation System, at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite
`
`900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136.
`
`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).
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 2 of 21 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 due
`
`at least to Defendant’s 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 and does business in Texas, directly or through
`
`intermediaries and offer their products and/or services, including those accused herein of
`
`infringement, to customers and potential customers located in Texas, including in the Northern
`
`District of Texas.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant maintains at least one regular and established places of business in this
`
`district, including at 6600 Pinecrest Dr, Plano, TX 75024 and 1708 Coit Road, Plano, TX 75075.
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`8.
`
`Estech is an affiliate of Estech System, Inc. (“ES Inc.,”) which for more than 30
`
`years has been a leading U.S.-based provider of end-to-end business phone solutions. ES Inc.’s
`
`Network Operations Center is located in Plano, Texas.
`
`9.
`
`Since 1987, ES Inc. has sold more than 400,000 solutions to its customers, working
`
`with more than 1,500 certified partners nationwide. Its customers include small and large
`
`businesses across the country.
`
`10.
`
`Recognizing that business doesn’t get done without communication, ES Inc.
`
`provides powerful products that that are easy and simple to use. ES Inc.’s products are engineered
`
`to make intelligent technology that is intuitive and user-friendly, empowers employee productivity,
`
`and fuels customer satisfaction.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 3
`
`11.
`
`ES Inc.’s technology is American-engineered. From its Plano, Texas headquarters,
`
`ES Inc. provides a full solutions portfolio of modern business phone systems, including Cloud,
`
`Hybrid, Pure IP, and SIP dial tone products. Given ES Inc.’s end-to-end product offerings, its
`
`customers are empowered to choose the product features they need and want.
`
`12.
`
`ES Inc.’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.
`
`VoIP transmits and receives voice communications over data networks, such as the
`
`Internet or private networks, using the Internet Protocol (IP).
`
`14.
`
`VoIP systems offer several advantages over traditional phone systems including,
`
`but not limited to, lower cost and more efficient network management.
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`VoIP systems also allow enable integration of additional communication services.
`
`ES Inc. cloud-based VoIP products have handled billions of call minutes.
`
`ES Inc. 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
`
`“Estech Asserted Patents”), are generally directed to systems and methods for providing robust,
`
`feature-rich communications systems including, but not limited to, VoIP telephony and additional
`
`communication services that can be integrated with a VoIP telephony system.
`
`COUNT I
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298
`
`19.
`
`Estech repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-18 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 4
`
`20.
`
`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.
`
`21.
`
`The ’298 patent is titled “Phone Directory in a Voice Over IP Telephone System.”
`
`The ’298 patent describes information processing systems that store a list of phone numbers,
`
`integrated with a VoIP telephony system, to 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 VoIP telephony system.
`
`22.
`
`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.
`
`23.
`
`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
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 5
`
`and improved upon what may have been considered conventional or generic in the art at the time
`
`of the invention.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant has infringed the ’298 patent by making, having made, using, importing,
`
`providing, supplying, distributing, selling, or offering for sale products and/or systems, including
`
`VoIP telephone systems and networking equipment utilized by Defendant (“Accused
`
`Instrumentalities”).
`
`25.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities provide VoIP-based voice calling and data-
`
`networking services to VoIP telephony devices.
`
`26.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities use first, second, and third LANs that are coupled
`
`with a WAN.
`
`27.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include VoIP telephony devices connected to LANs,
`
`the VoIP telephony devices having telecommunications extensions associated therewith, the
`
`telecommunications extensions being coupled to the second and third LANs.
`
`28.
`
`The VoIP telephony devices include circuitry (i) enabling users of VoIP telephony
`
`devices to observe a list of telecommunications extensions; (ii) to automatically call one of the
`
`telecommunications extensions in response to a user selecting one of the telecommunications
`
`extensions from the list; and (iii) enabling the use to select between observing the list of
`
`telecommunications extensions coupled to the second LAN or the third LAN.
`
`29.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include servers in the second LAN that store
`
`telecommunications extensions accessed across the WAN.
`
`30.
`
`As described above, Defendant has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents) at least Claim 1 of the ’298 patent. Defendant’s infringement in this regard is
`
`ongoing.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 6
`
`31.
`
`Estech 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.
`
`32.
`
`Estech 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
`
`’298 patent.
`
`33.
`
`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
`
`customers, partners, personnel, clients, and contractors, to directly infringe (literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents) the ’298 patent by making and using the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`Defendant took active steps, directly 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 customers, partners, 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; 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 ’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.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 7
`
`34.
`
`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
`
`customers, partners, personnel, contractors, clients, 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.
`
`35.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has knowledge of the ’298 patent at least as
`
`of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action.
`
`36.
`
`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 Estech’s patent rights.
`
`37.
`
`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.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant’s direct and indirect infringement of the ’298 patent is, has been, and
`
`continues to be willful, intentional, deliberate, or in conscious disregard of Estech’s rights under
`
`the patent.
`
`39.
`
`Estech 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
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 8
`
`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.
`
`40.
`
`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
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,068,684
`
`41.
`
`Estech repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-40 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`42.
`
`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.
`
`43.
`
`The ’684 patent is titled “Quality of Service in a Voice Over IP Telephone System.”
`
`The ’684 patent describes information handling systems used to transmit voice using VoIP
`
`technology. The information handling systems throttle the amount of data being transferred from
`
`a workstation connected to the VoIP telephone.
`
`44.
`
`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
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 9
`
`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.
`
`45.
`
`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.
`
`46.
`
`Defendant has infringed the ’684 patent by making, having made using, importing,
`
`providing, supplying, distributing, selling, or offering for sale products and/or systems, including
`
`VoIP telephone systems and networking equipment utilized by Defendant (“Accused
`
`Instrumentalities”).
`
`47.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities provide VoIP-based voice calling and data-
`
`networking services to VoIP telephony devices.
`
`48.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include VoIP servers such that audio information
`
`for VoIP-based voice calls is communicated between at least VoIP telephony devices and VoIP
`
`servers.
`
`49.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include workstations (including, but not limited to,
`
`for example, desktop computers, workstations, laptops, embedded devices, point-of-sale devices,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 10
`
`and mobile devices) that send and receive data from data servers (including, but not limited to, for
`
`example, websites) that transfer data through VoIP telephony devices.
`
`50.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities sufficiently throttle data sent from workstations to
`
`VoIP telephony devices to increase a rate of transfer of audio information during the
`
`communication of audio information, the data throttling comprises reducing a future amount of
`
`data from being transferred from the workstation if the amount of data exceeds a predetermined
`
`threshold.
`
`51.
`
`As described above, Defendant has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents) at least Claim 36 of the ’684 patent. Defendant’s infringement in this regard is
`
`ongoing.
`
`52.
`
`Estech has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant alleged
`
`above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Estech 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.
`
`53.
`
`Estech 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.
`
`54.
`
`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
`
`customers, partners, personnel, clients, and contractors, to directly infringe (literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents) the ’684 patent by making and using the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`Defendant took active steps, directly or through contractual relationships with others, with the
`
`specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Instrumentalities in a manner that infringes one
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 11
`
`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 customers, partners, 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; 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 ’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.
`
`55.
`
`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
`
`customers, partners, personnel, contractors, clients, 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.
`
`56.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has knowledge of the ’684 patent at least as
`
`of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 12
`
`57.
`
`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 Estech’s patent rights.
`
`58.
`
`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.
`
`59.
`
`Defendant’s direct and indirect infringement of the ’684 patent is, has been, and
`
`continues to be willful, intentional, deliberate, or in conscious disregard of Estech’s rights under
`
`the patent.
`
`60.
`
`Estech 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.
`
`61.
`
`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
`Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,123,699
`
`62.
`
`Estech repeats and re-alleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-61 as though fully set
`
`forth in their entirety.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 13
`
`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 C.
`
`64.
`
`The ’699 patent is titled “Voice Mail in a Voice Over IP Telephone System.” The
`
`’699 patent describes an information handling 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 VoIP telecommunications system within a second LAN by
`
`connecting to the first LAN via a wide-area network (WAN), such as the Internet.
`
`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.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 14
`
`67.
`
`Defendant has infringed the ’699 patent by making, having made, using, importing,
`
`providing, supplying, distributing, selling, or offering for sale products and/or systems including
`
`VoIP telephone systems and networking equipment utilized by Defendant (“Accused
`
`Instrumentalities”).
`
`68.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities operate under a routable protocol including, but not
`
`limited to, for example, TCP/IP or UDP/IP.
`
`69.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include VoIP servers that store a voice mail message
`
`in a voice mail box in a voice mail system within a first LAN.
`
`70.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities include VoIP telephony devices coupled to the
`
`second LAN that provide a sensory indication when the voice message is stored in the voice mail
`
`box within the first LAN. The VoIP telephony devices allow a user to access the voice mail system
`
`within the first LAN to listen to the voice message stored in the voice mail box. The VoIP
`
`telephony devices allow a user to access the voice mail message stored in the voice mail box
`
`provided by the VoIP Servers by using communication protocols, including, but not limited to, for
`
`example, TCP/IP, UDP/IP, Skinny Client Control Protocol (SCCP), Session Initiation Protocol
`
`(SIP), MiNET protocol, Session Description Protocol (SDP), Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP),
`
`and Real-time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP) protocols to: (i) establish a channel between
`
`the first and second LANs over the WAN; (ii) couple an audio path over the channel between the
`
`telecommunications device and the voice mail box; and (iii) stream voice data containing the voice
`
`message from the voice mail box to the telecommunications device over the audio path.
`
`71.
`
`The VoIP telephony devices and VoIP servers can establish a channel between the
`
`first and second LANs over the WAN, wherein the establishing includes: (i) in response to an
`
`input at VoIP telephony devices, sending a user mail box connection message from the second
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 15
`
`LAN to the first LAN requesting a channel, wherein the user mail box connection message includes
`
`an extension associated with VoIP telephony devices and an identification of the voice mail box;
`
`(ii) assigning the channel by VoIP servers in the first LAN; and (iii) sending a connection
`
`established message from VoIP servers in the first LAN to the second LAN.
`
`72.
`
`As described above, Defendant has directly infringed (literally or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents) at least Claim 1 of the ’699 patent. Defendant’s infringement in this regard is
`
`ongoing.
`
`73.
`
`Estech has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendant alleged
`
`above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Estech 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.
`
`74.
`
`Estech 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.
`
`75.
`
`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
`
`customers, partners, personnel, clients, and contractors, to directly infringe (literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents) the ’699 patent by making and using the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`Defendant took active steps, directly 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 customers, partners, personnel,
`
`contractors or end-users to make or use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner;
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 16
`
`advertising and promoting the use of the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner; 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.
`
`76.
`
`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
`
`customers, partners, 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 VoIP
`
`telecommunications system 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.
`
`77.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant has knowledge of the ’699 patent at least as
`
`of the date when it was notified of the filing of this action.
`
`78.
`
`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 Estech’s patent rights.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00476 Document 1 Filed 12/31/21 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 17
`
`79.
`
`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.
`
`80.
`
`Defendant’s direct and indirect infringement of the ’699 patent is, has been, and
`
`continues to be willful, intentional, deliberate, or in conscious disregard of Estech’s rights under
`
`the patent.
`
`81.
`
`Estech 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.
`
`82.
`
`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
`
`E