IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`WAG ACQUISITION, L.L.C.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`TECHNIUS LTD., d/b/a STRIPCHAT.COM,
`
` Defendant.
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00714-JRG
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`Before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (the “Motion”) filed
`by Defendant Technius Ltd., d/b/a stripchat.com (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 9.) In the Motion,
`Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff WAG Acquisition , L.L.C.’s (“WAG”) claims for direct
`infringement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ( Id. at 2.) Having considered the
`Motion and its related briefing, and for the reasons set forth herein, the Court is of the opinion that
`the Motion should be DENIED.
`I. BACKGROUND
`On August 8, 2024, WAG filed the Original Complaint for Patent Infringement (the
`“Complaint”), alleging that Defendant directly infringed the claims of three (3) of WAG’s expired
`patents. (Id. ¶ 8.) Specifically, the Complaint pleads that Defendant directly infringed: claims 1
`and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10, 567, 453 (the “’453 Patent”); claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,364,839
`(the “’839 Patent”); and claims 1, 2, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,185,611 (the “’611 Patent”). ( Id.
`¶¶ 27–28, 32, 36.)
`The ’453, ’839, and ’611 Patents (the “Asserted Patents”) share a common disclosure and
`generally relate to “streaming a live program to a plurality of users from a single, common server-
`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 216
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`side buffer, even though at any given time the various users may be at different points in the
`stream.” (Id. ¶ 12, 16.)
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a court can dismiss a complaint that fails
`to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive dismissal at this early stage, a
`complaint must state enough facts such that the claim to relief is plausible on its face. Thompson
`v. City of Waco, 764 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
`544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when the plaintiff pleads enough facts to allow the
`Court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The Court accepts well-pled facts as true and views
`all facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but it is not required to accept the plaintiff’s
`legal conclusions as true. Id.
`The Court must limit its review “to the contents of the pleadings.” Collins v. Morgan
`Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 –99 (5th Cir. 2000). However, documents attached to a
`defendant’s motion to dismiss are considered a part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the
`complaint and are central to the claim. Id.
`III. ANALYSIS
`(a) The ’453 Patent
`(1) Whether the Complaint plausibly pleads direct infringement?
`Defendant argues that the Complaint has not plausibly pled that Defendant directly
`infringed claims 1 and 8 of the ’453 Patent for two reasons. (Dkt. No. 9 at 6.) First, Defendant
`contends that WAG’s infringement allegations are not tied to the language of the asserted claims.
`(Id.) Defendant points to WAG’s allegation that WAG observed Defendant’s servers to transmit
`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/20/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 217
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`streaming data in an initial burst. ( Id. at 6–7 (citing Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 19).) According to Defendant,
`such an allegation falls short of pleading direct infringement as to the ’453 Patent because none of
`the patent’s claims recite “an initial burst of data.” ( Id.) Second, Defendant insists that the
`Complaint has not plausibly pled direct infringement as to the ’453 Patent because it lacks
`“supporting material.” (Id. at 6.) Specifically, Defendant asserts that, while the Complaint pleads
`that Defendant operated a server in the United States during the ’453 Patent’s term, WAG has not
`identified any particular server to support those allegations. (Id. 5–7.)
`WAG argues in response that the Complaint pleads facts sufficient to plausibly support its
`direct infringement allegations as to the ’453 Patent. (Dkt. No. 10 at 5.) As support, WAG notes
`that the Complaint pleads that WAG observed Defendant’s websites transmit streaming data in an
`“initial burst” and that, to do so, the website’s servers must meet multiple elements of claim 1 of
`the ’453 Patent. ( Id. at 6–7.) Particularly, WAG explains that, by transmitting data in an “initial
`burst,” Defendant’s servers must have: (a) a receiver buffer to store data in the initial burst prior to
`transmission and (b) a server buffer to transmit data in the initial burst at a faster rate than the data
`is generated. (Id.) According to WAG, such circumstantial evidence is “as equally valid” as direct
`evidence of patent infringement. ( Id. at 7 (citing Linear Tech. Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566
`F.3d 1049, 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2009).)
`The Court agrees with WAG. In the Complaint, WAG alleges where the infringement
`occurred (Defendant’s media servers in the United States); when it occurred (during the ’453
`Patent’s term); who performed the allegedly infringing act (Defendant); and why (to deliver video
`streaming over the internet). (See Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 16, 18; Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc., 869
`F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017).) Further, the Complaint pleads fact s that directly and
`circumstantially evidence its infringement allegations on an element-by-element basis. (See Dkt.
`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/20/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 218
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`No. 1 ¶¶ 22 –26; Mullen Indus. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. , No. 2:24 -cv-00049-JRG, 2025
`WL 1658927, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 11, 2025). ) For example, the Complaint pleads that WAG’s
`website’s servers receive requests from users to join a model’s ongoing live stream and maps this
`alleged fact to “receiving via data communications at a server a request from a user computer for
`the streaming media” as recited by claim 1 of the ’453 Patent. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 19, 24.) These facts,
`when taken together and as true, render WAG’s pleadings sufficiently plausible to survive a motion
`to dismiss.
`Moreover, Defendant’s arguments are premature. For example, Defendant challenges the
`amount of evidentiary support within the Complaint, but , at the pleading stage, WAG “is not
`required to … provide the kind of evidentiary support that would be required at summary
`judgment.” See Mullen , 2025 WL 1658927, at *2. In another example, Defendant disputes
`whether it infringed under Plaintiff’s infringement theory, but that too is more properly evaluated
`at a later stage of the case. See Id. at *3.
`Accordingly, the Court finds that WAG has plausibly pled direct infringement as to the
`’453 Patent.
`(2) Whether the Complaint provides Defendant with sufficient notice?
`Defendant argues that the Complaint has not pled facts sufficient to notify Defendant of
`what activity WAG is accusing of directly infringing claims 1 and 8 of the ’453 Patent. (Dkt. No.
`9 at 3; Dkt. No. 11 at 5.) First, Defendant asserts that the Complaint has not identified any “specific
`activity or algorithm” used by Defendant that infringed the asserted claims. (Dkt. No. 9 at 4.) As
`support, Defendant points to WAG’s allegation that a user of Defendant’s webcam sites can request
`to join a model’s stream by clicking on a thumbnail. (Id. at 8.) According to Defendant, it “cannot
`know the specific allegations against it” as WAG has not provided any screenshots, evidence, or
`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/20/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 219
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`URL of the thumbnail. (Id.) Second, Defendant contends that the “lone piece of evidence” in the
`Complaint—an unmarked graph of unknown origins —has no information to reasonably convey
`what is shown, let alone form the basis for infringement of the Asserted Patents. ( Id. at 4–5; Dkt.
`No. 11 at 1.)
`WAG responds by arguing the Complaint informs Defendant of exactly what WAG is
`alleging to have infringed: “buffering incoming live video streams for downstream distribution.”
`(Dkt. No. 10 at 16–17.) As support, WAG asserts that the Complaint identifies Defendant’s website
`as an accused product or service. (Dkt. No. 13 at 1 (citing Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 3).) WAG further maintains
`that the Complaint expressly pleads that the graph measures the rate at which Defendant’s website
`transmitted data during the ’453 Patent’s term and that the rate evidences infringement. (Id. at 14.)
`According to WAG, requiring more would “‘improperly and unfairly elevate the plausibility
`standard to a probability standard.’” ( Dkt. No. 10 at 10 (citation omitted).) WAG also contends
`that Defendant’s attempts to shift liability to its users for streaming content indicates that
`Defendant has proper notice of what is accused. (Id. at 16–17.)
`The Court finds that the Complaint pleads fact s sufficient to provide Defendant with
`adequate notice of what WAG is accusing of directly infringing the claims of the ’453 Patent. As
`discussed above, the Complaint outlines who is accused of infringement, what activity is accused
`of infringement, and when and where that activity occurred. Additionally, and while Defendant
`argues that the Complaint must indicate a specific activity or algorithm that infringed the asserted
`claims, the Court disagrees. See Mullen, 2025 WL 1658927, at *2.
`Accordingly, and in light of the above, the Court finds that the Complaint adequately pleads
`direct infringement as to the ’453 Patent.
`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/20/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 220
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`(b) The ’869 and ’611 Patents
`Defendant asserts that the Complaint has not plausibly pled that Defendant infringed the
`asserted claims of the ’839 and ’611 Patents. According to Defendant, WAG pleads that a “‘burst
`of data’” infringed each element of claim 7 of the ’839 Patent and claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ’611
`Patent without identifying “any actual evidence” of such infringement. (Dkt. No. 9 at 11.)
`WAG argues in response that the Complaint adequately pleads direct infringement . (Dkt.
`No. 10 at 16, n. 1.) Specifically, Defendant asserts that infringement of claim 7 of the ’869 Patent
`and of claims 1, 2 and 6 of the ’611 Patent requires an initial burst of data because both of the
`claims require sending streaming media data “at an initial sending rate more rapid than the
`playback rate.” (Id.)
`Again, the Court agrees with WAG . Contrary to Defendant, the Complaint pleads facts
`sufficient to support its allegations of direct infringement as to the ’869 and ’611 Patents. The
`Complaint explicitly incorporates facts that support WAG’s allegation of direct infringement as to
`the ’453 Patent into its allegations of direct infringement as to the ’869 and ’611 Patents. (Dkt.
`No. 1 ¶¶ 31, 35.) The Complaint also pleads how Defendant infringed on an element-by-element
`basis for the asserted claims of bo th patents. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 32, 36.) Further, and as discussed
`above, the question of whether Defendant infringed under WAG’s theory of infringement is more
`appropriately decided later in the case and not at this early stage . Mullen, 2025 WL 1658927 at
`*3.
`Accordingly, the Court finds that the Complaint adequately pleads that Defendant directly
`infringed the asserted claims of the ’869 and ’611 Patents.
`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/20/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 221
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`Having considered the Motion and its related briefing, and for the reasons set forth herein,
`the Court finds that Defendant’s Motion (Dkt. No. 9) should be and hereby is DENIED.
`
`.
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 19th day of August, 2025.
`Case 2:24-cv-00714-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/20/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 222
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`