Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 05/02/22 Page 1 of 8
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 05/02/22 Page 2 of 8
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`TARGET CORPORATION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00123-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`PLAINSCAPITAL BANK
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00122-JRG
`
`BOKF, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00126-JRG
`
`BBVA USA BANCSHARES, INC.,
`AND
`BBVA USA
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00127-JRG
`
`WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, ET AL
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00128-JRG
`
`Defendants.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Estech Systems, Inc. (“Estech” or “Plaintiff”) files this first amended complaint
`
`against BBVA USA Bancshares Inc., and BBVA USA (together “Defendants”) 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:
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 05/02/22 Page 3 of 8
`
`’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. Defendants’ contributory infringement is ongoing.
`
`29.
`
`Defendants have knowledge of the ’298 patent at least as of the date when it was
`
`notified of the filing of this action.
`
`30.
`
`Furthermore, on information and belief, Defendants have 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.
`
`31.
`
`Defendants’ 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 Defendants.
`
`32.
`
`Defendants’ 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.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendants
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendants are 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.
`
`34.
`
`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 Defendants’ infringement of the ’298 patent. Defendants’ actions have interfered with
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 05/02/22 Page 4 of 8
`
`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
`
`35.
`
`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.
`
`36.
`
`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.
`
`37.
`
`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.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 05/02/22 Page 5 of 8
`
`38.
`
`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.
`
`39.
`
`Defendants 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 Defendants (“Accused Instrumentalities”).
`
`40.
`
`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.
`
`41.
`
`By doing so, Defendants have directly infringed (literally and/or under the doctrine
`
`of equivalents) at least Claim 36 of the ’684 patent. Defendants’ infringement in this regard is
`
`ongoing.
`
`42.
`
`Defendants have infringed the ’684 patent by making, having made using,
`
`importing, providing, supplying, distributing, selling, or offering the Accused Instrumentalities for
`
`sale.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendants
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendants are 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.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 05/02/22 Page 6 of 8
`
`44.
`
`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.
`
`45.
`
`Defendants have also indirectly infringed the ’684 patent by inducing others to
`
`directly infringe the ’684 patent. Defendants have induced end-users, including Defendants’
`
`personnel and contractors, to directly infringe (literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents)
`
`the ’684 patent by making and using the Accused Instrumentalities. Defendants 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 Defendants 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. Defendants are performing these
`
`steps, which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the ’684 patent and with the
`
`knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Defendants are aware that the normal
`
`and customary use of the Accused Instrumentalities by others would infringe the ’684 patent.
`
`Defendants’ inducement is ongoing.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants have also indirectly infringed by contributing to the infringement of the
`
`’684 patent. Defendants have 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
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 05/02/22 Page 7 of 8
`
`’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. Defendants’
`
`contributory infringement is ongoing.
`
`47.
`
`Defendants have knowledge of the ’684 patent at least as of the date when it was
`
`notified of the filing of this action.
`
`48.
`
`Furthermore, on information and belief, Defendants have 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.
`
`49.
`
`Defendants’ 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 Defendants.
`
`50.
`
`Defendants’ 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.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by Defendants
`
`alleged above. Thus, Defendants are 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.
`
`52.
`
`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 Defendants’ infringement of the ’684 patent. Defendants’ actions have interfered with
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 38-3 Filed 05/02/22 Page 8 of 8
`
`e.
`
`Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the damages caused by Defendants’
`
`infringing activities and other conduct complained of herein;
`
`f.
`
`That this Court declare this an exceptional case and award Estech its reasonable
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`g.
`
`All other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`Dated: June 18, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Fred I. Williams
`Fred I. Williams
`Texas State Bar No. 00794855
`Michael Simons
`Texas State Bar No. 24008042
`Jonathan L. Hardt
`Texas State Bar No. 24039906
`Chad Ennis
`Texas State Bar No. 24045834
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`327 Congress Ave., Suite 490
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: 512-543-1354
`fwilliams@wsltrial.com
`msimons@wsltrial.com
`jhardt@wsltrial.com
`cennis@wsltrial.com
`
`Todd E. Landis
`State Bar No. 24030226
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`2633 McKinney Ave., Suite 130 #366
`Dallas, TX 75204
`Tel: 512-543-1357
`tlandis@wsltrial.com
`
`John Wittenzellner
`Pennsylvania State Bar No. 308996
`WILLIAMS SIMONS & LANDIS PLLC
`
`17
`
`