DCT

2:21-cv-00477

Estech Systems IP LLC v. Fiserv Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:21-cv-00477, E.D. Tex., 12/31/2021
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendants maintain at least one regular and established place of business in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Voice over IP (VoIP) telephone systems and networking equipment infringe four U.S. patents related to VoIP phone directories, quality of service, remote voicemail access, and caller ID integration.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is Voice over IP for business communications, a foundational technology for modern enterprise telecommunications that routes voice calls over data networks.
  • Key Procedural History: Post-filing developments at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are highly relevant. U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298 and U.S. Patent No. 6,067,349 were subject to Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed on March 5, 2021. In subsequent final written decisions, all asserted claims in the complaint for both patents (Claim 1 of the ’298 Patent and Claim 1 of the ’349 Patent) were cancelled.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1997-12-31 ’349 Patent Priority Date
2000-05-23 ’349 Patent Issue Date
2001-02-01 ’298, ’684, ’699 Patents Priority Date
2006-06-27 ’684 Patent Issue Date
2006-10-17 ’699 Patent Issue Date
2013-03-05 ’298 Patent Issue Date
2021-03-05 IPR Filed Against ’298 Patent (IPR2021-00574)
2021-03-05 IPR Filed Against ’349 Patent (IPR2021-00573)
2021-12-31 Complaint Filing Date
2023-06-30 IPR Certificate Issued for ’349 Patent
2025-02-12 IPR Certificate Issued for ’298 Patent

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298 - "Phone Directory in a Voice Over IP Telephone System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,391,298, "Phone Directory in a Voice Over IP Telephone System," issued March 5, 2013.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes telephony systems where users and resources are distributed across multiple Local Area Networks (LANs) that are interconnected by a Wide Area Network (WAN), a common architecture for businesses with multiple office locations (’298 Patent, col. 3:28-44). The implicit problem is providing a seamless and integrated directory service that makes these geographically separate networks function like a single, unified system for the end-user.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system where a user on a telecommunications device in a first LAN can view a list of extensions that are stored on a server located in a second LAN. The user can then select an extension from this remotely-hosted list to automatically initiate a call across the WAN, and can also select between directories on different remote LANs (’298 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:5-52).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aims to abstract away the network's geographical complexity, allowing users in a multi-site organization to easily find and contact colleagues as if they were all on a single, local phone system.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
  • The key elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • An information handling system comprising a first, second, and third LAN coupled by a WAN.
    • A first telecommunications device on the first LAN.
    • A plurality of telecommunications extensions coupled to the second LAN and a separate plurality coupled to the third LAN.
    • Circuitry enabling a user on the first LAN to observe a list of the extensions from the second LAN, where the list is stored on a server in the second LAN.
    • Circuitry for automatically calling an extension from the list upon user selection.
    • Circuitry enabling the user to select between observing the list of extensions from the second LAN or the list of extensions from the third LAN.

U.S. Patent No. 7,068,684 - "Quality of Service in a Voice Over IP Telephone System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,068,684, "Quality of Service in a Voice Over IP Telephone System," issued June 27, 2006.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: On a shared data network like Ethernet, real-time VoIP traffic must compete for bandwidth with "bursty" data traffic (e.g., large file transfers or print jobs). This contention can cause unacceptable latency and jitter for voice packets, degrading call quality (’684 Patent, col. 1:49-68).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an IP telephone that is physically situated between a workstation (e.g., a PC) and the network hub. The IP phone monitors its voice packet buffer, and if it detects congestion (e.g., the buffer level drops), it signals a multimedia server. The server can then instruct IP phones on the network to "throttle" the data traffic passing through them from their connected workstations, thereby freeing up bandwidth and prioritizing the real-time voice data (’684 Patent, col. 2:9-30).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a Quality of Service (QoS) mechanism to dynamically preserve voice quality on congested, shared-media networks, a significant challenge for early enterprise VoIP deployments.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 36 (Compl. ¶52).
  • The key elements of independent claim 36 include:
    • A method in an information handling system that includes a telephone, a workstation, a multimedia server, and a data server.
    • Transferring data from the workstation, through the telephone, addressed to the data server.
    • Communicating audio information between the telephone and the multimedia server.
    • Sufficiently throttling the data sent from the workstation to increase the rate of transfer of the audio information.
    • The throttling step includes reducing a future amount of data transfer from the workstation if the amount of data exceeds a predetermined threshold.

U.S. Patent No. 7,123,699 - "Voice Mail in a Voice Over IP Telephone System"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,123,699, "Voice Mail in a Voice Over IP Telephone System," issued October 17, 2006.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the challenge of accessing voicemail across a distributed network. It discloses a system for storing a voicemail message on a server in a first LAN, providing a sensory indication (e.g., a message-waiting light) to a user's device in a second LAN, and enabling the user to access and listen to that remote message over a WAN (’699 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶65).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶73).
  • Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's VoIP systems provide remote voicemail access, including storing messages on a server in one LAN, providing a notification on a device in another LAN, and establishing a channel over a WAN to retrieve the message (Compl. ¶70-72).

U.S. Patent No. 6,067,349 - "Dialing Using Caller ID"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,067,349, "Dialing Using Caller ID," issued May 23, 2000.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system that enhances voicemail by integrating caller ID data. The invention stores the incoming caller's ID information along with their recorded voicemail message, which enables the recipient to automatically initiate a call back to the caller, for instance, while listening to the message (’349 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶86).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶91).
  • Accused Features: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's voicemail systems receive and associate a caller's caller ID information with a voicemail message, enabling the recipient to automatically call the person back (Compl. ¶86, ¶90).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint does not identify any specific Fiserv products by name. It refers to the accused technology generically as the "Accused Instrumentalities," which are described as "VoIP telephone systems and networking equipment utilized by Defendants" (Compl. ¶25, ¶47, ¶68).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Accused Instrumentalities provide a suite of VoIP features that correspond to the asserted patents. These features include providing voice calling over data networks (Compl. ¶26), operating over a multi-LAN architecture connected by a WAN (Compl. ¶27), offering a phone directory for extensions on remote LANs (Compl. ¶29), throttling data traffic to ensure voice quality (Compl. ¶51), enabling remote voicemail access with sensory indicators (Compl. ¶71), and integrating caller ID with voicemail for automatic callback functionality (Compl. ¶86). The complaint does not provide allegations regarding the product's commercial importance or market position.
    No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’298 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a first local area network ('LAN'); a second LAN; a wide area network ('WAN') coupling the first LAN to the second LAN; a third LAN coupled to the first and second LANs via the WAN; The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly use "first, second, and third LANs that are coupled with a WAN." ¶27 col. 4:18-24
a first telecommunications device coupled to the first LAN; The accused systems include "VoIP telephony devices connected to LANs." ¶28 col. 10:5-17
a plurality of telecommunications extensions coupled to the second LAN... a plurality of telecommunications extensions coupled to the third LAN The accused VoIP telephony devices allegedly have "telecommunications extensions associated therewith, the telecommunications extensions being coupled to the second and third LANS." ¶28 col. 10:5-17
the first LAN including first circuitry for enabling a user of the first telecommunications device to observe a list of the plurality of telecommunications extensions... wherein the list... is stored in a server in the second LAN, and is accessed by the first circuitry across the WAN; The accused devices allegedly include circuitry "enabling users... to observe a list of telecommunications extensions" that are stored on "servers in the second LAN." ¶29, ¶30 col. 9:51-60
the first LAN including second circuitry for automatically calling one of the plurality of telecommunications extensions in response to the user selecting one... The accused devices allegedly include circuitry "to automatically call one of the telecommunications extensions in response to a user selecting one... from the list." ¶29 col. 10:6-12
circuitry for enabling the user to select between observing the list... coupled to the second LAN or observing a list... coupled to the third LAN. The accused devices allegedly include circuitry "enabling the use to select between observing the list of telecommunications extensions coupled to the second LAN or the third LAN." ¶29 col. 11:24-52
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: Claim 1 recites a specific network topology involving at least three distinct LANs, with servers and extensions homed to specific LANs. A central question will be whether the accused Fiserv system, which may be based on a more centralized cloud architecture, can be said to have this specific "first LAN," "second LAN," and "third LAN" structure. The complaint’s allegations that the system meets this structure are conclusory.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused directory is "stored in a server in the second LAN," as opposed to a logically centralized database accessible to all network locations? The distinction between the claim's specific physical topology and a modern system's logical architecture raises a potential mismatch.

’684 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 36) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
transferring data from the workstation to the telephone, wherein the data sent from the workstation is addressed for transmission to the data server; The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly include "workstations... that transfer data through VoIP telephony devices." ¶50 col. 4:15-20
communicating audio information between the telephone and the multimedia server; The accused system allegedly communicates "audio information for VoIP-based voice calls... between at least VoIP telephony devices and VoIP servers." ¶49 col. 4:11-14
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... The Accused Instrumentalities allegedly "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." ¶51 col. 2:9-30
...the throttling step further comprises the step of reducing a future amount of data from being transferred from the workstation if the amount of data exceeds a predetermined threshold. The alleged 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 col. 13:45-51
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The claim requires a specific QoS mechanism where the telephone throttles data passing through it from a connected workstation. A key question is whether the accused Fiserv system implements QoS in this manner, or if it uses more common network-layer QoS protocols (e.g., 802.1p, DiffServ) that do not involve the telephone actively interfering with passthrough data. The complaint's allegation directly mirrors the claim language but lacks technical specifics on the mechanism.
    • Scope Questions: Does the alleged "throttling" function to "increase a rate of transfer of the audio information" as the claim requires, or does it merely preserve an existing rate by reducing network competition? The precise functional outcome of the accused QoS feature compared to the claim language may be a point of dispute.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’298 Patent:

  • The Term: "a second LAN"
  • Context and Importance: Claim 1 requires a specific distributed topology where a list of extensions is stored on a server within a "second LAN" and accessed by a user in a "first LAN." The definition is critical because modern VoIP systems often use a centralized cloud data center, which may not meet the patent's more federated architectural description. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if there is a fundamental mismatch between the claimed architecture and the accused system's architecture.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description discusses connecting remote office systems generally, which could support interpreting a "LAN" as any distinct network segment, whether physical or virtual, that is remote from another segment (e.g., ’298 Patent, col. 3:28-34).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 3 of the patent depicts distinct LANs as physically separate clusters of hardware, each with its own router, hub, and local servers. This may support a narrower interpretation requiring physically and administratively separate local area networks (’298 Patent, Fig. 3).

For the ’684 Patent:

  • The Term: "throttling the data sent from the workstation to the telephone"
  • Context and Importance: This phrase appears to describe a specific physical data path where the telephone sits between a workstation and the wider network, actively managing the workstation's data flow. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether the accused Fiserv system uses this specific passthrough-and-throttle mechanism.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's stated goal is to solve bandwidth contention on a shared network (’684 Patent, col. 1:49-68). A party might argue "throttling" should be construed broadly to cover any mechanism by which the telephone system causes a reduction in the workstation's data output to prioritize voice, regardless of the physical path.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s Figure 1 explicitly shows a topology where the "IP telephony device (105)" is connected between the "Workstation PC (106)" and the "network hub (103)." This, along with descriptions of data passing "through the IP telephony device" (’684 Patent, col. 4:15-20), provides strong evidence for a narrow construction limited to this specific physical arrangement.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all four asserted patents. The inducement allegations are based on claims that the Defendant provides the accused systems with the specific intent for customers to use them in an infringing manner, supported by activities like providing instructions and advertising (e.g., Compl. ¶34, ¶55). The contributory infringement allegations claim the accused systems have special features specifically designed for infringement with no substantial non-infringing uses (e.g., Compl. ¶35, ¶56).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents. The allegations are based on knowledge of the patents as of the filing of the lawsuit (e.g., Compl. ¶36, ¶57) and on a theory of willful blindness, alleging that the Defendant has a "policy or practice of not reviewing the patents of others" (e.g., Compl. ¶37, ¶58).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A threshold issue for the case will be one of viability and mootness: given that the asserted claims of two of the four patents-in-suit (the ’298 and ’349 patents) have been cancelled in Inter Partes Review proceedings, the court must determine whether these infringement counts can proceed.
  • For the remaining patents, a central question will be one of architectural scope: can the specific, often hardware-defined, network topologies of the early 2000s described in the patents (e.g., multi-LAN structures, physical data passthrough) be construed to read on the defendant's modern, and potentially cloud-based or virtualized, VoIP architecture?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of factual sufficiency: the complaint's infringement allegations largely recite claim language without offering specific technical details about how the accused Fiserv products operate. A core challenge for the plaintiff will be to produce evidence substantiating these conclusory allegations and demonstrating a true technical overlap rather than just a high-level functional similarity.