Estech Systems IP, LLC v. Freshworks Inc.

Background

Estech Systems IP, LLC alleged that Freshworks Inc. infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 8,391,298 and 7,123,699. The patents concern voice-over-internet communications systems. The ’298 Patent concerns displaying telephone extensions associated with another local network and automatically dialing a selected destination. The ’699 Patent concerns remotely accessing voicemail by streaming a message between local networks over a wide-area network.

Estech alleged that Freshworks’s software telephony products, applications, servers, and services were accused of infringement. It asserted direct infringement, indirect infringement, and willful infringement.

Freshworks’s Motion

Freshworks moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Freshworks argued that Estech identified its products but merely copied or tracked the patent-claim language and then concluded that the products contained the required features. Freshworks also argued that Estech provided no factual explanation of how the products infringed.

Estech responded that it had identified the asserted patents, representative claims, and particular Freshworks systems and products. It argued that the complaint gave Freshworks sufficient notice and that it was not required to provide claim charts or infringement contentions at the pleading stage.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a patent complaint must include enough factual allegations to make infringement plausible. A plaintiff does not have to plead infringement element by element or provide the level of detail later required under the Local Patent Rules. But identifying accused products and repeating patent elements, without supporting facts explaining why the products satisfy those elements, is insufficient.

The court found that Estech listed approximately twelve Freshworks products and services and then alleged, in conclusory terms, that the accused functionalities had the patent elements. The court concluded that these allegations did not provide sufficient factual support or notice to make direct infringement plausible.

Because the complaint did not plausibly allege direct infringement, the court also concluded that Estech’s indirect and willful infringement claims failed. The opinion expressly dismissed the direct-infringement claims and the indirect-infringement claims with leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted Freshworks’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court required any amended complaint to be filed within 21 days of the order. The opinion states that the court’s ruling was made without oral argument.