Cyph, Inc. v. Zoom Communication, Inc.

Background

This document is a notice of a tentative ruling and questions for a scheduled hearing. Cyph, Inc. asserted patent claims against Zoom Video Communications, Inc. The notice states that the claims of all the asserted patents except the ’946 Patent include the term “user.” Cyph relies on a joint-infringement theory, which requires human users to perform some steps of the claimed methods.

Motion and Court’s Questions

Zoom moved to dismiss. The court was tentatively inclined to grant at least part of that motion because Cyph still failed to allege facts showing that actions by a human user were attributable to Zoom. The text provided ends during that sentence, so it does not state the court’s full reasoning.

The court asked Cyph to identify the specific steps that human users allegedly perform for each asserted patent. It also asked how Zoom’s conduct differed from that of a company merely providing software for customers to use, citing the Federal Circuit’s discussion in Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc. The court further questioned whether allegations that Zoom and parties collecting service fees share a “community of pecuniary interest” showed that Zoom’s users shared a financial interest in encrypted communications.

Status and Disposition

The notice scheduled oral argument for March 17, 2023, and instructed the parties not to submit additional briefing in response to the questions. The provided text contains only a tentative indication that the court was inclined to grant at least part of Zoom’s motion to dismiss; it does not state a final disposition. Judge Jeffrey S. White therefore had not, in this document, stated a final grant or denial of the motion.