Estech Systems IP, LLC v. Zoom Video Communications, Inc.

I. BACKGROUND

23 The Court summarized the relevant factual background of this case in its previous Order 24 dismissing Estech’s original complaint. MTD Order at 1–5, ECF No. 50. The relevant facts 25 remain the same. In the FAC, Estech reasserts the claims for direct and indirect infringement the 26 Court previously dismissed. Attached to the FAC are three new exhibits that appear to be claim 27 charts1 comparing the claims of the Asserted Patents to the Accused Instrumentalities. FAC, Exs. A, B, C, ECF Nos. 52-1, 52-2, 52-3. II. LEGAL STANDARD For the FAC to survive Zoom’s 12(b)(6) motion, it must allege sufficient facts from which the Court can reasonably infer that Zoom is liable for the alleged patent infringement. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Courts will accept well-pled allegations in the complaint as true, but unsupported legal conclusions are not afforded the same treatment. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). As such, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory…