Cyph, Inc. v. Zoom Communication, Inc.

BACKGROUND

18 The Court recited the factual background underlying this patent infringement dispute in its 19 Order granting, in part, Zoom’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Cyph, Inc.’s (“Cyph”) original 20 complaint. See Cyph, Inc. v. Zoom Video Commc’ns, Inc., 2022 WL 1556417, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 21 May 17, 2022). In brief, Cyph alleges Zoom uses end-to-end encryption technology in its 22 products and services and could not have provided that technology without practicing the 23 inventions claimed in six of Cyph’s United States patents: No. 9,948,625 (the “’625 Patent”), No. 24 10,701,047 (the “’047 Patent”), No. 10,020,946 (the “’946 Patent”), No. 9,794,070 (the “’070 25 Patent”), No. 10,003,465 (the “’465 Patent”), and No. 9,954,837 (the “’837 Patent”) (collectively the “Asserted Patents”).1 27 The Court concluded that Cyph sufficiently identified the accused products. However, it granted Zoom’s motion to dismiss because it determined Cyph’s allegations did “nothing more than allege Zoom infringes by reciting the relevant claim language verbatim” and did not include any allegations that “the actions of Zoom’s customers can be attributed to Zoom.” Cyph,…