AK MEETING IP LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Filing
39
ORDER GRANTING 27 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. AK Meetings claims of infringement with respect to the 211 Patent are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (zv)
Case 6:22-cv-00248-ADA Document 39 Filed 12/28/22 Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
AK MEETING IP LLC,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00248-ADA
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.’S
RULE 12(C) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Before the Court is Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.’s (“Cisco”) Rule 12(c) Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (the “Motion”). ECF No. 27. Plaintiff AK Meeting IP LLC (“AK
Meeting”) filed an Opposition. ECF No. 33. Cisco then filed its Reply. ECF No. 34. The Court
held a hearing on the Motion on December 8, 2022, at which the Court granted the Motion. ECF
No. 36. This Memorandum Opinion and Order reflects the ruling at the hearing.
I. BACKGROUND
AK Meeting filed this lawsuit on March 8, 2022, accusing Cisco of infringing U.S. Patent
Nos. 10,963,124 (“the ’124 patent”) and 8,627,211 (“the ’211 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted
Patents”). ECF No. 1 at 1. The ’124 patent relates to a novel and improved method for sharing
content produced by a plurality of client computers over a computer network. Id. ¶ 7. The ’211
patent relates to novel and improved systems, apparatus, and methods for supporting multi-party
communications between client computers in a computer network. Id. ¶ 14. AK Meeting alleges
1
Case 6:22-cv-00248-ADA Document 39 Filed 12/28/22 Page 2 of 6
that Cisco maintains, operates, and administers systems, apparatus, and methods for multiparty
communications between client computers in a computer network that infringe one or more of
claims 1-150 of the ’211 patent. Id. ¶ 15.
The ’211 Patent claims techniques for transmitting cursor messages for a pointing function
in the context of multiple-party communications. ECF No. 17-4. Claim 1 of the ’211 Patent, the
only claim charted in the Second Amended Complaint for the ’211 Patent, recites a “method for
supporting multiple-party communications in a computer network including a server and at least
one client computer,” and requires that the “client computer” send a “cursor message” to the server
“representing a change in a position of a first cursor” on the client computer. Id., Cl. 1. In response,
claim 1 requires the server generate a “pointer message,” and that this “pointer message” be sent
back to the originating (presenting) client. Id.
AK Meeting filed an Amended Complaint on April 14, 2022. ECF No. 8. Cisco then filed
a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) on July
14, 2022. ECF No. 16. In response, AK Meeting filed its Second Amended Complaint on August
1, 2022 (the “SAC”). ECF No. 17. Cisco filed this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) with respect to the ’211 Patent on October 20, 2022. ECF
No. 27.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is
subject to the same standards as a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008). A 12(b)(6) motion asserts a
“purely procedural question not pertaining to patent law.” McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d
2
Case 6:22-cv-00248-ADA Document 39 Filed 12/28/22 Page 3 of 6
1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2007). On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, factual allegations set
out in the pleadings are taken in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Hughes v. The
Tobacco Inst., Inc., 278 F.3d 417, 420 (5th Cir. 2001). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss, the plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 500 U.S. 544, 547 (2007). This standard does not require “detailed
factual allegations;” however, this standard does not permit accusations that are completely devoid
of factual support. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555).
The plausibility standard requires the plaintiff to plead “enough facts to raise a reasonable
expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [the claim].” Twombly, 500 U.S. at 545.
Therefore, a patentee must only “plead facts sufficient to place the alleged infringer on notice as
to what he must defend.” McZeal, 501 F.3d at 1356. There must be some factual allegations that,
when taken as true, articulate why it is plausible that the accused product infringes the patent claim.
Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 4 F.4th 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Judgment on the pleadings
is appropriate where “there are no disputed issues of material fact and only questions of law
remain.” Brittan Comm’ns Int’l Corp. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 313 F.3d 899, 904 (5th Cir. 2002).
III. ANALYSIS
Cisco moves to dismiss AK Meeting’s claim for infringement of the ’211 Patent based on
its failure to state a plausible claim. ECF No. 27 at 5. Cisco asserts that the SAC fails to show how
the Webex Board communicates with a server to satisfy the “receiving a first cursor message at
the server from the client computer” and the “transmitting said first pointer message to said client
computer” limitations of claim 1. Id. The Court agrees with Cisco and finds that AK Meeting fails
to state a plausible claim for infringement of the ’211 patent.
3
Case 6:22-cv-00248-ADA Document 39 Filed 12/28/22 Page 4 of 6
Cisco explains that AK Meeting alleges that a Webex Board using Webex Virtual Desktop
Infrastructure (“VDI”) can serve as a “client computer [that] transmit[s] cursor messages/signals
to the server when the cursor is moved . . . such as [by] tapping on the whiteboard icon” to satisfy
the limitation of claim 1 requiring “receiving a first cursor message at the server from the client
computer, said first cursor message representing a change in a position of a first cursor associated
with the client computer in response to user input received from a user of the client computer.”
ECF No. 17-2 at 4. AK Meeting further alleges that “the messages/signals sent to the server are
then processed and sent back to” the Webex Board “in the form of bitmaps” because “[t]he ‘done
button’ becomes active once the whiteboard icon” on a Webex Board “is initiated,” and this
satisfies the limitation of claim 1 requiring “producing a first pointer message in response to said
first cursor message, said first pointer message representing said change in said position of said
first cursor provided by said first cursor message and being operable to cause display of a pointer
on the client computer.” Id. Finally, AK Meeting alleges that “[t]hese bitmaps are then displayed”
on the Webex Board as “the client computer” and that this allows the user to “tap on the ‘Stop
Sharing’ icon” on the Webex Board. Id. at 5. In summary, AK Meeting alleges that a Webex Board
connects to the Webex meetings through Webex VDI, and as a result, messages are transmitted
from the Webex Board to a server, and back to the Webex Board as bitmaps.
Yet Cisco contends that Webex Board cannot connect to Webex meetings through a virtual
desktop. ECF No. 27 at 7 (citing ECF No. 26-1 ¶¶ 4-5). Because of this, Cisco asserts that AK
Meeting’s infringement allegations for the ’211 patent fail. Id. AK Meeting, in its Response,
does not challenge this, but alleges only that the claims do not require connection via virtual
desktop. ECF No. 33 at 4. AK Meeting fails to address Cisco’s assertion that the accused Cisco
4
Case 6:22-cv-00248-ADA Document 39 Filed 12/28/22 Page 5 of 6
Webex Whiteboard does not work with the virtual desktop, as accused in AK Meeting’s SAC.
See id.
In its Reply, Cisco explains that the asserted claims require that (1) an originating client
computer transmits a message regarding its cursor to a server, and (2) the server sends the shared
cursor to each of the clients on the network, including the originating client. ECF No. 34 at 2
(citing ECF No. 1-4, claim 1). Because Cisco alleges that AK Meeting’s allegations in the Original
and First Amended Complaint could not satisfy this requirement, Cisco filed a Rule 12(c) motion
to dismiss AK Meeting’s complaint. See id; ECF No. 16. In response, AK Meeting filed its SAC,
which abandoned its allegation against a Webex meeting alone, and instead accused infringement
by a Webex meeting accessed through a virtual desktop on a Webex board. Compare ECF No. 82 at 3 with ECF No. 17-2 at 3–4.
The Court agrees with Cisco that by now arguing the claims do not require connection via
virtual desktop, ECF No. 33 at 4, AK Meeting rejects the element that distinguished the SAC from
its earlier allegations, which it effectively conceded were deficient when it filed its SAC. ECF No.
34 at 1. Because AK Meeting does not address, much less dispute, that the accused Cisco Webex
Whiteboard does not work with the virtual desktop, as accused in its SAC, AK Meeting fails to
state a plausible claim for infringement of the ’211 patent.
IV. CONCLUSION
For those reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.’s Rule 12(c) Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings. ECF No. 27. AK Meeting’s claims of infringement with respect to
the ’211 Patent are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
5
Case 6:22-cv-00248-ADA Document 39 Filed 12/28/22 Page 6 of 6
SIGNED this 28th day of December, 2022.
__________________________________
ALAN D ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?