1 

#7807350 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

ESTECH SYSTEMS, INC., § 

§ 

 Plaintiff, § 

§ Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00322 

v. § 

§ Judge Alan D. Albright 

REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION, § 

§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 Defendant. § 

DEFENDANT REGIONS FINANCIAL CORPORATION’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6) 

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, 

RULE 12(e) MOTION TO PROVIDE A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT 

Defendant Regions Financial Corporation files this its Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or in the Alternative Rule 12(e) Motion to Provide a More Definite Statement 

and in support thereof states as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff Estech Systems, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint for patent infringement against 

Regions Financial Corporation (“Regions”) should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6) because Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

 The asserted patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,391,298 (the “’298 patent”), 7,068,684 (the 

“’684 patent”), and 7,123,699 (the “’699 patent”) (collectively “the Asserted Patents”) recite 

various claims that Plaintiff asserts are “generally directed to systems and methods for providing 

robust, feature-rich communications systems.” Complaint ⁋ 15. Yet, the Complaint fails to

identify a single Regions product that allegedly infringes these claims and it fails to provide any 

information that might give Regions fair notice regarding Plaintiff’s infringement claims. 

Indeed, there is not even a specific allegation against Regions. Rather, the Complaint purports to 

Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 14 Filed 07/08/20 Page 1 of 9
2 

#7807350 

allege infringement in a few boilerplate paragraphs stating that “Defendant made, had made, 

used, imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold, or offered for sale products and/or systems, 

including VoIP telephone systems and networking equipment utilized by Defendant” and further 

stating that “The Accused Instrumentalities include local area networks used in conjunction with 

VoIP devices, such as telephones, networking equipment, and servers that provide VoIP 

functionality.” See Dkt. No. 1, Complaint, ¶¶ 20-21; see also ¶¶ 38-39; see also ¶¶ 56-57. 

Such statements are no more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of 

action” for patent infringement, and as the Supreme Court clarified, simply “will not do.” Bell 

Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (hereinafter, “Twombly”); see also Joao 

Bock Transaction Sys. of Texas, LLC v. AT & T, Inc., No. 6:09CV208, 2010 WL 5343173, at *3 

(E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2010) (hereinafter “Joao Bock”) (applying Twombly and granting motion to 

dismiss where complaint failed to identify accused products). Accordingly, Regions respectfully 

moves to dismiss the Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the ground that Plaintiff has 

not met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) and has therefore failed to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. 

In the alternative, Regions respectfully moves the court to order Plaintiff to make more 

specific factual allegations regarding its grounds for alleging infringement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(e). 

II. ARGUMENT 

A. The Complaint Should Be Dismissed Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the . 

. . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Factual allegations 

Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 14 Filed 07/08/20 Page 2 of 9
3 

#7807350 

must be included in the complaint sufficient “to raise a right to relief above the speculative 

level,” and must be more than a label or conclusion. Id. While on a motion to dismiss factual 

allegations must be accepted as true, the Court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion 

couched as a factual allegation.” Id.; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (to 

survive motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Plaintiff’s complaint must “contain sufficient 

factual matter . . . to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”).

The Federal Circuit has held that even under the generous pleading standard set out in the 

Federal Rules a patentee plaintiff must “plead facts sufficient to place the alleged infringer on 

notice as to what he must defend.” McZeal v. Sprint, 501 F.3d 1354, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007) 

(applying Fifth Circuit law). The Federal Circuit noted that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

Form 18 (formerly Form 16), plainly demonstrates the pleading requirements by including the 

following elements: 1) an allegation of jurisdiction; 2) a statement that the plaintiff owns the 

patent; 3) a statement that defendant has been infringing the patent “by making, selling, and 

using [the device] embodying the patent”; 4) a statement that the plaintiff has given the 

defendant notice of its infringement; and 5) a demand for an injunction and damages. McZeal, 

501 F.3d at 1356-57. Form 18 further includes an example allegation that defendant infringes by 

“making, selling, and using an ‘electric motor’ that embodies the patented invention.” 

While patent infringement claims are not subject to a heightened pleading standard, there 

must be “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 570. Here, the Complaint fails to provide even basic facts to support such a claim. The 

Complaint merely recites legal elements and conclusions but fails to identify a device or method 

that allegedly embodies the asserted patents. Indeed, Plaintiff has not even stated conclusively 

whether it is targeting a product or a method, let alone a Regions product or method. Instead, 

Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 14 Filed 07/08/20 Page 3 of 9
4 

#7807350 

the Complaint makes a series of formulaic recitations, such as “Defendant made, had made, used, 

imported, provided, supplied, distributed, sold, or offered for sale products and/or systems, 

including VoIP telephone systems and networking equipment utilized by Defendant (“Accused 

Instrumentalities”),” and that “[b]y doing so, Defendant has directly infringed” the Asserted 

claims. See Dkt. No. 1, Complaint, ¶¶ 20-22, 38-40 and 56-58. These generic allegations are 

deficient to meet even the notice pleading standard for patent infringement. 

The Complaint similarly states that “Defendant has also indirectly infringed” the Asserted 

Patents “by inducing others to directly infringe” and “by making and using the Accused 

Instrumentalities” and “took active steps, directly and/or through contractual relationships with 

others, with the specific intent to cause them to use the Accused Instrumentalities in a manner 

that infringes one or more claims” by “among other things, advising or directing personnel, 

contractors or end-users to make or use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner; 

advertising and promoting the use of the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner; 

and/or distributing instructions that guide users to use the Accused Instrumentalities in an 

infringing manner.” See Dkt. No. 1, Complaint, ¶¶ 26, 44 and 62. Like its purported allegations 

of direct infringement, Plaintiff’s indirect infringement allegations fail to provide sufficient 

factual allegations to meet the pleading standard. 

Accordingly, in seeking to respond to Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations, Regions has little 

idea where to begin. In this case, because Plaintiff has “not nudged their claims across the line 

from conceivable to plausible, their complaint must be dismissed.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. 

Asserting that a defendant has committed infringement by generally asserting the 

elements of infringement is nothing more than a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation, 

which is not entitled to an assumption of truth. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. While a Plaintiff is 

Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 14 Filed 07/08/20 Page 4 of 9
5 

#7807350 

not required to show a limitation-by-limitation analysis of the alleged infringement in its 

complaint, an identification of the products or methods alleged to infringe is the bare minimum 

factual allegation necessary to give the defendant the “fair notice” to which it is entitled. See, 

e.g., Joao Bock, 2010 WL 5343173, at *3 (granting motion to dismiss where complaint failed to 

identify accused products and failed to inform defendants what they must defend); Anticancer, 

Inc. v. Xenogen Corp., 248 F.R.D. 278 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (granting a motion to dismiss under 

Twombly, finding that “the Plaintiff has failed to plead any further facts beyond a bare statement 

of direct and indirect infringement”); Edios Commc’ns, LLC v. Skype Tech’s., No. 09-234, 

Memorandum Opinion Dkt. 16 (D. Del. Feb. 24, 2010) (requiring plaintiff to amend complaint 

or face dismissal under Twombly where plaintiff did not identify category of product or identify a 

process). Here, because Plaintiff has failed to plead any facts beyond formulaic statements of 

alleged infringement, its complaint should be dismissed pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

B. In the Alternative, The Plaintiff Should Provide A More Definite Statement 

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e). 

Alternatively, Regions requests that Plaintiffs, at a minimum, be ordered to provide a 

more definite statement of its claims. A party may move for a more definite statement of a 

pleading to which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the 

party cannot reasonably prepare a response. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e); Balderrama v. Pride Indus., 

Inc., 963 F. Supp. 2d 646, 667 (W.D. Tex. 2013). When presented with an appropriate Rule 12(e) 

motion for a more definite statement, the district court shall grant the motion and demand more 

specific factual allegations from the plaintiff concerning the conduct underlying the claims for 

relief. See, e.g., Balderrama, 963 F. Supp. 2d at 665 (granting motion for more definite 

statement where portions of complaint were sufficiently “vague or ambiguous” that Defendant 

Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 14 Filed 07/08/20 Page 5 of 9
6 

#7807350 

cannot “reasonably prepare a response”); McClellan v. Hinojosa, Civ. No. 10-1089, 2010 WL 

4520978, *2 (N. D. Tex., Nov. 9, 2010) (granting defendants’ Rule 12(e) motion); Joao Bock, 

2010 WL 5343173, at *3 (granting defendants’ motions to dismiss but granting plaintiff leave to 

amend its complaint, and “strongly caution[ing] [plaintiff] to narrow its case”). 

A more definite statement will also focus the discovery process and expedite the case in 

an economical manner. See, e.g., Brown v. Whitcraft, Civ. No. 8-186, 2008 WL 2066929 *3-4 

(N.D. Tex. May 15, 2008) (granting Rule 12(e) motion with respect to allegations that did not 

adequately plead a cause of action and noting that a “complaint must be sufficiently particular to 

show that the plaintiff is not seeking a license to go fishing for an indicia of fraud”); Bay Indus., 

Inc. v. Tru-Arx Mfg., Civ. No. 06-1010, 2006 WL 3469599, *2 (E.D. Wis. Nov. 29, 2006) 

(granting motion where the complaint failed to identify any allegedly infringing product). 

In the patent infringement context, “Plaintiff cannot foist the burden of discerning what 

products it believes infringe the patent onto defense counsel, regardless of their skill and 

expertise.” eSoft, Inc. v. Astaro Corp., Civ. No. 06-00441, 2006 WL 2164454, *2 (D. Colo. July 

31, 2006). Thus, courts have frequently granted motions for more definite statements where the 

patent infringement complaint does not include sufficient factual support. See, e.g., Brown, 2008 

WL 2066929 at *4 (noting that “Defendants cannot reasonably be expected to file a responsive 

pleading to a claim that does not adequately plead an underlying cause of action”); Bay Indus., 

Inc., 2006 WL 3469599 at *2 (holding that “requiring that plaintiff identify the product or 

products that allegedly infringe its patent insures that plaintiff has a proper basis for bringing suit 

in the first place”); Static Control Components, Inc. v. Future Graphics, LLC, Civ. No. 07-7, 

2008 WL 160827, *2 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 15, 2008) (where the complaint identified a group of 

exemplary “universal chips” as allegedly infringing, finding that “[a]bsent a more definite 

Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 14 Filed 07/08/20 Page 6 of 9
7 

#7807350 

statement” the defendant “ha[d] no choice but to interpret each of the claims of the patents in 

suit, compare each of its chips that could be considered ‘universal chips’ to the claims in the 

patent in suit, and determine whether it believes the chips violate any of [those] claims”); Taurus 

IP, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., 539 F. Supp. 2d 1122, 1127 (W.D. Wis. 2008) (requiring plaintiff to 

allege which products allegedly infringed which claims of the patents). In this case, Regions 

cannot realistically be expected to frame a responsive pleading to Plaintiff’s bare and ambiguous 

allegations without risk of prejudice. A more definite statement, at a minimum, is warranted. 

In filing its complaint, Plaintiff has represented that a reasonable inquiry has been made 

to ensure that the factual allegations have evidentiary support. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Skidmore 

Energy, Inc. v. KPMG, 455 F.3d 564, 568 (5th Cir. 2006) (evidentiary support is determined at 

the time of filing). Assuming that Plaintiff did in fact properly investigate its claim before filing 

suit, there is no reason Plaintiff cannot identify precisely which products are at issue. 

III. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, Regions respectfully requests that the Court, 

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismiss the Complaint against Regions for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or in the alternative, order the Plaintiff 

to make more specific factual allegations regarding its grounds for alleging infringement. 

Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 14 Filed 07/08/20 Page 7 of 9
8 

#7807350 

Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Bruce C. Morris 

Bruce C. Morris 

Texas Bar No. 14469850 

KANE RUSSELL COLEMAN LOGAN PC 

5051 Westheimer Rd., Suite 1000 

Houston, Texas 77056 

Telephone: (713) 425-7450 

Facsimile: (713) 425-7700 

bmorris@krcl.com

ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR 

DEFENDANT REGIONS FINANCIAL 

CORPORATION

OF COUNSEL: 

STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 

1330 Connecticut Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Telephone: 202-429-6271 

Jamie L. Lucia* 

CA State Bar 246163 

jlucia@steptoe.com 

Gretchen P. Miller* 

FL State Bar 119562 

gmiller@steptoe.com 

David Shea Bettwy* 

CA State Bar 311301 

dbettwy@steptoe.com 

* - Pro Hac Vice motions to be filed with the Court. 

Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 14 Filed 07/08/20 Page 8 of 9
9 

#7807350 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on July 8, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the 

Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice of electronic filing to all counsel of 

record. 

Fred I. Williams 

Williams Simons & Landis PLLC 

327 Congress Ave. 

Suite 490 

Austin, TX 78701 

Email: fwilliams@wsltrial.com

/s/ Bruce C. Morris 

Bruce C. Morris 

Case 6:20-cv-00322-ADA Document 14 Filed 07/08/20 Page 9 of 9