IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION 

OPTIMORPHIX, INC. 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 5:23-CV-00150-RWS-JBB 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANT MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT 

TO 12(B)(6) FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 338
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

II. Statement of Relevant Facts .................................................................................................... 1

A. Patents Asserted Against Microsoft ........................................................................ 1

B. Infringement Allegations ........................................................................................ 2

C. Other OptiMorphix Lawsuits .................................................................................. 6

D. Meet And Confer Process ....................................................................................... 8

III. legal Standard.......................................................................................................................... 8

IV. Argument ................................................................................................................................ 9

A. The Complaint Fails To State A Plausible Claim For Patent Infringement ............ 9

B. OptiMorphix’s Allegations Are So Generic That They Mirror Other Actions 

Against Different Defendants With Different Accused Products. ........................ 13

V. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 14

 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 339
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Federal Cases 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 

556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...............................................................................................................1, 8 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 

550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...............................................................................................................1, 8 

Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of Am., 

4 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................9, 10, 11

Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 

17 F.4th 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................14 

Chhim v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 

836 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2016) .....................................................................................................8 

Diem LLC v. BigCommerce, Inc., 

No. 6:17-CV-186, 2017 WL 9935521 (E.D. Tex., May 11, 2017)......................................9, 11 

Golden v. Apple Inc., 

No. 2022-1229, 2022 WL 4103285 (Fed. Cir., Sept. 8, 2022) (per curiam) ...........................10 

Golden v. Intel Corp., 

No. 2023-1257, 2023 WL 3262948 (Fed. Cir., May 5, 2023) (per curiam) ......................13, 14 

K-Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., 

714 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir., Aug. 19, 2013) ..................................................................................9 

L&W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc., 

471 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 14, 2006) ..................................................................................8 

Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC, 

883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir., Feb. 27, 2018).................................................................................10 

Network Managing Sols., LLC v. AT&T Inc., 

No. 16–cv–295 (RGA), 2017 WL 472080 (D. Del., Feb. 3, 2017) .........................................12 

OptiMorphix v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 

No. 5:23-cv-00126-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex. filed Nov. 2, 2023) .................................................6 

OptiMorphix, Inc. v. Alphabet Inc., 

1:23-cv-01065-MN (D. Del. filed Sept. 27, 2023) ..........................................................6, 7, 14 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 340
iii 

OptiMorphix, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 

No. 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex. filed Oct. 23, 2023) .................................................6 

OptiMorphix, Inc. v. Broadcom Inc., 

No. 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex. filed Nov. 20, 2023) ...............................................6 

OptiMorphix, Inc. v. F5, Inc, 

5:24-cv-00026-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex. filed Feb. 22, 2024) .......................................................6 

OptiMorphix, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., 

C.A. No. 23-1249 (MN) (D. Del. filed Nov. 1, 2023) .................................................6, 7, 8, 14 

OptiMorphix, Inc. v. VMWare, Inc., 

C.A. No. 23-1146 (MN) (D. Del. filed Nov. 1, 2023) ...............................................................6 

Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc., 

No. 2:16-CV-423, 2017 WL 1362700 (E.D. Tex., Mar. 13, 2017) ...........................................9 

Ruby Sands LLC v. Am. Nat’l Bank of Tex., 

No. 2:15-cv-1955-JRG, 2016 WL 3542430 (E.D. Tex., June 28, 2016) ...................................8 

Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 

873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir., Oct. 16, 2017) .....................................................................................8 

Stragent, LLC v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 

C.A. No. 6:16-cv-446-RWS-KNM, 2017 WL 2821697 (E.D. Tex., Mar. 3, 

2017) ........................................................................................................................................13 

Rules 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) ..................................................................................1, 13 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 341
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) moves to dismiss Plaintiff OptiMorphix, 

Inc.’s (“OptiMorphix’s”) Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because its 

allegations—largely copied-and-pasted from its other complaints against other defendants—fail to 

identify how any Microsoft product or service infringes any asserted claim. OptiMorphix asserts 

ten patents with 247 claims that span various technologies against 20 different Microsoft products 

and services. Its Complaint uses a formulaic approach of vague and amorphous allegations that 

fails to provide Microsoft with any notice as to what is actually accused, much less how or why it 

is accused. That is, for each of the ten counts of infringement, OptiMorphix strings together a nonexhaustive laundry list of disparate products and services, as exemplified below: 

Microsoft designs, makes, sells, offers to sell, imports, and/or uses the following 

products: Microsoft Azure (including Microsoft Azure Encoding, Microsoft Azure 

AI Video Indexer, Microsoft Azure Media Player, Microsoft Azure Content 

Delivery Network, Microsoft Azure Front Door, Microsoft Azure Live and OnDemand Streaming, Microsoft Azure Arc, Microsoft Azure Communication 

Services, and Microsoft Azure Media Services functionality) and Microsoft Teams 

(collectively, the “Microsoft ‘105 Product(s)”). 

Compl. ¶ 246 (emphasis added). OptiMorphix then generally parrots (or paraphrases) claim 

language in subsequent paragraphs before concluding that Microsoft infringes. OptiMorphix fails 

to include any explanation of how or why many of the claim elements of the asserted patents are 

met by any of the products or services included in its list. Such barebones allegations form the 

prototypical type of pleadings that cannot pass muster under Twombly and Iqbal. Thus, the Court 

should dismiss OptiMorphix’s facially deficient Complaint. 

II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS 

A. Patents Asserted Against Microsoft 

On December 20, 2023, Plaintiff OptiMorphix, Inc. (“OptiMorphix”) filed a Complaint 

against Defendant Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”) alleging direct, induced, and willful 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 342
2 

infringement of ten patents it acquired in April 2023: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,031,314 (the “’314 

patent”); 7,444,418 (the “’418 patent”); 7,586,871 (the “’871 patent”); 7,616,559 (the “’559 

patent”); 7,987,285 (the “’285 patent”); 8,230,105 (the “’105 patent”); 8,429,169 (the “’169 

patent”); 8,769,141 (the “’141 patent”); 9,191,664 (the “’664 patent”); and 10,412,388 (the “’388 

patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). In broad terms, the Patents-in-Suit relate to managing 

and processing network data (see Compl. ¶¶ 38–39, 45–46, 51–52), network communication links 

and proxies (see id. ¶¶ 58–59), adaptive bitrate management (see id. ¶¶ 66–67, 74–75, 90–91, 96), 

video caching (see id. ¶¶ 83–84), and video encoding (see id. ¶ 104). Collectively, these ten patents 

include 49 independent claims and 247 total claims. 

B. Infringement Allegations 

OptiMorphix alleges that at least the following products and services within the “Microsoft 

Azure” platform infringe one or more of the ten Asserted Patents: Azure Application Gateway, 

Azure Network Watcher, Azure Firewall, Azure VPN Gateway and Azure Express Route, Azure 

Encoding, Azure AI Video Indexer, Azure Media Player, Azure Content Delivery Network, Azure 

Front Door, Azure Arc, Azure Cache for Redis, Azure Live, On-Demand Streaming, Azure Arc, 

Azure Communication Services, and Azure Media Services. See id. ¶¶ 111, 140, 169, 193, 221, 

246, 274, 301, 328, 357. Microsoft Azure is a technically complex “cloud platform [of] more than 

200 products and cloud services,” but OptiMorphix identifies only a subset of products and 

services by name. What Is Azure?, MICROSOFT, https://azure.microsoft.com/enus/resources/cloud-computing-dictionary/what-is-azure (last visited Mar. 11, 2021) (emphasis 

added). 

Additionally, OptiMorphix accuses Microsoft Teams of infringing the ’105 Patent. Id. 

¶ 246. Like each Microsoft Azure functionality, Microsoft Teams is a multi-faceted and 

complicated service, but OptiMorphix does not specify which feature of Teams is allegedly 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 343
3 

infringing. E.g., Announcing General Availability of the New Microsoft Teams App for Windows 

and Mac, MICROSOFT (Oct. 5, 2023, 8:00 AM), 

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-teams-blog/announcing-general-availabilityof-the-new-microsoft-teams-app/ba-p/3934603 (showing document sharing, transcription, text 

chat, video chat services, integration of third-party apps, and other features). Lastly, OptiMorphix 

accuses the HEVC Video Extension for Windows 10 and Media Foundation H.265 Video Encoder 

in its allegations for the ’388 Patent. Compl. ¶ 357. Collectively, Microsoft Azure, Teams, and 

HEVC/H.265 Encoders are referred to herein as the “Accused Products/Services.” 

For each Count in its Complaint, OptiMorphix generally parrots (or paraphrases) the 

language of the representative claims to conclude that Microsoft infringes OptiMorphix’s patents, 

without distinguishing among the Azure accused products and services or providing any 

substantive explanation. For example, OptiMorphix’s Complaint includes the following 

conclusory statements that are largely regurgitations of the claim language (claim language in 

bold/italics) with no supporting documentation, citations, or explanation: 

 The Microsoft ‘314 Products comprise a storage component, functionally 

connected to the processor, responsible for retaining data and instructions that, 

upon execution by the processor, direct the processor’s operations. ¶ 114. 

 The Microsoft ‘314 Products contain functionality for establishing an initial 

connection between the client and the service module, and a subsequent 

connection between the service module and the server when the connection 

aligns with the predefined service requirements. ¶ 119. 

 The Microsoft ‘314 Products orchestrate the formation of a connection between 

the client and the service module, following the protocols and parameters that 

relate to the classified service criteria. ¶ 121. 

 The Microsoft ‘418 Products intercept digital multimedia information 

transmitted between a sender and a recipient, where the data is encoded at the 

sender using a primary transmission rate. ¶ 142. 

 The Microsoft ‘418 Products calculate the accessible transmission rate for a 

connection on the recipient end, in which the estimation process involves 

determining the roundtrip time for data packets exchanged between the service 

module and the recipient through the secondary communication channel. ¶ 144. 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 344
4 

 The Microsoft ‘418 Products convey transcoded multimedia data to the recipient 

via the receiver-end connection, utilizing a transmission rate derived from the 

estimated accessible transmission rate. ¶ 150.

 The Microsoft ‘871 Products detect an event associated with a data 

communication arriving at the node from a first data network. ¶ 171. 

 The Microsoft ‘559 Products contain functionality where if communication 

disruption occurs over the primary communication link, the alternate 

communication link is reestablished to facilitate the exchange of information 

between the client and server. ¶ 205. 

 The Microsoft ‘285 Products allocate the optimal session bitrate among audio 

and video streams to yield ideal bitrates for both, with the allocation partially 

based on giving precedence to either the audio or video data. ¶ 225. 

 The Microsoft ‘105 Products divide this optimal session bitrate between audio 

and video data to yield the best-suited bitrates for each. ¶ 250. 

 The Microsoft ‘105 Products allocate the optimal session bitrate between audio 

and video media data to produce an optimal audio bitrate and an optimal video 

bitrate, wherein allocating the optimal session bitrate between audio and video 

media data is based on a metric selected from a group including a predetermined 

allocation, a user preference, an optimal performance data, privileging one type 

of data over the other, and an amount of audio and video media data to be 

provided. ¶ 251. 

 The Microsoft ‘105 Products encode audio and video media data according to the 

optimal audio bitrate and the optimal video bitrate. ¶ 256. 

 The Microsoft ‘169 Products generate an index corresponding to content 

associated with the received content request by inputting the at least one 

identified characterization data into a hash function, wherein the generated 

index is used for identifying, in the cache data structure, an entry associated with 

the content by comparing the generated index to one or more index fields 

associated with one or more entries within the cache data structure. ¶ 286. 

 The Microsoft ‘169 Products identify one or more descriptors for the content 

corresponding to the user’s request, where these descriptors include the 

particular content segment associated with the initial request. ¶ 278. 

 The Microsoft ‘141 Products apportion the recommended session bitrate among 

audio and video streams, favoring either audio or video for a higher bitrate as 

needed. ¶ 307. 

 The Microsoft ‘141 Products apportion the recommended session bitrate among 

audio and video streams, favoring either audio or video for a higher bitrate as 

needed. ¶ 307. 

 The Microsoft ‘664 Products distribute the received ideal session bitrate between 

the audio and video media data, resulting in an optimal audio bitrate and an 

optimal video bitrate. ¶ 334. 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 345
5 

 The Microsoft ‘388 Products calculate a delta quantization parameter as 

influenced by the initial quantization parameter, where the function is designed 

to yield this delta parameter at least in part to achieve a bitrate reduction while 

sustaining a given quality threshold. ¶ 363. 

 The Microsoft ‘388 Products calculate a delta QP based on the initial 

quantization parameter. This function aims to minimize bitrate while retaining 

the required video quality. ¶ 364. 

See Ex. A (comparing representative claim language with OptiMorphix’s allegations). 

Where OptiMorphix includes additional detail beyond parroting or paraphrasing 

representative claim language in its complaint, OptiMorphix merely adds trivial, vague words 

about basic computer functionality without tying it to any particular Microsoft product or service. 

For example, OptiMorphix adds vague allegations that could be true for any Internet-connected 

device, such as that “transmission protocols” perform transmission. Compl. ¶ 153. OptiMorphix 

alleges that “monitor[ing] network channels” means “enable security protocols” including 

“encryption standards and/or authentication technology,” ignoring that this could refer to 

thousands of products and services, including ones not owned by Microsoft. Id. ¶ 198. 

OptiMorphix explains generally how caching works without specifying why or how it contends 

that Microsoft performs reverse caching as claimed by the ’169 Patent. See id. ¶¶ 277–82. 

OptiMorphix also includes facts that are circular to the claim language, such as that maintaining a 

communication link means “ensur[ing] uninterrupted data exchange between the client system and 

server system.” Id. ¶ 201. In some places, OptiMorphix repeats specific limitations after wording 

them in slightly different ways. Compare id. ¶ 201 with ¶¶ 205–07; ¶¶ 253–54 with ¶ 251; ¶ 354 

with ¶ 355. 

Additionally, OptiMorphix references standards that Microsoft allegedly uses in its 

products and services but does not tie the industry standard to the asserted claims. See id. ¶¶ 224 

(DASH), 228 (AAC, H.264/AVC, CABAC), 230 (MPEG-4, Matroska), 276 (mentioning that 

Internet requests are HTTP requests over the internet and listing industry-standard ports for HTTP 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 346
6 

and HTTPS), 280–82 (HTTP protocol, methods, and directives), 283 (round-robin algorithm and 

least connections algorithm), 287 (Jenkins and SHA-256 hash functions), 304 (MPEG-DASH), 

306 (MPEG-DASH), 308 (MPEG-DASH), 358–59 (H.265/ HEVC), 362 (HEVC). For example, 

OptiMorphix accuses the Accused Products/Services of implementing HVEC and accuses HVEC 

of infringing the ’388 Patent, but OptiMorphix fails to plead how the HVEC standard meets the 

limitations of the ’388 Patent’s representative claim. See id. ¶¶ 369–70. Instead, OptiMorphix 

dumps protocol names from the HVEC standard that OptiMorphix alleges are relevant to 

infringement, without any further explanation. See id. ¶ 369. 

Though OptiMorphix provides string cites of numerous links to Microsoft Learn within 

footnotes, those links are not for its allegations of direct infringement. Instead, OptiMorphix cites 

the websites only to state that Microsoft “provides documentation and training materials” to its 

customers. See id. ¶¶ 134, 162, 187, 215, 240, 268, 295, 322, 351, 380 & nn.14–23. 

C. Other OptiMorphix Lawsuits 

In addition to suing Microsoft, OptiMorphix has also filed seven other suits against: Oracle 

Corporation; VMware, LLC; Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon Web Services, Inc.; Broadcom Inc.; 

Cisco Systems, Inc.; F5, Inc.; Alphabet, Inc.; Google LLC; and CA, Inc. See OptiMorphix, Inc. v. 

Oracle Corp., C.A. No. 23-1249 (MN) (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2023); OptiMorphix, Inc. v. VMWare, Inc., 

C.A. No. 23-1146 (MN) (D. Del. filed Nov. 1, 2023); OptiMorphix, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 

5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex. filed Oct. 23, 2023); OptiMorphix, Inc. v. Broadcom Inc., 

No. 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex. filed Nov. 20, 2023); OptiMorphix v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 

No. 5:23-cv-00126-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex. filed Nov. 2, 2023); OptiMorphix, Inc. v. F5, Inc, 5:24-

cv-00026-RWS-JBB (E.D. Tex. filed Feb. 22, 2024); OptiMorphix, Inc. v. Alphabet Inc., 1:23-cv01065-MN (D. Del. filed Sept. 27, 2023). OptiMorphix’s eight lawsuits include significant patent 

overlap and raise nearly identical infringement allegations. A comparison of the infringement 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 347
7 

counts of overlapping Asserted Patents for the Amazon, Broadcom, Oracle, and Cisco complaints 

demonstrates that only the name of the defendant and accused product/service changed, with a 

snippet comparing Microsoft with the Amazon complaints reflected below:

Ex. B; see also Exs. C–E (comparing OptiMorphix’s Cisco, Broadcom, and Oracle complaints 

against its Microsoft complaint) 

In sum, OptiMorphix raises the same infringement allegations relying on parroted or 

paraphrased claim language—instead of defendant and product specific allegations—against 

hundreds of accused products/services from eight different defendants. Tellingly, two other 

defendants have already moved to dismiss OptiMorphix’s complaint in their case for failing to 

state a claim. Mot. to Dismiss at 11–16, Oracle, C.A. No. 23-1249 (MN) (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2023), 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 348
8 

ECF No. 16; Mot. to Dismiss at 4–6, Alphabet Inc., 1:23-cv-01065-MN (D. Del. filed Sept. 27, 

2023), ECF No. 9. 

D. Meet And Confer Process 

On March 4, 2024, Microsoft reached out to OptiMorphix to outline the deficiencies in its 

complaint and express its intent to file this Motion to Dismiss. Ex. F at 2. During the parties’ 

meet and confer on March 5, 2024, OptiMorphix refused to amend its Complaint to address the 

deficiencies, necessitating the present motion. OptiMorphix has shown similar unwillingness to 

amend its complaints for pleading deficiencies. See Mot. to Dismiss at 2, Oracle, C.A. No. 23-

1249. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

To survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Allegations 

“merely consistent with” liability are insufficient. See Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557. To meet the 

plausibility standard, plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged” and its claim must be 

based on “more than a sheer possibility” of liability. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While Fifth 

Circuit courts “take the well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true,” they “do not 

credit conclusory allegations or allegations that merely restate the legal elements of a claim.” 

Chhim v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 836 F.3d 467, 469 (5th Cir. 2016). Legal conclusions in a patent 

infringement action include allegations that an accused product meets an element of the claim 

language. Cf. Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

Thus, a plaintiff must “explicitly plead facts to plausibly support” its assertions of direct 

infringement. Ruby Sands LLC v. Am. Nat’l Bank of Tex., No. 2:15-cv-1955-JRG, 2016 WL 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 349
9 

3542430, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2016). A plaintiff has the burden of showing that each accused 

product infringes the asserted claims. See L&W, Inc. v. Shertech, Inc., 471 F.3d 1311, 1318 (Fed. 

Cir. 2006) (“[Plaintiff] must make a prima facie showing of infringement as to each accused device 

. . . .”). “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, 1352–53 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs must plead “factual allegations sufficient to give 

rise to a plausible inference that a device meets all elements of a specific claim.” Diem LLC v. 

BigCommerce, Inc., No. 6:17-CV-186, 2017 WL 9935521, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) (quoting 

Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-423, 2017 WL 1362700, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2017)) 

(emphasis in original). 

A greater level of detail is required for complex technologies or material elements. See Bot 

M8, 4 F.4th at 1353 (level of detail required depends on “the complexity of the technology, the 

materiality of any given element to practicing the asserted claim(s), and the nature of the allegedly 

infringing device”). The significant complexity of this case—with ten patents, 247 claims, and 20 

accused products—demands more detail from OptiMorphix. See Bot M8, 4 F.4th at 1353 (holding 

that “[t]he level of detail required . . . will vary” based on “the complexity of the technology . . . 

and the nature of the allegedly infringing device.”); K-Tech Telecomms., Inc. v. Time Warner 

Cable, Inc., 714 F.3d 1277, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“The adequacy of the facts pleaded depends on 

the breadth and complexity of both the asserted patent and the accused product or system and the 

nature of the defendant’s business activities.”). 

IV. ARGUMENT 

A. The Complaint Fails To State A Plausible Claim For Patent Infringement 

OptiMorphix’s copying or paraphrasing of the language of representative claims does 

not—and cannot—amount to a “plausible claim for infringement.” Indeed, OptiMorphix’s 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 350
10 

Complaint fails to set forth evidence or allegations describing what feature, functionality, 

structure, or operation of any Accused Product/Service infringes, nor does it cite how or why any 

Accused Product/Service infringes. See Bot M8, 4 F.4th at 1352–53 (quoting Nalco Co. v. ChemMod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); see also Golden v. Apple Inc., No. 2022-1229, 

2022 WL 4103285, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 8, 2022) (per curiam) (finding that a plaintiff “cannot 

assert a plausible claim for infringement . . . by reciting the claim elements and merely concluding 

that the accused product has those elements.” 

 OptiMorphix’s allegations outside of the claim language itself are threadbare and fail to 

state how any accused product or service meets the limitations of any patents. For example, in 

limitation 16[a] for the ’105 Patent, OptiMorphix repeats three times that “allocating the optimal 

session bitrate between audio and video media data is based on a metric selected from a group 

including a predetermined allocation, a user preference, an optimal performance data, privileging 

one type of data over the other, and an amount of audio and video media data to be provided” but 

not once shows any Microsoft documentation suggesting that the accused products and services 

have this accused functionality or any explanation of how the accused products and services 

allegedly include this group. See Ex. A. For limitations 16[b]–[c], OptiMorphix does not allege 

any facts that support the conclusion Microsoft “allocate[s] the optimal session bitrate between 

audio and video media data to produce an optimal audio bitrate and an optimal video bitrate.” Id. 

Every other count similarly includes multiple claim limitations that are entirely devoid of 

supporting allegations other than parroted or paraphrasing from claim language. 

As another example, OptiMorphix accuses Azure Media Player of infringing patents that 

require transcoding and adaptive bitrate management. See Compl. ¶¶ 140, 221, 246, 301, 328, 

357. However, the alleged training materials cited by OptiMorphix show that Azure Media Player 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 351
11 

simply provides automatic playback of content received by user devices. See, e.g., id. ¶ 322 (citing 

Media Architecture Design, MICROSOFT (updated Jan. 24, 2024), https://learn.microsoft.com/enus/azure/architecture/guide/media/start-here). OptiMorphix also accuses an application 

development platform, Azure Arc, of practicing a patent that requires caching webpage content 

but none of the alleged training materials OptiMorphix cites mention Azure Arc let alone mention 

that Azure Arc performs caching of webpage content. See, e.g., id. ¶ 294 n.20. Moreover, 

OptiMorphix accuses an AI video search tool of transcoding and adaptive bitrate management, but 

the alleged training materials cited by OptiMorphix only show that Azure Media Player performs 

media analysis capabilities, such as facial detection. See id. ¶ 240 n.18 (first citing John Deutscher, 

What’s New in Azure Video Processing and Video AI, MICROSOFT (May 7, 2018), 

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/build-2018-what-s-new-in-azure-video-processing-andvideo-ai/; and then citing Microsoft Azure, Six Things to Consider When Using Video Indexer at 

Scale, MICROSOFT (Jan. 27, 2020), https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/six-things-to-considerwhen-using-video-indexer-at-scale/). See id. ¶¶ 140, 221, 246, 301, 328, 357. OptiMorphix’s 

allegations are either frivolous or “plead[] itself out of court,” and certainly fail to place Microsoft 

on notice. Bot M8, 4 F.4th at 1354; see also Diem, 2017 WL 9935521, at *2 (“Plaintiff must put 

Defendant on plausible notice of the claims Defendant may need to defend agains [sic] by 

identifying a representative claim . . . and providing facts sufficient to create a plausible inference 

that each element of the claim is infringed by the accused products.”). 

And though OptiMorphix refers to standards for the ’285, ’169, ’141, and ’388, these 

allegations similarly fall short because OptiMorphix fails to plead which Microsoft Accused 

Product/Service allegedly utilizes these standards. Compl. ¶¶ 224, 228, 230, 276, 280–82, 283, 

287, 304, 308, 358–59, 362, 369–70. For example, according to the webpage cited by Plaintiff, as 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 352
12 

noted above, Aure Media Player and Azure AI Video Indexer do not perform video encoding, so 

these products/services cannot utilize the H.265 video encoding standard. See What’s New in Azure 

Video Processing and Video AI and Media Architecture Design, supra (showing that neither 

product performs encoding). Nor can OptiMorphix plausibly accuse these products/services of 

infringing the ’388 Patent, which requires video encoding. 

Moreover, OptiMorphix fails to state how these industry standards would meet the 

limitations of any asserted claim. For example, OptiMorphix accuses Microsoft products/services 

allegedly complying with the HVEC standard of infringing the ’388 Patent. But OptiMorphix fails 

to plead how various key limitations are met, including the alleged point of novelty of the patent. 

See Compl. ¶ 105 (describing alleged novelty of the ’388 Patent as addressing “shortcomings in 

the prior art” with “the relationship between the compressed byte size of a video frame and its 

quantization parameter”) The ’388 Patent requires the use of “delta quantization parameters” to 

determine a bitrate; however, OptiMorphix fails to identify what “delta quantization parameters” 

are used by the accused products/services or the HVEC standard, whether any alleged delta 

quantization parameter is calculated as a function of the first quantization parameter, or how these 

“delta quantization parameters” allegedly determine bitrates while maintaining a level of quality 

at a predetermined level. Id. ¶ 370. 

Dropping titles of various protocols allegedly from the HVEC standard and merely saying 

that they are “relevant” to Microsoft’s alleged infringement similarly does not cure OptiMorphix’s 

deficient pleading. See Network Managing Sols., LLC v. AT&T Inc., No. 16–cv–295 (RGA), 2017 

WL 472080 (D. Del. Feb. 3, 2017) (“Plaintiff knows its own patents [and] [t]he standards are 

public[,]” so “[s]aying ‘on information and belief’ that the standards ‘incorporate the fundamental 

technologies’ covered by the patents, without more, is insufficient to plausibly allege that to 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 353
13 

practice the standard necessarily means that a defendant also practices the patent”). In short, 

OptiMorphix’s standards-based allegations suffer from the same flaws as its non-standards-based 

allegations and should be similarly rejected. See Stragent, LLC v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, C.A. No. 

6:16-cv-446-RWS-KNM, 2017 WL 2821697, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2017) (granting motion to 

dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim because the plaintiff did not “explain how 

the accused products, by complying with the [standard], also infringe.”). 

B. OptiMorphix’s Allegations Are So Generic That They Mirror Other Actions 

Against Different Defendants With Different Accused Products. 

OptiMorphix’s infringement allegations are not tailored to Microsoft or any Microsoft 

product/service. Instead, OptiMorphix raises the same copied-and-pasted infringement allegations 

in seven other lawsuits against many other defendants across dozens of different accused products. 

As shown in Exs. B–E, OptiMorphix replaces accused product names and company names 

in its recycled direct infringement allegations against Microsoft. The reason why OptiMorphix 

was able to copy-and-paste entire allegations from a complaint is that the complaint is filled with 

broad allegations divorced from content of any specific product (see Compl. ¶ 202 (“While 

generally considered less secure, the second link serves as a contingency, allowing uninterrupted 

information flow between a client and server”)), or gives negligible detail on generic computer 

functionality (see id. ¶ 281 (explaining how HTTP allegedly works)). And when plaintiffs simply 

copy and paste deficient allegations across multiple matters, dismissal with prejudice is warranted. 

Golden v. Intel Corp., No. 2023-1257, 2023 WL 3262948, at *3 (Fed. Cir. May 5, 2023) (per 

curiam) (affirming district court’s dismissal of complaint with prejudice for plainly deficient 

copied complaints across numerous companies). 

Microsoft and other defendants have made OptiMorphix well aware of the deficiencies in 

its complaints. Though Microsoft reached out to OptiMorphix to resolve these deficiencies 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 354
14 

without motion practice, OptiMorphix is unwilling to file an amended complaint in order to move 

the litigation forward. See Ex. F; Mot. to Dismiss at 2, Oracle, C.A. No. 23-1249 (MN) (D. Del. 

Nov. 1, 2023) (refusing to amend complaint). This mirrors OptiMorphix’s approach in other 

matters where it refuses to properly plead infringement. See id. at 11–16; Mot. to Dismiss at 4–6, 

Alphabet Inc., 1:23-cv-01065-MN (D. Del. filed Sept. 27, 2023). In such circumstances, the Court 

could properly dismiss OptiMorphix’s complaint with prejudice. See, e.g., Celgene Corp. v. Mylan 

Pharms. Inc., 17 F.4th 1111, 1130–31 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (affirming dismissal with prejudice for 

complaint when plaintiff knew of pleading deficiencies and did not timely amend); Golden v. Intel 

Corp., 2023 WL 3262948, at *3. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, Microsoft respectfully requests dismissal of OptiMorphix’s Complaint 

in its entirety with prejudice. 

 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 355
15 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: March 12, 2024 /s/ Betty H. Chen

Betty H. Chen 

LEAD ATTORNEY 

Texas Bar No. 24056720 

Michael R. Rhodes (pro hac vice) 

California Bar No. 319432 

DESMARAIS LLP 

101 California Street, Suite 3070 

San Francico, CA 94111 

P: (415) 573-1900 

F: (415) 573-1901 

BChen@desmaraisllp.com 

MRhodes@desmaraisllp.com 

Thomas Derbish (pro hac vice) 

D.C. Bar No. 1766840 

DESMARAIS LLP 

1899 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 

400 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

P: (202) 451-4900 

F: (202) 451-4901 

TDerbish@desmaraisllp.com 

Melissa R. Smith 

Texas Bar No. 24001351 

GILLAM & SMITH LLP 

303 S. Washington Avenue 

Marshall, Texas 75670 

P: (903) 934-8450 

F: (903) 934-9257 

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

Counsel for Defendant Microsoft 

Corporation

 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 356
16 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document 

was filed electronically on March 12, 2024. As of this date, all counsel of record have consented 

to electronic service and are being served with a copy of this document through the Court’s 

CM/ECF system. 

 /s/ Betty H. Chen 

 Betty H. Chen 

Case 5:23-cv-00150-RWS-JBB Document 17 Filed 03/12/24 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 357