Estech Systems IP v. 99 Cents Only Stores: Consent Judgment on Four VoIP Patents
Estech Systems IP, LLC filed suit against 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC and 99 Cents Only Stores Texas, Inc. in the Texas Eastern District Court, asserting four patents covering Voice over IP telephony features including caller ID dialing, phone directory, quality of service, and voice mail. The parties resolved all claims and counterclaims, reaching a consent judgment after 493 days of litigation.
Four VoIP Patents, One Agreed Resolution in East Texas
Estech Systems IP, LLC filed this infringement action on 4 January 2022 in the Texas Eastern District Court against 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC and its Texas affiliate, 99 Cents Only Stores Texas, Inc. The plaintiff asserted four patents — US8391298B2, US7068684B1, US6067349A, and US7123699B2 — covering VoIP telephony features: caller ID dialing, phone directory services in VoIP systems, quality of service in VoIP systems, and voice mail in VoIP systems.
The recorded basis of termination is a Consent Judgment. The docket order, entered on a joint motion filed by both sides, states that the parties represented they had resolved all claims and counterclaims asserted in the member case and requested dismissal with prejudice. The court granted that motion and dismissed all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms of the parties' resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on 12 May 2023, approximately 16 months after filing. The lead case was maintained as open following closure of this member case, suggesting related proceedings remain active. What drove the parties to an agreed resolution at this stage, and the commercial terms underlying the consent judgment, are not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 493 days
493 days from filing to consent judgment in Texas Eastern District Court
US8391298B2, US7068684B1, US6067349A & US7123699B2 — VoIP Telephony Patents
Any enterprise — retailer, hospitality operator, or corporate organisation — deploying a VoIP telephone system with caller ID dialing, phone directory, quality of service management, or voice mail integration should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against US8391298B2, US7068684B1, US6067349A, and US7123699B2. Estech Systems IP has demonstrated willingness to assert these patents against non-technology businesses in Texas Eastern District Court, and the lead case remains open.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order granted the parties' joint motion and entered dismissal of all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, as agreed. The with-prejudice designation bars re-litigation of the same claims between these parties in any future proceeding. The order's direction to close the member case while maintaining the lead case as open is a procedurally significant distinction: it confirms that related proceedings against other defendants are ongoing. The specific terms underlying the parties' resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
What a consent judgment means in patent litigation
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered judgment reflecting terms agreed by the parties. Unlike a simple voluntary dismissal, it carries the full force of a court order. Here, the court granted the joint motion and entered the dismissal with prejudice, formally closing the member case. The lead case was maintained as open, indicating related proceedings continue. The specific terms underpinning the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Court-entered, binding and finalEstech Systems IP secures a with-prejudice resolution
For Estech Systems IP as plaintiff and patent holder, a dismissal with prejudice entered by court order on consent provides finality for this member case against the 99 Cents Only defendants. The four asserted VoIP patents — covering caller ID dialing, phone directory, QoS, and voice mail in VoIP systems — remain in Estech's portfolio. The specific terms of the resolution, including any licensing or payment arrangements, are not disclosed in the available record.
Claims resolved with prejudice99 Cents Only Stores exits the member case on agreed terms
For 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC and 99 Cents Only Stores Texas, Inc., the consent judgment closes this member case with prejudice on terms agreed by the parties. Each side bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, as expressly ordered by the court. The specific obligations or rights flowing to the defendants under the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Each party bears own costsVoIP patent enforcement in retail: a signal for IP teams
This case is consistent with a pattern of VoIP telephony patent assertions by IP licensing entities against businesses operating enterprise phone systems. Retailers and other non-technology companies using VoIP infrastructure — caller ID, phone directories, QoS management, and voice mail — face exposure to patent assertions of this type. IP teams at such organisations should monitor Estech Systems IP's broader portfolio activity, given the lead case remains open.
VoIP IP risk for retail operatorsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Estech Systems IP, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | 99 Cents Only Stores, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | 99 Cents Only Stores Texas, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Fred Irvin Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Estech Systems IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Wittenzellner | Attorney | Counsel for Estech Systems IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Simons | Attorney | Counsel for Estech Systems IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Todd Eric Landis | Attorney | Counsel for Estech Systems IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Williams, Simons & Landis PLLC (Austin) | Law Firm | Representing Estech Systems IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Williams, Simons & Landis PLLC(Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Estech Systems IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Williams, Simons & Landis PLLC(Philadelphia) | Law Firm | Representing Estech Systems IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alan G. Laquer | Attorney | Counsel for 99 Cents Only Stores, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for 99 Cents Only Stores, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP | Law Firm | Representing 99 Cents Only Stores, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Dacus Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing 99 Cents Only Stores, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the VoIP telephony patent space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence derived from Estech Systems IP's four-patent VoIP assertion and the broader enterprise telephony landscape.
Estech Systems IP's VoIP portfolio: depth and filing activity
Estech Systems IP's assertion of four patents covering distinct VoIP features — caller ID, directory, QoS, and voice mail — suggests a portfolio built around enterprise telephony infrastructure. R&D teams and IP counsel should map the full scope of Estech's holdings beyond these four patents to anticipate further assertion risk across VoIP product lines.
Estech VoIP portfolio depthFiling trends in enterprise VoIP caller ID and directory patents
The application dates of the four asserted patents span the late 1990s to early 2000s, a foundational period for VoIP standardisation. Patent filing activity in caller ID dialing, VoIP directory services, and QoS management has continued to evolve. Tracking current filing trends in these sub-domains helps R&D teams identify where new IP density is forming and where design-around space exists.
VoIP filing trend analysis99 Cents Only Stores' IP exposure in enterprise telephony
As a retail chain rather than a technology company, 99 Cents Only Stores is unlikely to hold significant VoIP-related patents of its own. This posture — technology user rather than innovator — is common among defendants in legacy VoIP patent assertions. Retail IP teams should assess their VoIP vendor agreements and indemnification provisions as a first line of defence.
Retail VoIP IP exposureAdjacent VoIP innovation space beyond the asserted claims
The four asserted patents focus on specific functional features of enterprise VoIP systems. Adjacent areas — including AI-driven call routing, unified communications integration, and cloud-native VoIP architectures — represent potential white space where newer filings may offer freedom to operate. R&D teams building next-generation VoIP products should map claim boundaries against these legacy patents before filing.
VoIP white space — cloud & AISimilar VoIP patent infringement cases in Texas Eastern District
Browse related VoIP telephony patent assertions filed in the Texas Eastern District Court, including other Estech Systems IP member cases from the same lead case docket.
What this case signals for the VoIP IP licensing landscape
Estech Systems IP's multi-patent VoIP assertions against a retail operator illustrate the continued reach of legacy telephony patents into non-technology sectors.
Legacy VoIP patents remain an active enforcement tool against retail IP teams
Estech's assertion of four VoIP patents — some with application dates stretching back to the late 1990s and early 2000s — against a discount retailer signals that legacy telephony patent portfolios continue to generate enforcement activity well outside the core telecoms sector. Retail and hospitality IP teams should audit VoIP infrastructure deployments against these patent families.
East Texas member-case structure suggests a broader campaign by Estech
The court's order explicitly maintained the lead case as open after closing this member case, suggesting Estech Systems IP is pursuing a multi-defendant litigation strategy. Companies receiving demand letters or complaints referencing these four VoIP patents should assess their position in the context of the broader lead case proceedings.
Estech v 99 — key questions answered
The case was resolved by consent judgment. The court granted the parties' joint motion and dismissed all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms of the parties' resolution are not disclosed in the available record. The lead case was maintained as open after this member case was closed.
Estech Systems IP asserted four patents: US8391298B2 (caller ID dialing in VoIP), US7068684B1 (phone directory in a VoIP telephone system), US6067349A (quality of service in a VoIP telephone system), and US7123699B2 (voice mail in a VoIP telephone system). All four patents relate to enterprise VoIP telephony features.
The consent judgment closes this member case against the 99 Cents Only defendants but does not invalidate or limit Estech's four VoIP patents. The patents remain in Estech's portfolio. The lead case in Texas Eastern District Court was maintained as open, suggesting Estech may be pursuing related proceedings against other defendants.
The case was filed on 4 January 2022 and closed on 12 May 2023, a duration of 493 days — approximately 16 months from filing to consent judgment in the Texas Eastern District Court.
The court's order directed closure of Member Case No. 2:22-CV-006 while explicitly maintaining the above-captioned lead case as open. This is consistent with multi-defendant litigation structures in Texas Eastern District, where a single lead case coordinates related member cases against different defendants. It suggests that related proceedings against other parties remain active, though the specific status of the lead case is not further detailed in this member case record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.