Zoho Seeks a Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement Against Arlington Technologies on Seven Patents.

The case

Zoho Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Zoho Corporation, and Zoho Technologies Corporation v. Arlington Technologies, LLC, No. 1:26-cv-03094 (W.D. Tex.), is a 15-page complaint for declaratory judgment filed November 3, 2026, Document 1, with a jury demand. Zoho Corporation Pvt. Ltd. is organized under the laws of India. Zoho Corporation and Zoho Technologies Corporation are California corporations based in Pleasanton, California; the complaint says Zoho Technologies Corporation was the U.S. distributor for Zoho products until 2024 and Zoho Corporation is the current one. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Arlington is a Texas limited liability company with a registered office in Dallas, Texas. Jurisdiction is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 1332, 2201, and 2202, and venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

How the dispute arose, according to the complaint

Zoho alleges that in July 2026 Arlington, through its licensing agent, sent correspondence asserting that Zoho uses the technology of the patents in suit and demanding that Zoho take a license, including a letter addressed to Zoho Corporation Pvt. Ltd.'s Director of Legal at an address in Austin, Texas. It alleges that claim charts followed in August 2026, that Zoho responded in September 2026, that a teleconference with Zoho's counsel took place later that month, and that follow-up continued through October 2026. The complaint describes Arlington as a non-practicing patent assertion entity and alleges, on information and belief, that its operations are limited to patent enforcement.

The complaint cites Arlington's earlier suits on some of the same patents: No. 2:26-cv-00396 (E.D. Tex.) and No. 1:25-cv-00613 (D. Del.), each said to assert the '304, '517, and '733 patents, and No. 1:25-cv-00673 (D. Del.), said to assert the '743 patent. For personal jurisdiction it also cites No. 7:25-cv-00483 (W.D. Tex.).

The patents and the accused products

According to the complaint, Arlington accuses Zoho Calendar under U.S. Patent 7,327,834 (Method and system for providing interactive event reminders, issued February 5, 2008); Zoho Meeting under U.S. Patents 7,668,304 (Display hierarchy of participants during phone call, issued February 23, 2010), 8,373,743 (System and method for playing back individual conference callers, issued February 12, 2013), and 10,630,733 (Generating recording access permissions based on meeting properties, issued April 21, 2020); Zoho Mail under U.S. Patent 8,041,344 (Cooling off period prior to sending dependent on user's state, issued October 18, 2011); Zoho Cliq under U.S. Patent 9,432,517 (Methods, apparatuses, and systems for generating an action item in response to a detected audio trigger during a conversation, issued August 30, 2016); and Zoho Zia under U.S. Patent 11,586,954 (Predictive analytics and services, issued February 21, 2023). The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Arlington is the sole and exclusive owner of all seven.

Zoho's noninfringement positions

For each patent the complaint quotes claim language and says the accused product does not meet it. It says Zoho Calendar does not define an intended recipient or event reminder message content as claim 1 of the '834 patent requires. It says Zoho Meeting does not determine participant characteristics or create the hierarchical ranking of participants in claim 1 of the '304 patent; provides a single recording rather than a recorder that outputs only a requested portion of at least one but not all of the plurality of streams, as in claim 1 of the '743 patent; and grants recording access to anyone in the host's organization, chosen manually by the host, rather than by a meeting publishing system based on the list of participants invited to the meeting, as in claim 8 of the '733 patent.

The complaint says Zoho Mail lets a sender schedule a message rather than intercepting the sending of a message and determining whether a delay mode is active, as claim 1 of the '344 patent requires. It says Zoho Cliq notifies the host or co-host of action items, not a particular person associated with an action item, as in claim 1 of the '517 patent. For claim 1 of the '954 patent, it says Arlington mapped a CRM console to the claimed user device, that Zoho Zia does not receive a request for action data from a CRM console or session data associated with both the session and the user device, and that Zia takes up to 24 hours to study closed deals and so does not generate suggestions within a session with the user device.

Counts and relief

The complaint pleads seven causes of action, each for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement of one patent: the '834, '304, '344, '743, '517, '733, and '954 patents, in that order. The prayer asks the court to declare that Zoho has not infringed, directly or indirectly, literally or by equivalents, any claim of the patents in suit; to enter judgment for Zoho; to enjoin Arlington, its agents, and all persons acting in concert with it from alleging that Zoho infringes the patents in suit; to award costs and attorneys' fees; to grant leave to amend; and to grant other relief.

Docket activity

Through November 4, 2026, the docket shows the complaint with a civil cover sheet, a request for issuance of summons, and a notice of filing of the patent and trademark form (AO 120).

What to watch next

Watch for issuance and service of the summons, the judge assignment, and Arlington's answer, any infringement counterclaims, or a motion to dismiss or transfer.