Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 1 of 19
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-667
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”), for its Complaint against Defendant Google,
`
`LLC (“Google”) alleges as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff VoIP-Pal is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business
`
`located at 7215 Bosque Boulevard, Waco, Texas 76710. VoIP-Pal is registered to do business in
`
`the State of Texas.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Google is a Delaware corporation with a
`
`physical address at 500 West 2nd Street, Austin, Texas 78701. Google may be served with process
`
`through its registered agent, the Corporation Service Company, at 211 East 7th Street, Suite 620,
`
`Austin, Texas 78701. Google is registered to do business in the State of Texas and has been since
`
`at least November 17, 2006.
`
`3.
`
`On information and belief, Google regularly conducts and transacts business in the
`
`State of Texas, throughout the United States, and within this District, and as set forth below, has
`
`committed and continue to commit, tortious acts of infringement within and outside the State of
`
`Texas and within this District.
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 2 of 19
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This action is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of
`
`the United States, Title 35, United States Code (“U.S.C.”) §1 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271
`
`and 281-285. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this case for patent
`
`infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Google by virtue of its systematic and
`
`continuous contacts with this jurisdiction, as alleged herein, as well as because the injury to VoIP-
`
`Pal occurred in the State of Texas and the claim for relief possessed by VoIP-Pal against Google
`
`for that injury arose in the State of Texas. On information and belief, Google has purposely availed
`
`itself of the privileges of conducting business within the State of Texas, such business including
`
`but not limited to: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; (ii) purposefully and
`
`voluntarily placing one or more infringing products or services into the stream of commerce with
`
`the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in this forum; or (iii) regularly transacting
`
`or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, or deriving or attempting to
`
`derive substantial revenue and financial benefits from goods and services provided to individuals
`
`residing in the State of Texas and in this District. Thus, Google is subject to this Court’s specific
`
`and general personal jurisdiction under due process and the Texas Long Arm Statute.
`
`6.
`
`Personal jurisdiction also exists specifically over Google because Google, directly
`
`or through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including customers, distributors, retailers, and others),
`
`subsidiaries, alter egos, and/or agents – ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, imports, advertises,
`
`or markets in the State of Texas and in this District, one or more products or services that infringe
`
`the Patents-in-Suit, as described particularly below. Google has purposefully and voluntarily
`
`placed one or more of its infringing products or services, as described below, into the stream of
`
` 
`
`2 
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 3 of 19
`
`commerce with the awareness and/or intent that these products or services will be purchased or
`
`used by consumers in this District. Google has knowingly and purposefully shipped infringing
`
`products or services into and within this District through an established distribution channel.
`
`These infringing products or services have been and continue to be purchased and used by
`
`consumers in this District. In addition, on information and belief, Google has found indirect ways
`
`to monetize consumers’ use of its products and services, for example, by promoting consumers’
`
`adherence to Google’s technological ecosystems and promoting sales of related Google products
`
`and services and by selling opportunities to advertise to consumers of its products and services.
`
`7.
`
`VoIP-Pal’s claim for relief for patent infringement arises directly from the
`
`activities of Google in this District.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Google, directly and/or through its customers has
`
`transacted business in this District and has committed acts of patent infringement in this District.
`
`By virtue of its office in this District, Google has a regular and established place of business in
`
`this District. Thus, venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b).
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`9.
`
`United States Patent No. 8,630,234 (the “’234 patent”) entitled “Mobile Gateway”
`
`was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on January 14, 2014
`
`after full and fair examination. A copy of the ’234 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
`
`10.
`
`United States Patent No. 10,880,721 (the “’721 patent”) entitled “Mobile Gateway”
`
`was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on December 29,
`
`2020 after full and fair examination. A copy of the ’721 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
`
`11.
`
`The ’234 and ’721 patents are referred to in this Complaint as the “Patents-in-Suit”.
`
` 
`
`3 
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 4 of 19
`
`12.
`
`VoIP-Pal is the sole owner and assignee of the entire right title and interest in the
`
`Patents-in-Suit and has the right to sue and recover damages for any current or past infringement
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`13.
`
`The inventions of the Patents-in-Suit originated from breakthrough work and
`
`development in the internet protocol communications field.
`
`14.
`
`VoIP-Pal has provided significant improvements to communications technology by
`
`the invention of novel methods, processes and apparatuses that facilitate communications across
`
`and between internet protocol based communication systems and other networks, such as internally
`
`controlled systems and external networks (e.g., across private networks and between private
`
`networks and public networks), including providing access to and routing through internet protocol
`
`based communication systems.
`
`15.
`
`The earliest telephone systems to receive public use within the United States
`
`involved a telephone directly connected to a human operator. A portion of the phone rested on a
`
`mechanical hook such that the operator was signaled when the portion was lifted from the hook.
`
`A caller would then say the name of the person they wished to call to the operator. If the callee
`
`was connected to the same telephone switch board the operator would physically pull out a cable
`
`associated with the caller’s phone and plug the cable into a socket associated with the callee’s
`
`telephone. If the callee was associated with a different switchboard, and thus out of reach of the
`
`operator, a second operator would be involved to bridge the gap to the appropriate switchboard.
`
`While initially very effective compared to no telephone service, this structure quickly proved error
`
`prone (operators would connect the wrong party) and limiting to the number of possible telephones
`
`because of the physical limits of switchboards and cable to be pulled. This basic system
`
`corresponds to the introduction of a Plain Old Telephone Service (“POTS”) connection to the
`
` 
`
`4 
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 5 of 19
`
`operator. In these configurations, there was a dedicated, point-to-point electrical connection
`
`between the caller and the callee.
`
`16.
`
`Rotary dialing eventually was introduced, beginning at around the turn of the 20th
`
`century, where a rotary disk was marked with numbers from zero to nine. A caller would spin the
`
`wheel and a mechanical device in the telephone would cause a sequence of electrical pulses to be
`
`sent to the network corresponding to the digit dialed, for example, four pulses would be sent for
`
`the number four. Rather than speaking to a human operator, an electric device would count the
`
`pulses and begin to route a call once an appropriate and valid sequence of digits was dialed by the
`
`caller. This advancement improved reliability of call routing and reduced the time required to
`
`initiate a call. But, even so, there was a dedicated, point-to-point electrical connection between the
`
`caller and the callee. As multiple companies entered the market of telephone service and the
`
`number of customers increased, an issue emerged where a caller would be a customer of one
`
`telephone company and the callee would be a customer of another. The solution that emerged to
`
`this problem was to introduce trunk lines connecting one company to another.
`
`17.
`
`Eventually, as the number of companies continued to increase and telephone
`
`services spread over much larger geographic areas, the notion of a Public Switched Telephone
`
`Network (“PSTN”) emerged. The term derives from the notion, at least in part, that the dedicated
`
`wires used to connect the caller and callee were “circuit-switched” to connect the two parties. The
`
`PSTN developed gradually into the middle of the 20th century, still built around the notion of
`
`rotary dialing and POTS connections to the individual telephones. These calls involved analog
`
`communications over circuit-switched electrical connections. A circuit-switched network involves
`
`assigning dedicated resources, such as switch settings and specific wires, to establish a link from
`
` 
`
`5 
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 6 of 19
`
`the caller to the callee. While the call is ongoing, these resources cannot be used for any other
`
`communications.
`
`18.
`
`The next important advancement for consumer telephone service, introduced
`
`broadly during the second half of the 20th century, was the introduction of push-button telephones.
`
`With such telephones the rotary dial was replaced by a matrix of buttons, each labeled with a digit
`
`from zero through nine along with the additions of ‘*’ and ‘#’. The underlying signaling
`
`technology was called dual-tone multiple-frequency (“DTMF”) and involves two different audible
`
`tones being sent simultaneously from the telephone into the telephone network. A receiver within
`
`the network decoded these tones and formed them into a sequence of digits indicating the number
`
`of the callee.
`
`19.
`
`Around this same time a scheme for international telephone addressing was
`
`introduced, with a numeric protocol for identifying one country from another and providing
`
`country-specific routing within the destination country. The E.164 standard now documents how
`
`a caller anywhere in the world, for example, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, can identify a telephone
`
`number at any other location, such as Avignon, France. While many of these advances, such as
`
`DTMF dialing and automated international routing, may have been originally introduced via ad
`
`hoc methods, eventually they required multiple parties (companies and governments) to agree on
`
`protocols to enable wide-spread reliable use and inter-operability among different telephone
`
`communications networks. Even with all these advances, the systems still relied on circuit-
`
`switched technology that dedicated resources between the caller and the callee for the duration of
`
`a call. The move to take human operators out of the loop, with the introduction of rotary dialing,
`
`combined with the fast increase in demand for telephone services throughout the 20th century,
`
`resulted in the development of automated telephone switches. These devices comprised a set of
`
` 
`
`6 
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 7 of 19
`
`input ports, each dedicated to, and associated with a specific caller, and output ports, each capable
`
`of being associated with a callee. A small local telephone system may have had a single switch
`
`while a larger service would use a large number of switches that were connected to each other. A
`
`switch from a local service provider would be connected to a trunk line which then connected to
`
`an input switch of another service provider. These switches originally supported analog voice calls
`
`initiated via rotary dialing and dedicating input and output ports as well as physical wires for each
`
`circuit-switched call.
`
`20.
`
`Eventually analog voice services were replaced within the network with digital
`
`voice. Digital voice is communicated using a sequence of chunks (or packets) of data. This
`
`advancement allowed physical resources to be shared among multiple calls over short bursts of
`
`time. For example, a physical wire can move a packet for one call at a specific instance in time
`
`and then move a packet for a totally different call subsequently, only to later return to transfer a
`
`new packet for the original call. This advance is called packet-switched communications and
`
`provided an important increase in network reliability and efficiency while driving down the cost.
`
`However, in most situations throughout the 20th century (and often still today), the connection to
`
`the end user’s physical telephone is analog. While network switches operate via digital circuitry,
`
`and often comprise programmable processors executing software, they tend to be dedicated
`
`special-purpose devices. The conversion between analog and digital encoding is typically done at
`
`the point where the PSTN network switch connects to the POTS handset, for example, at a device
`
`called a Class-5 telephone switch, which connects the customer POTS handset to the PSTN
`
`network of a service provider’s central office.
`
`21.
`
`The Internet became important to consumers, via broad deployment, during the late
`
`1980’s and early 1990’s. Eventually available bandwidth and reliability increased to the point
`
` 
`
`7 
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 8 of 19
`
`where pioneers began to experiment with techniques to carry voice communications over the
`
`Internet. These early efforts began to focus on techniques called Voice Over Internet Protocol
`
`(VOIP) and session initiation protocol (SIP). VOIP provided a consistent set of protocols and
`
`mechanisms for moving digital voice packets between two callers using the Internet rather than
`
`existing PSTN networks. SIP provided a mechanism for establishing and terminating
`
`communication sessions such as calls between users of a VOIP service. For example, a callee could
`
`register with a VOIP service so that an identifier (such as their name, email address or a nickname)
`
`could be associated with the computer to which they are logged in. Eventually VOIP services
`
`increased to provide interoperability with the existing PSTN services. For example, the company
`
`Skype began to allow a user to call a PSTN number using a feature marketed as “Skype out”.
`
`However, the user was required to explicitly classify the call as a PSTN call by specifying a real
`
`physical telephone number. In this case the VOIP system had to include a gateway to bridge from
`
`the VOIP network to the PSTN network in order to route to the physical telephone. Calls that used
`
`a proprietary non-PSTN user identifier such as an email or nickname remained within the VOIP
`
`network and were not routed to the PSTN network to a POTS telephone.
`
`22.
`
`The advent of digital cellular networks in the 1990’s allowed customers to
`
`physically move their mobile phones from one location to another and enabled convenient mobile
`
`calling. However, despite the increasing popularity of the Internet and the development of Internet-
`
`based VOIP services such as Skype, mobile phone users were forced to use conventional calling
`
`processes to place calls over the then-existing mobile phone and PSTN communication
`
`infrastructure. Also, mobile phone users often had to pay roaming charges for calls if they were
`
`not located in their home area or incurred significant costs to place long-distance calls if the called
`
`party was not local. One technique developed for avoiding the long distance charges charged by
`
` 
`
`8 
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 9 of 19
`
`mobile telephone service providers was to use a calling card to place a call to a local telephone
`
`number or to a less-expensive phone number (such as a toll-free number), but this technique was
`
`cumbersome and complex as it required the user to dial a special set of numbers or codes.
`
`However, the Patents-in-Suit disclose and claim a distinct manner of mobile call routing.
`
`23.
`
`Digifonica, a wholly owned subsidiary of patent owner VoIP-Pal, starting in 2004
`
`eventually came to employ over a dozen top professionals (e.g., software developers, system
`
`administrators, QA/test analysts) including three Ph.D.’s with engineering backgrounds, to
`
`develop innovative software solutions for communications. Digifonica spent over $15,000,000
`
`researching, developing, and testing a communication solution capable of seamlessly integrating
`
`a private voice-over-IP (“VoIP”) communication network with an external network (i.e., the
`
`“public switched telephone network” or “PSTN”), by bridging the disparate protocols, destination
`
`identifiers and addressing schemes used in the two networks. Furthermore, Digifonica’s system
`
`optimized the choice of communication infrastructure to be used for any given call based on the
`
`location of the caller and/or callee. Digifonica’s system chose the optimal infrastructure to route
`
`both calls placed over cellular and PSTN networks or placed via internet protocol networks. By
`
`the mid-2000’s, Digifonica had successfully tested intra- and inter-network communications (i.e.,
`
`communications within the private Digifonica system and between the Digifonica system and the
`
`PSTN) by implementing high-capacity communication nodes across three geographic regions,
`
`including actual working communication nodes in Vancouver (Canada) and London (UK).
`
`Digifonica’s R&D efforts led to a number of patent grants, including the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`24.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit describe novel systems, apparatuses and methods for providing
`
`an access code to roaming mobile communication devices such as smartphones, to enable access
`
` 
`
`9 
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 10 of 19
`
`to suitable communication routing infrastructure, wherein the selection of the communication
`
`channel for a call can be optimized based on the calling device’s current location.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES
`
`25.
`
`Each of the instrumentalities described in this Complaint made, used, sold, licensed
`
`and/or offered for sale by Google comprises systems, devices and computer-executable program
`
`code relating to and supporting communications using devices, computers, servers, systems and
`
`methods used by, operated by and performed by Google.
`
`26.
`
`Google supports and operates a messaging and communication platform (the
`
`“Google Fi Calling System”) including an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS).
`
`Before, 3G services were delivered using a circuit switched network. IMS is a system for
`
`delivering communication services over an IP network, such as a private network or the Internet.
`
`IMS performs routing, authentication, authorization, and accounting over the IP network. Several
`
`protocols are available for performing individual tasks, which are performed on the server level
`
`(or the base station level in telephony terms) provided by the network operator, in this case T-
`
`Mobile or Sprint. One such task is VoWiFi calling (also known as Voice over WiFi or VoWiFi),
`
`which is compliant with 3GPP standards and enabled by the IMS. Google Fi uses VoWiFi to ‘fill
`
`the gaps’ in Voice over LTE (VoLTE).
`
`27.
`
`VoWiFi is an extension of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project’s (3GPP) evolved
`
`packet core (EPC) architecture. The Google Fi Calling System implements VoWiFi, which allows
`
`any WiFi network to access the EPC provided by the Google Fi Calling System via an evolved
`
`packet data gateway (ePDG) at the border between the public Internet and a mobile core of the
`
`Google Fi Calling System. The ePDG creates a secure IPsec tunnel from the EPC all the way to
`
` 
`
`10 
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 11 of 19
`
`the device and anchors traffic in the packet gateway (PGW) to the mobile core, which means a
`
`WiFi connection can be treated in the same way as a cellular connection by the mobile core.
`
`28.
`
`The Google Fi Calling System enables roaming by mobile devices such as
`
`smartphones. The Google Fi Calling System produces an access code identifying a communication
`
`channel useable by the mobile telephone or device to initiate a call to a callee using the channel.
`
`In the Google Fi Calling System, the access code is based on a location identifier and/or based on
`
`a location pre-associated with the mobile telephone or device.
`
`29.
`
`The Google Fi Calling System is referred to in this Complaint as the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities.
`
`COUNT 1
`INFRINGEMENT OF U. S. PATENT NO. 8,630,234
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 29 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated in this
`
`30.
`
`Count.
`
`31.
`
`Google, either alone or in conjunction with others, has infringed and continues to
`
`infringe, both directly and indirectly, one or more claims of the ’234 patent, including at least
`
`exemplary claim 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 271, either literally and/or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States at
`
`least certain methods, apparatuses, products and services used for communication, including,
`
`without limitation, the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`32.
`
`For example, Google infringes exemplary claim 20 of the ’234 patent by making,
`
`using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States at least the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities as detailed in Exhibit 3 to this Complaint.
`
`33.
`
`On information and belief, Google has had knowledge of the ’234 patent since at
`
`least January 14, 2014 when the ’234 patent issued. After acquiring that knowledge, Google
`
` 
`
`11 
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 12 of 19
`
`infringed the ’234 patent and in doing so, it knew, or should have known, that its conduct amounted
`
`to infringement of the ’234 patent. Since the issuance of the ’234 patent, the parties have engaged
`
`in numerous communications regarding VoIP-Pal’s patent portfolio, including the ’234 patent.
`
`VoIP-Pal explained the value of its patent portfolio to Google and offered to license its patents in
`
`good faith. Google reviewed VoIP-Pal’s patent portfolio and advised VoIP-Pal that it was not
`
`interested in taking a license. Google, however, failed to provide VoIP-Pal any basis as to why it
`
`does not need license despite being subjectively aware of the risk that its conduct constituted
`
`infringement.
`
`34.
`
`Alternatively, Google has had knowledge of the ’234 patent since at least December
`
`18, 2015 based on a letter that VoIP-Pal sent Google notifying Google of the ’234 patent. After
`
`acquiring that knowledge, Google infringed the ’234 patent and in doing so, it knew, or should
`
`have known, that its conduct amounted to infringement of the ’234 patent. Since that time, Google
`
`and VoIP-Pal have engaged in numerous communications regarding VoIP-Pal’s patent portfolio,
`
`including the ’234 patent. The parties have been engaged in litigation regarding VoIP-Pal’s patents
`
`since April 3, 2020. Through these actions, Google has acquired intimate knowledge of VoIP-
`
`Pal’s patent portfolio and its infringement of that portfolio.
`
`35.
`
`Alternatively, Google has had knowledge of the ’234 patent and its infringement of
`
`the ’234 patent based at least on the filing of this Complaint.
`
`36.
`
`Despite its knowledge and notice of the ’234 patent as of at least the filing of this
`
`Complaint, Google has continued to make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities in the United States in a manner that infringes the ’234 patent. Google knew or
`
`should have known that its actions constituted infringement of the ’234 patent. Upon information
`
`and belief, Google has failed to take adequate steps to avoid infringing the ʼ234 patent, despite
`
` 
`
`12 
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 13 of 19
`
`having been on notice of and lacking permission to practice the ʼ234 patent. Upon information
`
`and belief, Google will continue to reap significant revenues and savings based on its infringement
`
`of the ’234 patent. Accordingly, Google’s infringement has been and continues to be willful.
`
`37.
`
`Google has induced infringement, and continues to induce infringement, of one or
`
`more claims of the ’234 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Google actively, knowingly, and
`
`intentionally induced, and continues to actively, knowingly and intentionally induce infringement
`
`of the ’234 patent by: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing and otherwise making
`
`available and/or supplying the Accused Instrumentalities; with the knowledge and specific intent
`
`that third parties will use the Accused Instrumentalities supplied by Google to infringe the ’234
`
`patent; and with the knowledge and specific intent to encourage and facilitate third party
`
`infringement through the dissemination of the Accused Instrumentalities and/or the creation and
`
`dissemination of promotional and marketing materials, supporting materials, instructions, product
`
`manuals, and/or technical information related to the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`38.
`
`Google specifically intended and was aware that the ordinary and customary use of
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities would infringe the ’234 patent. For example, Google makes, sells,
`
`offers to sell, uses, imports, makes available and/or provides the Accused Instrumentalities, which,
`
`when used in their ordinary and customary manner as intended by Google, infringe one or more
`
`claims of the ’234 patent, including at least exemplary claim 20. Upon information and belief,
`
`Google further provides product manuals and other technical information that cause Google
`
`customers and other third parties to use and to operate the Accused Instrumentalities for their
`
`ordinary and customary use. Google customers and other third parties have directly infringed the
`
`’234 patent, including at least exemplary claim 20, through the normal and customary use of the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities. By providing network infrastructure, network services, and device
`
` 
`
`13 
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 14 of 19
`
`configurations for enabling the Accused Instrumentalities, and instruction and training to
`
`customers and other third parties on how to use the Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing
`
`manner, Google specifically intended to induce infringement of the ’234 patent, including at least
`
`exemplary claim 20. Google accordingly has induced and continues to induce Google customers
`
`and other users of the Accused Instrumentalities in their ordinary and customary way to infringe
`
`the ’234 patent, knowing, or at least being willfully blind to the fact, that such use constitutes
`
`infringement of the ’234 patent.
`
`39.
`
`Google has contributed and continues to contribute to the infringement by others,
`
`including its customers, of the ’234 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) by, among other things,
`
`making, selling, offering for sale within the United States, importing into the United States, and/or
`
`otherwise making available the Accused Instrumentalities for use in practicing the patented
`
`inventions of the ’234 patent, knowing that the Accused Instrumentalities and components are
`
`especially made or adapted for use in infringement of the ’234 patent, embody a material part of
`
`the inventions claimed in the ’234 patent, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for
`
`substantial non-infringing use. Google’s customers directly infringe the ’234 patent by using the
`
`Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`40.
`
`VoIP-Pal has been and continues to be damaged by Google’s infringement of the
`
`’234 patent.
`
`41.
`
`Google’s conduct in infringing the ’234 patent renders this case exceptional within
`
`the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`COUNT 2
`INFRINGEMENT OF U. S. PATENT NO. 10,880,721
`
`42.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 41 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated in this
`
`Count.
`
` 
`
`14 
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 15 of 19
`
`43.
`
`Google, either alone or in conjunction with others, has infringed and continues to
`
`infringe, both directly and indirectly, one or more claims of the ’721 patent, including at least
`
`exemplary claim 38, under 35 U.S.C. § 271, either literally and/or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States at
`
`least certain methods, apparatuses, products and services used for communication, including,
`
`without limitation, the Accused Instrumentalities.
`
`44.
`
`For example, Google infringes exemplary claim 38 of the ’721 patent by making,
`
`using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States at least the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities as detailed in Exhibit 4 to this Complaint.
`
`45.
`
`On information and belief, Google has had knowledge of the application that led to
`
`the ’721 patent since at least December 18, 2015 based on a letter that VoIP-Pal sent Google
`
`notifying Google of the application that led to the ’721 patent. After acquiring that knowledge,
`
`Google infringed the ’721 patent and in doing so, it knew, or should have known, that its conduct
`
`amounted to infringement of the ’721 patent. Since that time, the parties have engaged in
`
`numerous communications regarding VoIP-Pal’s patent portfolio, including the application that
`
`led to the ’721 patent. VoIP-Pal explained the value of its patent portfolio to Google and offered
`
`to license its patents in good faith. Google reviewed VoIP-Pal’s patent portfolio and advised VoIP-
`
`Pal that it was not interested in taking a license. Google, however, failed to provide VoIP-Pal any
`
`basis as to why it does not need license despite being subjectively aware of the risk that its conduct
`
`constituted infringement.
`
`46.
`
`On information and belief, Google has had knowledge of the ’721 patent since at
`
`least December 29, 2020 when the ’721 patent issued. After acquiring that knowledge, Google
`
`infringed the ’721 patent and in doing so, it knew, or should have known, that its conduct amounted
`
` 
`
`15 
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 Page 16 of 19
`
`to infringement of the ’721 patent. Since the issuance of the ’721 patent, Google and VoIP-Pal
`
`have engaged in communications regarding VoIP-Pal’s patent portfolio. The parties have been
`
`engaged in litigation regarding VoIP-Pal’s patents since April 3, 2020. Through these actions,
`
`Google has acquired intimate knowledge of VoIP-Pal’s patent portfolio and its infringement of
`
`that portfolio.
`
`47.
`
`Alternatively, Google has had knowledge of the ’721 patent and its infringement of
`
`the ’721 patent based at least on the filing of this Complaint.
`
`48.
`
`Despite its knowledge and notice of the ’721 patent as of at least the filing of this
`
`Complaint, Google has continued to make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities in the United States in a manner that infringes the ’721 patent. Google knew or
`
`should have known that its actions constituted infringement of the ’721 patent. Upon information
`
`and belief, Google has failed to take adequate steps to avoid infringing the ʼ721 patent, despite
`
`having been on notice of and lacking permission to practice the ʼ721 patent. Upon information
`
`and belief, Google will continue to reap significant revenues and savings based on its infringement
`
`of the ’721 patent. Accordingly, Google’s infringement has been and continues to be willful.
`
`49.
`
`Google has induced infringement, and continues to induce infringement, of one or
`
`more claims of