1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`Lewis E. Hudnell, III (CASBN 218736)
`lewis@hudnelllaw.com
`Nicolas S. Gikkas (CASBN 189452)
`nick@hudnelllaw.com
`HUDNELL LAW GROUP P.C.
`800 W. El Camino Real Suite 180
`Mountain View, California 94040
`Telephone: 650.564.3698
`Facsimile: 347.772.3034
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff/Defendant
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`Case No. 3:22-CV-03199-JD
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO 101 MOTION
`
`Honorable James Donato
`
`Date: April 13, 2023
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Courtroom 11, 19th Floor
`
`
`Case No. 3:22-CV-03202-JD
`
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`META PLATFORMS INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Case No. 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
` v.
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 3 of 25
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................. 1 
`II. 
`III.  ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Claim 1 Is Not Representative Of All Asserted Claims. ..................................................... 3 
`
`B. 
`
`Claim 1 Is Not Directed To An Abstract Idea. .................................................................... 5 
`
`1.  The allegedly functional terms in Claim 1 do not render it abstract. ...................................... 6 
`
`2.  Claim 1 is not analogous to preexisting call routing practices. ............................................... 7 
`
`3.  Claim 1 does not automate preexisting calling functions. ....................................................... 9 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`Claim 1 Recites An Inventive Concept. ............................................................................ 10 
`
`The Court Should Reject Movants’ Undeveloped Ineligibility Arguments. ..................... 14 
`
`The Court Should Grant VoIP-Pal Leave To Amend. ....................................................... 14 
`
`IV.  CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 15 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............. 2, 3, 15
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ................................................. 2, 3, 10
`
`AML IP, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00600-ADA, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66678
`
`(W.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2022) ............................................................................................................... 13
`
`Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, 915 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........... 10
`
`Avocent Huntsville, LLC v. ZPE Sys., Case No. 3:17-cv-04319-WHO, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47655
`
`(N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2018) .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................. 12
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................ 1
`
`Card Verification Solutions, LLC v. Citigroup Inc., 13 C 6339, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137577 (N.D.
`
`Ill. Sept. 29, 2014) .............................................................................................................................. 3
`
`CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................. 11
`
`Caredx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc., 40 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................... 14
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ......................................... 2, 3, 13, 14
`
`CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty, 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ...................................................... 3
`
`Coop. Entm’t, Inc. v. Kollective Tech., Inc., 50 F.4th 127 (Fed. Cir. 2022) .................................... 2, 13
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................... 12
`
`DealerTrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................ 2
`
`Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................. 15
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................ 10
`
`Enron Oil Trading & Transp. Co. v. Walbrook Ins. Co., Ltd., 132 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 1997) ............... 2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................. 6
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................... 14
`
`Geinosky v. City of Chi., 675 F.3d 743 (7th Cir. 2012) ....................................................................... 15
`
`Glasswall Sols., Ltd. v. Clearswift Ltd., 754 Fed. App’x 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................... 13
`
`Herrera v. Zumiez, Inc., 953 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2020) .................................................................. 1, 12
`
`In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ............................................................................. 5
`
`Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2019)............................. 6, 7
`
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) ................................ 2, 3
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................ 6, 10
`
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 131 S. Ct. 2238 (2011) ........................................................... 3
`
`Nat. Alts. Int’l, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC, 918 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ............................. 2
`
`Nice Ltd. v. CallMiner, Inc., No. 18-2024-RGA-SRF, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20516 (D. Del. Feb. 3,
`
`2020) .................................................................................................................................................. 5
`
`Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Smith, 959 F.2d 936 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................... 3
`
`PPS Data, LLC v. Jack Henry & Assocs., 404 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (E.D. Tex. 2019) .......................... 3, 5
`
`Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Genesys Telecomms. Labs., Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 192 (D. Del. 2015) .... 3
`
`Prompt Med. Sys., L.P. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., 6:10-cv-71, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`30694 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2012) ....................................................................................................... 6
`
`Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................... 2
`
`Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. Gencor Indus., Inc., 897 F.2d 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ......................... 11
`
`Stormborn Techs., LLC v. Topcon Positioning Sys., 444 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .............. 6
`
`Townsend v. Univ. of Alaska, 543 F.3d 478 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................ 15
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ........................................................... 2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`v
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. GE Co., 916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .................................. 3
`
`Vineyard Investigations v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 510 F. Supp. 3d 926 (E.D. Cal. 2020) ..................... 3
`
`VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................... 5
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. §101 ....................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`35 U.S.C. §112(f) ................................................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. §282. ...................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 7 of 25
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`ABBREVIATION
`
`TERM
`
`Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`Defendant Google LLC
`
`Defendants Meta Platforms Inc. and
`WhatsApp, Inc.
`
`Twitter, Inc.
`
`Google, Meta, and Twitter
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,630,234
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`The ’234 and ’721 patents
`
`
`Claim 1 of the ’234 patent
`
`Claims 1, 10, 11, 19, 20-22, 24, 25, 28, 30-
`33, 35, 37-40, 43, 45-48, 51, 53, 54, 61, 62,
`64, 65, 70, 72, and 75 of the ’234 patent
`
`Claims 1, 6, 15, 16, 20, 25, 34, 38, 39, 43, 45,
`46, 49, 50, 51, 63, 67, 77, 103, 104, 109, 110,
`124, 130, 133, 135, 136, and 138-140 of the
`’721 patent.
`
`Claims 30-33, 35, 37-40, 43, 45-48, 51, 53,
`54, 61, 62, 64, 65, 70, 72, and 75 of the ’234
`patent
`
`Claims 51, 63, 77, 103, 104, 109, 110, 124,
`130, 133, 138, and 139 of the ’721 patent
`
`Claims 46-48, 51, 53, 54, and 61of the ’234
`patent
`
`Claims 20, 25, 34, and 77 of the ’721 patent
`
`Person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`
`
`VoIP-Pal
`
`Google
`
`Meta
`
`Twitter
`
`Movants
`
`The ’234 patent
`
`The ’721 patent
`
`The Mobile Gateway patents or the patents-
`in-suit
`
`Claim 1
`
`The asserted claims
`
`
`The server claims
`
`
`The means-plus-function claims
`
`
`POSITA
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`Northern District of California
`
`Western District of Texas
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`
`
`
`NDCAL
`
`WDTX
`
`PTO
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should deny the Motion because Movants have not met their burden to show that
`
`Claim 1 is representative of the 64 asserted claims nor have they proved that Claim 1 is ineligible under
`
`35 U.S.C. §101 by clear and convincing evidence. Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea of routing
`
`communications based on the participant’s characteristics; in fact, it does not concern routing at all.
`
`Consequently, Movants erroneously analogize Claim 1 to allegedly well-known call-routing practices
`
`that are fundamentally different than the claimed invention. Even if Claim 1 is directed to an abstract
`
`idea, which it is not, Claim 1 is still patent eligible because it recites the inventive concept of using an
`
`access code to allow for an unconventional form of mobile telephone roaming based on the location of
`
`the caller’s mobile device. Movants ignore express intrinsic evidence that shows the claimed inventive
`
`concept was not well-known, routine, or conventional, which precludes dismissal at the Rule 12 stage.
`
`Largely, the Motion tries to piggyback off of prior decisions in this District finding certain
`
`claims of six other VoIP-Pal patents ineligible. But those decisions are irrelevant because they concern
`
`different claims in different VoIP-Pal patents from a different patent family asserted against different
`
`defendants. In fact, the prior court determined that the previous cases are not related to the cases
`
`involving the patents-in-suit now before this Court.1 Thus, these prior cases have little bearing on any
`
`issue that the Court needs to decide. Based on the merits in this case, the Motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A Rule 12 motion requires the Court to take as true the plausible and nonconclusory factual
`
`allegations in the complaint, and draw all reasonable inferences from those allegations in the plaintiff’s
`
`favor.2 Patent eligibility under §101 is a question of law that may involve underlying questions of fact.3
`
`Plausible factual allegations may preclude dismissal under §101 where, for example, nothing in the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`1 Ex. 1. All exhibits are attached to the supporting declaration of Lewis E. Hudnell, III.
`2 See Herrera v. Zumiez, Inc., 953 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020).
`3 See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`1
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`record refutes those allegations as a matter of law or justifies Rule 12 dismissal. 4 “While a fact-finder
`
`may ultimately determine that [a claim] limitation was well-understood, routine, and conventional,
`
`absent a clear statement to that effect in the specification, complaint, or other material properly before
`
`the court, when disputed such a determination may not be made on a motion for judgment on the
`
`pleadings.”5 “Judgment may only be granted when the pleadings show that it is beyond doubt that the
`
`plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”6
`
`The Supreme Court has “set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim … abstract
`
`ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.”7 First, the Court must
`
`“determine whether the claims at issue are directed to” an abstract idea.8 “If not, the claims pass muster
`
`under §101.”9 Courts, however, must “tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle less it
`
`swallow all of patent law.”10 Thus, “for abstractness to invalidate a claim it must ‘exhibit itself so
`
`manifestly as to override the broad statutory categories of eligible subject matter and the statutory
`
`context that directs primary attention on the patentability criteria of the rest of the Patent Act.’”11
`
`Second, if the first step is answered “yes,” then the Court must “consider the elements of each claim
`
`both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements
`
`‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”12 This step essentially asks
`
`whether the claims add an “inventive concept” that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice
`
`
`4 See Coop. Entm’t, Inc. v. Kollective Tech., Inc., 50 F.4th 127, 130 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Aatrix Software,
`Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Cellspin Soft, Inc. v.
`Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`5 See Nat. Alts. Int’l, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC, 918 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`6 See Enron Oil Trading & Transp. Co. v. Walbrook Ins. Co., Ltd., 132 F.3d 526, 529 (9th Cir. 1997)
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
`7 See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014).
`8 Id.
`9 See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`10 See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
`11 See DealerTrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Research Corp. Techs.
`v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
`12 See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct.
`1289, 1297 (2012)).
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`2
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.”13 Determining whether
`
`claims recite an inventive concept, or something more than well-understood, routine, or conventional
`
`activities, may turn on underlying questions of fact.14
`
`Issued patents are presumed valid, placing a heavy burden on the party challenging eligibility.15
`
`The Federal Circuit has held that ineligibility is an invalidity defense under 35 U.S.C. §282.16 Thus,
`
`Movants bear the burden to prove ineligibility by clear and convincing evidence.17
`
`
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Claim 1 Is Not Representative Of All Asserted Claims.
`
`Incredibly, Movants assert that Claim 1 is representative of 64 other asserted claims.18 It is not;
`
`nor is Movants’ representative claim analysis sound. “Each claim of a patent … shall be presumed
`
`valid independently of the validity of other claim … even though dependent upon an invalid claim.”19
`
`Thus, patent eligibility must be evaluated for each individual claim.20 Even assuming that it is proper to
`
`evaluate the eligibility of individual claims based on allegedly representative claims, Movants bear the
`
`initial burden to establish the representative claims.21 Indeed, “[e]rroneously determining that a claim
`
`is representative has constitutional consequences.”22 The Court should not let Movants oversimplify
`
`the claims for their own expediency at the expense of VoIP-Pal’s constitutional rights.23
`
`Movants gloss over the fact that Claim 1 is written from the recited mobile telephone’s
`
`perspective as opposed to the claimed server’s perspective. This difference is meaningful because the
`
`
`13 See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (modification marks omitted).
`14 See Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 1315 (citing Aatrix, 882 F.3d at 1128).
`15 See CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp. Pty, 717 F.3d 1269, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Lourie, J., concurring,
`joined by Dyk, Prost, Reyna, Wallach, JJ.); id. at 1304-05 (Rader, J., concurring-in-part and dissenting-
`in-part, joined by Linn, Moore, O’Malley, JJ.); Card Verification Solutions, LLC v. Citigroup Inc., 13 C
`6339, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137577, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2014).
`16 See Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. GE Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`17 See Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011).
`18 Dkt. No. 100 at 3-6. All Dkt. Nos. refer to the Google Action unless otherwise indicated.
`19 35 U.S.C. §282.
`20 See Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Smith, 959 F.2d 936, 942 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`21 See PPS Data, LLC v. Jack Henry & Assocs., 404 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1030 (E.D. Tex. 2019);
`Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Genesys Telecomms. Labs., Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 192, 200 (D. Del. 2015).
`22 See Vineyard Investigations v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 510 F. Supp. 3d 926, 944 n.7 (E.D. Cal. 2020).
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`3
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`server claims do not merely recite the allegedly basic call-routing functions of receiving, transmitting,
`
`and initiating. Rather, the server claims also require “producing an access code” as well as providing
`
`the details as to what the access code is and how it is produced.24
`
`These additional limitations are significant because, in asserting that allegedly representative
`
`Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, Movants contend that Claim 1 “does not disclose how the access
`
`code is generated.”25 But that is because the server claims recite the details on how the access code is
`
`produced, not the mobile telephone claims. For example, in producing an access code, the server
`
`claims require “selecting said access code from a pool of access codes” (’234 patent, claim 30),
`
`“selecting an access code associated with a calling area matching said local calling area associated with
`
`the mobile telephone” (’234 patent, claim 33), “associating said caller identifier included in said access
`
`code request message with the selected access code” (’234 patent, claim 40), and “associating a
`
`timestamp with said access code, for use in determining when the usability of said access code to
`
`initiate a call to the callee will expire” (’234 patent, claim 43).26 Movants try to minimize these
`
`additional limitations by labeling them as “broad, functional steps.” But this labeling has nothing to do
`
`with whether Claim 1 is representative of these limitations. Indeed, Movants fail to explain how Claim
`
`1 accounts for these additional limitations. Thus, the server claims recite meaningful distinctions over
`
`Claim 1 that are relevant to assessing their eligibility.
`
`Claim 1 also is meaningfully different from the means-plus-function claims. Thus, the Court
`
`cannot merely consider the plain claim language when evaluating eligibility; the Court also must
`
`consider the corresponding structures and algorithms disclosed in the specification for performing the
`
`claimed functions.27 Movants fail to inform the Court that Google and Meta already agreed to
`
`constructions for seven means-plus-function terms and that the WDTX has construed two others.28
`
`23 Id.
`24 See Ex. 2 at 7-10, 12-15, 24, 26-27, 29-32, and 34-35.
`25 Dkt. No. 100 at 7.
`26 Dkt. No. 1-2 at 38:20-21, 38:35-37, 38:65-67, 39:14-16.
`27 See 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
`28 Exs. 3-4.
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`Movants also fail to explain how Claim 1 accounts for the structural limitations required by the
`
`means-plus-function construction of these terms not present in Claim 1, including “a dialing input,” “a
`
`voice recognition unit,” “a parameter memory,” “a network interface,” “a microprocessor programmed
`
`to implement the algorithm in Figure 3” of the patents-in-suit, “I/O ports,” “an access server,” “a
`
`routing controller,” and “a microprocessor programmed to implement the algorithm in Figure 7” of the
`
`patents-in-suit.29 Instead, Movants blanketly assert that Claim 1 is representative of the means-plus-
`
`function claims, citing VoIP-Pal I.30 Not only does VoIP-Pal I concern claims unrelated to those in
`
`these cases, but VoIP-Pal did not challenge representativeness in VoIP-Pal I.31
`
`The means-plus-function distinction in these cases is meaningful because Movants argue that
`
`Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea because it “relies on functional routing terms to describe desired
`
`results without explaining how to achieve those results.”32 This argument makes little sense for the
`
`means-plus-function limitations. First, these limitations are not even present in Claim 1. Second, the
`
`patent statute expressly allows these limitations to be written in functional terms. Third, means-plus-
`
`function claims do not need to explain how a function is achieved—the specification does. Movants do
`
`not and cannot show how using Claim 1 as allegedly representative of the means-plus-function claims
`
`would allow the Court to perform this statutorily mandated inquiry.33
`
`In sum, because Movants have not satisfied their burden to show that Claim 1 is representative
`
`of the other asserted claims, the Court should confine its eligibility analysis to Claim 1—the only claim
`
`that Movants actually analyzed—lest it deprive VoIP-Pal of its property rights without due process.34
`
`B. Claim 1 Is Not Directed To An Abstract Idea.
`
`
`
`
`29 See Ex. 3 at 3 of 14-4 of 14; Ex. 4 at 3 of 3.
`30 Dkt. No. 100 at 7.
`31 See VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1135 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“VoIP-Pal I”).
`32 Dkt. No. 100 at 8.
`33 See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1193 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“[W]e hold that [§ 112(f)] applies
`regardless of the context in which the interpretation of means-plus-function language arises, i.e., … part
`of a validity or infringement determination in a court.”).
`34 See Nice Ltd. v. CallMiner, Inc., No. 18-2024-RGA-SRF, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20516, at *13 (D.
`Del. Feb. 3, 2020), report and recommendation adopted by 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5477 (D. Del. Mar.
`30, 2020); PPS Data, 404 F. Supp. 3d at 1031-33.
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`5
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`Claim 1 is not directed to the abstract idea of routing a call based on participant characteristics.
`
`This assertion oversimplifies the claim and is plainly inaccurate—Claim 1 does not mention routing. 35
`
`
`
`1. The allegedly functional terms in Claim 1 do not render it abstract.
`
`The allegedly broad and functional nature of Claim 1 does not show that Claim 1 is abstract.
`
`Movants observe, unremarkably, that Claim 1 recites allegedly basic call-routing functions, such as
`
`“receiving,” “transmitting,” and “initiating.”36 But Claim 1 relates to telecommunications, so reciting
`
`calling functions proves nothing.37
`
`Movants’ argument that Claim 1 does not disclose how to achieve any of these functions is not
`
`the proper inquiry.38 The eligibility inquiry concerns whether the claim recites a sufficiently specific
`
`structure or act for achieving the desired result, not how each individual limitation of the claim is
`
`implemented.39 The Federal Circuit has recognized that it is improper to find claims ineligible based on
`
`how questions that are either irrelevant or too granular to pertain to the patentee’s asserted
`
`improvements.40 Even courts in this district have recognized that a claim is not ineligible merely
`
`because it lacks specific implementation details.41 Arguing, as Movants do, that Claim 1 is ineligible
`
`because it does not explain how the mobile telephone receives a telephone number or because it does not
`
`explain how the mobile telephone initiates a call using a telephone number, is absurd.42 These are basic
`
`telephone functions.43 Similarly, arguing that Claim 1 does not disclose how the access code is
`
`
`35 See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`36 Dkt. No. 100 at 6-7.
`37 Dkt. No. 1-2 at 1:11-14.
`38 Dkt. No. 100 at 7.
`39 See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Finjan,
`Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`40 See KPN, 942 F.3d at 1148, 1151, 1153.
`41 See Stormborn Techs., LLC v. Topcon Positioning Sys., 444 F. Supp. 3d 1119, 1125 n.3 (N.D. Cal.
`2020) (“Whether or not these steps are specific enough to detail how to implement the claimed invention
`is better suited for a challenge under section 112.”); Avocent Huntsville, LLC v. ZPE Sys., Case No.
`3:17-cv-04319-WHO, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47655, at *20 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2018); see also Prompt
`Med. Sys., L.P. v. Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc., 6:10-cv-71, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30694, at
`*21-22 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2012).
`42 Dkt. No. 100 at 8 (quoting 23:62-64 of the ’234 patent: “In the illustrated embodiment, the access
`code is a PSTN telephone.”).
`43 Twitter Action, Dkt. No. 57-3 at ¶¶55-60.
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`6
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23 Page 15 of 25
`
`
`generated proves nothing—Claim 1 does not even recite generating an access code. The details for
`
`producing an access code are recited in the server claims, not the mobile device claims.
`
`The Federal Circuit articulated the proper how inquiry in Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M
`
`GmbH. It found the appealed claims not abstract because they sufficiently captured the claimed
`
`improvement “by reciting how the solution specifically improves the function of prior art error detection
`
`systems.”44 The Federal Circuit reversed in part because the district court fixated on implementation
`
`details that the claims did not need to recite in order to enable the asserted improvement.45 Similarly,
`
`Movants raise an assortment of how questions regarding implementation details known to a POSITA but
`
`irrelevant to the eligibility inquiry.46 Rather, the proper inquiry is whether the claim sufficiently recites
`
`how to achieve a specific improvement over prior art call routing systems, which it does—by using an
`
`access code to enable a local call to be made to a callee based on the calling device’s location.
`
`2. Claim 1 is not analogous to preexisting call routing practices.
`
`
`Movants’ argument that Claim 1 is analogous to preexisting call routing practices is woefully
`
`deficient. Not only do Movants not specify what call routing concepts are allegedly analogous to Claim
`
`1, but Movants deliberately recharacterize VoIP-Pal’s allegations in a false and misleading way.
`
`The complaints give a hypothetical example in which a caller lifts a handset off the hook to alert
`
`a switchboard operator that he or she wishes to make a call to a callee.47 The operator knows—by
`
`definition—that this caller is already connected to the switchboard, but does not know whether the callee
`
`is connectable on the same switchboard. Movants, however, distort this example by stating that the
`
`operator “would direct the call based on where the caller was located.”48 This mischaracterization of the
`
`complaints is the key to Movants’ claim that Claim 1 is analogous to allegedly well-known
`
`telecommunications practices.49 But the complaints do not state that the switchboard operator uses a
`
`
`44 See KPN, 942 F.3d at 1151.
`45 Id.
`46 Twitter Action, Dkt. No. 57-3 at ¶¶19, 22, and 55-60.
`47 Dkt. No. 1 at ¶15.
`48 Dkt. No. 100 at 8; see also Dkt. No. 57-3 at ¶12.
`49 Dkt. No. 100 at 8.
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO 101 MOTION Case Nos.: 3:22-CV-3199-JD, 3:22-CV-3202-JD, 3:21-CV-9773-JD
`7
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:22-cv-03199-JD Document 104 Filed 03/20/23