Case 5:21-cv-09773-EJD Document 22 Filed 01/12/22 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`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 Defendant
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-05078-JD
`
`RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF SUA
`SPONTE JUDICIAL REFERRAL TO
`CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD
`BE RELATED
`(Civil L.R. 3-12 and 7-11)
`
`Case No. 5:21-cv-9773-EJD
`
`AT&T CORP. et al.,
`Plaintiffs,
`v.
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF SUA SPONTE JUDICIAL REFERRAL TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD
`BE RELATED: 3:21-cv-05078-JD; 5:21-cv-9773-EJD
`
`i
`
`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 5:21-cv-09773-EJD Document 22 Filed 01/12/22 Page 2 of 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
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Under Civil Local Rules 3-12 and 7-11, Defendant VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) submits
`
`this response in support of the sua sponte judicial referral to consider whether the case Twitter Inc. v.
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-09773-EJD (“the Twitter action” or “Twitter III”) should be
`related to the above-captioned action (“the AT&T action” or “AT&T II”). Under Local Rule 3-12, an
`action is related to another when: (1) the actions concern substantially the same parties, property,
`transaction or event; and (2) it appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome duplication of
`labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges. As
`explained below, the Court has already related Apple Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-
`05110-JD (“the Apple action” or “Apple II”) and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Inc. et
`al. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-05275-JD (“the Verizon action” or “Verizon II”) to the
`instant action because these actions concern the same patent owner, the same patents, U.S. Patent
`Nos. 8,630,234 and 10,880,721 (“the ’234 patent” and “the ’721 patent” or “the Mobile Gateway
`patents”), and substantially the same property, transaction or event (i.e., overlapping patent claims
`and similar allegedly non-infringing products).1 Because the Twitter action also concerns the same
`patent owner, the same Mobile Gateway patents, and substantially the same property, transaction or
`event, the Twitter action should also be related to the instant action. Moreover, there would be an
`unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense, and potentially conflicting results, if the cases
`were conducted before different Judges because these cases concern the same patents and allegations
`of non-infringement directed to similarly functioning products.
`II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`The parties in the Twitter action have been engaged in multiple rounds of litigation involving
`
`VoIP-Pal’s patent portfolio. Three cases between the parties are or were pending before Judge Lucy
`H. Koh.2 All of those cases involve VoIP-Pal’s Routing, Billing, Rating (“RBR”) family of patents,
`not the Mobile Gateway patents.
`
`
`1 See Case No. 3:21-cv-5110-JD, Dkt. No. 25.
`2 VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-04523-LHK (N.D. Cal.); Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-02397-LHK (N.D. Cal.) (“Twitter I”); Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com,
`Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-02769-LHK (N.D. Cal.) (“Twitter II”).
`
`RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF SUA SPONTE JUDICIAL REFERRAL TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD
`BE RELATED: 3:21-cv-05078-JD; 5:21-cv-9773-EJD
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-09773-EJD Document 22 Filed 01/12/22 Page 3 of 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
`
`On June 25, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed suit against AT&T, Apple, Verizon, and four other
`
`defendants in the Western District of Texas (WDTX) asserting infringement of the Mobile Gateway
`patents.3 AT&T filed this declaratory-judgment action on June 30, 2021.4 AT&T sought
`declarations that its Voice over WiFi or VoWiFi products do not infringe the Mobile Gateway patents
`and that the patents are invalid.5 Apple filed the Apple action on July 1, 2021.6 Apple sought similar
`declarations that its FaceTime and Messages applications do not infringe the Mobile Gateway patents
`and that the patents are invalid.7 Verizon filed the Verizon action on July 8, 2021, also seeking a
`declaration of invalidity of the Mobile Gateway patents and that its Voice over WiFi or VoWiFi
`products do not infringe the Mobile Gateway patents.8
`
`On July 8, 2021, AT&T filed an administrative motion to consider whether the instant action
`should be related to AT&T Corp. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-02995-LHK (“AT&T I”),
`which was pending before Judge Koh.9 AT&T I involved VoIP-Pal’s U.S. Patent No. 10,218,606 (the
`“’606 patent”). Similarly, on July 12, 2021, Apple filed an administrative motion in the Apple action
`to consider whether Apple II should be related to Apple Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-
`02460-LHK (“Apple I”), which was pending before Judge Koh.10 Apple II involved the ’606 patent
`and U.S. Patent No. 9,935,872 (“the ’872 patent”). The ’606 patent and the ’872 patent are related
`and are part of the RBR family of patents. On July 27, 2021, Judge Freeman issued a sua sponte
`judicial referral to Judge Koh to determine whether Verizon II is related to Cellco Partnership dba
`Verizon Wireless v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-03092-LHK (N.D. Cal.) (“Verizon I”),
`
`
`3 VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-665 (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
`v. Google, LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-667 (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-668 (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-670 (W.D. Tex.);
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., et al., 6:21-cv-671 (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon
`Communications, Inc., et al., 6:21-cv-672 (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., et
`al., 6:21-cv-674 (W.D. Tex.).
`4 See Dkt. No. 1.
`5 See id.
`6 See Apple Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-05110, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.).
`7 See id.
`8 See Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Inc. et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com., Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-
`05275, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.).
`9 See AT&T Corp. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-02995-LHK, Dkt. No. 89 (N.D. Cal.);
`Dkt. No. 12.
`10 See Apple Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-02460-LHK, Dkt. No. 88 (N.D. Cal.).
`
`RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF SUA SPONTE JUDICIAL REFERRAL TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD
`BE RELATED: 3:21-cv-05078-JD; 5:21-cv-9773-EJD
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-09773-EJD Document 22 Filed 01/12/22 Page 4 of 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
`
`which was pending before Judge Koh and involved the ’606 patent.11 On August 25, 2021, Judge
`Koh denied AT&T’s and Apple’s motions to relate.12 On August 26, 2021, Judge Koh issued an
`order determining that Verizon I and Verizon II are not related.13
`
`VoIP-Pal and AT&T stipulated to the dismissal of the instant action on October 13, 2021.
`VoIP-Pal and Apple stipulated to the dismissal of the related Apple action on October 22, 2021. The
`related Verizon action remains pending and is stayed.
`
`Twitter filed Twitter III on December 17, 2021. Twitter III was assigned to Judge Edward J.
`Davila on January 5, 2022.14 On January 7, 2022, Judge Davila issued a sua sponte judicial referral
`to Judge Koh to determine whether Twitter III is related to Twitter II. VoIP-Pal filed a response in
`opposition to that judicial referral because Judge Koh had already determined that the Apple, AT&T,
`and Verizon actions involving the RBR patents are not related to the Apple, AT&T, and Verizon
`actions involving the Mobile Gateway patents as discussed above.15 Rather, VoIP-Pal believes that
`Twitter III should be related to the instant action for the reasons stated in this response.
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. Civil L.R. 3-12(a)(1) is satisfied.
`Although the plaintiffs in each of the cases sought to be related are different, the patent owner
`
`and declaratory-judgment defendant, VoIP-Pal, is the same. The “property, transaction or event” in
`these actions are also the same. Both actions concern the Mobile Gateway patents. Further, Twitter’s
`allegedly non-infringing WiFi calling technology, particularly as it relates to claim 20 of the ’234 patent
`and claim 38 of the ’721 patent, is similar. Indeed, if VoIP-Pal had filed both actions in this District, then
`these actions would have been deemed related under Patent L.R. 2-1(a)(1).16 Accordingly, because the
`property, transaction, or event at issue in these actions is identical and/or substantially the same, it is
`proper to relate these cases under Local Rule 3-12.
`
`11 See Cellco Partnership v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-03092-LHK, Dkt. 75 (N.D. Cal.).
`12 See Apple Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-02460-LHK, Dkt. No. 95 (N.D. Cal.);
`AT&T Corp. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-02995-LHK, Dkt. No. 97 (N.D. Cal.).
`13 See Cellco Partnership v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 5:20-cv-03092-LHK, Dkt. 78 (N.D. Cal.).
`14 See Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-09773-EJD (N.D. Cal.).
`15 Id., Dkt. No. 20.
`16 See Patent L.R. 2-1(a)(1) (“When actions concerning the same patent are filed within two years of
`each other by the same plaintiff, they will be deemed related.”).
`
`RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF SUA SPONTE JUDICIAL REFERRAL TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD
`BE RELATED: 3:21-cv-05078-JD; 5:21-cv-9773-EJD
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-09773-EJD Document 22 Filed 01/12/22 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`
`B. Civil L.R. 3-12(a)(2) is satisfied.
`Due to the substantial similarity of these cases, it is highly likely that there will be an unduly
`
`burdensome duplication of labor and expense or the possibility of conflicting results if the cases are
`not related. The patent owner in both actions is the same, as are the patents-in-suit. The allegedly
`non-infringing WiFi calling technology in both actions is similar. Because of the significant overlap
`between both actions, there would be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense that
`could potentially lead to conflicting results if two different courts heard motions concerning the
`alleged noninfringement and invalidity of the same patents. The instant action is the first case
`concerning the Mobile Gateway patents filed in this District. Therefore, neither Judge Davila in
`Twitter III nor Judge Koh in the Twitter II have any prior familiarity with the Mobile Gateway
`patents. In addition, the Court has already related the Apple action and the Verizon action to the
`instant action.17 Relating the Twitter action to the instant action will not have an adverse effect on
`the procedural schedule of any of the actions because the Verizon action, which is the only pending
`action related the instant action, is stayed.18 Also, no Case Management Order has been entered in
`either action. Indeed, VoIP-Pal’s deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint in Twitter
`III is February 11, 2022.
`IV. CONCLUSION
`In conclusion, VoIP-Pal respectfully requests that the Court grant the judicial referral and
`
`relate the Twitter action and with the instant action.
`Dated: January 12, 2022
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`HUDNELL LAW GROUP P.C.
`
`/s/ Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`Nicolas S. Gikkas
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`
`
`17 See Case No. 3:21-cv-5110-JD, Dkt. No. 25.
`18 See Case No. 3:21-cv-5110-JD, Dkt. No. 35.
`
`RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF SUA SPONTE JUDICIAL REFERRAL TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD
`BE RELATED: 3:21-cv-05078-JD; 5:21-cv-9773-EJD
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-09773-EJD Document 22 Filed 01/12/22 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I certify that I have caused Defendant VoIP-Pal.com’s RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF SUA
`
`SPONTE JUDICIAL REFERRAL TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED to
`be served on all counsel of record via the ECF system and on counsel of record in Case Nos. 3:21-cv-
`5078-JD and 5:21-cv-9773-EJD by electronic mail.
`
`
`Dated: January 12, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF SUA SPONTE JUDICIAL REFERRAL TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD
`BE RELATED: 3:21-cv-05078-JD; 5:21-cv-9773-EJD
`
`5
`
`