Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 25 Filed 02/11/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`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-09773-JD
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
`AND AUTHORITIES
`
`Honorable James Donato
`
`Date: March 24, 2022
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Courtroom 11, 19th Floor
`
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
` 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
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 25 Filed 02/11/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................ iii 
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... v 
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS ........................................................................ 1 
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................................................................................... 1 
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ....................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 
`II. 
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... 2 
`A.  VoIP-Pal’s 2016 NDCAL Cases ......................................................................................... 2 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`VoIP-Pal’s 2018 NDCAL Cases ......................................................................................... 3 
`
`VoIP-Pal’s 2020 WDTX Cases ........................................................................................... 3 
`
`The 2020 NDCAL Actions .................................................................................................. 4 
`
`Twitter II .............................................................................................................................. 5 
`
`VoIP-Pal’s 2021 WDTX Cases ........................................................................................... 5 
`
`The 2021 NDCAL Actions and Twitter III .......................................................................... 6 
`
`III.  ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 7 
`A. 
`The Court Should Dismiss This Case For Lack Of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. ............... 7 
`
`1.  Legal standard ......................................................................................................................... 7 
`
`2.  The totality of the circumstances show that there is no actual controversy. ........................... 8 
`
`B. 
`
`The Court Should Dismiss This Action For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction. ..................... 11 
`
`1.  Legal standard ....................................................................................................................... 11 
`
`2.  VoIP-Pal has never enforced the Mobile Gateway patents in this District. .......................... 12 
`
`3.  Personal jurisdiction is not reasonable and fair. .................................................................... 14 
`
`C. 
`
`The Court Should Dismiss This Action For Improper Venue. .......................................... 15 
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 25 Filed 02/11/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`3M Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 673 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................... 11
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Trans Video Electronics, Ltd., 975 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (N.D. Cal. Sept.
`30, 2013) ............................................................................................................................................ 8
`Activision Blizzard Inc. v. Acceleration Bay LLC, No. 16-cv-03375-RS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`119289 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2016) ........................................................................................................ 7
`Applera Corp. v. Michigan Diagnostics, LLC, 594 F. Supp. 2d 150, 158-60 (D. Mass. 2009) .......... 10
`Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013) ...................... 8
`Association for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 689 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) .................................................................................................................................................. 8
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Technology Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................... 13
`Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., 552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................... 12
`Bailey et al. v. Household Finance Corp. of Cal. et al., Case No. 10-cv-857 WQH (RBB), 2010 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 117866 (S.D. Cal. 2010) ............................................................................................. 14
`Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 823 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ......................................... 10
`Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs, Inc., 444 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .................. 12, 13
`Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., No. C-12-4411 EMC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7446 (N.D. Cal.
`Jan. 17, 2013) ........................................................................................................................... 8, 9, 10
`Chandler v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 598 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010) ........................................ 7
`Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) ................................................................................... 12
`Dex Products, Inc. v. Barbara Houghteling, No. C 05-05126 SI, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45237 (N.D.
`Cal. June 23, 2006) .......................................................................................................................... 15
`Dow Chemical Co. v. Calderon, 422 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2005) ........................................................... 14
`In re Qualcomm Litig., Case No.: 17-cv-00108-GPC-MDD, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185481 (S.D.
`Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) ............................................................................................................................ 10
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) ............................................................................. 11
`Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro Ed Altri-Gestione Motonave Achille Lauro in Amministrazione
`Straordinaria, 937 F.2d 44 (2nd Cir. 1991) ..................................................................................... 14
`Maxchief Invs. Ltd. v. Wok & Pan, Ind., Inc., 909 F.3d 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................... 12
`MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, 549 U.S. 118 (2007) ....................................................................... 7, 8
`Micron, 518 F.3d 895 (Fed. Cir. 1998). ................................................................................................. 9
`Petzilla, Inc. v. Anser Innovation LLC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 13623 (Fed. Cir., July 28, 2015) ..... 12
`Petzilla, Inc. v. Anser Innovation LLC, No. C-14-1354 EMC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134115 (N.D.
`Cal. Sep. 23, 2014) ........................................................................................................................... 12
`Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................. 10
`Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc., 638 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................... 12
`Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................. 11
`SanDisk Corp. v. ST Microelecs., Inc., 480 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ............................................... 8
`Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................... 7
`Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., 196 F. Supp. 3d 871 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ...... 14
`Twitter, Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., No. 5:20-CV-02397-LHK, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235757 (N.D.
`Cal. Dec. 14, 2020) ............................................................................................................................ 4
`Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 5:21-CV-02769-LHK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211777 (N.D.
`Cal. Nov. 2, 2021) .............................................................................................................................. 5
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 25 Filed 02/11/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................... 3
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 411 F. Supp. 3d 926 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ............................................. 3
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 20-1241, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 34684 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 3,
`2020) .................................................................................................................................................. 3
`VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., 798 F. App’x 644 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................. 3
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02338-RFB-CWH, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`122807 (D. Nev. July 23, 2018). ........................................................................................................ 2
`Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277, 282 (1995) ............................................................................ 7
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1391 .................................................................................................................................. 15
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) ......................................................................................................................... 15
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2) ......................................................................................................................... 16
`28 U.S.C. § 2201 .................................................................................................................................... 7
`Cal. Code Civ. P. § 410.10 ................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Rules
`Civil L.R. 11-3(a)(3) ............................................................................................................................ 15
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) ................................................................................................................ 1, 7, 10
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) .............................................................................................................. 1, 11, 13
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) .................................................................................................................... 1, 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
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 25 Filed 02/11/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`ABBREVIATION
`
`TERM
`
`Defendant VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`Plaintiff Twitter, Inc.
`
`Apple, Inc.
`
`AT&T Corp., AT&T Services, Inc., and
`AT&T Mobility LLC
`
`Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
`
`Facebook, Inc.
`
`WhatsApp, Inc.
`
`Google LLC
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com
`Services, LLC, and Amazon Web
`Services, Inc.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,218,606
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,935,872
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,630,234
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`The ’234 and ’721 patents
`
`Routing, Billing, Rating
`
`Western District of Texas
`
`Northern District of California
`
`District of Nevada
`
`Southern District of California
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VoIP-Pal
`
`Twitter
`
`Apple
`
`AT&T
`
`Verizon
`
`Facebook
`
`WhatsApp
`
`Google
`
`Amazon
`
`
`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
`
`The ’606 patent
`
`The ’872 patent
`
`The ’234 patent
`
`The ’721 patent
`
`The Mobile Gateway patents
`
`RBR
`
`WDTX
`
`NDCAL
`
`DNV
`
`SDCAL
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 25 Filed 02/11/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`NDILL
`
`DNV
`
`Twitter I
`
`
`Twitter II
`
`
`Twitter III
`
`
`The 2016 NDCAL cases
`
`The 2018 NDCAL cases
`
`The 2020 WDTX cases
`
`The 2020 NDCAL actions
`
`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
`
`Northern District of Illinois
`
`District of Nevada
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 3:20-
`cv-2397-JD (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 5:21-
`cv-2769-YGR (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 3:21-
`cv-9773-JD (N.D. Cal.)
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., No. 5:18-
`cv-04523-LHK (N.D. Cal.); VoIP-Pal.com,
`Inc. v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, No.
`18-cv-06054-LHK (N.D. Cal.); VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., No. 3:18-cv-
`06177-LHK (N.D. Cal.); and VoIP-Pal.com,
`Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-06217-LHK
`(N.D. Cal.)
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No.
`5:18-cv-7020 (N.D. Cal.) and VoIP-Pal.com,
`Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:18-cv-6216 (N.D.
`Cal.)
`
`VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No.
`6:20-cv-00267-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-
`Pal.Com, Inc. v. Google, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-
`00269-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.Com,
`Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., No. 6:20-cv-
`00272-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.Com,
`Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00275-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. AT&T,
`Inc. et al., No. 6:20-cv-00325-ADA (W.D.
`Tex.); and VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Verizon
`Communications, Inc. et al., No. 6:20-cv-
`00327-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No.
`5:20-cv-02460-LHK (N.D. Cal.); AT&T
`Corp., et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com., Inc., Case No.
`5:20-cv-02995-LHK (N.D. Cal.); and Cellco
`Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. VoIP-
`Pal.com., Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-03092-LHK
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 25 Filed 02/11/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`(N.D. Cal.)
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., et al.,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-665-ADA (W.D. Tex.);
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Google, LLC, Case No.
`6:21-cv-667-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-66-ADA (W.D. Tex.);
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-
`670-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v.
`AT&T Corp., et al., 6:21-cv-671-ADA (W.D.
`Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon
`Communications, Inc., et al., 6:21-cv-672-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. T-
`Mobile US, Inc., et al., 6:21-cv-674-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 6:21-cv-1246-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.); and VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v.
`Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al., 6:21-cv-
`1247-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`AT&T Corp. et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.,
`Case No. 3:21-cv-05078 (N.D. Cal.); Apple
`Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com., Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-
`05110 (N.D. Cal.); and Cellco Partnership
`d/b/a Verizon Wireless Inc. et al v. VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-05275 (N.D.
`Cal.)
`
`
`
`
`The 2021 WDTX cases
`
`The 2021 NDCAL actions
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 25 Filed 02/11/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 24, 2022 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor
`
`before the Honorable James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
`
`California, VoIP-Pal will move the Court under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and
`
`12(b)(3) to dismiss this action. The grounds for this Motion, as set forth in detail below, are: the Court
`
`lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Mobile Gateway patents, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction
`
`over VoIP-Pal, and venue is improper as to VoIP-Pal. Accordingly, this case should be dismissed.
`
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1. Whether the Court should dismiss this declaratory-judgment action because the Court lacks
`subject-matter jurisdiction over this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)?
`
`2. Whether the Court should dismiss this declaratory-judgment action because the Court lacks
`
`personal jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)?
`
`3. Whether the Court should dismiss these declaratory-judgment actions because venue is improper
`
`as to VoIP-Pal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3)?
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Twitter’s declaratory-judgment complaint should be dismissed because it suffers from serious
`jurisdictional infirmities. The Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because there is no case or
`controversy between Twitter and VoIP-Pal regarding the Mobile Gateway patents. VoIP-Pal has never
`attempted to assert the Mobile Gateway patents against Twitter. The last time VoIP-Pal sued Twitter on
`any patent was five years ago—in a 2016 case that was transferred to this District from Nevada despite
`VoIP-Pal’s opposition. The case concerned a different family of VoIP-Patents—the RBR patent family.
`VoIP-Pal’s prior litigation of the RBR family is the only discernable basis Twitter asserts as creating an
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES,
`Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-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 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 25 Filed 02/11/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`actual controversy. But VoIP-Pal’s case against Twitter has been closed for almost three years. Since
`that time, Twitter has sued VoIP-Pal for declaratory-judgment three times. VoIP-Pal has not retaliated.
`In fact, VoIP-Pal has granted Twitter covenants not to sue on the ’606 and ’872 patents, which are
`members of the RBR patent family, in an effort to dismiss Twitter’s two prior suits. This case represents
`the latest of Twitter’s serial-declaratory-judgment campaign—a sham controversy created by Twitter
`from the same playbook as Twitter’s two prior suits, against a different patent family that VoIP-Pal has
`neither asserted, nor threatened to assert, against Twitter. Judge Lucy Koh, who presided over Twitter’s
`two prior suits, has already determined that actions involving the Mobile Gateway patents are not related
`to actions involving the RBR patents. Thus, Twitter has no legitimate basis to assert that an actual
`controversy exists between the parties regarding the Mobile Gateway patents.
`The Court also lacks personal jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal in this action because VoIP-Pal has not
`directed enforcement activities regarding the Mobile Gateway patents against Twitter in this District.
`Consequently, venue is also improper as to VoIP-Pal in this action because VoIP-Pal does not reside in
`California and the Court does not otherwise have personal jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal. Accordingly, the
`Court should dismiss this action because it was improvidently filed, lacks a proper jurisdictional basis,
`and, in truth, is nothing more than an attempt to harass VoIP-Pal.
`
`
`II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`
`
`
`
`A. VoIP-Pal’s 2016 NDCAL Cases
`
`In 2016, VoIP-Pal filed its first lawsuits in the DNV—against AT&T, Verizon, Apple, and
`
`Twitter. In each case, VoIP-Pal asserted the ’815 and ’005 patents, which are part of the RBR patent
`
`family and unrelated to the Mobile Gateway patents. Shortly after the Supreme Court decided TC
`
`Heartland, the DNV granted Twitter’s motion to transfer Twitter’s action for improper venue to the
`
`NDCAL.1 Thus, VoIP-Pal was forced to agree to transfer the remaining DNV cases to the NDCAL.2
`
`
`1 See VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02338-RFB-CWH, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`122807 (D. Nev. July 23, 2018).
`2 See Exs. 1-3.
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES,
`Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-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 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 25 Filed 02/11/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`Between August 14 and November 7, 2018, the 2016 cases were assigned to Judge Koh. On
`
`March 25, 2019, Judge Koh granted the defendants’ Rule 12 motion to dismiss VoIP-Pal’s asserted
`
`claims as invalid under § 101 and closed the 2016 cases.3 On March 16, 2020, the Federal Circuit
`
`affirmed Judge Koh’s decision invalidating the asserted claims in the 2016 cases.4
`
`
`
`B. VoIP-Pal’s 2018 NDCAL Cases
`
`In 2018, VoIP-Pal filed two additional lawsuits against Apple and Amazon in the DNV. VoIP-
`
`Pal asserted four other RBR patents related to the ’815 and ’005 patents, but unrelated to the Mobile
`
`Gateway patents. Because the DNV transferred the Twitter 2016 case, VoIP-Pal again had no choice
`
`but to agree to transfer the 2018 cases to the NDCAL.5
`
`Between November 6 and 28, 2018, the 2018 cases were assigned to Judge Koh. On November
`
`1, 2019, Judge Koh granted a Rule 12 motion to dismiss VoIP-Pal’s asserted claims as invalid under
`
`§ 101 and closed the 2018 cases.6 On November 3, 2020, the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Koh’s
`
`decision invalidating the asserted claims in the 2018 cases.7
`
`
`
`C. VoIP-Pal’s 2020 WDTX Cases
`
`On April 2, 2020, VoIP-Pal sued Facebook and WhatsApp in the WDTX for infringing the ’606
`
`patent—another RBR patent family member.8 Subsequently, VoIP-Pal filed suits in the WDTX against
`
`Google, Amazon, Apple, AT&T, and Verizon.9
`
`
`3 See VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Ex. 4.
`4 See VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., 798 F. App’x 644 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`5 See Exs. 5-6.
`6 See VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 411 F. Supp. 3d 926 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Ex. 7.
`7 See VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 20-1241, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 34684 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 3,
`2020).
`8 See VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Facebook Inc. et al., No. 6:20-cv-267-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`9 See VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Google LLC et al., No. 6:20-cv-269-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
`v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., No. 6:20-cv-00272-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No.
`6:20-cv-275-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. AT&T, Inc. et al., No. 6:20-cv-325-ADA (W.D.
`Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al., No. 6:20-cv-327-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES,
`Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 25 Filed 02/11/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`D. The 2020 NDCAL Actions
`
`Despite VoIP-Pal not filing suit against Twitter in the WDTX, Twitter chose to file Twitter I in
`
`the NDCAL seeking declarations of noninfringement and invalidity of the ’606 patent.10 Subsequently,
`
`Apple, AT&T, and Verizon all filed actions in this District seeking declarations of noninfringement
`
`and/or invalidity of the ’606 patent.11 Apple also amended its complaint to seek a declaration of
`
`noninfringement and invalidity of the ’872 patent—another RBR patent family member—despite VoIP-
`
`Pal never taking any affirmative steps to enforce the ’872 patent against Apple.12 The 2020 NDCAL
`
`actions were assigned to Judge Koh.
`
`VoIP-Pal moved to dismiss Twitter I for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, among other things.
`
`Yet, despite VoIP-Pal never asserting the ’606 patent against Twitter, never identifying any Twitter
`
`products that infringe the ’606 patent, never providing Twitter any claim charts regarding the ’606
`
`patent, and never even mentioning the ’606 patent to Twitter, Judge Koh denied VoIP-Pal’s motion to
`
`dismiss.13 VoIP-Pal answered Twitter’s complaint but did not assert counterclaims against Twitter.14
`
`Subsequently, VoIP-Pal filed a second motion to dismiss Twitter’s claims for declaratory
`
`judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of the ’606 patent. VoIP-Pal’s motion granted Twitter a
`
`covenant not to sue on the ’606 patent to divest the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction over
`
`Twitter’s claims. Judge Koh ultimately granted VoIP-Pal’s second motion to dismiss Twitter I.15
`
`
`10 See Case No. 3:20-cv-2397-JD, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.).
`11 See Case Nos. 5:20-cv-2460-LHK, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.); 5:20-cv-2995-LHK, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D.
`Cal.); 5:20-cv-3092-LHK, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.).
`12 See Case No. 5:20-cv-2460-LHK, Dkt. No. 10.
`13 See Twitter, Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., No. 5:20-CV-02397-LHK, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235757
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2020).
`14 Ex. 8 at pp. 29-31.
`15 See Case No. 5:20-cv-2397-JD, Dkt. No. 89 (N.D. Cal.).
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES,
`Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` 4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 25 Filed 02/11/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`E. Twitter II
`
`
`On April 16, 2021—the day after the parties participated in a court-ordered settlement
`
`conference—Twitter filed Twitter II seeking a declaration of noninfringement of the ’872 patent.16
`
`Twitter II also was assigned to Judge Koh. At the time, VoIP-Pal had not sued Twitter or any other
`
`party over the ’872 patent in any court and had not sued Twitter on any patent since October 2016—over
`
`five years ago. Neither had VoIP-Pal threatened to sue Twitter, nor taken any other steps toward
`
`enforcing the ’872 patent against Twitter. In fact, VoIP-Pal did the opposite—VoIP-Pal tried to settle
`
`with Twitter.17 Twitter, however, twisted VoIP-Pal’s good faith attempts to settle into a new complaint.
`
`On June 21, 2021, VoIP-Pal moved to dismiss Twitter II for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
`
`personal jurisdiction, and improper venue. Judge Koh denied the motion on November 2, 2021.18
`
`Consequently, VoIP-Pal was again forced to file a second motion to dismiss Twitter’s claims for
`
`declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the ’872 patent. VoIP-Pal’s motion granted Twitter a
`
`covenant not to sue on the ’872 patent and in an effort to divest the district court of subject-matter
`
`jurisdiction over Twitter’s declaratory-judgment claim. The motion is fully briefed and is pending a
`
`hearing. In addition, on January 20, 2022, VoIP-Pal filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the
`
`Federal Circuit seeking reversal of Judge Koh’s order denying VoIP-Pal’s first motion to dismiss Twitter
`
`II for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.19 The petition is fully briefed and pending a decision.
`
`F. VoIP-Pal’s 2021 WDTX Cases
`
`
`
`
`16 See Case No. 5:20-cv-2769-YGR, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.).
`17 Id. at ¶¶12, 46.
`18 See Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 5:21-CV-02769-LHK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211777
`(N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2021).
`19 See In re VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 2022-123 (Fed. Cir.).
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES,
`Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 25 Filed 02/11/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`On June 25, 2021, VoIP-Pal sued seven parties for infringement of the Mobile Gateway patents
`
`in the WDTX.20 On November 30, 2021, VoIP-Pal sued two more parties on the Mobile Gateway
`
`patents in the WDTX.21 Notably, VoIP-Pal did not sue Twitter on the Mobile Gateway patents.
`
`
`
`G. The 2021 NDCAL Actions and Twitter III
`
`In turn, three of the 2021 WDTX defendants—AT&T, Apple, and Verizon—filed mirror-image-
`
`declaratory-judgment actions on the Mobile Gateway patents in the NDCAL.22 On July 8, 2021, AT&T
`
`filed an administrative motion to consider whether its 2021 Mobile Gateway patents action should be
`
`related to its 2020 RBR patent action.23 Apple did the same for its NDCAL actions.24 On July 27, 2021,
`
`Judge Freeman issued a sua sponte judicial referral to Judge Koh to determine whether Verizon’s 2021
`
`Mobile Gateway patents action is related to its 2020 RBR patent action.25 On August 25, 2021, Judge
`
`Koh denied AT&T’s and Apple’s motions to relate.26 On August 26, 2021, Judge Koh denied the
`
`referral to relate the Verizon actions.27 On September 14, 2021, the Court related the Apple and Verizon
`
`2021 Mobile Gateway patents actions to the AT&T 2021 Mobile Gateway patents action.28
`
`
`20 VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-665-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com,
`Inc. v. Google, LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-667-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-668-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-670-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., et al., 6:21-cv-671-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com,
`Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., 6:21-cv-672-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. T-
`Mobile US, Inc., et al., 6:21-cv-674-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`21 VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 6:21-cv-1246-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al., 6:21-cv-1274-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`22 See AT&T Corp. et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-05078, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.); Apple
`Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-05110, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.); Cellco Partnership d/b/a
`Verizon Wireless Inc. et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com., Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-05275, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.).
`23 See Case No. 5:20-cv-02995-LHK, Dkt. No. 89.
`24 See Case No. 5:20-cv-02460-LHK, Dkt. No. 88.
`25 See Case No. 5:20-cv-03092-LHK, Dkt. No. 75.
`26 Exs. 9-10.
`27 Ex. 11.
`28 See Case No. 3:21-cv-05110-JD, Dkt. No. 25.
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES,
`Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 25 Filed 02/11/22 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`On December 10, 2021, VoIP-Pal and Twitter participated in another settlement conference in
`
`Twitter I. The case did not settle. Shortly afterwards, just as it had done in Twitter II, Twitter filed this
`
`action seeking a declaration of noninfringement of the Mobile Gateway patents. On January 19, 2022,
`
`the Court related this case to the AT&T 2021 Mobile Gateway patents action.29
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Court Should Dismiss This Case For Lack Of Subject-Matter J