Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 30 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 22
`
`Sarah E. Fowler (SBN CA 264838)
`SFowler@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1212
`Telephone: 650.838.4300
`Facsimile: 650.838.4350
`Gene W. Lee (pro hac vice)
`GLee@perkinscoie.com
`Thomas V. Matthew (pro hac vice)
`TMatthew@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1155 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10036-2711
`Telephone: 212.262.6900
`Facsimile: 212.977.1649
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Twitter, Inc.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO
`VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Honorable James Donato
`Date: TBD
`Time: TBD
`Courtroom 11, 19th floor
`
`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
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 30 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 22
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 2
`A. VoIP-Pal’s 2016 And 2018 Cases And The RBR Patents........................................... 2
`B. VoIP-Pal’s 2020 Texas Cases And Press Release, And Twitter’s, Apple’s,
`AT&T’s, And Verizon’s 2020 DJ Actions.................................................................. 3
`C. Twitter’s 2021 DJ Action For The ’872 Patent ........................................................... 5
`D. The Texas Mobile Gateway Cases .............................................................................. 6
`E. Second Settlement Conference In Twitter’s 2020 DJ Action And Twitter’s
`Filing Of The Present Action....................................................................................... 6
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7
`A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Exists For Twitter’s Declaratory Judgment Claim......... 7
`1.
`Subject Matter Jurisdiction Is Analyzed Under The Totality Of The
`Circumstances.................................................................................................. 7
`1. All The Circumstances Show The Existence Of A Sufficiently
`Justiciable Controversy.................................................................................... 8
`2. VoIP-Pal Misapplies The Cepheid Decision................................................. 10
`B. This Court Has Personal Jurisdiction Over VoIP-Pal ............................................... 11
`1. Legal Standard For Personal Jurisdiction...................................................... 11
`2. VoIP-Pal Has Purposefully Directed Its Activities At Residents Of
`This Forum And Twitter’s Claims Arise Out Of And Relate To Those
`Activities........................................................................................................ 12
`Personal Jurisdiction Over VoIP-Pal Is Reasonable And Fair ...................... 14
`3.
`C. Venue Is Proper In This District................................................................................ 15
`CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 15
`
`-i-
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`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 30 Filed 03/14/22 Page 3 of 22
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`
`Acorda Therapeutics Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc,
`817 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016)...................................................................................................14
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. TransVideo Elecs., Ltd.,
`975 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ........................................................................11, 12, 14
`
`Akro Corp. v. Luker,
`45 F.3d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1995)...................................................................................................11
`
`Arkema Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc.,
`706 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013)...................................................................................8, 9, 11, 12
`
`Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off.,
`689 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2012), rev’d in part on other grounds by Ass’n for
`Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013) ........................................7
`
`Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.,
`552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008).................................................................................................11
`
`Bailey v. Household Fin. Corp. of Cal.,
`No. 10cv857, 2010 WL 4569950 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2010)......................................................13
`
`Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Lab’ys., Inc.,
`444 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)...........................................................................................14, 15
`
`Burger King Corporation v. Rudewicz,
`471 U.S. 462 (1985)..................................................................................................................14
`
`Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.,
`No. C-12-4411, 2013 WL 184125 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013).............................................10, 11
`
`Coinbase, Inc. v. Modern Font Applications LLC,
`Case No. 21-cv-05405, 2022 WL 62913 (N.D. Cal Jan. 6, 2022) ............................................13
`
`Danisco U.S. Inc. v. Novozymes A/S,
`744 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2014)...............................................................................................8, 9
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Calderon,
`422 F.3d 827 (9th Cir. 2005).....................................................................................................13
`
`Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003).....................................................................................13, 14, 15
`
`-ii-
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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 30 Filed 03/14/22 Page 4 of 22
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall,
`466 U.S. 408 (1984)..................................................................................................................11
`
`Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Acceleron LLC,
`587 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009)...................................................................................................7
`
`Inamed Corp. v. Kuzmak,
`249 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001).................................................................................................11
`
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash., Off. of Unemployment Comp.,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945)..................................................................................................................11
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC,
`Case No. 20-cv-03137, 2021 WL 6049924 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2021)....................................13
`
`Klinghoffer v. S.N.C. Achille Lauro Ed Altri-Gestione Motonave Achille Lauro in
`Amministrazione Straordinaria,
`937 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1991)........................................................................................................13
`
`Lyft, Inc. v. Quartz Auto Techs. LLC,
`Case No. 21-cv-01871, 2021 WL 6618867 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2021) .....................................14
`
`Mavrix Photo, Inc. v. Brand Techs., Inc.,
`647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011)...................................................................................................11
`
`MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,
`549 U.S. 118 (2007)....................................................................................................................7
`
`Milliken v. Meyer,
`311 U.S. 457 (1940)..................................................................................................................11
`
`Monolithic Power Sys. v. O2 Micro Int’l, Ltd.,
`No. C 07-2363, 2007 WL 2318924 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2007)................................................10
`
`Neuralstem, Inc. v. StemCells, Inc.,
`573 F. Supp. 2d 888 (D. Md. 2008) ....................................................................................12, 13
`
`Torrent Pharms. Ltd. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.,
`196 F. Supp. 3d 871, 876‒77 (N.D. Ill. 2016) ..........................................................................13
`
`Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC,
`No. 19-2164 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2021), ECF No. 78 ................................................................14
`
`U.S. Aluminum Corp. v. Kawneer Co.,
`694 F.2d 193 (9th Cir. 1982).....................................................................................................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
`
`-iii-
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 30 Filed 03/14/22 Page 5 of 22
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Viam Corp. v. Iowa Exp.-Imp. Trading Co.,
`84 F.3d 424 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ..............................................................................................14, 15
`
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG,
`848 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................................14, 15
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391.............................................................................................................................15
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101.............................................................................................................................2, 4
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Rule 3-12(a) ....................................................................................................................................10
`
`-iv-
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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 30 Filed 03/14/22 Page 6 of 22
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This case is the latest chapter in a long-running dispute between VoIP-Pal and Twitter
`concerning VoIP-Pal’s patents. The dispute between VoIP-Pal and Twitter is, in turn, part of a
`large litigation campaign that VoIP-Pal has waged against many major technology companies by
`asserting patents concerning routing of communications in a packet-switched network.
`This case involves U.S. Patents 8,630,234 and 10,880,721, which VoIP-Pal refers to as the
`“Mobile Gateway” patents (the “’234 patent” and “’721 patent,” respectively). VoIP-Pal has
`asserted the Mobile Gateway patents in the Western District of Texas against Apple, AT&T,
`Verizon, Amazon, Facebook, WhatsApp, Google, T-Mobile, Samsung Electronics, and Huawei
`Technologies. VoIP-Pal’s Motion is founded on the argument that any dispute concerning the
`Mobile Gateway patents is unrelated to its prior litigations in this District involving patents from a
`different family that VoIP-Pal refers to as the “Routing, Billing, Rating” or “RBR” patents. VoIP-
`Pal has asserted the RBR patents against Twitter, Apple, AT&T, Verizon, Amazon, Facebook,
`WhatsApp, and Google. VoIP-Pal’s attempt to compartmentalize the dispute about the Mobile
`Gateway patents from the prior litigations involving the RBR patents is both factually and legally
`wrong. The Mobile Gateway patents and the RBR patents concern the same technology. The
`Federal Circuit has held that prior patent litigation between parties can serve as the basis for subject
`matter jurisdiction for a later declaratory judgment claim for a patent concerning the same or related
`technology. Furthermore, many additional facts show that a substantial and immediate controversy
`exists between VoIP-Pal and Twitter concerning the Mobile Gateway patents.
`Personal jurisdiction exists because VoIP-Pal has undertaken substantial enforcement
`activities in California for the RBR patents, which concern the same technology as the Mobile
`Gateway patents; has directed those activities at Twitter and Apple, which are based in this District;
`has engaged California lawyers in its patent-related activities; and because exercise of personal
`jurisdiction would be reasonable and fair. Venue is proper because this Court has personal
`jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal.
`The true goal of VoIP-Pal’s Motion is to extricate itself from this District and then to sue
`Twitter for patent infringement in a venue that VoIP-Pal prefers as soon as VoIP-Pal believes it can
`-1-
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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 30 Filed 03/14/22 Page 7 of 22
`
`do so without substantial risk of litigating in this District. For the reasons stated herein, Twitter
`respectfully asks the Court to deny VoIP-Pal’s Motion.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`The relevant facts are set forth in Twitter’s Complaint. In the interest of brevity, relevant
`facts are discussed below in abbreviated form.
`
`VoIP-Pal’s 2016 And 2018 Cases And The RBR Patents
`A.
`The dispute between VoIP-Pal and Twitter began in 2016, when VoIP-Pal sued Twitter,
`Apple, AT&T, and Verizon in the District of Nevada alleging infringement of two RBR patents,
`U.S. Patents 8,542,815 (“the ’815 patent”) and 9,179,005 (“the ’005 patent”). ECF 1 (“Compl.”)
`¶¶ 2, 3; Ex. 3. Twitter was transferred to this District by motion, after which VoIP-Pal voluntarily
`stipulated to transfer its actions against Apple, AT&T, and Verizon to this District based on the
`convenience of the parties and witnesses and efficiency. Id. ¶ 38; ECF 25-2 to 25-4. All four of
`those actions were assigned to Judge Lucy Koh and consolidated for pretrial purposes (the “2016
`Cases”). Id.
`The ’815 and ’005 patents concern routing of communications in a packet-switched
`network. Id. ¶¶ 2, 17, 69. The products and services accused of infringement in the 2016 Cases
`included messaging involving text, images, and videos. Id. ¶¶ 18, 45, 71. Judge Koh found all
`asserted claims of the ’815 and ’005 patents to be invalid for lack of patent eligible subject matter
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Id. ¶¶ 4, 39. VoIP-Pal appealed. On March 16, 2020, the Federal Circuit
`affirmed the judgment of invalidity. Id. VoIP-Pal petitioned for rehearing, but the Federal Circuit
`denied the petition and issued its mandate on May 26, 2020.
`In 2018, VoIP-Pal filed two additional lawsuits against Apple and Amazon in the District
`of Nevada alleging infringement of four other RBR patents. Id. ¶¶ 3, 40. VoIP-Pal again
`voluntarily agreed to transfer those cases to this District (the “2018 Cases”). Id. ¶ 41. The asserted
`claims of the four RBR patents asserted in the 2018 Cases were very similar to the asserted claims
`of the two RBR patents in the 2016 Cases. Id. ¶ 40. Once again, Judge Koh found all asserted
`claims of the four RBR patents in the 2018 Cases to be invalid under Section 101. VoIP-Pal
`appealed, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of invalidity. Id. ¶ 42
`-2-
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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 30 Filed 03/14/22 Page 8 of 22
`
`B.
`
`VoIP-Pal’s 2020 Texas Cases And Press Release, And
`Twitter’s, Apple’s, AT&T’s, And Verizon’s 2020 DJ Actions
`
`Following the invalidation of six RBR patents in the 2016 and 2018 Cases, VoIP-Pal went
`forum shopping. In April 2020, VoIP-Pal filed new lawsuits in the Western District of Texas
`asserting a seventh RBR patent, U.S. Patent 10,218,606 (the “’606 patent”), against Facebook and
`WhatsApp, Google, and previous defendants Amazon, Apple, AT&T, and Verizon (collectively,
`the “2020 Texas Cases”). Id. ¶¶ 5, 43. The claims of the ’606 patent are very similar to claims of
`the six patents that VoIP-Pal asserted in the 2016 and 2018 Cases. Id. ¶¶ 5, 44. VoIP-Pal’s
`infringement allegations in the 2020 Texas Cases are similar to VoIP-Pal’s infringement allegations
`in the 2016 and 2018 Cases and involve some of the same accused products and services, including
`messaging involving text, images, and videos. Id. ¶ 45; Ex. 12.
`On April 8, 2020, VoIP-Pal issued a press release announcing the filing of the 2020 Texas
`Cases against Facebook, WhatsApp, Google, Amazon, and Apple and the Federal Circuit’s
`affirmance of the judgment of invalidity in the 2016 Cases (https://www.voip-pal.com/voip-pal-
`new-patent-lawsuits-april-). Id. ¶¶ 6, 46; Ex. 5. The press release states that VoIP-Pal is
`considering taking further action and “planning their next moves.” Id. VoIP-Pal’s CEO is quoted
`as saying, “Our legal team is assessing our next moves regarding this Alice decision and we expect
`to announce our intentions soon. I can tell you; we are not finished,” and “We remain firm in our
`resolve to achieve monetization for our shareholders and will continue to see this fight through until
`a successful resolution is reached. Patience is a virtue.” Id.
`On April 8, 2020, after seeing VoIP-Pal’s lawsuits in Texas against Facebook, WhatsApp,
`Google, Amazon, and Apple and VoIP-Pal’s press release, Twitter filed a declaratory judgment
`action for the ’606 patent in this District (Case No. 20-cv-02397). Id. ¶¶ 7, 47. Soon thereafter,
`Apple, AT&T, and Verizon filed similar declaratory judgment actions in this District. Id. ¶¶ 7, 43,
`48, 49. (Collectively, the “2020 DJ Actions.”) Apple also added declaratory judgment claims for
`an eighth RBR patent, U.S. Patent 9,935,872 (the “’872 patent”). Id.
`On July 10, 2020, VoIP-Pal filed motions to dismiss Twitter’s, Apple’s AT&T’s, and
`Verizon’s 2020 DJ Actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and
`-3-
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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 30 Filed 03/14/22 Page 9 of 22
`
`improper venue, which were denied. Id. ¶ 52; e.g., Compl. Ex. 8.
`On December 2, 2020, VoIP-Pal offered to pay Twitter $250,000 for Twitter to dismiss its
`2020 DJ Action for the ’606 patent. Id. ¶ 53. Twitter informed VoIP-Pal that Twitter is not
`interested in a piecemeal settlement in view of VoIP-Pal’s other patents and the likelihood that
`VoIP-Pal would sue Twitter again in the future. Id. Twitter asked if VoIP-Pal would be willing to
`discuss a global settlement that would cover all of VoIP-Pal’s patents, but VoIP-Pal declined. Id.
`VoIP-Pal did not deny the likelihood that VoIP-Pal would sue Twitter again in the future. Id.
`On January 11, 2021, VoIP-Pal proposed a settlement for the ’606 patent and all other RBR
`patents, for a payment by Twitter of $1 million. Id. ¶ 55. Twitter observed that this proposal would
`not cover VoIP-Pal’s entire patent portfolio and expressly noted that VoIP-Pal had recently touted
`receiving two patents in the Mobile Gateway family, the ’721 patent and a European patent. Id.
`Twitter asked if VoIP-Pal would agree to a settlement including patents other than those in the RBR
`family, but VoIP-Pal did not respond to that inquiry. Id. On January 15, 2021, Twitter declined
`VoIP-Pal’s proposed settlement for the RBR patent family because, among other reasons, VoIP-
`Pal’s offer would not have covered all of VoIP-Pal’s patents (including the recently-touted Mobile
`Gateway patent), Twitter’s belief that VoIP-Pal’s RBR patents are invalid under Section 101, and
`that VoIP-Pal’s demand for a $1 million payment was unreasonable. Id.
`On March 24, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed additional motions to dismiss the 2020 DJ Actions—
`this time based on covenants not to sue that VoIP-Pal granted in the motions. Id. ¶ 57. VoIP-Pal
`also offered a broader covenant not to sue based on the ’606 patent and asked Twitter to stipulate
`to dismissal of Twitter’s declaratory judgment action. Id. ¶ 57.
`On April 12, 2021, Twitter stated that VoIP-Pal could eliminate the broad patent dispute
`between the companies only by offering a covenant not to sue that covers VoIP-Pal’s entire patent
`portfolio and future related patents and applications. Id. VoIP-Pal responded by declining to
`discuss at that time a covenant not to sue for more than the ’606 patent. VoIP-Pal did not deny
`Twitter’s stated expectation that VoIP-Pal plans to sue Twitter in the future. Id. ¶ 59.
`On April 14, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed its reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss, which
`granted Twitter the broader covenant not to sue for the ’606 patent that VoIP-Pal had offered on
`-4-
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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 30 Filed 03/14/22 Page 10 of 22
`
`April 9. Id. ¶ 60. Twitter believed that the broader covenant not to sue was still insufficient to
`eliminate subject matter jurisdiction. Id.
`On April 15, 2021, Twitter and VoIP-Pal participated in a court-supervised settlement
`conference pursuant to the court’s ADR program, which did not result in settlement. Id. ¶ 61.
`On May 25, 2021, Verizon and VoIP-Pal filed a joint stipulation of dismissal for Verizon’s
`2020 DJ Case, and the Court dismissed without prejudice the next day. Id. ¶ 62.
`On August 25, 2021, Judge Koh denied VoIP-Pal’s motions to dismiss Apple’s and
`AT&T’s 2020 DJ Actions and expressly found that the Mobile Gateway patents concern the same
`technology and same accused products as the RBR patents:
`
`The ’234 patent and the ’721 patent [Mobile Gateway patents] concern the same
`technology as the patents involved in the 2016 cases, the 2018 cases, the 2020 Texas
`cases, and the instant case [the RBR patents]. Moreover, the 2021 cases [Texas
`Mobile Gateway Cases, discussed below] involve the same accused products as the
`2016 cases, the 2020 Texas cases, and the instant case.
`Id. ¶ 63; Ex. 9 at 7 (emphasis added). The Court also called out VoIP-Pal’s forum shopping:
`
`Defendant’s history of litigation against Apple and the litigation circumstances
`under which Defendant granted the Motion to Dismiss Covenant Not to Sue and the
`Reply Brief Covenant Not to Sue thus suggest that, rather than not wanting to
`litigate against Apple, Defendant merely does not want to litigate against Apple in
`this district.
`Id.; Ex. 9 at 16 (emphasis added).
`On August 30, 2021, the Court granted VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss Twitter’s 2020 DJ
`Action based on the broader covenant not to sue for the ’606 patent and entered judgment but
`retained jurisdiction to consider Twitter’s motion for attorney fees. Id. ¶ 64. The Court referred
`the parties to a court-supervised settlement conference. Id.
`
`Twitter’s 2021 DJ Action For The ’872 Patent
`C.
`Following the unsuccessful settlement conference in Twitter’s 2020 DJ Action, Twitter
`filed an action for declaratory judgment of noninfringement for an eighth RBR patent, the ’872
`patent, on April 16, 2021. Id. ¶ 65; Ex. 10; Case No. 21-cv-02769, ECF 1 (the “2021 DJ Action”).
`The claims of the ’872 patent are very similar to claims of the ’606 patent and the six patents that
`VoIP-Pal asserted in the 2016 and 2018 Cases. Id.
`On June 21, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed a motion to dismiss Twitter’s 2021 DJ Action for lack of
`-5-
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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 30 Filed 03/14/22 Page 11 of 22
`
`subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and for improper venue. Id. ¶ 66. On
`November 2, 2021, Judge Koh denied VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss. Id. ¶ 67; Ex. 11.
`One month later, on December 9, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed a motion to dismiss Twitter’s 2021
`DJ Action based on a covenant not to sue for the ’872 patent. Id. ¶ 74. On January 20, 2022, VoIP-
`Pal filed a petition for writ of mandamus at the Federal Circuit to seek review of Judge Koh’s denial
`of VoIP-Pal’s first motion to dismiss. The Federal Circuit has not yet ruled on that petition.
`
`The Texas Mobile Gateway Cases
`D.
`VoIP-Pal filed new lawsuits asserting the Mobile Gateway Patents in the Western District
`of Texas on June 25, 2021, against Apple, AT&T, Verizon, Amazon, Facebook, WhatsApp,
`Google, and T-Mobile and on November 30, 2021, against Samsung Electronics and Huawei
`Technologies. Id. ¶¶ 68, 21; Ex. 6 (collectively, the “Texas Mobile Gateway Cases”).
`The Mobile Gateway patents are not “related” to the RBR patents in the sense of sharing a
`common specification or filing date. However, the Mobile Gateway patents are highly related to
`the eight RBR patents that were or are at issue in the prior litigations in terms of technical subject
`matter. Id. ¶¶ 17, 44, 69, 70; Ex. 12. For example, claim 38 of the ’721 patent (Mobile Gateway)
`is very similar to claim 74 of the ’005 patent (RBR). Id. ¶ 70; Ex. 12. Indeed, Judge Koh found
`that the Mobile Gateway patents concern the same technology as the previously-asserted RBR
`patents—namely, routing of communications in a packet-switched network. Id. ¶ 63; Ex. 9 at 7.
`VoIP-Pal’s infringement allegations in the Texas Mobile Gateway Cases are very similar to
`VoIP-Pal’s infringement allegations in the 2016 and 2018 Cases and/or 2020 Texas Cases against
`Twitter, Apple, AT&T, Verizon, and/or Amazon and involve some of the same accused products
`and services—e.g., messaging involving text, images, and videos. Id. ¶¶ 18, 45, 63, 71.
`
`E.
`
`Second Settlement Conference In Twitter’s 2020 DJ Action
`And Twitter’s Filing Of The Present Action
`
`On November 17, 2021, Twitter and VoIP-Pal participated in a second court-supervised
`settlement conference in Twitter’s 2020 DJ Action, which did not result in settlement. Id. At that
`point, Twitter believed that the reason VoIP-Pal had not yet asserted the Mobile Gateway patents
`against Twitter was strategic—namely, concern that, if VoIP-Pal filed a lawsuit against Twitter
`-6-
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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 30 Filed 03/14/22 Page 12 of 22
`
`while Twitter’s 2020 and/or 2021 DJ Actions were pending, VoIP-Pal might end up litigating the
`Mobile Gateway patents in this District. Id. ¶¶ 19, 72. Twitter’s belief was strongly informed by
`VoIP-Pal’s conduct with respect to Verizon. On May 25, 2021, VoIP-Pal and Verizon stipulated
`to the dismissal of Verizon’s 2020 DJ Action in this District, but just one month later, VoIP-Pal
`sued Verizon for infringement of the Mobile Gateway patents in Texas. Id. ¶¶ 62, 68, 75.
`On December 9, 2021, VoIP-Pal moved to dismiss Twitter’s 2021 DJ Action based on a
`covenant not to sue for the ’872 patent. Id. ¶¶ 22, 74, 75. When that occurred, Twitter believed
`that VoIP-Pal planned to sue Twitter for infringement of the Mobile Gateway patents soon after
`Twitter’s 2021 DJ Action concluded. Based on that belief, Twitter filed the Complaint in this action
`December 17, 2021. Id.
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`Subject Matter Jurisdiction Exists For
`Twitter’s Declaratory Judgment Claim
`1.
`Subject Matter Jurisdiction Is Analyzed Under
`The Totality Of The Circumstances
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction when “the facts alleged, under all the
`circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal
`interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.”
`MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007) (internal quotation marks and
`citation omitted). Under the “all the circumstances” test, courts have “unique and substantial
`discretion in deciding whether to declare the rights of litigants.” Id. at 136. Under the “all the
`circumstances” test, the facts must be “viewed objectively and in totality.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
`Acceleron LLC, 587 F.3d 1358, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`In patent disputes, an actual controversy requires “both (1) an affirmative act by the patentee
`related to the enforcement of his patent rights and (2) meaningful preparation to conduct potentially
`infringing activity.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., 689 F.3d 1303,
`1318 (Fed. Cir. 2012), rev’d in part on other grounds by Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
`Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013) (internal citations omitted). Here, there is no dispute as to the
`second factor because Twitter’s products and services at issue are already in the marketplace.
`-7-
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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 30 Filed 03/14/22 Page 13 of 22
`
`“[A] history of patent litigation between the same parties involving related technologies,
`products, and patents is another circumstance to be considered, which may weigh in favor of the
`existence of subject matter jurisdiction….” Danisco U.S. Inc. v. Novozymes A/S, 744 F.3d 1325
`(Fed. Cir. 2014) (citations omitted).
`Arkema Inc. v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 706 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013), is instructive here.
`Honeywell owned patents covering “1234yf” (an automotive refrigerant), including the ’366 and
`’451 patents. Honeywell sued Arkema in Germany for infringement of a European counterpart.
`Arkema filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. with respect to the ’366 and ’451 patents.
`During the lawsuit, Honeywell received the ’120 and ’882 patents, which were related to the ’366
`and ’451 patents and also covered 1234yf. Arkema moved to add declaratory judgment claims for
`the ’120 and ’882 patents, but the district court denied the motion. The Federal Circuit reversed,
`stating, “On its face, this is a quintessential example of a situation in which declaratory relief is
`warranted” because of the prior assertion of “other patents covering the same technology.” Id. at
`1357 (emphasis added). The Court stated:
`
`Here, Honeywell has accused Arkema of infringing its rights with respect to 1234yf
`in litigation over the closely related ’366 patent and the European patent claiming
`methods of using 1234yf. This creates a sufficient affirmative act on the part of the
`patentee for declaratory judgment purposes [with respect to the ’120 and ’882
`patents].
`Id. at 1358. The question under Arkema is whether the patents for which declaratory judgment is
`sought are “related” in the sense of covering the same technology as previously asserted patents,
`not whether the two sets of patents are related by common specification or filing date. See, e.g.,
`Danisco, 744 F.3d 1325 (where the two sets of patents came from different families).
`
`1.
`
`All The Circumstances Show The Existence Of
`A Sufficiently Justiciable Controversy
`Twitter’s Complaint shows the existence of a substantial, immediate, and real controversy
`that supports Twitter’s claim of declaratory judgment for the Mobile Gateway patents.
`Like in Arkema, the prior litigations between VoIP-Pal and Twitter provide a basis for
`subject matter jurisdiction for the present action. Twitter alleges that VoIP-Pal filed the 2016 Case
`against Twitter involving a patent (the ’005 patent) that covers the same technology as the Mobile
`
`-8-
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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 30 Filed 03/14/22 Page 14 of 22
`
`Gateway patents at issue here—namely, routing of communications involving text, images, and
`videos. E.g., Compl. ¶¶ 17, 63, 69. For example, Twitter specifically alleges that claim 74 of the
`previously-asserted ’005 patent is very similar to claim 38 of the ’721 patent. Id. ¶ 70, Ex. 12.
`Also, some of the same products and services were accused in the 2016 Cases and in the present
`action—namely, messaging involving text, images, and videos. Id. ¶¶ 18, 45, 63, 71.
`VoIP-Pal’s behavior during settlement discussions is telling. Twitter stated multiple times
`that any resolution must cover VoIP-Pal’s entire patent portfolio because of Twitter’s expectation
`that VoIP-Pal would sue Twitter in the future, and VoIP-Pal did