Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`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. 5:21-CV-09773-JD
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S
`REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`Honorable James Donato
`
`Date: TBD
`Time: TBD
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 2 of 18
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
` 
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................................ iii 
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... iv 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 
`II.  RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................. 1 
`III.  ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`The Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. ............................................................................. 3 
`1.  The parties’ prior litigation regarding the RBR patents does not create an actual controversy
`regarding the Mobile Gateway patents. .......................................................................................... 4 
`2.  Twitter’s argument about Cepheid is a red herring. ................................................................. 6 
`B. 
`The Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over VoIP-Pal. ............................................................... 7 
`1.  The Trimble factors show that VoIP-Pal has not engaged in purposeful availment. ............... 7 
`2.  Personal jurisdiction is unreasonable and unfair under Trimble. ............................................. 9 
`C. 
`Venue Is Improper In This District. ........................................................................................... 10 
`IV.  CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 10 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Anchor Wall Sys. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, 340 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................... 5
`Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., No. C-12-4411, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7446 (N.D. Cal. Jan.
`17, 2013) ............................................................................................................................................. 3, 6
`Danisco U.S. Inc. v. Novozymes A/S, 744 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................... 4, 5, 6
`Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................. 8
`Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc., 148 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................... 8
`Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................... 9
`Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, 997 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................... 7, 8, 9, 10
`
`
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) ............................................................................................................................. 10
`
`Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)......................................................................................................................... 1, 10
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)......................................................................................................................... 1, 10
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3)......................................................................................................................... 1, 10
`
`
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`iii
`
`

`

`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
`
`Twitter
`
`Apple
`
`AT&T
`
`The ’606 patent
`
`The ’872 patent
`
`The ’234 patent
`
`The ’721 patent
`
`WDTX
`
`NDCAL
`
`RBR
`
`IPR
`
`Twitter I
`
`
`Twitter II
`
`
`Twitter III
`
`
`The 2016 NDCAL cases
`
`The 2018 NDCAL cases
`
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 4 of 18
`
`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
`
`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
`
`Western District of Texas
`
`Northern District of California
`
`Routing, Billing, Rating
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 5:20-
`cv-2397-LHK (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 5:21-
`cv-2769-LHK (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 5:21-
`cv-9773-EJD (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,
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 5 of 18
`
`
`
`The 2020 WDTX cases
`
`The 2020 NDCAL actions
`
`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
`
`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
`(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.
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 6 of 18
`
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 7 of 18
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`The Court should exercise its discretion and decline to entertain Twitter’s declaratory-
`judgment claims because there is no and there has never been any actual controversy between the
`parties regarding the Mobile Gateway patents; nor has VoIP-Pal comported itself with respect to the
`Mobile Gateway patents in such a way to trigger California’s long-arm statute. Twitter hinges almost
`its entire argument on its misleading and false claim that VoIP-Pal’s Mobile Gateway and RBR
`patents concern the same technology. The Mobile Gateway patents have a different specification,
`substantially different inventors, and materially different claims than any of the RBR patents. To
`maintain consistency with precedent and to conserve the resources of the Court and the parties,
`Twitter’s Complaint should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(2). Further,
`because personal jurisdiction is lacking, venue is necessarily improper and Twitter’s Complaint should
`be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3).
`
`II.
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Twitter repeatedly and falsely asserts that the RBR patents and the Mobile Gateway patents
`
`concern the same technology. Dkt. No. 30 at 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12. They do not. Just because the RBR and
`
`Mobile Gateway patents generally concern routing communications, as Twitter claims, does not mean
`
`that they concern the same technology. See NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. C-08-
`
`00775-JW, Dkt. No. 195 at 3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2009) (“Although Plaintiff represents that the patents in
`
`both cases generally involve the same type of technology, the two cases involve entirely different sets of
`
`patents.”). Indeed, a careful review of the patents and their claims reveals numerous fundamental
`
`differences between the RBR patents and the Mobile Gateway patents.
`
`
`
`Specifically, the Mobile Gateway patents relate to channeling communications from mobile
`
`communication devices such as smartphones via a system of distributed VoIP gateways based on the
`
`device’s location, to facilitate roaming in various geographical areas. See Dkt. Nos. 1-1 and 1-2. A
`
`calling device receives an access code from an access server, whereby it is enabled to access
`
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 8 of 18
`
`
`communication infrastructure that has been optimally selected based on the calling device’s location.
`
`See, e.g., Dkt. No. 1-2 at 9:21-46, 12:63-15:16, 16:18-19:28, 19:37-23:10, 30:55-31:61.
`
`
`
`Twitter feebly attempts to characterize the alleged sameness between the RBR patents and the
`
`Mobile Gateway patents in its Complaint. See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶70; Dkt No. 1-12. Not only are Twitter’s
`
`allegations inaccurate, but Twitter artfully conceals the salient fact that the claims of the Mobile
`
`Gateway patents are completely different from the RBR patent claims at issue in other cases before the
`
`Court. As Exhibit 1 starkly illustrates, in sixteen detailed claim-to-claim comparisons, the differences
`
`are massive and pervasive. See Ex. 13. None of the RBR patent claims require, e.g., transmitting an
`
`“access code request messages” to an “access server”, seeking “access codes” associated with a
`
`“location identifier” for a mobile device, receiving an “access code reply message” from the “access
`
`server” with the “access code,” and a mobile device using the “access code” to initiate a call.
`
`Conversely, the Mobile Gateway claims do not require, e.g., using “attributes” of a “dialing profile” to
`
`“determine a match” with a callee identifier, “determin[ing] whether [a] second network element is the
`
`same as [a] first network element,” “classifying the call” as a “public network call” or “private network
`
`call,” or “producing a routing message” for a “call controller,” inter alia.
`
`
`
`Tellingly, VoIP-Pal presented the same comparison to Judge Koh in its Opposition to Apple’s
`
`and AT&T’s motions to relate their respective Mobile Gateway patent cases to their RBR patent cases
`
`and she determined that the cases are not related. Exs. 14-15. Twitter quibbles that Judge Koh denied
`
`those motions without explanation. Dkt. No. 30 at 10. But Judge Koh also did not explain what she
`
`meant when she said stated the RBR patents and the Mobile Gateway concern the same technology,
`
`which Twitter heavily relies on, in denying VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss the Apple 2020 NDCAL case.
`
`See Dkt. No. 1-9 at 7, 16; Dkt. No. 30 at 5, 6, 10, 13. Twitter also neglects to mention that Judge Koh
`
`denied VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss that case without considering the comparison that VoIP-Pal
`
`presented in support of its Opposition to Apple’s and AT&T’s motions to relate. As that analysis shows,
`
`the RBR patents and the Mobile Gateway patents are fundamentally different. Moreover, Twitter’s
`
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 9 of 18
`
`
`claim that VoIP-Pal accuses the same products and services of infringement as previous cases is both
`
`meaningless and inaccurate—VoIP-Pal has not asserted any counterclaim for infringement in this case.
`
`Dkt. No. 30 at 9.
`
`
`
`Twitter also misstates several facts regarding the parties’ settlement negotiations. First, Twitter
`
`falsely states alleges that VoIP-Pal offered to pay Twitter $250,000 to dismiss Twitter I. VoIP-Pal has
`
`already refuted this allegation in Twitter II. See Ex. 16 at ¶15; Ex. 17 at ¶44. Second, Twitter’s
`
`allegation that, on January 11, 2021, it expressly noted that VoIP-Pal had recently received two patents
`
`in the Mobile Gateway family is also false. Tellingly, neither parties’ prior account of their January 11,
`
`2021 teleconference contain any mention of the Mobile Gateway patents. See Ex. 15 at ¶19; Ex. 18 at
`
`¶46. Finally, VoIP-Pal has never indicated that it intends to sue Twitter again in the future. Rather,
`
`VoIP-Pal has deliberately eschewed asserting any patent against Twitter since the parties’ 2016 NDCAL
`
`case. Specifically, VoIP-Pal (1) did not assert counterclaims for infringement against Twitter in Twitter
`
`I; (2) granted Twitter a covenant not to sue on the ’606 patent; (3) did not assert counterclaims for
`
`infringement against Twitter in Twitter II; (4) granted Twitter a covenant not to sue on the ’872 patent;
`
`and (5) offered Twitter multiple confidential settlements involving VoIP-Pal’s entire portfolio to avoid
`
`litigation with Twitter.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`
`A.
`The Court Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction.
`Twitter makes two primary arguments in an attempt to refute the controlling law VoIP-Pal
`cites showing that Twitter has no basis to be in this Court: (1) that the circumstances in this case
`constitute a “sufficient justiciable controversy” to form the basis for subject matter jurisdiction, and (2)
`that VoIP-Pal has misapplied the holding in Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., No. C-12-
`4411, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7446 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013). Both arguments fail.
`
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`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.
`
`The parties’ prior litigation regarding the RBR patents does not create an
`actual controversy regarding the Mobile Gateway patents.
`
`Twitter’s main argument that an actual controversy exits as to the Mobile Gateway patents is
`that VoIP-Pal has (1) previously asserted the unrelated RBR patent family against Twitter, and (2)
`VoIP-Pal has asserted the Mobile Gateway patents against different defendants in a different
`jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 30 at 7-10. In support of its argument, Twitter relies heavily upon two
`Federal Circuit opinions for the proposition that previous litigation involving similar technology can
`be one beam of the “totality of the circumstances” foundation necessary for subject-matter jurisdiction:
`Danisco U.S. Inc. v. Novozymes A/S, 744 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Arkema Inc. v. Honeywell
`Inc., 706 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013). See Dkt. No. 30 at 7-10. Unfortunately for Twitter, those
`opinions do not lend Twitter much support.
`In Daniso, the Federal Circuit reversed an order from this Court dismissing a declaratory
`judgment action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See 744 F.3d at 1327. The parties in that case
`were in an extremely competitive race to develop and supply Rapid Starch Liquefaction (“RSL”)
`products that would be used to convert plant-based material into ethanol. Id. This technology was
`highly precise and narrow. Id. The competitors engaged in lengthy patent interference proceedings
`and litigation. See id. at 1327-29. While the parties in that case were involved prior litigation—like
`the two parties in this case—that is where the similarity ends. See id.
`Also in Daniso, as the Federal Circuit explained, the totality of the circumstances weighed
`heavily in favor of subject-matter jurisdiction for a declaratory-judgment action. 744 F.3d at 1331.
`For example, Novozymes, the declaratory-judgment defendant, “insisted on multiple occasions” that
`its recently issued single-claim patent read on an active compound in Danisco’s RSL products. Id. In
`addition, the record before the court showed that Novozymes “sought its patent because it believed
`that Danisco’s products would infringe once the claim issued.” Id. To the contrary, Danisco “ha[d]
`taken a legal position that [was] entirely opposed to the position taken by Novozymes, viz., that
`Daniso . . . [was] the rightful owner of the claimed invention, and that its RSL products do not infringe
`the claim of Novozymes’s [ ] patent.” Id. Further, as the court explained, “[t]he parties have plainly
`been at war over patents involving genetically modified a-amylase enzymes and are likely to be for the
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 11 of 18
`
`
`
`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
`
`foreseeable future. They thus have adverse legal interests over a dispute of sufficient reality that is
`capable of conclusive resolution through a declaratory judgment.” Id.
`These circumstances are simply not present in this case. VoIP-Pal has never accused Twitter
`of infringing the Mobile Gateway patents, let alone sought a patent specifically because it “believed
`that [Twitter’s] products would infringe once the claim issued,” as the record showed in Daniso. See
`744 F.3d at 1331. Further, while VoIP-Pal has asserted the Mobile Gateway patents against other
`defendants in other jurisdictions, there is no indication in the record or otherwise that that litigation
`has anything to do with Twitter—let alone that it serves as a harbinger of some future litigation
`between VoIP-Pal and Twitter. For the past two years, the only litigation between Twitter and VoIP-
`Pal was initiated by Twitter.
`Twitter attempts to use Danisco to show that the Federal Circuit intended one factor in the
`declaratory judgment subject-matter jurisdiction analysis to be whether litigation had occurred
`between the parties over “related” patents. See Dkt. No. 30 at 9 (“The relevant point is that the Mobile
`Gateway patents are ‘related’ to the RBR patents because they cover the same technology.” (citing
`Danisco, 744 F.3d 1325 (sic)). That is a stretch. The Federal Circuit consistently uses the term
`“related patents” to refer to patents in the same patent family, which, as Twitter itself acknowledges, is
`not the case with the RBR and the Mobile Gateway patents. See Dkt. No. 30 at 9 (the “two sets of
`patents do not share a common specification or filing date . . . .”); see, e.g., Anchor Wall Sys. v.
`Rockwood Retaining Walls, 340 F.3d 1298, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (referring to a set of three patents
`that are “related to one another as continuations-in-part” as a “patent family”).
`Arkema also is inapposite and does not support Twitter. In that case, as in Danisco, the two
`parties were fierce competitors in a tight market; Arkema and Honeywell were both intending to
`supply automotive manufacturers with automotive refrigerants. 706 F.3d at 1353-54. In this case,
`VoIP-Pal and Twitter are not competitors. Indeed, Twitter argues that VoIP-Pal is a non-practicing
`entity. Dkt. No. 30 at 14. Second, Arkema sought to add declaratory-judgment claims regarding two
`Honeywell continuation patents to Arkema’s existing declaratory-judgment action immediately after
`the continuation patents issued. In this case, the ’234 patent issued on January 14, 2014—over two
`years before VoIP-Pal filed its 2016 NDCAL case against Twitter. Compare Dkt. No. 1-1 with Ex. 19.
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 12 of 18
`
`
`
`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
`
`If Twitter truly believed that the 2016 NDCAL cases gave rise to a case or controversy as to the ’234
`patent, then Twitter could have and should have sought declaratory relief over six years ago. Even
`more tellingly, Twitter filed two declaratory-judgment actions before it filed this action. But despite
`having multiple declaratory-judgment actions pending on patents that Twitter claims cover the same
`technology, Twitter, unlike Arkema, chose not to seek declaratory relief on the Mobile Gateway
`patents until now. Such delays weigh against finding an immediate and real controversy sufficient to
`establish declaratory-judgment jurisdiction. See Cepheid v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., No. C-12-
`4411 EMC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7446, at *38 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013) (“the passage of time
`without any indication from Defendants or other circumstances implying that Defendants intend to
`enforce [the patent-in-suit] against Plaintiff weighs against finding a justiciable controversy”); see also
`Edmunds Holding Co. v. Autobytel, Inc., 598 F. Supp. 2d 606, 610 (D. Del. 2009) (finding that a four-
`year delay cut against plaintiff’s argument that its alleged controversy was sufficiently immediate).
`
`Third, in Arkema, Honeywell took the position that there were no noninfringing uses of the
`accused products. See Arkema, 706 F.3d at 1358. In this case, VoIP-Pal has not accused Twitter of
`infringing the Mobile Gateway patents. The Federal Circuit has recognized that this fact distinguishes
`the instant circumstances from Arkema. See Cisco Sys. v. Alta. Telecomms. Research Ctr., 538 Fed.
`Appx. 894, 897-898 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Finally, Twitter cannot credibly argue that Arkema stands for the proposition that prior
`litigation on “related” technologies is dispositive to the totality-of-the-circumstances that this Court
`must engage in to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction is proper: Arkema contains no such
`holding. See Arkema, 706 F.3d at 1358; see Dkt. No. 30 at 9. Prior litigation is but one factor that
`courts may consider when examining declaratory-judgment jurisdiction, and even then, Twitter fails.
`See Danisco, 744 F.3d at 1331. Twitter cannot carry its burden, as it must, to show that it has an
`actual controversy to adjudicate in this Court. See Arkema, 706 F.3d at 1356.
`2.
`Twitter’s argument about Cepheid is a red herring.
`Twitter asserts that VoIP-Pal “misapplies” Cepheid in a way that is “contradictory to Federal
`Circuit law,” but that is incorrect. See Dkt. No. 30 at 10-11. Twitter does not explain how VoIP-Pal’s
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 13 of 18
`
`
`
`application of Cepheid—a district court case—contradicts Federal Circuit law. See Dkt. No. 30 at 10-
`11. Although Twitter complains that showing an “affirmative act” does not require a declaratory-
`judgment plaintiff to prevail on all the Cepheid factors, that was never VoIP-Pal’s contention. See Dkt.
`No. 25 at 8-11; Dkt. No. at 10-11. VoIP-Pal merely illustrated that the Cephid factors weigh strongly in
`favor of dismissal for failure to establish subject-matter jurisdiction. See Dkt. No. 25 at 8-11. Twitter
`attempts no substantive argument in response. Dkt. No. 30 at 10-11.
`
`B.
`The Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over VoIP-Pal.
`In addition to failing to carry its burden on subject-matter jurisdiction, Twitter has not offered a
`plausible reason that this Court can hold personal jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal—and again, it is
`Twitter’s burden. See, e.g., Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2015). Critically,
`VoIP-Pal has never sued on the Mobile Gateway patents in this District. Yet Twitter still contends
`that because VoIP-Pal has been involved in this District in litigation over the same technology as the
`Mobile Gateway patents, personal jurisdiction exists. See Dkt. No. 30 at 12. Twitter erroneously
`relies on Arkema for this proposition—Arkema concerned subject-matter jurisdiction, not personal
`jurisdiction. Id. Taking this flawed proposition its logical extreme would permit a large swath of
`plaintiffs to hail out-of-state defendants into this Court in declaratory-judgment actions based only on
`the mere speculation that the plaintiffs may be sued one day on unrelated and unasserted patents. That
`is not only unreasonable and unfair under the law of personal jurisdiction, but offends traditional
`notions of fair play and substantial justice as well.
`The relevant inquiries to the question of personal jurisdiction are twofold: whether VoIP-Pal’s
`minimum contacts with California support specific jurisdiction (as Twitter does not allege general
`jurisdiction), and whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is fair and reasonable. See, e.g., Int’l
`Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). Neither test supports personal jurisdiction here.
`
`
`The Trimble factors show that VoIP-Pal has not engaged in purposeful
`availment.
`Twitter cites Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo. LLC for the proposition that the exercise of personal
`jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal is fair and reasonable. 997 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see Dkt. No. 30 at
`14. But none of the Trimble factors support a finding of specific jurisdiction with respect to VoIP-Pal.
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 14 of 18
`
`
`
`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 has not enforced the Mobile Gateway patents in California.
`
`a.
`The main factor relevant to a finding of specific jurisdiction over a patentee in a declaratory-
`judgment action is the sending of communications that are “purposely directed” at residents of the
`forum. See 997 F.3d at 1154-55. The declaratory-judgment plaintiff in Trimble had over twenty-two
`communications relevant to enforcing its patent over a three-month period prior to Trimble filing suit.
`Id. Twitter has provided no evidence of any communications from VoIP-Pal directed to Twitter in the
`NDCAL threatening enforcement of the Mobile Gateway patents. Twitter wants the Court to ignore
`the fact that VoIP-Pal has never accused Twitter of infringing the Mobile Gateway patents. There is
`no credible threat of infringement as to either of the Mobile Gateway patents, and no basis for Twitter
`to bring a declaratory-judgment action in this District against VoIP-Pal.
`
`b.
`
`VoIP-Pal’s California attorneys never engaged in extrajudicial
`enforcement.
`Twitter erroneously asserts that personal jurisdiction is appropriate in this District because
`
`VoIP-Pal has hired California attorneys for assertion activities in this District. See Dkt. No. at 13-14.
`
`Twitter cites Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle for the proposition that hiring California attorneys
`
`may be relevant to the personal jurisdiction analysis, but that case is not helpful to Twitter. 340 F.3d
`
`1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see Dkt. No. at 13. The patentee in Elecs. for Imaging hired a California
`
`attorney to communicate with the California-based declaratory-judgment plaintiff on the patentee’s
`
`behalf on multiple occasions “to report on the progress of the [patentee’s] pending application.” See
`
`340 F.3d at 1351. Thus, the attorney-client relationship effectively became an agency relationship in
`
`which the principal retained agents in the forum state to assist in extrajudicial enforcement of its patent
`
`rights. See id.; see also Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc., 148 F.3d 785, 789 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`Twitter presents no evidence that VoIP-Pal’s California attorneys ever acted as agents to engage in
`
`extrajudicial enforcement against Twitter in the NDCAL on the Mobile Gateway patents. Further,
`
`Twitter provides no evidence that VoIP-Pal’s patent prosecution attorneys—Knobbe Martens—ever
`
`contacted third-parties to enforce the Mobile Gateway patents. Although Knobbe Martens represented
`
`VoIP-Pal in IPR proceedings, those proceedings are not assertion activities and are not in California.
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33 Filed 03/28/22 Page 15 of 18
`
`
`Neither the undersigned counsel, Lewis Hudnell, nor any attorneys at the Hudnell Law Group have
`
`engaged in any assertion activities related to the Mobile Gateway patents in California. In fact, the
`
`undersigned counsel did not enter an appearance VoIP-Pal’s litigations involving the RBR patents until
`
`after Judge Koh had already dismissed and closed those cases. Compare Ex. 20 with Exs. 4, 7.
`
`c.
`
`VoIP-Pal does not have a broad set of contacts in California.
`
`Trimble also looked to the question of whether a potential defendant had “broad contacts” with
`
`the forum state in order to jurisdiction where the defendant had “deliberately ‘reached out beyond’ its
`
`home.” Trimble, 997 F.3d at 1156 (citations omitted). Some examples of a defendant “reaching out
`
`beyond” its home include exploiting a market or entering into a contractual relationship. Id. Twitter
`
`has provided no evidence that VoIP-Pal has had such “broad contacts” with California.
`
`d.
`Additional Trimble considerations do not apply.
`Trimble also discusses additional factors which would support a finding of specific
`jurisdiction. Trimble, 997 F.3d at 1155-56. Twitter claims that VoIP-Pal has purposefully directed
`enforcement activities regarding the Mobile Gateway patents at this Dist