Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33-6 Filed 03/28/22 Page 1 of 13
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33-6 Filed 03/28/22 Page 1 of 13
`
`EXHIBIT 17
`EXHIBIT 17
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-02769-LHK Document 42 Filed 11/16/21 Page 1 of 12Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33-6 Filed 03/28/22 Page 2 of 13
`
`
`
`Lewis E. Hudnell, III (CASBN 218736)
`Nicolas S. Gikkas (CASBN 189452)
`HUDNELL LAW GROUP P.C.
`800 W. El Camino Real Suite 180
`Mountain View, California 94040
`Telephone: 650.564.3698
`Facsimile: 347.772.3034
`lewis@hudnelllaw.com
`nick@hudnelllaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`Case No. 5:21-cv-02769-LHK
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., a Nevada
`corporation,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`5:20-cv-02769-LHK
`
`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 5:21-cv-02769-LHK Document 42 Filed 11/16/21 Page 2 of 12Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33-6 Filed 03/28/22 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`Defendant VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) submit this Answer to the allegations in the
`
`numbered paragraphs in Plaintiff Twitter, Inc.’s (“Twitter’s”) Complaint for Declaratory Judgment,
`
`Dkt. No. 1. Unless expressly admitted, all of the averments made by Twitter in its Complaint should
`
`be deemed denied by VoIP-Pal.
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`1. VoIP-Pal admits that this action concerns U.S. Patent No. 9,935,872 (the “’872 patent” or the
`
`“patent-in-suit”), entitled “Producing Routing Messages For Voice Over IP Communications.” VoIP-
`
`Pal admits that Twitter seeks a declaration that it does not infringe the patent-in-suit. VoIP-Pal denies
`
`any and all remaining allegations and/or legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
`
`2. VoIP-Pal admits the factual allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
`
`3. VoIP-Pal admits that from April 2-7, 2020, VoIP-Pal filed lawsuits in the Western District of
`
`Texas asserting claims of infringement of the ’606 patent against Facebook, WhatsApp, Google,
`
`Amazon, and Apple. VoIP-Pal admits that the ’606 patent is a continuation of the ’872 patent and is a
`
`member of the same family of patents asserted in the 2016 and 2018 cases, and shares a common
`
`specification with the six patents asserted in the 2016 and 2018 cases and the ’872 patent. VoIP-Pal
`
`denies any and all remaining allegations and/or legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 3 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`4. VoIP-Pal admits that it issued a press release on April 8, 2020. VoIP-Pal also admits that the
`
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed this Court’s judgment that two of VoIP-Pal’s
`
`previously asserted patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
`
`5. VoIP-Pal admits that Twitter filed an action for declaratory judgment of noninfringement of
`
`the ’606 patent against VoIP-Pal in this Court (Case No. 20-cv-02397). VoIP-Pal admits that soon
`
`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
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`5:20-cv-02769-LHK
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-02769-LHK Document 42 Filed 11/16/21 Page 3 of 12Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33-6 Filed 03/28/22 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`thereafter, Apple, AT&T, and Verizon filed similar declaratory judgment actions against VoIP-Pal
`
`based on the ’606 patent. VoIP-Pal admits that on April 14, 2020, Apple filed a first amended
`
`complaint that added claims for declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity for the ’872
`
`patent. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
`
`6. VoIP-Pal admits that in June 2020, counsel for Twitter asked counsel for VoIP-Pal whether
`
`VoIP-Pal would be willing to grant Twitter a covenant not to sue for the ’606 patent, but VoIP-Pal
`
`declined to discuss a covenant not to sue at that time. VoIP-Pal admits that on June 26, 2020, Twitter
`
`filed a first amended complaint that added a claim for a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ’606
`
`patent.
`
`7. VoIP-Pal admits the factual allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
`
`8. VoIP-Pal admits the factual allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`9. VoIP-Pal admits that on March 24, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed motion to dismiss the declaratory
`
`judgment actions filed by Twitter, Apple, AT&T, and Verizon—this time based on a covenant not to
`
`sue for infringement of the ’606 patent. E.g., Twitter, Case No. 20-cv-02397, ECF No. 62 (Mar. 21,
`
`2021). VoIP-Pal admits that it asked Twitter to stipulate to dismissal of Twitter’s declaratory
`
`judgment action involving the ’606 patent. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 9
`
`of the Complaint.
`
`10. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
`
`11. VoIP-Pal admits that the Federal Circuit affirmed this Court’s judgment of invalidity of two
`
`patents VoIP-Pal has previously asserted against Twitter. VoIP-Pal admits that Apple filed a claim
`
`for declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity for the ’872 patent, and that this Court
`
`found that subject matter jurisdiction exists for that claim. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`5:20-cv-02769-LHK
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-02769-LHK Document 42 Filed 11/16/21 Page 4 of 12Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33-6 Filed 03/28/22 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`12. VoIP-Pal is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 12,
`
`and therefore denies them.
`
`13. The allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint are legal conclusions and argument, and no
`
`response is required. To the extent Paragraph 13 requires a response, VoIP-Pal denies all allegations
`
`in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
`
`II. PARTIES
`
`14. VoIP-Pal admits that Twitter purports to be a company incorporated under the laws of
`
`Delaware, with headquarters at 1355 Market Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, California.
`
`15. VoIP-Pal is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 15,
`
`and therefore denies them.
`
`16. VoIP-Pal admits that it is a company incorporated and registered under the laws of Nevada
`
`with its principal place of business at 7215 Bosque Blvd, Suite 102, Waco, Texas 76710.
`
`17. VoIP-Pal admits that it owns the ’872 patent.
`
`III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`18. VoIP-Pal admits that this action purports to seek declaratory relief under the patent laws of
`
`the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq.
`
`19. VoIP-Pal admits that Twitter purports to seek declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
`
`2202.
`
`20. Paragraph 20 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law, rather than averments of fact, to
`
`which no answer is required. Insofar as an answer may be required, VoIP-Pal admits that Twitter
`
`purports to base jurisdiction of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338, 2201, and 2202.
`
`VoIP-Pal denies any and all remaining allegations and/or legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 20
`
`of the Complaint.
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`5:20-cv-02769-LHK
`
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-02769-LHK Document 42 Filed 11/16/21 Page 5 of 12Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33-6 Filed 03/28/22 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`21. Paragraph 21 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law, rather than averments of fact, to
`
`which no answer is required. Insofar as an answer may be required, VoIP-Pal admits that: VoIP-Pal
`
`previously filed lawsuits against Twitter and other defendants in the 2016 and 2018 cases alleging
`
`infringement of six patents in the same family as the ’606 and ’872 patents; VoIP-Pal is asserting the
`
`’606 patent in the Texas lawsuits against Facebook, Google, and Amazon; Twitter, AT&T, and
`
`Verizon filed actions in this Court seeking declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of
`
`the ’606 patent, and Apple filed an action in this Court seeking declaratory judgment of
`
`noninfringement and invalidity of the ’606 and ’872 patents; the ’872 patent shares a common
`
`specification with VoIP-Pal’s six patents asserted in the 2016 and 2018 cases and the ’606 patent; this
`
`Court denied VoIP-Pal’s motions to dismiss Twitter’s, Apple’s, AT&T’s, and Verizon’s declaratory
`
`judgment lawsuits against the ’606 patent for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction,
`
`and improper venue and also denied VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss Apple’s declaratory judgment
`
`claims against the ’872 patent for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; all six patents previously
`
`asserted by VoIP-Pal in the 2016 and 2018 cases were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by this
`
`Court; and in April 2020, VoIP-Pal filed lawsuits in Texas against prior defendants Amazon, Apple,
`
`AT&T, and Verizon for infringement of the ’606 patent. VoIP-Pal denies any and all remaining
`
`allegations and/or legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
`
`22. Paragraph 22 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law, rather than averments of fact, to
`
`which no answer is required. Insofar as an answer may be required, VoIP-Pal admits that: VoIP-Pal
`
`mover to dismiss Twitter’s, Apple’s, AT&T’s, and Verizon’s declaratory judgment actions in this
`
`Court against the ’606 patent and Apple’s declaratory judgment claims against the ’872 patent for
`
`lack of personal jurisdiction, but the Court denied VoIP-Pal’s motions and found personal jurisdiction
`
`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
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`5:20-cv-02769-LHK
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-02769-LHK Document 42 Filed 11/16/21 Page 6 of 12Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33-6 Filed 03/28/22 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`over VoIP-Pal to exist. VoIP-Pal denies any and all remaining allegations and/or legal conclusions
`
`contained in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint.
`
`23. The allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint are legal conclusions and argument, and no
`
`response is required. To the extent Paragraph 23 requires a response, VoIP-Pal denies all allegations
`
`in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
`
`24. The allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint are legal conclusions and argument, and no
`
`response is required. To the extent Paragraph 24 requires a response, VoIP-Pal denies all allegations
`
`in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
`
`25. The allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint are legal conclusions and argument, and no
`
`response is required. To the extent Paragraph 25 requires a response, VoIP-Pal denies all allegations
`
`in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
`
`26. The allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint are legal conclusions and argument, and no
`
`response is required. To the extent Paragraph 26 requires a response, VoIP-Pal denies all allegations
`
`in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`27. VoIP-Pal admits the facts stated in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
`
`28. VoIP-Pal admits the facts stated in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
`
`29. VoIP-Pal admits the facts stated in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint except that VoIP-Pal
`
`denies that the asserted claims of the four patents in the 2018 cases are very similar to the asserted
`
`claims of the two patents in the 2016 cases.
`
`30. VoIP-Pal admits the facts stated in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
`
`31. VoIP-Pal admits the facts stated in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint except that VoIP-Pal
`
`denies that the Court granted Apple and Amazon’s motion to dismiss on November 1, 2019.
`
`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
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`5:20-cv-02769-LHK
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-02769-LHK Document 42 Filed 11/16/21 Page 7 of 12Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33-6 Filed 03/28/22 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`32. VoIP-Pal admits the facts stated in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
`
`33. VoIP-Pal admits the facts stated in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
`
`34. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
`
`35. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
`
`36. VoIP-Pal admits that it issued a press release on April 8, 2020 that appears as Exhibit 9 to the
`
`Complaint. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 36.
`
`37. VoIP-Pal admits that on April 8, 2020, Twitter filed an action for declaratory judgment of
`
`noninfringement of the ’606 patent against VoIP-Pal in this Court (Case No. 20-cv-02397). VoIP-Pal
`
`admits that on June 26, 2020, Twitter filed a first amended complaint that added a claim for a
`
`declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ’606 patent. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
`
`38. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`
`39. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
`
`40. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint.
`
`41. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
`
`42. VoIP-Pal admits that on June 4, 2020, counsel for Twitter asked counsel for VoIP-Pal
`
`whether VoIP-Pal would be willing to grant Twitter a covenant not to sue based on the ’606 patent.
`
`VoIP-Pal admits that on June 11, 2020, counsel for VoIP-Pal declined to discuss a covenant not to
`
`sue at that time.
`
`43. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.
`
`44. VoIP-Pal expressly denies that on December 2, 2020, counsel for Twitter and VoIP-Pal had a
`
`telephone call in which VoIP-Pal offered to pay Twitter $250,000 for Twitter to dismiss its
`
`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
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`5:20-cv-02769-LHK
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-02769-LHK Document 42 Filed 11/16/21 Page 8 of 12Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33-6 Filed 03/28/22 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`declaratory judgment action against the ’606 patent. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
`
`45. VoIP-Pal admits that on January 4, 2021, counsel for Twitter corresponded with counsel for
`
`VoIP-Pal. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
`
`46. VoIP-Pal admits that on January 11, 2021, counsel for Twitter and VoIP-Pal had a telephone
`
`call in which VoIP-Pal proposed to enter into a settlement for the ’606 patent and “all family
`
`members” (which includes the ’872 patent), for a payment by Twitter of $1 million. VoIP-Pal admits
`
`that on January 15, 2021, Twitter declined VoIP-Pal’s offer. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint.
`
`47. VoIP-Pal admits that on March 24, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed motion to dismiss the declaratory
`
`judgment actions filed by Twitter, Apple, AT&T, and Verizon—this time based on a covenant not to
`
`sue for infringement of the ’606 patent. E.g., Twitter, Case No. 20-cv-02397, ECF No. 62 (Mar. 21,
`
`2021). VoIP-Pal admits that it asked Twitter to stipulate to dismissal of Twitter’s declaratory
`
`judgment action involving the ’606 patent. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`47 of the Complaint.
`
`48. VoIP-Pal admits that is received a communication from Twitter on April 12, 2021. VoIP-Pal
`
`denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
`
`49. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
`
`50. VoIP-Pal admits that the ’606 patent is a continuation of the ’872 patent. VoIP-Pal admits
`
`that during prosecution of the ’606 and ’872 patents, the named inventors terminally disclaimed the
`
`terms of those patents in view of one or more of VoIP-Pal’s patents asserted in the 2018 cases. VoIP-
`
`Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint.
`
`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
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`5:20-cv-02769-LHK
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-02769-LHK Document 42 Filed 11/16/21 Page 9 of 12Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33-6 Filed 03/28/22 Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`51. Paragraph 51 contains legal conclusions and argument to which no response is required. To
`
`the extent a response may be required, VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`52. Paragraph 52 contains legal conclusions and argument to which no response is required. To
`
`the extent a response may be required, VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Alleged Non-Infringement of the ’872 Patent by Twitter)
`
`53. VoIP-Pal repeats, realleges, and incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 52 of the
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth in this Count.
`
`54. Paragraph 54 contains legal conclusions and argument to which no response is required. To
`
`the extent a response is required, VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 54.
`
`55. Paragraph 55 of the Complaint contains conclusions of law, rather than averments of fact, to
`
`which no answer is required. Insofar as an answer may be required, VoIP-Pal admits that: VoIP-Pal
`
`previously filed lawsuits against Twitter and other defendants in the 2016 and 2018 cases alleging
`
`infringement of six patents in the same family as the ’606 and ’872 patents; VoIP-Pal is asserting the
`
`’606 patent in the Texas lawsuits against Facebook, Google, and Amazon; Twitter, AT&T, and
`
`Verizon filed actions in this Court seeking declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of
`
`the ’606 patent, and Apple filed an action in this Court seeking declaratory judgment of
`
`noninfringement and invalidity of the ’606 and ’872 patents; the ’872 patent shares a common
`
`specification with VoIP-Pal’s six patents asserted in the 2016 and 2018 cases and the ’606 patent; this
`
`Court denied VoIP-Pal’s motions to dismiss Twitter’s, Apple’s, AT&T’s, and Verizon’s declaratory
`
`judgment lawsuits against the ’606 patent for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction,
`
`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
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`5:20-cv-02769-LHK
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-02769-LHK Document 42 Filed 11/16/21 Page 10 of 12Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33-6 Filed 03/28/22 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`and improper venue and also denied VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss Apple’s declaratory judgment
`
`claims against the ’872 patent for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; all six patents previously
`
`asserted by VoIP-Pal in the 2016 and 2018 cases were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by this
`
`Court; and in April 2020, VoIP-Pal filed lawsuits in Texas against prior defendants Amazon, Apple,
`
`AT&T, and Verizon for infringement of the ’606 patent. VoIP-Pal denies any and all remaining
`
`allegations and/or legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.
`
`56. Paragraph 56 contains legal conclusions and argument to which no response is required. To
`
`the extent a response is required, VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint.
`
`57. Paragraph 57 contains legal conclusions and argument to which no response is required. To
`
`the extent a response is required, VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint.
`
`58. Paragraph58 contains legal conclusions and argument to which no response is required. To
`
`the extent a response is required, VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint.
`
`ANSWER TO PRAYER
`
`
`
`VoIP-Pal denies that Twitter is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraphs A) – C) of its Prayer
`
`for Relief.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, VoIP-Pal requests a trial by jury of
`
`any issues raised by Twitter’s Complaint that are so triable.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`VoIP-Pal alleges the following separate affirmative defenses to Twitter’s Claims for Relief
`
`and to each allegation contained therein:
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Failure to State a Claim for which Relief Can Be Granted)
`
`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
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`5:20-cv-02769-LHK
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-02769-LHK Document 42 Filed 11/16/21 Page 11 of 12Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33-6 Filed 03/28/22 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`As to each of Twitter’s Claims for Relief, VoIP-Pal alleges that each such Claim fails to state
`
`a legally cognizable claim for relief and/or sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action against
`
`VoIP-Pal.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Validity and Enforceability)
`
`The claims of the patent-in-suit, as properly construed, are valid and enforceable.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Lack of Personal Jurisdiction)
`
`
`
`The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal because California’s long-arm
`
`statute does not confer jurisdiction over non-resident VoIP-Pal and the exercise of jurisdiction does
`
`not satisfy due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction)
`
`
`
`The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal because there is no “case
`
`or controversy” under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 in that VoIP-Pal has not engaged in any conduct that created
`
`a reasonable apprehension on the part of the declaratory judgment plaintiff that it will face an
`
`infringement suit in this District.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Improper Venue)
`
`The venue for this action is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and should be dismissed or
`
`transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1406.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Reservation of Additional Defenses)
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`5:20-cv-02769-LHK
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 5:21-cv-02769-LHK Document 42 Filed 11/16/21 Page 12 of 12Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 33-6 Filed 03/28/22 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`VoIP-Pal reserves all defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
`
`Patent Laws of the United States and any other defenses, at law and equity, that may now or in the
`
`future be available based on discovery or any other factual investigation concerning this case or any
`
`other related case.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`VoIP-Pal prays for the following relief on their Answer to Twitter’s FAC:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`That Twitter take nothing by its Complaint, and that it be dismissed with prejudice;
`
`A declaration that this is an exceptional case and awarding VoIP-Pal its attorney’s fees
`
`incurred in connection with this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`VoIP-Pal’s costs of suit; and
`
`Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`Dated: November 16, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`Lewis E. Hudnell, III (CASBN 218736)
`Nicolas S. Gikkas (CASBN 189452)
`HUDNELL LAW GROUP P.C.
`800 W. El Camino Real Suite 180
`Mountain View, California 94040
`Telephone: 650.564.3698
`Facsimile: 347.772.3034
`lewis@hudnelllaw.com
`nick@hudnelllaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`5:20-cv-02769-LHK
`
`12
`
`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
`
`