Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 40 Filed 08/05/22 Page 1 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 FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`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
`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 40 Filed 08/05/22 Page 2 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 Nos. 8,630,234 (the “’234 patent”) and
`
`10,880,721 (the “’721 patent”) (collectively the “patents-in-suit”), entitled “Mobile Gateway.” VoIP-
`
`Pal admits that Twitter seeks a declaration that it does not infringe the patents-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 that it has been involved in patent litigation with Twitter since 2016. VoIP-
`
`Pal denies any and all remaining allegations and/or legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 2 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`3. VoIP-Pal admits that in 2016 it filed suits against Twitter, Apple, AT&T, and Verizon
`
`alleging infringement of two patents that are part of a patent family that VoIP-Pal refers to as the
`
`“Routing, Billing, Rating” or “RBR” patents (the “2016 Cases”). VoIP-Pal admits that all patents in
`
`the RBR family share a common specification. VoIP-Pal admits that in 2018, VoIP-Pal filed
`
`additional lawsuits against Apple and Amazon to assert four other RBR patents (the “2018 Cases”).
`
`VoIP-Pal admits that the 2016 and 2018 Cases were originally filed in the District of Nevada but
`
`were transferred to the Northern District of California in 2018. VoIP-Pal denies any and all
`
`remaining allegations and/or legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
`
`4. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 4 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
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 40 Filed 08/05/22 Page 3 of 13
`
`
`
`5. VoIP-Pal admits that in April 2020, VoIP-Pal filed lawsuits in the Western District of Texas
`
`against Facebook, WhatsApp, Google, Amazon, Apple, AT&T, and Verizon to assert a seventh
`
`patent in the RBR family, U.S. Patent 10,218,606 (the “’606 patent”) (the “2020 Texas Cases”).
`
`VoIP-Pal denies any and all remaining allegations and/or legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 5
`
`of the Complaint.
`
`6. 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 6 of the Complaint.
`
`7. 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
`
`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 7 of the Complaint.
`
`8. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`9. VoIP-Pal admits that between December 2020 and April 2021, VoIP-Pal and Twitter
`
`communicated many times about potential settlement. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
`
`10. VoIP-Pal admits that on January 11, 2021, VoIP-Pal proposed that VoIP-Pal and Twitter enter
`
`into a settlement for the ’606 patent and all other RBR patents. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 10 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
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 40 Filed 08/05/22 Page 4 of 13
`
`
`
`11. 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 denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 11 of the Complaint.
`
`12. VoIP-Pal admits that on April 9, 2021, VoIP-Pal offered a modified covenant not to sue for
`
`the ’606 patent and asked Twitter to stipulate to dismissal of Twitter’s declaratory judgment action.
`
`VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
`
`13. VoIP-Pal admits that on April 14, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed a reply brief in support of its motion
`
`to dismiss, which granted Twitter a modified covenant not to sue for the ’606 patent that VoIP-Pal
`
`had offered on April 9. VoIP-Pal admits that it also granted similar broader covenants not to sue to
`
`Apple, AT&T, and Verizon. VoIP-Pal admits that on August 30, 2021, Judge Koh granted VoIP-
`
`Pal’s motion to dismiss Twitter’s 2020 DJ Action in view of VoIP-Pal’s broader covenant not to sue
`
`for the ’606 patent (but denied VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss the other 2020 DJ Actions). VoIP-Pal
`
`admits that Judge Koh retained jurisdiction over Twitter’s 2020 DJ Action to consider Twitter’s
`
`motion for attorney fees. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`14. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
`
`15. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
`
`16. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
`
`17. VoIP-Pal admits that the Mobile Gateway patents are not members of the RBR family. VoIP-
`
`Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Complaint.
`
`18. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
`
`19. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Complaint.
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`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 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 40 Filed 08/05/22 Page 5 of 13
`
`
`
`20. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
`
`21. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint.
`
`22. VoIP-Pal admits that on December 9, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed a motion to dismiss based on a
`
`covenant not to sue for the ’872 patent. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`23. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
`
`24. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
`
`II. PARTIES
`
`25. 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.
`
`26. VoIP-Pal is without sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 26,
`
`and therefore denies them.
`
`27. 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.
`
`28. VoIP-Pal admits that it owns the Mobile Gateway patents.
`
`III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`29. 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.
`
`30. VoIP-Pal admits that Twitter purports to seek declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
`
`2202.
`
`31. Paragraph 31 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.
`
`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
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 40 Filed 08/05/22 Page 6 of 13
`
`
`
`VoIP-Pal denies any and all remaining allegations and/or legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 31
`
`of the Complaint.
`
`32. Paragraph 32 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 denies any and all
`
`allegations and/or legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
`
`33. Paragraph 33 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 it has
`
`engaged Lewis Hudnell of the Hudnell Law Group in Mountain View, California to represent it in
`
`patent litigation. VoIP-Pal denies any and all remaining allegations and/or legal conclusions
`
`contained in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
`
`34. Paragraph 34 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 denies any and all
`
`allegations and/or legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint.
`
`35. The allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint are legal conclusions and argument, and no
`
`response is required. To the extent Paragraph 35 requires a response, VoIP-Pal denies any and all
`
`allegations and/or legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint.
`
`36. The allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint are legal conclusions and argument, and no
`
`response is required. To the extent Paragraph 36 requires a response, VoIP-Pal denies any and all
`
`allegations and/or legal conclusions contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
`
`37. The allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint are legal conclusions and argument, and no
`
`response is required. To the extent Paragraph 37 requires a response, VoIP-Pal denies all allegations
`
`in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 40 Filed 08/05/22 Page 7 of 13
`
`
`
`38. VoIP-Pal admits the facts stated in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint.
`
`39. VoIP-Pal admits the facts stated in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
`
`40. VoIP-Pal admits the facts stated in Paragraph 40 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.
`
`41. VoIP-Pal admits the facts stated in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
`
`42. VoIP-Pal admits the facts stated in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint except that VoIP-Pal
`
`denies that the Court granted Apple and Amazon’s motion to dismiss on November 1, 2019.
`
`43. VoIP-Pal admits the facts stated in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.
`
`44. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations stated in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint.
`
`45. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
`
`46. VoIP-Pal admits that it issued a press release on April 8, 2020 that appears as Exhibit 5 to the
`
`Complaint. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 46.
`
`47. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint.
`
`48. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
`
`49. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
`
`50. 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.
`
`51. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint.
`
`52. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 52 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
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 40 Filed 08/05/22 Page 8 of 13
`
`
`
`53. 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
`
`declaratory judgment action against the ’606 patent. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 53 of the Complaint.
`
`54. 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 54 of the Complaint.
`
`55. 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 denies
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.
`
`56. VoIP-Pal admits that on January 15, 2021, Twitter declined VoIP-Pal’s offer. VoIP-Pal
`
`denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint.
`
`57. 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
`
`57 of the Complaint.
`
`58. VoIP-Pal admits that is received a communication from Twitter on April 12, 2021. VoIP-Pal
`
`denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint.
`
`59. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 59 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
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 40 Filed 08/05/22 Page 9 of 13
`
`
`
`60. VoIP-Pal admits that on April 14, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed its reply brief in support of its motion
`
`to dismiss in Case No. 20-v-2397. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 60 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`61. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint.
`
`62. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint.
`
`63. VoIP-Pal admits that on August 25, 2021, this Court denied VoIP-Pal’s motions to dismiss
`
`Apple’s and AT&T’s 2020 DJ Actions, finding that VoIP-Pal’s covenants not to sue to be insufficient
`
`to eliminate subject matter jurisdiction. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 63 of
`
`the Complaint.
`
`64. VoIP-Pal admits that on August 30, 2021, the Court granted VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss
`
`Twitter’s 2020 DJ Action based on a covenant not to sue for the ’606 patent and entered judgment
`
`but retained jurisdiction to consider Twitter’s motion for attorney fees. VoIP-Pal admits that in
`
`setting the briefing schedule for Twitter’s motion for attorney fees, the Court referred the parties to a
`
`court-supervised settlement conference. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 64
`
`of the Complaint.
`
`65. VoIP-Pal admits that on April 16, 2021, Twitter filed an action for declaratory judgment of
`
`noninfringement for an eighth RBR patent, the ’872 patent. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint.
`
`66. VoIP-Pal admits that on June 21, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed a motion to dismiss Twitter’s DJ
`
`action for the ’872 patent for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and for
`
`improper venue. VoIP-Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint.
`
`67. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint.
`
`68. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 68 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
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 40 Filed 08/05/22 Page 10 of 13
`
`
`
`69. VoIP-Pal admits that the Mobile Gateway patents are not members of the RBR family. VoIP-
`
`Pal denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 69 of the Complaint.
`
`70. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint.
`
`71. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint.
`
`72. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint.
`
`73. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the Complaint.
`
`74. VoIP-Pal admits the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint.
`
`75. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Complaint.
`
`76. VoIP-Pal denies the allegations in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Alleged Non-Infringement of the ’234 Patent by Twitter)
`
`1. VoIP-Pal repeats, realleges, and incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 76 of the
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth in this Count.
`
`2. Paragraph 2 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 2.
`
`3. Paragraph 3 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 3.
`
`4. Paragraph 4 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 4 of the Complaint.
`
`5. Paragraph 5 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 5 of the Complaint.
`
`6. Paragraph 6 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 6 of the Complaint.
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 40 Filed 08/05/22 Page 11 of 13
`
`
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Alleged Non-Infringement of the ’721Patent by Twitter)
`
`7. VoIP-Pal repeats, realleges, and incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 76 of the
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth in this Count.
`
`8. Paragraph 8 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 8.
`
`9. Paragraph 9 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 9.
`
`10. Paragraph 10 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 10 of the Complaint.
`
`11. Paragraph 11 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 11 of the Complaint.
`
`12. Paragraph 12 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 12 of the Complaint.
`
`ANSWER TO PRAYER
`
`
`
`VoIP-Pal denies that Twitter is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraphs A) – D) 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:
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`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 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 40 Filed 08/05/22 Page 12 of 13
`
`
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Failure to State a Claim for which Relief Can Be Granted)
`
`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 patents-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.
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 40 Filed 08/05/22 Page 13 of 13
`
`
`
`
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Reservation of Additional Defenses)
`
`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 Complaint:
`
`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: August 8, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`13
`
`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
`
`