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 41 Filed 09/09/22 Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`Sarah Fowler (Bar No. 264838)
`Moeka Takagi (Bar No. 333226)
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
`Phone: 650.838.4300
`Email: SFowler@perkinscoie.com
`Email: MTakagi@perkinscoie.com
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`Gene W. Lee (admitted pro hac vice)
`Thomas Matthew (admitted pro hac vice)
`1155 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd floor
`New York, NY 10112-0015
`Phone: 212.262.6900
`Email: GLee@perkinscoie.com
`Email: TMatthew@perkinscoie.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Twitter, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`
`Case No. 21-cv-09773-JD
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION
`FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Date: Thursday, October 20, 2022
`Time: 10:00am PDT
`Location: Courtroom 11, 19th Floor
`Judge: James Donato
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Case No. 21-CV-09773-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 41 Filed 09/09/22 Page 2 of 10
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Motions for Leave to Amend Are Liberally Granted.............................................. 3
`
`Defendant Will Not Suffer Undue Prejudice .......................................................... 4
`
`Twitter’s Motion for Leave to Amend is Not Unduly Delayed .............................. 5
`
`There is No Other Reason Leave to Amend Should Not be Granted ..................... 5
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`i
`
`Case No. 21-CV-09773-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 41 Filed 09/09/22 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton,
`833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir. 1987) ...............................................................................................3, 4, 5
`
`Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc.,
`316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................4, 5
`
`Foman v. Davis,
`371 U.S. 178 (1962) ........................................................................................................3, 4, 5, 6
`
`Howey v. U.S.,
`481 F.2d 1187 (9th Cir. 1973) .................................................................................................4, 5
`
`Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose,
`893 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir.1990) ......................................................................................................4
`
`Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma Cty.,
`708 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................................4
`
`U.S. v. Webb,
`655 F.2d 977 (9th Cir.1981) ........................................................................................................5
`
`Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc.,
`798 F. App’x 644 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................................................6
`
`William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co.,
`668 F.2d 1014 (9th Cir.1981) ......................................................................................................4
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................................................6
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) ..................................................................................................................3, 5, 6
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,630,234 .................................................................................................................2
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721 ...............................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`ii
`
`Case No. 21-CV-09773-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 41 Filed 09/09/22 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`Please take notice that on Thursday, October 20, 2022, or as soon thereafter as it may be
`
`heard by the Court, located at Phillip Burton Federal Building and United States Courthouse, 450
`
`Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, San Francisco, California 94102, before the
`
`Honorable Judge James Donato, Plaintiff Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) will and hereby does move this
`
`Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 for leave to file a First Amended Complaint. This Motion is
`
`based on this Notice of Motion, the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
`
`attached Declaration of Gene W. Lee, and accompanying exhibits.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Twitter respectfully requests this Court grant Twitter leave to file a First Amended
`
`Complaint and enter the First Amended Complaint attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`1
`
`Case No. 21-CV-09773-JD
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 41 Filed 09/09/22 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The present Motion seeks leave of Court for Plaintiff Twitter to file a First Amended
`
`Complaint. See Declaration of Gene W. Lee (“Lee Decl.”). Twitter’s original Complaint
`
`contains claims for declaratory judgment that Twitter does not infringe VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.’s U.S.
`
`Patents 8,630,234 (“the ’234 patent”) and 10,880,721 (“the ’721 patent”). The proposed First
`
`Amended Complaint would add claims for declaratory judgment that the ’234 patent and the ’721
`
`patent are invalid. The proposed First Amended Complaint is attached as Exhibit A, and a redline
`
`showing the proposed amendments from Twitter’s original Complaint is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`Twitter seeks leave to amend in good faith and in the early stages of this case. There is no undue
`
`delay, and the First Amended Complaint would not prejudice Defendant. Accordingly, Twitter
`
`respectfully requests this Court grant Twitter leave to file its First Amended Complaint.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`The present action is part of a long-running and multi-faceted litigation campaign between
`
`Defendant VoIP-Pal, Twitter, and many other companies involving VoIP-Pal’s patents. The
`
`pertinent background is described in Twitter’s original Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) and Twitter’s
`
`Opposition To VoIP-Pal’s Motion To Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30).
`
`On December 17, 2021, Twitter filed the original Complaint in this action. Dkt. No. 1.
`
`The original Complaint has claims for declaratory judgment that Twitter does not infringe the
`
`’234 and ’721 patents. Id. This action was reassigned to this Court on January 20, 2022.
`
`On February 11, 2022, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Twitter’s Complaint for lack
`
`of subject matter and personal jurisdiction and for improper venue. Dkt. No. 25. This Court
`
`denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss on July 22, 2022, and directed the parties to file a joint
`
`proposed schedule. Dkt. No. 38 at 1.
`
`On August 5, 2022, the parties submitted a joint proposed schedule that stated Twitter’s
`
`intention to amend the Complaint to add claims that the ’234 and ’721 patents are invalid. Dkt.
`
`No. 39 at 1-2. On the same day, Defendant filed an Answer to Twitter’s Complaint. Dkt. No. 40.
`
`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
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`2
`
`Case No. 21-CV-09773-JD
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 41 Filed 09/09/22 Page 6 of 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
`
`The Court has not yet entered a schedule in this action.
`
`Also pending in this Court are VoIP-Pal’s actions against Meta Platforms, WhatsApp, and
`
`Google in which VoIP-Pal asserts the ’234 and ’721 patents against those companies—VoIP-
`
`Pal.com, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 3-22-cv-03202, and VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v.
`
`Google, Inc., Case No. 3-22-cv-03199. Those actions were originally filed by VoIP-Pal in the
`
`Western District of Texas, were transferred to this District on June 1, 2022, and were later
`
`assigned to this Court. The parties and the Court have not yet proposed or entered a schedule in
`
`those cases.
`
`In addition, VoIP-Pal asserts the ’234 and ’721 patents against Amazon in an action in the
`
`Western District of Texas. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-00668
`
`(W.D. Texas). Amazon is seeking to transfer that action to this District.
`
`Twitter submits that the schedule in the present action should be coordinated with the
`
`schedules of at least the Meta, WhatsApp, and Google cases, and the schedule of the Amazon
`
`case if it is transferred to this District.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Motions for Leave to Amend Are Liberally Granted
`
`The Federal Rules and the Ninth Circuit require amendments to pleadings to be liberally
`
`granted. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a party no longer permitted to
`
`amend its pleadings as a matter of course “may amend its pleadings only with the opposing
`
`party’s written consent or the court’s leave,” and that the court “should freely give leave when
`
`justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). The Ninth Circuit has held that this rule’s policy of
`
`favoring amendments to pleadings “should be applied with ‘extreme liberality.’” DCD
`
`Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.
`
`178, 182 (1962) (“In the absence of any apparent or declared reason—such as undue delay, bad
`
`faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by
`
`amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of
`
`the amendment, futility of amendment etc.—the leave sought should, as the rules require, be
`
`‘freely given.’”). Moreover, liberality in granting leave to amend “is not dependent on whether
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`3
`
`Case No. 21-CV-09773-JD
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 41 Filed 09/09/22 Page 7 of 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
`
`the amendment will add causes of action or parties.” DCD Programs, Ltd., 833 F.2d at 186.
`
`“Courts may decline to grant leave to amend only if there is strong evidence of ‘undue
`
`delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies
`
`by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance
`
`of the amendment, [or] futility of amendment.’” Sonoma Cty. Ass’n of Retired Emps. v. Sonoma
`
`Cty., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th Cir. 2013) (emphasis added; quoting Foman, 371 U.S. at 182).
`
`Prejudice is the “crucial factor” in considering the propriety of a motion for leave to amend.
`
`Howey v. U.S., 481 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1973).
`
`B.
`
`Defendant Will Not Suffer Undue Prejudice
`
`The “consideration of prejudice to the opposing party carries the greatest weight.”
`
`Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003). The party opposing
`
`amendment bears the burden of showing prejudice. DCD Programs, Ltd., 833 F.2d at 187. In
`
`considering prejudice, the court looks to whether amendments would “greatly alter[] the nature of
`
`the litigation” and require the defendant to “undertake[], at a late hour, an entirely new course
`
`defense.” See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Rose, 893 F.2d 1074, 1079 (9th Cir.1990).
`
`Here, Defendant would suffer no prejudice from the proposed First Amended Complaint.
`
`The present case is at an early stage. The parties submitted a joint proposed schedule on
`
`August 5, 2022 (Dkt. No. 39; Dkt. No. 38 at 1), but the Court has not entered a schedule. The
`
`initial case management conference has not taken place, discovery has not begun, and no trial
`
`date has been set. No contentions or accompanying production have been exchanged.
`
`Further, at the time the parties discussed and prepared the joint proposed schedule, Twitter
`
`notified Defendant of Twitter’s intention to amend the Complaint to add claims for invalidity.
`
`Dkt. No. 39 at 1-2 (“If VoIP-Pal does not counterclaim for infringement, Twitter anticipates filing
`
`a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add claims for declaratory judgment of invalidity
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.”). Because Twitter gave Defendant reasonable notice
`
`of the proposed amendments at an early stage in the case, Defendant cannot legitimately assert
`
`that it would be prejudiced by the First Amended Complaint. See William Inglis & Sons Baking
`
`Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1053 n. 68 (9th Cir.1981) (holding that there
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`4
`
`Case No. 21-CV-09773-JD
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 41 Filed 09/09/22 Page 8 of 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
`
`was no serious prejudice in allowing an amendment to a complaint, where the defendant was on
`
`notice of the amendment).
`
`Finally, the lack of prejudice to Defendant is especially clear because Meta, WhatsApp,
`
`and Google have already pleaded invalidity of the ’234 and ’721 patents as an affirmative
`
`defense. Case No. 3:22-cv-03202 (Meta and WhatsApp), Dkt No. 62; Case No. 3:22-cv-03199
`
`(Google), Dkt. No. 17. Therefore, Defendant VoIP-Pal will litigate the validity of its patents in
`
`any event.
`
`At this early stage in the case, allowing Twitter to file its proposed First Amended
`
`Complaint to present claims for declaratory judgment of patent invalidity would not prejudice
`
`Defendant. Because Defendant would not be prejudiced, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file its
`
`First Amended Complaint should be granted.
`
`C.
`
`Twitter’s Motion for Leave to Amend is Not Unduly Delayed
`
`While undue delay is one factor considered when determining the propriety of a motion
`
`for leave to amend, delay alone is insufficient to justify denial of leave to amend. DCD
`
`Programs, Ltd., 833 F.2d at 186; U.S. v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 980 (9th Cir.1981).
`
`Twitter did not unduly delay in seeking leave to file the proposed First Amended
`
`Complaint. As discussed above, the case is in its early stages, the initial case management
`
`conference has not taken place, and a schedule has not yet been entered. In view of the early
`
`stage of the case, the First Amended Complaint is not the result of any undue delay on Twitter’s
`
`part. In any event, delay by itself in the absence of prejudice would be insufficient reason to deny
`
`leave to amend. See id.; see also Howey v. United States, 481 F.2d 1187, 1190-92 (9th Cir. 1973)
`
`(holding that the district court had abused its discretion in denying leave to amend five years after
`
`the original pleadings, where there was no prejudice). Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend
`
`should be granted.
`
`D.
`
`There is No Other Reason Leave to Amend Should Not be Granted
`
`“Absent prejudice, or a strong showing of any of the remaining Foman factors, there is a
`
`presumption under Rule 15(a) in favor of granting leave to amend.” Eminence Capital, LLC, 316
`
`F.3d at 1052 (9th Cir. 2003).
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`5
`
`Case No. 21-CV-09773-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 41 Filed 09/09/22 Page 9 of 10
`
`Here, there is no showing of any of the remaining Foman factors because there is no
`
`evidence of repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment previously allowed, no evidence
`
`of bad faith or dilatory motive of Twitter, and no evidence that the proposed amendments are
`
`futile. First, there is no repeated failure to cure deficiencies because this is Twitter’s first time
`
`amending its Complaint. Second, there is no bad faith because Twitter seeks leave to amend in
`
`the early stages of the case to raise meritorious claims of invalidity. Finally, the proposed
`
`amendments to add declaratory judgment claims of invalidity, would not be futile. To the
`
`contrary, there is substantial reason to believe that the ’234 and ’721 patents are invalid. For
`
`example, in denying Defendant’s substantive motion to dismiss on July 22, 2022, this Court
`
`acknowledged that “[t]his case involves similar technology to the RBR patents that VoIP has
`
`previously asserted against Twitter.” Dkt. No. 38 at 4. Six of those “RBR patents” were found
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the Northern District of California by Judge Koh, and those
`
`judgments were affirmed by the Federal Circuit. See VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., Case
`
`No. 18-cv-04523-LHK, Dkt. No. 82, filed herewith, Exhibit C; Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter,
`
`Inc., 798 F. App'x 644 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Plaintiff’s motion should be granted because all Foman
`
`factors are in favor of granting leave to amend under Rule 15(a).
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`As shown above, all factors strongly favor permitting Twitter to file its proposed First
`
`Amended Complaint to add declaratory judgment claims that the ’234 and ’721 patents are
`
`invalid. Accordingly, Twitter respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion for Leave to
`
`File a First Amended Complaint.
`
`Dated: September 9, 2022
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`
`/s/ Sarah Fowler
`Sarah Fowler (Bar No. 264838)
`Moeka Takagi (Bar No. 333226)
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
`Telephone: 650-838-4300
`Email: SFowler@perkinscoie.com
`Email: MTakagi@perkinscoie.com
`
`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
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`6
`
`Case No. 21-CV-09773-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 41 Filed 09/09/22 Page 10 of 10
`
`Gene W. Lee (pro hac vice)
`Thomas Matthew (pro hac vice)
`1155 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd floor
`New York, NY 10112-0015
`Telephone: 212-262-6900
`Email: GLee@perkinscoie.com
`Email: TMatthew@perkinscoie.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`TWITTER, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`7
`
`Case No. 21-CV-09773-JD
`
`