Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`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. 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S
`OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER,
`INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Honorable James Donato
`
`Date: October 20, 2022
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`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 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`A. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................................... 1 
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 3 
`
`The Court Should Exercise its Discretion and Deny Twitter's Motion under Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 15(d).
`
` 3 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`VoIP-Pal Will Suffer Undue Prejudice. ............................................................................... 5 
`
`Twitter Unduly Delayed in Filing its Motion. ..................................................................... 6 
`
`Other Factors Favor Denying Leave to Amend. .................................................................. 7 
`
`IV. 
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 8 
`
`
`
`
`
`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 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Ferring B.V. v. Serenity Pharm., LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2673 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2019)............. 6
`
`Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................... 6
`
`Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 537 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................. 4
`
`Texchem Advanced Products Inc. Sdn. Bhd. v. e.PAK Int’l Inc., 5:12-cv-1341-JGB, Dkt. No. 121
`
`(C.D. Cal. June 11, 2014) ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................... 6
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 411 F. Supp. 3d 926 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ............................................. 6
`
`Waterton Polymer Prods. USA, LLC v. EdiZONE, LLC, No. 2:12-CV-17 TS, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`51968 (D. Utah Apr. 14, 2014) .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 1338 .................................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Other Authorities
`
`NDCAL Guidelines for Professional Conduct ....................................................................................... 7
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) .......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) .............................................................................................................................. 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
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`VoIP-Pal
`
`Twitter
`
`Apple
`
`AT&T
`
`Verizon
`
`Meta Platforms
`
`WhatsApp
`
`Google
`
`The ’234 patent
`
`The ’721 patent
`
`The Mobile Gateway patents
`
`RBR
`
`WDTX
`
`NDCAL
`
`Twitter I
`
`
`Twitter II
`
`
`Twitter III
`
`
`The 2016 NDCAL cases
`
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 4 of 15
`
`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
`
`Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`WhatsApp, Inc.
`
`Google LLC
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,630,234
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`The ’234 and ’721 patents
`
`Routing, Billing, Rating
`
`Western District of Texas
`
`Northern District of California
`
`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-
`
`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 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`The 2018 NDCAL cases
`
`The 2020 WDTX cases
`
`The 2020 NDCAL (RBR) actions
`
`The 2021 WDTX cases
`
`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
`
`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,
`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.)
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 5:20-
`cv-2397-LHK (N.D. Cal.); 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-668-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
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`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.
`Cal.)
`
`First Amended Complaint
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`
`The 2021 NDCAL (Mobile Gateway patents)
`actions
`
`FAC
`
`IPR
`
`
`
`
`
`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 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`Twitter’s Motion for Leave to file its FAC should be denied because Twitter unduly delayed in
`seeking leave and the proposed FAC will unduly prejudice VoIP-Pal. Twitter filed its Complaint over
`nine months ago. Despite being fully aware of the invalidity claims that it now seeks to present, Twitter
`eschewed at least three opportunities to add these claims as a matter of right since this case has been
`pending. Twitter’s belated invalidity claims will prejudice VoIP-Pal because VoIP-Pal will be forced to
`incur unnecessary and undue expense litigating this case. VoIP-Pal has never attempted to assert the
`Mobile Gateway patents against Twitter and has not asserted infringement counterclaims against
`Twitter. In fact, VoIP-Pal is willing to stipulate that Twitter does not infringe the Mobile Gateway
`patents so that the Court may enter judgment and dismiss this case. Under these circumstances, the
`Court should not grant Twitter leave because it will only waste the parties’ and the Court’s resources.
`Moreover, granting Twitter leave to amend will unfairly reward Twitter for hastily filing its Complaint
`just days after the parties completed a court ordered settlement conference, which Twitter participated in
`in bad faith. Accordingly, Twitter’s Motion for Leave should be denied because Twitter improvidently
`filed this action, which, in truth, is nothing more than an attempt to harass VoIP-Pal.
`
`
`II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`
`
`The parties’ litigation history, which is largely the product of three declaratory judgment actions
`
`that Twitter has filed against VoIP-Pal, is detailed in VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss.1 Twitter omits
`
`several material facts from this history that undermine its Motion.
`
`On June 25, 2021, VoIP-Pal sued seven parties for infringement of the Mobile Gateway patents
`
`in the WDTX.2 On November 30, 2021, VoIP-Pal sued two more parties on the Mobile Gateway
`
`
`
`1 Dkt. No. 25 at 2-7.
`2 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-668-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.).
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 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 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`patents in the WDTX.3 Notably, VoIP-Pal did not sue Twitter on the Mobile Gateway patents. In turn,
`
`three of the 2021 WDTX defendants—AT&T (on June 30, 2021), Apple (on July 1, 2021), and Verizon
`
`(on July 8, 2021)—filed mirror-image-declaratory-judgment actions on the Mobile Gateway patents in
`
`the NDCAL.4 Notably, in all of these actions, AT&T, Apple, and Verizon filed claims for declaratory
`
`judgment of noninfringement and invalidity.5
`
`On July 8, 2021, AT&T filed an administrative motion to consider whether its 2021 Mobile
`
`Gateway patents action should be related to its 2020 RBR patent action.6 Apple did the same for its
`
`NDCAL actions.7 On July 27, 2021, Judge Freeman issued a sua sponte judicial referral to Judge Koh
`
`to determine whether Verizon’s 2021 Mobile Gateway patents action is related to its 2020 RBR patent
`
`action.8 On August 25, 2021, Judge Koh denied AT&T’s and Apple’s motions to relate.9 On August
`
`26, 2021, Judge Koh denied the referral to relate the Verizon actions.10 On September 14, 2021, the
`
`Court related the Apple and Verizon 2021 Mobile Gateway patents actions to the AT&T 2021 Mobile
`
`Gateway patents action.11
`
`Despite also having filed a 2020 RBR action against VoIP-Pal, Twitter, however, waited until
`
`December 17, 2021 to file this action seeking a declaration of noninfringement of the Mobile Gateway
`
`patents.12 Twitter had the opportunity to assert claims for declaratory judgment of invalidity and chose
`
`
`3 VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 6:21-cv-1246-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc. v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. et al., 6:21-cv-1274-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
`4 See AT&T Corp. et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-05078, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.); Apple
`Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-05110, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.); Cellco Partnership d/b/a
`Verizon Wireless Inc. et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com., Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-05275, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.).
`5 Id.
`6 See Case No. 5:20-cv-02995-LHK, Dkt. No. 89.
`7 See Case No. 5:20-cv-02460-LHK, Dkt. No. 88.
`8 See Case No. 5:20-cv-03092-LHK, Dkt. No. 75.
`9 Dkt. No. 25-10, 25-11.
`10 Dkt. No. 25-12.
`11 See Case No. 3:21-cv-05110-JD, Dkt. No. 25.
`12 Dkt. No. 1.
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`not to. Twitter served VoIP-Pal on December 22, 2021.13 At that point, Twitter had 21 days to amend
`
`its Complaint to assert claims for declaratory judgment of invalidity and chose not to.14 On January 19,
`
`2022, the Court related this case to the AT&T 2021 Mobile Gateway patents action.15
`
`On February 11, 2022, VoIP-Pal filed a motion to dismiss Twitter’s Complaint for lack of
`
`subject matter and personal jurisdiction and for improper venue.16 At that point, Twitter again had 21
`
`days to amend its Complaint to assert claims for declaratory judgment of invalidity and chose not to.17
`
`The Court denied VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss on July 22, 2022.18 VoIP-Pal filed its answer to
`
`the Complaint of August 5, 2022.19 VoIP-Pal’s answer does not assert counterclaims for infringement.20
`
`Arguably, Twitter again had 21 days to amend its Complaint to assert claims for declaratory judgment of
`
`invalidity and chose not to.21
`
`
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Court Should Exercise its Discretion and Deny Twitter's Motion under Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 15(d).
`
`Twitter incorrectly asserts that its Motion is governed by Rule 15(a). Twitter’s proposed
`
`redlined FAC introduces new facts to support its allegations, facts that are found nowhere in its original
`
`Complaint.22 Indeed, Twitter’s new allegations concern events that occurred both prior to and after it
`
`filed this case.23 At least as to the new section 102, 103 and 112 allegations, Twitter’s proposed FAC is
`
`based on events that occurred after Twitter filed its Complaint. The prior art allegations are based on
`
`
`
`13 Dkt. No. 11.
`14 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
`15 Dkt. No. 23.
`16 Dkt. No. 25.
`17 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
`18 Dkt. No. 38
`19 Dkt. No. 40.
`20 Id.
`21 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).
`22 See Dkt. No. 41-3.
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`IPR petitions filed on June 3, 2022.24 The indefiniteness allegations are based on the defendants’ claim
`
`construction briefing in the 2021 WDTX cases, which was initially filed on March 14, 2022.25 Thus,
`
`what Twitter presents to the Court is a supplemental complaint, not an amended complaint.
`
`This distinction is significant because the legal analysis falls under Rule 15(d), not Rule 15(a).
`
`“Because the Amended Complaint includes allegations regarding events that happened after the first
`
`complaint, technically it is a supplemental complaint, not an ‘amended complaint.’ ”26 Under Rule
`
`15(d) the Court has discretion to decide whether to allow Twitter’s supplemental complaint “[o]n motion
`
`and reasonable notice, the court may, on just terms, permit a party to serve a supplemental pleading
`
`setting out any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened after the date of the pleading to be
`
`supplemented” and not under lenient standard of Rule 15(a) as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit.27
`
`Indeed, because this action arises under the patent statutes, the law of the Federal Circuit supplies the
`
`controlling authority.28
`
`The Court should deny Twitter’s request for leave to supplement its Complaint. As discussed
`
`further below, Twitter has no excuse for amending to include section 101 allegations. It was a party to
`
`the litigation it cites to allege invalidity under section 101 and should have raised these allegations when
`
`it filed its Complaint. The filing of inter partes review petitions and claim construction briefs in the
`
`USPTO and in the WDTX that forms the basis of Twitter’s section 102, 103 and 112 allegations, are
`
`unrelated to Twitter’s purported apprehension of suit that gave rise to the filing of its declaratory
`
`judgment of noninfringement claim. More importantly, Twitter’s new ambiguous allegations on these
`
`23 See Dkt. No. 1.
`24 See Dkt. No. 41-3 at ¶¶17, 25; IPR2022-01072, -01073, -01074, -01075 (Google); IPR2022-01231, -
`01232, -01233, -01234 (Meta Platforms and WhatsApp).
`25 See Dkt. No. 41-3 at ¶¶18, 26; see, e.g., VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Case No.
`6:21-cv-668-ADA, Dkt. No. 39 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2022).
`26 Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., 537 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`27 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d) (emphasis added). See Prasco, LLC, 537 F.3d at 1337, n.5.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` 4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`grounds violate the dual requirements of both notice and justice in Rule 15(d) and clearly prejudices
`
`VoIP-Pal, who is put in a position of having to guess as to what allegations of invalidity Twitter is
`
`making. Thus, under Rule 15(d), Twitter’s Motion for Leave should be denied.
`
`
`
`B. VoIP-Pal Will Suffer Undue Prejudice.
`
`Allowing Twitter to pursue claims for declaratory judgment of invalidity against the Mobile
`
`Gateway patents will unduly prejudice VoIP-Pal because VoIP-Pal will be forced to expend unnecessary
`
`time and resources to defend this suit. As evidenced by its answer, which does not assert counterclaims
`
`for infringement, VoIP-Pal has no intent to enforce the Mobile Gateway patents against Twitter.29 In
`
`fact, VoIP-Pal is willing to stipulate that Twitter does not infringe the Mobile Gateway patents so that
`
`the Court can enter judgment and dismiss this case. In view of this stipulation, it makes little sense for
`
`the Court to allow Twitter to prolong this case by adding additional declaratory judgment claims for
`
`invalidity that Twitter could have asserted when it filed is Complaint nine months ago. Not only will
`
`these belatedly filed claims subject VoIP-Pal to undue and unnecessary prejudice, but they also waste
`
`the resources of the Court.
`
`As Twitter notes, the validity of the Mobile Gateway patents is already at issue in two cases
`
`before the Court: VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-03202-JD; VoIP-
`
`Pal.com, Inc. v. Google LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-03199-JD.30 In fact, Google has already filed a motion
`
`for judgment on the pleadings under 35 U.S.C. § 101 against the Mobile Gateway patents, which is set
`
`for hearing on the same day as Twitter’s Motion for Leave.31 What is more, the parties in these cases
`
`28 See 35 U.S.C. § 1338.
`29 Dkt. No. 40.
`30 Dkt. No. 41 at 5.
`31 See VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Google LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-03199-JD, Dkt. No. 85 (N.D. 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 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` 5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`collectively have filed eight IPR petitions against the Mobile Gateway patents.32 Contrary to what
`
`Twitter asserts, the presence of these other invalidity challenges weighs against granting leave to amend.
`
`Unlike this case, VoIP-Pal has infringement claim against all the parties who are challenging the validity
`
`of the Mobile Gateway patents. VoIP-Pal does not have an infringement claim against Twitter and is
`
`willing to stipulate that Twitter does not infringe the Mobile Gateway patents. Thus, this case is a
`
`position to be dismissed whereas the other litigations involving the Mobile Gateway patents are not.
`
`Under these circumstances, allowing Twitter to belatedly add declaratory invalidity claims unduly
`
`prejudices VoIP-Pal.
`
`
`
`C. Twitter Unduly Delayed in Filing its Motion.
`
`Twitter’s claim that it did not unduly delay in filing the proposed FAC is demonstrably false.
`
`Twitter filed its Complaint over nine months ago. Twitter provides no explanation for why is could not
`
`have filed its declaratory invalidity claims at that time.33 Indeed, Twitter primarily bases its proposed
`
`claims on the decisions invalidating the asserted claims of six VoIP-Pal patents that Twitter claims are
`
`related to the Mobile Gateway patents.34 Those decisions, however, issued on March 25, 2019 and
`
`November 1, 2019—both over two and half years ago.35 As noted above, Twitter missed at least three
`
`
`32 See IPR2022-01072, -01073, -01074, -01075 (Google); IPR2022-01231, -01232, -01233, -01234
`(Meta Platforms and WhatsApp).
`33 See Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385, 1388 (9th Cir. 1990) (denying motion for leave to file
`amended complaint after appellants knew of facts/theories raised by the amendment for over one year
`prior to filing motion); Texchem Advanced Products Inc. Sdn. Bhd. v. e.PAK Int’l Inc., 5:12-cv-1341-
`JGB, Dkt. No. 121 at 9 of 11 (C.D. Cal. June 11, 2014) (denying motion for leave to amend to
`declaratory invalidity claim almost one year after initial complaint where plaintiff provided no
`explanation for delay).
`34 Dkt. No. 41-3 at ¶¶16, 24.
`35 See VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 411 F. Supp. 3d 926 (N.D. Cal. 2019); VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v.
`Apple Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 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
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` 6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`opportunities to amend its Complaint as a matter of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1).36 Twitter
`
`should not be allowed to file declaratory judgment claims anytime it wants. In light of Twitter’s undue
`
`delay and the undue prejudice to VoIP-Pal, Twitter’s Motion for Leave should be denied.
`
`
`
`D. Other Factors Favor Denying Leave to Amend.
`
`Finally, Twitter’s Motion for Leave should be denied because Twitter filed its Complaint in bad
`
`faith. Twitter has sued VoIP-Pal for declaratory-judgment three times. Two of the times Twitter filed
`
`its complaint just after the parties participated in a court ordered settlement conference. On December
`
`10, 2021, VoIP-Pal and Twitter participated in a settlement conference in Twitter I. The case did not
`
`settle. Shortly afterwards, just as it had done in Twitter II, Twitter filed this action seeking a declaration
`
`of noninfringement of the Mobile Gateway patents. This action demonstrates that Twitter again did not
`
`negotiate at the settlement conference in good faith and that it is using its serial-declaratory-judgment
`
`strategy to force VoIP-Pal to grant Twitter a covenant not to sue, just as Twitter did by filing Twitter II.
`
`The Court should put an end to this tactic.
`
`Under Paragraph 13.d of the NDCAL Guidelines for Professional Conduct, “[a] lawyer involved
`
`in an alternative dispute resolution process should participate in good faith, and should not use the
`
`process for purposes of delay or other improper purpose.”37 At the December 10 settlement conference,
`
`VoIP-Pal made settlement offers that would have given Twitter protection on the Mobile Gateway
`
`patents. Although Twitter was not obligated to accept any of VoIP-Pal’s settlement offers, it is apparent
`
`from the timing of the Complaint that Twitter had already determined at the time of the settlement
`
`conference that it was going to file the Complaint. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude either that Twitter
`
`
`36 See Ferring B.V. v. Serenity Pharm., LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2673, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2019)
`(denying motion for leave to amend to add inequitable conduct claims where party “had the facts
`necessary to bring this additional claim at an earlier junction and chose not to.”).
`37 See NDCAL Guidelines for Professional Conduct, https://cand.uscourts.gov/forms/guidelines-for-
`professional-conduct/ (last visited September 23, 2022).
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` 7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 14 of 15
`
`
`
`did not participate in the settlement conference in good faith or that Twitter’s good faith was
`
`substantially compromised by its premeditated plan to file a declaratory-judgment action against the
`
`Mobile Gateway patents. It was in Twitter’s haste to get the Complaint on file and secure its preferred
`
`venue that it neglected to assert the declaratory invalidity claims that it seeks to assert now.38 The Court
`
`should not reward Twitter for its gamesmanship.
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`In conclusion, Twitter unduly delayed in filing its motion for leave and the proposed amendment
`
`to add claims for declaratory judgment of invalidity unduly prejudices VoIP-Pal. Accordingly, Twitter’s
`
`Motion for Leave should be denied.
`
`Dated: September 23, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`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
`T: 650.564.3698
`F: 347.772.3034
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`
`
`38 See Waterton Polymer Prods. USA, LLC v. EdiZONE, LLC, No. 2:12-CV-17 TS, 2014 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 51968, at *7 (D. Utah Apr. 14, 2014) (denying motion for leave to amend where plaintiff made
`strategic decision not to plead invalidity).
`
`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 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` 8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 42 Filed 09/23/22 Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
`electronic service are being served with a copy of the forgoing DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S
`OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT via the Court’s CM/ECF system pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil
`Procedure and Local Rule CV-5(b)(1) this 23rd day of September 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`Hudnell Law Group P.C.
`800 W. El Camino Real Suite 180
`Mountain View, California 94040
`T: 650.564.3698
`F: 347.772.3034
`lewis@hudnelllaw.com
`
`
`DEFENDANT VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF TWITTER, INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED
`COMPLAINT, Case No.: 3:21-CV-09773-JD
`
` 9
`
`
`
`