throbber
Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 48 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`SFowler@perkinscoie.com
`MTakagi@perkinscoie.com
`
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`Gene W. Lee (pro hac vice)
`Thomas Matthew (pro hac vice)
`1155 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd floor
`New York, NY 10112-0015
`212.262.6900
`GLee@perkinscoie.com
`TMatthew@perkinscoie.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Twitter, Inc.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`TWITTER, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., a Nevada
`corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 48 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`This First Amended Complaint for declaratory judgment of noninfringement and
`invalidity arises from a real and immediate controversy between plaintiff Twitter, Inc.
`(“Twitter”), and defendant VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”), as to whether Twitter infringes any
`claims of U.S. Patents 8,630,234 and 10,880,721,1 both entitled, “Mobile Gateway.”
`2.
`Since 2016, Twitter and VoIP-Pal have been embroiled in a series of lawsuits
`involving VoIP-Pal’s patents in the field of routing communications in a packet-switched network
`such as an Internet Protocol network. Those lawsuits have been part of a large litigation
`campaign in which VoIP-Pal has asserted patents against Twitter and other major technology
`companies such as Apple, AT&T, Verizon, Amazon, Facebook, WhatsApp, Google, T-Mobile,
`Samsung Electronics, and Huawei.
`3.
`VoIP-Pal’s litigation campaign began in 2016, when it filed lawsuits 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”; e.g., Exhibit 3). All patents in the RBR family share a common specification. In 2018,
`VoIP-Pal filed additional lawsuits against Apple and Amazon to assert four other RBR patents
`(the “2018 Cases”). The 2016 and 2018 Cases were originally filed in the District of Nevada but
`were transferred to this Court in 2018.
`4.
`This Court found all six RBR patents asserted in the 2016 and 2018 Cases to be
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming ineligible subject matter. E.g., VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v.
`Twitter, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-04523-LHK, ECF No. 82 (Exhibit 4). On March 16, 2020, the
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed those judgments of invalidity.
`5.
`Dissatisfied with the outcome of the 2016 and 2018 Cases in this Court, VoIP-Pal
`went forum shopping. 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”).
`
`1 U.S. Patent 8,630,234 and 10,880,721 are referred to herein as the “Mobile Gateway” patents.
`U.S. Patent 8,630,234 is referred to as the “’234 patent” (Exhibit 1), and U.S. Patent 10,880,721
`is referred to as the “’721 patent” (Exhibit 2).
`
`
`2
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 48 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`
`The claims of the ’606 patent asserted in those new lawsuits are very similar to the claims of the
`six RBR patents that VoIP-Pal previously asserted in the 2016 and 2018 Cases and were found to
`be invalid by this Court.
`6.
`On April 8, 2020, VoIP-Pal issued a press release stating that VoIP-Pal is
`considering taking further action and is not finished taking action in the wake of the recent
`Federal Circuit decision affirming this Court’s judgment in the 2016 Cases that two of VoIP-Pal’s
`previously-asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Exhibit 5).
`7.
`On April 8, 2020, after seeing VoIP-Pal’s lawsuits in Texas against Facebook,
`WhatsApp, Google, Amazon, and Apple and VoIP-Pal’s press release, Twitter filed an action for
`declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the ’606 patent against VoIP-Pal in this Court (Case
`No. 20-cv-02397; see Exhibit 7). Soon thereafter, Apple, AT&T, and Verizon filed similar
`declaratory judgment actions in this Court against VoIP-Pal based on the ’606 patent (collectively
`with Twitter the “2020 DJ Actions”). On April 14, 2020, Apple filed a first amended complaint
`that added claims for declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of an eighth patent
`in the RBR family, U.S. Patent 9,935,872 (the “’872 patent”).
`8.
`In July 2020, VoIP-Pal filed motions to dismiss the 2020 DJ Actions for lack of
`subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue. In December 2020,
`the Court denied VoIP-Pal’s motions to dismiss. E.g., Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case
`No. 20-cv-02397, ECF No. 50 (Exhibit 8); Apple Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-
`02460, ECF No. 60.
`9.
`Between December 2020 and April 2021, VoIP-Pal and Twitter communicated
`many times about potential settlement with respect to the ’606 patent and VoIP-Pal’s other
`patents. Since December 2020, Twitter’s position has been that Twitter is unwilling to enter into
`a piecemeal settlement with VoIP-Pal that addresses only one or some of VoIP-Pal’s patents, and
`that any settlement must be global in the sense of encompassing VoIP-Pal’s entire patent
`portfolio. Twitter has communicated that position to VoIP-Pal multiple times, and VoIP-Pal has
`refused to offer Twitter a license or covenant not to sue for VoIP-Pal’s entire patent portfolio.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 48 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`10.
`For example, 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. Twitter observed that such a
`settlement would not cover VoIP-Pal’s entire patent portfolio and expressly noted that VoIP-Pal
`had recently touted receiving a U.S. patent and a European patent in the Mobile Gateway family.
`Twitter later rejected VoIP-Pal’s proposed settlement for all RBR patents in part because it would
`not have covered all of VoIP-Pal’s patents, including the Mobile Gateway patents.
`11.
`On March 24, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed another motion to dismiss the 2020 DJ
`Actions—this time based on a limited covenant not to sue for the ’606 patent. E.g., Case No. 20-
`cv-02397, ECF No. 62. That limited covenant not to sue was insufficient to eliminate subject
`matter jurisdiction for Twitter’s declaratory judgment claims for the reasons explained in
`Twitter’s opposition to that motion. Id., ECF No. 66.
`12.
`In response to Twitter’s opposition, on April 9, 2021, VoIP-Pal offered a broader
`covenant not to sue for the ’606 patent and asked Twitter to stipulate to dismissal of Twitter’s
`declaratory judgment action. Twitter responded in part that, at a minimum, any covenant not to
`sue to resolve Twitter’s declaratory judgment action against the ’606 patent should also include
`the ’872 patent. Twitter also stated that it expects VoIP-Pal to sue Twitter in the future and that
`only a covenant not to sue that covers VoIP-Pal’s entire patent portfolio would resolve the
`broader dispute between Twitter and VoIP-Pal concerning VoIP-Pal’s patent portfolio. VoIP-Pal
`declined to extend the covenant to include VoIP-Pal’s patents other than the ’606 patent.
`13.
`On April 14, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed a reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss,
`which granted Twitter the broader covenant not to sue for the ’606 patent that VoIP-Pal had
`offered on April 9. Id., ECF No. 68. VoIP-Pal also granted similar broader covenants not to sue
`to Apple, AT&T, and Verizon. On August 30, 2021, this Court 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). However, the Court
`retained jurisdiction over Twitter’s 2020 DJ Action to consider Twitter’s motion for attorney fees,
`which is fully briefed and under submission to the Court.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 48 Filed 11/21/22 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`14.
`On April 15, 2021, Twitter and VoIP-Pal participated in a court-supervised
`settlement conference in Twitter’s 2020 DJ Action, which did not result in settlement.
`15.
`Following that unsuccessful settlement conference, on April 16, 2021, Twitter
`filed an action for declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the ’872 patent. Twitter, Inc. v.
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-02769-LHK, ECF No. 1 (the “2021 DJ Action”;
`Exhibit 10). In response, VoIP-Pal filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
`jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and for improper venue. Id. at ECF No. 25. On
`November 2, 2021, the Court denied VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss Twitter’s 2021 DJ Action. Id.
`at ECF No. 38 (Exhibit 11).
`16.
`On June 25, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed lawsuits in the Western District of Texas against
`Apple, AT&T, Verizon, Amazon, Facebook, WhatsApp, Google, and T-Mobile alleging
`infringement of the two Mobile Gateway patents (the “Texas Mobile Gateway Cases”). The
`complaints in those lawsuits identify claim 20 of the ’234 patent and claim 38 of the ’721 patent
`as exemplary asserted claims, but VoIP-Pal asserts many other claims.
`17.
`The Mobile Gateway patents are not members of the RBR family, but they are
`very similar to the eight RBR patents that were or are at issue in the 2016 and 2018 Cases, the
`2020 Texas Cases, and the 2020 DJ Actions. The Mobile Gateway patents concern the same
`technology as the previously-asserted RBR patents—namely, routing of communications in a
`packet-switched network. The claims of the Mobile Gateway patents are very similar to the
`claims of the RBR patents previously asserted by VoIP-Pal (Exhibit 12).
`18.
`VoIP-Pal’s infringement allegations in the Texas Mobile Gateway Cases are very
`similar to VoIP-Pal’s infringement allegations in the 2016 and 2018 Cases and/or 2020 Texas
`Cases against Twitter, Apple, AT&T, Verizon, and/or Amazon. For example, VoIP-Pal’s
`infringement allegations for the Mobile Gateway patents are directed to some of the same accused
`instrumentalities that VoIP-Pal accused of infringement in VoIP-Pal’s prior lawsuits, such as
`messaging involving text, images, and videos.
`19.
`VoIP-Pal has sued every defendant from the 2016 and 2018 Cases for
`infringement of the Mobile Gateway patents other than Twitter. On information and belief, the
`5
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 48 Filed 11/21/22 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`reason that VoIP-Pal has not sued Twitter for infringement of the Mobile Gateway patents to date
`is strategic— for example, concern that, if VoIP-Pal filed a lawsuit to assert the Mobile Gateway
`patents against Twitter while Twitter’s 2020 and/or 2021 DJ Actions were pending, they might be
`deemed to be first-filed cases such that VoIP-Pal would end up litigating the Mobile Gateway
`patents in this Court.
`20.
`On November 17, 2021, the parties participated in a second court-supervised
`settlement conference in Twitter’s 2020 DJ Action, which did not result in settlement.
`21.
`On November 30, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed lawsuits in the Western District of Texas
`against Samsung Electronics and Huawei Technologies alleging infringement of the two Mobile
`Gateway patents.
`22.
`Following this Court’s denial of VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss Twitter’s 2021 DJ
`Action (Exhibit 10), on December 9, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed a motion to dismiss based on a
`covenant not to sue for the ’872 patent. On information and belief, VoIP-Pal plans to file a
`lawsuit against Twitter for infringement of the Mobile Gateway patents after Twitter’s 2021 DJ
`Action is dismissed.
`23.
`Twitter believes that it does not infringe and has not infringed any claims of the
`Mobile Gateway patents, including claim 20 of the ’234 patent and claim 38 of the ’721 patent,
`which were exemplary claims identified in the complaints in VoIP-Pal’s Texas Mobile Gateway
`Cases. Since December 2020, Twitter has repeatedly informed VoIP-Pal that any resolution of
`the disputes concerning VoIP-Pal’s patents must cover VoIP-Pal’s entire patent portfolio, but
`VoIP-Pal has refused to offer a license or covenant not to sue to Twitter for VoIP-Pal’s entire
`patent portfolio.
`24.
`VoIP-Pal’s actions have created a real, substantial, and immediate controversy
`between VoIP-Pal and Twitter as to whether Twitter’s products and/or services infringe any
`claims of the Mobile Gateway patents. The facts and allegations recited herein show that there is
`a real, substantial, immediate, and justiciable controversy concerning this issue.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`

`

`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 48 Filed 11/21/22 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`II.
`PARTIES
`25.
`Plaintiff Twitter is a company incorporated under the laws of Delaware, with
`headquarters at 1355 Market Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, California.
`26.
`Twitter operates a global Internet platform for public self-expression and
`conversation in real time. People with a Twitter account can post “Tweets”—messages of 280
`characters or less, sometimes with pictures or video, and those messages can be read by other
`people using the Twitter platform. They may, in turn, “Retweet” those messages to their own
`followers. Users can include “hashtagged” keywords (indicated by a “#”) in their Tweets to
`facilitate searching for messages on the same topic. People who use Twitter can also send direct
`messages to other users that can contain images and video. Each day, people post hundreds of
`millions of Tweets, engaging in public conversation on virtually every conceivable topic.
`Twitter’s products and services are provided through the Twitter platform.
`27.
`Based on information and belief, defendant VoIP-Pal is a company incorporated
`under the laws of Nevada and recently relocated its principal place of business from Bellevue,
`Washington, to 7215 Bosque Blvd, Suite 102, Waco, Texas 76710. See https://www.voip-
`pal.com/contact-us.
`28.
`Based on information and belief, VoIP-Pal is the owner of the Mobile Gateway
`patents.
`
`III.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`29.
`This First Amended Declaratory Judgment Complaint includes counts for
`declaratory relief under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq.
`30.
`Twitter seeks declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`31.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims alleged in this action
`under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1338, 2201, and 2202 because this Court has exclusive
`jurisdiction over declaratory judgment claims arising under the patent laws of the United States
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 2201, and 2202. Jurisdiction is also proper under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1332 because Twitter and VoIP-Pal are citizens of different states, and the value of the
`controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 48 Filed 11/21/22 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`32.
`This Court can provide the declaratory relief sought in this First Amended
`Declaratory Judgment Complaint because an actual case and controversy exists between the
`parties within the scope of this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201. An actual case
`and controversy exists at least for the reasons set forth in Sections I, II, and IV of this Complaint
`(¶¶ 1-28, 38-76).
`33.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal because VoIP-Pal has
`purposefully directed activities in this District that form the basis of Twitter’s claim against VoIP-
`Pal—namely, prosecuting the 2016 Case involving two RBR patents against Twitter in this
`District, and voluntarily transferring from Nevada to this District the 2016 Cases against Apple,
`AT&T, and Verizon and the 2018 Cases against Apple and Amazon. VoIP-Pal also has retained
`counsel located in California to prosecute its patent portfolio and to represent VoIP-Pal in the
`2016 and 2018 Cases; the 2020 Texas Action; the 2020 DJ Actions filed by Twitter, Apple,
`AT&T, and Verizon in this Court; the 2021 DJ Action filed by Twitter; and the Texas Mobile
`Gateway cases, including Lewis Hudnell of the Hudnell Law Group in Mountain View,
`California. In addition, on information and belief, on or about April 20, 2016, VoIP-Pal
`representative Ray Leon met with representatives of Apple in the Northern District of California
`in connection with VoIP-Pal’s patent enforcement campaign.
`34.
`This Court found the foregoing activities to be a sufficient basis for personal
`jurisdiction in the context of the 2020 DJ Actions for the ’606 patent (and ’872 patent for Apple)
`and Twitter’s 2021 DJ Action for the ’872 patent, and those activities also support personal
`jurisdiction for the present action for the Mobile Gateway patents. As a result of VoIP-Pal’s
`actions described in this First Amended Complaint, there is a real, substantial, live, immediate,
`and justiciable case or controversy concerning the Mobile Gateway patents between VoIP-Pal and
`Twitter, a company that resides and operates in this District. As a result of VoIP-Pal’s actions
`described above, VoIP-Pal has established sufficient minimum contacts with the Northern District
`of California such that VoIP-Pal is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in the Northern
`District of California for this action. Further, the exercise of personal jurisdiction based on those
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`

`

`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 48 Filed 11/21/22 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`repeated and highly-pertinent contacts does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
`substantial justice.
`35.
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400, including
`because, under Ninth and Federal Circuit law, venue in declaratory judgment actions for
`noninfringement of patents is determined under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`36.
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), venue is proper in any judicial district where a
`defendant resides. An entity with the capacity to sue and be sued, such as VoIP-Pal, is deemed to
`reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s
`personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).
`37.
`As discussed above, VoIP-Pal is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to
`this action in the Northern District of California, and thus, for the purposes of this action, VoIP-
`Pal resides in the Northern District of California and venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`
`A.
`
`IV.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`VoIP-Pal’s 2016 and 2018 Cases And The RBR Patents
`38.
`In 2016, VoIP-Pal filed lawsuits in the District of Nevada against Twitter, Apple,
`AT&T, and Verizon, alleging infringement of two RBR patents, U.S. Patents 8,542,815 (“the
`’815 patent”) and 9,179,005 (“the ’005 patent”; Exhibit 3). Twitter filed a motion to transfer for
`improper venue, which sought transfer to this Court. Twitter’s motion was granted, after which
`VoIP-Pal agreed to transfer its actions against Apple, AT&T, and Verizon to this Court. Between
`August and November of 2018, all four of those actions were transferred to this Court and
`consolidated for pretrial purposes: Twitter (Case No. 18-cv-04523-LHK), Verizon (Case No. 18-
`cv-06054-LHK), AT&T (Case No. 18-cv-06177-LHK), and Apple (Case No. 18-cv-06217-LHK)
`(i.e., the 2016 Cases).
`39.
`In the 2016 Cases, Twitter, Apple, AT&T, and Verizon filed a motion to dismiss
`under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because the asserted claims of the ’815 and ’005 patents are invalid
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On March 25, 2019, this Court granted the motion to dismiss and found
`all asserted claims of the ’815 and ’005 patents to be invalid (Exhibit 4). VoIP-Pal appealed. On
`March 16, 2020, the Federal Circuit affirmed this Court’s judgment of invalidity.
`9
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 48 Filed 11/21/22 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`40.
`In May and June 2018, VoIP-Pal filed two additional lawsuits against Apple and
`Amazon in the District of Nevada, alleging infringement of four other RBR patents, U.S. Patents
`9,537,762; 9,813,330; 9,826,002; and 9,948,549. The asserted claims of those four RBR patents
`are very similar to the asserted claims of the two RBR patents in the 2016 Cases.
`41.
`In October and November 2018, VoIP-Pal voluntarily agreed to transfer to this
`Court the 2018 Cases against Apple (Case No. 5:18-cv-06216-LHK) and Amazon (Case
`No. 5:18-cv-07020-LHK) (i.e., the 2018 Cases).
`42.
`In the 2018 Cases, Apple and Amazon filed a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ.
`P. 12(b)(6) that the asserted claims of the four asserted patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`On November 1, 2019, this Court granted Apple’s and Amazon’s motion to dismiss and found all
`asserted claims of the patents in the 2018 Cases to be invalid. VoIP-Pal appealed. On
`November 3, 2020, the Federal Circuit affirmed this Court’s judgment of invalidity.
`
`B.
`
`VoIP-Pal’s 2020 Texas Cases And Press Release, And
`Twitter’s, Apple’s, AT&T’s, And Verizon’s 2020 DJ Actions
`
`43.
`During April 2-7, 2020, VoIP-Pal filed four new lawsuits in the Western District
`of Texas, Waco Division, asserting a seventh RBR patent, the ’606 patent, against defendants
`Facebook and WhatsApp (Case No. 20-cv-267), Google (Case No. 20-cv-269), and previous
`defendants Amazon (Case No. 20-cv-272) and Apple (Case No. 20-cv-275). On April 24, 2020,
`VoIP-Pal filed new lawsuits in the same court asserting the ’606 patent against previous
`defendants AT&T (Case No. 20-cv-325) and Verizon Wireless (Case No. 20-cv-327).
`44.
`The claims of the ’606 patent that VoIP-Pal asserts in the 2020 Texas Cases are
`very similar to claims of the six patents that VoIP-Pal asserted against Twitter, Apple, AT&T,
`and Verizon in the 2016 and 2018 Cases and were held to be invalid (for example, claim 74 of the
`’005 patent; Exhibit 3).
`45.
`VoIP-Pal’s infringement allegations in the 2020 Texas Cases are similar to VoIP-
`Pal’s infringement allegations in the 2016 and 2018 Cases (including against all of the same prior
`defendants except for Twitter) and are directed to accused instrumentalities that are similar to
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 48 Filed 11/21/22 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`Twitter’s products and services (for example, communications involving text, images, and
`videos).
`46.
`On April 8, 2020, VoIP-Pal issued a press release that announced the filing of the
`2020 Texas Cases against Facebook, WhatsApp, Google, Amazon, and Apple (Exhibit 5 and
`https://www.voip-pal.com/voip-pal-new-patent-lawsuits-april-). The press release also mentioned
`the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of this Court’s judgment of invalidity in the 2016 Cases against
`Twitter, Apple, AT&T, and Verizon. The press release states that, in the wake of the Federal
`Circuit decision, VoIP-Pal is considering taking further action and “planning their next moves.”
`VoIP-Pal’s CEO is quoted as saying, “Our legal team is assessing our next moves regarding this
`Alice decision and we expect to announce our intentions soon. I can tell you; we are not
`finished,” and “We remain firm in our resolve to achieve monetization for our shareholders and
`will continue to see this fight through until a successful resolution is reached. Patience is a
`virtue.” (Exhibit 5 (emphasis added).)
`47.
`On April 8, 2020, after seeing VoIP-Pal’s lawsuits in Texas against Facebook,
`WhatsApp, Google, Amazon, and Apple and VoIP-Pal’s press release, Twitter filed an action for
`declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the ’606 patent against VoIP-Pal in this Court (Case
`No. 20-cv-02397).
`48.
`On April 10, 2020, Apple filed an action for declaratory judgment of
`noninfringement and invalidity of the ’606 patent against VoIP-Pal in this Court (Case No. 20-cv-
`02460). On April 14, 2020, Apple filed a first amended complaint that added claims for
`declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of the ’872 patent.
`49.
`On April 24, 2020, VoIP-Pal filed lawsuits in the Western District of Texas
`asserting the ’606 patent against AT&T and Verizon. Soon thereafter, AT&T and Verizon filed
`declaratory judgment actions against VoIP-Pal for the ’606 patent in this Court. AT&T Corp. et
`al. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-02995; Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v.
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 20-cv-03092.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 48 Filed 11/21/22 Page 12 of 22
`
`
`
`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
`
`50.
`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. On June 11,
`2020, counsel for VoIP-Pal declined to discuss a covenant not to sue.
`51.
`On June 26, 2020, Twitter filed a first amended complaint that added a claim for a
`declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ’606 patent (Exhibit 7).
`52.
`On July 10, 2020, VoIP-Pal filed motions to dismiss Twitter’s, Apple’s AT&T’s,
`and Verizon’s 2020 DJ Actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal
`jurisdiction, and improper venue. In December 2020, this Court denied VoIP-Pal’s motions to
`dismiss, finding that subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction exist and that venue is
`proper. E.g., Case No. 20-cv-02397, ECF No. 50 (Twitter) (Exhibit 8); Case No. 20-cv-02460,
`ECF No. 60 (Apple).
`53.
`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. Twitter informed VoIP-Pal that Twitter is not interested in a
`piecemeal settlement in view of VoIP-Pal’s other patents, including the ’872 patent (which was
`the subject of declaratory judgment claims advanced by Apple), and the likelihood that VoIP-Pal
`would sue Twitter again in the future. Twitter’s counsel asked if VoIP-Pal would be willing to
`discuss a global settlement by which VoIP-Pal would agree not to sue Twitter on any of its
`patents. VoIP-Pal’s counsel declined to discuss such a global settlement. VoIP-Pal did not deny
`the likelihood that VoIP-Pal would sue Twitter again in the future.
`54.
`On January 4, 2021, counsel for Twitter corresponded with counsel for VoIP-Pal
`to state that, in view of VoIP-Pal’s litigation history and patent portfolio, Twitter is not interested
`in pursuing a piecemeal resolution that would resolve only the current action and to note that
`VoIP-Pal declined to discuss a broader resolution that would include the ’872 patent.
`55.
`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”
`(i.e., all RBR patents), for a payment by Twitter of $1 million. Twitter observed that VoIP-Pal’s
`proposal would not cover VoIP-Pal’s entire patent portfolio and expressly noted that VoIP-Pal
`12
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 48 Filed 11/21/22 Page 13 of 22
`
`
`
`had recently touted receiving a U.S. patent and a European patent in the Mobile Gateway family.
`That recently-issued U.S. Mobile Gateway patent was the ’721 patent, which issued on
`December 29, 2020. Twitter asked if VoIP-Pal would agree to a settlement that would include
`patents other than those in the RBR family. VoIP-Pal’s counsel said he would check with VoIP-
`Pal, but VoIP-Pal did not respond to that inquiry.
`56.
`On January 15, 2021, Twitter declined VoIP-Pal’s proposed settlement for the
`RBR patent family. Twitter’s reasons for declining VoIP-Pal’s offer included that it would not
`have covered all of VoIP-Pal’s patents (including the recently-touted Mobile Gateway patent),
`Twitter’s belief that VoIP-Pal’s RBR patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and VoIP-Pal’s
`demand for a $1 million payment was unreasonable.
`57.
`On March 24, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed additional motions to dismiss Twitter’s,
`Apple’s, AT&T’s, and Verizon’s 2020 DJ Actions—this time based on covenants not to sue that
`VoIP-Pal granted in the motions. E.g., Twitter, Case No. 20-cv-02397, ECF No. 62 (Mar. 21,
`2021). That covenant was insufficient to eliminate subject matter jurisdiction for reasons
`explained in Twitter’s opposition. Id., ECF No. 66 (Apr. 7, 2021). In response, on April 9, 2021,
`VoIP-Pal offered a broader covenant not to sue based on the ’606 patent and asked Twitter to
`stipulate to dismissal of Twitter’s declaratory judgment action.
`58.
`On April 12, 2021, Twitter responded in part that, at a minimum, a covenant not to
`sue to resolve Twitter’s declaratory judgment action against the ’606 patent should also include
`the ’872 patent. Twitter also stated that it expects VoIP-Pal to sue Twitter in the future for
`infringement of other patents and that even a broader covenant that includes the ’606 and ’872
`patents would not be sufficient to resolve the broader dispute between Twitter and VoIP-Pal
`based on VoIP-Pal’s patent portfolio. Twitter stated, in view of the broader dispute between
`VoIP-Pal and Twitter concerning VoIP-Pal's patent portfolio, VoIP-Pal can eliminate that broader
`dispute only by offering a covenant not to sue that covers VoIP-Pal’s entire patent portfolio and
`future related patents and applications.
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`No. 3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 48 Filed 11/21/22 Page 14 of 22
`
`
`
`59.
`On April 13, 2021, VoIP-Pal responded by declining to discuss at that time a
`covenant not to sue for more than the ’606 patent. VoIP-Pal did not deny Twitter’s stated
`expectation that VoIP-Pal plans to sue Twitter in the future.
`60.
`On April 14, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed its reply brief in support of its motion to
`dismiss, which granted Twitter the broader covenant not to sue for the ’606 patent that VoIP-Pal
`had offered on April 9. Case No. 20-cv-02397, ECF No. 68. In view of the circumstances and
`the broad dispute between Twitter and VoIP-Pal concerning VoIP-Pal’s patents, Twitter believed
`that the broader

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket