throbber
Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST
`AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND
`COUNTERCLAIM
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`TWITTER, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., a Nevada
`corporation,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`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 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`Defendant VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) submit this Answer to the allegations in the
`
`numbered paragraphs in Plaintiff Twitter, Inc.’s (“Twitter’s”) First Amended Complaint for
`
`Declaratory Judgment, Dkt. No. 48. 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.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`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.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`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.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`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 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 5 of 31
`
`
`
`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.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`5
`
`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 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`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 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`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.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`7
`
`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 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`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.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`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.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`9
`
`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 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`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.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`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 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`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 and all
`
`preceding paragraphs 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.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’234 Patent by Twitter)
`
`13. VoIP-Pal repeats, realleges, and incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 76 and all
`
`preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth in this Count.
`
`14. Paragraph 14 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 14.
`
`15. Paragraph 15 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 15.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`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 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`16. Paragraph 16 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 16 of the Complaint.
`
`17. Paragraph 17 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 17 of the Complaint.
`
`18. Paragraph 18 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 18 of the Complaint.
`
`19. Paragraph 19 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 19 of the Complaint.
`
`20. Paragraph 20 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 20 of the Complaint.
`
`FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’721Patent by Twitter)
`
`21. VoIP-Pal repeats, realleges, and incorporates its answers to paragraphs 1 through 76 and all
`
`preceding paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth in this Count.
`
`22. Paragraph 22 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 22.
`
`23. Paragraph 23 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 23.
`
`24. Paragraph 24 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 24 of the Complaint.
`
`25. Paragraph 25 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 25 of the Complaint.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`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 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`26. Paragraph 26 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 26 of the Complaint.
`
`27. Paragraph 27 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 27 of the Complaint.
`
`28. Paragraph 28 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 28 of the Complaint.
`
`ANSWER TO PRAYER
`
`
`
`VoIP-Pal denies that Twitter is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraphs A) – F) of its Prayer
`
`for Relief.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, VoIP-Pal requests a trial by jury of
`
`any issues raised by Twitter’s Complaint that are so triable.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`VoIP-Pal alleges the following separate affirmative defenses to Twitter’s Claims for Relief
`
`and to each allegation contained therein:
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Failure to State a Claim for which Relief Can Be Granted)
`
`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.
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 14 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Lack of Personal Jurisdiction)
`
`The Court does not have personal jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal because California’s long-arm
`
`statute does not confer jurisdiction over non-resident VoIP-Pal and the exercise of jurisdiction does
`
`not satisfy due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction)
`
`
`
`The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal because there is no “case
`
`or controversy” under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 in that VoIP-Pal has not engaged in any conduct that created
`
`a reasonable apprehension on the part of the declaratory judgment plaintiff that it will face an
`
`infringement suit in this District.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Improper Venue)
`
`The venue for this action is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and should be dismissed or
`
`transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1406.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`
`(Reservation of Additional Defenses)
`
`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`14
`
`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 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 15 of 31
`
`
`
`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
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”), files its
`
`Counterclaim against Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) and alleges as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff VoIP-Pal is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business located
`
`at 7215 Bosque Boulevard, Waco, Texas 76710. VoIP-Pal is registered to do business in the State of
`
`Texas.
`
`2.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant Twitter is a company incorporated under the
`
`laws of Delaware, with headquarters at 1355 Market Street, Suite 900, San Francisco, California.
`
`3.
`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.
`4.
`On information and belief, Twitter regularly conducts and transacts business in the
`
`State of California, throughout the United States, and within this District, and as set forth below, has
`
`committed and continues to commit, tortious acts of infringement within and outside the State of
`
`California and within this District.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This action is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`United States, Title 35, United States Code (“U.S.C.”) § 1 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 16 of 31
`
`
`
`281-285. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this case for patent infringement
`
`under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338.
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Twitter by virtue of its systematic and
`
`continuous contacts with this jurisdiction, as alleged herein, as well as because the injury to VoIP-Pal
`
`occurred in the State of California and the claim for relief possessed by VoIP-Pal against Twitter for
`
`that injury arose in the State of California. On information and belief, Twitter has purposely availed
`
`itself of the privileges of conducting business within the State of California, such business including
`
`but not limited to: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; (ii) purposefully and
`
`voluntarily placing one or more infringing products or services into the stream of commerce with the
`
`expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in this forum; or (iii) regularly transacting or
`
`soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, or deriving or attempting to
`
`derive substantial revenue and financial benefits from goods and services provided to individuals
`
`residing in the State of California and in this District. Thus, Twitter is subject to this Court’s specific
`
`and general personal jurisdiction under due process and the California Long Arm Statute.
`
`7.
`
`Personal jurisdiction also exists specifically over Twitter because it, directly or
`
`through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including customers, distributors, retailers, and others),
`
`subsidiaries, alter egos, and/or agents – ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, imports, advertises, or
`
`markets in the State of California and in this District, one or more products and services that infringe
`
`the Patent-in-Suit, as described particularly below. Twitter has purposefully and voluntarily placed
`
`one or more of their infringing products and services, as described below, into the stream of
`
`commerce with the awareness and/or intent that these products or services will be purchased or used
`
`by consumers in this District. Twitter has knowingly and purposefully shipped infringing products
`
`and provided services into and within this District through an established distribution channel. These
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIM
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`16
`
`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 57 Filed 02/09/23 Page 17 of 31
`
`
`
`infringing products and services have been and continue to be purchased and used by consumers in
`
`this District.
`
`8.
`
`VoIP-Pal’s claim for relief for patent

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