Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 58 Filed 02/23/23 Page 1 of 22
`
`
`
`Matthias A. Kamber (SB # 232147)
`matthiaskamber@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`101 California Street, 48th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: (415) 856-7000
`Fax: (415) 856-7100
`
`Robert W. Unikel (pro hac vice)
`robertunikel@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`71 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4500
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Tel: (312) 499-6000
`Fax: (312) 499-6100
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`[ADDITIONAL COUNSEL LISTED ON
`SIGNATURE PAGES]
`
`
`
`Ellisen S. Turner (SB #224842)
`ellisen.turner@kirkland.com
`Joshua Glucoft (SB #301249)
`josh.glucoft@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`2049 Century Park East, 37th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: (310) 552-4200
`Fax: (310) 552-5900
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Meta Platforms, Inc. and WhatsApp LLC
`
`Sonal N. Mehta (SB# 222086)
` Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, California 94306
`Telephone:
`(650) 858-6000
`Facsimile:
`(650) 858-6100
`
`Taylor Gooch (SB# 294282)
` Taylor.Gooch@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1 Front Street, Suite 3500
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone:
`(628) 235-1000
`Facsimile:
`(628) 235-1001
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Twitter, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`3:22-cv-03199-JD
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03199-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
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`101 MOTION
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 58 Filed 02/23/23 Page 2 of 22
`
`
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`META PLATFORMS, INC, et al.,
`Defendant.
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`3:22-cv-03202-JD
`
`
`CASE NO.
`
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT NOTICE AND MEMORANDUM OF
`POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 101 MOTION
`
`Date: March 30, 2023
`Time: 10:00 a.m.
`Place: Courtroom 11, 19th Floor
`Judge: The Hon. James Donato
`
`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
`
`
`
`101 MOTION
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03199-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 58 Filed 02/23/23 Page 3 of 22
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ........................................................................................ 1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................ 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ............. 1
`II.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................... 1
`III.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................... 3
`IV.
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 3
`A.
`Claim 1 of the ’234 patent is representative of all asserted claims. ............ 3
`B.
`The asserted claims are patent-ineligible under Section 101. ..................... 6
`1.
`Alice step one: Claim 1 is directed toward an abstract idea. .......... 6
`2.
`Alice step two: Claim 1 lacks an inventive concept. .................... 11
`3.
`None of the other asserted claims are patent-eligible. .................. 13
`Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. ................................................... 15
`C.
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 15
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`101 MOTION
`
`
`-i-
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03199-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 58 Filed 02/23/23 Page 4 of 22
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................................7
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .................................................................................................14
`Broadcom Corp. v. Netflix Inc.,
`598 F. Supp. 3d 800 (N.D. Cal. 2022) ..................................................................................3, 11
`BroadSoft, Inc. v. CallWave Commc’ns, LLC,
`282 F. Supp. 3d 771 (D. Del. 2017), aff’d, 739 F. App’x 985 (Fed Cir. 2018) ........................10
`CarDx, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.,
`40 F.4d 1371, 1381 Fed. Cir. 2022 ...........................................................................................13
`Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs.,
`859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .................................................................................................10
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc.,
`815 F. App’x 529 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...........................................................................................14
`Foman v. Davis,
`371 U.S. 178 (1962) ..................................................................................................................15
`Glasswall Sols. Ltd. v. Clearswift Ltd.,
`754 Fed. App’x 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................12
`Juniper Networks Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC,
`No. 3:20-cv-03137-JD, 2022 WL 3031211 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2022) ...............................11, 12
`Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) ....................................................................................................................13
`RingCentral, Inc. v. Dialpad, Inc.,
`372 F. Supp. 3d 988 (N.D. Cal. 2019) ........................................................................................8
`SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC,
`898 F.3d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...................................................................................................3
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc.,
`873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .....................................................................................................3
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................6
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ...................................................................................................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
`
`
`
`101 MOTION
`
`
`-ii-
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03199-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 58 Filed 02/23/23 Page 5 of 22
`
`
`
`VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`375 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (N.D. Cal. 2019), aff’d, 798 F. App’x 644 (Fed. Cir.
`2020) .................................................................................................................................1, 7, 15
`VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`411 F. Supp. 3d 926 (N.D. Cal. 2019), aff’d, 828 F. App’x 717 (Fed. Cir.
`2020) ................................................................................................................................. passim
`Yu v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 3:18-cv-06181-JD, 2020 WL 1429773 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) ......................................9
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...........................................................................................................................3, 12
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) .....................................................................................................................3
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) ...................................................................................................................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
`
`
`
`101 MOTION
`
`
`-iii-
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03199-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 58 Filed 02/23/23 Page 6 of 22
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`
`At 10:00 a.m. on March 30, 2023, in Courtroom 11, 19th floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue,
`San Francisco, California, before the Honorable James Donato, Defendants Google LLC
`(“Google”) and Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) move for judgment on the pleadings under Federal
`Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), and Plaintiff Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter”) moves to dismiss under
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Movants respectfully request the Court find the patent
`claims asserted by Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) in these cases to be invalid under 35
`U.S.C. § 101 for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter and to dismiss with prejudice.
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`The issue is whether VoIP-Pal’s asserted patent claims recite patent-eligible subject matter
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. They do not. The claims relate to routing a phone call between two
`participants (a caller and a callee or “destination node”) based on their identity and location
`information. Under the Supreme Court’s two-step Alice framework, the asserted claims (1) are
`directed to the abstract idea of routing a communication based on the participants’ characteristics,
`and (2) lack an inventive concept to make the claims patent-eligible. Like VoIP-Pal’s other patent
`claims that this District previously invalidated under § 101, the asserted claims here simply
`automate well-known call-routing practices using conventional computer components.
`Accordingly, the Court should grant Movants judgment of invalidity for failure to recite patent-
`eligible subject matter under § 101 and dismiss with prejudice.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`VoIP-Pal has a history of unsuccessful patent lawsuits in this District. VoIP-Pal previously
`asserted six patents against other parties; however, Judge Lucy Koh, while still serving in this
`District, invalidated all of the asserted claims for failure to claim patentable subject matter, and the
`Federal Circuit summarily affirmed. VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 375 F. Supp. 3d 1110 (N.D.
`Cal. 2019), aff’d, 798 F. App’x 644 (mem.) (Fed. Cir. 2020); VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 411
`F. Supp. 3d 926 (N.D. Cal. 2019), aff’d, 828 F. App’x 717 (mem.) (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`VoIP-Pal then filed suit against Google, Meta, and others in the Western District of Texas,
`
`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
`
`
`
`101 MOTION
`
`
`-1-
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03199-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 58 Filed 02/23/23 Page 7 of 22
`
`
`
`alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,234 (the “’234 patent”) and 10,880,721 (the “’721
`patent”). See, e.g., Case No. 3:22-cv-03199-JD (the “Google Action”) Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”).1 On May
`31, 2022, the cases were transferred here. Dkt. 64. Judge Koh, who previously invalidated VoIP-
`Pal’s six other patents, “noted the similarity” between those invalidated patents and the ’234 and
`’721 patents that VoIP-Pal now asserts against Google and Meta, and this Court likewise has
`recognized that the ’234 and ’721 patents “involve[] similar technology” to the previously
`invalidated patents, which share an inventor and original assignee. Twitter Action, Dkt. 38 at 3–4.
`On December 17, 2021, Twitter filed a declaratory judgment complaint against VoIP-Pal,
`claiming that Twitter does not infringe the ’234 or ’721 patents. The pertinent background is
`described in Twitter’s original complaint and Twitter’s Opposition to VoIP-Pal’s Motion to
`Dismiss. Twitter Action, Dkts. 1, 30. Twitter subsequently sought and received leave to file a First
`Amended Complaint that added claims for a declaratory judgment that the ’234 and ’721 patents
`are invalid. Id., Dkt. 47. Notably, in opposing Twitter’s Motion to Amend, VoIP-Pal represented
`to the Court that “VoIP-Pal is willing to stipulate that Twitter does not infringe the Mobile Gateway
`Patents so that the Court may enter judgment and dismiss the case.” Id., Dkt. 42 at 1. VoIP-Pal then
`answered and counterclaimed alleging infringement of the ’721 patent.
`The ’721 patent is a continuation of the ’234 patent, so they share the same title, inventors,
`and specification. The patents relate “generally to telecommunication, and more particularly to . . .
`initiating or enabling a call with a mobile telephone to a callee.” ’234 patent, Dkt. 1-2 at 1:11–14.
`They explain that “[m]obile telephone service providers often charge significant fees for long
`distance telephone calls, particularly when the mobile telephone is roaming,” and that a “calling
`card” is a “known technique for avoiding the long distance charges” but “can be cumbersome and
`undesirable, because it may require the user of the mobile telephone to follow a number of
`complicated or cumbersome steps in order to initiate a call to the callee.” Id. at 1:16–32. The patents
`therefore describe a technique that allegedly automates some call routing steps. See id. at 1:36–47,
`
`
`1 See also Case No. 3:22-cv-03202 (the “Meta Action”), Dkt. 1; Case No. 3:21-cv-09773 (the
`“Twitter Action”), Dkt. 1. All docket citations are to the Google Action (No. 3:22-cv-03199-JD)
`unless otherwise indicated.
`101 MOTION
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03199-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 58 Filed 02/23/23 Page 8 of 22
`
`
`
`9:18–22, Fig. 1. Specifically, they disclose “[a] method of initiating a call to a callee using a mobile
`telephone” by “receiving . . . a callee identifier” from the caller; “transmitting an access code
`request message” with “a [caller] location identifier”; “receiving an access code reply message”;
`and “initiating a call with the mobile telephone using said access code.” Id. at Abstract, 1:50–52.
`The system’s transmitted “access code” automatically provides the same type of calling card
`information that a caller would otherwise dial manually. See id.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`Per the Court’s suggestion, Movants incorporate the legal standards for patent eligibility
`described in the parallel briefing regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,218,606. Case No. 3:22-cv-05419-
`JD, Dkt. 129. Patent ineligibility under § 101 is a threshold issue that “may be, and frequently has
`been, resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) or (c) motion” as a matter of law where there are no relevant
`factual disputes. SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1166 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also
`Secured Mail Sols. LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (court need
`not accept as true allegations contradicting the claims and the patent specification). “[A] patentee
`cannot avoid dismissal for ineligible claims purely on the basis of conclusory or generalized
`statements.” Broadcom Corp. v. Netflix Inc., 598 F. Supp. 3d 800, 805 (N.D. Cal. 2022).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Claim 1 of the ’234 patent is representative of all asserted claims.
`Claim 1 of the ’234 patent (“Claim 1”) is representative of all asserted claims of the ’234
`and ’721 patents.2 Claim 1 recites only basic call-routing functions of “receiving” a callee identifier
`(when the caller types a telephone number into the caller’s mobile phone, for example),
`“transmitting” an access code request message including the callee identifier and the caller’s
`location to the network provider, “receiving” an access code from the network, and “initiating” a
`call using the access code (’234 patent at 34:35–57):
`
`
`2 For the ’234 patent, VoIP-Pal asserts claims 1, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33,
`35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54, 61, 62, 64, 65, 70, 72, and 75 against Google. For
`the ’721 patent, VoIP-Pal asserts claims 1, 6, 15, 16, 20, 25, 34, 38, 39, 43, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 63,
`77, 103, 104, 109, 110, 124, 130, 133, 135, 136, 138, 139, and 140 against Google. The arguments
`below apply equally to both patents’ unasserted claims, for which Claim 1 also is representative.
`-3-
`101 MOTION
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03199-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 58 Filed 02/23/23 Page 9 of 22
`
`
`
`
`1. A method of roaming with a mobile telephone, the method
`comprising:
`receiving, from a user of the mobile telephone, a callee identifier
`associated with the callee;
`transmitting an access code request message to an access server to
`seek an access code from a pool of access codes wherein each access
`code in said pool of access codes identifies a respective telephone
`number or Internet Protocol (IP) network address that enables a local
`call to be made to call the callee identified by the callee identifier,
`said access code request message including said callee identifier and
`a location identifier separate and distinctive from said callee
`identifier, said location identifier identifying a location of the mobile
`telephone;
`receiving an access code reply message from the access server in
`response to said access code request message, said access code reply
`message including an access code different from said callee
`identifier and associated with said location identifier and/or
`associated with a location pre-associated with the mobile telephone
`and wherein said access code expires after a period of time; and
`initiating a call with the mobile telephone using said access code to
`identify the callee.
`The ’234 patent’s other asserted claims are just marginal iterations of this same purported
`invention for purposes of assessing patent eligibility. For example, claims 11 and 20 recite this
`invention as a system (i.e., apparatus), rather than a method like Claim 1. Claims 30, 46, and 62, as
`a further example, recite the same invention from the perspective of the network provider’s server
`rather than from the perspective of the caller’s mobile phone, so what is “transmitt[ed]” versus
`“receiv[ed]”—an “access code”—is simply mirrored relative to Claim 1.3 The remaining asserted
`claims add other immaterial limitations, such as referencing a generic “routing controller” element
`to provide the access code that Claim 1 already requires (claim 10), or specifying that Claim 1’s
`steps happen specifically on a “non-voice network” (claim 21), “such as an internet,” or in an IP
`environment (claim 22), such as “WiFi.” ’234 patent at 35:21–32, 36:57–67, 11:51–52, 37:5–7,
`9:11. None of those specific features are alleged to be novel or otherwise materially contributing to
`the benefits or utility of the purported invention. See Compl. ¶¶ 9–24.
`As highlighted in Appendix 1, asserted claim 1 of the ’721 patent discloses the same basic
`process as Claim 1 of the ’234 patent, but substitutes a “destination node” for the “callee.” Neither
`
`
`3 The Court could also treat Claim 1 and Claim 30, respectively, as representative of all phone-side
`and server-side claims , though they mirror one another and are ineligible for the same reasons.
`-4-
`101 MOTION
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03199-JD
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 58 Filed 02/23/23 Page 10 of 22
`
`
`
`the claims nor the common specification suggests a material distinction between a “destination
`node” and a “callee,” and the terms are essentially used interchangeably in the claims. See ’721
`patent at 48:10–15 (stating that the “destination node,” like a callee, can be a “PSTN telephone”);
`see also Appendix 1. Specifying that the access code identifies a “channel” likewise has no impact,
`since that is fundamental to basic call routing, as the asserted patents recognize. See ’234 patent at,
`e.g., 9:22–24 (“The channels 20, 22, and 24 maybe [sic] telephone lines in a Public Switched
`Telephone Network (PSTN) 29.”). As with the ’234 patent, certain claims of the ’721 patent,
`including claim 130 that is asserted against Twitter, also recite the same invention but from the
`perspective of the server rather than the mobile device. Again, this change in perspective has no
`bearing on the patentability of the claims as it merely requires the “access code” to be “receiv[ed]”
`rather than “transmitt[ed].” The other asserted claims of the ’721 patent include minor
`modifications similar to those in the asserted ’234 patent claims. The following table summarizes
`the immaterial variations across the asserted claims relative to Claim 1:
`’234 patent
`Variation
`claim(s)
`11, 19, 20, 21,
`22, 24, 25, 28
`
`System version of method Claim 1
`
`Claim 1 from the perspective of the server instead of the
`mobile phone
`
`System version of method Claim 1 from the perspective of the
`server instead of the mobile phone
`
`A “routing controller” is specifically introduced to provide the
`access code or route Claim 1’s communication
`Claim 1’s network is a specific kind of network (e.g., “non-
`voice network” or WiFi network)
`Claim 1 specifically involving an IP network or IP address
`
`Claim 1’s location identifier is “user-configured”
`Claim 1’s access code is specifically associated with the
`caller’s “local calling area”
`
`30, 31, 32, 33,
`35, 37, 38, 39,
`40, 43, 45
`46, 47, 48, 51,
`53, 54, 61, 62,
`64, 65, 70, 72,
`75
`10, 19, 28, 32,
`48, 64
`21, 25, 31, 45,
`47, 61
`22, 35, 38, 39,
`51, 54, 70
`
`24, 37, 53
`33, 65
`
`’721 patent
`claim(s)
`20, 25, 34, 38,
`39, 43, 45, 46,
`49, 50
`51, 63, 130,
`133, 138
`
`77, 103, 104,
`109, 110, 124,
`139
`
`15, 16, 34, 49,
`51, 77, 109
`39, 46, 104,
`109, 135
`6, 25, 43, 50,
`63, 130, 133,
`138, 139, 140
`45
`110
`
`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
`
`
`
`101 MOTION
`
`
`-5-
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03199-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 58 Filed 02/23/23 Page 11 of 22
`
`
`
`Variation
`
`’234 patent
`claim(s)
`Claim 1’s access code is associated with the “caller identifier” 40, 72
`Claim 1’s expiration period is specifically based on a
`43, 75
`“timestamp”
`A gateway may be used in Claim 1’s network
`Transmission of two types of information in Claim 1 are
`specifically performed at the same time
`
`N/A
`N/A
`
`’721 patent
`claim(s)
`N/A
`124
`
`133
`136
`
`Ultimately, there is no “meaningful difference” between Claim 1 (of the ’234 patent) and
`any of the other asserted claims for purposes of assessing patent eligibility; they all disclose
`“performance of the same basic process.” Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth., 873
`F.3d 1364, 1368 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Claim 1 thus is representative of all asserted claims for
`purposes of this motion.
`
`B. The asserted claims are patent-ineligible under Section 101.
`1. Alice step one: Claim 1 is directed toward an abstract idea.
`Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of routing a communication based on the
`participants’ characteristics. VoIP-Pal itself admits, at least the ’721 patent, is directed to
`“providing an access code to roaming mobile communication devices such as smartphones, to
`enable access to suitable communication routing infrastructure, wherein the selection of the
`communication channel for a call or communication can be optimized based on the calling device’s
`current location.” Twitter Action, Dkt. 57 ¶ 24. The Federal Circuit and this District previously
`found claims in similar VoIP-Pal patents to be directed to this same abstract concept because the
`representative claim was (1) “worded in such broad, functional terms, so as to describe a desired
`result—routing the communication—without explaining how that result is achieved,” (2) was
`“analogous to preexisting practices of manual call routing,” and (3) “[did] not focus on a specific
`means or method that improves the relevant technology and is instead directed to a result or effect
`that itself is the abstract idea and merely invokes generic processes and machinery.” VoIP-Pal v.
`Apple, 411 F. Supp. 3d at 952, 956, 963. The same three-part analysis applies here.
`a) Claim 1 uses broad, functional terms.
`Claim 1 discloses its elements in terms of basic call-routing functions: “receiving” a callee
`
`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
`
`
`
`101 MOTION
`
`
`-6-
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03199-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 58 Filed 02/23/23 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
`
`identifier (telephone number), “transmitting” an access code request message, “receiving” an
`access code, and “initiating” a call using the access code. ’234 patent at 34:35–57. It does not
`disclose how any of these functions are achieved, such as how the access code is used to initiate the
`call. Also, the representative claim does not disclose how the access code is generated; just that the
`transmitted access code is “associated with said location identifier . . .” and “enables a local call”
`like a generic calling card’s “local telephone number.” Id. at 34:43, 34:52–53, 1:22–26; see infra
`§ B.1.b. The “purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea,
`not to a concrete embodiment of that idea.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 838
`F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`This is also true for those claims drafted from the perspective of a server rather than a mobile
`telephone. These claims still provide no detailed description of the claimed access code. And rather
`than addressing how an access code is generated, they merely disclose the broad, functional steps
`of “producing” and “selecting” an access code. E.g. ’234 patent at claims 30 and 33; ’721 at claim
`130. As such, Claim 1 remains fully representative of these server-side claims for purposes of
`ineligibility. The same is true of the asserted means-plus-function claim iterations. See VoIP-Pal v.
`Apple, 375 F. Supp. 3d at 1135 (“The claim language . . . is a near-verbatim copy of the claim
`language of claim 1. . . . [T]he algorithmic structure . . . do[es] not actually transform [the claim]
`limitations into a non-abstract idea” and “claim 1 is still representative[.]”).
`The Federal Circuit and this District have repeatedly found such functional claims in the
`call-routing context to be directed to an abstract idea, including in similar VoIP-Pal patents in which
`the representative claim “contain[ed] no instructions for how each step of the routing process is
`accomplished.” See VoIP-Pal v. Apple, 411 F. Supp. 3d at 955 (“The claim simply requires the
`functional results of ‘receiving,’ ‘processing,’ and ‘classifying’ a call based on the participant
`identifiers, and then ultimately ‘identifying’ an appropriate Internet address.”); Two-Way Media
`Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Claim 1 recites a
`method for routing information using result-based functional language. The claim requires the
`functional results of ‘converting,’ ‘routing,’ ‘controlling,’ ‘monitoring,’ and ‘accumulating
`records,’ but does not sufficiently describe how to achieve these results in a non-abstract way.”).
`
`
`
`101 MOTION
`
`
`-7-
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03199-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 58 Filed 02/23/23 Page 13 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
`
`Here too, Claim 1 relies on functional routing terms to describe desired results without explaining
`how to achieve those results, indicating that the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Indeed, none
`of the representative claim’s elements, such as the transmitted “callee identifier” and received
`“access code,” suggest how to accomplish the recited functions. Rather—as the specification
`admits—they are just generic routing concepts found in conventional technologies. ’234 patent at
`11:39–41 (“The callee identifier is associated with a desired callee, and may be a telephone number
`of the callee”), 23:62–64 (“In the illustrated example, the access code is the PSTN telephone
`number”); Compl. ¶¶ 16–18; see infra § B.1.b.
`b) Claim 1 is analogous to preexisting call routing practices.
`Claim 1’s purported invention of routing a call based on the participants’ characteristics
`(specifically, the callee’s identity and the caller’s location) is directly analogous to well-known,
`longstanding practices in telephone communications. As addressed in VoIP-Pal’s previous case and
`as VoIP-Pal itself admitted in its complaint, these concepts for call routing have existed for decades.
`See VoIP-Pal v. Apple, 411 F. Supp. 3d at 956–57 (“Representative Claim 1 is analogous to
`preexisting practices of manual call routing” and “provides simple automation of a task previously
`performed manually”); Compl. ¶¶ 15–22; see also RingCentral, Inc. v. Dialpad, Inc., 372 F. Supp.
`3d 988, 999 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“[T]he claim is directed to the abstract ideas of routing telephone
`calls based on routing parameters . . . and allowing a user to modify those routing parameters. . . .
`[T]hese are functions that humans have routinely performed and are therefore abstract.”).
`At heart, Claim 1 uses only an identity and location to determine how best to route a
`telephone call. Even in the “earliest telephone systems,” a caller would identify a callee by “say[ing]
`the name of the person they wish to call to the operator,” who would direct the call based on where
`the caller was located, for example based on whether the caller was on the same switchboard as the
`callee (when both participants were local). Compl. ¶ 15. If not, “a second operator would be
`involved to bridge the gap to the appropriate switchboard.” Id. Later, callers identified callees by
`dialing their telephone numbers rather than talking to human operators, but calls still were routed
`based on the participants’ locations, with conventional “trunk lines” connecting participants on
`different networks. Id. ¶¶ 16–19. Claim 1 merely reiterates these longstanding and well-known call-
`
`
`
`101 MOTION
`
`
`-8-
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-03199-JD
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 58 Filed 02/23/23 Page 14 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
`
`routing practices using generic computer elements to automate the process rather than using a
`human operator to route a call, just like in VoIP-Pal’s previously invalidated patent claims. See
`VoIP-Pal v. Apple, 411 F. Supp. 3d at 958–59 (holding that it was “unconvinced by Plaintiff’s
`attempt to distinguish Representative Claim 1 from switchboard operators”).
`Claim 1 reflects the same basic concepts long implemented with calling cards. See Yu v.
`Apple Inc., No. 3:18-cv-06181-JD, 2020 WL 1429773, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020) (A “useful
`cross-check is to look for ‘fundamental [and] long prevalent’ implementations or practices of the
`same basic concept.”) (quoting Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314
`(Fed. Cir. 2016)). As alleged in the Complaint, callers could use calling cards to avoid long-distance
`charges by manually placing a call to a local telephone or other number, which would ultimately
`connect to the callee. Compl. ¶ 22; see also ’234 patent at 1:22–26 (“A ‘calling card’ may permit
`the user of the mobile telephone to place a call to a local telephone number or to a less-expensive
`telephone number (such as a toll-free number for example) instead of placing the call directly to
`the callee.”). The patents therefore teach that the calling card’s “local telephone number” functions
`just like Claim 1’s “access code.” The only difference is that in Claim 1, the access code is provided
`automatically by the telephone network provider, as opposed to conventional calling cards where
`information was entered manually by the callee after being provided by the telephone company at
`the time of purchase of the calling card.
`The direct parallels to conventional calling card practices and switchboard operators are
`another strong signal that Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1’s basic routing process
`has been implemented with