`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`
`CASE NO.
`
`3:22-cv-03199-JD
`
`vs.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC, et al.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO.
`
`3:22-cv-03202-JD
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`
`
`
`CASE NO.
`
`3:21-cv-09773-JD
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`101 MOTION
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03199-JD
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 58-3 Filed 02/23/23 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 101 MOTION
`Before the Court is a 101 Motion brought by Defendant Google LLC, Defendants Meta
`Platforms Inc. and WhatsApp LLC, and Plaintiff Twitter, Inc. (collectively, “Movants”), which
`seeks a judgment of invalidity in these cases. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the
`relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court hereby finds:
`1. The asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,234 and 10,880,721 are directed to an
`abstract idea under step one of Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).
`2. The Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents-in-Suit do not satisfy the inventive-concept
`requirement under step two of Alice.
`Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
`Movants’ 101 Motion is GRANTED.
`
`
`
`
`
`Hon. James Donato
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: _______________, 2023
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
`101 MOTION
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-CV-03199-JD
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
