Case 2:16-cv-00260-RFB-VCF Document 37 Filed 01/26/18 Page 1 of 4
`
`Kurt R. Bonds, Esq.
`Nevada Bar No. 6228
`Adam R. Knecht, Esq.
`Nevada Bar No. 13166
`ALVERSON, TAYLOR,
`MORTENSEN & SANDERS
`7401 W. Charleston Boulevard
`Las Vegas, NV 89117
`(702) 384-7000
`efile@alversontaylor.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`Michael J. McCue
`Nevada Bar No. 6055
`LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
`3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600
`Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996
`Tel: (702) 949-8200
`E-mail: mmccue@lrrc.com
`
`John M. Desmarais (admitted pro hac vice)
`Michael P. Stadnick (admitted pro hac vice)
`Ameet A. Modi (admitted pro hac vice)
`Kerri-Ann Limbeek (admitted pro hac vice)
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Tel: (212) 351-3400
`E-mail: jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
`E-mail: mstadnick@desmaraisllp.com
`E-mail: amodi@desmaraisllp.com
`E-mail: klimbeek@desmaraisllp.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`Case No. 2:16-cv-00260-RFB-VCF
`
`JOINT STATUS REPORT
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Pursuant to this Court’s order (see ECF No. 34), Plaintiff Voip-Pal.com, Inc. (“Plaintiff”
`
`or “Voip-Pal”) and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Defendant” or “Apple”), through undersigned
`
`counsel, hereby submit the following Joint Status Report outlining the parties’ positions on how
`
`this case should proceed in light of recent developments in proceedings concurrently pending in
`
`the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”).
`
`I.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`On February 9, 2016, Voip-Pal filed this action against Apple alleging infringement of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,542,815 (the “‘815 patent”) and 9,179,005 (the “‘005 patent”). (ECF No. 1.)
`
`103367776_1
`
`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 2:16-cv-00260-RFB-VCF Document 37 Filed 01/26/18 Page 2 of 4
`
`Voip-Pal filed an Amended Complaint on April 6, 2016 and a Second Amended Complaint on
`
`May 5, 2016.
`
`(ECF Nos. 4, 11.) By stipulation, Apple’s deadline to respond to the Second
`
`Amended Complaint was extended to July 29, 2016. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.)
`
`On July 20, 2016, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to stay this litigation pending
`
`decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) on whether to institute inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) on the ’815 and ’005 patents based on petitions filed by Apple (the “IPR
`
`Petitions”). (ECF Nos. 24, 25.) On November 21, 2016, the PTAB instituted IPR on all asserted
`
`claims of the ʼ815 and ʼ005 patents. (See ECF No. 27 at ¶¶ 6-7.) On December 21, 2016, the
`
`Court granted the parties’ stipulation and proposed order to continue the stay pending final
`
`written decisions by the PTAB in the pending IPR proceedings. (ECF No. 26, 27.)
`
`On November 20, 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions concerning the IPR
`
`Petitions. In its decisions, the PTAB held that Apple did not show by a preponderance of the
`
`evidence that the asserted claims of the ʼ815 and ʼ005 patents were unpatentable. (See ECF No.
`
`34 at ¶ 9.)
`
`The parties agreed to provide the Court with their respective positions on how the case
`
`should proceed in light of the PTAB’s final written decisions. (See id. at ¶ 10.) Similar status
`
`reports are being concurrently filed in two other cases filed by Voip-Pal pending in this district:
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF
`
`and VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02338-RFB-VCF.
`
`II.
`
`THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS
`
`Voip-Pal and Apple respectfully submit that, under the current circumstances, the stay of
`
`this case should be lifted, and that Apple’s answer or other response to Voip-Pal’s Second
`
`Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) shall be due thirty (30) days after an order of this Court
`
`lifting the stay of this case. The parties agree to confer on a case schedule and discovery plan
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) after Apple files its responsive pleading, and the parties agree
`
`to submit their plan to the Court no later than seven (7) days before the Court’s scheduling
`
`conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
`
`/ / /
`
`103367776_1
`
`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 2:16-cv-00260-RFB-VCF Document 37 Filed 01/26/18 Page 3 of 4
`
`III.
`
`ONGOING PTAB PROCEEDINGS
`
`The parties further respectfully inform the Court that Apple has filed post-judgment
`
`“Motion(s) For Entry Of Judgment In Favor Of Petitioner As A Sanction For Improper Ex
`
`Parte Communications By Patent Owner, Or, Alternatively, For New And Constitutionally
`
`Correct Proceedings” in the PTAB proceedings. (See Case No. IPR2016-01198, Paper No. 55
`
`(P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017); Case No. IPR2016-01201, Paper No. 55 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017).)
`
`A.
`
`Apple’s Statement
`
`In its motions, Apple contends that Voip-Pal engaged in misconduct during the IPR
`
`proceedings, including by delivering six letters to the PTAB, this Court, and many others (but
`
`not Apple), alleging PTAB bias and threatening criminal liability against the PTAB, the former
`
`director of the USPTO, and others. Voip-Pal concealed these letters from Apple; Apple
`
`received notice of two of those letters only after the clerk of this Court posted those letters on
`
`the docket for this case. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 28, 32.) Apple argues that the letters were
`
`improper ex parte communications, and that the letters and Voip-Pal’s conduct violated federal
`
`regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, and Apple’s due process rights. Apple’s motions
`
`seek judgment in favor of Apple or new and constitutionally correct IPR proceedings as a
`
`sanction for those alleged violations. Briefing on Apple’s motion closes on January 26, 2018.
`
`Apple may renew its request to stay this case if the PTAB grants Apple’s requested relief.
`
`B.
`
`Voip-Pal’s Statement
`
`Voip-Pal vehemently opposes Apple’s motions and the allegations therein. Foremost, as
`
`pointed out in Voip-Pal’s opposition to the motions, the first and the last communications were
`
`known to Apple; the first of which more than six months before Apple’s motions were filed.
`
`Despite this, Apple did not raise any objection to the communications until after Apple lost on
`
`the merits of its IPR proceedings – likely because Apple believed the communications had no
`
`effect. Secondly, as addressed in Voip-Pal’s opposition to the motions, the communications did
`
`not address any technical or substantive merits, but were instead, communications about
`
`systemic issues regarding USPTO and PTAB processes, which communications are expressly
`
`authorized by the USPTO Rules of Practice and the Code of Federal Regulations. Finally, the
`
`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
`
`103367776_1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00260-RFB-VCF Document 37 Filed 01/26/18 Page 4 of 4
`
`relief requested by Apple is unprecedented and perceptibly nothing more than an attempt to
`
`drag out a process that Apple lost on the merits. Voip-Pal also contends that Apple’s request for
`
`relief is untimely and statutorily barred.
`
`Dated: January 26, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`ALVERSON, TAYLOR,
`MORTENSEN & SANDERS
`
`/s/ Adam R. Knecht
`Kurt R. Bonds
`Nevada Bar No. 6228
`Adam R. Knecht
`Nevada Bar No. 13166
`7404 W. Charleston Blvd.
`Las Vegas, NV 89117-1401
`Tel: 702.384.7000
`E-mail: kbonds@alversontaylor.com
`E-mail: aknecht@alversontaylor.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`LEWIS ROCA
`ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
`
`/s/ Michael J. McCue
`Michael J. McCue
`Nevada Bar No. 6055
`3993 Howard Hughes Pkwy, Suite 600
`Las Vegas, NV 89169-5996
`Tel: (702) 949-8200
`E-mail: mmccue@lrrc.com
`
`DESMARAIS LLP
`John M. Desmarais (pro hac vice)
`Michael P. Stadnick (pro hac vice)
`Ameet A. Modi (pro hac vice)
`Kerri-Ann Limbeek (pro hac vice)
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Tel: (212) 351-3400
`E-mail: jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
`E-mail: mstadnick@desmaraisllp.com
`E-mail: amodi@desmaraisllp.com
`E-mail: klimbeek@desmaraisllp.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`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
`
`103367776_1
`
`4
`
`