Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 1 of 16
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.;
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-272-ADA
`
`
`REPLY OF AMAZON IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSED MOTION FOR
`JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 2 of 16
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 1
`A.
`Claim 1 is representative, and no asserted claims are patent-eligible. ................ 1
`B.
`VoIP-Pal is collaterally estopped from challenging ineligibility. ....................... 4
`C.
`The asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea. .......................................... 5
`D.
`Claim 1 and all asserted claims contain no inventive concept. ........................... 8
`E.
`No factual allegations prevent deciding this issue on the pleadings. ................ 10
`F.
`VoIP-Pal should not be granted leave to amend its complaint. ........................ 10
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 3 of 16
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................8
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .......................................................................................................1, 6, 7, 8
`
`AML IP, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00600-ADA, 2022 WL 1085617 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2022) .......................2, 10
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................3
`
`Bilski v. Kappos,
`561 U.S. 593 (2010) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`BroadSoft, Inc. v. CallWave Commc’ns., LLC,
`282 F. Supp. 3d 771 (D. Del. 2017) ...........................................................................................8
`
`Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc.,
`927 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................9
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................1
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................5
`
`Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH,
`942 F.3d 1143 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..............................................................................................5, 6
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................7
`
`Move, Inc. v. Real Estate All. Ltd.,
`721 F. App’x. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ...........................................................................................8
`
`NetSoc, LLC v. Oath Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-12267 (RA), 2020 WL 419469 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2020) ......................................5
`
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................4
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`884 F.3d 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................5
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`Slyce Acquisition Inc. v. Syte – Visual Conception Ltd.,
`No. W-19-CV-00257-ADA, 2020 WL 278481 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2020) ............................10
`
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth.,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................1
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns., LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................9
`
`Vineyard Investigations v. E. & J. Gallo Winery,
`510 F. Supp. 3d 926 (E.D. Cal. 2021)........................................................................................3
`
`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) ..........................................................................................................................................2
`
`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
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 282 ................................................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 5 of 16
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This is not a typical § 101 motion. Six patents in the same family as the ’606 patent have
`
`already been invalidated on motions to dismiss for claiming ineligible subject matter, and each
`
`decision was summarily affirmed on appeal. The claims of the ’606 patent are directed to the same
`
`abstract idea – routing communications based upon characteristics of the participants using known
`
`IP and telephone networks.
`
`In its opposition, VoIP-Pal attempts to create complexity where there is none. Like the
`
`invalid predecessors from the rest of the patent family, the claims of the ’606 patent lack an in-
`
`ventive concept and thus fail each step of the Alice test. This Court therefore can and should decide
`
`this motion on the pleadings and hold the asserted claims invalid under § 101.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Claim 1 is representative, and no asserted claims are patent-eligible.
`
`VoIP-Pal argues that 35 U.S.C. § 282 requires evaluating patent eligibility for each claim
`
`and that using a representative claim “oversimplif[ies]” the claims for “expediency.” (ECF No.
`
`106 (“Resp.”) at 4.) But addressing each claim of an asserted patent can be “unnecessary” when
`
`one claim is representative, such as when “all the claims are ‘substantially similar and linked to
`
`the same abstract idea.’” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat.
`
`Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). If there are “only minor differ-
`
`ences” and a “performance of the same basic process,” the claims “should rise or fall together.”
`
`Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chi. Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1368 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The
`
`claims of the ’606 patent are worded in broad, functional terms, and VoIP-Pal has failed to demon-
`
`strate that any differences between the claims materially change the same basic focus us describing
`
`a desired result of routing a communication based on participant characteristics.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`VoIP-Pal incorrectly asserts that this Court’s practice is to brief ineligibility for each claim,
`
`and the case it relies on had not yet proceeded through claim construction. Cf. AML IP, LLC v.
`
`Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00600-ADA, 2022 WL 1085617, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Apr.
`
`11, 2022) (finding that it will be “more efficient” to decide eligibility until after issuing its claim
`
`construction order). This Court has already construed the claims in this case, and Amazon has
`
`shown that the Court’s constructions do not impact the eligibility analysis. (ECF No. 103 (“Mot.”)
`
`at 19.)
`
`Next, VoIP-Pal argues that Amazon “make[s] no effort” to show the other asserted claims
`
`do not meaningfully differ from claim 1. (Resp. at 4.) But Amazon submitted a color-coded
`
`Appendix demonstrating how claim 1 of the ’606 patent is representative in comparison to a pre-
`
`viously invalidated claim. (Mot. at Appendix 1.) The limitations of claim 1 are basic call-routing
`
`steps of “receiving,” “identifying,” “processing,” and “producing.” (Mot. at 16.) Another court,
`
`when deciding eligibility for related U.S. Patent No. 9,826,002 (“the ’002 patent”), used claim 1
`
`as representative of most of the asserted claims for that patent (and other asserted claims of a
`
`related patent). VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 411 F. Supp. 3d 926 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“VoIP-
`
`Pal 2”), aff’d, 828 F. App’x 717 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 375
`
`F. Supp. 3d 1110, 1118 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“VoIP-Pal 1”), aff’d, 798 F. App’x 644 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`Amazon then demonstrated that the other claims of the ’606 patent are, at best, insignificant
`
`permutations of the same abstract concept recited in claim 1. (Mot. at 16-19.) Claim 21 is merely
`
`claim 1 in a system format. Claim 23 recites conventional internet routing functionality regarding
`
`an “IP network address.” Claims 8, 15, and 44 recite a generic participant device in communica-
`
`tion with a PSTN, which was in the prior art. Claim 26 further specifies preparing a routing mes-
`
`sage “identifying a gateway” to an external communication system. Claim 11 recites the generic
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`database function of “locating” a second participant identifier from a database. Claim 18 similarly
`
`recites generic information storage like routing a communication to “a server operable to store the
`
`communication.” Claims 6, 14, and 22 recite a “third participant device,” although this is not
`
`distinctive. Indeed, claims 3 and 22 both recite routine aspects of routing a communication either
`
`by allowing it to proceed or blocking it, and claims 4, 5, and 22 determine whether claim 1’s
`
`communication should be forwarded based on information. Claims 9 and 27 analyze a character-
`
`istic like caller and callee location when determining which network element is associated with a
`
`geographical area and how to route the communication. Information-gathering is an abstract pro-
`
`cess that was well-known in the earliest telephone systems. Claims 19 and 24 provide load sharing,
`
`without explaining how, and mention “nodes” in “proximity” to a network element. VoIP-Pal has
`
`not presented a meaningful argument “for the distinctive significance” of any of those claim limi-
`
`tations. See generally Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The non-
`
`binding case law VoIP-Pal cites regarding “constitutional consequences” did not reach the issue
`
`of whether a claim was representative. Vineyard Investigations v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 510 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 926, 944 n.7 (E.D. Cal. 2021). These claim differences, at most, specify different desti-
`
`nations—to the same node, to a different node, to an external gateway, to a forwarding number, or
`
`blocked—none of which change that the claims are directed to the abstract concept of routing a
`
`call based upon participant characteristics.
`
`Even if claim 1 of the ’606 patent were not representative, Amazon has shown how each
`
`asserted claim is invalid under § 101. For example, Amazon explained that claim 21 is merely
`
`claim 1 written in a system-claim format and that claim 23 recites conventional internet routing
`
`functionality regarding IP addresses. (Cf. Resp. at 5-6; see Mot. at 16-17.) VoIP-Pal categorizes
`
`the claims in an attempt to manufacture distinctiveness, such as arguing that the features of
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`blocking or forwarding a call are meaningfully distinct from claim 1 (Resp. at 4). Yet these are
`
`routine aspects of routing a communication. (Mot. at 17.) As support, VoIP-Pal argues that VoIP-
`
`Pal 2 distinguished these features (Resp. at 4), but that court found that “[n]either of these limita-
`
`tions is distinctive” and that routing communications to third or second participants “us[es] the
`
`same process” even as when blocking a communication. VoIP-Pal 2, 411 F. Supp. 3d at 948.
`
`Because claim 1 uses functional language directed to a desired result, any generic processes of the
`
`other claims like “blocking” a communication do not meaningfully change the analysis.
`
`B.
`
`VoIP-Pal is collaterally estopped from challenging ineligibility.
`
`VoIP-Pal also attempts to fabricate a dispute over the standard for collateral estoppel.
`
`(Resp. at 6.) The law is clear. Collateral estoppel applies when the patent claims are identical or
`
`if the differences between adjudicated and unadjudicated claims “do not materially alter the ques-
`
`tion of invalidity.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps S., LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`VoIP-Pal’s expert acknowledges that the ’606 and ’002 patents “are [in] the field of communica-
`
`tions and share some similarities.” (ECF No. 106-3 (“Cabric Dec.”) ¶ 10.) The ’606 patent claims
`
`are “substantially similar” to the invalidated claims of the ’002 patent because they are directed to
`
`similar functional steps for the abstract idea of routing a communication based on a participant’s
`
`characteristics. (Mot. at 6; Appendix 1 (showing the significant overlap in the claims).)
`
`The differences between the claims of VoIP-Pal’s ’002 and ’006 patents are minor and
`
`have no material effect on the invalidity analysis. VoIP-Pal casts the ’606 claims as “determining
`
`whether the called party is associated with the same node” as the calling party in an attempt to
`
`distinguish them from other invalid claims that “classif[ied] destinations” of a public or private
`
`network. (Resp. at 7.) But that is just a difference in the destinations – those claims are all still
`
`directed to routing communications based upon characteristics of the participants, and they all still
`
`fail to recite how the routing decision is made. (Mot. at 18-19.)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`VoIP-Pal also incorrectly asserts that its terminal disclaimer is irrelevant to the estoppel
`
`analysis. (Resp. at 8.) In SimpleAir, the Federal Circuit specifically explained that while not
`
`dispositive, a terminal disclaimer is “still very relevant” to preclusion and provides a “strong clue”
`
`that the applicant thought the claims were not patentably distinct. SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`
`884 F.3d 1160, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`VoIP-Pal’s citation to e.Digital Corp. on this point is misguided. (Resp. at 8.) Amazon
`
`does not assert that collateral estoppel applies merely because the ’606 patent and previously in-
`
`validated patents are related; Amazon instead explained how the same ineligibility issues and sim-
`
`ilar claim language demonstrate that collateral estoppel should apply. See NetSoc, LLC v. Oath
`
`Inc., No. 18-CV-12267 (RA), 2020 WL 419469, at *5, 7 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2020) (applying col-
`
`lateral estoppel where the two patents describe “the same concept” despite “a few minor differ-
`
`ences” in the claim language that were “insignificant” and without “material effect” on the inva-
`
`lidity analysis). Collateral estoppel applies because the § 101 issues here are not materially dif-
`
`ferent from those VoIP-Pal has repeatedly litigated, and lost, regarding its other patents in the same
`
`family. (Mot. at 5.)
`
`C.
`
`The asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea.
`
`VoIP-Pal next argues that VoIP-Pal 2 does not apply to this case because the holding was
`
`improper (“the court went far beyond the record”) and § 101 law has since changed. (Resp. at 9-
`
`10, 12.) But VoIP-Pal 2 was timely appealed and affirmed. Moreover, the decision in Koninklijke
`
`KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2019), does not warrant a
`
`different outcome because the Federal Circuit affirmed in VoIP-Pal 2 after KPN was decided.
`
`Moreover, KPN did not overrule precedent on functional claiming, and it cited earlier Federal
`
`Circuit cases. See Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(“[W]hen a claim [is] directed to an abstract idea ‘contains no restriction on how the result is
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`accomplished,’ … the claim is not patent-eligible.”). Unlike the asserted ’606 claims, the asserted
`
`claims in KPN “do not simply recite, without more, the mere desired result,” but recited “a specific
`
`solution for accomplishing that goal,” which is missing in this case. KPN, 942 F.3d at 1151. VoIP-
`
`Pal’s assertion that “user profile information to route a communication to a destination” provides
`
`that specificity merely reiterates the same abstract idea identified in VoIP-Pal 2.
`
`VoIP-Pal concedes that it must address “how to achieve a specific improvement over prior
`
`art call routing systems,” but its suggestion of “using system configuration information including
`
`user profile information” merely repeats the abstract idea. (Resp. at 10.) Claim 1 is result-oriented
`
`and specifies only what that result must be: “route a communication to a destination.” (Id.) Unlike
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., where there was “no contention that the only thing dis-
`
`closed is the result and not an inventive arrangement for accomplishing the result,” 879 F.3d 1299,
`
`1305-06 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Amazon has shown that the ’606 patent uses functional claiming directed
`
`to a desired result.
`
`Claims are invalid as directed to an abstract idea when drawn to fundamental practices
`
`“long prevalent.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 219 (2014); see also Bilski
`
`v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010). Amazon provided evidence of longstanding practices of
`
`using a caller’s phone number to route calls. (Mot. at 10-11.) See also VoIP-Pal 2, 411 F. Supp.
`
`3d at 958 (finding that VoIP-Pal “resists the analogy to switchboard operators” but its concession
`
`that attributes were built into PSTN telephone numbers “defeats its argument”). The specification
`
`discusses PSTN patterns and styles as related art and explains how the PSTN network “aggregates
`
`all information and traffic” before passing it on to other nodes, which are “redundant by design”
`
`to “provide reliable service.” (’606 patent at 1:35-52; cf. ECF No. 31-3 (“Mangione-Smith Dec.”)
`
`at ¶ 12.) Unlike the claims in Finjan that recited specific steps identifying suspicious code where
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`
`traditional scans were limited to recognizing previously identified viruses, Finjan, 879 F.3d at
`
`1304, the ʼ606 patent’s use of caller attributes, such as the user’s location, to direct or route calls
`
`was long used by operators in the earliest telephone systems.
`
`The ’606 patent uses known technology and generic computer elements to route calls based
`
`on participant characteristics. VoIP-Pal’s expert asserts, for the first time, that the preamble of
`
`claim 1 is limiting, but that does not change the analysis. (Cabric Dec. ¶ 11 (asserting that “[t]he
`
`preamble states” the caller and callee devices are associated with “network elements” and that
`
`“Claim 1 of the ’606 patent, if properly understood…” assumes “specific scenarios.”)) Unlike the
`
`claims in McRO where incorporating the claimed rules improved existing technology, the ’606
`
`claims merely automate existing tasks and rules to further automate tasks in the “same way.” See
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
`
`asserted claims merely organize existing information, as VoIP-Pal cannot credibly argue that it
`
`created caller attributes such as an international dialing digit (’606 patent at 4:32-42), area code
`
`(id. at 4:42), or length range (id. at 4:47), or that such attributes are anything more than an abstract
`
`concept. (See also id. at 18:42-49; cf. Mangione-Smith Dec. at ¶ 10.)
`
`The claims in Enfish were directed to an improvement in computer function, but here, the
`
`specification references how the nodes are “in communication with each other through conven-
`
`tional internet services.” (’606 patent at 13:32-35; see also Mot. at 13.) As in Alice, where the
`
`claims “d[id] not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or effect
`
`an improvement” in technology, 572 U.S. at 225, there is no dispute that the asserted claims do
`
`not improve computers. (Resp. at 12; Mot. at 11.) Rather, the claims use computers as a tool to
`
`carry out the function of communication routing, which is not an improvement in the technology
`
`itself. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 (holding that “computer-implemented claims … formally
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`addressed to patent-eligible subject matter” does not “end” the § 101 inquiry or “an applicant could
`
`claim any principle of the physical or social sciences by reciting a computer system configured to
`
`implement the relevant concept ... thereby eviscerating the rule...”). Further, VoIP-Pal’s single-
`
`sentence attempt to rebut Broadsoft ignores that those claims addressed a human unavailability
`
`“problem” and “involve[ed] known telephony technology” as opposed to improving telephony
`
`technology and thus were directed to an “abstract concept.” BroadSoft, Inc. v. CallWave
`
`Commc’ns., LLC, 282 F. Supp. 3d 771, 780-81 (D. Del. 2017). Similarly, while the asserted claims
`
`of the ’606 patent may “increase ‘convenien[ce] for the caller,’” they are directed to an abstract
`
`idea and “are not an improvement in computer functionality.’” Id. at 780.
`
`D.
`
`Claim 1 and all asserted claims contain no inventive concept.
`
`VoIP-Pal misstates the law by asserting that the Court should not consider how each claim
`
`limitation is implemented under step two of the Alice test. (Resp. at 9.) A claim drawn to an
`
`abstract idea under Alice step one is “examined” at step two to determine whether it contains an
`
`“inventive concept” sufficient to “transform” the claimed abstract idea into an eligible application.
`
`Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. If claims are “drawn to the idea itself” and fail to direct “how to implement”
`
`the alleged invention, courts “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add” to deter-
`
`mine if the abstract idea has an “inventive concept.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`
`838 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“There is nothing in claim 1 that is directed to how to
`
`implement out-of-region broadcasting … the claim is drawn to the idea itself”); Move, Inc. v. Real
`
`Estate All. Ltd., 721 F. App’x. 950, 955-56 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]hey contain no technical details
`
`or explanation of how to implement the claimed abstract idea.”). Similarly, the specification must
`
`provide “details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplishes the recited functions.”
`
`Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1260.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`In Cellspin, the specification did not need to “expressly list all the reasons” the claimed
`
`structure was unconventional because the claims added inventiveness with a specific two-step,
`
`two-device structure. Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1317-18 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`The asserted claims here do not recite an inventive concept. The claim language refers to generic
`
`computer equipment and the same practices used in telephony for decades, such as retrieving data,
`
`processing data according to unspecified rules, and making a determination based on that analysis.
`
`As such, the claims needed to provide specific steps demonstrating an inventive concept, but the
`
`ʼ606 patent instead mentions only conventional steps and technology, for example, nodes that
`
`“[are] in communication with each other through conventional internet services.” (’606 patent at
`
`13:32-35.) The specification also references a general system for making a VoIP-Pal call. (Id. at
`
`13:20-35.) The specification and individual claim elements fail to recite an inventive concept, and
`
`the ordered claim elements fare no better.
`
`VoIP-Pal attempts to distinguish Two-Way Media by asserting that the “main problem”
`
`was not the conventional ordering of steps. Two-Way Media Ltd v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns.,
`
`LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The claims in Two-Way Media were invalid under
`
`§ 101 for several reasons, such as the use of generic functional language, conventional compo-
`
`nents, and having “no inventive concept in the ordered combination.” Id. at 1339. The ʼ606 pa-
`
`tent’s claims are similarly directed to an abstract idea, using a non-generic arrangement of known,
`
`conventional pieces. Finally, VoIP-Pal’s attempt to concoct an inventive concept from its
`
`amended complaint are unavailing. (Resp. at 15.) For example, VoIP-Pal repeatedly asserts that
`
`the claims are directed to “transparent routing.” (Resp. at 13.) But that argument fails for the same
`
`reason it did in the prior case because the claims are “not directed to transparent routing.” VoIP-
`
`Pal 2, 411 F. Supp. 3d at 961.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 14 of 16
`
`E.
`
`No factual allegations prevent deciding this issue on the pleadings.
`
`VoIP-Pal repeats its failed argument from prior cases that the record is undeveloped. But
`
`six patents from the same family have been held invalid on the pleadings under § 101, and those
`
`decisions were summarily affirmed on appeal. VoIP-Pal fails to show why this case is different.
`
`The record here is even more developed, with the claims having already been construed. Despite
`
`citing cases where eligibility was decided after claim construction, VoIP-Pal’s latest expert decla-
`
`ration fails to even mention the Court’s constructions here. Cf. AML IP, 2022 WL 1085617, at *4
`
`(delaying patent eligibility under claim construction was decided); Slyce Acquisition Inc. v. Syte –
`
`Visual Conception Ltd., No. W-19-CV-00257-ADA, 2020 WL 278481, at *7 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10,
`
`2020). This is not a case where “only a very thin line” stands between patent eligibility and an
`
`abstract idea or where delay would yield further information material to eligibility.
`
`F.
`
`VoIP-Pal should not be granted leave to amend its complaint.
`
`VoIP-Pal requests leave to file a second amended complaint to plead allegations based on
`
`yet another expert declaration. (Resp. at 17.) VoIP-Pal’s first amended complaint purported to
`
`incorporate an expert declaration about “inventive concepts that were not well-understood, routine,
`
`conventional described in the specification and captured in the claims.” (ECF No. 31 “FAC” ¶ 41).
`
`Its response to this motion includes another declaration it seeks to rely on for addressing the same
`
`issues in yet another amended complaint. (Resp. at 17.) The record already contains the infor-
`
`mation VoIP-Pal seeks to add, so allowing another round of amendment would only delay the
`
`proceedings further. VoIP-Pal has not demonstrated why it should be entitled to another, duplica-
`
`tive bite at the same apple or that it would change the outcome.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Amazon respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to dismiss because the as-
`
`serted claims of the ’606 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 15 of 16
`
`Dated: January 3, 2024
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`/s/ Daniel T. Shvodian
`Daniel T. Shvodian, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`DShvodian@perkinscoie.com
`Christopher Kelley, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`CKelley@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1212
`Tel. No. 650.838.4300
`Fax No. 650.838.4350
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com, Services LLC;
`and Amazon Web Services, Inc.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 109 Filed 01/03/24 Page 16 of 16
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on the 3rd day of January 2024, I filed the foregoing electronically
`
`through the CM/ECF system, which caused all counsel to be served by electronic means, as more
`
`fully reflected on the Notice of Electronic Filing:
`
`/s/Daniel T. Shvodian
`Daniel T. Shvodian
`
`