Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 1 of 14
`
`
`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-00272-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
`MOTION TO STRIKE THE AMAZON DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS FOR NON-
`INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 2 of 14
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND..................................................................... 1
`
`III. ARUGMENT ................................................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`Amazon’s Counterclaims for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity Should
`
`be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim Because They Do Not Put VoIP-Pal on Reasonable Notice
`
`of Amazon’s Non-Infringement or Invalidity Theories. ......................................................................... 2
`
`B.
`
`Amazon’s Counterclaims for Declaratory Judgments of Non-Infringement and Invalidity
`
`Should be Stricken as Duplicative of Amazon’s Affirmative Defenses. ................................................ 6
`
`1. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. do not
`
`infringe, and have not infringed (directly, contributorily, or by inducement), either literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, and are not liable for infringement of, any valid and enforceable claim
`
`of the ’606 patent. ............................................................................................................................... 7
`
`2. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, or Amazon Web Services, Inc. have not
`
`infringed and do not infringe any claim of the ’606 patent, directly, indirectly, literally, or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents. ....................................................................................................................... 7
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 3 of 14
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Albritton Prop. v. Am. Empire Surplus Lines, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7330 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2005) . 6
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`ASUSTeK Computer Inc. v. AFTG-TG LLC, No. 5:CV 11-00192-EJD, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149330
`
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2011) ....................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................................................... 2
`
`Bender v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33075 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2010) ............ 4
`
`Deniece Design, LLC v. Braun, 953 F. Supp. 2d 765 (S.D. Tex. 2013) ..................................................... 3
`
`Doe I v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58347 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2006) .................. 6
`
`Duramed Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc., No. 3:08-CV-00116-LRH-RAM, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`103389 (D. Nev. Dec. 12, 2008) ............................................................................................................. 4
`
`Hanson Aggregates, Inc. v. Roberts & Schaefer Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55353 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 9,
`
`2006) ................................................................................................................................................... 6, 7
`
`Human Power of N, Co. v. Synergixx, LLC, No. 1-17-CV-1065-LY, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116636
`
`(W.D. Tex. July 12, 2018) ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., Consolidated Civil Action No. SA-11-CV-
`
`163-XR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78624 (W.D. Tex. June 4, 2013) ........................................................ 3
`
`Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). ........................................ 3
`
`PetEdge, Inc. v. Marketfleet Sourcing, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107541 (D. Mass July 12, 2017) .... 4
`
`Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ............................................ 4, 5
`
`SecurityProfiling, LLC v. Trend Micro Am., Inc., No. 6:16-CV-01165-RWS-JDL, 2017 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 72218 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) ............................................................................................ 3, 5
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 4 of 14
`
`Sliding Door Co. v. KLS Doors, LLC, No. EDCV 13-00196 JGB (DTBx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71304
`
`(C.D. Cal. May 1, 2013) ......................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Symetra Life Ins. Co. v. Rapid Settlements Ltd., 612 F. Supp. 2d 759 (S.D. Tex. 2007) ...................... 6, 7
`
`United States v. Forest Dale, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 954 (N.D. Tex. 1993) .................................................... 6
`
`Woods v. Torkelson, No. 5:19-CV-0446-JKP, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199179 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 18,
`
`2019) ................................................................................................................................................... 3, 6
`
`Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions Inc., 609 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................... 4
`
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention Inv. Fund LLP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81986 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) ........... 4
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)............................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) .................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 5 of 14
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`ABBREVIATION
`
`TERM
`
`VoIP-Pal
`
`Amazon
`
`The ’606 patent
`
`The patent-in-suit
`
`Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com
`Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services
`Inc.
`
`U.S Patent No. 10,218,606
`
`The ’606 patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 6 of 14
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On July 10, 2020, Amazon filed its Answer and Counterclaims to VoIP-Pal’s Complaint.1
`
`Amazon’s Answer included affirmative defenses of non-infringement (Amazon’s first affirmative
`
`defense) and invalidity (Amazon’s second affirmative defense).2 In its Counterclaims, Amazon also
`
`sought declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the patent-in-suit. However, the
`
`Both Counterclaims, however, lacked a legal basis. Instead, Amazon merely provided a formulaic
`
`legal conclusion of non-infringement and patent invalidity that does not reasonably put VoIP-Pal on
`
`notice of Amazon’s non-infringement or invalidity theories. Therefore, VoIP-Pal respectfully asks the
`
`Court to dismiss both counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as
`
`they fail to meet the pleading standards of Iqbal and Twombly. In the alternative, VoIP-Pal
`
`respectfully requests that the Court strike the counterclaim under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure, as they are merely duplicative of Amazon’s affirmative defenses.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`VoIP-Pal filed the Original Complaint on April 6, 2020, accusing Amazon of directly,
`
`indirectly, and willfully infringing the ’606 patent.3 Amazon answered the Complaint with
`
`counterclaims on July 10, 2020.4 In its Answer, Amazon presented seven affirmative defenses. Its
`
`First Defense recited:
`
`(1) Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web
`Services, Inc. do not infringe, and have not infringed (directly,
`contributorily, or by inducement), either literally or under the doctrine of
`equivalents, and are not liable for infringement of, any valid and
`enforceable claim of the ’606 patent.5
`
`
`Its Second Defense stated:
`
`
`
`1 See Dkt. No. 21.
`2 Id. at 16, ¶¶ 56-57.
`3 Dkt. No. 1.
`4 Dkt. No. 21.
`5 Id. at 16, ¶ 56.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 7 of 14
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) One or more claims of the ’606 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy
`one or more of the conditions of patentability, including without
`limitation those set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.6
`
`Amazon presented two counterclaims, which recite, in relevant part, nearly identical language
`
`to its affirmative defenses of non-infringement and invalidity:
`
`(1) Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, or Amazon Web
`Services, Inc. have not infringed and do not infringe any claim of the
`’606 patent, directly, indirectly, literally, or under the doctrine of
`equivalents.7
`
`(2) The claims of the ’606 patent are invalid for failure to comply with
`one or more requirements of the patent laws of the United States,
`including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.8
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Amazon’s Counterclaims for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and
`Invalidity Should be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim Because They Do Not
`Put VoIP-Pal on Reasonable Notice of Amazon’s Non-Infringement or Invalidity
`Theories.
`
`Under Rule 12(b)(6), a party may move for dismissal of a claim or counterclaim if a party fails
`
`to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.9 “To survive a motion to dismiss, a [counterclaim]
`
`must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
`
`face.’”10 In this Court, it is appropriate to dismiss counterclaims in a patent infringement case where
`
`the counterclaims “do not meet the particularized pleading requirements set forth in Iqbal and
`
`
`
`6 Id. at 16, ¶ 57.
`7 Id. at 18, ¶ 10
`8 Id. at 19, ¶ 15. The other paragraphs in Amazon’s counterclaims attempt to establish standing for
`declaratory judgment, but do not recite substance related to non-infringement or invalidity. See Dkt.
`No. 21 at 18-19.
`9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
`10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
`(2007)).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 8 of 14
`
`Twombly to sufficiently state a claim for relief.”11 A counterclaim will be facially plausible when a
`
`counterclaim plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
`
`that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. . . . While detailed factual allegations are not
`
`necessary, a [counterclaim] plaintiff must provide ‘more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
`
`recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’”12 The particularized pleading requirement
`
`“provides opposing parties fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”13
`
`Although the court must draw all reasonable inferences from the facts alleged in a party’s
`
`counterclaim, if a dispositive issue of law shows no claim exists on the face of the pleadings, a court
`
`may dismiss a counterclaim under Rule 12(b)(6).14 In conducting this examination, the court “need not
`
`accept as true conclusory allegations or allegations stating a legal conclusion.”15
`
`Federal courts in Texas and around the country have dismissed counterclaims in patent cases
`
`under Rule 12(b)(6) where—as here—those claims only recited formulaic conclusions of invalidity or
`
`non-infringement. For example, in SecurityProfiling, the patent infringement defendants asserted a
`
`counterclaim for invalidity under the theory of inequitable conduct.16 The court held that the
`
`counterclaim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because “Defendants did not include any
`
`allegations regarding such [conduct] in support of their counterclaims for invalidity.”17 Further, the
`
`
`11 SecurityProfiling, LLC v. Trend Micro Am., Inc., No. 6:16-CV-01165-RWS-JDL, 2017 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 72218, at *2-3 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017).
`12 Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., Consolidated Civil Action No. SA-11-CV-
`163-XR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78624, at *8-9 (W.D. Tex. June 4, 2013) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S.
`at 555).
`13 Woods v. Torkelson, No. 5:19-CV-0446-JKP, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199179, at *6 (W.D. Tex.
`Nov. 18, 2019) (internal citation omitted); see also Deniece Design, LLC v. Braun, 953 F. Supp. 2d
`765, 773 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (“As noted, the Fifth Circuit has held that Rule 8(a) notice pleading
`requirements apply to counterclaims and affirmative defenses as wells to complaints.”).
`14 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989).
`15 Human Power of N, Co. v. Synergixx, LLC, No. 1-17-CV-1065-LY, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116636,
`at *4 (W.D. Tex. July 12, 2018) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
`16 SecurityProfiling, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72218, at *2-*3.
`17 Id. at *3.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 9 of 14
`
`court looked only “to the relevant portion of the pleading asserting a counterclaim for invalidity to
`
`determine whether Defendants have alleged sufficient facts to support a plausible claim, not the entire
`
`pleading.”18 In that case, “Defendants failed to state a plausible counterclaim for invalidity because
`
`Defendants merely list[ed] the statutory provisions without providing any facts supporting their
`
`counterclaim for invalidity.”19
`
`Here, Amazon’s counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity
`
`closely resemble those counterclaims dismissed by the SecurityProfiling court and numerous other
`
`
`
`18 Id. at *3-*4.
`19 Id. at *4 (internal citation and alteration omitted); see also PetEdge, Inc. v. Marketfleet Sourcing,
`Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107541, at *8 (D. Mass July 12, 2017) (dismissing non-infringement
`counterclaim that “amount[ed] to nothing more than a denial of infringement” and “alleges that
`‘Marketfleet has not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the ’236 patent, either literally or
`under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or otherwise,’ without further support”); Sliding Door Co.
`v. KLS Doors, LLC, No. EDCV 13-00196 JGB (DTBx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71304, at *12 (C.D.
`Cal. May 1, 2013) (dismissing defendants’ counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity where
`the counterclaim merely stated that one or more claims of the patent was “invalid for failure to meet
`the requirements of patentability”); ASUSTeK Computer Inc. v. AFTG-TG LLC, No. 5:CV 11-00192-
`EJD, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149330, at *40 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2011) (“Nonetheless, without
`identifying the accused products, there simply is no way to adjudicate an infringement claim. Absent
`identification of the products accused of infringement, there is no concrete case or controversy or
`sufficient specificity to satisfy Twombly.); Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention Inv. Fund LLP, 2011 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 81986, at *19 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) (dismissing counterclaim for declaratory judgment of
`non-infringement and noting that “[i]n an action for declaratory judgment concerning claims for patent
`non-infringement, the pleading must specify the products or conduct alleged not to infringe”); Bender
`v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33075, at *18-*19 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11,
`2010) (dismissing infringement complaint for failure to “provide fair notice to [d]efendants of the
`specific infringements alleged” and noting that a complaint should identify the products or product
`components at issue); Duramed Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc., No. 3:08-CV-00116-LRH-RAM,
`2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103389, at *11 (D. Nev. Dec. 12, 2008) (dismissing a counterclaim containing
`a general allegation that the claims of the patent-in-suit were “invalid because they fail to comply with
`one or more of the statutory requirements for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.”);
`Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1050-51 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (“In alleging patent
`invalidity, eHelp simply pleads the citation. eHelp alleges that ‘the ’441 patent is invalid and void
`under the provisions of Title 35, United States Code §§ 100 et seq., and specifically, §§ 101, 102, 103,
`and/or 112 ....’ . . . Such a pleading is radically insufficient. The Court will not accept wholly
`conclusory allegations.”); consider Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions Inc., 609 F.3d
`1308, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (noting that an allegation that “claims of the Patents are invalid for failure
`to comply with” the statutory requirements provides “little notice”).
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 10 of 14
`
`courts for failing to provide specificity. Amazon’s non-infringement counterclaim merely recites, in
`
`formulaic fashion, the bare legal conclusion that it “do[es] not infringe, and have not infringed
`
`(directly, contributorily, or by inducement), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and [is]
`
`not liable for infringement of, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’606 patent.”20 These
`
`counterclaims do not recite any accused product or method, let alone provide any explanation or
`
`reasonable notice of Amazon’s theory of how or why those products or methods do not infringe the
`
`asserted patents. Amazon’s non-infringement counterclaims provide VoIP-Pal with no basis for
`
`assessing the strength of Amazon’s non-infringement position. Accordingly, Amazon’s non-
`
`infringement counterclaim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.21
`
`Similarly, Amazon’s invalidity counterclaims merely recite formulaic legal conclusions about
`
`the ’606 patent: “The claims of the ’606 patent are invalid for failure to comply with one or more
`
`requirements of the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,
`
`102, 103, and 112.”22 This language, too, parallels the language of numerous invalidity counterclaims
`
`that courts have dismissed for failure to state a claim.23 Amazon’s generic, formulaic recitation of
`
`statutory provisions in its invalidity counterclaims does not provide VoIP-Pal with any reasonable
`
`
`20 Dkt. No. 21 at 16, ¶ 56.
`21 See, e.g., SecurityProfiling, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72218, at *5.
`22 Dkt. No. 21 at 19, ¶ 15.
`23 See, e.g., SecurityProfiling, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72218, at *4-*5 (dismissing invalidity
`counterclaim under Rule 12(b)(6) where counterclaim alleged “one or more of the claims of the
`'699 Patent are invalid for failure to meet the requirements of Title 35, United States Code, including
`but not limited to Sections 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 116 . . . .”); see also Qarbon.com, 315 F. Supp.
`2d 1046, 1050-51 (dismissing invalidity counterclaim reciting that “the ’441 patent is invalid and void
`under the provisions of Title 35, United States Code §§ 100 et seq., and specifically, §§101, 102, 103,
`and/or 112 ....”).
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 11 of 14
`
`basis to assess the strength of Amazon’s invalidity theories, and those counterclaims should be
`
`dismissed for this reason.24
`
`B.
`
`
`
`Amazon’s Counterclaims for Declaratory Judgments of Non-Infringement and
`Invalidity Should be Stricken as Duplicative of Amazon’s Affirmative Defenses.
`
`A motion to strike material from a pleading is made under Rule 12(f), which allows a court to
`
`strike from a pleading any “insufficient defense” or any material that is “redundant, immaterial,
`
`impertinent or scandalous.”25 “The essential function of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid the
`
`expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those
`
`issues prior to trial.”26
`
`Federal courts in Texas have explained, “a motion for declaratory judgment that merely
`
`restates a party’s defenses is insufficient unless the party can prove that there are issues of greater
`
`ramification to be resolved.”27 Dismissing counterclaims is appropriate when they do not seek relief
`
`different from the defendant’s affirmative defenses.28
`
`In this case, Amazon’s non-infringement and invalidity counterclaims serve no useful purpose,
`
`as they are almost verbatim repetitions of Amazon’s affirmative defenses:
`
`
`24 See, e.g., SecurityProfiling, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72218, at *5; see also Woods, 2019 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 199179, at *6 (pleading requirements provide notice function).
`25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f).
`26 Doe I v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58347, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2006)
`(internal citation omitted)
`27 Hanson Aggregates, Inc. v. Roberts & Schaefer Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55353, at *10 (N.D.
`Tex. Aug. 9, 2006) (quoting Albritton Prop. v. Am. Empire Surplus Lines, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`7330, at *9 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2005)); see also Symetra Life Ins. Co. v. Rapid Settlements Ltd., 612
`F. Supp. 2d 759, 768 (S.D. Tex. 2007).
`28 Hanson Aggregates, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55353, at *10; Regus Management Group, LLC v. IBM
`Corp.,U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47276, at *5-*6 (N.D. Tex. June 17, 2008) (“In the Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 12(b)(6) context, courts regularly reject declaratory judgment claims that seek resolution of
`matters that will already be resolved as part of the claims in the lawsuit.”); see also United States v.
`Forest Dale, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 954, 971 (N.D. Tex. 1993) (dismissing a declaratory judgment action
`asserted by the defendants against a third-party defendant because “the issues upon which Defendants
`seek a declaration are necessarily ones which will be addressed in [the] main action”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 12 of 14
`
`Affirmative Defenses
`
`Counterclaims
`
`1. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services
`LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. do not
`infringe, and have not infringed (directly,
`contributorily, or by inducement), either literally
`or under the doctrine of equivalents, and are not
`liable for infringement of, any valid and
`enforceable claim of the ’606 patent.29
`
`
`2. One or more claims of the ’606 patent are
`invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the
`conditions of patentability, including without
`limitation those set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,
`102, 103, and/or 112.31
`
`
`1. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services
`LLC, or Amazon Web Services, Inc. have not
`infringed and do not infringe any claim of the
`’606 patent, directly, indirectly, literally, or under
`the doctrine of equivalents.30
`
`
`2. The claims of the ’606 patent are invalid for
`failure to comply with one or more requirements
`of the patent laws of the United States, including
`but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and
`112.32
`
`By virtue of its affirmative defenses, Amazon has already placed the issues of non-infringement
`
`and invalidity before the Court, and its parallel counterclaims are simply duplicative, serving no useful
`
`purpose. Amazon’s non-infringement and invalidity counterclaims should be stricken under Rule
`
`12(f).33
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, VoIP-Pal respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to
`
`dismiss Amazon’s non-infringement and invalidity counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6). In the
`
`alternative, VoIP-Pal asks the Court to strike the counterclaims as redundant and insufficient.
`
`
`
`29 Id. at 16, ¶ 56.
`30 Id. at 18, ¶ 10
`31 Id. at 16, ¶ 57.
`32 Id. at 19, ¶ 15. The other paragraphs in Amazon’s counterclaims attempt to establish standing for
`declaratory judgment, but do not recite substance related to non-infringement or invalidity. See Dkt.
`No. 21 at 18-19.
`33 See, e.g., Hanson Aggregates, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55353, at *10; see also Symetra, 612 F. Supp.
`2d at 768.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 13 of 14
`
`Dated: July 31, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` By: /s/Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`lewis@hudnelllaw.com
`Nicolas S. Gikkas
`nick@gikkaslaw.com
`Hudnell Law Group P.C.
`800 W. El Camino Real Suite 180
`Mountain View, California 94040
`T: 650.564.3698
`F: 347.772.3034
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 14 of 14
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
`
`electronic service are being served with a copy of the forgoing PLAINTIFF VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO STRIKE THE AMAZON
`
`DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS FOR NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY via the
`
`Court’s CM/ECF system pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5(b)(1)
`
`this 31st day of July, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`lewis@hudnelllaw.com
`Hudnell Law Group P.C.
`800 W. El Camino Real Suite 180
`Mountain View, California 94040
`T: 650.564.3698
`F: 347.772.3034
`
`9
`
`