Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 80-3 Filed 01/26/23 Page 1 of 24
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-04279-JD Document 122 Filed 11/11/22 Page 1 of 23Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 80-3 Filed 01/26/23 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ellisen S. Turner (SBN #224842)
`ellisen.turner@kirkland.com
`Joshua Glucoft (SBN #301249)
`josh.glucoft@kirkland.com
`Kevin X. Wang (SBN #318024)
`kevin.wang@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`2049 Century Park East, 37th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Tel: (310) 552-4200
`Fax: (310) 552-5900
`
`Jeanne M. Heffernan (pro hac vice)
`jheffernan@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`401 Congress Avenue
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: (512) 678-9100
`Fax: (512) 678-9101
`
`Kristina R. Cary (pro hac vice)
`kristina.cary@kirkland.com
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`Tel: (617) 385-7500
`Fax: (617) 385-7501
`
`[Additional counsel listed on signature page]
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`Meta Platforms Inc. and WhatsApp LLC
`
`
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`META PLATFORMS INC., et. al.,
`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
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`Case No. 3:22-cv-004279-JD
`
`DEFENDANTS META PLATFORMS
`INC. AND WHATSAPP LLC’S NOTICE
`AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
`PLEADINGS
`Hearing: January 26, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.
`
`
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-004279-JD
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-04279-JD Document 122 Filed 11/11/22 Page 2 of 23Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 80-3 Filed 01/26/23 Page 3 of 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`V.
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ......................... 1
`I.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................... 1
`II.
`LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................................... 2
`III.
`A.
`Collateral Estoppel ........................................................................................................ 2
`B.
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................. 3
`IV. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`VoIP-Pal is collaterally estopped from challenging patent ineligibility here. .............. 4
`B.
`The asserted claims are patent-ineligible under Section 101. ....................................... 5
`1.
`Alice step one: Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. ..................................... 5
`2.
`Alice step two: Claim 1 lacks an inventive concept. ....................................... 10
`C.
`Claim 1 is representative and no other asserted claim is patent-eligible. ................... 12
`Dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. ..................................................................... 15
`D.
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-004279-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 3:22-cv-04279-JD Document 122 Filed 11/11/22 Page 3 of 23Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 80-3 Filed 01/26/23 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................6
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirectTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................14
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank. Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Netflix Inc.,
`2022 WL 1105073 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2022) ...........................................................................3
`
`BroadSoft Inc. v. CallWave Commc’ns, LLC,
`282 F. Supp. 3d 771 (D. Del. 2017) ...........................................................................................9
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................12
`
`Burnett v. Panasonic Corp.,
`741 F. App’x 777 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................15
`
`Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC,
`859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................15
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................12
`
`Control v. Dig. Playground, Inc.,
`2016 WL 5793745 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016) ...........................................................................4
`
`Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc.,
`558 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................................11
`
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc.,
`815 F. App’x 529 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................12
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................14
`
`Foman v. Davis,
`371 U.S. 178 (1962) .................................................................................................................15
`
`Glasswall Sols. Ltd. v. Clearswift Ltd.,
`754 F. App’x 996 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................9
`
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-004279-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 3:22-cv-04279-JD Document 122 Filed 11/11/22 Page 4 of 23Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 80-3 Filed 01/26/23 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA),
`792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................14
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................3
`
`Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................8
`
`Juniper Networks Inc. v. Swarm Tech. LLC,
`2022 WL 3031211 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2022) ..........................................................................10
`
`Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
`566 U.S. 66 (2012) ...................................................................................................................11
`
`McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................8
`
`Mortgage Application Techs., LLC v. MeridianLink, Inc.,
`839 F. App’x 520 .....................................................................................................................15
`
`NetSoc, LLC v. Oath Inc.,
`2020 WL 419469 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2020), appeal dismissed, 832 F. App’x 703
`(Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................................................4, 5
`
`Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC,
`735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................2, 3, 4
`
`Oyeniran v. Holder,
`672 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................2, 4
`
`RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`855 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................10, 14
`
`RingCentral, Inc. v. Dialpad, Inc.,
`372 F. Supp. 3d 988 (N.D. Cal. 2019) .......................................................................................7
`
`Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority,
`873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................14
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................................9, 10
`
`Twilio, Inc. v. Telesign Corp.,
`249 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (N.D. Cal. 2017) .....................................................................................9
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................7, 8, 11, 12
`
`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
`
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-004279-JD
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-04279-JD Document 122 Filed 11/11/22 Page 5 of 23Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 80-3 Filed 01/26/23 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`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, 4, 6, 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
`
`VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:18-CV-06216-LHK, Dkt. 81 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2019) ...............................................15
`
`Yu v. Apple Inc.,
`1 F.4th 1040 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................................3
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,826,002...................................................................................................... passim
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,218,606.................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`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
`
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`iv
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-004279-JD
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-04279-JD Document 122 Filed 11/11/22 Page 6 of 23Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 80-3 Filed 01/26/23 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
`Please take notice that at 10:00 a.m. on Jan. 26, 2023, in Courtroom 11, 19th floor, 450 Golden
`Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, before the Hon. James Donato, Defendants Meta Platforms,
`Inc. and WhatsApp LLC (“Meta”) move for a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)
`against Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) finding the asserted patent claims invalid under 35
`U.S.C. § 101 for claiming patent-ineligible subject matter and dismissing this case with prejudice.
`
`I.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,218,606 (“’606 patent”), is the seventh member of its
`family to be litigated. All six other family members were already found invalid for failing to claim
`patent-eligible subject matter, in rulings from this District that the Federal Circuit affirmed. The ’606
`patent should meet the same fate. First, VoIP-Pal is collaterally estopped from disputing ineligibility
`because the subject matter in the asserted claims, represented by Claim 1, is substantially identical to
`the patent-ineligible claims invalidated in its six related patents, particularly U.S. Patent No. 9,826,002
`(“’002 patent”). Second, independently, under the two-step Alice framework, the asserted claims (1)
`are directed toward the abstract idea of routing a communication (such as a phone call) based on the
`participants’ characteristics, and (2) lack an inventive concept to make the claims patent-eligible. Like
`VoIP-Pal’s other invalidated patent claims, the asserted claims simply automate well-known call-
`routing practices using conventional computer components.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`VoIP-Pal has a long history of asserting patents from the same patent family in this District.
`Each time this District invalidated the patents under Section 101, and the Federal Circuit 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-1”); 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-2”). Knowing this history,
`VoIP-Pal opted to try again, with different defendants in a different district—suing Meta in the
`Western District of Texas and asserting the ’606 patent, a mere continuation of its previously
`invalidated patents. First Am. Compl. (“FAC”), Dkt. 28. But the case was transferred here. Dkt. 97.
`
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`1
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-004279-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 3:22-cv-04279-JD Document 122 Filed 11/11/22 Page 7 of 23Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 80-3 Filed 01/26/23 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`The ’606 patent is directed to routing a communication based on the participants’
`characteristics—the same patent-ineligible concept disclosed in patent claims invalidated in VoIP-Pal-
`2. Compare ’606 patent, Abstract, with ’002 patent, Abstract. The similarity between the patents’
`claims is unsurprising: the patents are in the same patent family and share a common specification.
`See also Appendix 1 (comparing claims). The two patents’ communication routing process is initiated
`when the system receives participant identifiers for a caller and a callee. ’606 patent at 1:67–2:2; ’002
`patent at 1:62–64. An identifier is used along with “call classification criteria” to classify the call and
`generate a routing message. ’606 patent at 2:2–11; ’002 patent at 1:64–2:6. The classification step can
`involve searching a database for call participant “attributes.” ’606 patent at 2:15–17; ’002 patent at
`2:10–12. Both patents implement the process through standard, generic components known in the art,
`including—as the specification teaches—“conventional internet services” that are “accessed in the
`usual way.” ’606 patent at 13:32–35, 13:59–63; ’002 patent at 13:32–35, 13:59–63; see also ’606
`patent at 1:35–39 (describing preexisting “IP telephony switches” that connected voice calls using
`known IP and telephone networks, such as “within or between IP networks, and between an IP network
`and a switched circuit network (SCN), such as the public switched telephone network (PSTN).”),
`13:51–53 (stating that the call controller and routing controller “may be implemented as separate
`modules on a common computer system or by separate computers ...”).
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`A.
`Collateral Estoppel
`Regional circuit precedent generally applies to collateral estoppel, but Federal Circuit
`precedent applies “to those aspects of such a determination that involve substantive issues of patent
`law.” Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In the Ninth
`Circuit, “[c]ollateral estoppel applies to a question, issue, or fact when four conditions are met: (1) the
`issue at stake was identical in both proceedings; (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided in the
`prior proceedings; (3) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; and (4) the issue was
`necessary to decide the merits.” Oyeniran v. Holder, 672 F.3d 800, 806 (9th Cir. 2012). Importantly,
`collateral estoppel does not require “identical” patent claims; “the identity of the issues” litigated
`“determines whether collateral estoppel should apply.” Ohio Willow, 735 F.3d at 1342 (emphasis in
`
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-004279-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 3:22-cv-04279-JD Document 122 Filed 11/11/22 Page 8 of 23Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 80-3 Filed 01/26/23 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`original). “If the differences between the unadjudicated patent claims and adjudicated patent claims
`do not materially alter the question of invalidity, collateral estoppel applies.” Id.
`
`B.
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`“Abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank. Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216
`(2014).1 Patent eligibility under Section 101 is evaluated under the Alice two-part test.
`Step one concerns “whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” like
`an abstract idea. Id. at 218. The Court ascertains “the focus of the claimed advance over the prior art
`to determine if the claim’s character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” Intellectual
`Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017). A court can also
`“compare claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to an abstract idea in previous
`cases” and “take into account undisputed facts about well-known practices that have stood the test of
`time.” Broadcom Corp. v. Netflix Inc., 2022 WL 1105073, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2022).
`At step two, the court decides whether there is an “inventive concept” that “transform[s] the
`nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This requires
`“significantly more than the abstract idea itself.” Broadcom, 2022 WL 1105073, at *4. “[M]ere
`recitation of concrete, tangible components is insufficient to confer patent eligibility to an otherwise
`abstract idea.” Id. And, “merely reducing an abstract concept to a particular technical platform is not
`enough to provide the inventive element needed to support a patent. If a claim’s only ‘inventive
`concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the
`claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” Id. A claim is
`ineligible if it “is recited at a high level of generality and merely invokes well-understood, routine,
`conventional components to apply the abstract idea,” and the “generic hardware limitations ... merely
`serve as a conduit for the abstract idea.” Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th 1040, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`A Section 101 challenge may be resolved via a Rule 12(c) motion, including before claim
`construction. Broadcom, 2022 WL 1105073, at *2–4. A court considering a Rule 12(c) motion “takes
`as true the plausible and nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint,” but “a patentee cannot
`avoid dismissal for ineligible claims purely on the basis of conclusory or generalized statements.” Id.
`
`1 All citations and quotation marks are omitted, and emphasis added, unless indicated otherwise.
`
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`3
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-004279-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 3:22-cv-04279-JD Document 122 Filed 11/11/22 Page 9 of 23Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 80-3 Filed 01/26/23 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`VoIP-Pal is collaterally estopped from challenging patent ineligibility here.
`Collateral estoppel bars VoIP-Pal’s suit because VoIP-Pal already, repeatedly had a “full and
`fair opportunity to litigate” the ineligibility “issue at stake” to a final judgment, and lost, where the
`ineligibility “issue[s] w[ere] necessary to decide the merits.” Oyeniran, 672 F.3d at 806; VoIP-Pal-2,
`411 F. Supp. 3d 926; VoIP-Pal-1, 375 F. Supp. 3d 1110. The eligibility “issues” litigated across these
`cases are the same such that estoppel should apply. Ohio Willow, 735 F.3d at 1342.
`VoIP-Pal’s claims raise the same ineligibility issues already resolved in multiple prior
`decisions. Claim 1 is representative, as detailed in Section IV.C below. Using that claim as an example,
`Appendix 1 reflects that the ’606 patent claims substantially (if not exactly) the same abstract concept
`that the Federal Circuit already affirmed was ineligible in VoIP-Pal’s previously invalidated ’002
`patent claims. See also, supra, Section II.2 Notably, patent claims need not be identical for collateral
`estoppel to apply. Ohio Willow, 735 F.3d at 1342 (collateral estoppel applied to invalidity issues where
`claims were “substantially similar” and used “slightly different language to describe substantially the
`same invention”). It is sufficient, particularly in the eligibility context, that the claims “describe the
`same concept,” or are “substantially the same,” as those previously invalidated. NetSoc, LLC v. Oath
`Inc., 2020 WL 419469, at *7-8 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2020), appeal dismissed, 832 F. App’x 703 (Fed.
`Cir. 2020) (collateral estoppel where continuation and parent patents “describe the same concept” such
`that differences “[did] not materially alter the question of invalidity under § 101.”); Control v. Dig.
`Playground, Inc., 2016 WL 5793745, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2016) (applying collateral estoppel
`where unadjudicated patent was “substantially the same” as a patent invalidated under Section 101).
`Here, the patents recite the same purely functional, five-step idea to route a communication
`based on the participants’ characteristics: (1) receive a “participant identifier”; (2) “identify[]” or
`“locate” a “participant attribute”; (3) process “the second participant identifier” “to produce a new
`second participant identifier”; (4) “process[]” or “classify[]” the communication based on “the new
`
`
`2 This District already ruled that a case involving the ’606 patent was related to a prior VoIP-Pal case
`on its related patents. Case No. 3:20-cv-02460, Dkts. 16-1, 18. It has also noted that “this Court already
`resolved the parties’ disputes regarding the patentability of [VoIP-Pal’s] six other patents,” while
`finding that the suits “involve substantially similar technology….” Id. Dkt. 60 at 11.
`
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`4
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-004279-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 3:22-cv-04279-JD Document 122 Filed 11/11/22 Page 10 of 23Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 80-3 Filed 01/26/23 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`
`second participant identifier”; and (5) “produc[e] a routing message.” Compare ’606 patent at 37:30–
`38:3, with ’002 patent at 37:30–38:2; Appendix 1. Both patents also only recite generic computer
`technology, including for example a “processor,” to perform these functional steps. Id. Thus, both
`patents raise the same ineligibility issues and estoppel applies. NetSoc, 2020 WL 419469, at *7–8.
`To the extent the ’606 patent claim language differs slightly from the ’002 patent claims, it
`“ha[s] no material effect on the [court’s] invalidity analysis and thus the issue of the [unadjudicated]
`Patent claims’ eligibility under § 101 has already been addressed and resolved.” NetSoc, 2020 WL
`419469, at *5. For example, the patents merely use different words to recite the same process—routing
`based on whether participants are associated with the same vs. different network elements. In the ’606
`patent, when the first and second network elements are “the same,” that corresponds to “system
`communication” in the ’002 patent; when they are found “not to be the same,” that corresponds to
`“external network communication.” Compare ’606 patent at 37:52-65 with ’002 patent at 37:51–65.
`The overlap in intrinsic evidence further confirms that collateral estoppel applies. The ’606
`patent, as a continuation of the previously invalidated patents, shares the identical subject matter,
`specification, title, parent application, inventors, and owner. Tellingly, even VoIP-Pal’s Complaint in
`this case recycles VoIP-Pal’s allegations in VoIP-Pal-2, largely copying the assertions regarding the
`technology and asserted patents. Compare Dkt. 28 at ¶¶ 13–41 (Background of the Technology and
`the Patent-in-Suit) with Case. No. 5:18-cv-06216, Dkt. 81 at ¶¶ 13–41 (same). That VoIP-Pal itself
`alleged essentially the same technical description for the two patents confirms “the two patents
`describe the same concept” and are substantially the same. See NetSoc, 2020 WL 419469 at *7–8.
`The ’606 patent has substantially similar claims, the same intrinsic evidence, and raises the
`same ineligibility issues as VoIP-Pal’s six previously invalidated patents; therefore, collateral estoppel
`applies. The analysis below further demonstrates the substantial overlap between the issues currently
`before the Court and those issues previously litigated and decided. It also confirms that, even absent
`estoppel, the ’606 patent claims recite patent-ineligible subject matter and should be found invalid.
`
`B.
`
`The asserted claims are patent-ineligible under Section 101.
`1.
`Alice step one: Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
`Representative Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of routing a communication based on
`
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`5
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-004279-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 3:22-cv-04279-JD Document 122 Filed 11/11/22 Page 11 of 23Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 80-3 Filed 01/26/23 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`the participants’ characteristics. The Federal Circuit and this District already found claims from related
`VoIP-Pal patents to be directed to this abstract concept where a 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 it 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-2, 411 F. Supp. 3d at 952, 956, 963 (emphasis in
`original). The same analysis applies here and yields the same conclusion.
`
`a. Claim 1 uses broad, functional terms.
`Claim 1 discloses basic steps for call routing: (1) “receiving … a second participant identifier
`associated with the second participant device”; (2) “identifying at least one first participant attribute”
`from “a first participant profile”; (3) “processing the second participant identifier and the at least one
`first participant attribute … to produce a new second participant identifier”; (4) “processing the new
`second participant identifier” to determine which network element “the new second participant
`identifier” is associated with; and (5) “producing a routing message” identifying a network address
`associated with that network element. ’606 Patent at 37:30–38:3. But as in VoIP-Pal’s prior case,
`Claim 1 does not disclose how these functions are achieved, e.g., how the processing “produce[s] a
`new second participant identifier” or how processing “the new second participant identifier”
`“determine[s] whether the second network element is the same as the first network element.” See
`VoIP-Pal-1, 375 F. Supp. 3d at 1133 (“[C]laim 1 discloses ‘locating a caller dialing profile’ without
`describing how the caller dialing profile is located; ‘determining a match’ without specifying any kind
`of structure or non-functional language to describe how a match is determined and compared to the
`callee identifier; and ‘classifying a call’ without identifying how the call is classified.”). Thus, Claim
`1 is directed to the abstract idea of routing a communication based on the participants’ characteristics.
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. is instructive. 838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`There, the ineligible claim described the “function of streaming content to a wireless device, but not a
`specific means for performing that function” when it recited responding to a user’s content request by
`retrieving and delivering the content. Id. at 1269. The court explained, “[a]t that level of generality,
`
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`6
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-004279-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 3:22-cv-04279-JD Document 122 Filed 11/11/22 Page 12 of 23Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 80-3 Filed 01/26/23 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting
`detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem.” Id. Similarly, Claim 1
`recites general functions without explaining how to perform them—e.g., routing a communication
`based on the participants’ characteristics by searching for participant attributes, producing a new
`second participant identifier, and producing a routing message. Like in Affinity Labs, “[t]he purely
`functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea…” Id.
`The Federal Circuit and this District have repeatedly found similar functional claims in the
`call-routing context ineligible, including VoIP-Pal’s similar ’002 patent claims. VoIP-Pal-2. 411 F.
`Supp. 3d at 951, aff’d, 828 F. App’x 717 (mem.) (Fed. Cir. 2020); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast
`Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (ineligible claim “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.”). In VoIP-Pal-2 the court
`found claims to be ineligible where they “simply require[d] the functional results of ‘receiving,’
`‘processing,’ and ‘classifying’ a call based on the participant identifiers, and then ultimately
`‘identifying’ an appropriate Internet address.” 411 F. Supp. 3d at 955. Similarly, Claim 1 only requires
`the functional results of “receiving” and “processing” the participant identifiers associated with the
`requested communication participants and then “identifying” an appropriate Internet address to route
`the requested communication. ’606 Patent at 37:30–38:3. Like in VoIP-Pal-2, Claim 1 “is worded in
`such broad, functional terms, so as to describe a desired result—routing the communication—without
`explaining how that result is achieved.” 411 F. Supp. 3d at 952 (emphasis in original).
`
`b. Claim 1 is analogous to preexisting call routing practices.
`Claim 1’s purported invention of routing a call based on participant characteristics
`(specifically,
`identity)
`is analogous
`to well-known,
`longstanding practices
`in
`telephone
`communications. As explained in VoIP-Pal-2, and as VoIP-Pal alleged in its Complaint, these call-
`routing concepts have existed for decades. 411 F. Supp. 3d at 956–57 (“Claim 1 is analogous to
`preexisting practices of manual call routing” and “provides simple automation of a task previously
`performed manually”); FAC ¶¶ 15–17, 19, 21–22; see also RingCentral, Inc. v. Dialpad, Inc., 372 F.
`
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
`
`
`7
`
`CASE NO. 3:22-cv-004279-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 3:22-cv-04279-JD Document 122 Filed 11/11/22 Page 13 of 23Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 80-3 Filed 01/26/23 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`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 ....”).
`As VoIP-Pal’s Complaint concedes, even in the “earliest telephone systems,” the caller would
`identify the callee by “say[ing] the name of the person they wished to call to the operator,” who would
`direct the call based on the caller’s location; for example, based on whether the call participants were
`on the same switchboard. FAC ¶ 15. Later, callers identified callees by dialing their telephone numbers
`with rotary