Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 90 Filed 03/20/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-672-ADA
`
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`AMAZON.COM, INC.;
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF VOIP-PAL.COM’S OPPOSED MOTION
`FOR ENTRY OF FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER
`
`On January 27, 2023, the Court granted VoIP-Pal’s opposed motion to lift the stay and reset
`
`the Claim Construction Hearing date. Dkt. No. 81. At the same time, the Court ordered the parties to
`
`meet and confer on the remaining pretrial dates and present a proposed amended scheduling order for
`
`the Court’s consideration. Id. VoIP-Pal provided Amazon a proposed schedule on February 15—the
`
`same day as the Claim Construction Hearing. Ex. 1 at 4. Almost two weeks later, Amazon provided
`
`its edits to VoIP-Pal’s proposed schedule. Id. at 3; Ex. 2. But Amazon refused to agree to entry of
`
`the schedule because it believes that VoIP-Pal has no basis to assert infringement of the “routing
`
`message” limitation, which the Court construed to mean “a message that includes a callee user name
`
`field, a route field, and a time to live field.” Ex. 1 at 2-3; Dkt. No. 87 at 2. VoIP-Pal agreed to
`
`Amazon’s proposed changes to VoIP-Pal’s proposed schedule and proposed two additional
`
`modifications. Ex. 1 at 2; Ex. 3. Amazon, however, again refused to agree to entry of a schedule
`
`unless VoIP-Pal identifies a basis for asserting that Amazon infringes the “routing message”
`
`limitation or until the Court rules on VoIP-Pal’s Opposed Motion for Partial Reconsideration of
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 90 Filed 03/20/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`Claim Construction Order. Ex. 1 at 2; Dkt. No. 89. Because Amazon has no legitimate basis for
`
`opposing the entry of a scheduling order, VoIP-Pal brings this Motion and respectfully requests that
`
`the Court enter VoIP-Pal’s proposed scheduling order.
`
`Amazon’s contention that no schedule should be entered if VoIP-Pal cannot identify a basis
`
`for asserting that the accused products satisfy the “routing message” limitation as construed by the
`
`Court lacks merit. Amazon should not be allowed to hold the schedule hostage just because it
`
`believes that VoIP-Pal does not have a basis to assert infringement of the “routing message”
`
`limitation. Discovery has barely begun in this case. Amazon has yet to respond to the written
`
`discovery that VoIP-Pal served before the Court stayed this case. VoIP-Pal should receive this
`
`discovery and should be allowed to take further discovery to prove its infringement claim in light of
`
`the Court’s construction. VoIP-Pal should not be required to stipulate to noninfringement, as
`
`Amazon believes, before VoIP-Pal has the opportunity to investigate Amazon’s claim that the
`
`accused products do not have any routing message that contains a time to live field. Accordingly, the
`
`Court should reject Amazon’s attempt to delay entry of the scheduling order in this case based on
`
`Amazon’s belief that its products do not satisfy the “routing message” limitation.
`
`The Court also should not delay entry of a scheduling order in this case pending resolution of
`
`VoIP-Pal’s motion for reconsideration. The Court lifted the stay in this case and in doing so, rejected
`
`Amazon’s previous arguments for maintaining the stay. Dkt. No. 81. The Court also ordered the
`
`parties to meet and confer on the remaining pretrial dates and present a proposed amended scheduling
`
`order for the Court’s consideration. Id. The parties have done so. Amazon’s objection to the entry
`
`of a schedule order is nothing more than an attempt to stay this case again, which the Court should
`
`reject again.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 90 Filed 03/20/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`For all of these reasons, the Court should grant this Motion and enter VoIP-Pal’s proposed
`
`scheduling order.
`
`Dated: March 20, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`lewis@hudnelllaw.com
`Nicolas S. Gikkas
`nick@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
`
`Sean Franklin Parmenter
`sean@parmenterip.com
`Parmenter Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
`8980 N Pine Hollow Drive
`Cedar Hills, Utah 84062
`T: 925.482.6515
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 90 Filed 03/20/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`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’S
`OPPOSED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FIRST AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER via the Court’s
`CM/ECF system pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5(b)(1) this
`20th day of March 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`4
`
`