Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 17 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-667-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`ANSWER TO ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) answers the Original Complaint for Patent
`
`Infringement (“Complaint”) (Dkt. 1) of Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”). Unless
`
`expressly admitted below, Google denies the allegations in the Complaint, and further denies that
`
`VoIP-Pal is entitled to its requested relief or any other relief.
`
`THE PARTIES1
`
`1.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1, and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`Google admits that Google LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a
`
`principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043.
`
`Google admits that it has a physical address at 500 West 2nd Street, Austin, Texas 78701. Google
`
`admits that the Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC - Lawyers Incorporating Service
`
`Company, 211 East 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701, is Google’s registered agent and
`
`that Google is registered to do business in the State of Texas since November 2006, but denies any
`
`
`1 Google adopts VoIP-Pal’s headings in the Complaint for ease of understanding. Google’s
`adoption of those headers should not be construed as an admission of any allegations.
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 17 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`implication that these facts support venue in this District. Google denies any remaining allegations
`
`of Paragraph 2.
`
`3.
`
`Google admits that it conducts and transacts business in the State of Texas,
`
`throughout the United States, and within this District. Google specifically denies that it has
`
`committed any acts of patent infringement within or outside the State of Texas or within this
`
`District. Google denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 3.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`Google admits that this action invokes the United States patent laws, and that this
`
`Court has subject matter jurisdiction over patent law claims. Google denies any remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 4.
`
`5.
`
`Paragraph 5 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Google does not contest personal jurisdiction in this
`
`District solely for the purpose of this action. Google specifically denies that it has committed or is
`
`committing any acts of infringement as alleged by VoIP-Pal within this District or the State of
`
`Texas. Google denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 5.
`
`6.
`
`Paragraph 6 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Google does not contest personal jurisdiction in this
`
`District solely for the purpose of this action. Google specifically denies that it has committed or is
`
`committing any acts of infringement as alleged by VoIP-Pal within this District or the State of
`
`Texas. Google denies all remaining allegations of Paragraph 6.
`
`7.
`
`Paragraph 7 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. Google specifically denies that it has committed or is committing any acts of
`
`infringement within this District, as alleged by VoIP-Pal. Google denies all remaining allegations
`
`of Paragraph 7.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 17 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Google admits that it transacts business in this District. The remaining allegations
`
`of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint contain legal conclusions to which no response is required. To
`
`the extent a response is required, Google admits that venue is proper in this District for the purpose
`
`of this particular action, but denies that venue is convenient or in the interest of justice under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a). Google further denies that it has committed any acts of patent infringement in
`
`this District or any other District. Except as expressly admitted, Google denies the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
`
`BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`9.
`
`Google admits that what appears to be a copy of United States Patent No. 8,630,234
`
`(“the ’234 patent”) is attached as an exhibit to VoIP-Pal’s Complaint and that, on its face, the ’234
`
`patent is entitled “Mobile Gateway” and issued on January 14, 2014. Google is without knowledge
`
`or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`9, and therefore denies them.
`
`10.
`
`Google admits that what appears to be a copy of United States Patent No.
`
`10,880,721 (“the ’721 patent”) is attached as an exhibit to VoIP-Pal’s Complaint and that, on its
`
`face, the ’721 patent is entitled “Mobile Gateway” and issued on December 29, 2020. Google is
`
`without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 10, and therefore denies them.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`The ’234 and ’721 patents are referred to in the Complaint as the “Patents-in-Suit.”
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12, and therefore denies them.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 13.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 14, and therefore denies them.
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 17 Filed 09/07/21 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`15.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 15, and therefore denies them.
`
`16.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 16, and therefore denies them.
`
`17.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 17, and therefore denies them.
`
`18.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 18, and therefore denies them.
`
`19.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 19, and therefore denies them.
`
`20.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 20, and therefore denies them.
`
`21.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 21, and therefore denies them.
`
`22.
`
`Google denies the allegations related to the Patents-in-Suit. Google is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 22, and therefore denies them.
`
`23.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23, and therefore denies them.
`
`24.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 24.
`
`OVERVIEW OF THE ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES
`
`25.
`
`Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 25, and therefore denies them.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 17 Filed 09/07/21 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`26.
`
`Google admits that it offers a service called Google Fi that supports messaging and
`
`communications. Google admits that Google Fi supports making voice calls over Wi-Fi. Google
`
`is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 26, and therefore denies them.
`
`27.
`
`Google admits that it offers a service called Google Fi that supports making voice
`
`calls over Wi-Fi. Google is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 27, and therefore denies them.
`
`28.
`
`Paragraph 28 of the Complaint contains legal conclusions to which no response is
`
`required. To the extent a response is required, Google specifically denies that it has committed or
`
`is committing any acts of infringement, as alleged by VoIP-Pal. Google denies all remaining
`
`allegations of Paragraph 28.
`
`29.
`
`The “Google Fi Calling System” is referred to in the Complaint as the “Accused
`
`Instrumentalities.”
`
`COUNT 1
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,630,234
`
`30.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 29 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated in this
`
`section.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 31.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 32.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 33.
`
`Google admits that Google and VoIP-Pal have been engaged in litigation regarding
`
`a patent other than the ’234 patent since April 3, 2020. Google denies all other allegations in
`
`Paragraph 34.
`
`35.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 35.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 17 Filed 09/07/21 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 36.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 37.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 38.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 39.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 40.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 41.
`
`COUNT 2
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,880,721
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 41 are incorporated as if fully stated in this section.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 43.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 44.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 45.
`
`Google admits that Google and VoIP-Pal have been engaged in litigation regarding
`
`a patent other than the ’721 patent since April 3, 2020. Google denies all other allegations in
`
`Paragraph 46.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 47.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 48.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 49.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 50.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 51.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 52.
`
`Google denies the allegations in Paragraph 53.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 17 Filed 09/07/21 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`VoIP-Pal’s demand for a trial by jury for all issues triable to a jury does not state any
`
`allegation, and Google is not required to respond. To the extent that any allegations are included
`
`in the demand, Google denies these allegations.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`These paragraphs (a)–(h) set forth VoIP-Pal’s statement of requested relief, to which no
`
`response is required. Google denies that VoIP-Pal is entitled to any of its requested relief and
`
`denies any allegations.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES
`
`Subject to the responses above, Google alleges and asserts the following defenses in
`
`response to the allegations, undertaking the burden of proof only as to those defenses deemed
`
`affirmative defenses by law, regardless of how such defenses are denominated herein. In addition
`
`to the affirmative defenses described below, and subject to its responses above, Google specifically
`
`reserves all rights to allege additional affirmative defenses that become known through the course
`
`of discovery.
`
`FIRST DEFENSE – NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`Google does not infringe and has not infringed (whether 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 Patents-in-Suit.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE – INVALIDITY
`
`The claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid and unenforceable under 35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`because the claims are directed to abstract ideas or other non-statutory subject matter. The claims
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid and unenforceable under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because the claims lack
`
`novelty, and are taught and suggested by the prior art. The claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 17 Filed 09/07/21 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`and unenforceable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the claims are obvious in view of the prior art.
`
`The claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid and unenforceable for failure to satisfy the conditions
`
`set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 112, including failure of written description, lack of enablement, and claim
`
`indefiniteness.
`
`THIRD DEFENSE – LIMITATION ON PATENT DAMAGES
`
`VoIP-Pal’s claim for damages, if any, against Google for alleged infringement of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit is limited by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287, and/or 288.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE – EQUITABLE DOCTRINES
`
`VoIP-Pal’s claims of patent infringement are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable
`
`doctrines of waiver, estoppel, acquiescence, laches, and/or unclean hands.
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE – ENSNAREMENT
`
`VoIP-Pal’s claims of patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, if any, are
`
`barred under the doctrine of ensnarement.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE – PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL
`
`VoIP-Pal is estopped from construing or interpreting the claims of the Patents-in-Suit in
`
`such a way as may cover and/or include, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`Google’s products, processes, services, and/or activities, and/or has waived any right to do so by
`
`reason of cancellation, limitation, or abandonment of claims, admissions, arguments, amendments,
`
`and/or representations made by or on behalf of the applicants in any proceedings before the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE – LICENSE AND EXHAUSTION
`
`On information and belief, VoIP-Pal’s claims for relief are barred in whole or in part by an
`
`express or implied license, and/or the patent exhaustion doctrine.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 17 Filed 09/07/21 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE – USE OR MANUFACTURE FOR THE UNITED STATES
`
`To the extent that any accused product has been used or manufactured by or for the United
`
`States government, claims and demands for relief by VoIP-Pal based on the Patents-in-Suit are
`
`barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1498.
`
`NINTH DEFENSE – ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW
`
`If VoIP-Pal is entitled to any remedy, VoIP-Pal has an adequate remedy at law, and cannot
`
`satisfy the requirements applicable to a request for injunctive relief.
`
`TENTH DEFENSE – NOT AN EXCEPTIONAL CASE
`
`VoIP-Pal is not entitled to a finding that this case is exceptional warranting attorneys’ fees
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 285, or pursuant to the Court’s inherent power.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Google demands a trial by jury
`
`on all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Google requests that the Court enter judgment in its favor and against
`
`VoIP-Pal as follows:
`
`a)
`
`adjudging and declaring that Google has not infringed and is not infringing any
`
`claim of the Patents-in-Suit, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, directly or
`
`indirectly, or in any other way;
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`adjudging and declaring that all the claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid;
`
`dismissing VoIP-Pal’s Complaint with prejudice, denying each and every prayer
`
`for relief therein, and entering judgment for Google;
`
`d)
`
`declaring this case exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and awarding Google its
`
`costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in defending this action; and
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 17 Filed 09/07/21 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`e)
`
`granting Google such other and further relief as the Court may deem necessary,
`
`just, or proper.
`
`
`
`DATED: September 7, 2021
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Paige Arnette Amstutz
`Paige Arnette Amstutz
`State Bar No.: 00796136
`pamstutz@scottdoug.com
`SCOTT, DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO, LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: (512) 495-6300
`Facsimile: (512) 495-6399
`
`Robert W. Unikel (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`robertunikel@paulhastings.com
`Matthew Lind (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`matthewlind@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`71 South Wacker Drive, 45th Floor
`Chicago, IL 60606
`Telephone: (312) 499-6000
`Facsimile: (312) 499-6100
`
`Robert R. Laurenzi (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`robertlaurenzi@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 318-6000
`Facsimile: (212) 319-4090
`
`Ariell N. Bratton (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`ariellbratton@paulhastings.com
`Cole D. Malmberg (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`colemalmberg@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92121
`Telephone: (858) 458-3000
`Facsimile: (858) 458-3005
`
`Counsel for Defendant Google LLC
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 17 Filed 09/07/21 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify
`
`that, on September 7, 2021, all counsel of record who have appeared in these cases are being
`
`served with a copy of the foregoing via the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`
`
` /s/ Paige Arnette Amstutz
`Paige Arnette Amstutz
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`