Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-667-ADA
`
`
`
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF VOIP-PAL.COM’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S
`OPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................................................... iii 
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................... iv 
`
`I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 
`
`II.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 1 
`
`A.  The Accused Instrumentalities ......................................................................................................... 1 
`
`B.  B. Procedural Background. .............................................................................................................. 2 
`
`1.  VoIP-Pal’s 2016 Cases Against AT&T, Apple, Twitter, and Verizon ........................................ 3 
`
`2.  VoIP-Pal’s 2018 Cases Against Apple and Amazon ................................................................... 4 
`
`3.  VoIP-Pal’s 2020 WDTX Cases on the ‘606 Patent...................................................................... 4 
`
`4. 
`
`2020 NDCAL Declaratory-Judgment Cases on the ‘606 Patent. ................................................. 4 
`
`5.  VoIP-Pal’s 2021 WDTX Cases on the Mobile Gateway Patents ................................................. 5 
`
`6. 
`
`2021 NDCAL Declaratory-Judgment Cases on the Mobile Gateway Patents. ............................ 5 
`
`III.ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................................... 6 
`
`A.  Google Has Not Met its Burden to Show this Case Should be Transferred to NDCAL. ................ 6 
`
`1.  The private factors do not favor transfer. ..................................................................................... 7 
`
`2.  The public factors do not favor transfer. .................................................................................... 12 
`
`IV.CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................... 14 
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 571 U.S. 49 (2013)............................................... 12
`In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................. 12
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. (“Volkswagen II”), 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ...................................... 6
`Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 291 (1955) .................................................................................... 12, 13
`VLSI Tech., LLC v. Intel Corp., 6:19-CV-000254-ADA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155287 (W.D. Tex.
`Aug. 6, 2019) ......................................................................................................................................... 12
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`ABBREVIATION
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`
`TERM
`
`VoIP-Pal
`
`Google, LLC
`
`AT&T
`
`Apple, Inc.
`
`Verizon
`
`
`Amazon
`
`Facebook
`
`Twitter
`
`The ’606 patent
`
`The Patents-in-Suit
`
`RBR
`
`The ’815 patent
`
`The ’005 patent
`
`The ’762 patent
`
`The ’330 patent
`
`The ’002 patent
`
`The ’549 patent
`
`The ’872 patent
`
`The ‘234 patent
`
`Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`Defendant Google, LLC
`
`AT&T Corp. and AT&T Services, Inc.
`
`Apple, Inc.
`
`Verizon Communications, Inc.; Cellco
`Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless; Verizon
`Services, Corp.; and Verizon Business
`Network Services, Inc.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services,
`LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc.
`
`Facebook, Inc.
`
`Twitter, Inc.
`
`U.S Patent No. 10,218,606
`
`The Mobile Gateway Patents
`
`Routing, Billing, Rating
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,537,762
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,813,330
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,826,002
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,948,549
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,935,872
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,630,234
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`The ‘721 patent
`
`The Mobile Gateway patents
`
`The RBR patents
`
`
`
`The 2016 appeal
`
`The 2018 appeal
`
`The 2016 cases
`
`The 2018 cases
`
`WDTX
`
`NDCAL
`
`EDCAL
`
`SDCAL
`
`PTAB
`
`IPR
`
`The 2020 WDTX cases
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`The ‘234 and ‘721 patents
`
`The ’815, ’005, ’762, ’330, ’002, ’549, ’606,
`and’872 patents
`
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., No. 19-
`1808 (Lead Case)
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 19-
`1241 (Lead Case)
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., No. 5:18-
`cv-04523-LHK (N.D. Cal.); VoIP-Pal.com,
`Inc. v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, No.
`18-cv-06054-LHK (N.D. Cal.); VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., No. 3:18-cv-
`06177-LHK (N.D. Cal.); and VoIP-Pal.com,
`Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-06217-LHK
`(N.D. Cal.)
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No.
`5:18-cv-7020 (N.D. Cal.) and VoIP-Pal.com,
`Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:18-cv-6216 (N.D.
`Cal.)
`
`The Western District of Texas
`
`The Northern District of California
`
`The Eastern District of California
`
`The Southern District of California
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`Inter Partes Review
`
`
`
`VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No.
`6:20-cv-00267-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-
`Pal.Com, Inc. v. Google, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-
`00269-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.Com,
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`The 2020 NDCAL actions
`
`The 2021 WDTX cases
`
`The 2021 NDCAL actions
`
`Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al., No. 6:20-cv-
`00272-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.Com,
`Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00275-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. AT&T,
`Inc. et al., No. 6:20-cv-00325-ADA (W.D.
`Tex.); and VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Verizon
`Communications, Inc. et al., No. 6:20-cv-
`00327-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Apple, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No.
`5:20-cv-02460-LHK (N.D. Cal.); AT&T
`Corp., et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com., Inc., Case No.
`5:20-cv-02995-LHK (N.D. Cal.); and Cellco
`Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. VoIP-
`Pal.com., Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-03092-LHK
`(N.D. Cal.)
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., et al.,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-665-ADA (W.D. Tex.);
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Google, LLC, Case No.
`6:21-cv-667-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-66-ADA (W.D. Tex.);
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-
`670-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v.
`AT&T Corp., et al., 6:21-cv-671-ADA (W.D.
`Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon
`Communications, Inc., et al., 6:21-cv-672-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. T-
`Mobile US, Inc., et al., 6:21-cv-674-ADA
`(W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., 6:21-cv-1246-
`ADA (W.D. Tex.); and VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v.
`Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. et al., 6:21-cv-
`1247-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`AT&T Corp. et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.,
`Case No. 3:21-cv-05078 (N.D. Cal.); Apple
`Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com., Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-
`05110 (N.D. Cal.); and Cellco Partnership
`d/b/a Verizon Wireless Inc. et al v. VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-05275 (N.D.
`Cal.)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 7 of 21
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Google’s Motion to Transfer should be denied because NDCAL is not a clearly more
`
`convenient forum for resolving this dispute. According to venue discovery, Google has identified
`
`eight dispersed employee witnesses in Mountain View, California; Kirkland, Washington; and
`
`Sweden.1 Google has provided no evidence to substantiate the claim that NDCAL is where “the
`
`accused products and features were primarily developed.”2 Conversely, VoIP-Pal is headquartered in
`
`Waco, Texas, where its CFO works, and there are at least two third-party witnesses within the
`
`subpoena power of the Court. VoIP-Pal’s CEO is an inventor on the Patents-in-suit and will testify at
`
`trial in WDTX as will one of the third-party inventors, who has agreed to travel from Canada to Waco
`
`for trial. The Court also likely bring this case to trial faster than NDCAL. Because neither the private
`
`nor public interest clearly favors transfer, the Court should deny the Motion.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`The Accused Instrumentalities
`Google operates a messaging and communications platform (“Google Fi Calling System”) that
`
`includes an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS).3 One task performed by Google is
`
`VoWiFi calling (also known as Voice over WiFi or VoWiFi), which is compliant with 3GPP standards
`
`and enabled by IMS.4 Several protocols are available for performing individual tasks, which are
`
`performed at the server level or the base station level in telephony terms, thus allowing the Google Fi
`
`Calling System to enable mobile telephone and device roaming.5
`
`As alleged in the Complaint, exemplary claim 20 of the ‘234 patent requires for infringement
`
`that the apparatus must, among other things, “cause an access code request message to be transmitted
`
`
`
`1 See Dkt. No. 28.
`2 See Dkt. No. 24 at 1 (Introduction) (Filed under seal).
`3 See “Overview of the Accused Instrumentalities” at pp. 10-11 (Dkt. No. 1).
`4 Id.
`5 See “Overview of the Accused Instrumentalities” at pp. 10-11 (Dkt. No. 1).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`to an access server” and must “receive an access code reply message from the access server in
`
`response to said access code request message.”6 Furthermore, exemplary claim 38 of the ‘721 patent
`
`requires for infringement that the wireless apparatus must “transmit an access code request message to
`
`an access server,” “receive an access code reply message from the access server in response to the
`
`access code request message,” and “the access code identifying a communications channel on a
`
`gateway through which communications between the wireless apparatus and the destination node can
`
`be conducted.”7 Details regarding the transmitting and receiving of access codes to access servers and
`
`gateways by the Google Fi Calling System have been provided to Google.8 Notwithstanding the
`
`substantial information provided to Google regarding its alleged infringement, Google’s motion
`
`identifies a total of seven potential technical witnesses (only four located in NDCAL) to support its
`
`transfer request. Google motion identifies no witnesses employed in a business capacity. And, out of
`
`1,755 employees in Austin, Texas, Google did not identify a single witness relevant to Google Fi or
`
`Hangouts.
`
`B.
`B. Procedural Background.
`Google’s long and skewed recitation of the history of the VoIP-Pal cases omits material facts
`
`detrimental, if not fatal, to its transfer motion. Regarding the 2016 and 2018 cases, they are closed.
`
`Google was not a party in any of those cases. Google is not even related to the parties in those cases.
`
`As to the issue of judicial familiarity, Google omits one inconvenient truth: the judge that presided
`
`over previous litigations involving VoIP-Pal in NDCAL, Judge Lucy H. Koh, is no longer on the
`
`bench. The public record shows that Judge Koh was nominated on September 20, 2021, by the
`
`
`6 See elements [20e-1] and [2-f-1] at Dkt. No. 1-4.
`7 See elements [38-e1], [38f-1], [38f-3] at Dkt. No. 1-5.
`8 VoIP-Pal’s Plaintiff’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions served Oct. 19, 2021, on Google assert
`the following apparatus and method claims: (1) for the ‘234 patent claims 1, 10, 11, 19, 20-22, 24-25,
`28, 30-33, 35, 37-40, 43, 45-48, 51, 53, 54, 61, 62, 64, 65, 70, 72, 75 and (2) for the ‘721 patent claims
`1, 6, 15, 16, 20, 25, 34, 38, 39, 45, 46, 49, 51, 63, 67, 77, 103, 104, 109, 110, 124, 130, 133, 135, 136,
`140.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`President to an appointment at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and confirmed by the Senate on
`
`December 13, 2021.9 Therefore, if there was once a reason to argue that the NDCAL is more familiar
`
`than WDTX with the VoIP-Pal cases, that justification became moot months ago when Judge Koh left
`
`the bench and took her seat on the appellate court. To put the factual and procedural background into
`
`proper context, VoIP-Pal presents the following discussion for the Court’s benefit.
`
`1.
`VoIP-Pal’s 2016 Cases Against AT&T, Apple, Twitter, and Verizon
`Between August 14 and November 7, 2018, the 2016 cases were assigned to Judge Koh.10 On
`
`March 25, 2019, Judge Koh granted the defendants’ consolidated Rule 12 motion to dismiss VoIP-
`
`Pal’s asserted claims as invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and closed the 2016 cases. On March 16, 2020,
`
`the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision invalidating the 19 asserted claims of the ’815
`
`and ’005 patents.11
`
`Also in 2016, Apple filed inter partes review proceedings challenging the validity of 34 claims
`
`of the ’815 and ’005 patents originally asserted in the 2016 cases.12 On November 20, 2017, the PTAB
`
`issued final written decisions rejecting Apple’s claim that the challenged claims are obvious.13 Apple
`
`appealed and the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decisions.14
`
`
`9 See https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/judicial-council/judicial-appointments/ last visited April 5, 2022.
`10 See VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-6217-LHK (N.D. Cal.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
`v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, Case No. 5:18-cv-6054-LHK (N.D. Cal.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v.
`AT&T Corp., Case No. 5:18-cv-6177-LHK (N.D. Cal.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., Case No.
`5:18-cv-4523-LHK (N.D. Cal.).
`11 See VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc., 798 F. App’x 644 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`12 See Apple Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., IPR2016-01198 (PTAB); Apple Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.,
`IPR2016-01201 (PTAB).
`13 See IPR2106-01198, Paper 53; IPR2016-01201, Paper 54.
`14 Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc., 976 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`2.
`VoIP-Pal’s 2018 Cases Against Apple and Amazon
`Between November 6 and 28, 2018, the 2018 cases were assigned to Judge Koh.15 On
`
`November 1, 2019, Judge Koh granted a Rule 12 motion to dismiss VoIP-Pal’s asserted claims as
`
`invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and closed the 2018 cases. On November 3, 2020, the Federal Circuit
`
`affirmed Judge Koh's decision.16
`
`3.
`VoIP-Pal’s 2020 WDTX Cases on the ‘606 Patent
`On April 2, 2020, VoIP-Pal sued Facebook and WhatsApp in this District for infringing VoIP-
`
`Pal’s ’606 patent.17 Subsequently, VoIP-Pal filed suits in this District against Google, Amazon, Apple,
`
`AT&T, and Verizon.18 The cases were stayed by the Court on September 29, 2020.19 The actions
`
`against Apple, AT&T and Verizon were subsequently dismissed, and the stay was lifted on November
`
`9, 2021.20 The actions against Facebook, Google and Amazon have a Markman hearing set for May
`
`20, 2022, and are scheduled to go to trial on May 16, 2023.21
`
`4.
`2020 NDCAL Declaratory-Judgment Cases on the ‘606 Patent.
`In a deliberate attempt to manipulate VoIP-Pal’s choice of venue for the ’606 patent, Apple,
`
`AT&T, and Verizon all chose to file declaratory-judgment actions in NDCAL seeking declaration of
`
`
`15 See VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 5:18-cv-6216-LHK, Dkt. No. 29 (N.D. Cal.); VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-07020-LHK, Dkt. No. 43 (N.D. Cal.).
`16 See VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 20-1241, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 34684 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 3,
`2020).
`17 See VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., et al., No. 6:20-cv-00267-ADA, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Tex.).
`18 See VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00269-ADA, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Tex.); see also;
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., No. 6:20-cv-00272-ADA, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Tex.);
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-275-ADA, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
`v. AT&T Corp. et al., No. 6:20-cv-00325-ADA, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon
`Communications, Inc. et al., No. 6:20-cv-00327-ADA, Dkt. No. 1 (W.D. Tex.).
`19 See No. 6:20-cv-00269-ADA, Dkt. No. 38.
`20 See No. 6:20-cv-00269-ADA, Dkt. No. 51.
`21 Id.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 11 of 21
`
`non-infringement and/or invalidity of the ’606 patent.22 The declaratory judgement actions filed by
`
`AT&T, Verizon and Apple have been dismissed.
`
`On April 8, 2020, Twitter also filed a declaratory-judgment action seeking declaration of non-
`
`infringement of the ’606 patent (Twitter I).23 The Twitter declaratory judgment action has since been
`
`dismissed.24
`
`5.
`VoIP-Pal’s 2021 WDTX Cases on the Mobile Gateway Patents
`Currently pending before this Court are seven cases on VoIP-Pal’s Mobile Gateway patents.
`
`On June 25, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed five of the seven 2021 WDTX cases for infringement of the Mobile
`
`Gateway patents, including Google.25 On November 30, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed two of the seven 2021
`
`WDTX cases.26 Claim construction is currently underway with the Markman hearing scheduled for
`
`May 20, 2022, and trial is set for May 16, 2023.27
`
`6.
`2021 NDCAL Declaratory-Judgment Cases on the Mobile Gateway Patents.
`In turn, three of the 2021 WDTX defendants—AT&T, Apple, and Verizon—filed the 2021
`
`NDCAL actions on the Mobile Gateway patents.28 In response, VoIP-Pal filed a motion in this Court
`
`
`22 See Apple, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 5:20-CV-02460-LHK, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.). Four
`days after filing, Apple amended its complaint to seek a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity
`of VoIP-Pal’s ’872 patent, despite VoIP-Pal never taking any affirmative steps to enforce the ’872
`patent against Apple. See id. at Dkt. No. 10. See AT&T Corp., et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com., Inc., Case No.
`5:20-CV-02995-LHK, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.). See Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. VoIP-
`Pal.com., Inc., Case No. 5:20-CV-03092-LHK, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.).
`23 See Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com., Inc., Case No. 5:20-CV-02397-LHK, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.).
`24 On April 16, 2021, Twitter filed another declaratory judgment action on the ‘872 patent (Twitter II).
`See Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com., Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-02769-LHK, Dkt. No. 1 (N.D. Cal.). No
`Markman hearing and no trial date has been set. A case management conference on Twitter II is
`scheduled for May 5, 2022. The Court retains jurisdiction on Twitter’s motion for attorneys’ fees in
`Twitter I.
`25 Against Facebook, Google, Amazon, T-Mobile, Apple, AT&T and Verizon.
`26 Against Samsung and Huawei.
`27 See Dkt. No. 35.
`28 See AT&T Corp. et al., v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-5078 (N.D. Cal.); Apple Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com,
`Inc., 3:21-cv-5110 (N.D. Cal.); Cellco Partnership et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-05275 (N.D.
`Cal.).
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`to enjoin these actions. Although it denied the motion, the Court has rejected arguments that there is
`
`substantial overlap between cases involving VoIP-Pal’s RBR patents and those involving the Mobile
`
`Gateway patents.29
`
`Similarly, on August 25, 2021, Judge Koh denied AT&T’s and Apple’s motions to relate their
`
`respective 2020 NDCAL actions to their 2021 NDCAL actions.30 On August 26, 2021, Judge Koh
`
`denied a referral to relate the Verizon 2020 and 2021 NDCAL actions.31 On September 14, 2021,
`
`Judge Donato related the Apple and Verizon 2021 NDCAL actions to the AT&T 2021 NDCAL
`
`action.32
`
`The Apple and AT&T actions have since been dismissed. The only matters involving the
`
`Mobile Gateway patents remaining in NDCAL are the Verizon action, which is stayed pending the
`
`outcome of the transfer motions in this District, and yet another serial DJ action filed by Twitter
`
`(Twitter III), which was filed six months after VoIP-Pal filed its WDTX Mobile Gateway cases.33 No
`
`Markman hearing and no trial date has been set in either action.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`Google Has Not Met its Burden to Show this Case Should be Transferred to
`NDCAL.
`
`To determine whether a case should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), courts must
`
`
`
`consider “whether a civil action ‘might have been brought’ in the destination venue,” and if so,
`
`weather eight private and public interest factors justify the transfer. 34 The transferring court must also
`
`bear in mind that “[a]lthough a plaintiff’s choice of venue is not a distinct factor in the venue transfer
`
`
`29 Ex. 1. All references to “Ex.” are Exhibits attached to the Declaration of Nicolas Gikkas.
`30 Exs. 2-3.
`31 Ex. 4.
`32 Ex. 5.
`33 See Cellco Partnership et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-05275 (N.D. Cal.); Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc., No. 3:21-cv-09773 (N.D. Cal.). On January 19, 2022, Judge Donato related Twitter III to
`the AT&T 2021 NDCAL action. See Ex. 6.
`34 See In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. (“Volkswagen II”), 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`analysis, it is nonetheless taken into account as it places a significant burden on the movant to show
`
`good cause for the transfer.”35 Google has not and cannot provide good cause that NDCAL is a clearly
`
`more convenient venue.
`
`1.
`
`The private factors do not favor transfer.
`
`Access to sources of proof: Google has supplied a declaration from
`
` to support
`
`its motion.36 However, the
`
`declaration fails to provide any specific information on the volume or
`
`location of documents related to infringement. Google merely offers attorney argument without any
`
`support for the assertion that access to documents would be more convenient in NDCAL.37 Google
`
`fails to explain why electronic documents are not readily available to Google’s
`
` employees
`
`working in WDTX. Google provides no information on the custodians of this evidence nor on
`
`evidence relating to the accused products. Google fails to explain why financial and business
`
`documents are not available at Google’s Austin Campus and provides no information on the custodians
`
`of these business records. For Google, which has become one of the most successful corporations in
`
`the world specifically because it is able process prodigious amounts of electronic data daily, to argue
`
`that it is inconvenient for it to provide documents in WDTX, is simply not credible. Therefore, this
`
`factor weighs against transfer.
`
`The availability of compulsory process:
`
`Google’s Third Party Witnesses: Google has no basis to assert that its alleged prior art
`
`necessitates compulsory process in NDCAL. Moreover, the Court should disregard Google’s attempt
`
`to stack the transfer analysis with speculative prior art witnesses. Google cherry picks two prior art
`
`systems out of nineteen identified in its preliminary invalidity contentions.38 These systems are
`
`
`
`35 Id. at 314, n. 10.
`36
`Dec. (Dkt. 24-1) (filed under seal).
`37 Dkt. No. 24 at 4-5.
`38 Ex. 7 at 16-17.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 14 of 21
`
`DialPad and GrandCentral.39 Based on what is shown in Linkedin.com, the founders are allegedly
`
`located in NDCAL.40 Google fails to explain why these two particular prior art systems were plucked
`
`from nineteen systems identified in its invalidity contentions so as to require that venue to be
`
`transferred to obtain compulsory process.
`
`VoIP-Pal’s Third Party Witnesses: VoIP-Pal needs compulsory process for Mr. George Brunt
`
`of Business Legal Management, which is based in Dallas and is located within 100 miles of the
`
`Court.41 Mr. Brunt has information on licensing the ‘606 patent.42 VoIP-Pal also needs compulsory
`
`process for Marcus Redding of Intellion Analytics Group, which is based in Austin.43 Mr. Redding
`
`was retained by VoIP-Pal in the 2016 and 2018 cases and has information related to damages.44 Thus,
`
`this factor weighs against transfer.
`
`The convenience of willing witnesses:
`
`Google’s Witnesses:
`
`carefully worded supporting declaration calls into question
`
`the self-limited venue discovery investigation conducted for this case on Google’s accused products
`
`and services.
`
`First,
`
`is not a technical person. His title is “Senior Legal Project Manager” at
`
`Google.45
`
`prefaces his statements on Google Fi and Hangouts with the qualifier:
`
`46 For Google Fi,
`
`expressly narrows
`
`
`39 Dkt. No. 24 at 6; Dkt. Nos. 26-11 through 26-13.
`40 Dkt. Nos. 26-12, 26-13.
`41 Ex. 8.
`42 See Gikkas Dec. at ¶21.
`43 Id. at ¶22.
`44 Id.
`Dec. at ¶1.
`45
`46 Id. at ¶¶6, 8.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 15 of 21
`
`47 For Hangouts,
`
`expressly narrows
`
`
`
`”48
`
`For Google Fi,
`
`identifies
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`49 The
`
`investigation apparently went no further. Google’s Motion fails to address the location of witnesses
`
`relevant to the devices that use Google Fi. Furthermore, Google’s Motion leaves out the location of
`
`witnesses relevant to Google Fi’s network of servers located throughout the United States. This
`
`infrastructure is relevant to the accused features, specifically, the “evolved packet data gateway
`
`(ePDG) at the border between the public Internet and a mobile core of the Google Fi Calling
`
`System.”50
`
`For Hangouts,
`
`found
`
`”51
`
` investigation located
`
`”52 Two more engineers were located working
`
`”53 Then his investigation on Hangouts stopped.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`47 Id. at ¶6.
`48 Id. at ¶8.
`49 Id. at ¶7.
`50 Dkt. No. 1 at ¶27.
`51
`Dec. at ¶7.
`52 Id.
`53 Id.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 16 of 21
`
`For Google Fi and Hangouts, Google’s Motion fails to address the location of witnesses
`
`relevant to the network elements that “enable roaming by mobile devices such as smartphones.”54
`
`Furthermore, Google’s Motion leaves out the location of witnesses relevant to “produce an access code
`
`identifying a communication channel useable by the mobile telephone or device to initiate a call using
`
`the channel.”55
`
`Summarizing,
`
`investigation found
`
`
`
`.
`
`fails to mention that his investigation included attempting to find
`
`persons knowledgeable about marketing, finance or sales, with the conclusion being that he did not
`
`conduct an investigation into this area.
`
`investigation has provided no evidence on the
`
`research and development of either Hangouts or Google Fi that would substantiate the bold claim that
`
`NDCAL is where “the accused products and features were primarily developed.”56
`
`In its responses to VoIP-Pal’s document requests for venue purposes, Google’s document
`
`production raises more questions than it answers. For example, as to its operations in
`
`,
`
`Google’s production identifies
`
`.57 In addition, as to its
`
`operations in
`
`, Google’s production identifies
`
`
`
`58 The employee titles provided in the Google documents provide no insight into
`
`which of these employees have information on Google’s alleged infringement so the convenience
`
`factor can be properly evaluated.
`
`As to questions asked by VoIP-Pal into the investigation by
`
`related to venue, Google
`
`has produced in response
`
`. When Google was asked to provide
`
`“[a]ll documents reviewed by or relied upon by
`
` for the purpose of preparing his
`
`
`
`54 Dkt. No. 1 at ¶28.
`55 Id.
`56 See Dkt. No. 24 at 1 (Introduction) (Filed under seal).
`57 See Ex. 9.
`58 See Ex. 10.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 17 of 21
`
`declaration submitted in the above-identified actions,” Google objected and responded that
`
`
`
`.59 Similarly, when asked about Google’s work from home policies at the time of filing
`
`of the Complaint (when Google forced its employees to work remotely because of the Covid-19
`
`epidemic), Google objected and responded that
`
`.60 When asked to provide
`
`documents related to Google’s organizational structure, at first produced nothing, but after meeting and
`
`conferring, eventually produced
`
`
`
`.61 Google should not be rewarded for being less than forthcoming in responding to
`
`targeted discovery to assess its venue transfer request.
`
`VoIP-Pal’s Witnesses: While the convenience of VoIP-Pal’s witnesses is not a factor in the
`
`transfer analysis, Google’s statements regarding VoIP-Pal are incorrect and self-serving. VoIP-Pal is a
`
`Texas foreign corporation with an office in the District.62 The fact that VoIP-Pal is headquartered in
`
`Waco also weighs against transfer.63 Emil Malak is VoIP-Pal’s CEO, a named inventor on the Patents-
`
`in-Suit and a party witness that will testify at trial. Another party witness is Kevin Williams, VoIP-
`
`Pal’s CFO,64 works out of the Waco office and has relevant information related to VoIP-Pal’s business
`
`and finances.65
`
`Third-Party Witnesses: There are four inventors named on the Patents-in-Suit, including Emil
`
`Malak, who is also a party witness. The three remaining three third-party co-inventors named on the
`
`Patents-in-Suit reside abroad, and one has agreed to travel to WDTX for trial and two are
`
`unavailable.66 In sum, this factor strongly weighs against transfer.
`
`
`
`59 Ex. 11 at pp. 9-10.
`60 Id. at 10-11.
`61 Id. at 11-13.
`62 See Ex. 12. Gikkas Dec. at ¶ 23.
`63 See Billjco v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00528-ADA, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35391, at *29 (W.D.
`Tex. Mar. 1, 2022).
`64 See Gikkas Dec. at ¶24.
`65 Id.
`66 See Björsell Dec.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 52 Filed 04/29/22 Page 18 of 21
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The public factors do not favor transfer.
`
`Court congestion: “[T]he speed with which a case can come to trial and be resolved” favors
`
`WDTX.67 This case is under way. Claim construction briefing has already begun with the Markman
`
`hearing scheduled for May 20, 2022, and trial is scheduled for May 16, 2023.68 Google provides no
`
`evidence that the courts in NDCAL will get to trial on this case any sooner if venue is transferred.
`
`Indeed, the Federal Judiciary statistics show that the that the median time to trial in the WDTX is faster
`
`than the NDCAL—19.1 months v. 22.0 months.69 As the Court recently articulated, both the Federal
`
`Circuit and Congress have acknowledged a strong public policy favoring the quick resolution of patent
`
`disputes regardless of the nature of the patentee’s business.70 Therefore, this factor weighs against
`
`transfer.
`
`Transfer will not conserve judicial resources: As discussed above, Google’s assertion that
`
`NDCAL is more familiar with these cases is contradicted by the fact that the judge that presided over
`
`the previous cases no longer sits on the bench. Thus, no judicial resources will be conserved by
`
`transferring this case to NDCAL.
`
`Transfer is not in the interests of justice: As the plaintiff, VoIP-Pal has the privilege of
`
`selecting whatever forum it considers most advantageous.71 As discussed below, Google’s connection
`
`to NDCAL is no greater than its connection to WDTX. Thus, Google cannot dispute that it seeks to
`
`transfer this case to a venue that it perceives to be more favorable to it. The Court should not
`
`substitute Google’s interests for the interests of justice to upset VoIP-Pal’s choice of forum.72 Google
`
`
`67 See In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`68 Dkt. No. 51.
`69 Ex. 13.
`70 See Billjco, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35391, at *27 n.2.
`71 See VLSI Tech., LLC v. Intel Corp., 6:19-CV-000254-ADA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155287, at *13
`(W.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2019).
`72 See Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 31 (1955) (“[p]laintiffs are generally afforded the
`privilege of bringing an action where he chooses.”); see also Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. United States
`Dist. Court, 571 U.S. 49, 63 (2013) (“plaintiffs are ordinarily allowed to se