`
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`VOIP-PAL’S RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT
`OF GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
`
`Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., (“VoIP-Pal”) respectfully submits this response to the Notice of
`
`
`
`Supplemental Authority in Support of Google LLC’s Motion to Transfer. See Dkt. No. 61. Google
`
`LLC (“Google”) has a pending motion to transfer before the Court. See Dkt. No. 24. The case that
`
`Google brings to the Court’s attention by way of its Notice is styled In re: Google LLC, Case No.
`
`2022-140, 2022 WL 1613192 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2022).
`
`While Google informs the Court that In re Google LLC is non-precedential, Google fails to
`
`inform the Court of the implication of a Federal Circuit case designated as non-precedential. A
`
`nonprecedential opinion or order is “one determined by the panel issuing it as not adding significantly
`
`to the body of law.” Federal Circuit Rule 32.1(b), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Rules
`
`of Practice (December 1, 2021). Therefore, while In re Google LLC may be controlling for the
`
`specific case in which in which it was decided, it is certainly not controlling authority in the pending
`
`action involving VoIP-Pal.
`
`In addition, the facts in the instant action are distinguishable from In re Google LLC, including,
`
`but certainly not limited to, the fact that VoIP-Pal, unlike the plaintiff in In re Google LLC, identified a
`
`party witness who works in the District (Dkt. No. 46 at 11), VoIP-Pal identified relevant third-party
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 62 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`witnesses within the subpoena power of the Court (Id. at 8), Google failed to provide any specific
`
`information on the volume or location of its documents (Dkt. No. 46 at 7), Google stacked the transfer
`
`analysis by cherry picking prior art (Id. at 7-8), and Google failed to establish that it designed and
`
`developed the Accused Instrumentality in the Northern District of California (Id. at 8-10). Further, In
`
`re Google concerned a transfer from the Eastern District of Texas, where Google has little if any
`
`presence, as opposed to a transfer from this District, where Google has a significant presence (Id. at
`
`13-14). Accordingly, contrary to what Google claims, In re Google is not instructive for the purposes
`
`of deciding Google’ Motion to Transfer.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 27, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 62 Filed 05/27/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`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 VOIP-PAL’S RESPONSE TO
`NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO
`TRANSFER via the Court’s CM/ECF system pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
`Local Rule CV-5(b)(1) this 27th day of May, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
