Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`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.COM, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.;
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; and
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-668-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-665-ADA
`
`
`
`
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC. and WHATSAPP, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSED
`MOTION TO STAY
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 2 of 18
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii 
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 
`II. 
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 2 
`A.  The 2016 cases ..................................................................................................................... 2 
`B.  The 2018 cases ..................................................................................................................... 3 
`C.  The 2020 WDTX Cases ....................................................................................................... 3 
`D.  The 2020 NDCAL Actions .................................................................................................. 4 
`E.  The 2021 WDTX Cases And The 2021 NDCAL Actions ................................................... 4 
`F.  The Instant Cases Are Not Substantially Similar To The RBR Patent Cases. .................... 5 
`III. 
`LEGAL STANDARD. ......................................................................................................... 7 
`IV.  THE COURT SHOULD NOT STAY THESE CASES. ..................................................... 7 
`A.  A Stay Will Not Promote Judicial Economy. ...................................................................... 7 
`B.  The Court Should Not Grant A Stay In These Cases For The Same Reasons It Sua Sponte
`Granted A Stay In The 2020 WDTX Cases. ............................................................................... 9 
`C.  A Stay Will Prejudice VoIP-Pal And Give Defendants A Tactical Advantage. ................. 9 
`D.  Defendants Will Not Suffer Undue Hardship Or Inequity Absent A Stay. ....................... 10 
`V. 
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 10 
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 3 of 18
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Kerr Mach. Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC, Case No. 6-20-CV-00200-ADA, 2021 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 67384 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2021) .......................................................................... 10
`
`Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936) .................................................................................... 7
`
`Neodron Ltd. v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233009
`
`(W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2019) ...................................................................................................... 7, 9
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................ 5
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 .............................................................................................................................. 9
`
`NDCAL Civil L.R. 3-12, 7-11 .................................................................................................... 3, 8
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 4 of 18
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`ABBREVIATION
`
`
`TERM
`
`VoIP-Pal
`
`Apple
`
`AT&T
`
`Verizon
`
`
`Amazon
`
`Facebook
`
`Google
`
`Defendants
`
`Twitter
`
`The ’234 patent
`
`The ’721 patent
`
`The Mobile Gateway patents
`
`The ’815 patent
`
`The ’005 patent
`
`The ’762 patent
`
`The ’330 patent
`
`The ’002 patent
`
`The ’549 patent
`
`
`
`Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`AT&T, Corp., AT&T Services, Inc., and
`AT&T Mobility, LLC
`
`Verizon Communications, Inc.; Cellco
`Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless; Verizon
`Services, Corp.; and Verizon Business
`Network Services, Inc.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.Com,
`Services LLC and Amazon Web Services,
`Inc.
`
`Facebook, Inc. and WhatsApp, Inc.
`
`Google LLC
`
`Amazon, Facebook, Google
`
`Twitter, Inc.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,630,234
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,880,721
`
`The ’234 and ’721 patents
`
`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
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 5 of 18
`
`The ’606 patent
`
`The ’872 patent
`
`The Routing, Billing, Rating (“RBR”) patents
`
`
`The 2016 cases
`
`The 2018 cases
`
`WDTX
`
`NDCAL
`
`DNV
`
`The 2020 WDTX cases
`
`
`The 2020 NDCAL actions
`
`
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,218,606
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,935,872
`
`The ’815 patent, the ’005 patent, the ’762
`patent, the ’330 patent, the ’002 patent, the
`’549 patent, the ’606 patent, and the ’872
`patent
`
`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.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
`v. Apple Inc., No. 5:18-cv-6216 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`Western District of Texas
`
`Northern District of California
`
`District of Nevada
`
`VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Facebook Inc. et al.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00267-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-
`Pal.Com, Inc. v. Google LLC et al., No. 6:20-
`cv-00269-ADA (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.Com,
`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-325-ADA (W.D.
`Tex.); VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Verizon
`Communications, Inc. et al., No. 6:20-cv-
`00327-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`
`Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No.
`5:20-cv-2397-LHK (N.D. Cal.); Apple, Inc. v.
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-02460-
`LHK (N.D. Cal.); AT&T Corp., et al. v. VoIP-
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 6 of 18
`
`The 2021 WDTX cases
`
`The 2021 NDCAL actions
`
`Temporary Restraining Order
`
`Pal.com., Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-02995-LHK
`(N.D. Cal.); 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 (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc. v. Google, LLC, Case No. 6:21-
`cv-667 (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v.
`Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:21-cv-
`668 (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v.
`Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-670 (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-
`Pal.com, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., et al., 6:21-cv-
`671 (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v.
`Verizon Communications, Inc., et al., 6:21-cv-
`672 (W.D. Tex.); VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. T-
`Mobile US, Inc., et al., 6:21-cv-674 (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.); Cellco Partnership d/b/a
`Verizon Wireless Inc. et al v. VoIP-Pal.com,
`Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-05275 (N.D. Cal.)
`
`TRO
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 7 of 18
`
`I.
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Before the Court are two groups of defendants requesting stays of the 2021 WDTX cases.
`
`First, Apple, AT&T, and Verizon requested stays in their opposition to VoIP-Pal’s application
`
`for TRO and motion for a preliminary injunction under the first-to-file rule.1 Now, Google,
`
`Amazon, and Facebook pile on with their own motion to stay, recycling most of the same
`
`arguments used by the first group. The Court should deny Defendants’ request for a stay
`
`because none of the factors that this Court considers favor a stay.
`
`Defendants implicitly concede facts that are fatal to their argument by admitting that “the
`
`specifications of the Asserted Patents in the Wave 4 cases are not identical to the asserted patents
`
`in the prior waves . . . .”2 But they did not go far enough. Apple, AT&T, and Verizon were
`
`more accurate, admitting that the Mobile Gateway patents “stem from a different patent family”
`
`than the patents in the 2016 cases, 2018 cases, and 2020 NDCAL actions.3 All of the defendants
`
`ignore the vast differences between the Mobile Gateway patents’ claims in the instant cases and
`
`the RBR patents’ claims in other cases. Defendants concoct superficial similarities between the
`
`instant cases and the RBR patent cases to distract the Court from the glaring lack of overlap
`
`between the patents at issue in these cases.
`
`Additionally, the present circumstances significantly differ from those in the 2020
`
`WDTX cases. Defendants’ contention that the Court stayed the 2020 WDTX cases pending
`
`Judge Lucy H. Koh’s determination of “the relationship between the [2020 NDCAL actions] and
`
`the two earlier waves that Judge Koh handled” is demonstrably false. At the time the Court
`
`stayed the 2020 WDTX cases, Judge Koh had already related the 2020 NDCAL actions to the
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Case No. 6:21-cv-670-ADA, Dkt. No. 14.
`2 Dkt. No. 13 at p. 6. All Dkt. Nos. refer to C.A. 6:21-cv-667-ADA unless otherwise indicated.
`3 See Case No. 6:21-cv-670-ADA, Dkt. No. 16 at p. 7.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 8 of 18
`
`2016 and 2018 cases.4 Rather, the Court stayed the 2020 WDTX cases because VoIP-Pal moved
`
`to dismiss the 2020 NDCAL actions under the first-to-file rule.5 VoIP-Pal has not filed any such
`
`motion in the 2021 NDCAL actions.
`
`Moreover, the 2021 NDCAL actions are not even assigned to Judge Koh. They are
`
`assigned to Judges Chen (Apple), Donato (AT&T), and Freeman (Verizon).6 The only issue
`
`pending before Judge Koh is the “miscellaneous administrative matter” of whether the 2021
`
`NDCAL actions are related to her prior cases.7 Judge Koh’s decision merely concerns
`
`assignment of the 2021 NDCAL actions between her and the other NDCAL judges presently
`
`assigned to these actions and has nothing to do with the issues in the instant cases.
`
`Therefore, granting a limited or unlimited stay at this time would not promote judicial
`
`economy, would not serve to avoid any hypothetical hardship to Defendants, but would serve to
`
`unfairly prejudice VoIP-Pal. As such, Defendants’ request for a stay should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Defendants omit and misstate several material facts that undermine their Motion.
`A.
`
`In the 2016 cases that VoIP-Pal filed against AT&T, Verizon, Apple, and Twitter, VoIP-
`
`The 2016 cases
`
`Pal asserted the ’815 and ’005 patents, which are part of the Routing, Billing, Rating (“RBR”)
`
`patent family and unrelated to the Mobile Gateway patents. After the 2016 cases were
`
`transferred from the DNV to the NDCAL, Judge Koh presided over the 2016 cases for less than
`
`eight months, considered one Rule 12 motion, and dismissed the 2016 cases at the pleadings
`
`stage over two years ago. Among other things, Judge Koh did not conduct a Markman hearing,
`
`
`4 Compare Exs. 1-3 (dated 4/27/20, 5/22/20, 5/26/20) with Ex. 4 (dated 9/29/20).
`5 Id.
`6 Exs. 5-7.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 9 of 18
`
`issue a claim construction order, consider motions for summary judgment, or conduct a trial.
`
`Judge Koh also never considered the defendants’ accused products or their infringement.
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The 2018 cases
`
`In the 2018 cases that VoIP-Pal filed against Apple and Amazon, VoIP-Pal asserted four
`
`other RBR patents related to the ’815 and ’005 patents, but unrelated to the patents in the instant
`
`cases. After the 2018 cases were transferred from the DNV to the NDCAL, Judge Koh presided
`
`over the cases for less than a year, considered one Rule 12 motion, and dismissed the 2018 cases
`
`at the pleadings stage over a year and a half ago. Like the 2016 cases, Judge Koh did not
`
`conduct a Markman hearing, issue a claim construction order, consider motions for summary
`
`judgment, or conduct a trial. Although the parties briefed claim construction, Judge Koh never
`
`referenced the briefs in ruling on the motion to dismiss. Judge Koh also never considered the
`
`accused products or their infringement.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The 2020 WDTX Cases
`
`VoIP-Pal filed the 2020 WDTX cases against Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple,
`
`AT&T, and Verizon. The suits also involved a patent from the RBR patent family—the ’606
`
`patent. On September 29, 2020, the Court sua sponte stayed all of these cases pending a ruling
`
`on VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss the 2020 NDCAL actions.8 Subsequently, VoIP-Pal consented
`
`to the dismissal of the AT&T and Verizon cases and the Court dismissed these cases on March
`
`25, 2021.9 VoIP-Pal voluntarily dismissed the case against Apple under Rule 41 on March 24,
`
`2021.10 The cases against Facebook, Google, and Amazon remain stayed.
`
`7 See NDCAL Civil L.R. 3-12, 7-11.
`8 Ex. 4.
`9 See Case Nos. 6:20-cv-00325-ADA, Dkt. Nos. 51, 53; 6:20-cv-00327-ADA, Dkt. No. 47.
`10 See Case No. 6:20-cv-00275-ADA, Dkt. No. 49.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 10 of 18
`
`
`
`D.
`
`The 2020 NDCAL Actions
`
`Soon after VoIP-Pal filed its 2020 WDTX Cases, in a deliberate attempt to manipulate
`
`VoIP-Pal’s choice of forum for the ’606 patent, Apple, AT&T, Verizon, and Twitter filed the
`
`2020 NDCAL actions seeking declarations of noninfringement and/or invalidity of the ’606
`
`patent. Apple subsequently amended its complaint to add declaratory-judgment claims against
`
`another RBR patent—the ’872 patent. On March 24, 2021, VoIP-Pal granted covenants-not-to-
`
`sue to Apple, AT&T, Verizon, and Twitter on the patents at issue in the 2020 NDCAL actions
`
`and moved to dismiss these actions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.11 VoIP-Pal and
`
`Verizon entered into a joint stipulation of dismissal, and the NDCAL dismissed Verizon’s 2020
`
`NDCAL case on May 26, 2021.12 Apple, AT&T, and Twitter, however, contested the covenants
`
`granted by VoIP-Pal. Briefing on VoIP-Pal’s motions to dismiss is closed and a hearing
`
`scheduled for July 22, 2021 was vacated.
`
`Contrary to what Defendants claim, the 2020 NDCAL actions are not “well into claim
`
`construction” and do not “have motions pending asking Judge Koh to make substantive rulings
`
`regarding the ’606 patent.”13 Rather, Judge Koh has been considering whether to dismiss those
`
`actions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for nearly five months.14
`
`
`
`E.
`
`The 2021 WDTX Cases And The 2021 NDCAL Actions
`
`On June 25, 2021, VoIP-Pal filed the 2021 WDTX cases asserting infringement of the
`
`Mobile Gateway patents. In yet another attempt to transmute VoIP-Pal’s choice of venue,
`
`
`11 See Apple, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-02460-LHK, Dkt. No. 75 (N.D. Cal.);
`AT&T Corp., et al. v. VoIP-Pal.com., Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-02995-LHK, Dkt. No. 76 (N.D.
`Cal.); Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. VoIP-Pal.com., Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-
`03092-LHK, Dkt. No. 68 (N.D. Cal.).
`12 See id. at Dkt. No. 74.
`13 Dkt. No. 13 at 4.
`14 Hudnell Decl., at ¶13.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 11 of 18
`
`Apple, AT&T, and Verizon filed declaratory-judgment actions in the NDCAL. Unlike the 2020
`
`NDCAL actions, the 2021 NDCAL actions are not assigned to Judge Koh. They are assigned to
`
`Judge Chen (Apple), Judge Donato (AT&T), and, contrary to what Defendants claim, Judge
`
`Freeman (Verizon).15 VoIP-Pal moved the Court to enjoin the 2021 NDCAL actions under the
`
`first-to-file rule and the Court set a motion hearing for August 23, 2021.16
`
`
`
`F.
`
`The Instant Cases Are Not Substantially Similar To The RBR Patent Cases.
`
`Defendants do not and cannot dispute that the Mobile Gateway patents are part of a
`
`different patent family than the RBR patents. Consequently, the Mobile Gateway patents have a
`
`different specification, substantially different inventors, materially different claims, and a
`
`different prosecution history, as compared to the RBR patents.17 Defendants allege that the RBR
`
`patents and the Mobile Gateway patents have one common inventor—Johan Emil Viktor
`
`Bjorsell—but conveniently neglect to mention that collectively the two patent families have
`
`seven inventors not in common.18
`
`Tellingly, except for three claim terms used to describe certain identifiers for a call-
`
`recipient, Defendants deliberately avoid addressing the substantial differences between the
`
`claims of the Mobile Gateway patents and the claims of the RBR patents as illustrated in Exhibit
`
`8.19 The reason is simple—they have no answer. Instead, Defendants try to manufacture some
`
`similarities between the cases. But each of these alleged similarities is superficial, at best.
`
`
`
`15 Exs. 5-7.
`16 See, e.g., Case No. 6:21-cv-670-ADA, Dkt. No. 14.
`17 See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`18 Compare Dkt. Nos. 13-4, 13-5 (listing as inventors Björsell, Sobolyev, Huttunen, Malak) with
`Dkt. No. 13-3 (listing as inventors Perreault, Nicholson, Thomson, Björsell, Arafa).
`19 Ex. 9.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 12 of 18
`
`First, Defendants admit that the specifications of the RBR patents are not identical to the
`
`specifications of the Mobile Gateway patents.20 Nonetheless, Defendants claim that certain
`
`figures overlap.21 Yet the similarities cited by Defendants are not the focus of the Mobile
`
`Gateway claims.22 Rather, the claims predominantly recite features that are unique to the Mobile
`
`Gateway patents, and are never disclosed or claimed in the RBR patents.
`
`Defendants also fail to inform the Court that Figure 1 in the Mobile Gateway and RBR
`
`patents is dramatically different and that the RBR patents contain no disclosure analogous to Fig.
`
`6 (access server), Fig. 10 (access code association table), Fig. 12 (access code selection
`
`algorithm), and Fig. 18C (access code based routing method) of the Mobile Gateway patents.23
`
`They neglect to mention that even the Mobile Gateway routing controller has unique features
`
`such as access code generator, table, and store.24 Also, in the Mobile Gateway patents, phone 12
`
`sends an access code request message and the gateway sends a SIP invite (Dkt. No. 13-4 Figs. 1,
`
`14); but in the RBR patents, the phone sends a SIP invite without using any gateway (Dkt. No.
`
`13-3 Figs. 1, 3). Moreover, the Mobile Gateway patents contain huge swaths of written
`
`disclosure that are completely missing in the RBR patents, yet potentially relevant to the
`
`claims.25 Worse, Defendants deceptively omit all the portions of the Mobile Gateway abstract
`
`that are nowhere disclosed or claimed in the RBR patents.26
`
`Second, Defendants liken the background of the technology sections in VoIP-Pal’s
`
`Complaints that briefly summarize the field of invention—as if these statements constitute the
`
`
`
`20 Dkt. No. 13 at p. 6.
`21 Id.
`22 Ex. 8.
`23 Compare Dkt. No. 13-3 (figures) with Dkt. No. 13-4, 13-5 (figures).
`24 See id., Fig. 8 elements 30 (access code generator, calling area identifier generator), 170
`(access code association table), 250 (access code store), 14 (access server).
`25 See, e.g., Dkt. No. 13-4 at 1:36-7:44; 7:56-65; 11:44-15:52; 17:19-22:60; 30:30-31:43.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 13 of 18
`
`specific improvements.27 They do not. The claims define the specific improvements.
`
`Defendants do not even attempt to grapple with the massive and pervasive differences between
`
`the claims of the two patent families. Defendants also ignore more specific language in the
`
`Complaints attributing specific improvements to the Mobile Gateway patents not attributed to the
`
`RBR patent family.28 Indeed, it is these Mobile Gateway features that are expressly accused.29
`
`Thus, because the instant cases concern completely different patent claims than the RBR patent
`
`cases, the relevant features of Defendants’ accused products are completely different as well.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD.
`
`Determining whether to issue a stay “calls for the exercise of judgment, which must
`
`weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.”30 In determining whether a stay is
`
`proper, this Court considerd: (1) judicial resources; (2) the potential prejudice to the non-moving
`
`party; and (3) the hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed.31 None of
`
`these factors favor a stay in the instant cases.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`THE COURT SHOULD NOT STAY THESE CASES.
`A.
`
`A Stay Will Not Promote Judicial Economy.
`
`The Court should not grant Defendants’ request for a stay until this Court rules on VoIP-
`
`Pal’s motion to enjoin the 2021 NDCAL actions because that motion does not concern the
`
`instant cases. Additionally, regardless of the outcome of that motion, the Court will still need to
`
`26 Compare Dkt. No. 13 at p. 5 (“the substantial overlap in the patents’ Abstracts”) with Ex. 10.
`27 Dkt. No. 13 at p. 6.
`28 Case Nos. 6:21-cv-665-ADA, Dkt. No. 1, ¶26; 6:21-cv-667-ADA, Dkt. No. 1, ¶24; 6:21-cv-
`668-ADA, Dkt. No. 6, ¶26.
`29 Case Nos. 6:21-cv-665-ADA, Dkt. No. 1, ¶30; 6:21-cv-667-ADA, Dkt. No. 1, ¶28; 6:21-cv-
`668-ADA, Dkt. No. 6, ¶¶30, 33.
`30 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936).
`31 See Neodron Ltd. v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00819-ADA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`233009, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2019).
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 14 of 18
`
`determine whether the instant cases will go forward in this Court should Defendants choose to
`
`bring venue challenges like they did in the 2020 WDTX cases. Those cases are still stayed and,
`
`almost a year after the stay issued, the Court is no closer to determining whether those cases will
`
`go forward in this District. If Defendants wish to pursue venue challenges in the 2021 WDTX
`
`cases, then judicial economy favors Defendants doing so now so that the Court can decide all of
`
`the venue challenges related to the 2021 WDTX cases at the same time.
`
`The Court also should not stay the instant cases until Judge Koh decides whether to relate
`
`the 2021 NDCAL actions to her prior cases. Judge Koh’s decision has nothing to do with the
`
`instant cases. The only issue pending before Judge Koh is the “miscellaneous administrative
`
`matter” of whether the 2021 NDCAL actions are related to her prior cases.32 Judge Koh’s
`
`decision merely concerns assignment of the 2021 NDCAL actions between her and the other
`
`NDCAL judges assigned to these actions, not jurisdiction of the 2021 WDTX cases against
`
`Apple, AT&T, and Verizon under the first-to-file rule. Imposing a stay based on a ministerial
`
`matter in a sister court is not a legitimate reason to stay the instant cases and does not promote
`
`judicial economy.
`
`Finally, the Court should not stay the instant cases until Judge Koh decides VoIP-Pal’s
`
`pending motions to dismiss the 2020 NDCAL cases for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Not
`
`only do these cases concern the RBR patents, but VoIP-Pal granted Apple, AT&T, and Twitter
`
`covenants-not-to-sue on the patents at issue. Judge Koh has been considering whether to dismiss
`
`these actions for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction for nearly five months.33 While Judge Koh
`
`
`32 See NDCAL Civil L.R. 3-12, 7-11.
`33 Hudnell Decl., at ¶13.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 15 of 18
`
`has yet to rule on the motion, her ruling will not impact any substantive issues, much less any
`
`issues related to the Mobile Gateway patents. Thus, no judicial economy is gained by a stay.34
`
`B. The Court Should Not Grant A Stay In These Cases For The Same Reasons It
`Sua Sponte Granted A Stay In The 2020 WDTX Cases.
`
`The Court also should reject Defendants’ request for a stay because the reasons the Court
`
`
`
`stayed the 2020 WDTX cases do not apply to the instant cases. At the time the Court stayed the
`
`2020 WDTX cases, VoIP-Pal had already moved to dismiss the 2020 NDCAL actions under the
`
`first-to-file rule. In the present situation, no such motion is pending. Because there is nothing
`
`for Judge Koh or the judges who are assigned to the 2021 NDCAL actions to decide, a stay is
`
`unwarranted. Additionally, the 2021 first-to-file issue is already fully briefed in this Court and
`
`this Court has set an August 23 hearing on the matter. Further, as a matter of efficiency, even
`
`assuming that the 2021 NDCAL actions are reassigned to Judge Koh and VoIP-Pal again moves
`
`to dismiss under the first-to-file rule, Judge Koh likely will not set a hearing for VoIP-Pal’s
`
`proposed motion for at least four months based on her congested calendar.35 It makes little sense
`
`to stay the instant cases when this Court is ready to consider the first-to-file issue and the
`
`NDCAL will not adjudicate the same issue for at least several months, if at all.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`A Stay Will Prejudice VoIP-Pal And Give Defendants A Tactical Advantage.
`
`If the Court grants a stay, then VoIP-Pal will be denied a “just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`determination” of the instant cases.36 Defendants’ request for a stay seeks to piggyback on
`
`Apple’s, AT&T’s, and Verizon’s request for a stay in opposition to VoIP-Pal’s motion to enjoin
`
`the 2021 NDCAL actions. Effectively, all of these defendants seek to force VoIP-Pal to bring a
`
`
`34 See Neodron, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233009 at *12 (denying stay where parallel proceeding
`involved same accused products but different patents with only one of five commons inventors).
`35 Exs. 10-11; Hudnell Decl., at ¶13.
`36 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 16 of 18
`
`motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer the 2021 NDCAL actions under the first-to-file rule in the
`
`NDCAL. As such, a stay unduly prejudices VoIP-Pal because it has already expended the
`
`resources to obtain the same relief in this Court. There is no need to delay the instant cases
`
`pending the outcome of a motion to dismiss that VoIP-Pal might not even need to file if it
`
`obtains relief in this Court. A stay also will delay VoIP-Pal’s opportunity to resolve any venue
`
`challenges in the instant cases, which do not involve the first-to-file rule, and will effectively
`
`deprive VoIP-Pal of its chosen forum to litigate the Mobile Gateway patents—the WDTX.
`
`Staying the instant cases is nothing more than a delay tactic that only benefits Defendants.37
`
`Indeed, a stay may invite Defendants to pursue parallel litigation against the Mobile Gateway
`
`patents at the PTAB and further seek to derail these cases. Because the requested stay is
`
`unwarranted and highly prejudicial to VoIP-Pal, Defendants’ request should be rejected.
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Defendants Will Not Suffer Undue Hardship Or Inequity Absent A Stay.
`
`Defendants fail to articulate a single reason why they would suffer hardship or inequity
`
`absent a stay. Defendants are not named in any case filed in the NDCAL concerning the Mobile
`
`Gateway patents. Thus, they will not have to “juggle competing deadlines involving the same
`
`patent in two different districts.”38 This factor should be given zero weight. The lack of
`
`prejudice to Defendants and the significant prejudice to VoIP-Pal weighs against a stay.
`
`V.
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`In conclusion, a stay will not promote judicial economy, will delay resolving the venue
`
`challenges in the instant cases, and will subject VoIP-Pal to undue prejudice. Indeed, none of the
`
`stay factors favor a stay and for that reason, Defendants’ Motion should be denied.
`
`
`37 See Kerr Mach. Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC, Case No. 6-20-CV-00200-ADA, 2021
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67384, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2021).
`38 Dkt. No. 14 at p. 10.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 17 of 18
`
`Dated: August 19, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00667-ADA Document 14 Filed 08/19/21 Page 18 of 18
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served on August 19, 2021, to all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`
`12
`
`