Twitter, Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
Case Summary
On December 17, 2021, Twitter, Inc. (“Twitter” or “Plaintiff”), represented by Sarah Elizabeth Fowler of Perkins Coie LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal” or “Defendant”), seeking declaratory reliefs and costs, among other reliefs, for the alleged non-infringement of the patents owned by the Defendant. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California with Judge James Donato presiding.
The Plaintiff filed this complaint for the alleged non-infringement of United States Patent No. 8,630,234 (“’234 patent”) and United States Patent No. 10,880,721(“’721 patent”) (collectively, “Patents-in-suit”) owned by the Defendant.
In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “there is an actual, substantial, immediate, and justiciable controversy between Twitter and VoIP-Pal regarding whether Twitter’s products and services infringe any claims of the ’234 patent.” The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Twitter does not infringe and has not infringed any claims of the ’234 patent because, for example, no Twitter product or service meets or embodies the limitation of an “access code request message ... [comprising a] location identifier identifying a location of the mobile telephone,” “access code … determined from said location identifier and/or based on a location pre-associated with the mobile telephone,” “access code ... wherein said access code expires after a period of time,” “access code … that enables a local call to be made,” and “access code identifying a communication channe.l” The Plaintiff then alleged that, “Twitter is entitled to a judgment declaring that no Twitter products or services infringe the ’234 patent.”
The Plaintiff also alleged that, “there is an actual, substantial, immediate, and justiciable controversy between Twitter and VoIP-Pal regarding whether Twitter’s products and services infringe any claims of the ’721 patent.” The Plaintiff then alleged that, “Twitter does not infringe and has not infringed any claims of the ’721 patent because, for example, no Twitter product or service meets or embodies the limitation of an “access code request message [comprising] a location identifier identifying a geographical location of the wireless apparatus,” “access code [] based on the location identifier,” and “access code identifying a communications channel on a [gateway/network element].” The Plaintiff then alleged that, “Twitter is entitled to a judgment declaring that no Twitter products or services infringe the ’721 patent.”
The Plaintiff further alleged that, “In view of the foregoing, there is an actual, substantial, immediate, and justiciable controversy between Twitter and VoIP-Pal regarding whether Twitter’s products and services infringe any claims of the ’234 patent.” The Plaintiff further alleged that, “In view of the foregoing, there is an actual, substantial, immediate, and justiciable controversy between Twitter and VoIP-Pal regarding whether Twitter’s products and services infringe any claims of the ’721 patent.”
The two claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff are for the alleged non-infringement of the Patents-in-suit.
In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court for declaratory relief such that Twitter products and services do not infringe any claims of the ’234 patent and that Twitter products and services do not infringe any claims of the ’721 patent along with attorney’s fees and costs and such other and further relief as this Court or a jury may deem just and proper.
This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.
Case Details
-
Case Number:
3:21-CV-09773
-
Filing Date:
12/17/2021
-
Case Status:
Pending - Other Pending
-
Case Type:
Intellectual Property - Patent
-
Court:
-
Courthouse:
Judge Details
Presiding Judge
James Donato
Party Details
Plaintiff
Twitter, Inc.
Defendant
Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
Attorney/Law Firm Details
Plaintiff Attorneys
Thomas Vincent Matthew
Gene W. Lee
Sarah Elizabeth Fowler
Moeka Takagi
Defendant Attorney
Lewis Emery Hudnell, III
Court Documents
Proposed Order
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 6
Exhibit 5
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 1
Declaration of Lewis E. Hudnell, III
Main Document
Exhibit 10
Exhibit 9
Exhibit 8
Exhibit 7
Exhibit 4
Exhibit 3
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 1
Main Document
Docket Entries
Docket(#25) MOTION to Dismiss filed by Voip-Pal.com, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 3/24/2022 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor before Judge James Donato. Responses due by 2/25/2022. Replies due by 3/4/2022. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Lewis E. Hudnell, III, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5, #7 Exhibit 6, #8 Exhibit 7, #9 Exhibit 8, #10 Exhibit 9, #11 Exhibit 10, #12 Exhibit 11, #13 Exhibit 12, #14 Proposed Order)(Hudnell, Lewis) (Filed on 2/11/2022) (Entered: 02/11/2022)
[-] Read LessDocket(#24) ORDER REASSIGNI[NG CASE. Case reassigned to Judge James Donato for all further proceedings re #23 Order Relating Cases. Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Judge Edward J. Davila no longer assigned to case. Reassignment Order signed by Clerk on 1/20/2022 (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(bw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2022) (Entered: 01/20/2022)
[-] Read LessDocket(#23) ORDER RELATING CASE.. Signed by Judge James Donato on 1/19/2022. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/19/2022) (Entered: 01/19/2022)
[-] Read LessDocket(#22) RESPONSE re #21 Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases by Voip-Pal.com, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Hudnell, Lewis) (Filed on 1/12/2022) (Entered: 01/12/2022)
[-] Read LessDocket(#21) Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases re 21-cv-5078. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/10/2022. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2022) (Entered: 01/10/2022)
[-] Read LessDocket(#20) RESPONSE re #18 Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases by Voip-Pal.com, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Lewis E. Hudnell, III, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5, #7 Exhibit 6, #8 Exhibit 7, #9 Exhibit 8, #10 Proposed Order)(Hudnell, Lewis) (Filed on 1/7/2022) (Entered: 01/07/2022)
[-] Read LessDocket(#19) (Text Only) CLERKS NOTICE RESETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE FOLLOWING REASSIGNMENT. Joint Case Management Statement due by 3/14/2022. Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/24/2022 10:00 AM in San Jose, Courtroom 4, 5th Floor before Hon. Edward J. Davila. The Court does not issue a revised Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines. Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ejdorders. This is a text only docket entry, there is no document associated with this notice. (amk, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2022) (Entered: 01/05/2022)
[-] Read LessDocket(#18) Judicial Referral for Purpose of Determining Relationship of Cases re 21-cv-2769. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 1/5/2022. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2022) (Entered: 01/05/2022)
[-] Read LessDocket(#17) ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge Edward J. Davilafor all further proceedings. Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras. Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi remains as referral judge assigned to case. Reassignment Order signed by Clerk on 1/4/2022. (Attachments: #1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(bw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2022) (Entered: 01/04/2022)
[-] Read LessDocket(#16) CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (jhf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2022) (Entered: 01/04/2022)
[-] Read LessDocket(#10) STIPULATION re #1 Complaint, to Extend Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint filed by Voip-Pal.com, Inc.. (Hudnell, Lewis) (Filed on 12/28/2021) (Entered: 12/28/2021)
[-] Read LessDocket(#9) Certificate of Interested Entities by Voip-Pal.com, Inc. and Corporate Disclosure Statement (Hudnell, Lewis) (Filed on 12/28/2021) (Entered: 12/28/2021)
[-] Read LessDocket(#8) NOTICE of Appearance by Lewis Emery Hudnell, III (Hudnell, Lewis) (Filed on 12/28/2021) (Entered: 12/28/2021)
[-] Read LessDocket(#7) Summons Issued as to Voip-Pal.com, Inc. (sfb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2021) (Entered: 12/21/2021)
[-] Read LessDocket(#6) Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 3/15/2022. Initial Case Management Conference set for 3/22/2022 01:30 PM in San Jose, Courtroom 2, 5th Floor. (sfb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2021) (Entered: 12/21/2021)
[-] Read LessDocket(#5) Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. Consent/Declination due by 1/3/2022. (bw, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2021) (Entered: 12/20/2021)
[-] Read LessDocket(#4) REPORT on the filing or determination of an action regarding a patent or trademark (cc: form mailed to register). (Fowler, Sarah) (Filed on 12/17/2021) (Entered: 12/17/2021)
[-] Read LessDocket(#3) Proposed Summons. (Fowler, Sarah) (Filed on 12/17/2021) (Entered: 12/17/2021)
[-] Read LessDocket(#2) Corporate Disclosure Statement by Twitter, Inc. (Fowler, Sarah) (Filed on 12/17/2021) (Entered: 12/17/2021)
[-] Read LessDocket(#1) COMPLAINT for Declaratory Judgment against Voip-Pal.com, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ACANDC-16733885.). Filed byTwitter, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Civil Cover Sheet)(Fowler, Sarah) (Filed on 12/17/2021) (Entered: 12/17/2021)
[-] Read Less
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases