Voip-Pal vs Twitter Case: 2:16-cv-02338
Joint Status Report filed 1/26/2018 in Nevada District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-02338-RFB-CWH
JOINT STATUS REPORT
Pursuant to this Court's order (see ECF No. 10), Plaintiff Voip-Pal.com, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "Voip-Pal") and Defendant Twitter, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Twitter") (together, the "Parties"), through undersigned counsel, hereby submit the following Joint Status Report outlining the
Parties' positions on how this case should proceed in light of recent developments in proceedings concurrently pending in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB").
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Apple, Inc. ("Apple") in this district entitled VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00260-RFB-VCF. On February 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second lawsuit against Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, and related entities ("Verizon") and AT&T Corporation ("AT&T") in this district entitled VoIP- Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF (together with the suit against Apple, the "Initial Actions"). The Initial Actions allege infringement of Plaintiff's U.S. Patent Nos. 8,542,815 (the "'815 patent") and 9,179,005 (the "'005 patent"). On June 15, 2016, Apple filed a petition for inter partes review ("IPR") by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") concerning the '815 and the '005 patents (the "IPR Petitions"). (See ECF No. 10 at 3.) On November 21, 2016, the PTAB instituted IPR on all asserted claims of the '815 and '005 patents. (See ECF No. 10 at 6-7.)
On October 6, 2016, VoIP-Pal filed this action against Twitter, again alleging infringement of the '815 and '005 patents. (ECF No. 1.) On January 31, 2017, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation and proposed order to stay this litigation pending the PTAB's final written decisions in Apple's pending IPR proceedings. (ECF No. 12.) The Court also ordered the Parties to submit a status report by January 26, 2018, outlining the Parties' respective positions on how the case should proceed in light of the PTAB's final written decisions.
On November 20, 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions concerning Apple's IPR Petitions. In its decisions, the PTAB held that Apple did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the asserted claims of the '815 and '005 patents were unpatentable. Additionally, the PTAB denied institution of IPRs for five other petitions filed against the '815 and '005 patents, namely, three IPR petitions filed by AT&T (IPR2017-01382, IPR2017-01383, and IPR2017-01384), and two follow-on petitions filed by Apple (IPR2017-01398 and IPR2017- 01399). Apple has filed certain post-judgment motions in the PTAB proceedings.
Twitter was not involved in any way in the IPR petitions or trials that were initiated by defendants Apple, AT&T, and/or Verizon.
Status reports are being concurrently filed by Apple, AT&T, and Verizon in the Initial Actions.
II. THE PARTIES' POSITIONS
VoIP-Pal and Twitter respectfully request that the stay of this case be lifted, and that Twitter's answer or other response to VoIP-Pal's Complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be due thirty (30) days after an order of this Court lifting the stay of this case.
a. VoIP-Pal's Positions
VoIP-Pal proposes that the Parties agree to a case schedule and discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) after Twitter files its answer or other response to the Court no later than seven (7) days before the Court's scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). VoIP-Pal further proposes that in preparing responsive pleadings and conferring under Rule 26, the Parties will confer further on issues regarding venue.
b. Twitter's Positions
As to Twitter, venue in Nevada is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Accordingly, Twitter plans to respond to the Complaint by filing a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper venue. Given that there is a question as to whether this action is properly filed in this district, Twitter believes that, in the interest of judicial efficiency and conservation of the Court's and the Parties' resources, scheduling and discovery in this action should not go forward until resolution of Twitter's planned motion to dismiss.
Dated: January 26, 2018
