I guess some really do understand VPLM and the cases at hand.
For everyones viewing pleasure!
INC.,
Defendants
Case 6:21-cv-00670-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/03/21 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., § Plaintiff §
-vs- § APPLE INC., Defendant § §
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., § Plaintiff §
-vs- §
AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T § MOBILITY LLC, AT&T, § CORPORATION, Defendants §
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., § Plaintiff §
-vs- §
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., § CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, VERIZON § SERVICES CORP., VERIZON § BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES,
6:21-CV-00670-ADA
6:21-CV-00671-ADA
ORDER
6:21-CV-00672-ADA
Before the Court is Plaintiff VoIP-Pal’s Application for Temporary Restriction Order and Preliminary Injunction requesting this Court to temporarily restrain and enjoin Defendants Apple, AT&T, and Verizon from pursing their 2021 declaratory judgement actions filed in the
1
Case 6:21-cv-00670-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/03/21 Page 2 of 3
Northern District of California (“NDCA”). Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are extraordinary remedies. Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009). A court may only issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction if the movant establishes: “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted, and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Id. In its application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, VoIP-Pal does not try to establish any of the above factors. Instead, VoIP-Pal relies on a 32-year-old case from the Northern District of Texas (Superior Sav. Ass’n. v. Bank of Dallas, 705 F. Supp. 326, 328 (N.D. Tex. 1989)) for its proposition that this Court has the authority to enjoin the defendants from pursuing their declaratory judgement actions based on the “first-to-file” rule. Dkt. 14 at 9-10. “The ‘first-to-file’ rule is a doctrine of federal comity, intended to avoid conflicting decisions and promote judicial efficiency, that generally favors pursuing only the first-filed action when multiple lawsuits involving the same claims are filed in different jurisdictions.” Commc’ns Test Design, Inc. v. Contec, LLC, 952 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quotation and citation omitted). Under the first-to-file rule, a district court presiding over a second-filed action may choose to stay, transfer, or dismiss the later-filed duplicative action. Id. However, this Court is not aware of any, and the plaintiff has not cited any, controlling Fifth Circuit or Federal Circuit law that authorizes a district court presiding over a first-filed action to enjoin a party from pursuing a second-filed action in a different court under the “first-to-file” rule. And the Court does not think the “first-to-file” rule justifies the extraordinary remedy of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
2
Case 6:21-cv-00670-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/03/21 Page 3 of 3
Therefore, the Court DENIES VoIP-Pal’s application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
In their Response, Defendants Apple, AT&T, and Verizon request this Court to stay the above-titled cases until the NDCA decides whether to relate Defendants’ 2021 declaratory judgment actions to the 2020 California cases currently pending before Judge Lucy Koh. Dkt. 16 at 9, 14-20. Defendants argue that there is “substantial overlap” between the instant cases and the 2020 California cases (and the previous 2016 and 2018 California cases before Judge Koh) because “all of the patents include an overlapping inventor and related to the same subject matter.” Id. at 9. The Court is not persuaded that having one overlapping inventor and common subject matter makes the instant cases substantially similar to the 2020 California cases. As the Defendants admits, the ’234 and ’721 patents asserted in the instant cases “stem from a different patent family than the patents in the 2016, 2018, and 2020 Cases.” Id. Therefore, the Court does not think a stay is justified under such circumstances.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff VoIP-Pal’s Application for Temporary Restriction Order and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants Apple, AT&T, and Verizon’s request to stay the instant cases are also DENIED.
SIGNED this 3rd day of September, 2021.
ALAN D ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
