This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Patent Infringement

Voip-Pal.com Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Published: Apr. 26, 2019 | Result Date: Mar. 25, 2019 |

Case number: 18-cv-06217-LHK Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Lucy H. Koh

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Kevin N. Malek
(Malek Moss PLLC)

Kurt R. Bonds
(Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen & Sanders)

Adam R. Knecht
(Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen & Sanders)

David J. Kaminski
(Carlson & Messer LLP)

J. Grace Felipe
(Carlson & Messer LLP)


Defendant

John M. Desmarais
(Desmarais LLP) for Apple

Ameet A. Modi
(Desmarais LLP) for Apple

Peter C. Magic
(Desmarais LLP) for Apple


Facts

Voip-Pal.com Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc., AT&T Corp., Twitter Inc., and Verizon Wireless Services LLC, in relation to plaintiff's patents describing a computerized method of diverting telephone calls through various networks according to information concerning the callers.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff claimed its patents, 8,542,815 and 9,179,005, were infringed upon by defendants' phone call and text messaging products and services.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied the allegations and moved to dismiss, arguing plaintiff's patents were invalid pursuant to Alice v. CLS Bank, which held abstract ideas realized using a computer were not patentable.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, finding plaintiff's cited patents invalid. Specifically, the court found the relevant patents were too generalized and abstract under the standard set forth in Alice because they covered subject matter that could be performed by humans.

Other Information

Related Cases: Voip-Pal.com Inc. v. AT&T Corp., Case Number: 18-cv-06177-LHK; Voip-Pal.Com Inc. v. Twitter Inc., Case Number: 18-cv-04523-LHK; Voip-Pal.Com Inc. v. Verizon Wireless Services LLC, et al., Case Number: 18-cv-06054-LHK


#131643

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390