IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GOOGLE, LLC, 

Defendant. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00269-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT 

 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”), for its First 

Amended Complaint against Defendant Google, LLC (“Google”) alleges as follows: 

THE PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) is a Nevada corporation with its 

principal place of business located at 10900 NE 4th Street, Suite 2300, Bellevue, Washington 

98004. 

2. On information and belief, Defendant Google, LLC (“Google”) is a Delaware 

corporation with a physical address at 500 West 2nd Street, Austin, Texas 78701. Google may 

be served with process through its registered agent, the Corporation Service Company, at 211 

East 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701. Google is registered to do business in the State 

of Texas and has been since at least November 17, 2006. 

3. On information and belief, Google regularly conducts and transacts business in 

the State of Texas, throughout the United States, and within this District, and as set forth below, 

has committed and continue to commit, tortious acts of infringement within and outside the State 

of Texas and within this District. 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 1 of 29
2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

4. This action is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws 

of the United States, Title 35, United States Code (“U.S.C.”) §1 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. §§ 

271 and 281-285. This Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this case for patent 

infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. 

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Google by virtue of its systematic and 

continuous contacts with this jurisdiction, as alleged herein, as well as because the injury to 

VoIP-Pal occurred in the State of Texas and the claim for relief possessed by VoIP-Pal against 

Google for that injury arose in the State of Texas. On information and belief, Google has 

purposely availed itself of the privileges of conducting business within the State of Texas, such 

business including but not limited to: (i) at least a portion of the infringements alleged herein; (ii) 

purposefully and voluntarily placing one or more infringing products into the stream of 

commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in this forum; or (iii) 

regularly transacting or soliciting business, engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, or 

deriving or attempting to derive substantial revenue and financial benefits from goods and 

services provided to individuals residing in the State of Texas and in this District. Thus, Google 

is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal jurisdiction under due process and the 

Texas Long Arm Statute. 

6. Personal jurisdiction also exists specifically over Google because Google, directly 

or through subsidiaries or intermediaries (including customers, distributors, retailers, and 

others), subsidiaries, alter egos, and/or agents – ships, distributes, offers for sale, sells, imports, 

advertises, or markets in the State of Texas and in this District, one or more products that 

infringe the Patent-in-Suit, as described particularly below. Google has purposefully and 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 2 of 29
3

voluntarily placed one or more of its infringing products, as described below, into the stream of 

commerce with the awareness and/or intent that these products will be purchased by consumers 

in this District. Google has knowingly and purposefully shipped infringing products into and 

within this District through an established distribution channel. These infringing products have 

been and continue to be purchased by consumers in this District. In addition, on information and 

belief, Google has found indirect ways to monetize consumers’ use of its products, for example, 

by promoting consumers’ adherence to Google’s technological ecosystems and promoting sales 

of related Google products and by selling opportunities to advertise to consumers of its products. 

7. VoIP-Pal’s claim for relief for patent infringement arises directly from the 

activities of Google in this District. 

8. On information and belief, Google, directly and/or through its customers has 

transacted business in this District and has committed acts of patent infringement in this 

District. By virtue of its office in this District, Google has a regular and established place of 

business in this District. Thus, venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 

1400(b). 

BACKGROUND OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE PATENT-IN-SUIT

9. United States Patent No. 10,218,606 (the “’606 patent”) entitled “Producing 

Routing Messages For Voice Over IP Communications” was duly and legally issued by the 

United States Patent and Trademark Office on February 26, 2019. A copy of the ’606 patent is 

attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

10. The ’606 patent is referred to in this Complaint as the “Patent-in-Suit”. 

11. The inventions of the Patent-in-Suit originated from breakthrough work and 

development in the internet protocol communications field. 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 3 of 29
4

12. VoIP-Pal has provided significant improvements to communications technology 

by the invention of novel methods, processes and apparatuses that facilitate communications 

across and between internet protocol based communication systems and networks, such as 

internally controlled systems and external networks (e.g., across private networks and between 

private networks and public networks), including the classification and routing thereof. 

13. The earliest telephone systems to receive public use within the United States 

involved a telephone directly connected to a human operator. A portion of the phone rested on a 

mechanical hook such that the operator was signaled when the portion was lifted from the hook. 

A caller would then say the name of the person they wished to call to the operator. If the callee 

was connected to the same telephone switch board the operator would physically pull out a cable 

associated with the caller’s phone and plug the cable into a socket associated with the callee’s 

telephone. If the callee was associated with a different switchboard, and thus out of reach of the 

operator, a second operator would be involved to bridge the gap to the appropriate switchboard. 

While initially very effective compared to no telephone service, this structure quickly proved 

error prone (operators would connect the wrong party) and limiting to the number of possible 

telephones because of the physical limits of switchboards and cable to be pulled. This basic 

system corresponds to the introduction of a Plain Old Telephone Service (“POTS”) connection to 

the operator. In these configurations, there was a dedicated, point-to-point electrical connection 

between the caller and the callee. 

14. Rotary dialing eventually was introduced, beginning at around the turn of the 20th 

century, where a rotary disk was marked with numbers from zero to nine. A caller would spin the 

wheel and a mechanical device in the telephone would cause a sequence of electrical pulses to be 

sent to the network corresponding to the digit dialed, for example, four pulses would be sent for 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 4 of 29
5

the number four. Rather than speaking to a human operator, an electric device would count the 

pulses and begin to route a call once an appropriate and valid sequence of digits was dialed by 

the caller. This advancement improved reliability of call routing and reduced the time required to 

initiate a call. But, even so, there was a dedicated, point-to-point electrical connection between 

the caller and the callee. As multiple companies entered the market of telephone service and the 

number of customers increased, an issue emerged where a caller would be a customer of one 

telephone company and the callee would be a customer of another. The solution that emerged to 

this problem was to introduce trunk lines connecting one company to another. 

15. Eventually, as the number of companies continued to increase and telephone 

services spread over much larger geographic areas, the notion of a Public Switched Telephone 

Service (“PSTN”) emerged. The term derives from the notion, at least in part, that the dedicated 

wires used to connect the caller and callee were “circuit-switched” to connect the two parties. 

The PSTN developed gradually into the middle of the 20th century, still built around the notion 

of rotary dialing and POTS connections to the individual telephones. These calls involved analog 

communications over circuit-switched electrical connections. A circuit-switched network 

involves assigning dedicated resources, such as switch settings and specific wires, to establish a 

link from the caller to the callee. While the call is ongoing, these resources cannot be used for 

any other communications. 

16. The next important advancement for consumer telephone service, introduced 

broadly during the second half of the 20th century, was the introduction of push-button 

telephones. With such telephones the rotary dial was replaced by a matrix of buttons, each 

labeled with a digit from zero through nine along with the additions of ‘*’ and ‘#’. The 

underlying signaling technology was called dual-tone multiple-frequency (“DTMF”) and 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 5 of 29
6

involves two different audible tones being sent simultaneously from the telephone into the 

telephone network. A receiver within the network decoded these tones and formed them into a 

sequence of digits indicating the number of the callee. 

17. Around this same time a scheme for international telephone addressing was 

introduced, with a numeric protocol for identifying one country from another and providing 

country-specific routing within the destination country. The E.164 standard now documents how 

a caller anywhere in the world, for example, in Ann Arbor, Michigan, can identify a telephone 

number at any other location, such as Avignon, France. While many of these advances, such as 

DTMF dialing and automated international routing, may have been originally introduced via ad 

hoc methods, eventually they required multiple parties (companies and governments) to agree on 

protocols to enable wide-spread reliable use and inter-operability among different telephone 

communications networks. Even with all these advances, the systems still relied on circuitswitched technology that dedicated resources between the caller and the callee for the duration of 

a call. The move to take human operators out of the loop, with the introduction of rotary dialing, 

combined with the fast increase in demand for telephone services throughout the 20th century, 

resulted in the development of automated telephone switches. These devices comprised a set of 

input ports, each dedicated to, and associated with a specific caller, and output ports, each 

capable of being associated with a callee. A small local telephone system may have had a single 

switch while a larger service would use a large number of switches that were connected to each 

other. A switch from a local service provider would be connected to a trunk line which then 

connected to an input switch of another service provider. These switches originally supported 

analog voice calls initiated via rotary dialing and dedicating input and output ports as well as 

physical wires for each circuit-switched call. 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 6 of 29
7

18. Eventually analog voice services were replaced within the network with digital 

voice. Digital voice is communicated using a sequence of chunks (or packets) of data. This 

advancement allowed physical resources to be shared among multiple calls over short bursts of 

time. For example, a physical wire can move a packet for one call at a specific instance in time 

and then move a packet for a totally different call subsequently, only to later return to transfer a 

new packet for the original call. This advance is called packet-switched communications and 

provided an important increase in network reliability and efficiency while driving down the cost. 

However, in most situations throughout the 20th century (and often still today), the connection to 

the end user’s physical telephone is analog. While network switches operate via digital circuitry, 

and often comprise programmable processors executing software, they tend to be dedicated 

special-purpose devices. The conversion between analog and digital encoding is typically done at 

the point where the PSTN network switch connects to the POTS handset, for example, at a 

device called a Class-5 telephone switch, which connects the customer POTS handset to the 

PSTN network of a service provider’s central office. 

19. The Internet became important to consumers, via broad deployment, during the 

late 1980’s and early 1990’s. Eventually available bandwidth and reliability increased to the 

point where pioneers began to experiment with techniques to carry voice communications over 

the Internet. These early efforts began to focus on techniques called Voice Over Internet Protocol 

(VOIP) and session initiation protocol (SIP). VOIP provided a consistent set of protocols and 

mechanisms for moving digital voice packets between two callers using the Internet rather than 

existing PSTN networks. SIP provided a mechanism for establishing and terminating 

communication sessions such as calls between users of a VOIP service. For example, a callee 

could register with a VOIP service so that an identifier (such as their name, email address or a 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 7 of 29
8

nickname) could be associated with the computer to which they are logged in. Eventually VOIP 

services increased to provide interoperability with the existing PSTN services. For example, the 

company Skype began to allow a user to call a PSTN number using a feature marketed as “Skype 

out”. However, the user was required to explicitly classify the call as a PSTN call by specifying a 

real physical telephone number. In this case the VOIP system must include a gateway to bridge 

from the VOIP network to the PSTN network in order to route to the physical telephone. Calls 

that use a proprietary non-PSTN user identifier such as an email or nickname remain within the 

VOIP network and are not routed to the PSTN network and do not connect to a POTS telephone. 

20. The advent of VOIP technology allowed customers to physically move their 

telephones from one location to another, even from one continent to another, with no 

fundamental change in its operation from the point of view of a caller once a connection to the 

Internet was established. However, the integration of network gateways to route between 

different types of networks using VOIP, for example from a VOIP caller in Europe to a PSTN 

callee in the United States, introduced a number of new complications. The VOIP service needed 

to be able to distinguish between callees that were within the VOIP network and those that were 

outside of it and thus required different methods for identifying callees and routing to them 

depending on whether the callees were within or outside the VOIP network. One way to identify 

callees on the VOIP network was to use a predefined proprietary user identifier such as an email 

or nickname. The VOIP service provider also needed to interpret dialed PSTN numbers in order 

to correctly route calls to a PSTN callee. A VOIP caller had to use different types of callee 

identifier depending on whether or not the destination (callee) they were calling was within the 

VOIP network or not. The caller’s choice of the type of callee identifier thus specified the 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 8 of 29
9

network of the destination to be called. However, the asserted Patent-in-Suit discloses and 

claims a distinct manner of call routing. 

21. Digifonica, a wholly owned subsidiary of patent owner VoIP-Pal, starting in 2004 

eventually came to employ over a dozen top professionals (e.g., software developers, system 

administrators, QA/test analysts) including three Ph.D.’s with engineering backgrounds, to 

develop innovative software solutions for communications. Digifonica spent over $15,000,000 

researching, developing, and testing a communication solution capable of seamlessly integrating 

a private voice-over-IP (“VoIP”) communication network with an external network (i.e., the 

“public switched telephone network” or “PSTN”), by bridging the disparate protocols, 

destination identifiers and addressing schemes used in the two networks. By the mid-2000’s, 

Digifonica had successfully tested intra- and inter-network communications (i.e., 

communications within the private Digifonica system and between the Digifonica system and the 

PSTN) by implementing high-capacity communication nodes across three geographic regions, 

including actual working communication nodes in Vancouver (Canada) and London (UK). See

’606 patent at Fig. 1 (nodes 11, 21) and 13:19-35. Digifonica’s R&D efforts led to a number of 

patent grants, including U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815, to which the Patent-in-Suit claims priority. 

22. Prior to the ‘815 patent, private branch exchange (PBX) systems typically enabled 

users to call destinations internal to the PBX by dialing an extension (i.e., “private number”) and 

destinations external to the PBX on the public switched telephone network (PSTN) by dialing a 

“public number.” Such PBX systems relied on a user-specified classification of the dialed 

number to interpret the number and route the call. For example, it was a well-known practice to 

require that a user placing a call to the public network dial a predefined prefix such as “9” to 

indicate that subsequent digits were to be interpreted as a public PSTN number. If no prefix was 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 9 of 29
10

dialed, the dialed digits were to be interpreted as a private PBX extension. The number alone, as 

dialed, dictated how the call was routed. Thus, the user made an affirmative decision when 

placing a call as to whether the call would be routed over a public or private network. 

23. Digifonica’s system employed an approach fundamentally different from 

traditional PBX’s: it did not rely on a caller-specified classification (e.g., a prefix digit) to 

distinguish private calls from PSTN calls. Rather, Digifonica provided flexible, user-specific 

dialing features and could decouple the type of number being called from the manner in which 

the call would be handled. For example, even if a public PSTN number was dialed, Digifonica’s 

system could determine that the call should be routed to an internal destination on its private 

network, thus allowing the advantages of private network calling even if callers were unaware 

that the call recipient (“callee”) was a Digifonica system subscriber. If, on the other hand, the 

PSTN number represented a destination on an external network (e.g., the public network), the 

Digifonica system facilitated the routing of the call to the destination through a gateway. 

24. VoIP-Pal’s/Digifonica’s technology and patents represent fundamental 

advancements to Internet Protocol (“IP”) based communication, including improved functioning, 

classification, routing and reliability of Voice-over-IP (VoIP) and IP-based transmission of 

video, photographs, messages and mixed media, as well as improved interoperability of IP-based 

private communication networks with external networks, such as the public switched telephone 

network (PSTN), interconnected with the private communication networks via one or more 

gateways. 

25. The Patent-in-Suit provides, inter alia, improvements in routing controllers, 

processes, networks and systems. Several illustrative examples of such improvements are briefly 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 10 of 29
11

described below, although the patented invention is not limited to these specific improvements or 

examples. 

26. The public switched telephone network (PSTN) connected callers through nodes 

such as central offices or exchanges. Because these nodes were limited to providing services 

only to subscribers in a “local calling service area,” they required callers to place calls in a 

specific manner, e.g., by requiring the use of certain dialing patterns and conventions associated 

with that local area. See ’606 patent at 1:42-46. For example, it was known to persons of skill in 

the field of the invention that PSTN nodes conventionally required PSTN callers to dial in a 

manner compatible with a local numbering plan (e.g., in the U.S., a plan consistent with the 

“North American Numbering Plan” or “National Numbering Plan,” in use by AT&T as early as 

about the 1940’s and further developed in later years) as well as to dial in a manner compatible 

with international standards such as those of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) 

Telecommunications Standardization Sector (ITU-T). See ’606 patent at 19:52-66. For example, 

it is known in the field of telephony that early numbering plans assigned an “area code” of 312 

for calling Illinois, and that this area code (312) remains in use even today as an area code for 

Chicago. To take another example, the ITU designates “44” as a “country code” for calling the 

United Kingdom. Id. at Fig. 12 (“County Code” attribute for London user is “44”). 

27. Large organizations were able to avoid PSTN dialing constraints, at least for 

internal calls, by using private branch exchanges (PBXs) and private numbering plans for their 

internal private telephone networks, but these PBXs also needed to provide caller access to the 

PSTN. See ’606 patent at 1:35-48. As Andy Valdar has explained in his textbook, “Businesses 

which have more than a few telephones use a private branch exchange system, known as a PBX, 

to provide call connections between each telephone (which become ‘extensions’) and links into 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 11 of 29
12

the PSTN... The PBX is really a small version of the PSTN exchanges, typically ranging in sizes 

from 10 up to 5,000 extensions. A private numbering scheme is required to enable extension to 

extension dialing, also special codes (e.g. ‘dial 9’) are required to enable calls to be made to the 

PSTN. [...] In the case where a company extends over two or more sites (e.g. office or factory 

buildings) the PBXs on each site can be linked by private circuits, thus enabling calling between 

all the extensions. This is known as a ‘private corporate network’ (or just ‘private network’). In 

this case the private numbering scheme extends across all the PBXs and usually each PBX is 

linked to the PSTN.” (See Valdar, Andy, Understanding Telecommunications Networks, The 

Institution of Engineering and Technology, London, UK, 2006, p. 38 (emphasis added)). 

28. It was well-understood, routine and conventional for PBXs to require users to dial 

a special code (e.g., a prefix digit of “9”) if they wanted to place a call on the PSTN, as noted by 

Valdar and numerous other sources. For example, one telecom dictionary distinguishes between 

dialing an “internal PBX station number” and an “external number,” wherein in the latter case, 

“the user must dial an access code in order to gain access to an external trunk connected to the 

public switched telephone network (PSTN)... The conventional access code is nine (9) in the 

United States and Canada, and zero (0) in most other countries”. (See Ray Horak, Webster’s 

New World Telecom Dictionary, Wiley Publishing, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, 2008, p.133 

[emphasis added]). To take another example, U.S. Patent No. 3,725,596 to Maxon et al. 

(“Maxon”), filed in 1971, discloses an discloses an early private branch exchange (PBX) having 

equipment for automatically generating and transmitting calling station and trunk number 

information to a central office on outgoing calls. Maxon indicates that “a calling party at station 

ST10... dials a prefix digit, such as the conventional prefix digit 9, to initiate an outgoing call to 

the central office. The digit 9 is... detected by the dial 9 detector 152. Upon the detection of this 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 12 of 29
13

digit, the register control circuit 153 advises common control that the digit 9 has been dialed for 

a central office call.” [emphasis added]. Maxon at 9:66-10:6; see also Fig. 1B (152), 8:58-68, 

9:21, 9:38-40, 13:3-6, 14:6-7 and at 14:59. Webster’s New World Telecom dictionary and 

Maxon both confirm that it was considered “conventional” to use a prefix digit such as “9” to 

place a PSTN call from a PBX. The Patent-in-Suit eschewed such well-understood, routine and 

conventional approaches to integrating these two networks. 

29. A person of skill in the art (POSITA), upon review of the Patent-in-Suit, would 

have understood that the disclosed embodiments are inherently computer-based. The POSITA 

would further appreciate that the asserted claims of the Patent-in-Suit are necessarily rooted in 

computer technology for the operation of communication networks, and provide technical 

improvements to overcome certain technical limitations of prior art routing processes, systems 

and networks, viz., that the asserted claims provide technology solutions for one or more of: (1) 

user-specific communication handling, (2) transparent routing, and (3) network resiliency and (4) 

communication blocking. 

30. User-Specific Communication Handling: Many prior art communication systems 

required users to place a call by using a specific callee identifier format or by following certain 

dialing conventions with no opportunity for defining a user-specific manner of placing calls. For 

example, as discussed above, PSTN nodes were typically limited to supporting only the dialing 

conventions of their local calling service area and processed calls locally (See ’606 patent at 

1:42-46) and did not support user-specific calling. The technology disclosed in the Patent-in-Suit 

and recited in the asserted claims overcomes such technical limitations and supports user-specific 

calling styles, e.g., calling styles from any continent or country based on the application of userspecific attributes and network classification criteria to callee identifiers to route a call. It is 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 13 of 29
14

unnecessary for the user to do anything special to “trigger” such user-specific call processing. 

See, e.g., ’606 patent at 15:48-60 and 19:36-51 (disclosing storing user-specific parameters in 

association with each subscriber/user), 19:18-42 (describing a user-specific dialing profile 

capable of supporting numerous global styles of dialing), and Figs. 8A-8D (disclosing steps for 

processing a routing request based in part on user-specific parameters). By evaluating a called 

party identifier based on profile settings or “attributes” associated with the calling party, the 

technology provides an individually customizable manner of initiating a communication to a 

destination party. To be clear, it is not merely a calling party’s identifier (i.e., “caller ID” or 

“caller identifier”) that is used to evaluate the called party’s identifier (e.g., “callee identifier”); 

rather, a caller-specific profile, identifying caller-specific parameters/attributes, is used to 

evaluate the called party’s identifier, to determine the routing destination and to engage the 

appropriate infrastructure for effecting the communication. A skilled person in the field of the 

invention would recognize, in light of the patent specification, that this approach is capable of 

fulfilling various individual service preferences among users for initiating communications (e.g., 

any desired PSTN dialing style, unconventional dialing styles, and even use of special callee 

identifiers such as usernames). See id. at 19:36-48; 20:33-47; 22:3-23:22. To give just one 

illustrative example, the profiles of two different users may specify different ways of dialing an 

international call (e.g., an “IDD” attribute in two different user’s profiles may differ: see id., 

“IDD” attributes in the user profiles shown in Figs. 11 and 12 are set to “011” and “00”, 

respectively; compare blocks 257-259 in Fig. 8B). All of the asserted claims of the Patent-in-Suit 

enable user-specific handling of communications; in particular, every claim recites relies on 

user-specific attributes, associated with a user-specific profile of the calling party, for 

determining and establishing routing to the destination. Enabling a communication system, 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 14 of 29
15

node, or routing controller to provide customized, user-specific communication handling to each 

individual user represents a technological improvement over conventional prior communication 

systems, nodes, and devices, which simply imposed “one-size-fits-all” methods of 

communication on all users. 

31. Routing Transparency: Some prior art communication systems required a user to 

explicitly signal how a call should be processed or to manually “trigger” special call handling. 

For example, as discussed above, it was well-understood, routine and conventional for PBX 

systems in large organizations to rely on a user-specified classification of the dialed number to 

interpret the number and route the call—e.g., a user placing a call to the PSTN would dial a 

predefined prefix such as “9” to indicate that subsequent digits were to be interpreted as a PSTN 

number. If no prefix was dialed, the dialed digits were interpreted as a private PBX extension. 

The dialed digits alone dictated how the call was routed, and thus the user made an affirmative 

decision when placing a call as to how the call’s routing would take place. Furthermore, when a 

PSTN number was dialed, the PSTN number itself identified which PSTN node within the public 

switched telephone network was connected to the called party. In the foregoing example, the 

PBX failed not only to provide user-specific call handling, but it also lacked routing 

transparency. In contrast, the asserted claims of the Patent-in-Suit use a caller’s attributes to 

evaluate a callee identifier against network routing criteria to cause a call to automatically be 

routed over a system network/node or another network (e.g., such as the PSTN) interconnected 

to the system network through a gateway, transparently to the user, without the user manually 

specifying which network or node to use for routing by the user’s manner of placing the call 

(e.g., by dialing a prefix of “9” to make a PSTN call) and without requiring that a particular 

callee identifier be routed to a destination on a particular network or node. Instead, in the 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 15 of 29
16

provided solution, the system itself identifies which network and/or node to use for routing. This 

is an improvement over conventional prior approaches because the caller need not know or 

specify the location of a destination (e.g., the network or node of the called party); moreover, a 

particular callee identifier can be flexibly assigned (or reassigned) to different networks or nodes. 

Still further, the assignment of PSTN telephone numbers need not follow PSTN conventions, for 

example, a subscriber’s communication device can be assigned a PSTN number corresponding to 

a different geographical location on the PSTN (e.g., a Calgary user can be assigned a phone 

number (“1-604-867-5309”) with a non-Calgary area code (“604”) and exchange code (“867”): 

see id. at Figs. 11 and 14)—and the system will transparently route calls to the Calgary user’s 

device without the caller even recognizing that the destination device is not located within the 

geographic area associated with the “604” area code or the “867” PSTN exchange (node). 

32. To further illustrate these benefits with one embodiment disclosed in the ’606 

patent, if a Vancouver user (user profile in Fig. 10) dialed a PSTN phone number associated with 

the London user (user profile in Fig. 12), the system would evaluate the dialed digits based on 

the caller’s attributes, determine that the London user is a subscriber to the system, and classify 

the call as a system network call, identifying a subscriber username such as “44011062444” (See

’606 patent at Fig. 8B, Fig. 12, 21:1-10). A routing controller (id. at 16 in Figs. 1 and 7) 

determines that the London subscriber is associated with a different system communication node 

than the Vancouver subscriber, and produces a routing message identifying that node (id. at Fig. 

16; see also id. at 21:10-34; Fig. 8A at 280, 302, 350, 381) for receipt by a call controller (id. at 

14 in Fig. 1), thereby causing the call controller to establish the call (id. at 27:40-43). The caller 

in this illustrative embodiment need not be aware that the London user is a subscriber and need 

not know whether or not the call is being placed over the PSTN, nor does the caller need to know 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 16 of 29
17

which system node the called party uses. Thus, the identification of the destination network and 

node is transparent to the user: the same manner of initiating a communication can reach 

destinations associated with any node of the system and on either network. For example, the 

caller could also call a PSTN number in London, UK representing a non-subscriber phone in 

London in the same manner, and the system would determine in that case that the call should be 

established via the PSTN, in which case the routing message would identify at least one 

appropriate gateway for routing the call (id. at 23:50-25-60 and Fig. 25). All the claims of the 

Patent-in-Suit recite features that enable transparent routing. 

33. In some claimed embodiments of the invention, a node associated with the callee 

identifier is identified (e.g., from a callee profile stored in the communication system) and the 

communication is automatically forwarded to that node for further handling. See ’606 patent at 

Fig. 8A (302, 350, 381). This, too, is transparent to the originator of the communication, who 

does not have to take any special action to “trigger” the identification of, or routing to, a node 

with which the callee is associated. In this manner, the system architecture can distribute the load 

of very large numbers of subscribers from a large geographic area without imposing any 

requirement on users to know how to route to the node at which the callee is currently registered. 

See ’606 patent at 13:20-44. If the system operator should reassign subscribers or adds nodes to 

the system, as needed, for better performance or to maintain quality of service, the caller need 

not know this—the node can be identified dynamically. In contrast, in the conventional PSTN, 

when a new “area code” was overlaid to handle larger number of customers, callers were 

inconvenienced by having to learn new phone numbers or styles of dialing. Similarly, it was 

known that conventional PSTN exchanges (nodes) required that a particular exchange code be 

used as part of any PSTN telephone numbers assigned to that exchange. Unlike conventional 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 17 of 29
18

PSTN equipment, Digifonica’s routing system removed the requirement to assign particular 

callee identifiers to nodes located in a particular geographic area. Thus, Digifonica’s system 

architecture and operation not only provided improved transparency and flexibility in routing via 

nodes of the system (as well as via gateways), it also gave rise to improved system resiliency, 

aspects of which are described below in greater detail with reference to the patent specification. 

34. Yet another benefit was that Digifonica’s technology enabled automatic network 

selection based on determination of a callee’s registration status. Because Digifonica’s system 

supported the use of PSTN numbers both for subscribers on its own private network as well as 

for non-subscribers on a public network (e.g., the PSTN), a caller might know the PSTN number 

of a destination without knowing whether the destination was reachable via Digifonica’s IPbased network. Digifonica’s technology automatically determined whether the destination was a 

subscriber and, if so, routed over Digifonica’s network notwithstanding that a PSTN number had 

been dialed. This enabled callers to receive the advantages of IP-based private network calling 

even when callers were unaware that the callee was a Digifonica system subscriber; such calls 

could be transparently placed over Digifonica’s IP-based network at lower cost, with better 

quality and/or higher reliability than if the call had been sent over the PSTN network. In 

comparison to the prior art examples described above, Digifonica’s approach was 

unconventional in that it decoupled the type of number being dialed from the classification and 

routing of the call. As a further aspect, Digifonica’s network was designed to support multiple 

resellers of its communication services: See, e.g., ’606 patent at 19:22-24, 31:45-32:54; and Figs. 

9-12 (field 273), 41, 43, 45, 47-50, disclosing support for different resellers (e.g., phone 

companies retailing communication services based on Digifonica’s network under their own 

brand). Using the aforesaid technology, calls by callers to callees who were affiliated with a 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 18 of 29
19

different reseller of communication services based on Digifonica’s network, would automatically 

and transparently be routed over Digifonica’s IP-based network even without the caller or callee 

knowing that both parties were Digifonica subscribers. Such network selection was especially 

helpful to overcome the costs and limitations of public networks when the calls were 

international, e.g., from callers using Digifonica’s node in North America (e.g., Vancouver) to 

callees associated with the node in Europe (e.g., London). Id. at Fig. 1. 

35. Resiliency: Some prior art provided service to a limited area “[such as] one 

location, or a small number of branch offices” (see ’606 patent at 1:56-59) but was incapable of 

providing reliable service to a large number of subscribers dispersed over a geographically 

dispersed area such as a continent (id. at 1:53-56). For example, PSTN exchanges and nodes 

were limited to serving a “local calling service area” (id. at 1:42-48), whereas the PBX systems 

described above in the Valdar textbook were “really a small version of the PSTN exchanges, 

typically ranging in sizes from 10 up to 5,000 extensions” (see Valdar, supra; cf. ’606 patent at 

1:35-39). Furthermore, at a system-level, such networks did not always have “other nodes... able 

to take up the load” if a particular node failed, e.g., due to a natural disaster (See ’606 patent at 

1:45-52). In contrast, the patented inventions can provide reliable service to large areas including 

countries and continents. This gave rise to technical challenges regarding how to handle issues 

such as a very large number of subscribers, bursts of excessive demand and/or the risk of 

communication node failure, all of which affected system reliability. The patented inventions 

describe technology for flexibly assigning nodes to particular geographical areas, including the 

option of adding redundant nodes with overlapping responsibility for load sharing, wherein the 

various nodes are configured to provide communication services to sets of subscribers that are 

associated with those nodes. See ’606 patent at 13:20-40 (disclosing a network of super nodes 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 19 of 29
20

providing communication services to large geographical regions) and 13:41-44 (disclosing nodes 

for “call load sharing”). The technology performed call routing by identifying a suitable system 

network node or a gateway (e.g., a gateway to the PSTN) in response to evaluation of the caller’s 

attributes, the callee identifier, and available routing resources. See Figs. 8A-D. This design 

made it simple to allocate or add new nodes and gateways to particular regions or destinations 

(see ’606 patent at 13:20-44 , 25:48-60, 27:40-43; 27:60-28:3). The use of caller attributes, a 

callee identifier and routing criteria to produce the routing message, as described in the Patentin-Suit, allowed such new nodes and gateways to be identified in the routing message to increase 

service availability to subscribers as needed without redesigning the routing apparatus and 

process, to create an improved, resilient and reliable global routing system. Unlike some prior art 

systems, the Digifonica technology did not need to use SS7 protocol to access PSTN databases 

(cf. ’606 patent at 1:39-41), eliminating such dependence as a possible point of failure. 

Digifonica’s technology also supported routing through an available gateway that was selected 

from among a plurality of supplier gateways, which also improved overall system resilience. See

’606 patent at 27:60-28:19. 

36. Communication Blocking: Digifonica’s inventions, among other important 

advances, enabled various methods of communication blocking. Callers can have caller-specific 

attributes associated with their profile for determining, in a caller-specific manner, whether or 

not they are permitted to initiate a communication. See ’606 patent at 20:12-30. Furthermore, 

the caller-specific attributes associated with the caller’s profile can provide a basis for 

establishing whether an attempted communication is valid, e.g., by checking the validity of the 

called party identifier. See ’606 patent at 20:28-32 and Fig. 8B. Notably, what constitutes a valid 

initiation of a communication was a user-specific determination because it depended on userCase 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 20 of 29
21

specific profile attributes. Digifonica’s approach in this regard was unconventional compared to 

the prior art, which imposed a manner of call placement (e.g., dialing style) on all users that was 

not configurable in a user-specific manner: e.g., conventionally, all PBX users had to dial a 

particular predefined digit to dial PSTN calls; similarly, all PSTN users in a local area could dial 

only according to the local numbering plan. Finally, callee-specific information was supported in 

Digifonica’s technology for identifying how an incoming communication to each particular 

subscriber was to be handled, to enable the communication system to implement selective call 

blocking, selective call forwarding, and/or selectively routing communications to voice mail 

without interrupting the callee or the caller making an explicit choice. See ’606 patent at Fig. 8A 

(e.g., steps 602, 608, 610), Fig. 8B, Figs. 26-32. 

37. The ’815 patent and the ’005 patent, to which the Patent-in-Suit claim priority, 

survived eight inter partes reviews (“IPR’s”) by the U.S. Patent Office based on prior art 

disclosing making routing decisions. See IPR2016-01201 and IPR2016-01198, filed by Apple 

(final written decisions upholding the validity of all challenged claims), with the remaining IPR’s 

all denied institution: IPR2017-01398 and IPR2017-01399 filed by Apple; IPR2017-01383, 

IPR2017-01384 and IPR2017-01385, filed by AT&T; and IPR2016-01082, filed by Unified 

Patents. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected all of the cited communication routing 

art as not rendering the ’815 patent and the ’005 patent invalid. Apple later filed four inter 

partes review petitions against four continuation patents, namely, IPR2019-01003, IPR2019-

01006, IPR2019-01008 and IPR2019-01009, filed against U.S. Patent Nos. 9,537,762 (“the ‘762 

IPR”), 9,813,330 (“the ‘330 IPR”), 9,826,002 (“the ‘002 IPR”) and 9,948,549 (“the ‘549 IPR”), 

respectively. See Apple, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., IPR2019-01003, -01006, -01008, -01009, 

Paper 2 (P.T.A.B., May 13, 2019). All of these petitions were denied by the PTAB. On 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 21 of 29
22

information and belief, the asserted claims of the Patent-in-Suit are inventive over the art cited 

against the parent patents. On information and belief, there are numerous methods of 

communication routing in the prior art and thus the claims of the Patent-in-Suit do not preempt 

any fundamental longstanding method or system of communication routing. On information and 

belief, the specific solutions recited in the claims of the Patent-in-Suit were not performed by 

telephone operators or otherwise performed in a “brick-and-mortar” context prior to the 

invention thereof by Digifonica personnel. 

38. As described above, Digifonica eschewed various conventional approaches to 

routing communications and instead provided user-specific access to transparent routing across a 

distributed network architecture. For example, one inventive concept embodied in the Patent-inSuit—which was not well-understood, routine or conventional for persons of skill in the art at the 

time of the invention—involved providing an improved routing process, apparatus and system, in 

which user-specific profile “attributes” are utilized to evaluate a “second participant identifier” to

identify, in a “routing message,” an appropriate routing “network address” for establishing the 

communication, which causes routing of the communication to the destination. 

39. The Patent-in-Suit represents fundamental advancements to the art of internet 

protocol (IP) based communication, including improved functioning, routing and reliability for 

communications over the internet and improved interoperability of network infrastructure. 

40. VoIP-Pal incorporates the Declaration of Dr. William Mangione-Smith 

demonstrating, among other things, a person of ordinary skill in the art’s understanding of the 

Patent-in-Suit and its claims, and inventive concepts that were not well-understood, routine, 

conventional described in the specification and captured in the claims, which is attached as 

Exhibit 3. 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 22 of 29
23

41. VoIP-Pal is the sole owner and assignee of the entire right title and interest in the 

’606 patent and has the right to sue and recover damages for any current or past infringement of 

the ’606 patent. 

OVERVIEW OF THE ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES 

42. Each of the instrumentalities described in this Complaint made, used, sold and/or 

offered for sale by Google comprises systems and devices relating to and supporting 

communications using devices, computers, servers, systems and methods used by, operated by 

and performed by Google. 

43. Google operates messaging services (“Hangouts” and “Duo”) that allow users of 

communication devices to communicate using text, images, video and audio with users of other 

communication devices. Hangouts and Duo include platform-specific mobile device, tablet and 

personal computer applications and web user interface software including browser add-ons and 

plugins that operate in conjunction with a collection of servers and gateways connected over a 

wide area network. Devices running the Hangouts and Duo applications can initiate a 

communication between a first participant and a second participant. On information and belief, 

each participant device is associated with one or more network elements (e.g., clusters and/or 

nodes). The second participant may be associated with the same node and/or cluster as the first 

participant or may be associated with another node and/or cluster. The use of first participant 

attributes, including a first participant contact list and information stored on Google servers, is 

used at least for processing a second participant identifier and/or for determining first participant 

account status. 

44. Google operates a communication service (“Google Home”) that allows users of 

smart speaker devices to communicate with users of other smart speaker devices and with mobile 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 23 of 29
24

devices. Google Home includes home automation and smart speaker devices including devices 

branded as Google Home and Google Nest (“Google Home Device”) that operate in conjunction 

with a collection of servers and gateways connected over a wide area network. Google Home 

devices can initiate a communication between a first participant and a second participant. On 

information and belief, each participant device is associated with one or more network elements 

(e.g., clusters and/or nodes). The second participant may be associated with the same node 

and/or cluster as the first participant or may be associated with another node and/or cluster. The 

use of first participant attributes, including a first participant contact list and other information 

stored on Google servers, is used at least for processing a second participant identifier and/or for 

determining first participant account status. 

45. Hangouts, Duo, Google Home, and Google Home Device are collectively referred 

to in this Complaint as the Google Accused Instrumentalities. 

COUNT 1 

INFRINGEMENT OF U. S. PATENT NO. 10,218,606 

46. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are incorporated by reference as if fully stated in this 

Count. 

47. Google, either alone or in conjunction with others, has infringed and continues to 

infringe, both directly and indirectly, one or more claims of the ’606 patent, including at least 

exemplary claim 15, under 35 U.S.C. § 271, either literally and/or under the doctrine of 

equivalents, by using, offering to sell, selling/licensing and/or importing into the United States at 

least certain methods, apparatuses, products and services used for communication, including, 

without limitation, the Google Accused Instrumentalities. 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 24 of 29
25

48. For example, Google infringes exemplary claim 15 of the ’606 patent by using, 

offering to sell, selling/licensing and/or importing into the United States at least the Google 

Accused Instrumentalities as detailed in Exhibit 2 to this Complaint. 

49. On information and belief, Google has had knowledge of the ’606 patent since at 

least February 26, 2019 when the ’606 issued and was published by the U.S. Patent Office. 

Alternatively, Google has had knowledge of the ’606 patent since at least March 12, 2019 when 

VoIP-Pal issued a press release announcing the issuance of the ’606 patent. See

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/03/12/1751617/0/en/Voip-Pal-comAnnounces-the-Deadline-for-Filing-an-Opposition-to-Their-European-RBR-Parent-Patent-hasExpired-with-No-Known-Opposition.html ). Google had knowledge of its infringement of the 

’606 patent based at least on the filing of the Original Complaint and/or this First Amended 

Complaint. 

50. Despite its knowledge and notice of the ’606 patent as of at least the filing of the 

Original Complaint and/or this First Amended Complaint, Google has continued to make, use, 

sell/license and/or offer to sell the Google Accused Instrumentalities in the United States in a 

manner that infringes the ’606 patent. Facebook and WhatsApp knew or should have known that 

their actions constituted infringement of the ’606 patent. Upon information and belief, Facebook 

and WhatsApp have failed to take adequate steps to avoid infringing the ʼ606 patent, despite 

having been on notice of and lacking permission to practice the ʼ606 patent. Upon information 

and belief, Facebook and WhatsApp will continue to reap significant revenues and savings based 

on their infringement of the ’606 patent. Accordingly, Google’s infringement has been and 

continues to be willful. 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 25 of 29
26

51. Google has induced infringement, and continues to induce infringement, of one or 

more claims of the ’606 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Google actively, knowingly, and 

intentionally induced, and continues to actively, knowingly and intentionally induce 

infringement of the ’606 patent by selling or otherwise making available and/or supplying the 

Google Accused Instrumentalities; with the knowledge and intent that third parties will use the 

Google Accused Instrumentalities supplied by Google to infringe the ’606 patent; and with the 

knowledge and intent to encourage and facilitate third party infringement through the 

dissemination of the Google Accused Instrumentalities and/or the creation and dissemination of 

promotional and marketing materials, supporting materials, instructions, product manuals, and/or 

technical information related to the Google Accused Instrumentalities. 

52. Google specifically intended and was aware that the ordinary and customary use 

of the Google Accused Instrumentalities would infringe the ’606 patent. For example, Google 

sells, uses, makes available and provides the Google Accused Instrumentalities, which when 

used in their ordinary and customary manner intended by Google, infringe one or more claims of 

the ’606 patent, including at least exemplary claim 15. Upon information and belief, Google 

further provides product manuals and other technical information that cause Google customers 

and other third parties to use and to operate the Google Accused Instrumentalities for their 

ordinary and customary use. Google customers and other third parties have directly infringed the 

’606 patent, including at least exemplary claim 15, through the normal and customary use of the 

Google Accused Instrumentalities. By providing instruction and training to customers and other 

third parties on how to use the Google Accused Instrumentalities in an infringing manner, 

Google specifically intended to induce infringement of the ’606 patent, including at least 

exemplary claim 15. Google accordingly has induced and continues to induce Google customers 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 26 of 29
27

and other users of the Google Accused Instrumentalities in their ordinary and customary way to 

infringe the ’606 patent, knowing, or at least being willful blind to the fact, that such use 

constitutes infringement of the ’606 patent. 

53. VoIP-Pal has been and continues to be damaged by Google’s infringement of the 

’606 patent. 

54. Google’s conduct in infringing the ’606 patent renders this case exceptional 

within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

55. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 38(a), 

VoIP-Pal demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, VoIP-Pal prays for the following relief:

a) A judgment and order that Google has directly infringed (either literally or under 

the doctrine of equivalents) and/or induced the infringement of the ’606 patent; 

b) A judgment and order permanently enjoining Google, its respective officers, 

directors, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, licensees, successors, and assigns and any other 

person(s) in active concert or participation with Google from directly infringing the ’606 patent 

for the full term of that patent; 

c) A judgment that the infringement of the ’606 patent by Google has been willful; 

d) A judgment and order requiring Google to pay VoIP-Pal an award of damages 

under 35 U.S.C. § 284, adequate to compensate VoIP-Pal for Google’s past infringement, but in 

no event less than a reasonable royalty, including enhanced damages as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 

284, and supplemental damages for any continuing post-verdict infringement up until entry of 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 27 of 29
28

the final judgment with an accounting, as needed, as well as damages for any continuing or 

future infringement up to and including the date that Google is finally and permanently enjoined 

from further infringement; 

e) A judgment and order requiring that in the event a permanent injunction 

preventing future acts of infringement is not granted, that VoIP-Pal be awarded a compulsory 

ongoing licensing fee; 

f) A judgment and order that this action be found an exceptional case pursuant to 35 

U.S.C. § 285, entitling VoIP-Pal to an award of all costs of this action, including attorneys’ fees 

and interest; 

g) A judgment and order requiring Google to pay VoIP-Pal the costs of this action; 

h) A judgment and order requiring Google to pay VoIP-Pal pre-judgment and postjudgment interest on the damages award; and 

i) Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. 

Dated: July 31, 2020 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: /s/Lewis E. Hudnell, III 

 Lewis E. Hudnell, III 

lewis@hudnelllaw.com

 Nicolas S. Gikkas 

 nick@hudnelllaw.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 

 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 28 of 29
29

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to 

electronic service are being served with a copy of the forgoing FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

via the Court’s CM/ECF system pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 

CV-5(b)(1) this 31st day of July, 2020. 

 By: /s/Lewis E. Hudnell, III 

 Lewis E. Hudnell, III 

 lewis@hudnelllaw.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 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 24 Filed 07/31/20 Page 29 of 29