i 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMAZON.COM, INC.; 

AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; and 

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC. 

Defendants. 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00272-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PLAINTIFF VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, 

MOTION TO STRIKE THE AMAZON DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS FOR NONINFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY 

Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 1 of 14
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND..................................................................... 1

III. ARUGMENT ................................................................................................................................... 2

A. Amazon’s Counterclaims for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and Invalidity Should 

be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim Because They Do Not Put VoIP-Pal on Reasonable Notice 

of Amazon’s Non-Infringement or Invalidity Theories. ......................................................................... 2

B. Amazon’s Counterclaims for Declaratory Judgments of Non-Infringement and Invalidity 

Should be Stricken as Duplicative of Amazon’s Affirmative Defenses. ................................................ 6

1. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. do not 

infringe, and have not infringed (directly, contributorily, or by inducement), either literally or under 

the doctrine of equivalents, and are not liable for infringement of, any valid and enforceable claim 

of the ’606 patent. ............................................................................................................................... 7

2. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, or Amazon Web Services, Inc. have not 

infringed and do not infringe any claim of the ’606 patent, directly, indirectly, literally, or under the 

doctrine of equivalents. ....................................................................................................................... 7

IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 7

Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 2 of 14
iii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases

Albritton Prop. v. Am. Empire Surplus Lines, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7330 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2005) . 6 

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ....................................................................................................... 2 

ASUSTeK Computer Inc. v. AFTG-TG LLC, No. 5:CV 11-00192-EJD, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149330 

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2011) ....................................................................................................................... 4 

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ....................................................................................... 2 

Bender v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33075 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2010) ............ 4 

Deniece Design, LLC v. Braun, 953 F. Supp. 2d 765 (S.D. Tex. 2013) ..................................................... 3 

Doe I v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58347 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2006) .................. 6 

Duramed Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc., No. 3:08-CV-00116-LRH-RAM, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

103389 (D. Nev. Dec. 12, 2008) ............................................................................................................. 4 

Hanson Aggregates, Inc. v. Roberts & Schaefer Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55353 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 

2006) ................................................................................................................................................... 6, 7 

Human Power of N, Co. v. Synergixx, LLC, No. 1-17-CV-1065-LY, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116636

(W.D. Tex. July 12, 2018) ...................................................................................................................... 3 

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., Consolidated Civil Action No. SA-11-CV163-XR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78624 (W.D. Tex. June 4, 2013) ........................................................ 3 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). ........................................ 3 

PetEdge, Inc. v. Marketfleet Sourcing, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107541 (D. Mass July 12, 2017) .... 4 

Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1046 (N.D. Cal. 2004) ............................................ 4, 5 

SecurityProfiling, LLC v. Trend Micro Am., Inc., No. 6:16-CV-01165-RWS-JDL, 2017 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 72218 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017) ............................................................................................ 3, 5 

Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 3 of 14
iv 

Sliding Door Co. v. KLS Doors, LLC, No. EDCV 13-00196 JGB (DTBx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71304 

(C.D. Cal. May 1, 2013) ......................................................................................................................... 4 

Symetra Life Ins. Co. v. Rapid Settlements Ltd., 612 F. Supp. 2d 759 (S.D. Tex. 2007) ...................... 6, 7 

United States v. Forest Dale, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 954 (N.D. Tex. 1993) .................................................... 6 

Woods v. Torkelson, No. 5:19-CV-0446-JKP, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199179 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 

2019) ................................................................................................................................................... 3, 6

Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions Inc., 609 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................... 4 

Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention Inv. Fund LLP, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81986 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) ........... 4 

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)............................................................................................................................... 2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) .................................................................................................................................... 1 

Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 4 of 14
v 

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 

ABBREVIATION TERM 

VoIP-Pal Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. 

Amazon Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com 

Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services 

Inc. 

The ’606 patent U.S Patent No. 10,218,606 

The patent-in-suit The ’606 patent 

Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 5 of 14
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

On July 10, 2020, Amazon filed its Answer and Counterclaims to VoIP-Pal’s Complaint.1

Amazon’s Answer included affirmative defenses of non-infringement (Amazon’s first affirmative 

defense) and invalidity (Amazon’s second affirmative defense).2 In its Counterclaims, Amazon also 

sought declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the patent-in-suit. However, the 

Both Counterclaims, however, lacked a legal basis. Instead, Amazon merely provided a formulaic 

legal conclusion of non-infringement and patent invalidity that does not reasonably put VoIP-Pal on 

notice of Amazon’s non-infringement or invalidity theories. Therefore, VoIP-Pal respectfully asks the

Court to dismiss both counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as 

they fail to meet the pleading standards of Iqbal and Twombly. In the alternative, VoIP-Pal 

respectfully requests that the Court strike the counterclaim under Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, as they are merely duplicative of Amazon’s affirmative defenses. 

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

VoIP-Pal filed the Original Complaint on April 6, 2020, accusing Amazon of directly, 

indirectly, and willfully infringing the ’606 patent.3

 Amazon answered the Complaint with 

counterclaims on July 10, 2020.4 In its Answer, Amazon presented seven affirmative defenses. Its 

First Defense recited: 

(1) Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web 

Services, Inc. do not infringe, and have not infringed (directly, 

contributorily, or by inducement), either literally or under the doctrine of 

equivalents, and are not liable for infringement of, any valid and 

enforceable claim of the ’606 patent.5

Its Second Defense stated: 

1

See Dkt. No. 21. 

2

Id. at 16, ¶¶ 56-57. 

3

 Dkt. No. 1. 

4

 Dkt. No. 21. 

5

Id. at 16, ¶ 56. 

Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 6 of 14
2 

(2) One or more claims of the ’606 patent are invalid for failure to satisfy 

one or more of the conditions of patentability, including without 

limitation those set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.6

Amazon presented two counterclaims, which recite, in relevant part, nearly identical language 

to its affirmative defenses of non-infringement and invalidity: 

(1) Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, or Amazon Web 

Services, Inc. have not infringed and do not infringe any claim of the 

’606 patent, directly, indirectly, literally, or under the doctrine of 

equivalents.7

(2) The claims of the ’606 patent are invalid for failure to comply with 

one or more requirements of the patent laws of the United States, 

including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.8

III. ARGUMENT 

A. Amazon’s Counterclaims for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement and 

Invalidity Should be Dismissed for Failure to State a Claim Because They Do Not 

Put VoIP-Pal on Reasonable Notice of Amazon’s Non-Infringement or Invalidity 

Theories. 

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a party may move for dismissal of a claim or counterclaim if a party fails 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.9

 “To survive a motion to dismiss, a [counterclaim]

must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.’”10 In this Court, it is appropriate to dismiss counterclaims in a patent infringement case where 

the counterclaims “do not meet the particularized pleading requirements set forth in Iqbal and 

6

Id. at 16, ¶ 57. 

7

Id. at 18, ¶ 10 

8

Id. at 19, ¶ 15. The other paragraphs in Amazon’s counterclaims attempt to establish standing for 

declaratory judgment, but do not recite substance related to non-infringement or invalidity. See Dkt. 

No. 21 at 18-19. 

9

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 

10 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 

(2007)). 

Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 7 of 14
3 

Twombly to sufficiently state a claim for relief.”11 A counterclaim will be facially plausible when a 

counterclaim plaintiff “pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference 

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. . . . While detailed factual allegations are not 

necessary, a [counterclaim] plaintiff must provide ‘more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’”12 The particularized pleading requirement 

“provides opposing parties fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”

13

Although the court must draw all reasonable inferences from the facts alleged in a party’s 

counterclaim, if a dispositive issue of law shows no claim exists on the face of the pleadings, a court 

may dismiss a counterclaim under Rule 12(b)(6).14 In conducting this examination, the court “need not 

accept as true conclusory allegations or allegations stating a legal conclusion.”15

Federal courts in Texas and around the country have dismissed counterclaims in patent cases 

under Rule 12(b)(6) where—as here—those claims only recited formulaic conclusions of invalidity or 

non-infringement. For example, in SecurityProfiling, the patent infringement defendants asserted a 

counterclaim for invalidity under the theory of inequitable conduct.16 The court held that the 

counterclaim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because “Defendants did not include any 

allegations regarding such [conduct] in support of their counterclaims for invalidity.”17 Further, the 

11 SecurityProfiling, LLC v. Trend Micro Am., Inc., No. 6:16-CV-01165-RWS-JDL, 2017 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 72218, at *2-3 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017).

12 Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., Consolidated Civil Action No. SA-11-CV163-XR, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78624, at *8-9 (W.D. Tex. June 4, 2013) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. 

at 555). 

13 Woods v. Torkelson, No. 5:19-CV-0446-JKP, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 199179, at *6 (W.D. Tex. 

Nov. 18, 2019) (internal citation omitted); see also Deniece Design, LLC v. Braun, 953 F. Supp. 2d 

765, 773 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (“As noted, the Fifth Circuit has held that Rule 8(a) notice pleading 

requirements apply to counterclaims and affirmative defenses as wells to complaints.”).

14 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1989). 

15 Human Power of N, Co. v. Synergixx, LLC, No. 1-17-CV-1065-LY, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116636, 

at *4 (W.D. Tex. July 12, 2018) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).

16 SecurityProfiling, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72218, at *2-*3. 

17 Id. at *3. 

Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 8 of 14
4 

court looked only “to the relevant portion of the pleading asserting a counterclaim for invalidity to 

determine whether Defendants have alleged sufficient facts to support a plausible claim, not the entire 

pleading.”18 In that case, “Defendants failed to state a plausible counterclaim for invalidity because 

Defendants merely list[ed] the statutory provisions without providing any facts supporting their 

counterclaim for invalidity.”19

Here, Amazon’s counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity 

closely resemble those counterclaims dismissed by the SecurityProfiling court and numerous other 

18 Id. at *3-*4. 

19 Id. at *4 (internal citation and alteration omitted); see also PetEdge, Inc. v. Marketfleet Sourcing, 

Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107541, at *8 (D. Mass July 12, 2017) (dismissing non-infringement 

counterclaim that “amount[ed] to nothing more than a denial of infringement” and “alleges that 

‘Marketfleet has not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the ’236 patent, either literally or

under the doctrine of equivalents, willfully or otherwise,’ without further support”); Sliding Door Co. 

v. KLS Doors, LLC, No. EDCV 13-00196 JGB (DTBx), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71304, at *12 (C.D. 

Cal. May 1, 2013) (dismissing defendants’ counterclaim for declaratory judgment of invalidity where 

the counterclaim merely stated that one or more claims of the patent was “invalid for failure to meet 

the requirements of patentability”); ASUSTeK Computer Inc. v. AFTG-TG LLC, No. 5:CV 11-00192-

EJD, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149330, at *40 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2011) (“Nonetheless, without 

identifying the accused products, there simply is no way to adjudicate an infringement claim. Absent 

identification of the products accused of infringement, there is no concrete case or controversy or 

sufficient specificity to satisfy Twombly.); Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention Inv. Fund LLP, 2011 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 81986, at *19 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) (dismissing counterclaim for declaratory judgment of 

non-infringement and noting that “[i]n an action for declaratory judgment concerning claims for patent

non-infringement, the pleading must specify the products or conduct alleged not to infringe”); Bender 

v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33075, at *18-*19 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 

2010) (dismissing infringement complaint for failure to “provide fair notice to [d]efendants of the 

specific infringements alleged” and noting that a complaint should identify the products or product 

components at issue); Duramed Pharms., Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc., No. 3:08-CV-00116-LRH-RAM, 

2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103389, at *11 (D. Nev. Dec. 12, 2008) (dismissing a counterclaim containing 

a general allegation that the claims of the patent-in-suit were “invalid because they fail to comply with 

one or more of the statutory requirements for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.”);

Qarbon.com Inc. v. eHelp Corp., 315 F. Supp. 2d 1046, 1050-51 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (“In alleging patent 

invalidity, eHelp simply pleads the citation. eHelp alleges that ‘the ’441 patent is invalid and void 

under the provisions of Title 35, United States Code §§ 100 et seq., and specifically, §§ 101, 102, 103, 

and/or 112 ....’ . . . Such a pleading is radically insufficient. The Court will not accept wholly 

conclusory allegations.”); consider Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions Inc., 609 F.3d 

1308, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (noting that an allegation that “claims of the Patents are invalid for failure 

to comply with” the statutory requirements provides “little notice”). 

Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 9 of 14
5 

courts for failing to provide specificity. Amazon’s non-infringement counterclaim merely recites, in 

formulaic fashion, the bare legal conclusion that it “do[es] not infringe, and have not infringed 

(directly, contributorily, or by inducement), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, and [is] 

not liable for infringement of, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’606 patent.”20 These 

counterclaims do not recite any accused product or method, let alone provide any explanation or 

reasonable notice of Amazon’s theory of how or why those products or methods do not infringe the 

asserted patents. Amazon’s non-infringement counterclaims provide VoIP-Pal with no basis for 

assessing the strength of Amazon’s non-infringement position. Accordingly, Amazon’s noninfringement counterclaim should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.21

Similarly, Amazon’s invalidity counterclaims merely recite formulaic legal conclusions about 

the ’606 patent: “The claims of the ’606 patent are invalid for failure to comply with one or more 

requirements of the patent laws of the United States, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 

102, 103, and 112.”22 This language, too, parallels the language of numerous invalidity counterclaims 

that courts have dismissed for failure to state a claim.23 Amazon’s generic, formulaic recitation of 

statutory provisions in its invalidity counterclaims does not provide VoIP-Pal with any reasonable 

20 Dkt. No. 21 at 16, ¶ 56. 

21 See, e.g., SecurityProfiling, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72218, at *5.

22 Dkt. No. 21 at 19, ¶ 15. 

23 See, e.g., SecurityProfiling, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72218, at *4-*5 (dismissing invalidity 

counterclaim under Rule 12(b)(6) where counterclaim alleged “one or more of the claims of the 

'699 Patent are invalid for failure to meet the requirements of Title 35, United States Code, including 

but not limited to Sections 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 116 . . . .”); see also Qarbon.com, 315 F. Supp. 

2d 1046, 1050-51 (dismissing invalidity counterclaim reciting that “the ’441 patent is invalid and void 

under the provisions of Title 35, United States Code §§ 100 et seq., and specifically, §§101, 102, 103, 

and/or 112 ....”).

Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 10 of 14
6 

basis to assess the strength of Amazon’s invalidity theories, and those counterclaims should be 

dismissed for this reason.24

B. Amazon’s Counterclaims for Declaratory Judgments of Non-Infringement and 

Invalidity Should be Stricken as Duplicative of Amazon’s Affirmative Defenses. 

A motion to strike material from a pleading is made under Rule 12(f), which allows a court to 

strike from a pleading any “insufficient defense” or any material that is “redundant, immaterial, 

impertinent or scandalous.”25 “The essential function of a Rule 12(f) motion is to avoid the 

expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues by dispensing with those

issues prior to trial.”26

Federal courts in Texas have explained, “a motion for declaratory judgment that merely 

restates a party’s defenses is insufficient unless the party can prove that there are issues of greater 

ramification to be resolved.”27 Dismissing counterclaims is appropriate when they do not seek relief 

different from the defendant’s affirmative defenses.

28

 

In this case, Amazon’s non-infringement and invalidity counterclaims serve no useful purpose, 

as they are almost verbatim repetitions of Amazon’s affirmative defenses: 

24 See, e.g., SecurityProfiling, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72218, at *5; see also Woods, 2019 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 199179, at *6 (pleading requirements provide notice function). 

25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). 

26 Doe I v. Roman Catholic Diocese, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58347, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2006) 

(internal citation omitted)

27 Hanson Aggregates, Inc. v. Roberts & Schaefer Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55353, at *10 (N.D. 

Tex. Aug. 9, 2006) (quoting Albritton Prop. v. Am. Empire Surplus Lines, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

7330, at *9 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2005)); see also Symetra Life Ins. Co. v. Rapid Settlements Ltd., 612 

F. Supp. 2d 759, 768 (S.D. Tex. 2007). 

28 Hanson Aggregates, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55353, at *10; Regus Management Group, LLC v. IBM 

Corp.,U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47276, at *5-*6 (N.D. Tex. June 17, 2008) (“In the Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6) context, courts regularly reject declaratory judgment claims that seek resolution of 

matters that will already be resolved as part of the claims in the lawsuit.”); see also United States v. 

Forest Dale, Inc., 818 F. Supp. 954, 971 (N.D. Tex. 1993) (dismissing a declaratory judgment action 

asserted by the defendants against a third-party defendant because “the issues upon which Defendants 

seek a declaration are necessarily ones which will be addressed in [the] main action”). 

Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 11 of 14
7 

Affirmative Defenses Counterclaims 

1. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services 

LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. do not 

infringe, and have not infringed (directly, 

contributorily, or by inducement), either literally

or under the doctrine of equivalents, and are not 

liable for infringement of, any valid and 

enforceable claim of the ’606 patent.29

1. Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services 

LLC, or Amazon Web Services, Inc. have not 

infringed and do not infringe any claim of the 

’606 patent, directly, indirectly, literally, or under 

the doctrine of equivalents.30

2. One or more claims of the ’606 patent are 

invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the 

conditions of patentability, including without 

limitation those set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 

102, 103, and/or 112.31

2. The claims of the ’606 patent are invalid for 

failure to comply with one or more requirements 

of the patent laws of the United States, including 

but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 

112.32

By virtue of its affirmative defenses, Amazon has already placed the issues of non-infringement 

and invalidity before the Court, and its parallel counterclaims are simply duplicative, serving no useful 

purpose. Amazon’s non-infringement and invalidity counterclaims should be stricken under Rule 

12(f).33 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, VoIP-Pal respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to 

dismiss Amazon’s non-infringement and invalidity counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6). In the 

alternative, VoIP-Pal asks the Court to strike the counterclaims as redundant and insufficient. 

29 Id. at 16, ¶ 56. 

30 Id. at 18, ¶ 10 

31 Id. at 16, ¶ 57. 

32 Id. at 19, ¶ 15. The other paragraphs in Amazon’s counterclaims attempt to establish standing for 

declaratory judgment, but do not recite substance related to non-infringement or invalidity. See Dkt. 

No. 21 at 18-19. 

33 See, e.g., Hanson Aggregates, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55353, at *10; see also Symetra, 612 F. Supp. 

2d at 768. 

Case 6:20-cv-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 12 of 14
8 

Dated: July 31, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 By: /s/Lewis E. Hudnell, III

 Lewis E. Hudnell, III 

lewis@hudnelllaw.com 

 Nicolas S. Gikkas 

nick@gikkaslaw.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-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 13 of 14
9 

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 PLAINTIFF VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION TO STRIKE THE AMAZON 

DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS FOR NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY 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-00272-ADA Document 32 Filed 07/31/20 Page 14 of 14