1 

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 

VOIP-PAL’S RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT 

OF GOOGLE LLC’S UPDATED MOTION TO TRANSFER 

Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., (“VoIP-Pal”) respectfully submits this response to the Notice of 

Supplemental Authority in Support of Google LLC’s Updated Motion to Transfer. See Dkt. No. 94. 

Google LLC (“Google”) has a pending motion to transfer before the Court. See Dkt. No. 62. The case 

that Google brings to the Court’s attention by way of its Notice is styled In re: Google LLC, Case No. 

2022-140, 2022 WL 1613192 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2022). 

While Google informs the Court that In re Google LLC is non-precedential, Google fails to 

inform the Court of the implication of a Federal Circuit case designated as non-precedential. A 

nonprecedential opinion or order is “one determined by the panel issuing it as not adding significantly 

to the body of law.” Federal Circuit Rule 32.1(b), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Rules 

of Practice (December 1, 2021). Therefore, while In re Google LLC may be controlling for the 

specific case in which it was decided, it is certainly not controlling authority in the pending action 

involving VoIP-Pal. 

In addition, the facts in the instant action are distinguishable from In re Google LLC, including, 

but certainly not limited to, the fact that VoIP-Pal, unlike the plaintiff in In re Google LLC, identified a 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 95 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 3
2 

party witness who works in the District (Dkt. No. 76 at 11), VoIP-Pal identified relevant third-party 

witnesses within the subpoena power of the Court (Id. at 8), Google failed to provide any specific 

information on the volume or location of its documents (Id. at 6), Google stacked the transfer analysis 

by cherry picking prior art (Id. at 6-7), and Google failed to establish that it designed and developed 

the Accused Instrumentality in the Northern District of California (Id. at 8-11). Further, In re Google

concerned a transfer from the Eastern District of Texas, where Google has little if any presence, as 

opposed to a transfer from this District, where Google has a significant presence (Id. at 13-14). 

Accordingly, contrary to what Google claims, In re Google is not instructive for the purposes of 

deciding Google’ Motion to Transfer. 

Dated: May 27, 2022 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-00269-ADA Document 95 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 3
3 

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 VOIP-PAL’S RESPONSE TO 

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE LLC’S UPDATED 

MOTION TO TRANSFER via the Court’s CM/ECF system pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Local Rule CV-5(b)(1) this 27th day of May, 2022. 

 By: /s/Lewis E. Hudnell, III

 Lewis E. Hudnell, III 

Case 6:20-cv-00269-ADA Document 95 Filed 05/27/22 Page 3 of 3