GreenBackClub
13時間前
VOIP-PAL'S SUR-REPLY EXHIBIT 1 FILED JUNE 8, 2026
EXHIBIT 1 Case 1:25-cv-01843-RDM Document 35-1 Filed 06/08/26 Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
____________________________________
)
VOIP-PAL.COM INC., )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 25-cv-01843(RDM)
)
APPLE, INC., et al., )
Defendants. )
____________________________________)
PLAINTIFF’S [PROPOSED] SUR-REPLY
COMES NOW VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) by and through undersigned counsel, and makes this Sur-Reply in support of its Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and states:
I.ARGUMENT.
Defendants raise a number of new issues for the first time in their Reply:
A.
Defendants conflate the preparedness standard with the four-year limitation;
B.
Defendants newly argue using Google Search that the type of relief sought in theFirst Amended Complaint requires dismissal at the Rule 12 stage;
C.
Defendants’ new reply-stage market-definition attacks do not establish futility; and
D.
New tying arguments invoking newly-issued case law (Helena World Chronicle)
A.Defendants conflate the preparedness standard with the four-year limitations period.
Defendants’ Reply (“Reply,” Dkt. No. 34) cites a new, out-of-circuit case, CSX Transportation Inc. v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 114 F.4th 280 (4th Cir. 2024), to convert the four-year limitations period into a temporal cutoff for the D.C. Circuit’s potential-competitor Hecht preparedness inquiry.1 Defendants admit Hecht “did not discuss when” preparedness should be measured, yet invoke CSX to dismiss Plaintiff’s 2008-2014 launch evidence as “too stale to
1 Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc., 570 F.2d 982, 994 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (Indicia of preparedness include adequate background and experience in the new field, sufficient financial capability to enter it, and the taking of actual and substantial affirmative steps toward entry). EXHIBIT 1
Case 1:25-cv-01843-RDM Document 35-1 Filed 06/08/26 Page 2 of 11
2
establish antitrust injury” and “insufficient to confer standing.” Reply at 3-4 & n.2. That theory was absent from Defendants’ opening Memorandum (“Mem.,” Dkt. No. 30-1), which treated standing/preparedness and limitations separately. Mem. at 7-9.
Defendants’ new CSX argument conflates two issues: whether Plaintiff pleads timely antitrust injury and whether Plaintiff was a prepared potential competitor. CSX imposes no four-year evidentiary cutoff on the D.C. Circuit’s Hecht preparedness inquiry. CSX was a 2018 suit over a 2009/2010 exclusion; the claim failed for lack of timely injury and damages, not stale pre-limitations competitor evidence. At most, CSX shows that an excluded competitor must plead timely injury and damages. Plaintiff uses its 2008-2014 launch evidence to show market participation or preparedness under Hecht and Andrx Pharms., Inc. v. Biovail Corp. Int’l, 256 F.3d 799, 807 (D.C. Cir. 2001), Opp. at 9-14, while separately alleging limitations-period injuries from release-specific OS, API, default-dialer, firmware, entitlement, carrier-credential, and access-control restrictions. Opp. at 17-20; Plaintiff’s FAC (Dkt. No. 9) ¶¶ 85, 100-108; FAC App. B (Dkt. No. 9-2); Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179, 189 (1997). Nothing in CSX addresses or modifies Hecht or Andrx. Older market evidence can show preparedness. See Fleer Corp. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 501 F. Supp. 485, 494, 503-04 (E.D. Pa. 1980), rev’d on other grounds, 658 F.2d 139 (3d Cir. 1981) (timely renewals/refusals satisfied limitations; historical experience, equipment, financing, and 1974 proposal showed preparedness). CSX therefore does not support excluding Plaintiff’s market-participation and product-launch evidence—including the judicial-notice materials in Exhibit 1. Opp. at 10-13; Opp. Ex. 1 (Dkt. No. 33-1).
Defendants’ judicial-notice objection is both new and inconsistent. Reply at 3-4. Their own Motion invoked judicial notice of VoIP-Pal’s SEC filings, selectively citing 10-K language that VoIP-Pal has “no employees” while omitting the next phrase: the “Company utilizes various Case 1:25-cv-01843-RDM Document 35-1 Filed 06/08/26 Page 3 of 11
3
consultants and contractors.” Mot. at 3. Yet the Reply asks the Court to decline judicial notice of Plaintiff’s public materials; it also, ironically, argues, for the first time, based on Exhibit 1, that all of VoIP-Pal’s products were “app mode”—despite lacking technical information to support this conclusion. Reply at 4. Plaintiff’s Opposition at pp. 10-13 principally cites the FAC and its appendices (Dkt. Nos. 9-1 to 9-4), which may be considered on Rule 12. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c). Exhibit 1 is used only to show the existence, public availability, and dates of public commercialization examples that corroborate or particularize the FAC’s preparedness allegations, not to prove disputed facts or amend the complaint. The additional public materials may be considered for such limited purposes. Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). If any Exhibit 1 item is disregarded, the FAC and its appendices still suffice.
B. Google Search does not create a remedy-based administrability bar at Rule 12.
Defendants’ Reply cites new authority, United States v. Google LLC, 747 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2024) (“Google Search”), to argue for the first time that the FAC’s requested relief warrants dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) because it is not administrable and would make the Court a “central planner” and thus “mire” the Court in Defendants’ “day-to-day operations.” Reply at 15-17. The Reply relies on Google Search throughout its discussion of exclusionary conduct under Trinko.2 That new argument fails for multiple reasons.
Google Search was a post-trial ruling on a developed record regarding SA360, Google’s search-engine-management tool. The Court’s concern that it was “ill-equipped” to handle certain questions that could make it a “central planner” rested on a fully-developed evidentiary record involving auction-time bidding, advertiser demand, available alternatives, Google’s engineering priorities (Project Amalgam). Id. at 181-85. Defendants treat that record-dependent SA360 ruling
2 Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. L. Offs. of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 407, 410 (2004) Case 1:25-cv-01843-RDM Document 35-1 Filed 06/08/26 Page 4 of 11
4
as if it gives a Rule 12(b)(6) administrability test. It does not. Defendants ask the Court to resolve administrability objections before any comparable record exists.
A closer pleading-stage analogue is United States v. Apple, Inc., No. 24-CV-4055, 2025 WL 1829127 (D.N.J. June 30, 2025) (“Apple NJ”), slip op. at 22-23, where Apple invoked Trinko’s “central planner” concern to recast platform-access allegations as a refusal-to-deal challenge to its control over proprietary technology. The Court rejected that framing because the complaint alleged restrictions on developers and smartphone users, not a refusal to deal with smartphone rivals. Id. It held that alleged “technological barricades” and “technological limitations” plausibly constituted anticompetitive conduct. Id. at 25-26. Whether those restrictions reflected legitimate platform control or exclusionary conduct was a factual issue inappropriate for dismissal. And when Apple argued that it could limit third-party access to its proprietary technology, the court held that this presented a factual dispute for discovery. Id. at 27. The same “technological barricades” reasoning applies here: whether native-telephony privileges, entitlement rules, APIs, and carrier-validation pathways reflect legitimate technical/security constraints or exclusionary discrimination cannot be resolved on the pleadings by invoking Trinko.3
The SA360 analogy also fails factually. The FAC alleges a native-telephony lock, no parity-grade path for independent telephony providers, a carrier-exclusive platform architecture, and an OS/firmware layer that functions as a “must-pass” interface and mandatory gateway—which is not analogous to choosing one optional SEM tool among many rivals in Google Search. FAC ¶¶ 1-6, 43-45, 176-77. Nor does the FAC allege the offsetting product-development rationale
3 Defendants cite Google Search at 184 with Trinko/Meta to argue that preferential access is irrelevant. Reply at 15. That citation matters only if the Court accepts Defendants’ refusal-to-deal framing. Google Search addressed refusal to assist rivals; it does not resolve whether the FAC’s pleaded platform-design conditioning affirmatively excludes VoIP providers. At Rule 12, a closer analog is Apple NJ, which rejected a refusal-to-deal recharacterization of platform-gatekeeping allegations and relied on Microsoft’s technological-barrier reasoning. Apple NJ at 22-23, 24-27. Case 1:25-cv-01843-RDM Document 35-1 Filed 06/08/26 Page 5 of 11
5
in Google Search, where Google prioritized its internal “Project Amalgam” product development over Microsoft Ads parity. Google Search at 99-100, 183-84; FAC ¶¶ 20, 78.
Finally, the FAC does not ask the Court to design relief from scratch. It seeks nondiscriminatory native access through existing carrier-equivalent criteria, including safety, E911, lawful access, and, where applicable, QoS. FAC ¶¶ 17, 152, 240. Discovery can identify those criteria and feasible alternatives; if liability is established, relief can be tailored on a developed record. And the option to appoint a Rule 53 special master bounded by objective technical criteria would not convert the Court into a “central planner.” FAC ¶¶ 161, 164, 240. That is a remedial-tailoring issue for later, not a basis for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
C. Defendants’ new reply-stage market-definition attacks do not establish futility.
Defendants’ Reply newly attacks VoIP-Pal’s alternative platform-specific market formulations as unpled, non-products, non-cognizable single-brand markets, and unsupported by Kodak, citing Coronavirus Reporter and Reilly for the first time and redeploying PhantomALERT for new single-brand and aftermarket propositions.4 Reply at 8-9. The FAC pleads the platform-controlled access layer Defendants now attempt to disclaim; the cited authorities turn on their own pleadings; and controlling precedent undercuts Defendants’ categorical reading.
The FAC pleads that access layer: OS/firmware rules conditioning native telephony on carrier validation, carrier entitlements and IMS provisioning, denial of native parity to non-carrier providers, degraded app-mode substitutes, CallKit/PushKit/API VoIP restrictions, and no neutral certification pathway. See FAC ¶¶ 12-17, 43-45, 60, 65-66, 100-108, 168-69, 176; FAC Apps. B-C (Dkt. Nos. 9-2, 9-3). The Opposition offered alternative platform-specific formulations as analytical framings of the same pleaded foreclosure—not as new markets introduced by brief. The
4 Coronavirus Reporter v. Apple Inc., 2021 WL 5936910 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2021)
Reilly v. Apple Inc., 578 F. Supp. 3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2022)
PhantomALERT v. Apple Inc., 762 F. Supp. 3d 8 (D.D.C. 2025) Case 1:25-cv-01843-RDM Document 35-1 Filed 06/08/26 Page 6 of 11
6
Reply’s citation of Green does not change that: Green bars new claims raised by opposition brief, not Rule 8(d)(2)-(3) alternatives explaining the same pleaded Lock-and-Key access-layer facts. Green v. Haaland, 2022 WL 898864, at *5 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2022).
Defendants’ cited cases do not establish a categorical bar. Coronavirus Reporter rejected artificial markets for app-approval process components not sold or licensed in commercial reality; the FAC, by contrast, pleads access-layer commercial realities: entitlement and IMS gates that condition delivery of native telephony to end users, and the absence of any neutral certification path. 2021 WL 5936910, at *12; FAC ¶¶ 14-17, 65-66, 100-108. Reilly addressed the App Store as a downstream distribution venue, not an OS/firmware access layer controlling native device functionality. 578 F. Supp. 3d at 1107-09. PhantomALERT requires fit between the alleged market, the plaintiff’s injury, and Kodak commercial realities; it does not categorically bar a platform-controlled access market. Here, the alleged injury flows from the very platform-controlled access layer Defendants relabel as a non-market. 762 F. Supp. 3d at 18-21.
Kodak rejects a categorical rule against single-brand aftermarkets; commercial realities control, including lock-in and switching constraints. See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 476-77, 481-82 (1992). Nor is a platform-specific access formulation defective because it tracks iOS, Android/Pixel, or Samsung OS/firmware; the FAC pleads Kodak-relevant facts—access-layer entitlement gating, IMS/certification controls, Lock-and-Key architecture, and platform-tier control—for these platforms. See FAC ¶¶ 12-17, 60, 65-66, 100-108, 168-69, 176.
The Reply’s derivative uses of Defendants’ single-brand premise add no futility ground. The § 2 “mismatch” argument assumes platform access and downstream Wi-Fi-calling competition are unrelated. Reply at 12-13. But the FAC alleges native-access-interface exclusion that suppresses downstream competition and protects platform-controlled chokepoints—the same Case 1:25-cv-01843-RDM Document 35-1 Filed 06/08/26 Page 7 of 11
7
structural concern Microsoft addressed when technological restrictions reduced rival browser usage to protect an OS monopoly. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 64-65 (D.C. Cir. 2001). The tying-market-power point repackages the same objection. Reply at 20. Plaintiff alleges market power in the platform-controlled native-access layer—the alleged tying product; Ill. Tool Works requires proof of tying-product market power, not dismissal by relabeling that alleged market “single brand.” Ill. Tool Works Inc. v. Indep. Ink, Inc., 547 U.S. 28, 45-46 (2006).
At most, Defendants identify a pleading-precision question—for example, whether the alternative platform-specific formulations should be characterized as access markets, aftermarkets, or bottleneck markets—but this is not an incurable market defect. This favors amendment, not dismissal with prejudice. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
D. New tying argument based on intervening case law (Helena World Chronicle)
Defendants’ Reply invokes a post-Opposition decision, Helena World Chronicle v. Google, 2026 WL 787882 (D.D.C. Mar. 20, 2026), to argue that Plaintiff changed its tying theory (thus conceding it) and that native telephony access is merely an integrated platform feature. Reply at 19-20 (citing Helena at *12-*13). Neither argument is consistent with the FAC.
i. No Helena-style product switch.
Defendants’ own parenthetical describes Helena as a tied-product switch. Reply at 19. Here, the tied product is unchanged—carrier voice/text service or carrier bundles. FAC ¶62; Opp. at 42. Nor is “native telephony privileges” a new tying product theory; the phrase appears at FAC ¶43, and tracks the pleaded architecture: native Wi-Fi Calling depends on OS-level functions—e.g., default dialer, push-free wake-and-ring, call-log integration, E911 hooks, and QoS—that activate only when the OS detects carrier entitlements and IMS provisioning, such that “[c]onsumers cannot access Wi-Fi Calling unless they also purchase and maintain a carrier bundle.” FAC ¶¶38-41; see also FAC ¶¶5, 26, 169, 176 (connecting “Wi-Fi Calling” with “native Case 1:25-cv-01843-RDM Document 35-1 Filed 06/08/26 Page 8 of 11
8
telephony”); FAC ¶101 (“native telephony features, such as Wi-Fi Calling”). The Opposition’s phrasing clarifies the pleaded underlying architecture; it is not a new tying claim.
ii. No integrated-feature analogy.
Helena turned on Google’s single-firm integration of AI Overviews into Search; the plaintiff’s own complaint treated AI Overviews as a search feature. Here, the FAC alleges something materially different—cross-firm conditioning and distinct products: Platform Defendants restrict OS-level native telephony access unless separate Carrier Co-Conspirators validate the user’s carrier subscription. FAC ¶¶12-17, 38-41. The products play distinct roles: native telephony access is the OS-locked interface; the carrier bundle is the subscription that unlocks it. FAC ¶62. Separate consumer demand—the core inquiry under Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 21-22 (1984)—is pleaded: historical Wi-Fi-first and Wi-Fi-only offerings (Republic Wireless, FreedomPop, Scratch Wireless, Cablevision’s Freewheel, RingPlus) support a plausible inference of demand for Wi-Fi voice without a full carrier bundle. FAC App. C ¶¶4(d)-(e), 7(c); see also FAC ¶¶88-94 (adoption, market scale, demand). That distinguishes Helena and supports separate-product treatment at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
iii. No same-seller rule disposes of the claim.
The Reply presses a new “sell or otherwise profit from [i.e., at least have some financial stake]” gloss on White v. Rockingham Radiologists, Ltd., 820 F.2d 98, 104 (4th Cir. 1987), arguing the tie fails unless Defendants sell or profit from carrier bundles. Reply at 20-21 & n.8. The Opposition already distinguished White: the FAC alleges platform-designed conditioning that channels device owners to carrier bundles. Opp. at 43; FAC ¶¶ 39-41, 62, 107-108. White involved materially different facts: the hospital did not own or operate the CT scanner, require patients to undergo scans, compete in the tied market, receive interpretation fees, or otherwise have an Case 1:25-cv-01843-RDM Document 35-1 Filed 06/08/26 Page 9 of 11
9
economic interest in the tied product. 820 F.2d at 104. Here, the FAC alleges that Platform Defendants control the device-level Lock, condition native Wi-Fi Calling/native telephony privileges on carrier validation and bundle purchase, and have financial stakes aligned with the Lock-and-Key arrangement. FAC ¶¶ 39-41, 62, 74-77, 176. White itself distinguished Jefferson Parish on the ground pleaded here: economic interest in the tied product. See 820 F.2d at 104 (citing Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 6 n.4). On these pleaded facts, the Reply’s new White gloss supplies no Rule 12 basis for dismissal.
II. CONCLUSION.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. respectfully asks the Court to deny the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, and set this matter for further proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Travis Pittman
Travis Pittman (D.C. Bar No. 1016894)
Local Counsel for Plaintiff
HOLMES, PITTMAN & HARAGUCHI, LLP
1140 3rd St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
(202) 329-3558
jpittman@hphattorneys.com
Sean Parmenter
(Pro Hac Vice to be submitted)
Bar Card No. 233,144 (California)
PARMENTER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW, PLLC 1401 21st St, Suite #10724 Sacramento, CA 95811
(925) 482-6515
sean@parmenterip.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
Filed: June 8, 2026 Case 1:25-cv-01843-RDM Document 35-1 Filed 06/08/26 Page 10 of 11
10
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff’s [Proposed] Sur-Reply was served on June 8, 2026 to all counsel of record via the Court’s electronic filing system.
/s/ Travis Pittman
Travis Pittman
Case 1:25-cv-01843-RDM Document 35-1 Filed 06/08/26 Page 11 of 11
GreenBackClub
1日前
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC v. APPLE INC. et al
District Of Columbia District Court
Judge: Randolph D Moss
Case #: 1:25-cv-01843
Nature of Suit 410 Other Statutes - Antitrust
Cause 28:1337 Sherman-Clayton Act
Case Filed: Jun 11, 2025
Docket
Parties (35)
Docket last updated: 6 hours ago
Monday, June 08, 2026
35 motion Leave to File Document Mon 06/08 5:18 PM
MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.(Pittman, John)
Att: 1 Exhibit Proposed Sur Reply,
Att: 2 Exhibit Email Exchange
Thursday, April 30, 2026
34 34 pgs respm Reply to opposition to motion Thu 04/30 9:06 PM
REPLY to opposition to motion re30 Motion to Dismiss filed by APPLE, INC.. (Milici, Jennifer)
Monday, March 16, 2026
33 50 pgs respm Memorandum in opposition to motion Mon 03/16 10:58 PM
Memorandum in opposition to re30 MOTION to Dismiss filed by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.(Pittman, John)
Att: 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1
Wednesday, February 25, 2026
32 notice Notice of Appearance Wed 02/25 12:16 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Jeremy Kauffman on behalf of ALPHABET, INC., GOOGLE LLC (Kauffman, Jeremy)
Tuesday, February 24, 2026
order Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Tue 02/24 3:39 PM
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendant's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice, Dkt.31 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Jeremy R. Kauffman may appear pro hac vice in this case. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a) [LINK:Click for instructions] . Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 2/24/2026. (lcrdm1)
Monday, February 23, 2026
31 motion Appear Pro Hac Vice Mon 02/23 6:23 PM
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Jeremy R. Kauffman, Fee Status: No Fee Paid. by ALPHABET, INC..(Belott, Debra)
Att: 1 Declaration of Jeremy R. Kauffman,
Att: 2 Text of Proposed Order
misc Payment of Fee- Pro Hac Vice Motion Mon 02/23 6:26 PM
Payment for31 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Jeremy R. Kauffman, Fee Status: No Fee Paid.. ($100; Receipt number ADCDC-12260456). (Belott, Debra)
Friday, January 30, 2026
30 motion Dismiss Fri 01/30 8:36 PM
MOTION to Dismiss by APPLE, INC..(Milici, Jennifer)
Att: 1 46 pgs Memorandum in Support,
Att: 2 1 pgs Text of Proposed Order
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
29 motion Extension of Time to Tue 01/27 3:33 PM
Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Brief Motion by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.(Pittman, John)
Att: 1 3 pgs Exhibit Email,
Att: 2 1 pgs Text of Proposed Order Order
Wednesday, December 31, 2025
order Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Set/Reset Deadlines Wed 12/31 2:50 PM
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Move in Response to the Complaint, Dkt.27 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED. However, in light of Plaintiff's consent to a short extension of the current January 16, 2026, deadline to accommodate the holidays, Dkt. 27 at 2-3, it is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file their answer or other response to the complaint on or before January 31, 2026. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/31/2025. (lcrdm1)
Wednesday, December 17, 2025
28 10 pgs respm Response to motion Wed 12/17 9:32 PM
RESPONSE re27 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer or Move in Response to the Complaint filed by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.(Pittman, John)
Att: 1 Exhibit Email
Friday, December 12, 2025
order .Order ~Util - Set/Reset Deadlines Fri 12/12 10:35 AM
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Answer or Move in Response to the Complaint, Dkt.27 , it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall respond on or before December 17, 2025. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 12/12/2025. (lcrdm1)
Thursday, December 11, 2025
27 motion Extension of Time to Thu 12/11 5:18 PM
MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer or Move in Response to the Complaint by ALPHABET, INC., APPLE, INC., GOOGLE LLC, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC..(Gleklen, Jonathan)
Att: 1 1 pgs Text of Proposed Order
Friday, October 31, 2025
26 notice Notice of Appearance Fri 10/31 4:05 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Koren Wai Wong-Ervin on behalf of ALPHABET, INC., GOOGLE LLC (Wong-Ervin, Koren)
25 service Waiver of Service Fri 10/31 12:37 PM
WAIVER OF SERVICE. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. waiver sent on 10/30/2025, answer due 12/29/2025. (Pittman, John)
Thursday, October 30, 2025
order Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Thu 10/30 6:00 PM
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendants' motion for leave to appear pro hac vice, Dkt.24 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Koren W. Wong-Ervin may appear pro hac vice in this case. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a) [LINK:Click for instructions] . Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/30/2025. (lcrdm1)
Wednesday, October 29, 2025
24 motion Appear Pro Hac Vice Wed 10/29 1:11 PM
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Koren W. Wong-Ervin, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-12050254. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by ALPHABET, INC., GOOGLE LLC.(Belott, Debra)
Att: 1 Declaration for Pro Hac Vice Admission,
Att: 2 Certificate of Good Standing,
Att: 3 Proposed Order Granting Motion for Admission
Tuesday, October 28, 2025
23 notice Notice of Appearance Tue 10/28 9:21 AM
NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer Milici on behalf of APPLE INC. (Milici, Jennifer)
Monday, October 27, 2025
22 notice Notice of Appearance Mon 10/27 6:43 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by David Kiernan on behalf of ALPHABET, INC., GOOGLE LLC (Kiernan, David)
21 service Electronic Summons Issued Mon 10/27 5:00 PM
SUMMONS (1) Issued Electronically as to SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.. (znmw)
Friday, October 24, 2025
order Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Fri 10/24 9:23 AM
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendants' motion for leave to appear pro hac vice, Dkt.20 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. David C. Kiernan may appear pro hac vice in this case. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a) [LINK:Click for instructions] . Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/24/2025. (lcrdm1)
Thursday, October 23, 2025
20 motion Appear Pro Hac Vice Thu 10/23 5:51 PM
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- David C. Kiernan, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-12040159. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by ALPHABET INC., GOOGLE LLC.(Belott, Debra)
Att: 1 Declaration for Pro Hac Vice Admission,
Att: 2 Certificate of Good Standing,
Att: 3 Proposed Order Granting Motion for Admission of David C. Kiernan Pro Hac Vice
order Order on Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Thu 10/23 5:38 PM
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Defendant's motion for leave to appear pro hac vice, Dkt.17 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Jennifer Milici may appear pro hac vice in this case. Counsel should register for e-filing via PACER and file a notice of appearance pursuant to LCvR 83.6(a) [LINK:Click for instructions] . Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/23/2025. (lcrdm1)
order Order on Motion for Briefing Schedule Set/Reset Deadlines Thu 10/23 5:46 PM
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of the parties' Joint Motion for Briefing Schedule, Dkt.18 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants shall file their answer or motion(s) to stay or to dismiss on or before January 16, 2026; that Plaintiffs shall file their responses to any such motion(s) on or before March 2, 2026; and that Defendants shall file their reply(/ies) on or before April 16, 2026. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 10/23/2025. (lcrdm1)
Friday, October 10, 2025
19 notice Notice of Appearance Fri 10/10 5:33 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Debra R. Belott on behalf of ALPHABET INC., GOOGLE LLC (Belott, Debra)
18 motion Briefing Schedule Fri 10/10 2:36 PM
Joint MOTION for Briefing Schedule by APPLE INC..(Lange, Perry)
Att: 1 1 pgs Proposed Order
17 motion Appear Pro Hac Vice Fri 10/10 12:43 PM
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name- Jennifer Milici, Filing fee $ 100, receipt number ADCDC-12016374. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by APPLE INC..(Lange, Perry)
Att: 1 Declaration of Jennifer Milici in Support,
Att: 2 Certificate of Good Standing,
Att: 3 Proposed Order
16 notice Notice of Appearance Fri 10/10 12:36 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Sonia Kuester Pfaffenroth on behalf of SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. (Pfaffenroth, Sonia)
15 notice Notice of Appearance Fri 10/10 11:21 AM
NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan Ian Gleklen on behalf of SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. (Gleklen, Jonathan)
Thursday, October 09, 2025
14 notice Notice of Appearance Thu 10/09 7:16 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by John O'Toole on behalf of APPLE INC. (O'Toole, John)
13 notice Notice of Appearance Thu 10/09 7:12 PM
NOTICE of Appearance by Perry A. Lange on behalf of APPLE INC. (Lange, Perry)
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
12 service Summons Returned as to private individual or business Tue 09/23 11:48 AM
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. GOOGLE LLC served on 9/22/2025, answer due 10/13/2025 (Pittman, John)
11 service Summons Returned as to private individual or business Tue 09/23 11:47 AM
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. APPLE INC. served on 9/22/2025, answer due 10/13/2025 (Pittman, John)
10 service Summons Returned as to private individual or business Tue 09/23 11:46 AM
RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. ALPHABET INC. served on 9/22/2025, answer due 10/13/2025 (Pittman, John)
Sunday, September 21, 2025
9 86 pgs cmp Amended Complaint Sun 09/21 8:32 PM
AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants with Jury Demand filed by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.(Pittman, John)
Att: 1 Appendix A,
Att: 2 Appendix B,
Att: 3 Appendix C,
Att: 4 Appendix D,
Att: 5 Summons Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
Att: 6 Supplement Redlined Comparison Copy
Monday, September 08, 2025
order Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Set/Reset Deadlines Mon 09/08 10:14 AM
MINUTE ORDER: Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Serve, Dkt.8 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall serve the Summons and Complaint upon Defendants on or before September 22, 2025. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 9/8/2025. (lcrdm1)
Thursday, September 04, 2025
8 motion Extension of Time to Thu 09/04 5:11 PM
MOTION for Extension of Time to Serve by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. (Pittman, John)
Friday, June 27, 2025
7 notice Notice of Related Case Fri 06/27 4:32 PM
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. Case related to Case No. 1:24-cv-03054-RDM. (Pittman, John)
6 notice Notice of Related Case Fri 06/27 4:31 PM
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. Case related to Case No. 1:25-cv-01970. (Pittman, John)
Wednesday, June 18, 2025
5 order .Order Wed 06/18 2:51 PM
STANDING ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to comply with the directives set forth in the attached Standing Order. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 6/18/2025. (lcrdm1)
Monday, June 16, 2025
4 service Electronic Summons Issued Mon 06/16 7:28 PM
SUMMONS (33) Issued Electronically as to All Defendants.(znmw)
Att: 1 Notice and Consent
utility Case Assigned/Reassigned Mon 06/16 7:18 PM
Case Assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss. (znmw)
Friday, June 13, 2025
3 cmp Civil Cover Sheet (USE ONLY IF INSTRUCTED) Fri 06/13 1:12 PM
CIVIL COVER SHEET by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC re1 Complaint,,,, filed by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. Related document:1 Complaint,,,, filed by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.(Pittman, John)
notice Notice of Error- New Case Fri 06/13 11:46 AM
NOTICE OF NEW CASE ERROR regarding1 Complaint. The following error needs correction: Incorrect civil cover sheet. Please locate the Civil Cover Sheet (JS44) form at www.dcd.uscourts.gov/new-case-forms & file, as a non-fillable form, using the event "Civil Cover Sheet." COMPLIANCE DEADLINE is by close of business today. This case will not proceed any further until all errors are satisfied. (zjd)
Wednesday, June 11, 2025
2 notice Notice of Related Case Wed 06/11 8:10 PM
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. Case related to Case No. 1:24-cv-03051-RDM. (Pittman, John)
1 cmp Complaint Wed 06/11 8:07 PM
COMPLAINT against All Defendants with Jury Demand ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ADCDC-11751140) filed by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.(Pittman, John)
Att: 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet,
Att: 2 Appendix Appendix A,
Att: 3 Appendix Appendix B,
Att: 4 Summons Adams,
Att: 5 Summons Alphabet,
Att: 6 Summons Jung,
Att: 7 Summons Apple,
Att: 8 Summons Arnold,
Att: 9 Summons Brin,
Att: 10 Summons Choi,
Att: 11 2 pgs Summons Cook,
Att: 12 Summons Doerr,
Att: 13 Summons Ferguson,
Att: 14 Summons Google,
Att: 15 Summons Gorsky,
Att: 16 Summons Han,
Att: 17 Summons Park,
Att: 18 Summons Hennessy,
Att: 19 Summons Hong,
Att: 20 Summons Jung,
Att: 21 Summons Park,
Att: 22 Summons Kim,
Att: 23 Summons Kyung,
Att: 24 Summons Lee,
Att: 25 Summons Levinson,
Att: 26 Summons Lozano,
Att: 27 Summons Mather,
Att: 28 Summons Murata,
Att: 29 Summons Page,
Att: 30 Summons Pichai,
Att: 31 Summons Prado,
Att: 32 Summons Samsung,
Att: 33 Summons Shriram,
Att: 34 Summons Sugar,
Att: 35 Summons Wagner,
Att: 36 Summons Washingto
——-
A sur-reply is an additional legal brief filed by a plaintiff, requiring court permission, to address new arguments improperly introduced in a defendant's reply brief. The filing delays a decision by requiring Judge Moss to first rule on the procedural request and potentially allowing the defendant to respond, adding roughly 3 to 4 weeks to the timeline. If the sur-reply is denied, a ruling is likely in 4-6 weeks; if granted, the process could add 2-3 months to the decision timeline.
Hot Features
プレミアム
登録してリアルタイムのアラート、カスタムポートフォリオ、市場の動きを入手してください。
Dontnosheet
19時間前
sunspotter
21時間前
ORCA
23時間前
nyt
2日前
メールアドレスで登録
