Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Mr. Bill,
What are you basing that timeline on? No way it takes three years to go through dispute resolution in these cases. The entire cases won't take that long with the exception of appeals. Look at the docket!
JMO
Spot on P2P.
I was just reviewing the Joint Case Management Doc's and noticed all parties stipulated that they intend to agree to ADR (alternative dispute resolution) proceedings. Why would anyone agree to discuss settlements if the patents were worthless or they were not infringing in the first place? That makes no sense to me.
JMO
MJ,
Very simple, the 127,000,000 issued as a Bonus was already in the column as a contingent liability. Thus, while we issued the shares, we simultaneously reduced the same amount of contingent liabilities due upon "a bonusable event, defined as the successful completion of a sale of the Company or substantially all its assets, or a major licensing transaction."
For those of us holding for such an event, it's a wash.
JMO
After reviewing the 10-Q, I believe most of the dilution is already baked into the numbers for long shareholders waiting for a sale, completion of suit or licensing deal. See below-
From the 10-Q, Note 11, Performance Bonus Payable
During the period ended December 31, 2018, the board of directors resolved to reduce the Performance Bonus from 10% to 3.33% of the issued and outstanding capital stock of the Company. Concurrently, the board of directors authorized the payment of Common shares (“Bonus Shares”) in an equivalent percentage to the 6.67% reduction to the Performance Bonus to a group of related and non-related parties, which included members of management, a director and several consultants, who received an aggregate 127,000,000 Bonus Shares (Note 9). The Bonus Shares are restricted from trading under Rule 144 and are also subject to voluntary lock-up agreements, pursuant to which they cannot be traded, pledged, hypothecated, transferred or sold by the holders until such time as the Company has met the requirements of the bonusable event as described above.
JMO
Ask and you shall receive--
Exerpt from Voip-Pal prelimenary response to Apple's IPR challenge--
I. INTRODUCTION
Digifonica, a real party-in-interest to this proceeding and wholly owned
subsidiary of Patent Owner Voip-Pal, was founded in 2004 with the vision that the
Internet would be the future of telecommunications. As a startup company,
Digifonica did not have existing customers or legacy systems. Instead, Digifonica
had the opportunity to start from a blank slate. Digifonica employed top
professionals in the open-source software community. [color=red]Three Ph.D.s with various
engineering backgrounds held the top positions at the Company. Digifonica’s
engineers developed an innovative software solution for routing communications,
which by the mid-2000s it implemented in four nodes spread across three
geographic regions. Digifonica’s R&D efforts led to several patents, including
U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815 and a continuation patent, the ‘005 Patent, which is the
subject of the present proceeding.[/color]
NYT et al,
There is proof of discussions regarding a settlement. See the Docket Statements filed in the US Court of Appeals by Apple and VPLM. The interesting parts are included below in a prior post:
Re: None 0
Post #
48917
of 61000
While we are waiting...
Here's a couple interesting anomalies from the court filings:
1.) In Twitter's joint status report before the Nevada court, they make the following statement - "Twitter was not involved in any way in the IPR petitions or trials that were initiated by defendants Apple, AT&T, and/or Verizon."
I think this is a way of heading off any treble damages in the event of a loss - JMO
2.) In Apple's "Docket Statement" filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals, they make the following statement -
"Have there been discussions with other parties relating to settlement of this case? ? Yes ? No If “yes,” when were the last such discussions: ? Before the case was filed below? ? During the pendency of the case below? ? Following the judgment/order appealed from? If “yes,” were the settlement discussions mediated? ? Yes ? No
Case: 18-1456 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 02/14/2018
3
If they were mediated, by whom? Do you believe that this case may be amenable to mediation? ? Yes ? No If you answered no, explain why not:
Apple has filed a pending motion for sanctions against Voip-Pal before the Board."
Okay, so that may be a little messy with the copy and past, but the answers are interesting - Apple says yes they did have discussions (with "other parties") regarding settling the case after the IPR decisions. Then, they say that the case is not amenable to mediation because they have filed a pending motion for sanctions.
Questions -
Who would the "other party/parties" be - Voip-Pal said they did not have discussions with other parties in their Docketing Statement - so maybe ATT, Verizon, etc...
This is the closest thing I've seen that indicates Apple and others may be inclined to attempt a settlement prior to Nevada trials once the PTAB rules on the sanction - Any opinions on that?
JMO
Thanks for the response DB. So, you think it's merely a procedural thing? I could understand that after reading some more about the effects of consolidating while maintaining separate actions as well (i.e. each parties ability to appeal individually, etc..).
Also, I thought someone posted over the weekend that Twitter's motion for change of venue was denied. I don't see that on Pacer. Anyone else?
TIA
Slow day waiting for the PTAB.
Question for the board - What are your thoughts about the Verizon Judge agreeing to sever the ATT case from the Verizon case? This is the same judge that requested us to file the consolidation hearing with the Apple judge. Possible that one of these companies have agreed to a settlement pending the outcome of the PTAB? I can't think of any other reason - Thoughts?
JMO
Interesting analogy regarding the fire. First option, in my opinion, is to try everything possible to put out that fire - suffocate it, throw water on it, everything possible to put it out. Then, if that fails, you move to the other options. Apple is still trying to put this fire out. The additional lawsuit is evidence that the fire is spreading.
JMO
NYT - please see post 51145. I meant to post as a reply but hit the wrong button.
The Apple stay has never been lifted or reported as such. The Verizon/ATT stay was lifted during a Status Conference on 04/09/18. Also, during this conference, the judge requested the parties consult with the Apple judge to determine if the cases should be consolidated - which was the genesis of the recent motion for hearing. The Apple judge has the authority since that was the earliest case filed.
The motion for hearing was clearing up what was filed previously as a "notice" rather than a motion. It requests a hearing on two matters:
1) Should the Apple case be combined with the ATT and Verizon case or other combination as recommended by the court. They left Twitter out of this probably due to the Change of Venue motion by Twitter, but left it an open question to the court (other combination).
2) Removal of the Stay to allow the case to proceed.
Hope that helps.
FYI- it looks like we are trying to proceed without waiting on the PTAB. I like it. JMO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
* * *
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., a Nevada corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE, INC.; a California corporation,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 2:16-CV-00260-RFB-VCF
REQUEST FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests a status conference with
the Court in order to (1) determine whether a related case docketed as VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon
Wireless Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF should be reassigned to the
Case 2:16-cv-00260-RFB-VCF Document 41 Filed 05/17/18 Page 1 of 5
ALVERSON, TAYLOR, MORTENSEN & SANDERS LAWYERS 6605 GRAND MONTECITO PKWY, STE. 200 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89149 (702) 384-7000
2
Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II and (2) determine whether the stay of this case (filed
February 9, 2016) should be lifted so that this case may proceed on a normal litigation track along
with two related cases that are no longer subject to a stay, namely VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon
Wireless Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF and VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02338-RFB-CWH.
1. On April 30, 2018, Plaintiff, through counsel, filed a Notice of Related Cases (D.E.
No. 40) in this action, identifying two related cases that are pending in this Court, docketed as VoIP
Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF (the
“Verizon/ATT Case” (filed February 10, 2016)) and VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter Inc., Case No.
2:16-cv-02338-RFB-CWH (the “Twitter Case” (filed October 6, 2016)). Notably, in the Twitter
Case, the Honorable Richard F. Boulware, II is presiding while, in the Verizon/ATT Case, the
Honorable Robert C. Jones is presiding.
2. In Plaintiff’s Notice of Related Cases (D.E. No. 40), Plaintiff submitted that
assignment to a single District Judge is desirable because, as set forth in more detail in Plaintiff’s
Notice, this case, the Verizon/ATT Case and the Twitter Case all complain of infringement of the
same two United States patents, namely, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,542,815 (the “‘815 patent”) and
9,179,005 (the “‘005 patent”).
3. Accordingly, common questions of law and fact exist between this case, the
Verizon/ATT Case and the Twitter Case, at least with respect to validity and claim construction
issues.
4. At a status conference before the Honorable Robert C. Jones in the Verizon/ATT
Case, Judge Jones placed the Verizon/ATT Case on a normal litigation track and recommended “that
counsel request a hearing before Judge Richard Boulware to discuss consolidation of the
cases.” (See Verizon/ATT Case at D.E. No. 58 (emphasis added)). In terms of sequence, this case (J.
Case 2:16-cv-00260-RFB-VCF Document 41 Filed 05/17/18 Page 2 of 5
ALVERSON, TAYLOR, MORTENSEN & SANDERS LAWYERS 6605 GRAND MONTECITO PKWY, STE. 200 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89149 (702) 384-7000
3
Boulware) was the first to be filed, the Verizon/ATT Case (J. Jones) was the second to be filed and
the Twitter Case (J. Boulware) was the third to be filed.
5. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests a status conference with the Court to
determine whether reassignment of the Verizon/ATT Case is appropriate or alternatively, to
determine such other reassignments that the Court might deem proper.
6. Plaintiff also requests a status conference regarding the stay that has been entered in
this case. (D.E. No. 27). On January 26, 2018, the parties to this action, through counsel, filed a Joint
Status Report (D.E. No. 37) submitting “that, under the current circumstances, the stay of this case
should be lifted, and that Apple’s answer or other response to Voip-Pal’s Second Amended
Complaint (ECF No. 11) shall be due thirty (30) days after an order of this Court lifting the stay of
this case.” (D.E. No. 37 at p. 2 (emphasis added)). To date, this Court has not lifted the stay.
7. Notably however, the stay of the related Twitter Case, also pending before the
Honorable Richard F. Boulware, II, has been lifted. Also, as noted above, the Verizon/ATT Case is
now proceeding on a normal litigation track. Accordingly, because it would be most efficient to
engage in discovery of this case, along with the Verizon/ATT Case and the Twitter Case, Plaintiff
respectfully submits that this case should no longer be subject to a stay, especially considering that
Apple, Inc. has agreed that the stay of this case should be lifted. (See D.E. No. 37 at p. 2).
8. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests a status conference before the
Court in order to (1) determine whether a related case docketed as VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon
Wireless Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF should be reassigned to the
Honorable Judge Richard F. Boulware, II and (2) determine whether the stay of this case should be
lifted so that this case may proceed on a normal litigation track along with two related cases that are
no longer subject to a stay, namely VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, et al., Case
/ / /
Case 2:16-cv-00260-RFB-VCF Document 41 Filed 05/17/18 Page 3 of 5
ALVERSON, TAYLOR, MORTENSEN & SANDERS LAWYERS 6605 GRAND MONTECITO PKWY, STE. 200 LAS VEGAS, NEVADA 89149 (702) 384-7000
4
No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF and VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02338-RFB
CWH. DATED this 17th day of May, 2018. ALVERSON
This is shaping up to be an interesting day heading into the power hour!
We officially filed with the courts (Apple and Twitter cases) yesterday a request to consolidate all the cases under one district judge. Does anyone know or have an idea how this would effect Twitter's Motion to change venue?
TIA
Just noticed on the Verizon case that the Judge has asked the attorneys for both sides to petition the Apple judge to consider consolidating the cases. Any ideas as how to how this would effect our strategy?
Green,
"Keep in mind that Apple has not yet filed a formal appeal of the final written decision but has notified the PTaB of its intention to do so. Apple will have 63 days from the day the ptab makes its decision on the rehearing motion to formally file an appeal of the ptab’s ipr final written decision."
I believe the timeline is sooner than that. Apple already filed with the US Court of Appeals on January 22, 2018. That case is stayed only until the motion for sanctions is decided at the PTAB. Then, both parties have seven days to get back with the court as to how they should proceed. If I'm reading this correctly, then that court has jurisdiction over all appeals. See below -
02/21/2018
21
ORDER filed. The motion [6] [492803-2] is granted. To the extent necessary, the above-captioned cases are remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the Board to consider Apple's sanctions motions. This court retains jurisdiction over the appeals. Proceedings on these appeals are stayed pending resolution of the sanctions motions. Within seven days from the date of the Board's ruling on the sanctions motions, the parties are directed to inform this court how they believe these appeals should proceed. Service: 02/21/2018 by clerk. [499804] [18-1456, 18-1457] [LS]
JMO
While we are waiting...
Here's a couple interesting anomalies from the court filings:
1.) In Twitter's joint status report before the Nevada court, they make the following statement - "Twitter was not involved in any way in the IPR petitions or trials that were initiated by defendants Apple, AT&T, and/or Verizon."
I think this is a way of heading off any treble damages in the event of a loss - JMO
2.) In Apple's "Docket Statement" filed before the U.S. Court of Appeals, they make the following statement -
"Have there been discussions with other parties relating to settlement of this case? ? Yes ? No If “yes,” when were the last such discussions: ? Before the case was filed below? ? During the pendency of the case below? ? Following the judgment/order appealed from? If “yes,” were the settlement discussions mediated? ? Yes ? No
Case: 18-1456 Document: 19 Page: 2 Filed: 02/14/2018
3
If they were mediated, by whom? Do you believe that this case may be amenable to mediation? ? Yes ? No If you answered no, explain why not:
Apple has filed a pending motion for sanctions against Voip-Pal before the Board."
Okay, so that may be a little messy with the copy and past, but the answers are interesting - Apple says yes they did have discussions (with "other parties") regarding settling the case after the IPR decisions. Then, they say that the case is not amenable to mediation because they have filed a pending motion for sanctions.
Questions -
Who would the "other party/parties" be - Voip-Pal said they did not have discussions with other parties in their Docketing Statement - so maybe ATT, Verizon, etc...
This is the closest thing I've seen that indicates Apple and others may be inclined to attempt a settlement prior to Nevada trials once the PTAB rules on the sanction - Any opinions on that?
JMO
If you want a quick answer, he is referring to the decision to implement the IPR and then Voip-Pal winning is the reversal. Logic is not necessary here.
JMO
Does anyone have a link at the PTAB that shows the latest motions and responses? All I see is the Final Written Decisions, but nothing after that.
Thanks in advance.
JMO
Yes, with respect to each of the cases, all parties have agreed to lift the stays.
Twitter also noted that they intend to file a motion for dismissal based on improper venue so it may be possible we will have to refile in a different court once that is filed and ruled on.
JMO
I would think so. We still have some hurdles, but the more we can get over - the closer we get to the finish line.
JMO
Great post! Thanks for the insight.
Does anyone have a link to the PTAB where you can see the most recent filings? I can only see the Final Written Decisions, etc... I can't seem to find the follow up motions and responses.
Thanks in advance.
According to the Joint Status Report, both parties agree that the stay should be lifted.
It should be a rubber stamp once the Judge reviews the report and he will issue the order to lift the stay.
JMO
Nice, I think you're going to win that one with room to spare. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we take out the HOY by next Friday. The time for sitting on the sidelines is over. JMHO
Not bad at all - I'ts going to get a lot better by close of business tomorrow. And, even better next week. JMHO
Yep, I'm adding while we fill that gap. The next few weeks should be very interesting. GLTA
Of course it's the same old story from the longs - we don't change our opinions based upon todays price action. We believe in the big picture.
Also, I keep a core position and trade around the short term price. I have no problem with traders or anyone who makes money. Good luck to everyone no matter your strategy. JMO
Apparently, the market agrees with the longs. Accretion > dilution. They wouldn't use the additional funds to do more partnerships/acquisitions would they? No...just because they stated that as their intention all along and have completed several over the past few years with prior funding - let's just wait and see. I'm long. IMO
That "Band-Aid" was just a response to Appl motion. Both letters were uploaded and entered in the US District case shortly after they were sent, the first on May 08 (entered 5/10) and the second on Nov 11 (11/2). Hard to say they didn't have a chance to respond since both dates are prior to Final Written Decision. JMO
I believe they can buy additional dispensaries, particularly if they sellers receive stock in the larger acquiring entity - they still have upside with far less risk than a single shop.
longtime holder - I agree about ARCA closing. Now, we just need to break .44 and we can run to .47-.48
GLTA
I have not listened to the interview yet, but I am aware of the results for the trial for UC are to be presented on the 14th along with an update of the other pipeline meds.
I decided to take my chances and added in the 76s. At these prices, I think this is a no brainer. Just a matter of time before it rebounds. JMO-GLTA
Agree 100%. I hope I don't need more at $76 either, but I'll dip into the piggy bank if necessary. LOL
Hope it holds - I'm loaded up. GLTA
Very well stated.
All you have to do is look at the Quarterly Report to know that the BOD is wasting money. They issued $12mil worth of shares ($.12/share) last quarter. They paid $24K/mnth for a part-time IR gig. Plus all the other services that are grossly overpaid. That's good work if you can find it.
Any suggestion that the reason we don't audit the financials, pursue removing the chill, generate some legitimate publicity, or perhaps even begin litigation activity because we can't afford it is absurd when you look at the facts - $12 mil!
Now, maybe people here don't care that 10% of their investment just flew out the window last quarter, but please don't continue to tell us how frugal the BOD is with our money. It drives me nuts.
JMO
Thanks for doing this. I believe IPR that Tucker refers to is Intellectual Property Rights.
Why would the board spend so much time calling out Apple and at the same time schedule the CC to coincide with Apple's new launch?