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.
I believe he is one and the same listed on a vplm patent as an inventor
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/gavin-malcolm-mcmillan
EPHS Holdings Inc. Commences Production Plans at its State-of-the-Art Facility in Montreal, Quebec
MONTREAL — EPHS Holdings Inc. (OTCQB:STNN) (“EPHS” or the “Company”), together with its joint venture partner, Merritt Valley Cannabis, is pleased to announce its Montreal cultivation plans have commenced, as per Health Canada sales licence regulations and inspections.
The EPHS state-of-the-art facility located in Montreal, Quebec is ready for immediate production and scale. EPHS is commencing with the Health Canada sales license process.
EPHS will continue to scale cannabis production at its Merritt site with the granting of additional Health Canada licenses. Ground breaking is scheduled for early 2019 for phase one of the 30,000 square foot state-of-the-art Cannabis Campus. The campus is expected to produce a supply of 5,500 plus kilograms of cannabis per year by early 2020.
EPHS CEO, Gianfranco Bentivoglio, stated “Our vision is to be unique, and the EPHS business model is built on simplicity and focus. It is our objective to build more efficiently and deliver cannabis to the under-supplied Canadian and global markets.”
Bentivoglio ended by stating “Canadian press ran many articles on supply shortages and long lines, and EPHS’ business and project plans have been developed to address these shortages and demands.”
Having Steve Perry, former Vice President of Energy and Major Projects for The Green Organic Dutchman Holdings Ltd. (US:TGODF) (TSX:TGOD), provides proven experience vital to scaling supply to serve the high demand market. EPHS and Merritt Valley Cannabis’ 1.2 million square foot Cannabis Campus located in Merritt BC will be capable of producing in excess of 100,000 kilograms of cannabis product over the next five years to serve global market demands.
About EPHS Holdings Inc.
EPHS Holdings Inc., together with its joint venture partner, Merritt Valley Cannabis, is a licensed commercial cannabis cultivator engaging in the cultivation, possession, research, processing, sales and distribution of medicinal and recreational cannabis under the laws of the Health Canada ACMPR license.
https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/press-releases-pmn/business-wire-news-releases-pmn/ephs-holdings-inc-commences-production-plans-at-its-state-of-the-art-facility-in-montreal-quebec
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2018-10-23/ephs-holdings-inc-commences-production-plans-at-its-state-of-the-art-facility-in-montreal-quebec
Great post!
And still holding!!! Go VPLM!
That is a decision in Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple, Inc. No revelance here!
I believe so and most likely they will.
Thanks VVVVVV
Here is a copy of the Exparte Reexamination confirming same in bolded section
2209 Ex Parte Reexamination [R-07.2015]
Procedures for reexamination of issued patents began on July 1, 1981, the date when the reexamination provisions of Public Law 96-517 came into effect.
The reexamination statute, 35 U.S.C. 302, and rules permit any person to file a request for an ex parte reexamination containing certain elements and the fee required under 37 CFR 1.20(c)(1). The Office initially determines if “a substantial new question of patentability” (35 U.S.C. 303(a)) is presented. If such a new question has been presented, reexamination will be ordered. The reexamination proceedings which follow the order for reexamination are very similar to regular examination procedures in patent applications; however, there are notable differences. For example, there are certain limitations as to the kind of rejections which may be made in a reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304, special reexamination forms to be used, and time periods set to provide “special dispatch.” When the prosecution of a reexamination proceeding is terminated, a reexamination certificate is issued which indicates the status of all claims following the reexamination.
The following sections of this chapter explain the details of reexamination.
The intent of the reexamination procedures covered in this chapter include the following:
(A) To provide procedures for reexamination of patents;
(B) To implement reexamination in an essentially ex parte manner;
(C) To minimize the processing costs and complexities of reexamination;
(D) To maximize respect for the reexamined patent;
(E) To provide procedures for prompt and timely determinations by the Office in accordance with the “special dispatch” requirements of 35 U.S.C. 305.
The basic characteristics of ex parte reexamination are as follows:
(A) Anyone can request reexamination at any time during the period of enforceability of the patent;
(B) In ex parte reexaminations ordered under 35 U.S.C. 304, prior art considered during reexamination is limited to prior art patents or printed publications applied under the appropriate parts of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103. Patents may also be applied in a double patenting rejection as discussed in MPEP § 2258 subsection I.D. (However, in ex parte reexaminations ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257, the prior art considered during reexamination is not limited. See MPEP § 2801);
(C) A substantial new question of patentability must be present for reexamination to be ordered;
(D) If ordered, the actual reexamination proceeding is ex parte in nature;
(E)Decision on a request for reexamination submitted under 35 U.S.C. 302 must be made no later than 3 months from its filing, and the remainder of the proceeding must proceed with “special dispatch” within the Office. (Similarly, a decision on a request for supplemental examination submitted under 35 U.S.C. 257 must be made no later than 3 months from its filing (see MPEP § 2815), and any ex parte reexamination proceeding ordered as a result of a supplemental examination proceeding must proceed with “special dispatch” within the Office);
(F) If ordered, a reexamination proceeding will normally be conducted to its conclusion and the issuance of a reexamination certificate;
(G) The scope of a claim cannot be enlarged by amendment;
(H) All reexamination and patent files are open to the public, but see paragraph (I) below;
(I) The reexamination file is scanned into IFW to provide an electronic format copy of the file. All public access to and copying of the reexamination file may be made from the electronic format copy available through PAIR. Any remaining paper files are not available to the public. Images of non-patent literature (NPL) cited in public files are not available for either viewing or downloading through Public PAIR. Certified copies of the full contents of the files, including NPL, are available from the Office of Public Records, and may be ordered online at www.uspto.gov.
For a discussion of public access to papers filed in a supplemental examination proceeding, see MPEP § 2803.02.
Parties are cautioned that the reexamination statute, regulations, and published examining procedures do not countenance so-called “litigation tactics” in reexamination proceedings. The parties are expected to conduct themselves accordingly. For example, it is expected that submissions of papers that are not provided for in the reexamination regulations and/or appear to be excluded by the regulation will either be filed with an appropriate petition to accept the paper and/or waive the regulation(s), or not filed at all. Parties are advised that multiple submissions, such as a reply to a paper opposing a petition and a sur-reply directed to such a reply are not provided for in the reexamination regulations or examining procedures. It is expected that the parties will adhere to the provisions of 37 CFR 11.18(b) throughout the course of a reexamination proceeding.
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2209.html
Twitter Update
RESPONSE to Motion to Change Venue,,,,,, by Plaintiff Voip-Pal.com, Inc.. Replies due by 3/21/2018.(Bonds, Kurt)
Verizon Update
ORDER Setting Status Conference for 4/9/2018 at 11:45 AM in Las Vegas Courtroom 4B before Judge Robert C. Jones. Joint Status Report due by 3/30/2018 at 5:00 PM . Out-of-state counsel who request telephonic appearances shall file a Request to Appear Telephonically by 3/30/2018 at 5:00 PM . Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/14/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
Here is an article on Motions for Sanctions
https://www.ptabwatch.com/2016/12/guidance-on-requesting-motions-for-sanctions/
Guidance on Requesting Motions for Sanctions
By Sharon M. Sintich, Ph.D. on December 22, 2016
POSTED IN COVERED BUSINESS METHOD, DISCOVERY, INTER PARTES REVIEW, IPR, REAL PARTY-IN-INTEREST, TRIAL PROCEDURES
On November 10, 2016, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) hosted a panel discussion entitled Ethics in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings at the PTAB with the Honorable Thomas Giannetti, Lead Administrative Patent Judge of the PTAB.
The main topic of the discussion was guidance on motions for sanctions. The rules relating to trial practice before the PTAB allow the Board to impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, registered practitioner or party that violates the PTAB’s rules after the offending party has had an opportunity to respond. 35 C.F.R. §42.11(d)(1). The Board has the authority to sanction parties or a party may file a motion for the Board to impose sanctions. The motion must be made separately from any other motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates the rules. The Board must authorize the motion before it may be filed. 35 C.F.R. §42.11(d)(1). The panel indicated that timing of the request to motion for sanctions is very important and Judge Giannetti advised to seek relief immediately after the alleged misconduct occurs. For example, if the misconduct occurs during a deposition, he advised to object during the deposition, then to call the Board to request authorization to file a motion immediately after the deposition.
The Board is reluctant to impose sanctions unless a pattern of bad behavior occurs after a warning. In most cases, the Board will not authorize a motion for sanctions unless the offending activity violates a clear instruction from the Board.
The denial of the request to motion for sanctions in Square Inc. v. REM Holdings 3, LLC, IPR2014-00312, Paper 59 (PTAB) illustrates that the request must be made very soon after the alleged misconduct. In this case, the Petitioner requested authorization to file a motion for sanctions related to alleged misconduct that occurred during the oral hearing. However, the Petitioner requested authorization two weeks after the Board issued a final written decision. The Board stated that the Petitioner’s request was untimely because the Petitioner waited more than four months after the alleged misconduct and two weeks after the final decision was issued.
Turning to the factors for granting motions for sanctions, the PTAB has identified them as follows:
whether the moving party has performed conduct that warrants sanctions;
whether the moving party has suffered harm from the conduct; and
whether the sanctions requested are proportionate to the harm suffered by the moving party.
Square Inc. v. Think Computer Corp., CBM2014-00159, Paper 48 (PTAB 2015) citing Ecclesiastes 9:10-11-12, Inc. v. LMC Holding Co., 497 F3d 1135, 1142 (10th Circuit, 2007).
The Board is reluctant to impose sanctions unless a pattern of bad behavior occurs after a warning. In most cases, the Board will not authorize a motion for sanctions unless the offending activity violates a clear instruction from the Board. For example, the Board did not authorized a motion for sanctions where the petitioner filed two IPR petitions that involved the same parties and the same patent and presented overlapping arguments. Chums Inc. v. Cablz, Inc., IPR2015-00602, Paper 9 (PTAB 2015), Iron Dome LLC v. Chinook Licensing DE, LLC, IPR2014-00674, Paper 9 (PTAB 2014). The Board also did not authorize a motion for sanctions where a party filed multiple overlapping IPR petitions (25 petitions on 6 patents). Ford Motor Co. v. Paice LLC, IPR2014-00571, Paper 37 (PTAB 2015). In addition, the Board did not authorize a motion for sanctions where a party filed an IPR petition with grounds that overlapped grounds in another party’s petition that was subsequently denied. Unified Patents, Inc. v. Custom Media Tech., LLC, IPR2015-00516, Paper 12 (PTAB 2015).
Sanctions During Discovery
Many requests for sanctions arise from alleged misconduct during depositions, but in most cases the Board does not authorize the filing of such motions. For example, the Board did not authorize a motion for sanctions where a Petitioner failed to meet and confer adequately after Patent Owner asked for bases regarding Petitioner’s request to depose the inventor. In this case, the Board stated it was troubled by Petitioner’s failure to cooperate, but stated that it was not the Board’s job to micromanage all disputes between the parties. Westlake Servs. LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp., CBM2014-00176, Paper 29 (PTAB 2015). In another case, the Board did not authorize a motion for sanctions when one party canceled a deposition after its scheduled start time. Inline Packaging LLC v. Graphic Packaging Intl. Inc., IPR2015-01609, Paper 27 (PTAB 2016). In yet another case, the Board did not authorize a motion for sanctions where a party cross-examined a declarant beyond the scope of his declaration because the Board stated that these questions could have been objected to during the deposition. Westlake Serv. LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp., CBM2014-00008, Paper 48, (PTAB 2014).
In BioDelivery Scis. Intl., Inc, v. Monosol Rx, LLC, IPR2015-00165, Paper 20 (PTAB 2015), the Patent Owner requested leave to move for sanctions for numerous improper leading questions during the Petitioner’s re-direct examination of its own expert. These leading questions allegedly frustrated the Patent Owner’s fair cross examination of the Petitioner’s expert. The Patent Owner made the request to motion for sanctions several weeks after the deposition. The Patent Office Trial Practice Guide requires that the party must promptly initiate a conference call with the Board to discuss the proposed motion for sanctions. In this case, the Patent Owner had more than one opportunity to initiate a conference call and allowed seven weeks to pass between the deposition and the request for authorization. Thus, the Board denied the Petitioner’s request.
Sanctions for Improper Ex Parte Contact
The Board has authorized motions for sanctions for improper ex parte contact, which can include entry of an adverse judgment. The Patent Office Trial Practice Guide states “All substantive communications with the Board regarding a proceeding must include all parties to the proceeding, except as otherwise authorized.” 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48758 (Aug. 14, 2012) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(d).
Other ex parte contacts may lead to sanctions. In Square Inc. v. Think Computer Corp., CBM2014-00159, Paper 48 (PTAB 2015), Patent Owner’s officer threatened to publicly shame Petitioner’s expert witness by filing a baseless legal action. In this case, however, the Board concluded that the unauthorized ex parte contact with the expert did not affect his testimony; and therefore, denied to the motion for sanctions.
Ignoring the Board’s instructions may also invite sanctions. In Shire Develop. LLC v. Lucerne Biosci, LLC, IPR2014-00739, Paper 33(PTAB 2015), after the Board ordered that all papers be signed by Patent Owner’s counsel of record, the Patent Owner sent an email directly to the Board stating that their counsel was not authorized to represent it in any matter. In response, the Board authorized the Patent Owner’s counsel to withdraw and ordered the Patent Owner to update its mandatory notice designating new counsel within five days. The Patent Owner failed to comply, and the Board determined that the party abandoned the contest and entered an adverse judgment.
Sanctions for Violation of Protective Orders
The Board has granted sanctions for violation of protective orders. In RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, IPR2015-01750, Paper 58 (PTAB 2016), the Board determined that disclosures to Patent Owner’s counsel in related litigation and to the Patent Owner’s president violated the protective order in place. The sanctions granted required the Patent Owner to compel the unauthorized recipients of the confidential information to declare that the information was destroyed, explain its use and to swear not to use it, protect the confidential information going forward and to compensate the attorney’s fees for addressing the violation. The Board also modified the protective order to exclude the Patent Owner’s corporate officers from receiving the Petitioner’s confidential information. However, the Board has also denied sanctions for violations of protective orders where the APJs determine the requester has suffered no harm. See, e.g., Snap-On Inc. v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., IPR2015-01242, Paper 70 (Sept. 20, 2016). The Board suggested that parties seeking to use discovery received under a protective order should instead consider if it is otherwise obtainable by routine or additional discovery, or alternatively seek modification of the protective order. Barring that, the Board counseled parties to rely on public information whenever possible.
Sanctions for Failing to Disclose Relating Proceedings and Real Parties-in- Interest
The duty to report related proceedings is set out in 37 C.F.R. 42.8(b)(2), which requires a notice identifying any other judicial or administrative matter that would affect or be affected by a decision in the proceeding. The mandatory notice must identify the real party-in-interest and related matters. If there is a change, the information must be updated within twenty-one days of the change. 37 C.F.R. 42.8(a)(2). The rule also requires parties in a parallel District Court proceeding to notify that Court of any related post-grant and reexam proceedings. The purpose of this rule is to avoid conflicting outcomes in a co-pending review proceeding, reexamination, reissue or pending patent application.
The Board has authorized a motion for sanctions for petitioner’s failure to update mandatory notice following a change in real party-in-interest due to a corporate merger that occurred after the hearing but before the final written decision was issued. During trial in Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc., IPR2015-00826, Paper 39 (PTAB 2016), the Petitioner (Atlanta Gas Light Co.) became a wholly owned subsidiary of The Southern Company, but failed to timely file an updated mandatory notice. Failing to disclose the corporate merger before the final decision was issued, was viewed as an attempt to preserve the ability to file another IPR petition as the Southern Company, if the final decision produced an unfavorable result. Further, the possibility existed that the Board could reverse or modify its decision; and therefore, prudent steps needed to be taken to ensure the estoppel provisions would be correctly applied. The Board awarded costs and fees incurred in association with this proceeding from the time after the issuance of the Final Written Decision to the decision on the motion for sanctions.
The Board is more concerned about avoiding conflicting outcomes in co-pending proceedings to the same patent than in a co-pending patent application. For example, the Board did not sanction a patent owner for failing to disclose its divisional application because the petitioner did not show it was prejudiced. Dynamic Drinkware LLC v. National Graphics, Inc., IPR2013-00131, Paper 31 (PTAB 2014). In addition, the Board declined to suspend prosecution of progeny applications based on patent owner estoppel because no claim in the applications was patentably indistinct from claims being reviewed. Chi Mei Innolux Corp. v. Patent of Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co., Ltd., IPR2013-00028, Paper 9 (PTAB 2012).
District Courts have also sanctioned parties for failing to notify the court of proceedings before the Patent Office. In Allflex USA, Inc. v. Avid Identification Sys. Inc., No. 06-1109, Paper450 (C.D. Cal. 2009), the court sanctioned the defendant and its counsel for failing to inform the court about a reexamination proceeding. Two years after the reexam was filed, the court learned of the proceeding, stayed the case and sanctioned the defendant. In a case before the Eastern District of Virginia, the court noted it should have been notified as soon as an IPR petition was filed. While the court complained that counsel failed to comply with a duty of candor and good faith, the court chose not to impose formal sanctions. See Virginia Innovation Sci., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 983 F. Supp. 2d 713, 760 (E.D. Va. 2014).
Based on the decisions identified above, the Board appears hesitant to authorize motions for sanctions and when it does authorize such a motion, the motions typically have been denied. Timeliness of the request for leave to move for sanctions is a major factor; and therefore, it is very important to contact the Board immediately after the alleged misconduct occurs. Moreover, the Board is more likely to grant sanctions if the activity clearly violated instructions from the Board, or if a pattern of bad behavior occurs after a warning. The panel advised it is unlikely the Board will impose sanctions and it is important not to rely sole on this potential remedy.
I got on the site just now, no new entries.
Here is an add from yesterday
Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Motion Motion Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice - Verified Petition Wed 10:18 AM
MOTION/VERIFIED PETITION for Permission to Practice Pro Hac Vice by Kevin N. Malek and DESIGNATION of Local Counsel Kurt R. Bonds (Filing fee $ 250 receipt number 0978-4977008) by Plaintiff Voip-Pal.com, Inc.. (Bonds, Kurt)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/10694512/VoipPalcom,_Inc_v_Apple,_Inc
How about a little 'Stairway to Heaven' as well
Thanks GTCar!
Just logged in. Nothing new posted
Just an observation that AT&T/Verizon and Twitter list same local Counsel - Michael D. Rounds
Well said GreenBackClub!
Well said!
As per the pr dated January 16th. 2017 - Voip-Pal.com Inc Provides Update on Recent Company Development
"Voip-Pal has filed its response to Apple’s motion for sanctions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The response can be viewed on www.voip-pal.com. A decision from the PTAB is expected in the month of February."
As per the transcript of proceedings 12/19/2017 listed on the PTAB,
Appl's legal sez
"No actions were taken by Apple or the board with respect to that letter. We didn't take any action in response to that letter because we had no reason to believe that it had any impact."
Thank you for sharing this with all of us. Go VPLM!
Thanks for sharing this. Go VPLM!
I believe it was a requirement of the lawsuits to update the judge on the status of these cases. That is what the joint status report is.
Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Nevada District Court
Judge: Richard F Boulware, II
Referred: Cam Ferenbach
Case #: 2:16-cv-00260
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 15:1126 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: Feb 09, 2016
Docket
Parties (2)
Docket last updated: 11 hours ago
Friday, January 26, 2018
misc Status Report Fri 4:09 PM
Joint STATUS REPORT by Defendant Apple, Inc.. (McCue, Michael)
misc Certificate Interested Parties Fri 1:56 PM
CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties by Apple, Inc.. There are no known interested parties other than those participating in the case (McCue, Michael)
Locksmith Financial Corporation, Plaintiff(s) vs. VOIP-Pal.Com Inc, Defendant(s)
Case No. A-15-717491-C
11/16/2017 Stipulation and Order
Stipulation and Order for Extension of Time to Extend Discovery Deadline Dates (and Trial) (First Request)
11/20/2017 Notice of Entry of Order
Notice of Entry of Order
12/19/2017 Amended
Amended Stipulation and Order for Extension of Time to Extend Discovery Deadline Dates (First Request)
01/08/2018 Amended Notice of Taking Deposition
First Amended Notice of Taking Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of TK Investment
01/08/2018 Amended Notice of Taking Deposition
First Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Terry Kwan
01/08/2018 Amended Notice of Taking Deposition
First Amended Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Richard G. Kipping
01/08/2018 Amended Notice of Taking Deposition
First Amended Notice of Taking Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Locksmith Financial Corporation, Inc.
01/18/2018 CANCELED Pretrial/Calendar Call (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
Vacated
02/05/2018 CANCELED Jury Trial (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
Vacated
08/16/2018 Pre Trial Conference (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
09/04/2018 Jury Trial (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
Allegations of ex parte PTAB Communications raise more questions of due process, APA violations
By Steve Brachmann
January 25, 2018
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/01/25/ex-parte-ptab-due-process-apa-violations/id=92518/
New post on vplm website
Voip-Pal.com, Inc. Provides Update on Recent Company Developments
Voip-Pal retains New York IP attorney Kevin Malek to head its litigation efforts
January 16, 2018 -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to provide an update of its recent activities.
The Company has filed its annual report, Form 10-K with the SEC for the year ending September 30, 2017. The report can be viewed on www.voip-pal.com
Voip-Pal has filed its response to Apple’s motion for sanctions with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The response can be viewed on www.voip-pal.com. A decision from the PTAB is expected in the month of February.
Kevin Malek, Managing Member of New York City law firm, Malek Moss PLLC, has been retained as the Company’s head intellectual property litigator. He gained complex litigation and intellectual property experience working in the New York offices of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. Mr. Malek is well regarded for his litigation and transactional experience and routinely acts as advisor and counsel to various information technology companies. He has been recognized in various recent editions of Super Lawyers and by Benchmark Litigation as a “Rising Star.” Kevin received his law degree from Fordham University School of Law in New York City and his Ph.D. in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from the University of California, Los Angeles. He will be working together with the previously retained attorneys from Alverson Taylor Mortenson & Sanders. Knobbe Martens continues to serve as Voip-Pal’s patent agent.
On January 26, 2018, the Company’s legal counsel will make a formal request to the Federal District Court in Nevada to lift the stay of legal proceedings, which was agreed to by the parties pending the outcome of the IPR’s, Once the stay is lifted they will resume litigation vs. Apple, Verizon and AT&T.
Emil Malak, CEO of Voip-Pal, stated, “We are extremely pleased with our reply to Apple’s motion for sanctions. We invite everyone to read the reply and draw their own conclusions.”
Mr. Malak also said, “Kevin is an excellent intellectual property litigator and we are fortunate to have him on our team. We look forward to receiving the PTAB’s decision soon, and to resuming our litigation in Nevada.”
Agree with you on Apple that they will drag this out for years but let's not forget about AT&T, Verizon and Twitter. I believe they will settle shortly after the judges decision.
Posted earlier today by johnnyblaze55 #46454
https://oracledispatch.com/2017/12/17/unstoppable-ascent-voip-pal-com-insh-otcmktsvplm/
Awsome post GBC!
I'm pretty sure it's up because of an announcement they made earlier today
"Twitter Says It Will Ban Threatening Accounts, Starting Today"
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/18/571622652/twitter-says-it-will-ban-threatening-accounts-starting-today
Merry Christmas & a prosperous New Year as well & to all!
Thanks DB! Well explained
Not sure if its in the works but hopefully we will also get these patents approved in the Asia Liuh intellectual property office. Could you imagine what those numbers in China would be. Go VPLM!
I agree with you V that they would be under unified. Would be surprised if they submit separate claim
Well said!
Great explanation!
Next date in the litigation
" Based on the foregoing, the parties agree, with the Court's permission, to stay this litigation pending the PTAB's issuance of final written decisions in IPR proceedings concerning the '815 and '005 patents. Specifically, the parties hereby agree to submit a status report ("Joint Status Report") to the Court by January 26, 2018, outlining the parties' respective positions on how the case should proceed in light of the PTAB's final written decisions. The parties further agree and stipulate to entry of an Order staying litigation in this matter until the Court reviews the Joint Status Report and makes a decision on how to proceed."
The difference however is from June 2013 through November 2016, VirnetX faced a barrage of 68 inter partes review (IPR) challenges at the PTAB.
Apple is listed as a petitioner on 42 of those IPR petitions.
Only one of those petitions resulted in a final written decision finding all claims patentable.
18 final written decisions found that all claims were unpatentable.
VirnetX is still fighting IPR's to this day
VPLM is 8 & 0 - A clean Sweep!
It definitely will be interesting how Apple responds!