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.
Reconsideration of an Order may not guarantee a change or reversal or the original order!
Legal standards for Amending or Altering of the original order are strict. It is not as easy as some would like to think. The company is perhaps getting ready to go to the Appeals court. jmo
https://www.detommasolawgroup.com/blog/2016/may/what-to-do-when-the-judge-gets-it-wrong-motions-/
May 03, 2016 By DeTommaso Law Group
If judges were perfect, we wouldn’t need a Court of Appeals. Unfortunately judges can and often do get issues wrong. Fortunately, however, there is a sliver of hope: the motion for reconsideration.
While it can be difficult to get a judge to think again on a decision he or she made just a short while beforehand, it is often possible with the right combination of factual and legal knowledge.
What Is a "Motion to Reconsider?"
A Motion for Reconsideration is a motion that you file when you want the judge to take a second look at a decision that you feel was incorrect.
A Motion for Reconsideration will not, however, be granted simply because you disagree with the outcome. There are legal standards governing reconsideration of pendente lite (a Latin term meaning “during the proceeding”) orders and final orders.
When Can You File a Motion for Reconsideration?
Court Rules govern Motions to Alter or Amend (a Judgment or an Order) and requires that the motion must be filed within 20 days after it has been received and must “state with specificity the basis on which it is made, including a statement of the matters or controlling decision which counsel believes the court has overlooked or as to which it has erred.”
Be warned, these standards are incredibly strict. Judges are frequently very busy, and motions for reconsideration are often used improperly by attorneys and unrepresented individual alike. Generally, motions for reconsideration are discretionary and should be granted in the interests of justice. However, judges are human beings like the rest of us, and therefore, they don’t like being told they were wrong. Expect the Court to take a good hard look at your motion for reconsideration to find ways it can be thrown out on a procedural technicality.
An attorney working on a motion for reconsideration or another procedural issue on a motion for reconsideration, at least with final orders, is that they cannot be used to “expand the record” and re-argue a motion.
A motion for reconsideration is designed to seek review of an order based on the evidence before the court on the initial motion. The Court is within its rights to bar you from introducing new evidence on a motion for reconsideration. You are stuck with what you gave the Court the first time around.
A tip for people that get access to the reconsideration #2 filing.
1) Do not get bogged by Hudnell's example of "one dog" vs. "multiple dogs" or past case citations. That example is artfully used for people like Albright who missed/erred the context of the original claim language in the patent. Was he not paying attention during the claim construction phase of the trial?
(USPTO, an the authority on patents, accepted the reexamination of RBR without changes! No issues with the context there! The most important aspect for Mr. Hudnell's team is how well they have to be prepared for the upcoming RBR patent cases vs TMUS and VZ under Judge Counts.)
2) Think of an example given my earlier post Re.: QCOM's CDMA technology to send multiple signals (location identifier and callee identifier) simultaneously via microprocessors (refer to flow diagrams in the patent!) whereas the "dumb ones" could have assumed the two signals are to be sent one after another by two successive commands. Caution: This argument sounds reasonable but we do not have Judge's explanation. So far the Judge has not explained!!!! Even the clueless one in NDCal used to state her arguments why she was denying against us.
Aside: The above example of erring on the context and the claim language comes close to another case in the Appeals court Uniloc vs. LG which was ruled negatively against Uniloc by none other than the clueless NDCal judge. We'll review it later how stupid the denial order was and why it was reversed confirming infringement against LG.
3) On the other hand, a question is whether Mr. Hudnell and his team did enough due diligence before the pre-trial? They say, "measure twice, cut once!"
Investors wonder whether My Hudnell's team "measured twice, thrice, four times..." before cutting? A fundamental question was while the patents have been proven solid, how they could not have convinced the Judge of an infringement?
For those seeking to access the court filing, you sign up at the company web site to receive all company news. All future communications, (not this one) comes to your email address.
Over a decade, investors have been using this feature to receive notification from all companies. Simple!
Strange to hear that the "without the prejudice" clause had to be requested by a plaintiff. Really strange!
The so called "plaintiff friendly" Judge would need a plaintiff's request to rule that way?
Had he not erred previously in a case vs. AMZN and reversed himself, after 10 or more min of consultations with some "higher powers" and recommended settlement discussion?
Poor investors like do not have the access to see the sealed documents. But, if those docs are open to public a bunch of our non-lawyer investors can figure out where the infringement occurred, how many instances, and give the Judge of a list of infringements, FOR FREE!
BTW, these matters are not that hard like some hotshot attorneys make it out to be. Example: the clueless one in NDCal. Innocent investors believe them because they are the lawyers (or say liars)!
Bravo!
Agree!
Encouraging to see the defendants taking a different strategy "how much do they owe?"
SOu812,
You are exactly right! Posted from memory this afternoon. Went back later and checked my notes. Yes, you are right. Details below.
Reconsideration #1 (claim construction language)
reposting - https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171422464
rapz Re: GreenBackClub post# 114710 Saturday, March 11, 2023 7:27:24 PM Post# 114715 of 114715
Expecting to see this:
"Friday, March 10, 2023
89 motion Reconsideration Fri 03/10 11:58 PM
Opposed MOTION for Reconsideration re87 Claim Construction Order by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC..(Hudnell, Lewis)"
Seeing the disappointed look on Mr. Hudnell during the last Markman hearing (Zoom call) when the Judge took a long time to deny VPLM's argument for retaining one of three elements viz. "time-to-live".
Inventors like to keep their claims as broad as possible to catch more infringement violations. Hope the judge is now convinced VPLM's argument and rules in VPLM's favor. It is not a big deal if he doesn't . VPLM got most of their claim.
Reconsideration #2 Summary judgement of noninfringement vs. TMUS and VZ
================
Reconsideration - https://www.detommasolawgroup.com/blog/2016/may/what-to-do-when-the-judge-gets-it-wrong-motions-/
May 03, 2016|
By DeTommaso Law Group
If judges were perfect, we wouldn’t need a Court of Appeals. Unfortunately ... judges can and often do get issues wrong . Fortunately, however, there is a sliver of hope: the motion for reconsideration.
While it can be difficult to get a judge to think again on a decision he or she made just a short while beforehand, it is often possible with the right combination of factual and legal knowledge.
What Is a "Motion to Reconsider?"
A Motion for Reconsideration is a motion that you file when you want the judge to take a second look at a decision that you feel was incorrect.
A Motion for Reconsideration will not, however, be granted simply because you disagree with the outcome. There are legal standards governing reconsideration of pendente lite (a Latin term meaning “during the proceeding”) orders and final orders....
Do VPLM patents rely only on WiFi Or are there other ways to send signals?
In the RBR reexamination report, VPLM explained their technology in terms of a "combination of network elements" and how improper arrangement of these elements would fail signal transmission and the communication over internet protocol. There is a history of TMobile's HotSpot device failing in the early years, according to Mr. Hudnell.
Thinking about why Judge Albright issued a summary judgement of noninfringement, one wonders if TMUS and VZ networks used a signal technology different from WiFi! Are there other means to send signals?
The current reconsideration motion gave the answer. MG Patent covers all ways of sending the signal, a broad set of devices used, one or more messages can sent (location and callee identifier) etc. If someone has a home wifi or GPRS network it comes under VPLM MG patent.
"...page 17 and 18
claim 62 of the ’234
patent indicates that the step of “receiv [ing]” can be performed by a “system” with a “processor circuit,” which, according to the specification, could be a plurality of microprocessors and other components, and need not be integrated into a single device or server or port.28
claim 63 recites “... to cause said access code request message to be received.”29 Whether the access code request message is received in one transmission or many is irrelevant. The detailed description is even more explicit that a wide variety of technologies and techniques could be used to send or receive the access code request message:
In general, preferably block 106 directs the microprocessor 52 to cause an access code request message to be transmitted to the access server 14 over a non-voice network, such as an internet, using WiFi or GPRS technology for example. However, it will be appreciated that block 106 may direct the microprocessor 52 to transmit an access code request message to the access server 14 using any suitable technique, which may alternatively include a voice network, for example.”30 In addition to “WiFi or GPRS networks,” “other embodiments may use different techniques for receiving the access code request message (110) from the mobile telephone (12).”31 It is apparent that the patentee contemplated any alternative embodiments of underlying technology and techniques to provide broad flexibility in how to send or receive the access code request message.32
To the extent that the Court imposed a “packaging” requirement for how, where, or when an access code request message’s callee identifier and location identifier are transmitted or received, this requirement is inconsistent with the weight of this intrinsic evidence, which evidences no such restrictions..."
Thank you for posting.
This motion sounds like a similar reconsideration motion in the past vs. AMZN wherein, on a zoom call, they discussed a line of code: callee.xx.yyy.zzz
The discussion was about arguments required to identify and reach the callee being away from his/her cell phone.
1) callee's no.
2) a phone no. that the callee had redirected his/her calls from his/her phone while being away
3) callee's voice msg code
4) time-to-live meaning how long the caller's phone should wait for a response from callee's device
Mr. Hudnell said that just one argument (callee ID?) was sufficient for the computer code to track the callee and connect.
AMZN argued they need more than one, for example "time-to-live".
Judge Albright had trouble accepting it - the simplicity of it! He retired to the Judge's Chamber. Took longer than 5 or more minutes and returned. AND he reversed his decision and began settlement discussion. That delay sowed doubts in his understanding of the MG patent technology. Judge Albright could not believe the simplicity of VPLM code!
A similar situation may prevail in the current Reconsideration motion vs. TMUS and VZ. Hudnell's argument is that:
"...the Court did not identify any contextual elements in the asserted claims that require a single access code request message to have a callee identifier and a location identifier. Thus, the asserted claims may be read to allow for one or more access code request messages that collectively include a callee identifier and a location identifier."
TMUS, VZ or Judge Albright erred in the interpretation of a single access code request message. Hudnell says "one or more messages (say, attributes) can be sent not a single message.
How is it possible? Let us remember how QCOM's CDMA patented technology works - a technology widely used all over the globe.
Code Division Multiplex Access - CDMA. Before CDMA, we sent a signal from the cell phone, wait for the signal to reach the callee and wait for the callee to respond with another signal. CDMA technology allowed two signals to travel in succession, one wave accompanying (milli sec) the original wave.. so several signals can be sent. Could Hudnell explain his argument this way or he has a better way to convince Judge Albright? Unfortunately the docs are sealed.
Hope Judge Albright reverses himself a second time and finds infringement. That was the reason why in an earlier post responding to the summary judgement, it was hinted the Judge Albright was trying to figure out the infringement. Wish Judge Albright takes more time understanding our patents, the technologies involved and rules in our favor. Keeping fingers crossed.
Waited for the company to explain the summary judgement of MG patent non-infringement. But we hear about the RBR patent cases under Judge Counts in Waco TX District Court. These RBR cases were filed last year while Judge Albright was trying hard to figure out the MG patent infringement by TMUS and VZ. Under Judge Counts the company seems to take a different but aggressive approach by issuing summons for the defendants to appear in court. Strange that the Judge has accommodated Mr. Hudnell's request. Under Albright, we methodically went through Idea record, Claim Construction, Discovery, etc. Can we expect the same path under Judge Counts?
The RBR patent went through a rigorous re-examination under USPTO' s the local expert Mr. David England who allowed the RBR patent without any changes, also allowed 8 new claims to be added, and further agreed with the company's defense against the Alice Issue. On Alice issue, the company said that the prior art cited as examples of the Alice Issue of "non-obviousness" were simply technologically incorrect, They were merely guesses without proof or data, from the inventors like Mermel, Bedingfield, Koch, and Min et al. This type of nonsense is common in the IP world - idea without proof or data! To conclude: no Alice, all original claims of the RBR patent are in tact, without modification, AND 8 brand new claims added to broaden the field of invention. All good, right! No so fast! Judges do not appear to be technologically savvy, regardless of how their erroneous ruling arising from their poor knowledge affects US businesses.
AMZN is facing the same ex parte reexamination RBR patent case under Albright? Judge Counts better take the AMZN RBR case too and allow more time for Judge Albright to figure out the MG patent infringement issue.
Posted part of RBR case filing on this board, reviewing how the phone companies evolved from a dial operated phone to push button and digital phones. During the evolution process, VPLM found a niche to introduce their technology and successfully demonstrated. It is time to review the rest of the filing and the aggressive demands for a jury trial, heavily emphasizing "willful infringement".
The RBR is the foundation of the company's technology, VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCAL or VOIP-PAL A question is whether Judge Counts will go through similar IP validation steps or distracted by motion after motion from TMUS and VZ objecting and complaining? Will Judge Counts analyze RBR claims like Judge Brantley in North Texas, analyzed methodically Justice Roberts' two step Alice test and arrived at the RIGHT CONCLUSION - RULE OUT ALICE!
A question about the anti-trust case in DC Dist of Columbia - Why pick on AT&T? Was it to remind their past operation as a monopoly before they were split up into 6 phone companies that later merged into new business entities like Verizon, etc.?
I did and read. Thanks for sharing. I don't use PM, so no response yet. Appreciate all positive comments.
Prefer posting messages openly for public use, on patent and court filings issues.
That is the way to do it! Strengthened 606 patent without the baggage of Alice 101 which every Tom, Dick and Harry on the defendants team has been chanting. Thank you for posting. Remember the same 606 RBR patent will be used against TMobile and Verizon trials to be scheduled. Even introduce NDT court judge Brantley Starr's ruling on Alice 101 analysis for Huawei case.
3 RBR cases. RBR infringement damages is likely to be much higher because the patent covers larger area of technology unlike the MG patent. jmo.
hover,
I got it! Thanks for responding. There are reasons to be optimistic. Again wishes for good health and prosperity to you and your family!
Hi chazzy1,
Your information is just the "MEDICINE" we need. Could you post a link to this news?
That is really who Judge Albright is. He is plaintiff friendly. Since it is all in sealed documents the company certainly does not want the defendants know their strategy. Glad to see our MG patent cases could be alive and well. Certain shareholders lost hope and jumped to negative views. Isn't it odd Albright issues summary judgement now but keeps his mouth shut for AMZN!
Brain Aneurysm surgery. Seeking a poster who responded to my post with a message about his Brain Aneurysm surgery and his hopes for keeping his VPLM stock for his kids. Searched but could not find it. I like to share with you a rumor (strictly a rumor) about a potential business entity expressed interest in VPLM RBR patents issued from India. Check other posts of mine for more information. Good luck!
A section of the post shifted. Correct version follows:
Still researching about the summary judgement of non-infringement and talking to a few IP attorneys. There are ways to deal with a summary judgement. BUT we need to know Albright's basis for issuing summary judgement of noninfringement. The general opinion was that it comes across as a weird move to issue a summary judgment, considering he reacted positively to our re consideration motion (recall the zoom call).
Talking about weirdness, did he get "cold feet" to see huge damages, say 1-2B? Can not be so!
Just 2-3 years ago he awarded $2.2 billion damage award for infringement against Intel. That case went to the appeal court. It was a jury trial. If the jury had found the infringement was willful would he have awarded 3 times greater award? Who knows?
The patent law gives the judge flexibility and full power to decide the award amount without a limit.
July 29, Summary judgement of non-infringement!
A bolt from the blue! An unexpected shock to all investors following the cases.
So far, the judge has allowed several of plaintiff's motions in several stages:
claim construction, discovery, no mention of Alice issue, experts for testimony, replacing the consultant Mr. Salk, Reconsideration of MG patent case vs AMZN, venue issue, etc. We have no information about the damages reports from both parties. Could he not get both parties to agree on a compromise?
On the defendants' side the Judge denied many motions (some explicit and the rest non-public) against defendants' shenanigans.
TMobile court filings:
1. invalidate our patent - DENIED!
2. Mention of Alice - Didn't acknowledge.
3. Reproduction of all documents, 1000's of emails, and logs of all phone conversations between Emil and wife/kids... so on, - Plaintiff provided!
4. Wanted the Judge to sanction our patents and maybe impose a penalty - Nothing happened
5. INEQUITABLE CONDUCT! - no idea of how the Judge dealt with this issue. Has it "morphed" into a possible legal snag that the judge can not figure out? The Judge has to explain. Is he not clear about certain section of the law and does not want to issue a defective ruling for anyone - plaintiff or defendants?
Verizon filings:
1. These guys never look beyond their nose. They keep harping on Alice issue. Didn't they read Judge Brantley's (NDTX) legal analysis debunking Huawei's Alice issue complaint. Do their Attorneys have difficulty with reading comprehension? In their request for "re examination" of MG patents they complained again to USPTO about the Alice issue.
Many investors following the cases know all of this history and more. Can anyone guess what legal snag that this judge came across in the pretrial stage that triggered "GRANTING a summary judgement of non-infringement"? Why he kept his mouth shut all this time about non-infringement until now. He shut up his mouth in the case against AMZN. Why AMZN opted to settle the case if there was no infringement? Why did the judge gave a month for the settlement talks? What was he thinking then? Sealed documents do not help.
Still researching about the summary judgement of non-infringement and talking to a few IP attorneys. There are ways to deal with a summary judgement. BUT we need to know Albright's basis for issuing summary judgement of noninfringement. The general opinion was that it comes across as a weird move to issue a summary judgment, considering he reacted positively to our re consideration motion (recall the zoom call).
Talking about weirdness, did he get "cold feet" to see huge damages, say 1-2B? Can not be so! It was a jury trial. If the jury had found the infringement was willful would he have awarded 3 times greater award? Who knows? The patent law gives the judge flexibility and full power to decide the award amount without a limit. Just 2-3 years ago he awarded $2.2 billion damage award for infringement against Intel. That case went to the appeal court.
Investors believe that all of Mr. Hudnell's filings so far have been pretty solid; his filings did not raise questions or objections from the Judge. Even if Mr. Hudnell has to go to Federal Appeals court for clarification of any legal impediment the judge came across, he needs Judge Albright's legal opinion first, explaining the legal basis for granting a summary judgement in both cases - TMUS and VZ. We are waiting. The company and the defendants are waiting for the Judge's opinion. The judge just hit the "pause button" in the middle of a show. Why?
The company's legal team has to know what action to take to address any deficiencies on their side. It is still in the Pre Trial stage. The plaintiff's legal team can try some options:
1) "reconsideration" which may take 2-3 weeks for Judge Albright to obtain a legal opinion for himself and decide
2) if the Judge Albright does not like to seek help himself, the plaintiff can approach the Federal court asking for help to clear any ambiguity in the law.
In any case, the judgement is "without prejudice". That means the plaintiff can file the same MG cases again vs. TMUS and VZ, and go from there. It is like the Judge hitting a "pause button" in the middle of a show. If the judge shows a valid reason for granting a summary judgement, we can proceed with the RBR cases. Instead of getting mad at the Judge, it is better to understand whether the Judge acted out of caution from issuing a legally defective ruling and ruin his reputation as well as ruin plaintiff's chance of success.
Rumor of a buyout?
The new website appears to be focused to help prospective "buyers" of this company and prospective "WallSt type" investors: all stock and financial information on a single web site. That was the first impression!
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174829181
Nov 1, 2023 VoIP-Pal.com Inc. Receives Two New Patent Grants in India - Wed, Nov 1, 2023
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/voip-pal-com-inc-receives-120000507.html
12/04/2023 ... Additionally, the company has received interest from potential parties following the announcement of two new RBR continuation patent grants in India. (unable to locate the primary news link.)
The company also stated that the smart phone count in India is 4 times greater than the 390 million phones in USA. Does it mean the potential buyer is from India? It is not clear whether they are buying a partial section of the IP that includes the two Indian patents rights or a major portion of the company's IP for the world-wide use (Europe and Mid Western Arab countries).
Or the buyer could be from US. When the news is released, it'll be clear.
Imagine an outline of events (guessing): Assuming the potential interest in Dec 2023, developed into a serious interest. Maybe negotiations began right after Dec, 4, 2023. Due diligence was done and all paperwork reviewed by attorneys from both parties over a few months. As part of the review process, the company decided to revamp their web site to include only the essential business data, not the patent and IPR history, etc. In due course, a serious offer was made, negotiated, and accepted. The employees were busy over the last couple of months putting together the paperwork for SEC, etc. If all the terms are reviewed by the attorneys and agreed, the company may release the news soon, (a few weeks, not months!)
Hay Day - Your friend Carnac came by yesterday and asked me about you! He couldn't find you. Since he was in a hurry, he asked me to give you this message and flew away in a jiffy! "Hay Day! The announcement of a buy is imminent! You and your shareholder friends will make plenty of $ in a few weeks!) We hope Carnac's message comes true this time! Keep fingers crossed and hope for the best!
The new website appears to be focused to help prospective "buyers" of this company and prospective "WallSt type" investors: all stock and financial information on a single web site. That was the first impression!
Could this be a sign of their confidence in the strength of their cases and their future business strategy? The web site provides all pertinent stock and financial data, and includes links to OTC/QB web page for additional info such as SEC filings, etc. The old lists of patents, technology highlights, IPR's, etc. disappeared or probably "buried" somewhere. They probably think such historical information may not be relevant to a prospective buyers.
Wish someone did proof reading before loading the first page.
Str8t-talk,
Thanks for posting this link. It is a nice summary of VPLM cases in WDTX until the current debacle of figuring out the infringement damages, experts, etc. Although these events were covered and reported in this forum and elsewhere over the years, the time gaps between those reports make it difficult to stay in the investor's memory. A nice summary like this one, helps.
The infringement damages are quite large, confirming infringement by defendants. Justice Roberts recommended willful infringement has to be "punished" with triple damages. Judge Albright has been fighting for the plaintiffs for many years. He knows about defendants' tricks and their evasive arguments like "venue", "Alice 101", etc. But he also is careful about being fair so that the large damage is not "ruined" or cancelled at the Appeals court level. The company is determined to go for the triple damages as guided by US Section 35 patent law: "RECOVERY OF REASONABLE ROYALTIES".
Who decides the reasonableness? The patent law gives the Judge that power. The law does not put a ceiling on the amount of damages he/she can award. There were examples in court proceedings in Maryland and elsewhere. We can assume that he has seen the damages reports from all parties, maybe in the sealed envelopes, and perhaps held discussions, etc.
As many have guessed there were disagreements about the use of certain infringement assessment experts. Such issues are as dumb as the Alice issues to invalidate the VPLM patents. As long as the attorneys for the defendants can accumulate their billable hours at $400-500/hr, the so called attorneys will continue throwing any silly issue to waste court's time. But Judge Albright is capable of handling them all. So investors hope and wait.
Clarification: 3 RBR cases
Judge Counts - Two RBR cases vs. VZ and TMUS
Judge Albright - One RBR case vs. AMZN
RBR 606 patent cases against VZ and TMUS were filed quite a while ago.
U.S. District Judge David Counts
200 East Wall, Midland, TX 79701
Totally three RBR cases are pending: AMZN, VZ, TMUS.
TWO MG cases are in progress. Trial dates were canceled, not dismissed as many have already guessed.
Conflicts with damages, expert testimonies, the use of specific infringement models should have been sorted out during or before the pre-trial. A big reason a defendant would back out of a jury trial is the risk of triple damages; or they might have other reasons.
Summary of RBR lawsuits vs. VZ and T Mobile - Part 1
As investors prepare for the news about developments in the upcoming pre-trials and subsequently the actual trials vs. VZ and TMUS on Mobile Gateway patent infringement cases, several opinions will start floating. Be that as it may, the bottom line advice from successful investors like Peter Lynch and others, is quite simple: "know the company in which you invest." Next comes the question: how well fellow investors know about Voip-Pal (VPLM), the company they have invested in, or about their patents or the underlying technologies. Many have heard about their patents and technologies viz. RBR, Mobile Gateway, and others; how many know the market value of these technologies or patents - $10 or $10 Billion; does the current market price of 1-2 cents/share justify a profit potential by selling at 10 cents or $2 when good news is announced; why the company won 36 out 36 IPR's without losing a single claim; how they successfully defended the RBR patent Reexamination, besides adding 8 new claims as well as burying the Alice issue in the process; how well Judge Brantley (TXND Northern Dist) analyzed the Alice issue raised by Huawei and buried the Alice issue deep on Huawei's (attorneys) face; while the MG patent cases are just about to start, why the company already filed RBR patent cases vs. Verizon, Amazon, and TMobile, that might be heading to Judge David Counts court (TXWD) and/or Judge Albright in (TXWD Western Dist) courts in Waco. There are at least 3 defendants in Texas District courts: Verizon, T Mobile, and Amazon, all of whom are being sued for infringing two technologies, namely Mobile Gateway (2 patents - '234, '721 ), and RBR technology (3 patents - '815, '905, '606). The MG patent cases vs. AMZN and Huawei were settled with no information about licensing or the actual damages recovered. Huawei is presumed to be in negotiations with VPLM about technology collaboration, perhaps in EU (Vodafone?) and China.
A new attorney W. D. Ellerman with Appellate experience has been added to VPLM’s legal team. Since the company has no revenue and very little cash on the books, has anyone wondered how this company is paying these attorneys and consultants, court fees, USPTO fees for maintaining their patents, employment benefits for a handful of workers, etc. ? In cash or in company's penny stock? If the company paid in cash, how they got the cash? An obvious answer is Equity Financing - company's penny stock buy/sell transactions by insiders and qualified private investors! Historically they raised $2.5 million by selling stock and filed their IP cases vs. Apple et al., first in Nevada around 2017 or so. Using the Heartland's venue ruling, the cases were moved to clueless, arrogant Northern California district courts, heavily influenced by infringers in the Silicon Valley and wasted their $2.5 million equity. Some folks feel "hot" under the collar about the insider sales/buy transactions. But how else this company can pay the fees and court expenses and carry on with the trials? If they can not pay, should they dismiss all cases and shut down their operation, turning serious investors into losers? A class action lawsuit will add more losers. But the company appears to have decided to "bite the bullet" and raise equity with the goal of continuing the trials to the end and win. There is a good probability of winning the cases and recovering infringement damages. Wait and see.
Historically Judge Albright court allows 3 months for a trial. The Appeals court may take 2-3 months or less, not years! The most recent writ of Mandamus filed by AMZN against Judge Albright regarding the venue transfer issue was ruled in a couple of months or less, with a praise for Judge Albright on how fair he was in conducting the case. Court procedures practiced in Texas do NOT look as shabby as those followed in the clueless, arrogant Courts of Northern California, under the influence of the Silicon Valley infringers.
One way of judging this company's stock value is to see how much the market is willing to pay to acquire it: 10 cents/share or $100/share (purposely exaggerated). When the courts announce the final infringement damages amount at the end of each of the four trials and after a possible Appeals process pursued by the defendants and finally ruled, the market would get an idea of what this company's share is worth. As the CEO says "patience is virtue." Jumping conclusion: settlement or buyout is fruitless. Serious trial outcome is to be a guilty verdict with infringement damages award, so that it will get the attention of defendant's company Board of Directors.
With the above background as the starting point, let us review what the technology landscape was when the company entered the telephone networking business, the various challenges they met and innovative solutions they developed leading to several patents.
BACKGROUND AND HIGHLIGHTS OF RBR TECHNOLOGY PATENTS CASES
Here is a summary of RBR technology patents background and case highlights from Mr. Hudnell's court filings. Reading the actual filings is recommended.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:24-cv-299 VPLM vs. Verizon
US Patent 8,542,815 (“the ’815 patent”), USP 9,179,005 ((“the ’005 patent”)
United States Patent No. 8,542,815 (“the ’815 patent”) entitled “Producing Routing Messages for Voice Over IP Communications” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on September 24, 2013, after full and fair examination.
United States Patent No. 9,179,005 (“the ’005 patent”) entitled “Producing Routing Messages for Voice Over IP Communications” was duly and legally issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on November 3, 2015, after full and fair examination. The ’815 and ’005 patents are referred to in this Complaint
Note: 12. Verizon also has submitted to jurisdiction in this District by asserting counterclaims against VoIP-Pal in Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-674-ADA, which is pending in this District.”
22. Rotary telephone dialing was introduced, around the turn of the 20th century; the rotary disk was marked with numbers from zero to nine. When one spins the disk (wheel) on the phone, a mechanical device in the telephone would cause a sequence of electrical pulses to be sent to the network corresponding to the digit dialed, for example, four pulses would be sent for the number four.
As multiple companies entered the market of Plain Old Telephone Service known as "POTS" and the number of customers increased, an issue emerged where a caller who is a customer of one telephone company would call a customer of another company. A solution to this problem was to introduce trunk lines connecting one company phone network to another. Eventually, as the number of companies and networks continued to increase and telephone services spread over much larger geographical areas, the notion of a Public Switched Telephone Network (“PSTN”) emerged. The PSTN developed gradually into the middle of the 20th century, still built around the notion of analog rotary dial telephones and POTS connections to the individual telephones.
The next important advancement introduced during the second half of the 20th century, was the replacement of analog voice services over rotary-dial phones by digital voice using push-button phones with a matrix of buttons, within a network. Push buttons labeled with digits from zero through nine along with the additions of ‘*’ and ‘#’ employed an underlying signaling technology called Dual-Tone Multiple-Frequency or “DTMF”. It involved two different audible tones being sent simultaneously by a telephone into the telephone network. A receiver within the network decoded these tones to form a sequence of digits indicating a callee’s ( callee = call recipient ) number.
Digital voice is communicated using a sequence of "data packets". This advance allowed physical resources to be shared among multiple calls over short bursts of time. For example, a physical wire can move a data packet for one call at a specific instance in time and then move another data packet for a totally different call subsequently, only to later return to transfer a new data packet for the original call. This advance is called "Packet-Switched Communications" providing an important increase in network reliability and efficiency while driving down the cost. However, in most situations throughout the 20th century and still today, the connection to the end user’s physical telephone is ANALOG!
Around this time, a scheme for international telephone addressing was introduced, with a numeric protocol for identifying one country from another and providing country-specific routing within the destination country.
The conversion between analog signals and digital encoding is typically done at the point where the PSTN network switch connects to the POTS telephone handset. For example, a device called a Class-5 telephone switch connects the customer POTS handset to the PSTN network at a service provider’s central office ie. T-Mobile or Verizon ISP locations.
While many advances such as DTMF dialing and automated international call routing were originally introduced via ad hoc methods, eventually they required multiple parties (companies as well as governments) to agree on protocols to enable widespread reliable use and inter-operability among different telephone communications networks (PSTN's). In other words, these networks were "islands" of communications networks or PSTN's without a reliable, inter-connecting technology. It is an opportune time for innovation and Digifonica (VoIP-Pal) entered the field!
Understanding how calls are connected to a callee or a web site location (e-commerce) is important for understanding VPLM's RBR patent claims, infringement accusations, and VPLM's attorney Mr. Hudnell's arguments in the trials.
How VOIP solved the problem and how their innovative solutions led to patents:
When the Internet became available for consumer use during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. The available internet bandwidth and its reliability increased to the point where pioneers began to experiment with techniques to carry voice communications over the Internet. These early efforts began to focus on techniques called Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and Session Initiation Protocol (SIP).
VoIP provided a consistent set of protocols and mechanisms for moving digital voice packets between two callers across digital networks over the Internet rather than the existing PSTN networks. (Note: VPLM seems to have first avoided PSTN's.) Eventually VoIP services began to provide interoperability with the existing PSTN services. In this case, the VoIP system included a gateway to bridge from the VoIP network to the PSTN network in order to route to the physical telephone. SIP provided a mechanism for establishing and terminating communication sessions, such as calls between users of a VoIP service. For example, a callee registered with a VoIP service could be associated with an identifier (such as their name, email address or a nickname) on the computer to which they were logged in. Calls that used a proprietary non-PSTN user identifier such as an email or nickname remained within the VoIP network and were not routed to the PSTN network and did not connect to a POTS telephone. VoIP system includes a gateway to bridge from the VoIP network to the PSTN network in order to route to the physical telephone.
Public Switched Telephone Network (“PSTN”)
26. The advent of VoIP technology allowed customers to physically move their telephones from one location to another, even from one continent to another, with no fundamental change in its operation from the point of view of a caller once a connection to the Internet was established.
However, the integration of network gateways to route between different types of networks using VoIP, for example from a VoIP caller in Europe to a PSTN callee in the United States, introduced a number of new complications.
How VPLM solved the problem (inside vs. outside VOP network) and got patents!
The VoIP service needed to be able to distinguish between callees that were within the VoIP network and those that were outside of VOIP network and thus required different methods for identifying callees and routing calls to them depending on whether the callees were within or outside the VoIP network. One way to identify callees on the VoIP network was to use a predefined proprietary user identifier such as an email or nickname. The VoIP service provider also needed to interpret the dialed PSTN numbers in order to correctly route the call to a PSTN callee.
A VoIP caller had to use different types of callee identifier depending on whether or not the destination (callee) they were calling was within the VoIP network or not. The caller’s choice of the type of callee identifier thus specified the network of the destination to be called. However, the Patents-in-Suit disclose and claim a distinct manner of call routing.
Digifonica, a wholly owned subsidiary of patent owner VoIP-Pal, starting in 2004, researched, developed, and tested a communication solution capable of seamlessly integrating a private voice-over-IP (“VoIP”) communication network with an external network (e.g., the “public switched telephone network” or “PSTN”), by bridging the disparate protocols, destination identifiers and addressing schemes used in the two networks. By the mid-2000’s, Digifonica had successfully tested intra- and inter-network communications (i.e., communications within the private, multi-node Digifonica system and between the Digifonica system and the PSTN) by implementing high-capacity communication nodes across three geographic regions, including actual working communication nodes in Vancouver (Canada) and London (UK). Digifonica’s R&D efforts led to a number of patent grants, including the Patents-in-Suit.
Note: Next post on OVERVIEW OF THE ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL, PRAYER FOR RELIEF - justification for "willful" infringement. Verizon and T Mobile-Sprint.
Attorney Appearance by William D. Ellerman on behalf of VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.. Attorney William D. Ellerman added to party VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
They got Ellerman with good Appellate court experience, because the company expects the case to move to the Appeals court, after T-Mobile and Verizon lose in the lower court (Judge Albright's court). If the jury rules willful infringement and if Judge Albright allows the larger damage including court expenses and attorney fees, interest, etc., defendants are likely to move to the Appeals court and argue against the verdict. VPLM is determined to get a favorable jury verdict on willful infringement which guarantees much larger damages. Keeping fingers crossed.
Toby
>>... explain in layman terms what exactly is a pretrial? ... <<
In absolute LAYMAN terms (tongue in cheek): it is a bar's LAST CALL for a "gut-check" for the defendants to decide if they want to escape a jury trial or run the risk of triple damages for "willful infringement" in the trial OR cop out behind a so called "Settlement" talk in order to pull wool the eyes of Mr. Hudnell and VPLM. Seriously, all of the Pretrial elements were already hashed several times in motions after motions. It is time for the defendants to face the music (trial) and accept the guilty verdict. Wait and see.
Hotspot (aka) Home internet
Hotspot
A device called Hotspot or Home Internet was introduced by TMobile with fanfare. But the device failed quickly. After a few years of redesigning and re-developing they brought it to market. Mr. Hudnell has questions about its history and perhaps will raise them in the upcoming trial. How they developed the software and hardware? Was there an infringement?
As you know the TMobile Hotspot handsets complying the UMA designation were quite expensive and not universal.
Where can you buy this device? The device goes for $40-$200 on Amazon and elsewhere.
https://products.bestreviews.com/best-wireless-hotspot-devices?yb&cid=650116252&aid=1252344392388121&eid=&tid=kwd-78271892938651:loc-190&ul=86985&mt=p&n=o&d=c&dm=&dt&sn&adid=&k=hotspot%20device&p=&pc=&ap=&chtrb=1
https://www.t-mobile.com/home-internet?cmpid=HEIS_PB_P_24HINT40PV_43700068505215571_&gclsrc=3p.ds
The Sprint Story
Don't forget Sprint!
Just before the cell phone company, Sprint, folded into T-Mobile, Sprint introduced a device called Hotspot. Old Sprint customers would have bought and tried to use it as "Home Internet". At about the time when Sprint was running into several infrastructure problems with installing Cell phone towers to cover the geographical areas they desperately want to cover, Verizon was running ads touting Verizon's vast areas of national coverage. Many would remember this ad.
Mr. Hudnell included Sprint as co-defendant in the recent RBR lawsuit filed in the WDTX court. He holds Sprint and all of its officers responsible for infringement damages with emphasis on "Willful infringement", (that is knowingly infringing a patented RBR technology after T-Mobile and Sprint were told by VPLM about their patent in a letter.
Settlement is useless without a public announcement of recovery of the actual damages and new licensing and royalty terms. If they can not pay the whole amount in one lump sum, defendants can raise cash by borrowing or selling their stock. Their Board of Directors would have a say.
If they do not agree to pay the damages and the licensing fees, Mr. Hudnell has indicated that VPLM would force "injunction" on all of their product sales in US. They will be stopped from selling in US. No sales, no revenue! Refer to US Code 35 on injunction. The injunction request is included in Mr. Hudnell's prayer.
The same situation exists for Verizon, even though they are still trying to use the "Alice" as an issue in the reexamination of MG patents. In the rebuttal on the RBR patent reexamination VPLM expert Dr. Cabrice started the rebuttal by pointing out how the Alice issue played a big role in NDCal cases and listed the specific claims that were rejected. Then it went on to discuss the deficiency of all prior arts used to justify the Alice issue: Mermel, Bedingfield, Koch, et al. Using prior art references haphazardly can backfire. VPLM won!
They can go to the Appeals court. The Appeals court did not object to Judge Albright's past rulings, as recently as the Venue issue from Amazon.
All of this is possible only if the Judge and the jury rule in VPLM's favor followed by a public announcement of the GUILTY VERDICT and the damages.
Keeping finger crossed and waiting.
Two major accusations from T-Mobile:
VPLM winning 36 out 36 IPR's without losing a single claim is one thing. Going beyond the IPR win, taking a closer look at some details of VPLM MG patents may be of interest to investors.
T-MOBILE’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO ADD ALLEGATIONS OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
Case 6:21-cv-00674-ADA Document 84 Filed 02/06/23
Two major accusations from T-Mobile:
(1) incomplete prior art -
T-Mobile complains that T-Mobile's wi-fi calling system, HotSpot@Home System, existing in 2006 was ignored in prior art by VPLM when filing for MG patents in 2008. Out of two pages of prior art that VPLM included in the two MG patents '234 and '721, the patent examiner cited 4 references on each patent filing. See below what the law requires for prior art.
(2) False "inventorship" by including Emil Malak as an inventor. (Skip item 2 for now.)
What is Prior Art?
US patent law is the only reliable source of information. 35 U. S. Code defines Prior Art as follows.
2121 Prior Art; General Level of Operability Required to Make a Prima Facie Case [R-08.2017]
I. PRIOR ART IS PRESUMED TO BE OPERABLE/ENABLING
When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to rebut the presumption of operability.
II. WHAT CONSTITUTES AN “ENABLING DISCLOSURE” DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE TYPE OF PRIOR ART THE DISCLOSURE IS CONTAINED IN
The level of disclosure required within a reference to make it an “enabling disclosure” is the same no matter what type of prior art is at issue. It does not matter whether the prior art reference is a U.S. patent, foreign patent, a printed publication or other. (... Skip the remaining sections of Section 2121 for now... Let us focus on enablement issue.)
The law presumes prior art is required to be enabling all of the elements underlying invention of a patent application. There is no mention of T-Mobile's patent application that required enabling?
T- Mobile's UMA (Unlicensed Mobile Access) designation.
"T-Mobile has operated a Wi-Fi calling system that uses “DNS queries” since 2006...
...inventors and patent applicant never disclosed T-Mobile’s prior art Wi-Fi calling service (“HotSpot@Home”) to the Patent Office during its six years of prosecution."
"...HotSpot@Home was based off the Unlicensed Mobile Access (“UMA”) specification, a technical standard developed by multiple telecommunications companies (including T-Mobile) meant to provide alternative access to cellular networks through IP-based broadband connections — i.e., the Internet. Because HotSpot@Home used the Internet, it required the use of Domain Name System (“DNS”) servers, with a specialized domain name (i.e., a Fully Qualified Domain Name (“FQDN”)) from a user’s mobile phone and translated that domain name into an IP address that network protocols can use to locate networked T-Mobile servers connected to the Internet in order to initiate a Wi-Fi call. (Although VPLM's patents accomplish the same results, the jury likes to know how VPLM technology is different, viz. advantage, efficiency, cost, ease of use, etc.)
HotSpot@Home used DNS servers to connect to a UMA controller, which was required to route a call made over Wi-Fi to T-Mobile’s core cellular network, T-Mobile’s current Wi-Fi calling system uses the same type of DNS queries to deliver IP addresses for its servers to a user’s mobile phone (similar to VPLM's ex. G at TMO-VOIPPAL-00023447 Re. Mr. Hudnell) - precisely the functionality that VoIP-Pal seems to claim infringes. Mr.Hudnell's filing gives more examples of similar TMUS infringements. Mr. Hudnell continues:
"Once T-Mobile became aware of this overlap in accused functionality between its current system and its 2006-era HotSpot@Home system, T-Mobile produced documents describing its HotSpot@Home system and additionally disclosed and charted HotSpot@Home in its invalidity contentions in July 2022. Until recently, however, T-Mobile did not know that VoIP-Pal or its predecessor-in-interest (Digifonica, also an entity associated with Emil Malak) ..." (weak argument, first TMobile accuses of VPLM ignoring their HotSpot@Home in 2006, which was later changed to Unlicensed Mobile Access (“UMA”) specification system; modified perhaps after VPLM MG patent filing 2008 (?) to route wi-fi calls, following VPLM methods, infringing VPLM MG patents,'234 and '721 patents.
UMA: Unlicensed Mobile Access Technology
UMA technology was founded by a number of leading operators and vendors, called The UMA Consortium, and has been in development since January 2004. The list of participants, include British Telecom, Cingular, Motorola, Nokia, and T-Mobile US, who are active in the testing and further participation.
Unlicensed Mobile Access (UMA) Explained
By Nadeem Unuth Updated on January 26, 2020 https://www.lifewire.com/uma-explained-3426407
Unlicensed Mobile Access is a wireless technology that allows a seamless transition between wide-area cellular networks (licensed WAN) and wireless local area networks (unlicensed LAN e.g. Wi-Fi, Bluetooth). With UMA, you can initiate a cell calls over your carrier's GSM (unlicensed LAN) and the call will switch from the GSM network to your office’s Wi-Fi network (licensed WAN) as soon as you walk into range of office (licensed WAN). And vice-versa.
How UMA Works
UMA is, in fact, a commercial name for a generic access network (GAN).
When a handset already in communication through a wireless WAN, enters the area of a wireless LAN network, it presents itself to the WAN’s GAN controller as being on a different base station of the WAN and shifts to the wireless LAN network. The unlicensed LAN is presented as a part of the licensed WAN, and thus the transition is smoothly allowed. When the user moves out of the range of the unlicensed wireless LAN, the connection is roamed back to the wireless WAN.
This whole process is completely transparent to the user, with no dropped calls or interruptions in data transfer. (VPLM MG patents perform this task more efficiently and eleganlty. This part will be argued to convince the jury.)
How Can People Benefit From UMA?
1. People can use their mobile handsets in many places and networks but still have one single number.
2. They can set up their wireless LANs themselves, thereby solving the problem caused by holes in the coverage of their provider’s network.
3. Roaming charges outside the mobile service provider’s network are eliminated because calls can be initiated within free unlicensed wireless LANs.
4. Mobile communication becomes more reliable and cheap, incentivizing some people to replace expensive PSTN phone services.
How Can Providers Benefit From UMA?
1. Carriers can set up Wi-Fi hotspots in-network coverage holes instead of investing in expensive wireless WAN hardware.
2. Congestion on GSM and other wireless WAN networks are relieved with part of the traffic is directed to unlicensed wireless LANs.
3. Networks like Wi-Fi are better for carrying other types of media apart from voice, instead of GSM. Thus, providers can design communication packages that include more than voice. This capability is especially interesting for Internet service providers eager to expand services and reduce costs. (This is where VPLM MG technology excelled, demonstrated and defendants infringed.)
4. UMA operates at the IP network layer in the protocol stack and is therefore open to many protocols in the interface layer - put simply, it is not restricted to one network, but can work on Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. (Also from VPLM MG patents.)
Disadvantages of UMA
1. Handsets have to be UMA-compatible. (VPLM MG patents do not require UMA compatible handsets. T-Mobile customers may not be using UMA-compatible handsets after perhaps T-Mobile adopted VPLM technology. Infringement is to be proven.)
2. These are rare and quite expensive. (One can use any smart phone with MG technology.)
3. This is a problem both for providers and subscribers. (No such problems is known for using VPLM MG technology.)
4. While UMA provides mobility, it cannot provide free or very cheap calling as SIP-based services and services like Skype. (VPLM does! VPLM MG technology uses Direct-inward-dialing DID phone number data from networks, and the SIP protocol to complete the call, seamlessly as per Mr. Hudnell).
UMA Requirements
To use UMA, you need a wireless network plan, a wireless your own LAN or a public Wi-Fi hotspot, and a mobile handset that supports UMA. Some phones just won’t work.
Comment: The above points give an idea of what the arguments could be. The jury has to be convinced. Wait and see.
Couldn't be a worse disaster for VZ than hanging onto TMUS coat tails. Anyone that knows "2 cents" about patents would know that a promotional ad of their "Hotspot" or whatever they used is not their prior art. A 300-page synopsis of an internet article is not a prior art as well. All public information! Nothing proprietary! TMUS counsel's discovery demanded knowing how much money VPLM has reserved for running this lawsuit, its source, and what their trial strategy will be.
The Jury in Waco is smarter than what people might assume.
Investors who claim to have held this stock for 10 years or longer and were frustrated by defeat after defeat in the hands of "clueless" judge of NDCal and Silicon Valley IP "thieves" have to enter the arena to fight for their IP rights and claim the damages (enhanced damages for willful infringement). No time to "chicken" out or pity the defendants whether they have enough cash to pay or not. Win or lose, its worth the fight! Would any land lord let a tenant live in their own property and run a business making money forever without paying the rent for years? Remember Justice Roberts's words on punishment for "willful infringers!".
HayDay,
Let the VPLM legal team pursue their IP rights allowed by the patent law US Code 35. The law does not discuss "what if" scenarios or alternatives. It is up to the Judge. VPLM can present a realistic damages estimate of REAONABLE ROYALTY FIGURES ALLOWED BY LAW.
Both sides have qualified attorneys who know what they are doing. VZ legal team better be prepared for the next RBR lawsuit coming shortly, again demanding willful infringement damages! The fast growing Fiber internet business and its module are covered by RBR claims.
It may not help defendants by bringing up the Alice issue even after it was shot down twice, once by Judge Brantley and next by the USPTO reexam office.
Be prepared to prove TO THE JURY, the infringement and demand enhanced damages and legal expenses for WILLFUL infringement just as Justice Roberts said.
The US patent law does not discuss "what if" scenarios. Justice Roberts statement on willful infringement was as simple as it can ever get. The jury's willful infringement verdict in VPLM's favor will be the icing on the cake. Investors ought to expect a tough fight, no settlement. Buyout is not in the cards. Is there any buyer?
We expect Appeals. Last time AMZN went for a writ of Mandamus Appeals to change the venue they were turned down, praising how well Judge Albright handled the venue issue.
Drumming,
They already have lawsuit vs. Verizon pending. (Re.: Last Hudnell filing). They need to get their act together!
SOu, Your experience with AT&T is interesting, not in line with the published survey. Google Fiber is ranked number one! Wonder how reliable the survey is! Thanks for sharing.
FIBER INTERNET!
Ads for Gigabit internet are appearing! They call it Fiber Internet. Fiber internet technology is expanding home internet services, wifi access, faster speeds at competitive rates, fast download speeds, and attractive contract terms.
Is it a new opportunity for companies like VPLM that holds patents on audio and video communications over the internet protocol? Is that a reason for VPLM to pursue RBR cases NOW against TMUS and VZ, when the Mobile Gateway patents trials are still progressing? One can only guess. But the RBR patents lawsuit filings vs TMUS and VZ are pretty strong with an emphasis on "Willful infringement and enhanced damages". Details later.
Verizon:
It’s 5G Home Internet. Verizon Home Internet service: 5G Home and LTE Home (Whole-Home Wi-Fi). no data caps or data overage fees. https://www.verizon.com/business/search/?query=fiber%20internet
T-Mobile:
T Mobile's fiber net https://t-mobilefiber.com/
General introduction:
Internet Connection Types Explained -- and Ranked Best to Worst.
https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/internet-connection-types-explained-and-ranked-best-to-worst/
Fiber internet providers review: https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/annual-internet-service-provider-review
Google fiber, Xfinity, Earthlink, Verizon, AT&T, T Mobile, etc.
Best value: best - Frontier, optimum; mid range - Verizon and Xfinity; lowest value - AT&T; and worst: T Mobile
Home internet speed: 62 to 238 Mbps - Cox, Google fiber, Xfinity. 1000 Mbps or higher speed is available.
Most Reliable: Google fiber Least reliable: T Mobile
A download speed comparison with common ISP connections:
----------------------- Approximate file size -----------1,000 Mbps fiber connection ----------100 Mbps cable ------------ 25 Mbps DSL
4-minute song ------------- 4 MB ----------------------- 0.03 sec. ---------------------------------- 0.03 sec. ------------------- 1 sec.
45-min TV show ---------- 200 MB --------------------- 1 sec. --------------------------------------- 16 sec. ---------------------- 1 min. 7 sec.
2-hour movie -------------- 1.5 GB ----------------------- 12 sec ------------------------------------- 2 min. 8 sec.--------------- 8 min. 35 sec.
2-hr HD movie ------------- 4.5 GB ---------------------- 38 sec. -------------------------------------- 6 min. 26 sec.------------- 25 min. 46 sec.
How Does Fiber-Optic Internet Work? https://www.reviews.org/internet-service/how-does-fiber-optic-internet-work/
What Exactly is Fiber Internet: Understanding High-Speed Connectivity
https://computercity.com/hardware/networking/what-exactly-is-fiber-internet
Pre-Trial filing highlights: Case 6:21-cv-00674-ADA Document 255 Filed 06/07/24
VPLM - VoIP-Pal accuses T-Mobile of infringing claims 32, 38, 51, and 62 of the ’234 patent (Basic claim 30); claims 77, 130, 133, and 138 of the ’721 patent.
(Comment: The preceding Claim 30 is basic; it defines the network elements and the communication setup, etc. Claim 32 shows a method to use those elements: asking for an access code, getting it, etc. )
seeks monetary damages in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
VoIP-Pal also claims that T-Mobile’s alleged infringement has been willful since June 25, 2021, but agrees that any infringement before that date was not willful.
(Comment: An important and impactful sentence, not to be ignored. VPLM brings "willful" infringement issue since June 25, 2021.but allows room to include non-willful infringement prior to June 25, 2021. VPLM has to convince the jury.)
TMUS - alleges the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid and should not have been issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("Same as old complaints" Who TMobile is to tell USPTO? Funny!) T-Mobile contends that it does not owe VoIP-Pal any damages. (Let the jury tell the court!)
VPLM asks for:
a) A judgement that T-Mobile has infringed the ’234 patent;
b) A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’721 patent;
c) A judgment and order requiring T-Mobile to pay VoIP-Pal damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
d) A judgment and order awarding enhanced damages to VoIP-Pal under 35 U.S.C. § 284; (US Patent law code 35)
e) A judgment and order declaring this case to be exceptional based on VoIPPal’s infringement and/or litigation conduct; and
f) An assessment of costs, including awarding VoIP-Pal its attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
TMUS denies:
T-Mobile does not concede that all of these issues are appropriate for trial. In particular, T-Mobile does not waive any of its pending or future filed motions which, if granted, may render some or all of these issues moot. (makes no sense!)
1. T-Mobile denies each of VoIP-Pal’s contentions.
T-Mobile denies that T-Mobile’s communication platform including an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), generally known as WiFi Calling, Voice Over WiFi, or VoWiFi, infringes or has infringed any
T-Mobile contends that each of the asserted claims is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103, (Alice issue again! Don't they read Judge Brantley Starr's ruling? EDTX) at least based on the T-Mobile prior art system, T-Mobile Hotspot@Home.
5. T-Mobile contends that T-Mobile Hotspot@Home is prior art because it was known and used by others in this country before the date of the invention and it was in public use in this country more than one year before July 28, 2008.
T-Mobile contends that the ’234 and ’721 patents are invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice issue again!) unenforceable due to VoIPPal’s inequitable conduct during prosecution.
VoIP-Pal’s damages calculations are inflated and inaccurate even assuming that any asserted claim is determined to be valid,
enforceable, and infringed. T-Mobile contends in particular, as detailed in TMobile’s motions to exclude the expert testimony of Jacob H. Salk, Dkt. 131, and John B. Minor, Dkt. 129, and as tacitly acknowledged by VoIP-Pal in its Motion to Substitute Damages Expert (Dkt. 243), that VoIP-Pal’s damages theory is legally deficient and methodologically unsound and thus should be excluded from trial. T-Mobile contends that damages, if any, are limited to a reasonable royalty, should any asserted claim be determined to be valid and infringed, calculated using the methodology set forth in the expert reports of Mr. Boushie.
7. Whether an injunction should be granted for T-Mobile’s infringement of the patents-in-suit;
8. Whether, if the jury finds willful infringement, any damages award for infringement after June 25, 2021 should be enhanced; etc. etc.
T Mobile's arguments seem weak!
Drumming,
>> ... Did I miss a favorable 101 ruling by Albright in W TX on RBR?...<<
You did not miss a RBR/Alice ruling in WDTX Albright's court. Judge Albright did not even consider Alice so far. AMZN RBR trial has not started. Like the rest of dumb attorneys, they will regurgitate the old Alice issue when the trial begins.
By the way, Cellco partnership (DBA) VZ's reexamination of our MG patents talks again about Alice issue, pulled from NDCal Mantra since 2017-20. They could have saved time and $, by filing an IPR, instead of a reexamination request. The guilty tries all sorts of moves to escape but the exit door is closing fast.
Look to pay hefty damages, and heftier damage with willful ruling by the jury. Recall Justice Roberts words on "Punishment" besides reasonable royalties plus expenses, interest, allowed by law.
Ex parte Reexam of RBR patents examined among other things the rejection of certain claims due to Alice in 606 patent at the outset. The examiner agreed with our negative view of Alice, viz. the subject matter underlying our claims is not Abstract. Patents are valid. Our response was a beautiful expose.
Judge Brantley Starr in EDTX arrived at a similar conclusion; No Alice for MG patent. The smart attorneys at VZ and AMZN should get a lesson from Judge Starr and stop making the same mistakes. Between Judges Starr and Albright, Texas District Courts will help VPLM reap the rewards soon.
Filing 2 RBR lawsuits against VZ and TMUS so closely is the best strategy. "Strike while the iron is hot!" It conserves trial preparations, claim construction, discovery, etc. about 3 months per trial in Albright's court.
In NDCal the clueless one did not even conduct Claim Construction!!! Clueless and Arrogant. She used the DJ rule and eagerly pulled out our cases from WDTX. Wasted 3-4 years in NDCal.
Aside - a jury trial is much preferred rather than a settlement. No matter how much we wish, a buyout does not look feasible. Are there businesses with appropriate business model like QCOM to buy VPLM and integrate into their business? No matter how much some wish to know the damages. The company is not likely to reveal the amount. A wild guessing game: say VPLM's estimate is $10. The defendant's estimate could be 10 cents. The judge would arrive at a figure in accordance with the law: REASONABLE ROYALTIES WITH ATTORNEY EXPENSES AND INTEREST (word for word from the law.). Until that happens, investors need patience. jmo.
CFO knows about money!
Current CFO is a WOMAN, a recent hire!!!!
Peter Lynch said: "... many reasons for insider sells, but only one main reason for insider buys..." Details, details! On one side folks get "hot under the collar" for insider sales and the stock price drop, on the other hand they do not know who the CFO is. SHE PURCHASED the stock! From VPLM web site:
MANAGEMENT & DIRECTORS
JIN KUANG - Chief Financial Officer
Jin Kuang has over 15 years of extensive professional expertise in various financial domains gained across the USA and Canada, including IFRS, US GAAP, financial reporting, financial planning, merger and acquisition, financial analysis, and tax. She has also spent over a decade in progressively responsible financial leadership roles within publicly traded companies. Over the years, Jin has served as CFO for multiple publicly listed companies, in addition to her years of auditing experience with KPMG LLP Chartered Accounts. Jin holds a BA in Accounting and an MBA from the University of Northeastern China, along with a US-CPA and CGA designation.
Drumming, here is Chief Justice Roberts views on willful infringement, NOTE: he says not only a compensation is owed to the inventor but USC 35 section 284 patent law requires PUNISHMENT to the infringer... It is in Judge Albright's hands. Full text is posted for the shareholders not familiar with US patent law and potential damages.
Supreme Court Makes It Harder for Willful Infringers to Escape Punishment - June 14, 2016
By Michael T. Renaud, Richard G. Gervase, Jr., James Wodarski, Sandra J. Badin
https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2016-06-14-supreme-court-makes-it-harder-willful-infringers-escape
The Supreme Court has made it easier for patent owners to prove willful infringement and entitlement to enhanced damages. In a unanimous opinion issued yesterday in a pair of cases decided together, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Stryker Corporation v. Zimmer, Inc., the Court did away with the Federal Circuit’s “unduly rigid” test for proving willfulness, which had allowed even “wanton and malicious” infringers who intentionally set out to steal the patent owner’s ideas and business to evade liability for enhanced damages if clever counsel were later able to articulate non-trivial—even though unsuccessful—infringement or invalidity defenses.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts explained that section 284 of the Patent Act (read US Patent Act code 35 section 284) provides that in a case of infringement, courts “may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” In its 2007 en banc decision in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, the Federal Circuit held that a district court may increase damages pursuant to section 284 only if the patent owner first showed by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer had acted “despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement,” and then also showed, again by clear and convincing evidence, that the risk of infringement “was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.” In Halo, the Court held that the Federal Circuit's test is not consistent with section 284.
Returning to first principles, Chief Justice Roberts observed that “[e]nhanced damages are as old as US patent law,” and have as their chief purpose not compensation to the patent owner—who is compensated by the award of actual damages or a reasonable royalty—but punishment of the conscious and deliberate infringer. The Seagate test frustrated that purpose, however, by allowing a deliberate infringer, “such as the ‘wanton and malicious pirate’ who intentionally infringes another’s patent—with no doubts as to its validity or any notion of a defense—for no purpose other than to steal the patentee’s business” to escape willfulness liability if he presented “a substantial question as to the validity or non-infringement of the patent” during the course of the litigation, even if he was not aware of any such argument at the time he undertook his infringement.
“In the context of such deliberate wrongdoing,” the Chief Justice observed, “it is not clear why an independent showing of objective recklessness—by clear and convincing evidence, no less—should be a prerequisite to enhanced damages.” Culpability is generally measured against the knowledge of the accused at the time of the conduct in question, not against “the strength of his attorney’s ingenuity” in later fashioning a reasonable, if ultimately unsuccessful, defense. The same applies here: “The subjective willfulness of a patent infringer, intentional or knowing, may warrant enhanced damages, without regard to whether his infringement was objectively reckless.”
The Chief Justice went on to observe that the language of section 284 is unrestricted—it “contains no explicit limit or condition”— and indeed, “allows district courts to punish the full range of culpable behavior.” The language of section 284 is also permissive—courts “may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” The Court has emphasized that the word “may” connotes discretion; thus the provision must be read as granting district courts the discretion to decide whether to award enhanced damages and in what amount. But discretion, the Chief Justice cautioned, “is not whim,” and the development of the law of enhanced damages under the Patent Act over the past 180 years reflects a recognition that such damages “are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case but are instead designed as a ‘punitive’ or ‘vindictive’ sanction for egregious infringement behavior.”
The Chief Justice explained that while the principal problem with the Seagate test is that it has the effect of “insulating some of the worst patent infringers from any liability for enhanced damages,” it is also inconsistent with section 284 because it requires clear and convincing evidence to prove recklessness. Just as the Octane Fitness court rejected the Federal Circuit’s requirement that a prevailing party must prove entitlement to an award of attorney’s fees under section 285 by clear and convincing evidence because there was no statutory basis to support such a heightened standard of proof, so too here. “Like §285, §284 ‘imposes no specific evidentiary burden, much less such a high one.’”
The Court also rejected the Federal Circuit’s trifurcated standard of review of enhanced damages awards—de novo review for objective recklessness (the first part of the Seagate test); substantial review for subjective knowledge (the second part of the test); and abuse of discretion for the ultimate decision whether to award enhanced damages—in favor of an abuse of discretion standard. Having determined that section 284 gives district courts discretion to award enhanced damages and to determine their amount, the conclusion that such decisions should be reviewed for abuse of discretion follows naturally, the Chief Justice explained.
In arriving at its rejection of the Federal Circuit’s Seagate test, the [color=red]Court dismissed respondents’ argument that Congress ratified Seagate when it added section 298 to the Patent Act, which provides that “[t]he failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel” or “the failure of the infringer to present such advice to the court or jury, may not be used to prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed.[/color]” The provision’s reference to willful infringement cannot be an endorsement of Seagate’s willfulness test, the Chief Justice observed, since “willfulness has always been a part of patent law, both before and after Seagate,” and nothing in section 298 suggests Congress ratified the particular conception of willfulness reflected in Seagate.
The Court also rejected respondents’ underlying policy argument that making it easier to prove willfulness will “embolden [patent] ‘trolls.’” Such a concern may have merit if enhanced damages were to be awarded in “garden-variety cases,” the Chief Justice noted. “As we have explained, however, they should not be. The seriousness of respondents’ policy concerns cannot justify imposing an artificial construct such as the Seagate test on the discretion conferred under §284.”
By making it easier for patent owners to prove their patents were deliberately infringed and that they are entitled to enhanced damages for the wanton and malicious pirating of their ideas, the Supreme Court’s opinion affirms the importance and value of intellectual property, and sends a clear signal that such deliberate infringement will no longer be tolerated. And by restoring to the discretion of the district courts the determination of whether to award damages, and in what amount, the Court’s opinion ensures that the “full range of culpable conduct” may be punished—and thereby deterred. American innovation will be all the stronger for it.
Fourth good cause factor from Mr. Hudnell's filing:
"... The fourth good cause factor considers the availability of a continuance to cure any prejudice to the non-moving party. This matter is still 90 days away from its trial date, and VoIP-Pal can commit to serving a new report by June 30, 2024. With an expedited schedule, expert discovery could be completed before trial, which is set for the week of August 19, 2024. While trial could still begin that week as currently scheduled, Mr. Brida would need one small accommodation as the earliest he is able to appear at trial is August 26, 2024, which is the Monday of the following week. If, however, Verizon contends that such a schedule is infeasible, then VoIPPal would of course be agreeable to a reasonable continuance[/color]...."
The point of using a substitute, Mr. Brida, was to address, PRE-EMPTIVELY, Verizon's complaint about Mr. Salk, as VPLM's expert for damages. The first step is whether Judge Albright will accept that VZ's concerns are justified. If it is not justified, Judge Albright may reject VZ's concerns. We proceed with the trial.
Judge Albright was an IP attorney arguing patent cases for plaintiffs over a decade. He is also the Judge that rejected AMZN's venue transfer motion three times. AMZN took an extraordinary step of filing a writ of Mandamus against Albright in the Appeals court. The Appeals court swiftly rejected AMZN's motion with compliments to Judge Albright on his handling of AMZN venue transfer motion. If the judge rejects VZ's complaint, we proceed with the trial in August.
If the judge decides VZ's concerns are justifiable, we go to the next step of using a substitute. Mr. Hudnell has put forth justifications for a continuance for one week from the August trial date. The next available trial date is in Nov, 2024. We'll soon know how the Judge will decide. Too early to worry about unknowns!
About reading Mr. Hudnell's filings:
Reading Mr. Hudnell's filings requires "reading between the lines". In responding to AMZN's motion to stay on the RBR case (partly due to Reexam of RBR patent), Mr Hudnell quoted a statistic of a mean pendency of 25.2 months for reexaminations, perhaps to get the attention of "rocket docket' Judge Albright. But the reexamination certificate was approved in 5-6 months after VPLM response to Office Action.
Drumming,
On the contrary, Treble damages has been made easier to award by a ruling from Chief Justice John Roberts at the SCOTUS: he eliminated the onerous job of proving infringement by the plaintiff. It is much easier to show with a simpler argument. More details later.
Willfulness is what we should work towards.
Drumming,
A settlement could imply the defendant admitting to infringement and agrees to pay a certain amount for a negotiated settlement. Is that not guilty of infringement? If not guilty, why would they pay any amount? The defendant may try to hide their defeat with the usual comment: "neither confirm nor deny!"
Why we have not heard about licensing of those MG patents? Did AMZN's Alexa device not come under the guilty charge? Why would they not reveal licensing news? Will the 10Q/10K include the licensing news or terms? Wait and see.
2 settlements: AMZN and Huawei. Huawei too is guilty of infringement. Possible licensing in EU, India, and China will be great. Waiting for details.
An advantage of settlement is that parties do not justify going for an appeal.
Jury trial:
Not just finding guilty of infringement in a jury trial, but proving the "willfulness" by the jury will be a sweet spot that will trigger a 5 alarm fire to other defendants. Treble damages!
US patent law sets no maximum for damages. Those hoping for 1 million and 2 millions award, check VPLM's the preliminary 2017 estimates for VZ, T, AAPL.
VZ estimated damages were $2.4 Billion in 2017. Update the 2017 estimate by adding appx 10 years of damages to make it current, 2024.
Judge Albright awarded $2.4 billions damage against Intel just TWO years ago. Up to 4 billions of damages have been awarded over the years. No wonder VZ tries all sorts of gimmicks: Reexamination of MG patent in lieu of another IPR and arguing about the damage estimates.
Hudnell expects to use the substitute to address complaints about Mr. Salk and still complete the discovery prior to June, 2024 in time for the pre-trial conference. VZ lawyers have nothing better to argue than the Alice issue against VPLM.
Alice issue: Judge Starr exposed Huawei's nonsense Alice argument last month. Judge Brantley Starr did an excellent analysis of the Alice issue. He is as good as Albright. Brantley Starr is the nephew of former special counsel Ken Starr. jmo