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.
If foot = 3 months, looking for a yard, for a possible conclusion this year.
foot #1 = Apr-Jun foot #2 = Jul-Sep foot #3 = Oct-Dec
Announcement of 2 Indian patents also said a couple of companies are interested. The talk must have started. If so, an announcement could come any time. A guess only.
Apr-Jun: Pre-trial conference, VZ and TMUS together. Parties including the Judge should know how much damages are claimed. A willful infringement ruling by a jury entails triple damages including legal expenses and all fees.
Reexamination of RBR patent took about 6 months. MG patent reexamination issue is much simpler. The patent examiner is David England, the same examiner that examined the RBR patent. He did not reject or modify any claim but allowed 8 new claims. VPLM "destroyed" all those Alice claims from prior art, heavily used by the Silicon Valley company defendants, a clueless judge, and the local rules of ND Cal courts.
Bill Parish stepped out from VPLM employment. He is a State recognized (TX-Austin) MODERATOR, NEUTRAL moderator, not a negotiator. A negotiator negotiates for terms on behalf one of the disputing parties. A moderator works out a compromise between two disputing parties, with consent from both parties.
Jul-Sep: VZ. VPLM win in this trial could be a big deal. The judge could cancel the jury trial is the party decide to settle, to avoid triple damages.
News release about three advisors and a share count increase could be efforts to restructure the management and the company that could pursue the remaining cases, while Emil could step down to a less active role. The life of a patent is about 20 years. All guesses, what really will happen is unknown!
RBR case vs. AMZN comes later. Even with top-notch legal team, they can not rewrite the US patent law, invalidate a single claim, argue or throw fluff at the Judge who knows patents. Even the appeals court Re. AMZN Venue transfer ruling (three denials) sided with Judge Albright.
HD,
>>... something is afoot...<<
Not something, but several things afoot. Two trials, TMUS and VZ.
LLP - not LLC
LLP - Limited Liability Partnership eg. Deloitte LLC - Limited Liability Company
Both provide legal protection from unlimited liability. Licensed professional (Attorneys, Accountants, et al) form LLP. Licensed Professionals CAN NOT form LLC. LLC is a hybrid between Corporation and (Private) Partnership.
Stradling firm has been advising VPLM since 2021 or 2022 on Infringements estimation, negotiations, strategies, etc. Bill Parrish was assigned to VPLM for helping with the same issues. Remember his biodata was published as soon as he joined VPLM group of attorneys.
Mr. Hudnell and his firm manage court cases. Stadling helps with negotiation, infringement damage calculations and developing models for each defendant and their court case in real time, as the cases progress. VPLM has another a group of attorneys that specialize writing patents, example: USPTO Reexam response which was excellent! ALL attorneys cost $$$. VPLM is financing with equity (stock sales). No debt (or convertible debt to stocks) on the books so far! Stock dilution? Recall the IT company stock splits in the seventies: CISCO, APPL, GOOG et al. As VZ trial begins, shareholder will hear more news about potential damages.
Judge Albright recently awarded $2.2 Billion in patent infringement damages against Intel a few years ago.
A couple of confidential negotiations may be in progress: (1) AAPL and AT&T from the NDCA's days a la ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), (2) Parties from India for licensing VPLM patents. All discussions are strictly under wraps like the AMZN settlement discussion. Hoping to hear good news from all fronts in 2024.
Yes! It's 36/36 IPR's won!. As the CEO stated in the recent news release: "not a single claim denied!" A single claim is all one needs to demand infringement damages. Waco may be the favorable venue.
The recent reexamination certification of 606 patent is a gem for those shareholders that read the draft! Hats off to Dr. Cabrice! Wonder why these facts and value about VPLM PATENTS escape shareholders! Is share price the matter! For how long?
TMUS seems to be engaged in a "street fight", demanding 60,000 or more documents of privilege logs including emails and calls to CEO's wife, son, friends, et al., VPLM's trial strategy, VPLM's funding sources for the trial, etc., not a zilch about THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY they own or patented, comparable to the MG patent.
Stef,
This issue was posted sometime ago (2022) while reviewing largest infringement damages awarded. Recall that VLSI had some problems with how their company was set up in the development of the patented technology. Intel questioned who the real inventor was. Time to dig up and post.
Such issues are not expected with RBR patent infringement especially after the successful reexamination with 8 new claims and 36 IPR wins. Successful RBR trial vs AMZN next year will augment our patent validity and corporate structure.
From memory: the award was issued from Judge Albrigtht's court, without the treble damages since the jury did not rule "willfulness".
VPLM's reexamination response discussed many details of the 606 RBR technology, parts of which could apply to Mobile Gateway technology case vs TMUS and VZ. (AT&T, GOOG, Meta/WhatsApp may be included later.)
Phone calls: both audio and video calls, regardless of phone device used. e.g., Video call - Facetime on iPhone.
VPLM patent claims define network elements: a modem connected to the phone, a router connected in the network, etc. TMobile had trouble with their phone-modem-router connections at the beginning.
Phone companies charge for the "data and minutes" used by a customer: video or audio calls that could be an infringement of use. This aspect of trial will be interesting when the jury learns to know how much these phone companies are charging for their wifi services , most of which should be free.
InvestorinAZ,
Yes - definitely under Judge Albright who knows patents and defended IP rights for plaintiffs. If other judges are clueless or "influenced" by other factors, we hope to argue and win at the Fed Circuit Appeals, especially AAPL, GOOG and Meta. jmo.
>>...can be re-opened in Texas?...<<
No! AAPL, GOOG, Meta went to NDCA from Waco due to the Venue issue. It took 2 or 3 tries for AMZN to keep their case here in Waco.
Local rules in NDCA rely on using Alice issue to "cut down" or reject patent infringement lawsuits (Silicon Valley's strong influence). VPLM spent 2-4 years fighting the battle.
That was the reason for a comment: "Funny!".
AMZN perhaps did not know about the successful conclusion of the ex parte reexamination certificate.
Another point:
AMZN and APPL went to Fed Cir court challenging to cancel all RBR claims ('815 patent?) moving from NDCal's clueless dist court. Now that the reexamination patent 606 is strengthened with 50+ original claims and added new claims to eliminate Alice "obviousness" arguments, we have a good opportunity to test our new patent in Albright's court. If our arguments win, it will serve as a basis for future Alice challenges in NDCal or other US courts. We only need a single claim to demand infringement damages from AMZN. We have 50+ claims!
Butters,
As far as trials with or without the jury go, we are told that if the jury finds the infringement was willful, you can get a maximum of treble damages. US patent law does not set a maximum for the damages. The sky is the limit. In the past, Judge Albright awarded $2 Billion against Intel without the treble damages because the jury did not rule "willful". Recently heard that even if jury finds it willful, the judge may not go with treble damages. What have you heard?
Butters,
Where we go from here depends upon the company. They have several legal teams (Patent, infringement modeling, trial, etc.) who will pick the best path forward.
Personally it is nice to test the upgraded RBR patent claims (with no Alice issue) vs. AMZN in Waco under Judge Albright. AMZN's infringement of RBR will be huge compared to very little infringement for the MG patent since AMZN does not provide phone service like TMUS and VZ. Since e commerce (shopping off their web sites) involves R B R (Routing, Billing, and Rating - customers going to AMZN site regardless of physical location, picking a product, moving it to their CART, and pay). There may be AMZN's or other's technologies may be "intermingled" with a few RBR steps. If we prevail vs. AMZN we can go after others like GOOG, AAPL, T, META/WhatsApp in Donato's NDCal court where we can test Alice issue. The company may pick a path. The market will follow our successes.
SOu812, Time frame for the conclusion of Reexamination proceedings: The Director approves the findings and issues a Reexamination Certificate to the patent owner by mail and also mails a copy to the requestor of reexamination. The Reexamination Certificate to be issued by USPTO includes : all amended claims and 8 new claims that were allowed.
Also the Director will publish the Reexamination Certificate in the Official Gazette when they mail the Certificate to the owner (VPLM). Maybe 2-3 weeks for these official steps, in time for the RBR trial vs. AMZN in May 2024 (?). Heard AMZN just filed for stay again! Funny!
(Who was the Requestor? None other than Twitter!!! The IPR route did not work for them. 36 IPR wins out of 36! Some may recall TWTR attorney vehemently objecting at the Fed Cir Appeals hearing while Mr. Hudnell appeared the first time. Now TWTR got a stronger RBR patent as a gift from us!)
Personal experience did not involve reexamination, but communications between inventors and Patent examiners are similar and the steps are usually favorable to inventors since inventors have more knowledge about the invention.
Patent reexamination is not an IPR involving PTAB panel of judges where two parties have a dispute about certain claims.
The Certificate will look like the reexamined patent with amended claims and the new claims, with the same patent number,
patent number US '606 C1,
Certificate issued: November 25, 2023 (made up date)
Wish the company decides to get the patent re-issued. The re-issued patent will be considered a reexam certificate.
Yes! Communication has been going on between USPTO patent examiner and VPLM (scientists, team). This is the "back and forth" common at this stage. Positive allowance of 8 new claims and upgraded language of original claims will make the RBR family of patents stronger against the Alice 101 issue. After allowance, the patent defense falls on Mr. Hudnell's lap, just in time for the AMZN trial. Time to re-visit all those dismissals of cases against GOOG, Meta/WhatsApp, et al. jmo.
Butters,
Bravo, for quoting passages from VPLM's response to USPTO's Office action!
The following post touched on the subject, "in a tongue in cheek" fashion. A full review was avoided because it was already shared with another party.
All shareholders got a copy of VPLM's response which addressed the RBR issue, improving the precision of current claim language, addition of 8 new claims, and a personal interview with Dr. Cabric. Therefore it was not necessary to repeat it on this forum.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172594327
...."4. Reexamination (RBR 606) - All shareholders have received VPLM's response to USPTO's Office Action and have had the time to read it. You will note:
(a) several original RBR claims have been modified in a clear language with details (giving no room for Alice or other issues) and
(b) new claims have been added, making the RBR patent much stronger.
Getting a stronger RBR patent perhaps motivated VPLM to dismiss cases? After USPTO approves the changes, they could start suing for RBR infringement? Who knows!..."
Your quote: "...Once this RBR re-examination is denied, it's my opinion that Amazon will have no choice but to settle or purchase..."
My opinions:
1) Instead of saying "RBR reexamination is denied" it'd be better to say "VPLM's claim modification and new claims are ALLOWED by USPTO, ...". IF common sense prevails the examiner should at least offer an interview to discuss and learn the technology behind claims in order to make a decision to allow. Two or three responses, back and forth, with patent examiners is common and usually they allow claims as requested with little or slight modification. The question is the time the examiners take is longer than normal.
2) If USPTO allows as per VPLM's response, the Alice 101 section on "obviousness" argument will not be an issue any longer in NDCal or other US courts. Judges that are clueless can not rely on a "blanket" argument of obviousness.
3) If USPTO allows as VPLM requested and if RBR family of patents (606, etc.) are strengthened, the immediate impact may be that AMZN will re-think about going to trial in May 2024, on the RBR 606 patent. It is too early to jump to "settlement" or "acquisition" simply because there needs to be a lot of work involving RBR infringement analysis and discussion/compromise, licensing issues, etc. This part of diligence and the time it takes applies to each and every patent (MG and RBR, two so far) and for each infringing company. Each company management has to go through their official approval process to accept the terms of the deal for payments/licensing. The larger the settlement amount the longer the time. That means more wait which many shareholders hate to hear. jmo.
send an email to Investor relations and ask to add you to the list. All public companies do that.
VPLM's MG patent lawsuit, our first case, already settled in Waco. A settlement discussion was held for 45 days and completed. Some sort of a non-disclosure agreement prevents VPLM from revealing the monetary settlement amount. They are tight-lipped because perhaps they still have the 606 RBR patent lawsuit pending, without the stay that AMZN requested.
VPLM is also tight-lipped about their discussions with APPL and T.
TMUS and VZ are trying to avoid a trial with pre-trial moves and playing hide and seek with their expert witnesses. A jury trial will be nice, so that the jury can find them guilty of willful infringements.
Judge Albright holds the key.
In the meanwhile, VPLM Dr. Cabric sent a powerful re-exam response to USPTO regarding 606 RBR patent. All share holders on the email list got a copy of this document. Highlights:
8 new claims have been added for a total of 57 claims,
3 main claims still hold strong and are unchanged.
VLNC's Dr. Cabric asserts that the patent examiner has made errors by assuming that the network combinations cited in prior art, as proposed by Mermel, Bedingfield, Dr. Min and Koch are valid. These combinations are not workable. They fail. Dr. Cabric, asserts [b]invalidity of network combinations cited in the prior art, they fail and not workable. If Dr. Cabric succeeds in proving the invalid network combinations as proposed in the prior art, there will be no more issue of Alice or obviousness argument in NDCal or elsewhere with regard to RBR patents. jmo
Rumor: Mid Feb 2024. Heard that both TMUS and VZ are fighting hard to postpone the trial with distractions. Not sure if VPLM has yet finished deposing the Expert Witness, Ms. Hamade, as part of Discovery.
HayDay
Has any of Carnac's predictions come true? Name one.
Positive news from USPTO Re.: 606 patent Reexamination could be a catalyst! Wait and see!
HayDay,
Hope Carnac's prediction comes true. The only event that is likely to happen by next week is company's announcement of AMZN's MG patent settlement amount that missed the last 10Q deadline June 30. Maybe the company is now free to reveal limited information without breaching any NDA they have. TMUS and VZ likely may decide to settle MG patent infringement and begin talks, a la AMZN. But their settlement decision takes Judge Albright's approval which is not likely to happen by next week. What say you , Carnac?
lbird33,
>>...a company that has 24-0 IPR sweep...<<
I was more like 28-0 win?
" WACO, Texas, Aug. 01, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to announce the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has terminated Samsung’s involvement in Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) filed against U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,234 and 10,880,721 and denied T-Mobile’s request for joinder to those IPRs. The PTAB has also denied institution of T-Mobile’s corresponding IPR petition. As a result of these events, all IPR petitions against the Company have now been terminated. In total, VoIP-Pal has endured a total of 28 IPR petitions dating back to 2016.
... said Emil Malak, CEO of VoIP-Pal. “It is a very significant accomplishment for us to have survived 28 IPR challenges over the past seven years without losing a single claim..."
Yes, makes sense to raise cash to pay for the legal team, consultants, court fees, Patent office fees, insurance, etc. (Re.: 10Q). Pay employees and a few others cash plus company stock. They have avoided borrowing and debt so far.
All likely to change for better by next qtr when the cash settlement (MG case) from AMZN shows up in their books and the trial decisions by AMZN (RBR case), TMUS and VZ before the year end.
Yes, Hayday!
1. New CFO - The new CFO Ms. Jin Kuang did an excellent job of presenting with fine details as readable as possible, along with the accounting policy changes. e.g. Sarbanes–Oxley Act
2. 10Q - AMZN MG patent settlement talks for the 45 days began after they filed a stay on May 2, 2023. The 45-day deadline was around the end of June. VPLM did not make an announcement citing the nda or perhaps a delay with the royalty agreement issue. If VPLM got paid by AMZN (with a royalty agreement and license) hope to see it in the next 10Q.
3. Settlement - AMZN filed a stay on 606 RBR patent case, citing a possible delay due to VPLM's reexamination of 606 claims by USPTO. VPLM countered AMZN's stay request by citing that a stay at this time will cause a severe setback in the resolution of the 606 case after all discovery, claim const., expert testimony, etc. were completed. We shall see what Judge Albright thinks.
4. Reexamination (RBR 606) - All shareholders have received VPLM's response to USPTO's Office Action and have had the time to read it. You will note:
(a) several original RBR claims have been modified in a clear language with details (giving no room for Alice or other issues) and
(b) new claims have been added, making the RBR patent much stronger.
Getting a stronger RBR patent perhaps motivated VPLM to dismiss cases? After USPTO approves the changes, they could start suing for RBR infringement? Who knows!
VPLM hopes for a fast, positive response from USPTO in a few weeks. Is that a reason for waiting? We hope VPLM will proceed with AMZN RBR case, with the original or modified claims. jmo.
5. Judge Albright got to see VPLM's filing in response to TMUS bogus claim of using HotSpot@Home in 2005 for WiFi calling. In previous posts we have analyzed the history of HotSpot@Home technology, its development, and the technical basis in the patent or printed literature. We found none. In a recent filing Mr. Hudnell confirmed our finding and went further to question TMobile's expert witness Proctor for his several hundred pages of "bogus" testimony based on public information and public information available on the Internet. After several problems with TMobile handset they finally came up a second handset (in 2010 about the time of VPLM technology patent) that could communicate with a WIFi router. Their first or second handset does not have the technical strength to defend HotSpot@Home technology in a trial. Similar arguments may hold good for VZ because they also relied on free public information available in a forum (internet) for their technology.
Judge Albright needs to schedule a trial. If it is a jury trial, wish the jury finds the infringement was willful, thus raising the potential for triple damages. We wait and see.
IPR wins 28-0 without losing a claim is an achievement.
After successful reexamination and issue of a certificate validating the modified claims, RBR patent will be stronger against defendants. e.g. AMZN and others in Waco. Their communication is between VPLM and the patent examiner.
Add to the above, the Judge Albright ruling in favor of recharacterization of RBR routing message, further boosting claim construction and stronger infringement damage model.
TMUS and VZ have been relying the UMA designation for their wifi audio and video calls, etc. They have not showed or used any of their own patents in court filings so far.
Good for VPLM to focus on these defendants in Waco under Judge Albright. It is all about PATENTS and the process. jmo
Yes. It was one of the 10 largest damage awards in recent history; they were screened for appeals and end results. The award could have been higher, had the jury found willfulness on Intel. Thanks.
>>...Intel vs VLSI Technology (2021) – $2.18 Billion...<<
Is this from Waco - Judge Albright ruling?
VVVVVV, HayDay
Your concern about the AVERAGE pendency of 25.7 months is justified. It is the average of all reexams data since 1981 till 2020. It could be a misleading statistic. Today's company response to Office Action proves that it was a misleading statistic to worry about.
We have not been able to access the office action documents, claims in question, etc. They are not accessible to the public. Normally it takes 1-2 months. Judge Albright may not need to stay the case as Mr. Hudnell has argued for.
We are lucky today to see VPLM's response to the Office Action within 2 months, including 1 month extension for VPLM to respond. A lot of work! Today shareholders got VPLM's response to Office Action. Still reading it.
Expected date for the news was July 24. Got it on July 26, only 2 days late. Not bad.
Highlights (quickly browsing through it):
VPLM has added 2-3 new claims, modified old claims to make them stronger (old "815 and 005"), offer to interview with the patent examiner. All these steps will expediently move the matter forward. It is not like an IPR which involves hearing arguments from parties. In the reexamination proceeding VPLM controls the narrative. The patent owner has to take the time and patiently explain the technology intricacies to the patent examiner. (personal experience)
Side benefit: if the Examiner allows the above modifications, the old "815 and 005" will be stronger. Recall some of claims were rejected in NDCal trials.
USPTO's Reexamination Center statistics are worth checking.
We can speculate on "how long" only after the result comes out. July 24 was AMZN's speculation -mentioned in their filing.
Hay Day
It will be if AMZN's expectation for the successful finalization of Reexamination and the issue of a Reexamination certificate, so that RBR case would resume and the Judge need not "stay" the RBR case as AMZN requested. Better yet, the company reveals the MG patent settlement details with AMZN. We shall see!
Stef,
>>...the first to file rule apply...<<
No.
1) As stated in the post, there is no record of TMobile patent application for "HotSpot@Home" technology since 2005. Therefore the question of "First to File" issue does not arise. There is no sign of TMobile applying for a US patent.
2) When questioned about "HotSpot@Home", TMobile issues a blanket statement: "First, T-Mobile has operated a Wi-Fi calling system that uses “DNS queries” since 2006, long before the earliest claimed priority date for the mobile gateway patents...". "DNS" or "Domain Name Server" queries are commonly used in the Internet Networks practice. Nothing proprietary about them.
3) Next they claim: TMobile's wifi calling system "HotSpot@Home" complies with "UMA" designation."
"UMA" is "Unlicensed Mobile Access", an open source software code released for public use in 2005. Nothing proprietary.
What is "Unlicense"?
"Unlicense" is a template for disclaiming copyright monopoly interest in software you've written; in other words, it is a template for dedicating your software to the public domain. The website https://unlicense.org is not operational.
HayDay
>>...Gee, wonder what this could mean?...<<
Based on previous TMUS filings (including "inequitable conduct") they DO/DID NOT have a patent to prove their technology "HotSpot@Home". Instead, they do the "song and dance", attack the CEO for being one of the inventors on the MG patent, or his role regarding "Avatar", etc. All they have showed are promotional ads campaign for HotSpot@Home in newspapers, etc. claiming it is part of UMA designation since 2005-2006, not an issued US patent. If anyone does google-search of US or foreign patents or technical literature for HotSpot@Home, there was/is no patent. So VPLM's search of prior art did not reveal anything about HotSpot@Home and hence it was not included in our prior art compilation for MG patent. But TMUS counsel declares VPLM has a problem! Yes, that is why AMZN settled on MG patent. If I find my notes/research on this, I'll post.
VZ is in a similar predicament. Caught without a solid patent for defense. The trial will disclose. It is good for VPLM to go through the challenge.
Both TMUS and VZ fear a possible jury trial and Mr. Hudnell's ability to convince the jury of "willful" infringement.
Last two zoom calls revealed the decency of AMZN's counsel Mr. Daniel T. Shvodian arguing the MG patent claims and the RBR routing message. The "vibes" from TMUS sound like a "street fight".
MG patent governs the use of location identifier (say GPS) on your smart phone to connect to an incoming call, avoiding "roaming" charges, not requiring "calling cards", etc. (Claim 30). TMUS completely missed to address it!
Shareholders deserve a jury trial to enforce not only MG patents but also RBR patents for audio and video calls as well as e commerce. RBR damages will be huge and both defendants can afford to pay the damages.
An advantage of a trial is that the Judge will give a ruling with or without the willfulness and it will be public. But it could be appealed to a higher court.
On the other hand, if both TMUS and VZ agree for a settlement, it may take a few weeks but the terms may be kept confidential for a period of time. No appeals!
It does not stop there! Check John Minor's report on "apportionment of infringement" damages. Mr. Minor claims a "backhaul" wifi network system a consumer has set up at home at his/her own expense should be part of Telcos' infrastructure expenses. Currently Telcos are dumping your cell audio/video calls on your personal home wifi network set up by you. Google "backHaul" wifi networks and Google's NET MESH wifi systems. Wonder whether Telcos should pay for home wifi systems?
Folks familiar with home wifi network technologies and business aspects may help us understand this issue.
Stef
>>...The judge awards the willful and future infringement...<<
A minor point: In the last case vs. Intel, Judge Albright awarded $2.4 Billion damage without the willful damage since the jury did not find it was "willful". Hope Mr. Hudnell shall convince the jury of willfulness.
HayDay,
>>...there is more to this action than meets the eye...<<
Yes! July 24?
>>...first patent was approved in 2013, it took 10 yrs,...<<
A minor point to consider:
Patent owner can claim Infringement damages for all those past years since 2013 plus the future years until the end of patent life. Patent life is extended by child patents.(CDMA - QCOM)
HD,
Agree! My mentor said: "It is dark before the dawn." All negatives, shiny objects. etc. will be moot.
Removing potential "landmines": IPR's, Alice, etc.
Today's news about a legal update is meant for all investors, not just a few that follow this stock very closely from Court filings, Pace monitor and other sources. For those "close followers", the legal update is not new. But the company has to inform all shareholders.
As stated in the news release:
"... pleased to be done with the cases in California and to have the Alice motions behind us. This now allows us to focus all of our attention on the upcoming trials this October in Waco, Texas, vs. Verizon and T-Mobile, and the ongoing case against Amazon asserting our RBR continuation patent.”...
It is an effort to remove "landmines" and minimize potential risks ahead of impending trials (T-Mobile, VZ) in Waco. Although VPLM has won 20 out of 20 IPR's, they want to avoid risks while completing negotiations with AMZN.
Conducting the two trials and completing the current damage negotiations with AMZN requires financial resources that the company needs the most. Patent infringement damage experts are working on both MG and RBR patents with AMZN. The 45-day deadline for the MG patent infringement negotiations has arrived.
If anyone is interested in reviewing the role of IPR risks in the past cases, you can access a long post from Jan 16, 2023 which is still accessible. In this post we analyzed patent laws, cases, size of damage awards, IPR risks, etc.
Check the section on Intel vs. VLSI case in which $2.18 Billion damage was awarded against Intel by Judge Alright, Waco. The jury did not find "willfulness" against Intel.
Parts of Jan 16 post follow:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170957637
rapz Re: None Monday, January 16, 2023 6:56:29 PM Post# 112132 of 119630
Is there a maximum for patent infringement damages? No, says the Law.
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS...
...SELECTIVE CASES, ISSUES RELEVANT TO VPLM, AND POTENTIAL RISKS, IF ANY
1) Centripetal vs. Cisco - $2.75 billion award
https://smithhopen.com/2020/10/12/largest-patent-infringement-award-ever-not-so-fast/
In 2012, the Eastern District of Virginia awarded the largest patent infringement damages, in a patent infringement case involving a cybersecurity firm Centripetal asserting 11 U.S. patents against Cisco.
AN IPR BATTLE ENSUED
Within six months, Cisco filed 14 IPRs against 9 of Centripetal’s patents and invalidated 6 of the asserted patents and partially invalidated another patent. Nevertheless, Centripetal walked out of the IPR trial with some enforceable claims of US Patents 9,137,205 and 9,686,193.
(VPLM: PTAB IPR win 20-0, this trend could continue. So far IPR's have not invalidated VPLM patents or claims.)
The court held that Cisco willfully infringed Centripetal’s patents and awarded $756 million in damages. Upon finding that Cisco acted willfully and egregiously, the judge multiplied the damages by a factor of 2.5, yielding a total sum of $1.9 billion. The judge did not stop there. Next, the judge imposed a 10% royalty on the infringing products for the next 3 years and a 5% royalty for the subsequent 3 years. Tech experts estimate that the total verdict could amount to $2.65 to $3.25 billion. this will be the largest patent infringement award ever.
(VPLM: US Supreme Court (Roberts) relaxed the criteria for proving "WILLFULNESS OF INFRINGEMENT". VPLM informed all defendants soon after the patents were issued.)
WHAT HAPPENED NEXT FOR CISCO?
https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-supreme-court-rejects-centripetal-appeal-cisco-patent-fight-2022-12-05/
WASHINGTON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a bid by Centripetal Networks Inc to reinstate the largest award in the history of U.S. patent law - $2.75 billion - to be paid by Cisco Systems Inc in a cybersecurity patent dispute.
The justices turned away Centripetal's appeal of a lower court's decision to negate the award after the judge who presided over the trial disclosed that his wife owned Cisco stock worth $4,688.
(VPLM: As an ex-patent litigator Judge Albright is not expected to have conflicts of owning stock in VPLM or defendant companies.)
========
3) A WACO CASE OF INTEREST: INTEL vs VLSI
Intel is told to pay $2.18 billion after losing a patent trial by Judge Albright (Waco)
BY SUSAN DECKER AND MATTHEW BULTMAN, MARCH 2, 2021
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-03-02/intel-told-to-pay-2-18-billion-after-losing-patent-trial
Intel infringed two patents owned by closely held VLSI, the jury in Waco said. The jury awarded $1.5 billion for infringement of one patent and $675 million for infringement of the second. The jury rejected Intel’s denial of infringing either of the patents and its argument that one patent was invalid because it claimed to cover work done by Intel engineers.
The jury said there was no willful infringement. A finding otherwise would have enabled District Court Judge Alan Albright to increase the award even further, as much as three times the amount set by the jury.
The damage award isn’t so high when the billions of chips sold by Intel are taken into account, Chu said. Intel paid MicroUnity Systems Engineering Corp $300 million in 2005 and paid Nvidia Corp. $1.5 billion in 2011 even though a settlement in that case involved a cross license of technology, he said.
Intel had sought to postpone the case because of the pandemic but was rejected by Judge Albright, a former patent litigator and magistrate who was sworn in as a federal judge in 2018. Judge Albright agreed and ruled $2.18 billion award.
In totality, this is the second-largest patent infringement damages ever awarded. Intel stock fell 2.6% to $61.24 in New York trading. This amount is about half of Intel’s fourth-quarter profit. The magnitude of damages had to do with the reason that Intel has sold billions of infringing devices (similar to current defendants: Apple, Samsumg, Google, etc.)
(If the jury found Intel infringement was willful, Judge Albright could have escalated the $2.18 billions award to three times to $6.5 billion!)
Intel's case went to Delaware court where the patent infringement award was $4 Billion.
Intel and VLSI this week agreed to settle one of their ongoing legal disputes. The legal battle in Delaware covered five patents, and VLSI asked for more than $4 billion in damages, reports Reuters.
The two parties agreed to settle the dispute in Delaware with prejudice, so the lawsuit cannot be brought to court again. VLSI agreed not to sue Intel's customers and suppliers over the five CPU patents at the issue of the case, whereas the processor giant agreed to dismiss its counterclaims. The two companies will not pay anything to each other.
"The parties have agreed to dismissal of claims and counterclaims asserted in this action," a court filing reads.
Intel wants $4 bln VLSI patent lawsuit tossed over ownership disclosure
By Blake Brittain December 12, 2022
(Reuters) - Intel Corp has asked a federal judge in Delaware to dismiss a $4.1 billion patent lawsuit from VLSI Technology LLC, claiming VLSI is purposefully concealing its "opaque ownership structure" from the court.
Intel in a filing unsealed Friday asked U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly to throw out the case, arguing that VLSI failed to comply with his standing order for parties to name "every individual and corporation with a direct or indirect interest" in them.
VLSI is owned by investment funds managed by Fortress Investment Group LLC, a SoftBank Group Corp subsidiary. It has won two jury verdicts in West Texas worth over $3 billion on accusations that Intel infringed patents VLSI bought from Dutch chipmaker NXT Semiconductors NV.
Other VLSI lawsuits against Intel are still pending in Delaware and Northern California. Connolly paused the Delaware case in August after finding VLSI's CEO provided vague information about the investors that own it.
Intel said in its Friday filing that VLSI's refusal to detail its investors is "no accident" and warned that without adequate disclosures, Connolly could not determine whether he has any conflicts in the case.
Intel, VLSI drop Delaware dispute in blockbuster patent fight By Blake Brittain
December 27, 2022
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/intel-vlsi-drop-delaware-dispute-blockbuster-patent-fight
drumming,
AGREE 1000%! In the absence of news about the AMZN's MG patent discussion (45-day) or 606 patent discussion (unknown schedule), folks do not know what the outcome will be - positive or negative. It is not clear whether the MG 45-day patent discussion is separate from the 606 patent discussion or both are combined into the 45-day deadline.
If a "buyout" is not in the cards, folks do not know why several dismissals are happening. Folks that held this stock through bad times have the patience to hold longer. jmo
Normally in the case of a "buyout" OR a "VPLM merger as AMZN's IP subsidiary", the buyer Corporation checks all pending litigations against, financial reports and SEC filings, and history (beyond the "Discovery process"), etc. But outsiders do not have a clue if this is the reason why VPLM is "clearing the deck". Did any issues come up during discussions with AMZN that required this action?
Only items outsiders expect to know are: results of AMZN "meet and confer" discussion/agreement due 45 days, final scheduling of the impending trials of TMUS and VZ
From past history of VPLM IPR's the argument before PTAB is supposed to begin soon (if they were not cancelled) and the results to be announced early 2024. So far VPLM won 20 out of 20 IPR's. Then, why all these dismissals?
If they keep dismissing cases, why sue them: Samsung, Meta, GOOG, AAPL, T? Is someone buying them out?