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.
"lawmakers"?
Very few Senators and House Reps are truly dedicated to public service. The rest are there to promote or protect their own selfish business interests.
The way the stock is trading, shows a possibility of defendants not joining Koh's ADR today. If this happens, what will Koh do?
As far as VPLM goes they have to go back to the drawing board and start again in Waco - somehow.
Agreed!
Issues like Alice, non-obviousness, or abstractness, are supposed to be resolved at the initial patent examination stage. After patents are issued with valid claims, further questions about claims, Alice, etc. are resolved by the knowledgeable patent judges at the PTAB via IPR's, etc. After going through all these tests, (12 wins in VPLM case) why would anyone allow Dist Court/Fed Circuit judges that have the least understanding of patents, idea creation, the underlying technology, etc. deny patents based on Alice or abstract ideas? Why infringement cases filed in these courts somehow drag Alice or abstract ideas again to issue a judgement on claims that were already examined and approved by the US PTO? Wish someone asked Senator Tilles for an explanation.
DB, Thanks for posting this link. Interesting cases in the comment section!
A crucial judiciary topic that deserves immediate Congress action. Senators Tillis and Coons were working on improving the current patent law.
My guess is that TWTR might want to continue because NCal is their "venue" to resolve the dispute with Koh's help.
HayDay,
your comment is interesting. Since an ex-CEO of AAPL offered to buy VPLM CEO's personal shares, there could be some interest in buying the company.
However, the current trend of AAPL's fighting VPLM at PTAB, in Fed Circuit, and in Koh's court, could also mean that they may not join the ADR because it could be an implicit admission of their guilt viz. infringement or VPLM has valid claims not subject to Alice.
Another question is whether ATT, VZ and TWTR will follow AAPL and reject ADR. If no one responds to Koh's ADR order, does it not look bad for Koh?
Why would she feel justified ruling a Declaratory judgement order previously favoring the parties uninterested in the resolution? Why waste her time on this case? Would she use this ADR failure as an excuse to dismiss the declaratory judgement action as requested by Mr. Hudnell from the beginning and let the cases move to Waco. Speculating, of course!
Butters,
Glad to see you are back posting. Let us hope current circumstances viz. ADR, interlocutory appeal, WACO, and Europe, will work out in VPLM's favor.
Germany offers the best potential to beat infringers in Europe, not UK or France or India.
Mr. Hudnell smartly kept the four parties tied to Koh's declaratory judgement as a separate group from the rest for 606 cases in Waco: AMZN, FB/WhatsApp, Goog.
Drumming,
much appreciated for the link.
It answered my question: who will certify for the interlocutory appeal. It is Koh. It sets up for the next appeal.
Mr. Hudnell raises another new question about Koh's personal jurisdiction over VPLM and pulls the Fed Circuit into this argument. Sounds like the Fed Circuit was not thorough.
HayDay,
>>... if they don’t want to be dealing with a new patent owner with many $billions and giant legal teams behind them. I don’t think there is any love between the companies..<<
It is true what you are saying. Have seen similar situations in the past. One that has much to lose will be clobbered if they are not savvy, provided that Mr. Hudnell plays it right in the middle.
It is quite possible that he has some professional contacts that he had worked with before, in the area of infringement settlement, royalty and licensing.
HayDay,
Thank you for your response. Based on our past experience with Koh who did not bother reading the patents, nor did claim construction, etc. and jumped to Alice ruling, not once but twice, it is hard to see a change of heart in her. That is one corner.
On the other far side of corner, the possibility of a deal can be a shocker based on Silicon Valley's vehement denial of infringement, let alone the existence of such claims which they demanded cancelled or invalid.
If ADR offers a platform for negotiation between parties, it is a good thing. VPLM CEO and team leave their ego and emotion at the door and engage with defendants to the extent that it gives all a platform to acknowledge VPLM has a unique technology, that it is being infringed, viz, RBR, and deserves a fair settlement that can be negotiated. Defendants may start with a low ball figure while VPLM enters with high expectations. A business strategist can guide VPLM on how to limit to a narrow range of claims in question while leaving a broad spectrum of other technologies untouched and saved for future infringement cases.
All in all, even if a moderate settlement is reached, it gives VPLM some needed funds to operate, higher stock price with market credibility, add more manpower to pursue other infringement cases. Maybe it is wishing too much. too soon. We shall see.
ADR may be a compromise. It could be admission of guilt (infringement) or simply tired of continuing lawsuits. How much VPLM can get for infringement? Will they get licensing deals for a reasonable fee? Is it limited to RBR or can they include other technologies? VPLM needs a business strategist experienced in patent and licensing deals. Let us see what "framework" the parties agree for negotiation.
HayDay,
Could you expand on your cryptic post "Ides of March"? Is it the certification for the Interlocutory order that could move VPLM case out of Koh's court to another court in the Ninth dist.?
It says a District/Trial court provides the certification for the Int. order? Is Koh's court is supposed to certify? Talking about the possibility of different conclusions on the same case, are they comparing clueless Koh vs. Albright?
We know how bad and clueless the Fed Circuit court ruling can be? It sounds like the interns with no patent background read the case docs and write an opinion for the judges.
Alternative Dispute Resolution was part of the Ninth Dist procedures (Re.case management conf) in CA. Recall reading about this when VPLM started their case in Koh's court. It was supposed to reduce legal expenses and time for everyone.
Drumming
Thanks. I was ploughing through about 50+ articles on the topic - California.
My analogy of David vs. Goliath may not be quite apt to Silicon Valley.
Goliath is supposedly a huge warrior facing a small boy like David - ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD. In Silicon Valley, huge companies like AAPL are hiding under a skirt instead of stepping into a level playing field, say Albright's claim construction inquiries. Is the skirt large enough to protect huge Silicon Valley companies? Why are they scared s#*% of stepping into the battle field and face claim construction/discovery?
HayDay,
Appreciate your confidence and the positive sentiment.
In the case of David vs. Goliath, did David know that his sling shot would work on Goliath? Was it his blind faith or his exceptional skill responsible for the win? He had the courage and determination to fight. But he also needed a tool and the skill to use that tool.
Good to hear that VPLM is determined to fight the Silicon Valley. Although Mr.Hudnell is doing an excellent job on the legal side of the battle, that is not enough. A business strategy or a strategic partner seems to be missing.
Defeat after defeat in Koh's court, the home of Silicon Valley, should tell the CEO that he needs a business strategist with close working relationship with USPTO as well as has contacts in Washington to plead the case to the Congress for help. The person should be able to bring in an investor to fund the expense. Like David, VPLM needs a "sling shot" aimed at the weak point of the enemy. No time to waste. jmo.
Agree.
HayDay
Its about time for PTAB to get involved in bigger roles to exert their duty as USPTO, an executive wing of the govt. charged with implementing the patent law and claims, determine what is abstract and what is not.
Butters,
If you would allow me, let me say I share your feelings. Please don't quit!
Long term investors are upset by today's ruling. What else can be expected when idiots are appointed for life? It is not time to abandon the battle and blame anyone. Let the battle continue. VPLM's has patented many more technologies than RBR, say Mobile Gate Technology. etc.
Legendary investor Peter Lynch said, "Know what you invest." VPLM is all about patents. Investors must know patents. VPLM won 12-0 PTAB IPR's.
Who knows patents - PTAB or Fed Circuit? Whose rulings are right - PTAB or idiots on Fed Circuit? There is one Albright (in Waco) for every Koh in NDCal.
Hope you will stay with us till the end and profit.
RBR and 606 patent case back to Koh's court? Its case mgmt schedule was published prior to the stay.
While it progresses in NDCal, can VPLM file a new patent case on Mobile Gateway technology in Waco? First-to-file this time.
>>... So Rapz, do you still have faith in our Judicial System?...<<
YES!
Spyke,
>>... the law should be as ambiguous as she tends to make ... <<
Even without her help, reading a ton of literature of court proceedings, law is just ambiguous. Shylock of the merchant of Venice can blame his defeat on ambiguity.
Was this link posted here? Many are critical of Koh.
The Fraud of Judge Lucy H. Koh https://judgelucykoh.weebly.com/
Agreed. How many of us, non-lawyers, knew what mandamus is and VPLM chances to navigate to WDTX? A lot of literature out there but nothing specific.
In https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=161717978
posted a link on Rule 21 https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_21
Gives possible reasons why Amicus curiae was invited, why AAPL was asked to respond in 5 days, etc. Similar topics on Mandamus are available on the Net.
Information posted on Rule 21 was from a Legal Institute web site. It outlines general possibilities from a mandamus action, nothing specific to VPLM's case, as stated in the disclaimer.
===
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=161717978
rapz Wednesday, 02/10/21 06:33:59 PM Re: None 0 Post # 99736 of 99736
While waiting for a ruling on the writ of mandamus, let us explore the Net for information. It may not be specific to VPLM's current case but one can get a general idea how the process could be working.
===
A general impression that comes across is that judges may not be faulted for errors in their ruling (say Alice) because the laws are so vague that their interpretations may vary. And "patent monetization" takes the back seat.
Rule 21 states that there could a hearing, probably involving the trial court judge (Koh?). Is it happening? Is it a reason for the delay?
Fed Circuit acts fast on transfer mandamus, 2 weeks or so. But VPLM's case involves a judge (Koh), her bias and over-reach of patent law: first-to-file, Alice ruling, absence of claims construction, lack of personal/subject jurisdictions (a la Hudnell petitions).
Mandamus can reverse district court rulings. Can that happen?
While waiting for a ruling on the writ of mandamus, let us explore the Net for information. It may not be specific to VPLM's current case but one can get a general idea how the process could be working. (Note: left parts of the text but a link is provided.) https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frap/rule_21
THE KEY IS RULE 21
Rule 21. Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition, and Other Extraordinary Writs
(a) Mandamus or Prohibition to a Court: Petition, Filing, Service, and Docketing.
(1) A party petitioning for a writ of mandamus or prohibition directed to a court must file a petition with the circuit clerk and serve it on all parties to the proceeding in the trial court. ... All parties to the proceeding in the trial court other than the petitioner are
respondents for all purposes. (Note: "respondent")
===
(b) Denial; Order Directing Answer; Briefs; Precedence.
(1) The court may deny the petition without an answer. Otherwise, it must order the respondent, if any, to answer within a fixed time.
(2) The clerk must serve the order to respond on all persons directed to respond. (As in AAPL had to respond within 5 days!)
(3) Two or more respondents may answer jointly.
(4) The court of appeals may invite or order the trial-court judge to address the petition or may invite an amicus curiae to do so (As it happened in VPLM's case. the amicus curiae doc was devastating to Koh). The trial-court judge may request permission to address the petition but may not do so unless invited or ordered to do so by the court of appeals. (Koh has no chance?)
(5) If briefing or oral argument is required, the clerk must advise the parties, and when appropriate, the trial-court judge or amicus curiae.
(6) The proceeding must be given preference over ordinary civil cases.
(7) The circuit clerk must send a copy of the final disposition to the trial-court judge.
====
Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1996 Amendment
In most instances, a writ of mandamus or prohibition is not actually directed to a judge in any more personal way ... Most often a petition for a writ of mandamus seeks review of the intrinsic merits of a judge's action and is in reality an adversary proceeding between the parties. See, e.g., Walker v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 443 F.2d 33 (7th Cir. 1971). In order to change the tone of the rule and of mandamus proceedings generally, the rule is amended so that the judge is not treated as a respondent. The caption and subdivision (a) are amended by deleting the reference to the writs as being “directed to a judge or judges.”
Subdivision (a). Subdivision (a) applies to writs of mandamus or prohibition directed to a court, but it is amended so that a petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition does not bear the name of the judge. The amendments to subdivision (a) speak, however, about mandamus or prohibition “directed to a court.”
====
Subdivision (b). The amendment provides that even if relief is requested of a particular judge, although the judge may request permission to respond, the judge may not do so unless the court invites or orders a response. (Tough luck, Koh?)
====
The court of appeals ordinarily will be adequately informed not only by the opinions or statements made by the trial court judge (Koh?) contemporaneously with the entry of the challenged order but also by the arguments made on behalf of the party opposing the relief. The latter does not create an attorney-client relationship between the party's attorney and the judge whose action is challenged, nor does it give rise to any right to compensation from the judge.
If the court of appeals desires to hear from the trial court judge, however, the court may invite or order the judge to respond. In some instances, especially those involving court administration or the failure of a judge to act, it may be that no one other than the judge can provide a thorough explanation of the matters at issue. Because it is ordinarily undesirable to place the trial court judge, even temporarily, in an adversarial posture with a litigant, the rule permits a court of appeals to invite an amicus curiae to provide a response to the petition. In those instances in which the respondent does not oppose issuance of the writ or does not have sufficient perspective on the issue to provide an adequate response, participation of an amicus may avoid the need for the trial judge to participate.
Is it Lucy in the sky of diamonds?
Drumming
Forgot to point out. This Uniloc case was what AAPL got transferred to NDCal from Albright's court via a mandamus.
Drumming,
Great news! Apple getting crushed again? Apple juice or cider soon?.
Butters,
>> ... high that bias runs ... <<
That has been my concern too! Saw a lot of information on the Net about the Ninth circuit (California) adopting a blanket "policy" of using Alice to reject patents as early as possible to cut down "court costs" on patent cases and expedite their case load.
Mr. Hudnell, Amicus Brief, et al. repeatedly mention how wrongly Alice was applied to VPLM patent cases at "Rule 12 stage" instead of a claim construction hearing. What is Rule 12? Judge Albright and other District courts do not bother with Alice until the end.
An exception was a recent hearing in which Justice Reyna (and Moore) ruling against AAPL and allowing the "non-overlapping" claims, while PTAB was present to offer help. VPLM is free to assert these claims later. One can hear a lady justice wondering if it was appropriate for their "panel" to rule against or change PTAB rulings.
Appreciate your optimism about Judge Albright and Waco. Actually Austin may be a better place where Judge Albright presides. AAPL is building a huge hotel for 1000's of AAPL employees. Their experts can easily commute to Albright's court to testify, not "100 miles" as Koh says to justify NDCal venue in her declaratory judgement.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/court-orders-tim-cook-to-sit-for-7-hour-deposition-in-epic-case/ar-BB1dhQJS?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBnb7Kz
Court Orders Tim Cook to Sit for 7-Hour Deposition in Epic Case
Some not-so-great legal news for Apple. For starters, a judge has concluded that Apple CEO Tim Cook should sit for a seven-hour deposition in the upcoming case against Epic Games. Second, Apple’s attempt to subpoena Samsung in the case has also been denied. Womp womp...
United States District Court Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN RE. APPLE IPHONE ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Case No.11-cv-06714-YGR(TSH)
PUBLIC VERSION OF JANUARY 26, 2021 DISCOVERY ORDER AT 11-6714 ECF NO. 392, 19-3074 ECF NO. 264, 20-5640 ECF NO. 291Re: Dkt. Nos. 371, 372, 376
https://gizmodo.com/well-well-well-tim-cook-and-craig-federighi-must-tes-1845906295
Apple's Tim Cook and Craig Federighi Sucked Into Center of Epic Case [Corrected]
year: 2017
within a month for Transfer mandamus - AAPL requested for transfer citing improper venue. Judge Albright was overruled.
current case involves many issues including Koh's errors and bias.
Extensive information found on Transfer mandamus, Federal Circuit acts fast. Took less than a month for the transfer mandamus filed by AAPL for transfer from Albright's WDTX court to Koh NDCAL. Statistically Fed Circuit acts fast on Transfer mandamus.
In this VPLM's case, Koh has been shown to be the worst judge with severe bias. Amicus brief question her Alice rulings without performing the claim construction.
HayDay,
>>...so worried about such “abstract patents”? ...<<
Mr. Hudnell is pursuing to resolve this Alice issue in both Alice cases via the en banc combined hearing.
Last time the Fed Appeals court issued 36d without examining the underlying Alice test errors made by clueless Koh in both Alice rulings - a point of interest to Investors and VPLM.
Crooked Koh has been clueless as to why VPLM won 12-0 in PTAB and why PTAB panel of patent judges missed this point.
More information and clarity of events leading to the NDCal "stay" order.
1) DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's (VPLM'S) consolidated motion to dismiss Plaintiffs'
complaints.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 11, 2020
/s/_________
LUCY H. KOH
=======
2) Mr. Hudnell files a writ of mandamus
Federal Circuit Docket No.: 2021-112
Federal Circuit Short Caption: In re: Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
Date of Docketing: January 13, 2021
=======
3) NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
Case No. 20-CV-02397-LHK
Case No. 20-CV-02460-LHK
TWITTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., Defendant.
APPLE INC, Plaintiff, v. VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., Defendant.
On December 9, 2020, the parties filed a joint case management statement. Case No. 20-CV-02397-LHK, ECF No. 49. The Court DENIES Defendant’s request for a stay of all case management deadlines. Id. at 2. The Court also DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to limit Defendant’s claims for assertion. Id. at 5.
The Court continues the December 16, 2020 case management conference to January 20, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall file a joint case management statement by January 13, 2021. The case schedule remains as set in the July 27, 2020 Case Management Order. Case No. 20-CV-02397-LHK, ECF No. 35. The Court reproduces the schedule below for the convenience of the parties. Highlights of 606 patent case Schedule is published:
Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions January 6, 2021
Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement April 21, 2021
Claim Construction Hearing July 22, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.
Opening Expert Reports January 10, 2022
Close of Expert Discovery March 11, 2022
Jury Trial November 7, 2022
Length of Jury Trial 5 days
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 14, 2020
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
======
4) On the samee day the woman issues a stay order!
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
Document 66 Filed 01/14/21 Page 1 of 4
APPLE INC., Plaintiff, v. VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., Defendant. Case No. 20-CV-02460-LHK
ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND GRANTING STAY Re: Dkt. No. 65
AT&T CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, v. VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., Defendant. Case No. 20-CV-02995-LHK
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, Plaintiff, v. VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., Defendant. Case No. 20-CV-03092-LHK
Case 5:20-cv-02460-LHK Case Nos. 20-CV-02460-LHK, 20-CV-02995-LHK, 20-CV-03092-LHK, 20-CV-02397-LHK
ORDER CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND STAYING CASE
Northern District of California
TWITTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., Defendant. Case No. 20-CV-02397-LHK
On January 13, 2021, the parties filed a joint case management statement in advance of the January 20, 2021 case management conference. Case No. 20-CV-02460-LHK, ECF No. 64. The Court continues the January 20, 2021 case management conference to March 3, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
The parties shall file a joint case management statement by February 24, 2021.
On January 13, 2021, VoIP-Pal petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus in the Apple, AT&T, and Verizon cases regarding this Court’s order on VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss. Case No. 20-CV-02460-LHK, ECF No. 65 at 4. That same day, VoIP-Pal filed a motion to stay the Apple, AT&T, and Verizon cases pending a resolution of VoIP-Pal’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Case No. 20-CV-02460-LHK, ECF No. 65.
The Court GRANTS VoIP-Pal’s motion and STAYS the instant cases until resolution of VoIP-Pal’s petition for a writ of
mandamus by either the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court. VoIP-Pal has not petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus in the Twitter case and has not filed a motion to stay the Twitter case. Furthermore, VoIP-Pal did not indicate in the joint case management statement or the motion to stay that VoIP-Pal intends to petition for a writ of mandamus in the Twitter case.
The Court thus STAYS the instant cases until resolution of VoIP-Pal’s petition for a writ of mandamus by either the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals or the United States Supreme Court. The parties shall notify the Court within three business days of any such ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 14, 2021
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
Depends upon the outcome of mandamus case, which is straightforward.
It asks for dismissing the case in Koh's court and transferring it to WACO. Both have to happen for good news.
en banc hearings are rarely granted. If granted, the Fed Circuit panel of judges (more qualified than Koh) have to re-examine the two Alice cases and correct Koh's errors. If VPLM wins in both cases, that will be a great win. jmo.