Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I guess some really do understand VPLM and the cases at hand.
For everyones viewing pleasure!
INC.,
Defendants
Case 6:21-cv-00670-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/03/21 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., § Plaintiff §
-vs- § APPLE INC., Defendant § §
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., § Plaintiff §
-vs- §
AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T § MOBILITY LLC, AT&T, § CORPORATION, Defendants §
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., § Plaintiff §
-vs- §
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., § CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, VERIZON § SERVICES CORP., VERIZON § BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES,
6:21-CV-00670-ADA
6:21-CV-00671-ADA
ORDER
6:21-CV-00672-ADA
Before the Court is Plaintiff VoIP-Pal’s Application for Temporary Restriction Order and Preliminary Injunction requesting this Court to temporarily restrain and enjoin Defendants Apple, AT&T, and Verizon from pursing their 2021 declaratory judgement actions filed in the
1
Case 6:21-cv-00670-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/03/21 Page 2 of 3
Northern District of California (“NDCA”). Temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions are extraordinary remedies. Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009). A court may only issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction if the movant establishes: “(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, (3) that the threatened injury if the injunction is denied outweighs any harm that will result if the injunction is granted, and (4) that the grant of an injunction will not disserve the public interest.” Id. In its application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, VoIP-Pal does not try to establish any of the above factors. Instead, VoIP-Pal relies on a 32-year-old case from the Northern District of Texas (Superior Sav. Ass’n. v. Bank of Dallas, 705 F. Supp. 326, 328 (N.D. Tex. 1989)) for its proposition that this Court has the authority to enjoin the defendants from pursuing their declaratory judgement actions based on the “first-to-file” rule. Dkt. 14 at 9-10. “The ‘first-to-file’ rule is a doctrine of federal comity, intended to avoid conflicting decisions and promote judicial efficiency, that generally favors pursuing only the first-filed action when multiple lawsuits involving the same claims are filed in different jurisdictions.” Commc’ns Test Design, Inc. v. Contec, LLC, 952 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quotation and citation omitted). Under the first-to-file rule, a district court presiding over a second-filed action may choose to stay, transfer, or dismiss the later-filed duplicative action. Id. However, this Court is not aware of any, and the plaintiff has not cited any, controlling Fifth Circuit or Federal Circuit law that authorizes a district court presiding over a first-filed action to enjoin a party from pursuing a second-filed action in a different court under the “first-to-file” rule. And the Court does not think the “first-to-file” rule justifies the extraordinary remedy of a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.
2
Case 6:21-cv-00670-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/03/21 Page 3 of 3
Therefore, the Court DENIES VoIP-Pal’s application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
In their Response, Defendants Apple, AT&T, and Verizon request this Court to stay the above-titled cases until the NDCA decides whether to relate Defendants’ 2021 declaratory judgment actions to the 2020 California cases currently pending before Judge Lucy Koh. Dkt. 16 at 9, 14-20. Defendants argue that there is “substantial overlap” between the instant cases and the 2020 California cases (and the previous 2016 and 2018 California cases before Judge Koh) because “all of the patents include an overlapping inventor and related to the same subject matter.” Id. at 9. The Court is not persuaded that having one overlapping inventor and common subject matter makes the instant cases substantially similar to the 2020 California cases. As the Defendants admits, the ’234 and ’721 patents asserted in the instant cases “stem from a different patent family than the patents in the 2016, 2018, and 2020 Cases.” Id. Therefore, the Court does not think a stay is justified under such circumstances.
It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff VoIP-Pal’s Application for Temporary Restriction Order and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. It is further ORDERED that Defendants Apple, AT&T, and Verizon’s request to stay the instant cases are also DENIED.
SIGNED this 3rd day of September, 2021.
ALAN D ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
And let’s not forget about Little Timmy spying on everyone. Talk about a surveillance state!
I hope Team VPLM doesn’t have iPhones. Apple already has a stooley in Koh, the VPLM don’t need to help Apple further by giving info directly to the Siri spy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/02/apple-siri-lawsuit-privacy/
“Lawsuits say Siri and Google are listening, even when they’re not supposed to
The lawsuits allege the technology is turning on when not activated and using the information for marketing.”
Tim Cook & Apple still under immense pressure around the world for their strong arming & pilfering of small app developers but tell us again how allegedly corrupt Emil is. Last time I checked, VPLM DOESN’T HAVE ANY GOVERNMENTS INVESTIGATING THEM!
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/03/business/dealbook/apple-app-store-antitrust.html?smid=url-share
“Analysts who track Apple said that these changes won’t significantly affect the tech giant’s $20 billion App Store business. Rather, The Times’s Kellen Browning and Daisuke Wakabayashi report, the moves are a strategic retreat, an effort by Apple to repel threats that would be more damaging to its bottom line. (Apple declined to comment.)
Apple is under pressure from regulators around the world who have accused it of exerting too much control over developers who sell products in its App Store. The South Korean Parliament on Tuesday passed a bill that would ban app stores from forcing developers to use only their proprietary payment systems. Apple also faces antitrust investigations in the U.S., the E.U., Britain and India. And it is awaiting the verdict in a lawsuit brought by Epic Games, which sought to avoid Apple’s commissions altogether
Ding ding ding…give limestone a cigar!
Albright will rule when he rules. The court cases are being monitored for updates.
DB - You’re a better man than me. I neither have the time nor the crayons to continue to try to explain basic stuff here any longer. Total waste of time & energy related to VPLM.
IMO, The cards will reveal themselves very, very soon. Even when our hand shows 4 Aces, we’ll continue to hear our cards are a bunch of worthlessness Jokers!
Highly doubtful!
BFD! Has been much higher in the past.
Well the case is now dismissed but Koh left the door open for Twitter to petition for attorney fees and you can bet they will. Unless a different settlement was reached but that seems doubtful.
Kind of feels like the tide of BS from N CA is starting to turn in VPLM’s favor. Time will tell. Next up…decision in Waco on TRO/Injunction!
Not for a moment!
N CA - Twitter case dismissed! 5:20-CV-02397
Exactly…Walmart is single handedly responsible for Rubbermaid merging with Newell in 1999. Walmart backed out of an agreement after Rubbermaid invested millions in new production capacity dedicated to goods Walmart committed to buying. Apple is no different than Walmart in trying to bankrupt VPLM.
A bit of history:
“In 1999, Newell acquired the Rubbermaid and Graco brand names in a megamerger worth $5.8 billion, and later renamed the combined firm Newell Rubbermaid. This was an acquisition ten times larger than the last biggest acquisition Newell had made, nearly doubled the company's size, and significantly increased Newell's portfolio of brands.
In 2003, the merger was dubbed the "merger from hell" by Businessweek magazine.[9] Newell shareholders lost 50% of their value in the two years following the closing and Rubbermaid shareholders lost 35%. In 2002, Newell wrote off $500 million in goodwill.”
Right on Stef. These big “honest” (cough, cough) companies are the gold standard in moral & ethical behavior…maybe that’s why they keep losing lawsuits and forced to pay settlements and jury awards to the little guys. #SMFH
Suggest you read the latest DealBook article explaining Apples latest settlement for continuing to block/rip off the little guys.
The tides are starting to turn. Apple just settled another lawsuit for antitrust claims against App Store by small app developers. Why is the Apple Goliath always trying to steal from the little guys?
As reported by Andrew Ross Sorkin
NY Times DealBook: Apple settles rather than fights
Apple’s App Store accommodation
When Apple settled a lawsuit yesterday brought by a group of small app developers, it represented a shift in the balance of power in an app ecosystem that the tech giant has long tightly controlled. Just how much of a shift is up for debate.
What did Apple agree to?
> Developers will now be allowed to tell customers, via email and other channels (but still not inside apps), about alternative payment methods that avoid Apple’s commissions. Apple framed this as a major concession, although it selectively enforced the rule before.
> It agreed not to raise the 15 percent commission that Apple collects from small app developers on customer purchases for at least three years.
> It will set up a $100 million fund for payouts to developers who made less than $1 million a year from Apple’s app store in the past few years. They will be eligible for payouts between $250 and $30,000 each.
> It will publish an annual report on the number of apps it rejects or removes from its App Store, as well as data on its search results.
Does this change anything?
Perhaps little for developers, but for Apple it might be a lot. Developers had already been pushing their customers to circumvent Apple’s commissions, and the settlement officially blesses that arrangement. Seen through the lens of Apple’s other legal troubles, the settlement could be strategically shrewd, easing the threat of more government action, and shifting Washington’s focus to other tech giants who have been less willing to make similar concessions.
Apple still faces a broader lawsuit about its App Store from Epic Games (the maker of Fortnite), with both companies awaiting a decision from a federal judge. The Supreme Court has also allowed other antitrust class actions against Apple to move forward. Notably, yesterday’s settlement is subject to approval by the same judge who is presiding over the Epic Games and consumer suits against Apple.
The temporary restraining order (TRO) has nothing to do with VPLM filing SCOTUS writ to join American Axle. Those are 2 separate issues.
The SCOTUS filing is in support of American Axle (AA). If AA is successful at SCOTUS, their success can open the door for VPLM to request previous negative 101 decisions in N CA by Koh on RBR patents to be vacated.
The TRO was filed in Waco relating to be new Mobile Gateway cases against Apple et al to prevent them from trying to play venue games to get these cases moved to N CA. Hopefully we will see a positive ruling from Judge Albright in the TRO motion very, very soon.
I’m not sure that a DJ decision is as easy or even possible to appeal as a final case decision. Apple didn’t lose any “rights” by this decision and the decision to not relate to previous cases didn’t settle the cases. The cases are still moving with the judges they were assigned to.
If there’s a lawyer who can shed more light appealing a DJ decision, I’d appreciate your insight.
IMO, it wouldn’t make sense to take a chance on those patents right now unless & until American Axle is victorious & Hudnell can get the previous Koh rulings in the RBR family vacated. If that happens, then it’s Katy bar the door in Waco because new infringement complaints should immediately be filed in W TX for the RBR patents.
It’s a thing of beauty to see Waco just posted a notice in the Mobile Gateway dockets that reads:
NOTICE OF DECISION
Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) notifies the Court that on August 25, 2021, Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California entered an order denying Apple’s motion to relate Apple. Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., 5:21-cv-5110-EMC (N.D. Cal.) (“Apple II”), involving U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,234 and 10,880,721—the same patents as this case—, to Apple. Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., 5:20-cv-2460-LHK (N.D. Cal.) (“Apple I”), involving U.S. Patent No. 10,218,606. As such, Apple II remains assigned to Judge Edward M. Chen and will not be reassigned to Judge Koh. A copy of the order is attached as Exhibit A.
Dated: August 26, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/Lewis E. Hudnell, III Lewis E. Hudnell, III lewis@hudnelllaw.com
Nicolas S. Gikkas nick@gikkaslaw.com
Hudnell Law Group P.C.
800 W. El Camino Real Suite 180 Mountain View, California 94040 T: 650.564.3698
F: 347.772.3034
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
To be clear, the 606 declaratory judgement case is still alive in N CA but now meaningless for the Mobile Gateway cases in Waco. Who cares about the RBR DJ cases in N CA. There’s a strong possibility those faulty 101 decisions can be vacated IF the Supreme Court rules in favor of American Axle.
Even when the dust settles on the VPLM lawsuits, regardless who wins, there will be some who won’t accept the outcome & make up fake news about why the cases went the way they did. IHWT!
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
— Martin Luther King Jr. —
Not only rabbit holes…how about when he had to “…go chasing white rabbits, and you knew you’re going to fall, tell ‘em a hookah smoking caterpillar, has given you the call…Call Emil.”
Wait DB…didn’t Emil invent the Disco Ball for Saturday Night Fever?
VPLM will not disappoint. IHWT!
New SEC regulations going into affect for OTC securities…sure glad VPLM is a fully audited OTCQB stock.
Message from TD Ameritrade:
On September 28, 2021, new amendments adopted by the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) go into effect to enhance investor protection and improve issuer transparency. These amendments restrict the ability of market makers to publish quotations for those companies that have not made required current financial and company information available to regulators and investors.
Ahead of the regulatory enforcement date, we will only accept orders to liquidate positions (i.e. no new buy orders) starting August 13, 2021. After the amendment officially goes into effect on September 28, 2021, it may be more difficult to liquidate these securities. Quoting and market liquidity may also be very limited.
In Hudnell we trust! Great work!
Really? I don’t recall a single “pro vplm” person posting anything about thinking N CA was the savior for VPLM. Most of us posted the exa t opposite because history & resumes show the N CA judge is in the pocket of Big Tech!
“You can make money or you can make excuses. Your choice.”
- John Addison
I know what side I’m on when it comes to VPLM…but I didn’t get in at $ 0.14 a share!
P2 - Haven’t had a chance to download the filing yet. On my to do list today. From the sounds of it, this reply was just like every other one from Apple et al…total BS kissing up to Koh hoping to schmooze the courts.
P2 - Here’s a link to the SEC.gov with the VPLM filings as required by law. Read through the 10-Q (quarterly) & 10-K (annual) reports & you’ll get your answer on legal fees. If they paid any legal fees or retainers, the charge will be disclosed in the filings. Also pay close attention to the corresponding notes as they provide much more detail to the listed expenses.
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=1410738&owner=exclude
Recycled?
Right. I can’t even withdraw more than $10,000 of my own money from the bank I’ve had accounts at for over 30 years without filing a bunch of papers then waiting to get MY money…all do to the 9/11 attacks. Imagine how long it takes for a $600,000 payment from a middle Eastern country to clear the banking system.
Besides, for those concerned…why would it be in the Dr’s best interest to lie about the contracts or expected payment? That would constitute fraud and he could be sued. The negative narrative makes zero sense.
Exactly right SD. Thanks for your thoughtful & informative posts.
P2 - Yes there is a lot going on but I don’t suspect dilution will be an issue. Might there be some at some point? Possibly but don’t forget Emil cancelled his anti-dilution clause and returned some stock, which already reduced share outstanding.
Share Structure:
Reporting date: 8/3/2021
Authorized: 3,000,000,000
Outstanding: 1,652,747,863
Restricted: 789,524,572
Unrestricted: 863,223,291
Source: https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/VPLM/security
All good questions, Only time & patience will tell how this goes in Waco.
Rapz - one update. Facebook motioned for and was granted an extension to reply last night. Their reply is now due on 9/7.
IKR DB….VPLM is more than funn!
Thanks for the kind words Prophet. The current SCPTUS term is over and I believe the next begins on the first Monday in October so not sure on your September comment. Regarding Waco, if you’re referring to the new Mobile Gateway cases, I don’t see a scheduling order in the docket but the extension granted gives defendants until 8/9 to respond to the TRO/injunction so not sure if there is still a hearing on 8/13. Maybe DB or Rapz knows more.
SCOTUS 2021-2022 teen reference:
https://ballotpedia.org/Supreme_Court_cases,_October_term_2021-2022
His post clearly said “…might review…” so not sure where any insinuation of “did” came from.
Who inferred from these words that SCOTUS decided to take the case or even made a decision?
Understood. Where was it posted SCOTUS agreed to hear the case? I must have missed that post from Rapz and can’t find it when I go back and check.
Please enlighten me.