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.
lbird33 - nailed it.!
"I got this friend"....
he thinks that VPLM has an incredible portfolio of patents, and that the win at the PTAB was significant.
We all "got friends"....
The company's opinion is that they are infringing.
Infringement cases often end up one of 3 ways
1. The infringer settles by buying or licensing, because the potential damages don't warrant the risk of Federal Court.
2. The patent owner loses in Federal Court if the defendant can prove that the patents do not cover their applications.
3. The patent owner wins after a long drawn out process, which exhausts shareholder patience, but the damages can be extremely large.
So far, Voip Pal is doing pretty well. No court or agency has thrown out any patent claims, and the cases are all moving toward trial. For anyone who has taken the time to read the claims and the cases, the potential damage award is GREAT. Will they win? I certainly hope so.
Why should Silicon Valley's largest companies be able to use other people's patented technology without compensation? Is the the real reason the PTAB was created? (And if so, then Voip Pal had an incredible win in November 2017, based on the merits.)
Now -go out and VOTE!!!!!!!!!!
what "Truth"?
You mean the Truth of every single patent granted?
You mean the Truth of all of the cases moving forward?
You mean the Truth of foundational patents being used by the largest tech companies
in the world, without license?
Oh, you mean "that Truth"
THE "COMPANY" HAS APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT CONTINUATION PATENTS SINCE THE ACQUISITION OF DIGIFONICA.
DO YOUR HOMEWORK
YES, ALL OF THESE NEGATIVE POSTS ARE VERY FISHY, INDEED
that's why we sued them.....to have it "proven"
Apple clearly doesn't think so....
Their filing of a sanction motion shows their respect for the huge potential loss in the Federal Court infringement case, unless they could convince the PTAB to do something drastic...
Sam, now we're down to "fear mongering"?....really - how pathetic
the FMV is reflected in the share price
Do your homework...VPLM continues to get new continuation patents.
The big companies infringe and make it impossible for small companies to compete.
The PTAB/IPR process further enables the rich to get richer, on the backs of inventors.
The day will come....
"A Fake company".....
with fake patents, and fake lawsuits, and fake PTAB wins....
LMAO
what is "Stock Malipution".....
my my my, so much time we are spending trying to take down our stock...
Makes me feel even more confident
Offers - once .08 is taken out, up she goes....
We can all play this game
MPID ASK SIZE TIME
VNDM 0.075 10,000 12:02
CDEL 0.075 10,758 13:28
ETRF 0.078 50,000 10:26
CANT 0.078 22,000 10:07
NITE 0.08 10,000 10/19
some glasses are ALWAYS half empty.....
FACTS don't matter to those who have an agenda to tear down VPLM....
but they will "epic fail".....
you mean like getting EVERY SINGLE PATENT they applied for including continuations?
You mean that "non substantive" stuff?
You're slipping...
so wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start....
Wow what insight. Unmmmmmmmmmm. No not halted
Is that why the stock has tripled the past year...?
Thanks for the explanation
oh, ok....we will watch and see....
See what?
Offended me? What are you referring to?
You made a sweeping claim that there is no marketing of the patents.
I claim that 5 lawsuits is the ultimate marketing tool.
No offense taken
I imagine that given the number of lawsuits filed
Amazon
Apple
Verizon
ATT
Twitter
There plenty of people in Silicon Valley that are aware of the VPLM portfolio
We are grateful for your sincere concern.......LMAO
Apple and others don't setlle unless forced. They drag things out until they feel the benefit
of settling outweighs the cost of a potential damage award.
Patience is a virtue, becuase if you invest in IP, you have to be prepared for big companies to try to wait you out.
A shell? Hardly, have you even looked at the patent portfolio?
Sheesh....
What's funny about this? No patent owner would find this "FUNNY"....Making patent owners
wait like this is simply WRONG. Hardly "funny".....except to you.....
LMFAO!!!!!!
Ask Apple about VirnetX' meter.....
excellent post lbird. Thanks
prove it
wrong....again.
not worried in the SLIGHTEST
Your wait is over...
Read the VirnetX case. Apple willfully infringed, and 6 years later, the chickens are coming home to roost
That's how Silicon Valley rolls. Steal first, pay later, if ever.
VIRNETX RECEIVES DISTRICT COURT'S FINAL JUDGMENT AFFIRMING JURY'S VERDICT OF $502.6 MILLION
Final Judgment of $1.20 Per Infringing Apple Device Plus Interest, Costs and Sunset Royalty
ZEPHYR COVE, Nev., Aug. 31, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- VirnetX™ Holding Corporation (NYSE AMERICAN: VHC), an Internet security software and technology company, announced today that on August 30, 2018, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division, entered a Final Judgment and issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order ("Order") regarding post-trial motions resulting from the prior $502.6 million jury verdict ("Verdict") for VirnetX in the ongoing patent infringement action between VirnetX Inc. ("VirnetX") and Apple Inc ("Apple").
In the Order, The Court affirmed the jury's verdict of $502.6 million and granted VirnetX's motions for supplemental damages, a sunset royalty and the royalty rate set at $1.20 per infringing iPhone, iPad and Mac products, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs.
In the Order, the Court denied Apple's Omnibus Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(b) and for a New Trial.
"We are extremely pleased with the Court's Final Judgment of $502 million affirming the jury's verdict of $1.20 per infringing device and granting us supplemental damages, a sunset royalty, interest and costs. This is the fourth time a jury has unanimously found in our favor against Apple and the patents in this suit have been found not invalid by the Federal Court of Appeals," said Kendall Larsen, VirnetX CEO and President. "This Final Judgment is warranted due to the large amount of infringing Apple devices. The cost of our security technology in infringing devices has been apportioned and is less than a quarter of one percent of the device's cost. We believe this established per device rate for security is very reasonable and will greatly assist us with our domestic and global licensing efforts."
There are indeed some very interesting questions to be asked. One that comes to mind, which IP Watchdog posed is:
IF the PTAB is going to consider the possibility that the 8-0 decision was influenced by the letters, WHY CHANGE PANELS? ONLY THE PANEL THAT MADE THE RULING CAN SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF INFLUENCE! And why would there panel not have brought their concerns to Reuschke during their deliberations?
A new panel of judges that were not sent letters, cannot possibly speak to the influence of said letters---- they can speak to procedure...but keep in mind that the PTAB's standard for sanctions has been to only address behavior which was repeated after first issuing a warning. (There was no warning)
Why did neither Apple nor Reuschke address the first Sawyer letter???....having both been sent the letter either directly or copied by the court...
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/09/09/ptab-brass-ipr-apple-motion-for-sanctions/id=100813/
PTAB Brass steps into IPR to decide Apple motion for sanctions
By Gene Quinn & Steve Brachmann
September 9, 2018
On August 22nd, an order was entered in the inter partes review (IPR) proceedings currently ongoing between between Bellevue, WA-based digital multimedia communications developer VoIP-Pal and Cupertino, CA-based consumer device giant Apple Inc. The order removed the panel of administrative patent judges (APJs) that had been adjudicating the IPR, replacing them with Deputy Chief APJ Scott Boalick and Vice Chief APJs Jacqueline Bonilla and Michael Tierney.
This is the second time the panel of APJs has been completely changed in this particular IPR proceeding. Originally, the panel had consisted of APJs Barbara Benoit, Lynne Pettigrew and Stacy Beth Margolies. Although no explanation was provided (as is typical with the PTAB) the panel was changed a few weeks after we reported that APJ Margolies had previously represented Apple in patent infringement proceedings in U.S. district court.
The second panel of APJs assigned to this case included APJs Josiah Cocks, Jennifer Meyer Chagnon and John Hudalla. This panel, which was assigned to the casein June 2017, was the panel that issued the final written decision entered last November, find that the petitioner Apple had not proven the challenged patent claims were invalid. This was the same panel sitting on the case through January 19th of this year, when the PTAB entered an order regarding VoIP-Pal’s discharge of its prior counsel in the case.
Interestingly, although the order notes that all three APJs on the second panel were involved in the call regarding the change of counsel, the order itself only lists APJs Cocks and Hudalla as presiding over the case. That discrepancy is not explained in the Order, and is sadly typical of the lack of transparency seen in PTAB decisions and Orders. In an Article III Court it is customary, if not absolutely expected, that when any procedural irregularities occur they are explained with at least a footnote. Notions of substantial fair play and justice require at least that modicum of an appearance of propriety.
At some point between January and August of this year, the PTAB made the decision to replace the second panel with a high ranking panel of APJs, which occurred shortly after an announcement that former PTAB Chief Judge David Ruschke would be stepping down from his position to assume new responsibilities at the USPTO. Whether the two are somehow connected is impossible to say given the shroud of secrecy that surrounds everything at the PTAB, including Orders and Decisions.
The only matter at issue in the IPR, which is now currently before APJs Boalick, Bonilla and Tierney, is a motion for sanctions which was filed by Apple based on allegations that former VoIP-Pal CEO Thomas Sawyer engaged in improper ex parte communications by sending a series of letters to Ruschke and other Executive Branch officials.
It seems extraordinarily unusual for a tribunal — any tribunal — to change change judges for purpose of ruling on a sanctions motion. If the letters from VoIP-Pal’s CEO did actually constitute improper behavior, the best people to decide that issue would be the panel of APJs who were assigned to the case at the time the behavior took place. Unquestionably, the APJs that were presiding over the case are in the best position to determine whether sanctions are appropriate. Most of the challenged behavior occurred during the timeframe that APJs Cocks, Chagnon and Hudalla constituted the presiding panel. Only one of Sawyer’s letters was sent prior to the first panel change, and if that panel was in fact changed because APJ Margolies had a conflict of interest it would be inappropriate for that panel to consider the sanctions motion.
While highly unusual for the PTAB to switch judges in midstream without any explanation, this kind of action does happen. It is also why observers so confidently claim the procedures of the PTAB are arbitrary and capricious.
The USPTO has engaged in the stacking of APJ panels in order to achieve policy outcomes, APJ Margolies is not the only APJ to have sat on a case where there was a blatant conflict of interest, in fact APJ Matt Clement has decided several dozen cases involving Apple, who he formerly represented. The PTAB also rather effectively squashes dissenting opinions by requiring permission to dissent and recently after an APJ did dissent in favor of a patent owner he was mysteriously and without explanation removed from the panel. We also know that subordinate APJs assigned to cases engage in extra-judicial, deliberative conversations with superiors relating to cases and issues, a clear and flagrant violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which requires decisional independence.
Minus any explanation as to why the panel was recently changed in the VoIP-Pal/Apple IPR, this situation is yet another example of the lack of transparency issuing from the PTAB and will undoubtedly have the effect of making it look as though the PTAB’s decision in this case was preordained, no matter which side prevails in the motion for sanctions.
One may be tempted to argue that changing the panel to constitute such a high-ranking panel will ensure consideration by PTAB leadership who aren’t under any influence, but if the PTAB does not similarly treat future sanctions motions legitimate questions will be asked about why Apple received special treatment. Furthermore, the optics of using a panel including APJ Tierney in a case involving Apple will no doubt raise some eyebrows given that once a challenge has been instituted Tierney has overwhelmingly sided with Apple. Indeed, according to data collected by Lex Machina, never once has a final decision involving both Apple and APJ Tierney ever led to a finding that all claims remained valid, and only once has Tierney sat on a panel where at least one claim remained valid.
Perhaps more intriguing, Tierney sat as an APJ on the IPR filed by Apple against VirnetX where Apple was able to get around the statute of limitations for filing an IPR. Should the PTAB grant Apple’s sanctions motion there will undoubtedly be some who will see this as a second great favor done by Tierney on Apple’s behalf.
utter BS
and you know this, how?
spoken like a true shareholder