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.
Yes!
Hudnell did a great job! Requests Fed Circuit to rehear the case, points out the errors these old turkeys made by not allowing claim construction before the rule 12. Tears apart clueless Koh's decision, ruling without the claim construction after the MyMail case. Even those old turkeys Fed Circuit did not update their legal knowledge on the 3 month old MyMail case that requires all cases to perform claim construction first.
Hudnell "strips apart" Federal Circuit's errors and clueless Koh's errors. Clueless Koh made a similar erroneous decision in an earlier case before VPLM, a "reputation" she can be proud. Hudnell is not letting these turkeys "off" easy.
In W. Texas judge Albright starts with claim construction.
Judge Albright starts with Claim Construction which addresses these issues.
We shall see. He takes Alice discussion much later, for whatever his reason is. But clueless Koh started with Alice/Abstract. The turkey farm thinks computer and coding are abstract.
606, 815, and 005 all talk about "Producing Routing Message..." - part of RBR.
clueless Koh might hear about W. Texas judge Albright rulings if she sanctions without cause, VPLM prevails. Texas is a state that dearly respects property rights, unlike CA's Silicon Valley culture. It is said that this judge starts with Claim Construction unlike clueless Koh that scheduled it and abruptly cancelled.
Aapl desperately wanted PTAB to sanction all VPLM patents but failed to prevail. PTAB was kind enough to give Apple another chance to explain a sound argument to the contrary. What... SOUND argument...? All they had was fluff which did not sit well with PTAB.
Last week news: Apple challenges VPLM's case in W. Texas court and filed in N. CA court (clueless Koh) asking to "sanction" the patent in question.
A poster wrote a "smart" comment: 606 patent is dated 2019. Facebook, Google, Apple, et al. started in 2010-2012. It did not make sense.
If the poster took the time to check out 606 patent, its history dates back 2007-2008 Digiphonica business, there are 14 pages of references in the 606 patent. Judge Albright is a smart man.
Third lawsuit in Western Texas. Notice that each lawsuit aims at single defendants.
Jeff,
The answers are in the two complaints, under "JURISDICTION AND VENUE" page 2, runs a couple of pages before getting into the infringed technology issue.
Both complaints have similar texts:
1) "...This Court has personal jurisdiction over Google by virtue of its systematic and continuous contacts with this jurisdiction, as alleged herein, as well as because the injury to VoIP-Pal occurred in the State of Texas and the claim for relief possessed by VoIP-Pal against Google for that injury arose in the State of Texas..."
2) "... This Court has personal jurisdiction over Facebook and WhatsApp by virtue of their systematic and continuous contacts with this jurisdiction, as alleged herein, as well as because the injury to VoIP-Pal occurred in the State of Texas and the claim for relief possessed by VoIP-Pal against Facebook and WhatsApp for that injury arose in the State of Texas..."
I wondered why they started their suits in Nevada. Have no time to go back and review. Some veterans on this board may know why.
The jurisdiction argument above may be the reason why they could have moved to CA.
But clueless Koh ruled adversely on Alice, in favor of her friendly companies in the Silicon Valley. Why would the companies want to continue the fight after winning Alice 1?
Alice 2 is pending. If the same old turkeys are back on the bench again, will they change their mind? These turkeys are likely using abstract devices like iphones to connect socially with their abstract grand kids/relatives over abstract Facetime calls. Is it an abstract for a smart phone to connect with a caller on a landline? These turkeys seem to hate math and computer classes because they are abstract viz. calculus, matrix algebra, computer databases, algorithms, etc. The USPTO and PTAB have the trained and knowledgeable people who gave 12-0 win. The best these old turkeys can do is to retire and move to a turkey farm and let the young technically-savvy attorneys join the bench.
On the contrary, the IPWatchdog reports how the judge Albright in Texas starts with claim construction/Markman hearings before going to Alice. He even holds phone conferences with parties - "rocket docket". Clueless Koh did not permit claim construction. Hoping for a speedy conclusion to begin the jury trial in Texas. Parties may settle before the trial or decide to fight it. The Texas jury and the courts (Western and Eastern) seem to respect Personal/Intellectual property, when proven, and award the owner.
Hudnell's performance on the Alice 1 was not satisfactory, even if he did not write the brief. Remains to be seen if he will do better on Alice 2 since he wrote the brief himself.
Now Hudnell seems aggressive by pursuing the Waco Texas court with the new judge, new defendants (Google, Facebook/WhatsApp) and different patents. Both companies are software based, mainly using their software, wifi networks and the internet. Will the old turkeys on the bench consider these companies are also abstract identities?
All Hudnell and VPLM want is a win in Texas, even a small win to prove the infringement. Then VPLM can come back to CA to sue Twitter based in CA and other companies with Child patents. Child patents are stronger than original patents on claims, etc.
Google, Facebook, and some software companies are located around Austin, TX known as "Silicon Hill" vs. "Silicon Valley" in CA. The "rocket docket" judge Albright starts hearing with Claim Construction/Markman hearing, not Alice, unlike the clueless judges in CA who tend to protect Silicon Valley company "IP thieves". An old guy at the Federal Appellate and his pals on the bench think that anything that uses software is "Abstract". "Abstract" over "Abstract" is senile. Sure don't these clowns use abstract devices like iphones and imessages/Facetime or free phone calls on WhatsApp? US Court judges dealing with a plaintiff in an IP case having won 12-0 IPR challenges are clueless clowns. Not good for US inventors!
p2p,
Thanks a lot for the timely post, from you who has the resources to keep up to date and who is a believer in VPLM.
BigRaj,
Thanks. What you said makes sense now. Explains why Hudnell answers were shaky. I hope he would do a good job on the second appeal since he wrote it himself. Wonder when it is scheduled.
Thanks. At the hearing they asked Hudnell about a step to verify callee and match with the caller to complete call; whether this step is a black box or software or hardware. The defense said this step was not explained in the claim. That prompted questions from the bench. Hudnell answers were not clear. An old guy repeated "abstract over abstract..." giving the impression already made up their mind, not giving enough time to explain.
If patents in the second appeal do not explain well, if the same bench comes again, what will they do?
Hope the Congress acts quickly and force lawyers to rely USPTO and PTAB and not re-invent.
The second appeal relates to different patents?
Buying back at 0.0001? What is the secret? Care to share?
joey,
Thanks for the fyi. We waited a long, long time in the courts. Hope it moves further to jury trial.
DB,
On behalf of long term investors, I certainly hope your contacts scenario comes out true and the stock moves up.
meddo,
Thanks. The part I do not get is "the SV judge will rule against VPLM in Claim Construction" indicates the arbitrary nature of a single judge/person. Hope it does not happen.
meddo,
Based on your knowledge and familiarity of Court proceedings, what would you consider a win for VPLM vs. outright rejection?
Agree! This is what I never understood why District or Federal or Supreme courts have to determine patent eligibility while the US tax payers paid for a separate organization USPTO to do just that.
These courts must focus on infringement and arguments thereof.
prophet,
>> ...Unless you are a gambler don't buy now...<<
Good advice! Taking stock of the situation:
1) 12-0 win at PTAB. All claims were ALLOWED.
2) PTAB panel of 3 judges are the most experienced in commercial practice of patent law, not like little Lucy who erred and hates dealing with patents.
3) Appeals court judges had good but tough questions that Hudnell "flat-footed" initially but recovered in the end during the rebuttal phase.
The lady judge was curious and helpful. Even the defendant attorney was admitted and helped the judge in a positive manner.
4) Looks like VPLM patent needs an explanation of the "method (software) of classifying profile settings of caller and callee and match with the right phone. Each phone or a device has an IP address. it is a method of matching the IP addresses over different ISP's (internet service providers and the domain, etc.) A simplified understanding of the court discussion.
an old judge O'Malley uttered "abstract" many times whenever Hudnell talked about classifiers for caller and callee using profile settings. For cell phone users, they do not dial area code, international code and the phone no. All they do is hit the contact on their list. the phone transmits users data (isp provider, wifi data, zone, etc.) matches the same on the other side. The whole thing a phone contacting another device, get rid of the old idea of a person calling another person like the old phone call. Any device can contact another device with an ip address. ie., A washing machine and the Maytag repair man.
DB,
Please add this:
the attorney did not dispute claims 12 and 28 as Hudnell pointed out. He pointed out that the patent has valid claims but does not explain the method of classifying the caller and callee. Hudnell talked about profile settings etc. which confused the the lady judge. The defendant attorney actually helped her and VPLM.
Prophet,
USPTO asked for permission to intervene on behalf of VPLM. Did they do anything to counter the court arguments? Or were they asked for clarification or at least why they did not see the "abstract" idea and granted US patents? Don't the Judges review what happened at PTAB why they ruled in VPLM favor? Sounds like the US courts should get out of the patent law altogether. Congress has to define their role in infringement cases.
GBC
Agreed. nodes, switched, relay, IP protocols are too technical for little lucy.
Intervention by USPTO on behalf of VPLM will help. Odds are better with three justices on the appellate bench.
Who is Apple to "allow" or not "allow" claim construction? The courts will REQUIRE little lucy to do it. What a nightmare for her? It takes more than her "cut and paste" skill.
Wow! "...$2Gazillion/share..." The holder must have some hot stuff to share with you. Imagine millionaires at $2/share!
The link you posted is could not be accessed. If you have the access, could you post the article? The title is provocative "...ax Apple's..."
Wow! One can only dream ...to $One Gazillion/share..."
What is the realistic target? Is a buy out even likely soon?
two points:
1) Good for the local patent attorney to demonstrate how well he can handle the case
2) how much support US PTO offers him for VPLM
As a resident of the Silicon Valley (Mountain View) he will bring to bear his interactions, experiences and legal contacts dealing with other patent cases which made Koh angry, adding to Lucy's head ache. Email to him.
Also email to Koh's superiors Judge Spero, etc.
>>...Koh may not be a FOOL - But it certainly is looking like she's either Lazy as Hell - or Deep in Somebody's pocket...<<
Check out this link for Koh under District judges -
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges
If anyone wants to complain about Koh, send email to:
Chief Magistrate Judge
Joseph C. Spero https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jcs
San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom G - 15th Floor
450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102
JCSpo@cand.uscourts.gov
Also include a copy to the Media Relations: Lynn Fuller
Lynn_Fuller@cand.uscourts.gov
415-522-4051
Be respectful and stick to facts/case numbers PTAB 12-0 history, Koh first ruling on Alice, and scheduling Claim Construction and cancelling right before the scheduled date.
If you have a good draft, send copies to other judges.
Thank you for posting the link.
Under Findings the following sound relevant to VPLM situation:
"...
(10) unintended consequences of the comprehensive 2011 reform of patent laws are continuing to become evident, including the strategic filing of post-grant review proceedings to depress stock prices and extort settlements, the filing of repetitive petitions for inter partes and post-grant reviews that have the effect of harassing patent owners, and the unnecessary duplication of work by the district courts of the United States and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board;
(11) the Judicial Conference of the United States has made significant revisions to rules governing pleadings and discovery in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which took effect in December 2015;
(12) the Supreme Court issued rulings in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1749 (2014) and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1744 (2014) that significantly reduced the burden on an alleged infringer to recover attorney fees from the patent owner, and increased the incidence of fees shifted to the losing party; and..."
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3666/cosponsors?pageSort=lastToFirst&loclr=cga-bill
>>...Her husband...<< ? She (husband) was in Obama admin? Check Wikipedia.
>>...good enough to oversee other judges...<<
News to me! There are judges that "supervise" junior judges?? Really?
What does it say their supervision to allow a dummy that hates patent cases? Worth raising questions these supervising judges?
Replace "honorable" with "horrible"
She disclosed her idiocy and arrogance when she proclaimed to attorneys in her court (per a report on the Net) "...are you on crack?..." Remember?
12-0! People need to write o their congress men and women complaining how pathetic the US legal system is!
AAPL contracts out Attorneys on contract basis to keep filing motions in the courts to gum up the legal system. Lucy wasted about at least a year or more by scheduling "claims construction" and cancelling in the last minute. wasting money for businesses and taxpayers.
Amen to that. Isn't there a way to get rid off free-loaders like this woman off the bench?
>>....they don't want their power/decisions trashed...<<
maybe appropriate for this qualifier to your sentence.
>>...their power/decisions trashed.. by jurists thriving on free-loading on public tax payer's funds. If they are so good, try the private sector, say, Apple.
>>...she favors Judicial Exception...<<
The problem is the adjective Judicial. Judicial branch is one of the three branches of US govt. One branch, Congress, wrote the US Patent Law. The Commerce Dept (USPTO) of the Executive Branch has the job of enforcing the law. Their judge panel PTAB did their job of adjudicating VPLM's claims and rejecting claims from "infringers" like AAPL.
It would make sense for the Judicial branch to start from where PTAB left off, accept their conclusions and proceed from there, instead of starting all over at ground zero named Alice 101.
Why give a patent case to an arrogant woman who hates patents and has no knowledge or experience in patent issues like USPTO does.
She should rather find another job that requires expertise in "cut and paste".
The fact that USPTO wants to intervene says a lot about the judicial branch's ability to address the complex issues. Any of the judges understand the Internet Protocol, RBR, Voice-over IP, etc. Does any of them wonder how their cell phones work?
Yes, USPTO resolves "non-obviousness" issue FIRST. It is one of three criteria for patentability of a novel idea besides commercial viability and public use.
Every patent examiner sifts through prior art (cited in the draft patent and external sources). After going through an extensive analysis, they issue the patent. When a problem arises after the patent issue, they have the PTAB with three judges experienced in patent law, to re-examine the questionable patents and claims. It takes time. After checking and re-checking, they finally make their ruling in favor of VPLM.
Now comes a half-baked jurist to issue the 101 ruling because the patent case before her is too complicated for her to handle. Anger is a natural response when the ignorant is presented a challenge like a toddler reacts.
As some have already concluded this woman did a favor by sending the case to higher up in the appellate courts who are supposed to be much smarter than her to deal with these issues. That is our hope.
No guarantee that the appellate courts or the supreme court can resolve the patent issue because the lawyers do not deal with or understand patents and related issues everyday like USPTO. The Congress is trying but legislators do not quite understand the real issues. Our hope is that the USPTO chief will play a larger role in clarifying the issues for the courts.
Finally Lucy has to be assigned to a "less-challenging" clerk job that does not ruin american innovation and businesses.
Lucy is clueless. Her paper trail and court documents with "cut and paste" is long. No escape from Judges on the Appeals court, Amicus briefs, and IPWatchdog.