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.
p2p,
Thanks for posting VPLM response. It was not there at their web site.
Your caught the essence of their argument, namely, time-dependent evolution of technologies vs. inventions.
Alice response today or Feb 11th, may not have greater impact on share price than the final PTAB ruling burying aapl once for all.
Wish PTAB issues the final ruling I a timely manner. PTAB victory and case files against defendants may help in judge Koh's courts. My view is that Alice motion is a delaying tactic. Others may differ.
Wish someone posts ("copy and paste") the text of Alice response.
Three uncertainties may be keeping the share price down.
1) The uncertainty of the "Alice" motion, (Feb 11) 2) Final PTAB ruling on Apple's rehearing motion, and 3) possible further delay tactics in the courts in spite of the court schedule of events to 2020 and the tough judge Koh.
1) The Alice motion - For those familiar with US patents and the laws, the Alice motion is a non-event in VPLM's case. VPLM's response to defendants' Alice motion will clear all of court's doubts. The Alice motion came up recently when defendants challenged Alice's patent, stating that their idea was not patentable because the idea was too "obvious" to anyone. US patent laws require three conditions for granting a patent for an idea: 1) the idea has to be "non-obvious", 2) the patent clearly must teach how to practice, 3) it must have commercial value. The non-obvious condition is a tough hurdle to prove to the satisfaction of the patent examiner. The idea has to be non-obvious to experts practicing the art, not some lay person on the street. Anyone knows that boiling the water produces steam. But it took someone to design an engine that can harness steam's power. Patent examiners who are not up to date with the technology have to be convinced of the idea's novelty. Those involved in the Internet communications, know that every device (Computer, cell phone, TV, Washing Machine, etc.) connected to the Internet has an IP address (Internet Protocol), MAC address, etc. Many folks know their voice can be recorded on the computer in digital form (zeros and ones) and replayed. MP3 player play music from digital recordings. The next step is to transmit these digital voice records from one IP address to another IP address. In other words, Voice Over Internet Protocol, VOIP, company name! The company's patents invented how these digital records can be transmitted over the Internet by grouping, classifying, matching with other IP addresses on the Internet Service Provider's Servers (ATT&T, VZ, etc.): RBR = Routing, billing and Rating technology. The technology applies to voice and text transmissions in e-commerce (AMZN sales). The company also has a new way of identifying Emergency 911 calls. Not only the voice and text, videos can be transmitted (Skype, Facetime).
2) PTAB - The last ruling was in two parts: 1) denied Apple's motion to SANCTION company's patents (confirming 8 to zero victory) 2) placate Apple to submit a rehearing motion (as a counter to VPLM letters to PTAB about systemic problem). But they gave a short leash for Apple to make this motion and short timelines. Apple has to convince the judges what information the panel ignored or missed. Apple can not use any new information in this appeal.
Apple's response was pathetic in that they were trying to blame the judges even more and failed to make a convincing case for rehearing. Unlike Apple, VPLM's response showed professional excellence. Apple's rebuttal is considered "lame" by some. Given Apple's "lame" argument, the judges are not in any mood to elevate Apple's lame position and rule against VPLM. The uncertainty is the time it takes for them to rule.
It is important that the PTAB victory granting everyone of 100 claims also and addresses the Alice motion issue.
The company went through rigorous patent examinations proving novelty of the ideas. Then PTAB judges examined again with respect to defendants' challenges and allowed all of the 100 claims. What else the court needs?
3) a general uncertainty in the courts. Defendants could use more delay tactics. But these jury trials can turn negative and devastating to defendants if they award billions to VPLM for the willful infringement and punitive damages. VPLM has to go through Discovery and proceed to the jury trial. If a defendant folds and agrees to a court settlement, the company will do well.
By the way, the financial media web sites noticed last PTAB 8-zero victory and carried the story. Media attention to this story can be very good.
Thanks. I got to list IPR's but it did not go beyond 2017. Since it seemed simple enough, tried it several times. It did not work for me.
Saw comments from posters, but not a link. I did not see a link. Nomore or Drumming usually post links to pdf files.
Turtle or Drummimg or anyone
Could you post a link to aapl's rebuttal to VPLM response?
Could not agree more, with this:
"...an extensive prior art search just to fight the USPTO for the patents..."
Good to have someone with patent experience post here.
Thanks for posting the text. The decision has two parts:
Petitioner - Apple, Patent Owner - VPLM
1) important - The apple Motion is denied to the extent that Petitioner (apple) requests judgment to be entered against Patent Owner (VPLM) as to all of the claims challenged in these proceedings or, alternatively, vacatur of the Final Written Decisions and new proceedings in which Petitioner may file new petitions.
2) A part of Apple's motion is granted to the extent a new panel of judges will examine if the "sanctionable behavior" of Patent Owner (VPLM) to reconsider the Final Written Decisions
... will be reviewed in accordance with the standard set forth ...
Specifically, on rehearing, there will be an assessment of whether Petitioner (apple) sufficiently identifies “matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d).
Petitioner (apple) is authorized to file requests for rehearing of the Final Written Decisions in the two above-captioned proceedings by January 8, 2019, and such requests for rehearing shall total no more than 20 pages each and otherwise be subject to the standards set forth
Patent Owner (VPLM) is authorized to file, by January 22, 2019, responses to any requests for rehearing of the Final Written Decisions that Petitioner files, and such responses shall total no more than 20 pages each; and
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 - Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2
17 FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner (apple) is authorized to file replies in support of any requests for rehearing by January 29, 2019, and such replies shall total no more than 10 pages each
Conclusion: We wouldn't get the final outcome of the rehearing of Final written decisions or whether apple was successful until after Jan 29, 2019. Which is about the time there will be case management conferences under Judge Koh against VZ, ATT, TWTR.
Media may pick up the news next week. Until the company gets an official letter granting in favor of VPLM, the company may not put out public announcement which could be Wednesday, the earliest. Due to many factors and govt. shutdown affecting the stock market, it may take a few days for the stock price response.
In the meanwhile, the questions now are whether the company is sold at a higher price, who the buyer is, whether the buyer is determined (a la Qualcomm) to sue infringers and recover damages, etc.
Great news to shareholders! Those knowledgeable with patents and IP did not believe there was any merit to AAPL's ridiculous motion on the basis of a flimsy argument and the late filing.
Now the IP licensing deals and infringement cases are strong. Great timing for the upcoming January court hearing on infringement!
invent4,
I did. I have a similar experience as yours and share your views on IP.
The next stage is set up to prove to the jury how their claims were infringed - willfully - and the severity of the willful infringement by defendants. North California IP courts and Judge Koh appear to have expedited matters fast.
The court venue is in the heart of the Silicon Valley (San Jose, San Francisco, etc.) where a majority of people in the jury pool may be informed and familiar with software technologies or companies.
The following point is not an issue.
"... The only thing that matters, will the patents hold up..."
There should be no doubt, because
1) the inventor has already proved to USPTO that the idea is NON-OBVIOUS compared to prior art, has some commercial value, etc.
That is the first hurdle the inventor has to cross.
2) PTAB: In VPLM's case they went to a lengthy battle with major infringers (VZ, AAPL, ATT, etc. won legal challenges 8 out of 8.
All of the arguments, documents, claims have been documented.
VPLM held up spectacularly against major corporations and their patent attorneys.
What is left untested for the defendants' attorneys to argue about except begging for mercy?
The following point is not an issue.
"...The only thing that matters, will the patents hold up..."
because,
(1) When USPTO issues a patent and allows your claims, the inventor had to prove the ideas are NON-OBVIOUS compared to prior art,
Thanks for posting the update. TWTR case is already there. I believe there is a conference scheduled at the end of October.
The No. Dist. CA "local rules" on patent infringement cases look straightforward and list detailed steps. Most of the document production and preliminaries have already completed in the 8 IPR challenges at PTAB. This court respects PTAB rulings. They have many more judges, compared to other patent courts, to handle case load. Speedier resolution may be possible.
By agreeing to transfer the cases to this court the defendants are indirectly admitting the issue of infringement and the question is how severe - willful or not. My opinion only.
PTAB ruling on Apple's motion is pending.
Yes, Could be...would be... The question was whether the information posted can be verified.
If management or a director is involved, wouldn't there be SEC form filing or is it some insider trading? Is there reliable a source for verification?
FYI
types-penny-stock-trading-orders
https://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/investing/penny-stocks/types-penny-stock-trading-orders/
The word is that someone put a market order to sell 2.5 million shares by a seller or his/her broker to liquidate for a margin call for fund shortfall in other stocks held by this account. Market order to sell 2.5 million shares of a penny stock can be tumultuous.
Willful patent infringement damages
The Supreme Court’s decision returns US patent law to a standard created by Congress 180 years ago.
http://www.ip-watch.org/2016/07/26/us-high-court-restores-treble-damages-for-patent-infringement/
The Patent Act of 1836 gave district courts the power to impose treble damages against those who infringed willfully, and those courts were given the discretion to decide when an infringement was so wanton or deliberate as to merit treble damages. The courts applied this rather vague standard until 2007, when the en banc Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decided In Re. Seagate Technology [pdf]. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/M830.pdf
Seagate created a two-part test for determining when an infringement was so willful that it could result in treble damages.
Supreme Court Upends Law of Treble Damages in Patent Cases
On June 13, 2016, the United States Supreme Court dealt the Federal Circuit another reversal on an issue of law fundamental to patent infringement litigation.
https://www.jonesday.com/Supreme-Court-Upends-Law-of-Treble-Damages-in-Patent-Cases-06-15-2016/
2012: Patent Infringement as Criminal Conduct
Jacob S. Sherkow
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=mttlr
You do not have to be a lawyer to understand the above. These legal documents are much simpler than a rental lease agreement or a mortgage loan note document that you executed.
Repeating information from IR - Aug 13, 2018
1) Lifting of the stay against aapl:
Company filed a motion to combine all three lawsuits (VZ, ATT, AAPL) into one court case. A hearing is scheduled for Sep, 2018. At that time, we expect to hear about lifting of the stay against aapl. This month!
Note: The second aapl lawsuit is about another set of 815 patents (iMessage, Facetime, etc.) It is proceeding separately.
2) TWTR case:
Conference date set in Oct 2018, in the Northern dist. of California court. At this conference, both parties submit estimated damages and negotiate for settlement. Expect some news, last week of Oct.
3) Licensing and royalty:
Personally licensing or buyout deal may take longer than normal, for two possible reasons.
(a) Silicon Valley hi-tech companies are opposed to paying royalty and licensing. The TWTR case conference in Oct 2018 will be a good indicator.
(b) PTAB final ruling - Without the clarity of PTAB ruling, companies may hesitate entering into licensing deals or even a buy out. According to Emil, the company is open for a buyout or sale of its patents.
These events can progress simultaneously. We may not hear until the deal is done.
Agreed. ...corrupt PTAB knows their strong bias for the bigs has been exposed and now don't know what to do with this case. They are in a tough spot. On one hand, if they rule in favor of a re-hearing, they're admitting their final written decision was influenced by "outside" forces, IE ex-parte communications. I personally don't believe this was the case since the written decisions clearly state that VPLM won on the MERITS of the arguments! On the other hand, WHEN they rule in favor of VPLM, they need to be concerned that APPLE will cry foul and further expose the long-standing corruption by revealing their past "business" with the PTAB..."
Posted similar thoughts a few months ago. PTAB is on the "hooks" in this case. The new panel could easily terminate this motion denying aapl has no basis to require sanctions.
Recall the basis for aapl's motion was VPLM's communications to PTAB on systemic problems that existed during the 8 PTAB hearings that lasted a long time. All those 8 challenges (from aapl, unified patents, and others) were TECHINCAL.
Remember PTAB judges including Ruschke were part of a group influenced by the silicon valley. But... VPLM won all of them! Does it mean that companies like aapl and others do not have the technical expertise to find fault with VPLM patents? Incredible! That means VPLM patents are technically sound. Worth your time reading VPLM patents.
As aapl ran out of technical challenges, they use non-technical reasons against VPLM. Read VPLM's rebuttal to aapl's complaint. PTAB probably gives a low priority to non-technical challenges. It costs time which could be the purpose of aapl's motion. PTAB is already known for the undue influence from the silicon valley. The Congress is working on a bill to change the PTAB system.
As for PTAB changes, changes are made to make it better or improve efficiencies. Rushcke is gone. Granted PTAB is another govt body, it may take a bit of time for the new panel to get up to speed. So, PTAB's new panel will try to show they are productive. Hope VPLM's case moves a bit faster than before. jmo.
Investors note. Discussed some issues with Company's IR.
1) PTAB delay - According to the recent PTAB statistics published, a non-technical motion takes 9 months or longer.
Motions challenging technical merits of patents are promptly addressed by PTAB. Example: 2 IPR's (in which aapl's attorney admitted his mistake and corrected himself.) Both were denied.
aapl was left with no choice and were desperate enough to file a non-technical motion complaining about Dr. Sawyer's communications, after the deadline expired. The non-technical nature of aapl's motion is not severe enough to require sanctions. VPLM's rebuttal is quite strong. VPLM called out aapl's false statement of events, etc. It is worth one's time to read these motions and understand the technical vs. non-technical nature of issues.
While waiting for PTAB ruling, we let the aapl's damages accumulate.
2) Stay on aapl case - VPLM had requested the courts to combine all three cases (ATT, VZ, and aapl). The hearing is supposed to be in September 2018. At that time, we expect news about lifting of the stay on aapl. Then aapl can join the other two defendants.
The second lawsuit against aapl has to do with different set of patents and therefore it is pursued separately.
3) In October, there may be a conference on the case against TWTR, with VPLM submitting their infringement claims.
4) One may expect early settlement before the trials end. If the trials are allowed to continue to the end and if the VPLM wins,
the jury is likely to include punitive damages in the total award.
Drum...
Agree with your long term investing approach. The uncertainty of PTAB ruling on aapl's motion for sanctions is troublesome. Dr. Sawyer pointed out systemic problems in the PTAB, leading to the replacement of judges. The replacement action could mean admission of a problem in the PTAB. How PTAB can admit to systemic problems on one hand and rule against VPLM in favor of aapl? That is probably the conflict causing the delay.
The IPWatchdog article points out many people in PTAB and USPTO are ex-employees of google, etc., still holding their company stock. Under these conditions, is a favorable outcome for VPLM possible?
Butters- Agree. Delaying due to events external to PTAB does not sound normal. Delay could be due to aapl's petition itself which blames VPLM for not complying with the communication procedures. Dr. Sawyer letters blamed that PTAB judges are influenced by the Silicon Valley. If PTAB can not rule against aapl, that proves Dr. Sawyer was right. One way out is to fine VPLM for breaking the communication protocol and let the VPLM patents remain valid. jmo.
>>...Dr. Sawyer... VPLM won all eight IPR’s. He exposed PTAB’s corruption in those letters...<<
Apple's petition inadvertently re-confirms the past corruption charge which is probably contributing to the delay.
aapl used all their brains and money to argue counter to VPLM's patents TWICE in 2 IPR's. Not only VPLM's 125 claims were validated aapl also pathetically lost 2 IPR's. The fight based on the technical side of the issue did not succeed. Then they came up with a lowly charge of blaming PTAB procedure violation via Dr. Sawyer letters and of the judge being corrupted. And request for sanctions of VPLM patents.
If PTAB rules against VPLM, PTAB admits to aapl's charge of corrupted PTAB. Ruling against VPLM, will trigger an appeal from VPLM challenging their PTAB ruling. PTAB is stuck and hence the delay. jmo.
jury trial, in general, works against behemoth companies with deep pockets and do not hesitate awarding huge punitive damages. They will appeal and delay the inevitable, while damages continue to accrue.
Nine years of patent validity is not the end. The company or its acquirer are coming up with child patents based on the existing patents validated by PTAB. A probable outcome if GOOG or AMZN buys out and take over the IP rights. just opinion.
The filing against AMZN "demanding jury trial..." Think about the implication.
hearmeout
Caution: My post about "Still in negotiations ..." was merely a guess. Not a fact or inside information.
Is there an internal controversy inside the PTAB judge panel? Was there an admission of fault when some judges had to step down after Sawyer's letter? Acting on a frivolous and outdated complaint from aapl should not take this long. jmo.
hearmeout,
Why AMZN was not served? Could be they are still in negotiations?
The delay could be due to the unusual nature of aapl's request for sanctions. Problems with their request are:
1) Their complaint is about Sawyers communications/procedures and nothing to do with VOIP patents/claims, which they lost. It did not make sense to repeat questioning VOIP patents.
2) Instead, they let a few months pass by and decided to file a complaint about PTAB communications/procedures.
Can PTAB consider the issue strong enough for sanctions? This debate is going on in PTAB with no clear consensus emerging at this time. jmo.
Your research on sanctions is intriguing. Can you provide a reason for the delay beyond the average of 5 months?
Could you post a link to Nevada court web site?
Need the case no. to enter on the web page.