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,
>>...a company that has 24-0 IPR sweep...<<
I was more like 28-0 win?
" WACO, Texas, Aug. 01, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to announce the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has terminated Samsung’s involvement in Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) filed against U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,234 and 10,880,721 and denied T-Mobile’s request for joinder to those IPRs. The PTAB has also denied institution of T-Mobile’s corresponding IPR petition. As a result of these events, all IPR petitions against the Company have now been terminated. In total, VoIP-Pal has endured a total of 28 IPR petitions dating back to 2016.
... said Emil Malak, CEO of VoIP-Pal. “It is a very significant accomplishment for us to have survived 28 IPR challenges over the past seven years without losing a single claim..."
Yes, makes sense to raise cash to pay for the legal team, consultants, court fees, Patent office fees, insurance, etc. (Re.: 10Q). Pay employees and a few others cash plus company stock. They have avoided borrowing and debt so far.
All likely to change for better by next qtr when the cash settlement (MG case) from AMZN shows up in their books and the trial decisions by AMZN (RBR case), TMUS and VZ before the year end.
Yes, Hayday!
1. New CFO - The new CFO Ms. Jin Kuang did an excellent job of presenting with fine details as readable as possible, along with the accounting policy changes. e.g. Sarbanes–Oxley Act
2. 10Q - AMZN MG patent settlement talks for the 45 days began after they filed a stay on May 2, 2023. The 45-day deadline was around the end of June. VPLM did not make an announcement citing the nda or perhaps a delay with the royalty agreement issue. If VPLM got paid by AMZN (with a royalty agreement and license) hope to see it in the next 10Q.
3. Settlement - AMZN filed a stay on 606 RBR patent case, citing a possible delay due to VPLM's reexamination of 606 claims by USPTO. VPLM countered AMZN's stay request by citing that a stay at this time will cause a severe setback in the resolution of the 606 case after all discovery, claim const., expert testimony, etc. were completed. We shall see what Judge Albright thinks.
4. Reexamination (RBR 606) - All shareholders have received VPLM's response to USPTO's Office Action and have had the time to read it. You will note:
(a) several original RBR claims have been modified in a clear language with details (giving no room for Alice or other issues) and
(b) new claims have been added, making the RBR patent much stronger.
Getting a stronger RBR patent perhaps motivated VPLM to dismiss cases? After USPTO approves the changes, they could start suing for RBR infringement? Who knows!
VPLM hopes for a fast, positive response from USPTO in a few weeks. Is that a reason for waiting? We hope VPLM will proceed with AMZN RBR case, with the original or modified claims. jmo.
5. Judge Albright got to see VPLM's filing in response to TMUS bogus claim of using HotSpot@Home in 2005 for WiFi calling. In previous posts we have analyzed the history of HotSpot@Home technology, its development, and the technical basis in the patent or printed literature. We found none. In a recent filing Mr. Hudnell confirmed our finding and went further to question TMobile's expert witness Proctor for his several hundred pages of "bogus" testimony based on public information and public information available on the Internet. After several problems with TMobile handset they finally came up a second handset (in 2010 about the time of VPLM technology patent) that could communicate with a WIFi router. Their first or second handset does not have the technical strength to defend HotSpot@Home technology in a trial. Similar arguments may hold good for VZ because they also relied on free public information available in a forum (internet) for their technology.
Judge Albright needs to schedule a trial. If it is a jury trial, wish the jury finds the infringement was willful, thus raising the potential for triple damages. We wait and see.
IPR wins 28-0 without losing a claim is an achievement.
After successful reexamination and issue of a certificate validating the modified claims, RBR patent will be stronger against defendants. e.g. AMZN and others in Waco. Their communication is between VPLM and the patent examiner.
Add to the above, the Judge Albright ruling in favor of recharacterization of RBR routing message, further boosting claim construction and stronger infringement damage model.
TMUS and VZ have been relying the UMA designation for their wifi audio and video calls, etc. They have not showed or used any of their own patents in court filings so far.
Good for VPLM to focus on these defendants in Waco under Judge Albright. It is all about PATENTS and the process. jmo
Yes. It was one of the 10 largest damage awards in recent history; they were screened for appeals and end results. The award could have been higher, had the jury found willfulness on Intel. Thanks.
>>...Intel vs VLSI Technology (2021) – $2.18 Billion...<<
Is this from Waco - Judge Albright ruling?
VVVVVV, HayDay
Your concern about the AVERAGE pendency of 25.7 months is justified. It is the average of all reexams data since 1981 till 2020. It could be a misleading statistic. Today's company response to Office Action proves that it was a misleading statistic to worry about.
We have not been able to access the office action documents, claims in question, etc. They are not accessible to the public. Normally it takes 1-2 months. Judge Albright may not need to stay the case as Mr. Hudnell has argued for.
We are lucky today to see VPLM's response to the Office Action within 2 months, including 1 month extension for VPLM to respond. A lot of work! Today shareholders got VPLM's response to Office Action. Still reading it.
Expected date for the news was July 24. Got it on July 26, only 2 days late. Not bad.
Highlights (quickly browsing through it):
VPLM has added 2-3 new claims, modified old claims to make them stronger (old "815 and 005"), offer to interview with the patent examiner. All these steps will expediently move the matter forward. It is not like an IPR which involves hearing arguments from parties. In the reexamination proceeding VPLM controls the narrative. The patent owner has to take the time and patiently explain the technology intricacies to the patent examiner. (personal experience)
Side benefit: if the Examiner allows the above modifications, the old "815 and 005" will be stronger. Recall some of claims were rejected in NDCal trials.
USPTO's Reexamination Center statistics are worth checking.
We can speculate on "how long" only after the result comes out. July 24 was AMZN's speculation -mentioned in their filing.
Hay Day
It will be if AMZN's expectation for the successful finalization of Reexamination and the issue of a Reexamination certificate, so that RBR case would resume and the Judge need not "stay" the RBR case as AMZN requested. Better yet, the company reveals the MG patent settlement details with AMZN. We shall see!
Stef,
>>...the first to file rule apply...<<
No.
1) As stated in the post, there is no record of TMobile patent application for "HotSpot@Home" technology since 2005. Therefore the question of "First to File" issue does not arise. There is no sign of TMobile applying for a US patent.
2) When questioned about "HotSpot@Home", TMobile issues a blanket statement: "First, T-Mobile has operated a Wi-Fi calling system that uses “DNS queries” since 2006, long before the earliest claimed priority date for the mobile gateway patents...". "DNS" or "Domain Name Server" queries are commonly used in the Internet Networks practice. Nothing proprietary about them.
3) Next they claim: TMobile's wifi calling system "HotSpot@Home" complies with "UMA" designation."
"UMA" is "Unlicensed Mobile Access", an open source software code released for public use in 2005. Nothing proprietary.
What is "Unlicense"?
"Unlicense" is a template for disclaiming copyright monopoly interest in software you've written; in other words, it is a template for dedicating your software to the public domain. The website https://unlicense.org is not operational.
HayDay
>>...Gee, wonder what this could mean?...<<
Based on previous TMUS filings (including "inequitable conduct") they DO/DID NOT have a patent to prove their technology "HotSpot@Home". Instead, they do the "song and dance", attack the CEO for being one of the inventors on the MG patent, or his role regarding "Avatar", etc. All they have showed are promotional ads campaign for HotSpot@Home in newspapers, etc. claiming it is part of UMA designation since 2005-2006, not an issued US patent. If anyone does google-search of US or foreign patents or technical literature for HotSpot@Home, there was/is no patent. So VPLM's search of prior art did not reveal anything about HotSpot@Home and hence it was not included in our prior art compilation for MG patent. But TMUS counsel declares VPLM has a problem! Yes, that is why AMZN settled on MG patent. If I find my notes/research on this, I'll post.
VZ is in a similar predicament. Caught without a solid patent for defense. The trial will disclose. It is good for VPLM to go through the challenge.
Both TMUS and VZ fear a possible jury trial and Mr. Hudnell's ability to convince the jury of "willful" infringement.
Last two zoom calls revealed the decency of AMZN's counsel Mr. Daniel T. Shvodian arguing the MG patent claims and the RBR routing message. The "vibes" from TMUS sound like a "street fight".
MG patent governs the use of location identifier (say GPS) on your smart phone to connect to an incoming call, avoiding "roaming" charges, not requiring "calling cards", etc. (Claim 30). TMUS completely missed to address it!
Shareholders deserve a jury trial to enforce not only MG patents but also RBR patents for audio and video calls as well as e commerce. RBR damages will be huge and both defendants can afford to pay the damages.
An advantage of a trial is that the Judge will give a ruling with or without the willfulness and it will be public. But it could be appealed to a higher court.
On the other hand, if both TMUS and VZ agree for a settlement, it may take a few weeks but the terms may be kept confidential for a period of time. No appeals!
It does not stop there! Check John Minor's report on "apportionment of infringement" damages. Mr. Minor claims a "backhaul" wifi network system a consumer has set up at home at his/her own expense should be part of Telcos' infrastructure expenses. Currently Telcos are dumping your cell audio/video calls on your personal home wifi network set up by you. Google "backHaul" wifi networks and Google's NET MESH wifi systems. Wonder whether Telcos should pay for home wifi systems?
Folks familiar with home wifi network technologies and business aspects may help us understand this issue.
Stef
>>...The judge awards the willful and future infringement...<<
A minor point: In the last case vs. Intel, Judge Albright awarded $2.4 Billion damage without the willful damage since the jury did not find it was "willful". Hope Mr. Hudnell shall convince the jury of willfulness.
HayDay,
>>...there is more to this action than meets the eye...<<
Yes! July 24?
>>...first patent was approved in 2013, it took 10 yrs,...<<
A minor point to consider:
Patent owner can claim Infringement damages for all those past years since 2013 plus the future years until the end of patent life. Patent life is extended by child patents.(CDMA - QCOM)
HD,
Agree! My mentor said: "It is dark before the dawn." All negatives, shiny objects. etc. will be moot.
Removing potential "landmines": IPR's, Alice, etc.
Today's news about a legal update is meant for all investors, not just a few that follow this stock very closely from Court filings, Pace monitor and other sources. For those "close followers", the legal update is not new. But the company has to inform all shareholders.
As stated in the news release:
"... pleased to be done with the cases in California and to have the Alice motions behind us. This now allows us to focus all of our attention on the upcoming trials this October in Waco, Texas, vs. Verizon and T-Mobile, and the ongoing case against Amazon asserting our RBR continuation patent.”...
It is an effort to remove "landmines" and minimize potential risks ahead of impending trials (T-Mobile, VZ) in Waco. Although VPLM has won 20 out of 20 IPR's, they want to avoid risks while completing negotiations with AMZN.
Conducting the two trials and completing the current damage negotiations with AMZN requires financial resources that the company needs the most. Patent infringement damage experts are working on both MG and RBR patents with AMZN. The 45-day deadline for the MG patent infringement negotiations has arrived.
If anyone is interested in reviewing the role of IPR risks in the past cases, you can access a long post from Jan 16, 2023 which is still accessible. In this post we analyzed patent laws, cases, size of damage awards, IPR risks, etc.
Check the section on Intel vs. VLSI case in which $2.18 Billion damage was awarded against Intel by Judge Alright, Waco. The jury did not find "willfulness" against Intel.
Parts of Jan 16 post follow:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170957637
rapz Re: None Monday, January 16, 2023 6:56:29 PM Post# 112132 of 119630
Is there a maximum for patent infringement damages? No, says the Law.
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS...
...SELECTIVE CASES, ISSUES RELEVANT TO VPLM, AND POTENTIAL RISKS, IF ANY
1) Centripetal vs. Cisco - $2.75 billion award
https://smithhopen.com/2020/10/12/largest-patent-infringement-award-ever-not-so-fast/
In 2012, the Eastern District of Virginia awarded the largest patent infringement damages, in a patent infringement case involving a cybersecurity firm Centripetal asserting 11 U.S. patents against Cisco.
AN IPR BATTLE ENSUED
Within six months, Cisco filed 14 IPRs against 9 of Centripetal’s patents and invalidated 6 of the asserted patents and partially invalidated another patent. Nevertheless, Centripetal walked out of the IPR trial with some enforceable claims of US Patents 9,137,205 and 9,686,193.
(VPLM: PTAB IPR win 20-0, this trend could continue. So far IPR's have not invalidated VPLM patents or claims.)
The court held that Cisco willfully infringed Centripetal’s patents and awarded $756 million in damages. Upon finding that Cisco acted willfully and egregiously, the judge multiplied the damages by a factor of 2.5, yielding a total sum of $1.9 billion. The judge did not stop there. Next, the judge imposed a 10% royalty on the infringing products for the next 3 years and a 5% royalty for the subsequent 3 years. Tech experts estimate that the total verdict could amount to $2.65 to $3.25 billion. this will be the largest patent infringement award ever.
(VPLM: US Supreme Court (Roberts) relaxed the criteria for proving "WILLFULNESS OF INFRINGEMENT". VPLM informed all defendants soon after the patents were issued.)
WHAT HAPPENED NEXT FOR CISCO?
https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-supreme-court-rejects-centripetal-appeal-cisco-patent-fight-2022-12-05/
WASHINGTON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a bid by Centripetal Networks Inc to reinstate the largest award in the history of U.S. patent law - $2.75 billion - to be paid by Cisco Systems Inc in a cybersecurity patent dispute.
The justices turned away Centripetal's appeal of a lower court's decision to negate the award after the judge who presided over the trial disclosed that his wife owned Cisco stock worth $4,688.
(VPLM: As an ex-patent litigator Judge Albright is not expected to have conflicts of owning stock in VPLM or defendant companies.)
========
3) A WACO CASE OF INTEREST: INTEL vs VLSI
Intel is told to pay $2.18 billion after losing a patent trial by Judge Albright (Waco)
BY SUSAN DECKER AND MATTHEW BULTMAN, MARCH 2, 2021
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-03-02/intel-told-to-pay-2-18-billion-after-losing-patent-trial
Intel infringed two patents owned by closely held VLSI, the jury in Waco said. The jury awarded $1.5 billion for infringement of one patent and $675 million for infringement of the second. The jury rejected Intel’s denial of infringing either of the patents and its argument that one patent was invalid because it claimed to cover work done by Intel engineers.
The jury said there was no willful infringement. A finding otherwise would have enabled District Court Judge Alan Albright to increase the award even further, as much as three times the amount set by the jury.
The damage award isn’t so high when the billions of chips sold by Intel are taken into account, Chu said. Intel paid MicroUnity Systems Engineering Corp $300 million in 2005 and paid Nvidia Corp. $1.5 billion in 2011 even though a settlement in that case involved a cross license of technology, he said.
Intel had sought to postpone the case because of the pandemic but was rejected by Judge Albright, a former patent litigator and magistrate who was sworn in as a federal judge in 2018. Judge Albright agreed and ruled $2.18 billion award.
In totality, this is the second-largest patent infringement damages ever awarded. Intel stock fell 2.6% to $61.24 in New York trading. This amount is about half of Intel’s fourth-quarter profit. The magnitude of damages had to do with the reason that Intel has sold billions of infringing devices (similar to current defendants: Apple, Samsumg, Google, etc.)
(If the jury found Intel infringement was willful, Judge Albright could have escalated the $2.18 billions award to three times to $6.5 billion!)
Intel's case went to Delaware court where the patent infringement award was $4 Billion.
Intel and VLSI this week agreed to settle one of their ongoing legal disputes. The legal battle in Delaware covered five patents, and VLSI asked for more than $4 billion in damages, reports Reuters.
The two parties agreed to settle the dispute in Delaware with prejudice, so the lawsuit cannot be brought to court again. VLSI agreed not to sue Intel's customers and suppliers over the five CPU patents at the issue of the case, whereas the processor giant agreed to dismiss its counterclaims. The two companies will not pay anything to each other.
"The parties have agreed to dismissal of claims and counterclaims asserted in this action," a court filing reads.
Intel wants $4 bln VLSI patent lawsuit tossed over ownership disclosure
By Blake Brittain December 12, 2022
(Reuters) - Intel Corp has asked a federal judge in Delaware to dismiss a $4.1 billion patent lawsuit from VLSI Technology LLC, claiming VLSI is purposefully concealing its "opaque ownership structure" from the court.
Intel in a filing unsealed Friday asked U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly to throw out the case, arguing that VLSI failed to comply with his standing order for parties to name "every individual and corporation with a direct or indirect interest" in them.
VLSI is owned by investment funds managed by Fortress Investment Group LLC, a SoftBank Group Corp subsidiary. It has won two jury verdicts in West Texas worth over $3 billion on accusations that Intel infringed patents VLSI bought from Dutch chipmaker NXT Semiconductors NV.
Other VLSI lawsuits against Intel are still pending in Delaware and Northern California. Connolly paused the Delaware case in August after finding VLSI's CEO provided vague information about the investors that own it.
Intel said in its Friday filing that VLSI's refusal to detail its investors is "no accident" and warned that without adequate disclosures, Connolly could not determine whether he has any conflicts in the case.
Intel, VLSI drop Delaware dispute in blockbuster patent fight By Blake Brittain
December 27, 2022
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/intel-vlsi-drop-delaware-dispute-blockbuster-patent-fight
drumming,
AGREE 1000%! In the absence of news about the AMZN's MG patent discussion (45-day) or 606 patent discussion (unknown schedule), folks do not know what the outcome will be - positive or negative. It is not clear whether the MG 45-day patent discussion is separate from the 606 patent discussion or both are combined into the 45-day deadline.
If a "buyout" is not in the cards, folks do not know why several dismissals are happening. Folks that held this stock through bad times have the patience to hold longer. jmo
Normally in the case of a "buyout" OR a "VPLM merger as AMZN's IP subsidiary", the buyer Corporation checks all pending litigations against, financial reports and SEC filings, and history (beyond the "Discovery process"), etc. But outsiders do not have a clue if this is the reason why VPLM is "clearing the deck". Did any issues come up during discussions with AMZN that required this action?
Only items outsiders expect to know are: results of AMZN "meet and confer" discussion/agreement due 45 days, final scheduling of the impending trials of TMUS and VZ
From past history of VPLM IPR's the argument before PTAB is supposed to begin soon (if they were not cancelled) and the results to be announced early 2024. So far VPLM won 20 out of 20 IPR's. Then, why all these dismissals?
If they keep dismissing cases, why sue them: Samsung, Meta, GOOG, AAPL, T? Is someone buying them out?
Butters,
Yes, just as we expected. They will defend Hotspot@home. T-Mobile will be a tough fight ahead of us. But VPLM has better chance.
Check with VPLM IR, just to be sure! Enjoy your day!
SOu812,
Realized a mistake my last post made: assumed all readers and shareholders know all about patent claims/processes. Even in a group of IP attorneys opinions differ unless they have studied the patents and the court rulings. Last 5 years of trials showed that was the case.
The underlying dispute of routing message definition and its wording is common to both MG and RBR patents. The "routing message" is the VPLM's method of routing a call whether they are phone/video calls as in RBR patents over private and public networks or combining it with the GPS coordinates (location identifier from ISP's server) as in MG patents. Preliminary steps viz. claim construction, Markman, Discovery, Expert testimony, etc. are all similar and apply to both MG and RBR patents. Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat the same steps again, as if RBR is a new investigation.
There is a lot of talk about damage negotiations viz. "imaginary negotiations dilly-dallying" for a few dollars back and forth between AMZN and VPLM. AMZN's IP attorney Shvodian is very smart. He does not negotiate for dollars and cents but rather he attempted to narrow the scope of our routing message claim and hence result in fewer infringements or lower $ damage.
Routing message is the backbone of both patents. Mr. Hudnell explained it many times. Judge Albright agreed.
Recall discussions about public vs private phone networks with respect to the need for the "time to live" element etc. and how the "time to live" element was argued in the last zoom call and the earlier zoom call. It was about the routing message claim in all of them. Please read both MG and RBR patents again to confirm if the above post makes sense.
OR call VPLM IR for confirmation. They can give you a better explanation than this post.
In summary, we are happy with a broader routing message claim and the dollars it will add to the infringement damage recalculation.
>>… it’s a little early for VP and Amazon to be having any discussions …<<
Really! Starting from scratch? Discovery, etc. are all done.
It is the “infringements and damage recalculation” stage. Rework the infringement damages.
Albright’s words in the claim will be used in all future cases vs. defendants. Claim construction by the Judge.
If it is early, why Judge Albright will “jump in” July? An announcements shouldn’t be far off. jmo
investor,
>>...Any "problem" they might have coming to an agreement....<<
There were and are no problems! From Judge Albright's statement in the June 12 zoom call , one can assume:
1) The MG patent infringement damages and part of RBR claims were probably done. VPLM probably waited until the June 12 hearing for the redefinition of "routing message" item, a very important part of RBR patent claim.
2) After Judge ruled in VPLM's favor, the RBR patent claim was broadened and added many more infringements into the damage calculation.
When asked about "scheduling" for the updated calculation, Judge did not change the 45 day deadline and if they do not hammer out, he will. (Many reported it here.) Why all that fuss?
Aside -
When a claim language is modified by Judge's order the infringement calculations have to be updated. This step adds more dollars to damage calculation. More infringements mean more dollars. AMZN did not like it but had to accept Judge's order. Remember "claim construction", Markman, etc. we went through.
With an updated broader claim language from Judge Albright the RBR patent has become a lot more valuable to VPLM and the shareholders. Personally it is a fantastic achievement that shareholders must celebrate instead of imagining the worst. The market may be too "clueless" to value but shareholders need not be. But those who understand patents, patent processes, etc. are just happy and grabbing more shares. The clueless will catchup. (jmo and assumptions)
A minor point to add:
Today's dispute had to do with RBR patent 606 claim on routing message "time value"
(RBR is connected to Mobile Gateway patent claims).
It gives a strong signal to the upcoming discussions/trials with other defendants: VZ, TMUS, et al.
Well said! Judge Albright would have wondered why these defendants waited after Claim Construction, Markman, Discovery, Experts testimony to raise the Alice 101 issue at the last minute. Were they not allowed to participate in these discussions with AMZN or is this their pre-trial preparation strategy? Mr. Hudnell "split apart" NDCal clueless judge's application "sequence" of Alice 101 ruling.
They try to make up "stories" about VPLM's Expert witnesses and "ridiculous" royalty rates as a basis to defend "infringement".
HayDay,
Missed to add this statistics. Multiply the nuber of text messages by a royalty rate of 1.3%. Then multiply the number of years since 2010 when infringers were told about VPLM patents. You get an idea how huge it could be.
People use texting more than calls or emails.
U.S. Texting Statistics
https://www.localproject.net/docs/texting-stats/
81% of Americans text regularly.
Over 6 billion texts are sent every day.
Over 180 billion texts are sent every month.
27 trillion texts are sent every year.
97% of American adults text weekly.
America is responsible for approximately 45% of the world’s text volume.
Americans text twice as much as they call, on average.
Business Texting Statistics
78% of people wish they could have a text conversation with a business.
61% of businesses wish they could send and receive texts from a business number.
80% of professionals currently use text for business purposes.
People prefer text most for scheduling or changing appointments, and making or confirming reservations.
Over half of customers would rather text a customer support agent instead of using other available options.
Texting is highest rated contact method for customer satisfaction compared to all other communication channels (Text – 90; Phone – 77; Facebook – 66).
Over 1/3 of professionals say they can’t go 10 minutes without responding to a text.
Calls cost customer service centers several dollars per conversation. Texts cost pennies per conversation.
44% of consumers prefer to press a button and initiate a text conversation, rather than wait on hold with an agent.
75% of people like offers sent via text (but no more than 2/mo).
Texting in the sales process with a qualified lead can increase conversions over 100%.
64% of consumers are likely to have a positive perception of companies that offer communication via text.
90% of leads prefer to be texted, compared to called.
Response rates from text are 209% higher than those from phone calls.
Texting Statistics by Age
91% of teens with cell phones actively text.
About 50% of adults 18-24 say text conversations as just as meaningful as a phone call.
Adults under 45 send and receive 85+ texts every day, on average.
77% of students want relevant information from colleges via text.
59% of students say a college can text them first.
Adults 18-24 y.o. send and receive over 128 texts every day.
Adults 18-24 y.o. send and receive 3,853 texts a month.
Adults 25-34 send and receive over 75 texts a day.
Adults 25-34 send and receive 2,240 texts a month.
Adults 35-44 send and receive about 52 texts a day.
Adults 35-44 send and receive 1,557 texts a month.
Adults 45-54 send and receive 33 texts a day.
Adults 45-54 send and receive 998 texts a month.
Adults 55+ send and receive 16 texts a day.
Adults 55+ send and receive 491 texts a month.
Texting Statistics by Time and Rates
Texts have a 99% open rate.
95% of texts will be read within 3 minutes of being sent.
Average response time for a text is 90 seconds.
Texts have a 45% average response rate.
College students spend 94 minutes a day texting, on average
Texting takes up 33% of Millennials’ mobile usage.
Text messages are read in under 5 seconds, on average.
96% of smartphone owners text.
The average adult spends 23 hours a week texting.
Texting Statistics by Preference
33% of American adults prefer texts to all other forms of communication.
Text is the most used form of communication for American adults under 50.
91% of people who text prefer it over voicemail.
Texting is the most common cell phone activity.
A third of Americans prefer text to phone calls.
Sources: Pew Research Center, CTIA, Statistic Brain, Nielsen, Experian Marketing Services, Cappex, Forbes, Velocify, Journal of Behavioral Addictions, RealityMine, USA Today, Gallup, Dimension Data, FranchiseHelp, Forrester, ContactBabel, eWeek
HayDay,
Pursuing further, if a reasonable IP-based business model is worked out between VPLM and AMZN a "white knight" type partnership is possible. Two components of the model: VPLM provides legal support for enforcing patent for infringement for a part of the royalty revenue and AMZN provides the money and share the royalty revenue. Royalty rate of 1.3% per instance of infringement instance. Text messaging is huge: 220million/day. 1.3% x 220 million plus i message/day = $$ The revenue stream would please VPLM. The revenue stream may be much lower than other business segments (subscriptions, services, devices, etc.) but they could use to present tough competition to competitors like VZ, T, TMUS, APPL, et al. It is tricky but it is a feasible venture. JMO.
drumming,
AMZN joining VOIP as a partner ( in some capacity) is an interesting possibility! Will AMZN like to sue other infringers and take on court expenses? Monetization of patents require future lawsuits and wins. jmo.
Never saw a buyout of a small company solely for its software patents. AMZN might very well agree to a licensing agreement and pay royalty for a few years, and be done with infringement. Royalty payment is added to the cost of doing business: phone call, text message, video call, etc.
Many small drug (biotech with a new drug BionTech-Covid) companies or software companies (with a large subscriber base like Instagram). Both could be accretive. If Buyout of VPLM is for patents, how the buyer will show the purchase would be ACCRETIVE to their existing businesses? Is the buyer going to sue other infringers for royalty to justify the purchase? Hard to imagine prospects for a buyout. In negotiations, anything can happen.
Not exactly!
1) Recall AMZN tried for venue transfer to NDCal citing their Alexa voice input device operations in Sunnyvale, CA (Refer to court filing.) Recall a post at that time pointing out the fake reason about an input device being vital to the MG patent. Nonsense!
2) Also they have Device manufacturing operations in Austin (?), Texas. Judge Albright questioned the lead manager of the device manufacturing from that TX location and wrote about his testimony in Albright's transfer denial order.
3) Diligence exercised by Judge Albright regarding TX manager was quoted in Appeals court rejecting AMZN's writ of mandamus. AMZN being in Waco did not happened by chance!.
Good point! Mr. Hudnell in Mountain View, CA, should have known NDCal local rules promoting Alice rule to dismiss all patent cases filed against Silicon Valley infringers. He went all the way to stand in the queue for the Supreme Court schedule but lost to the American Axle.
At the same time he also circumvented the "rotten" NDCal by going to Waco and "locking in" Judge Albright, a person being sought after by many patent holders.
By the way, leaving the NDCal for now may be a temporary strategy. If AMZN case settles SUCCESSFULLY for both MG and RBR patent infringements (10 claims, 8 claims, etc.) what happens to the Alice rule argument promoted by NDCal?
In the patent world, we need only a single claim to sue for infringement and win. VPLM has 100's of claims in each patent.
If the success extends to TMUS and VZ cases in Waco, will they revisit cases in NDCal after having confirmed in Waco the non-issue of Alice rule? Food for thought to Emil's successor?
A point about the two defendants - Samsung and Huawei. Samsung is almost like Apple: sells devices and their infringement damages could be huge. Unofficial indications are that stay for Samsung stay is just a self-imposed "pause" proposed by the Magistrate judge since they are in a very preliminary stages with a pending IPR.
Huawei from China has been "prohibited" under Trump from doing business in US, 5 or 6 years ago. The word is that they are not allowed to participate in the 5G upgrade in US.
If one is an astute investor, you would expect good news to balance today's news of NDCal's dismissals. What it could be? 45 days time frame for AMZN discussion ends mid June (next week). If AMZN discussion is allowed to continue on RBR, the astute investor may expect a resolution of VPLM's Reconsideration motion on "time value". A favorable ruling could be positive because investors know the value of RBR for AMZN's ecommerce business. After NDCal's clueless judge managed to bring the RBR 606 patent into NDCal under DJ and declared invalid based on Alice rule, the same 606 patent is in full swing under Judge Albright. Some people thought RBR was "dead". jmo.
drumming,
More about NDCal case dismissals. Consider risk minimization strategy. We have known NDCal and its rotten local rules encourage the application of Alice rule to invalidate patents for non-obviousness. Silicon Valley companies are free to infringe patents without accountability.
Donato does not seem to "think independently" about IP on his own. If Silicon Valley companies use NDCal to cancel all patents they infringe and invalidate patents using the Alice rule, these patents get "tarnished". They go through Appeals and other courts, being cited for rejection based on Alice rule. Patent holders have to spend years to argue out of the Alice rule, in courts to revive the patent's viability again. Even SCOTUS has no clue or a solution. Check their ruling on the American Axle case. They goofed! It is better to get out of NDCal "untarnished" and pursue cases in Waco where the judge knows patents unlike NDCal's clueless judges. jmo.
thelimeyone,
As a long term holder, your words are worth in GOLD!
>>...My point is TX rulings on both stocks may ultimately make NDC mute and irrelevant...<<
Drumming,
Exactly!
>>... Seem like a good thing to be getting out of N CA!...<<
Yes, better to focus $ and time on " a few birds in hand than multitude in the bush.."
With the RBR in the mix with AMZN discussion, it is progressing well. All of us want to get the damage $ soon - before we are too old to enjoy!
Investor,
If you own or rent multiple units, in multiple geographical locations, you would have the answer.
Investor,
The question of "reasonable royalties" involves more details. The idea of the post was to keep it simple and compare with the all too familiar Real Estate transactions and legalities that many could relate.
>>...
Amazon agreeing to pay reasonable royalties AND having a licensing agreement makes complete sense to me....<<
-----
The following does not apply. No mixing, "wheeling and dealing". Each defendant is in his own "pot". One biz does not mix with others. Keep it simple and straight.
>>...
That being said... could VP waive or minimize the royalties charged to Amazon as part of a "deal" for them to agree to licensing in the future in order to put pressure on the other more MAJOR (alleged) infringers (like Vz, Tmobile & ATT)?
Does the same royalty charged to Amazon have to be used for future cases, or can VP charge a "non-deal" amount to the other (alleged) infringers.... <<