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.
Finally had a few minutes to get these docs posted.
N CA Case Docs:
Doc 61 Case Management Order 12/14/2020
Doc 62 VPLM Response to First Amended Complaint 12/28/2020
Doc 63 Notice of CAFC Docketing Notice 1/13/2021
Doc 66 Order Granting Stay 1/14/2021
Court of Appeals - Federal Circuit
Doc 52 VPLM Combined En Banc Request 12/17/2020
VPLM Writ of Mandamus 1/14/2021
Great points prophet. The response is probably due Friday...I think Apple will get an extra day to respond since Monday was MLK Day which is a National Holiday.
Heard from a close there were some postings on Reddit & Robin Hood sites about VPLM today but I have not seen them for myself. I asked him send me the screen shots.
Rapz - not sure what’s happening or can happen between the courts behind the scenes but based on the filings I’ve read, it feels like Koh was “snapped to attention” with the mandamus filing. Her tone appears to have changed in her subsequent orders after the FADC docketed the mandamus. I’ll get the docs posted so you can read them when I have more time.
No. I believe VPLM asked for the stay in their answer to the complaint and Koh granted it because of the mandamus. I’ll post it when I get a chance. Work has been a bit nuts over the last few weeks.
No problem. Happy to share anything I can find. I saw there are a few more filings on the N CA docket but haven’t had a chance to read them yet.
Agree on all points Rapz. Nice recap of Hudnell’s work.
Assuming you mean Temporary Restraining Order? If so, I didn’t see anything asking for one in the filing.
Apple has 5 days to reply then it should start moving forward. Not sure how long it will actually take once started but I’m hoping for 10-15 business days at the most.
Regardless of whether I incorrectly referred to a method/process patent vs a claim, some will lose the forest for the trees. The broader point was that no patent will list the proprietary code for an ordered process that is run on a “mystery black box” aka PC server!
I mistyped...I was referring to “method” claim types not a patent type.
Right? If it weren’t for those things called “trade secrets” that are protected by law, everyone would have been able to code their own MS Windows OS clones to save the $ 350 from landing in Bill Gates’ pocket.
It’s not a software patent...it’s an ordered process/method patent. Again, this was all addressed at multi-year PTAB trail where VPLM prevailed ON THE MERITS OF THEIR ARGUMENTS AND AGAIN ON APPEAL OF THE PTAB RULING.
Why is this stuff so hard to understand????
If you go back to the PTAB trials & read the full 300+ page transcript you’ll get your answer.
The “magical black box” here described by some it is a computer server running code. In patent drawings, where the DESIGN of the computer is commonly known and not being patented (ie a PC), a functional computer that is part of a method is represented by...wait for it...a box or multiple boxes in a process flow diagram. The actual source code running on the “box” is not detailed in the patent. The VPLM source code was verified by an independent technical audit and presented at the PTAB trials.
Vio la’ - Black box demystified!
Interesting. Is this public info viewable on Pacer or somewhere else?
Update on Kipping case A-20-807745-C. Motion to dismiss denied because it is “premature”...what ever that means. It appears the cases continue on their own for now.
01/12/2021 Motion to Consolidate (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Kishner, Joanna S.)
Defendants' Motion to Consolidate Cases
Result: Denied Without Prejudice
Minutes
01/12/2021 10:00 AM
- Mr. Knecht argued for consolidation to avoid unnecessary expenses and inconsistent rulings. Opposition by Mr. Smith. COURT ORDERED, motion DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Court finds the motion premature as no Answer had been filed and the cases had separate Plaintiffs and transactions. Mr. Smith to prepare the order.
Just because they resigned and forfeited their deferred stock compensation, which has conditions of employment attached, doesn’t mean they didn’t have a different separation agreement drafted to cover them if something were already in the works. If so, this wouldn’t be immediately known to the public as financial filings have a time window around them and don’t have to be filed immediately. That’s the way Corp world works.
Still waiting for the case details on your “opinion” that VPLM lost another case.
It looks like there was a hearing on 1/9 to recalculate the court costs owed because the court made an error back on 3/24/2020 in their original calculation. See my other post. The old case is A-15-717491-C and can be looked up below. If you dig through the minutes you can find the breakdown of the jury awards.
Here’s a link to Clark County Courts again. Use the “District Civil/Criminal Records” case lookup.
https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/default.aspx
And if you’re referring to the court correcting their calculation error from 3/24/2020...BFD. The court made an error calculating the trial costs owed for the already settled case A-15-717491-C. The difference is ver minor compared to the value of the stock Kipping lost! Here’s the minutes from the old case on 3/24. If you have something different, provide proof!
Motion For Reconsideration (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Delaney, Kathleen E.)
Defendants Motion for Reconsideration for Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants Motion to Retax Costs and Disbursements
Minutes
03/17/2020 9:00 AM
03/24/2020 9:00 AM
- Counsel appeared telephonically. COURT ADVISED, Court errored in how It completed the blanks on the Motion to Reconsider Order. COURT ORDERED, Deft's. Motion GRANTED, STATED FINDINGS regarding Its analysis, and CLARIFIED, costs to be paid as follows: Locksmith Financial Corporation, $6,857.79 individual costs, $4,676.09 joint costs, for a total of $11,533.88 TK Investment, $3,313.67 individual costs, $4,676.09 joint costs, for a total of $7,989.76 Mr. Smith is to prepare the Order, resubmit it with the blanks for the amounts for the Court to enter, provide a copy to opposing counsel for review as to form and content, and return it back to the Court within 10 days.
The hearing on the pending motion to consolidate cases is scheduled for 1/12/2021 at 10 AM PST in Clark County, NV court. This is case A-20-807745-C and can be looked up at the link below.
So which case are you claiming they lost? Or is this more opinion?
https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/default.aspx
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Waco appeals? How can we appeal ANY Waco cases that haven’t even been argued yet?
A much needed section 101 cry for help to the SCOTUS. Interesting article. If this very is allowed at SCOTUS, the outcome of this case could have implications in current & future VPLM infringement cases.
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/01/05/patent-system-desperate-american-axle-implores-high-court-take-eligibility-fight/id=128729/
Interesting article. They must know something about the struggles small inventors face with protecting their IP and trying to license the technology. Enjoy!
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/01/04/wish-upon-a-star-experts-share-their-wildest-ip-dreams-for-2021/id=128711/
Always vague in my opinion. Provide names if you know so much. Who’s the inner circle?
I agree BUT the AIA has made this issue worse, not better! The intention was good however the execution of AIA has mostly benefited the large Corps with deep pockets. The unintended consequences have decimated small inventors costing them millions of dollars by forcing them to protect their validly issued patents through infringement litigation & IPR trial defenses.
ALLEGEDLY the Federal Circuit seems to know more about patents than the USPTO, maybe we should just shut down the USPTO to save tax dollars and let the corrupt courts continue to grant patent wins to their Big tech donors. Despicable!
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/12/28/federal-circuit-reflections-2020-the-good-and-mostly-bad/id=128608/
Well said Butter. Agree with the Citizens United point and how it relates to the slow death of VPLM & other small inventors.
It defies investment logic for any candidate for Congress to spend tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to get elected to a temporary job for 2 or 6 years that pays $174,000 per year. I get the lifetime pension & health benefits but think of how that money corrupts the courts...just look at Koh in N CA and Lee before she bailed at the PTAB.
Koh = POSITASS
It’s clear that depending on Koh’s ruling means the patents have never been read in full or just not understood.
In order to prosecute & be granted a patent, the application must contain the complete details necessary for a POSITA to recreate the patents...with the exception of the coding, the detail on how it works is clearly spelled out.
Apparently, according to social studies Koh, not only did the multiple patent examiners & attorneys failed to do their job, but also the multiple PTAB judges who listened to both companies present EVIDENCE to support their positions then ruled overwhelmingly 12 times in favor of VPLM that the patents were valid...I guess the USPTO is just propagating continual conspiracies against the Big tech companies by granting the little guys valid patents. But let’s keep complaining about China stealing our IP. SMFH!
Agree SD. IMO, the “America Invents Act” (AIA) created under the Obama admin is a wolf in sheep’s clothing for small innovators/inventors. That’s the law that created the PTAB to “streamline” patent challenges to keep them out of courts but has had the opposite effect. It has decimated small company patents and provided protection for the Bigs to continue to steal other companies IP. But let’s continue to blame Chine for iP theft.
None of us want to return to Koh’s court. Hopefully the goal of any mandamus request is to get Koh’s erroneous dismissal denial overturned and allow the cases to proceed in the first filed court of W TX.
No problem. Hope you enjoy the read.
Rapz - Here's the full En Banc document. Enjoy Hudnell's work.
N CA VPLM En Banc Petition
Way to twist the facts. Tell us, when an 80 & 82 year old leaves a company by resigning their senior level positions, does it mean they’re going to run out and find a new job? They’re 80 & 82 years old.
At that age, anyone reading that announcement would infer resignation = retirement. Geeez.
I don’t see this as a big deal. It’s a required filing in response to the stay order from September. It’s no shock that VPLM is on one side of the issue (wanting to keep the stay/cases in Waco) and the Bigs are on the other (claiming victory in N CA & wanting cases transfer). It’s still unclear how this will end but I like the filing for again listing the apparent errors made in the N CA decision.
W TX NEW FILING:
Update on Waco cases. VPLM filed the required Notice of Decision and requested stays are kept in place until determination on Mandamus request.
Here's a link to the Notic of Decision
Exactly! None of the Bigs have said in any court filing nor can it be found in any court transcript that Apple, Twitter, ATT etc are NOT USING VPLM PATENTED TECHNOLOGY...they’ve only claimed that they are not infringing on any patents. Apparently stealing doesn’t equal infringement in their minds.
My point is that I feel Koh was lazy in her work and just recited most of Apple’s points in their response as her reasons in the order. Hardly unbiased.