I'm not sure if this was already posted or if anyone else is aware of this. If so, I apologize for the duplication.

I was just checking the Mandamus docket for any updates and noticed Hudnell filed a "notice of appearance" for Nicolas S. Gikkas. I wasn't sure why so I looked up his bio...and DAMN...he's got some chops when it comes to litigating big tech patents. He is also an electrical engineer with 10 years experience in designing communication systems, which seems pretty relevant to the VPLM fight. In addition, he knows what a NPE is and how to fight them so if VPLM were a "patent troll" as many allege, he surely would have sniffed this out and steered clear of them.

Here's a blurb from his bio:
"...Before attending law school, Mr. Gikkas worked as an electrical engineer for 10 years, applying his expertise in digital communications technology to design state-of-the-art systems."

Here's a link to his full bio

Exactly! “Apple knows they’re screwed” if we can get to a real trial with proper & complete claim construction.

Well said Spyke. It’s impossible for us to prove anything right or wrong until ALL the options in trying the cases have run their course. If Apple et al are SO confident there is no infringement and VPLM is a patent troll with no case against them, then they would have pushed to rid themselves of the VPLM as expeditiously as possible. Instead, what have we seen from the Bigs, serial IPR filings (all failed, VPLM 12-0) and continued delay tactics & motions in the court cases. Weird how the biggest tech corps in the world can’t make little old VPLM go away. Hmmm...maybe there really is something more to the claims of infringement than we know.

Only time will tell how the cases end and which side of the board is PROVEN correct. Until time reveals the answer, everyone here is just guessing how this ends.

Be well...GLTA.

Agreed. Apple GUTTED!

Here are the FADC replies I promised along with an amicus brief in support of VPLM. Good stuff here, especially in Hudnell's counter reply.

Apple et al Reply to Mandamus

VPLM Counter Reply

Dr Mercado Amicus Brief

Just saw this update as well.

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/01/26/2164021/0/en/VoIP-Pal-Provides-a-Status-Update-on-the-Petition-for-a-Writ-of-Mandamus-with-the-U-S-Court-of-Appeals-for-the-Federal-Circuit.html

There is a link to the En Banc & mandamus and others court filings requests on their website.

https://www.voip-pal.com/recent-filings

What kind of crap reporting is this? It’s not Koh’s decision WHERE VPLM can prosecute infringement claims on THEIR patents.
——————
“In December, Judge Koh had ruled that Voip-Pal had to face all of the suits, as well as an additional declaratory suit from Twitter, in her court because prior lawsuits over related Voip-Pal patents had established her court's jurisdiction.”

Koh’s rulings are clear as mud. But don’t worry Rapz, Koh’s not conflicted at all. I’m being sarcastic of course!

Frio - IMO their response was pretty weak. Read the article in this post from Butter and you’ll see the main points of Apple’s response.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=161147660

Butter - The Law 360 article is a succinct recap of Apple’s response. There really wasn’t much more substance to it. They just regurgitated the same arguments that were in their 1st Amended complaint. VPLM is allowed a rebuttal to Apple’s response, which should come this week. Once I see the VPLM doc, I’ll post both to the board.

Thanks for the heads up....haven’t seen it yet. Curious to hear your insight. Why do you feel their response is weak? What were their arguments against reversing Koh?

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/