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.
Pretty straightforward...read them both side by side.
V - Not sure I agree on your “shredded” comment. If you put Koh’s Order next to Apple’s reply to VPLM’s Motion to dismiss and read them side by side, then you’ll see Koh’s parroting of Apple’s points in their reply.
Well, even a broken clock is correct 2 times a day.
The decision is on 1 motion in 1 consolidated case. There are still a number of cases that need to be completed in the courts before ANYONE can rightfully PROVE who the winner and loser is. Let’s the onslaught of negative gloating begin.
Except for the fact that Koh’s Order denying dismal just parrots everything in Apple’s reply against dismissal. She’s lazy and DIDN’T do her job as an unbiased judge.
I hope you’re correct!
Sorry but Lucy Koh is Michelle Lee v2.0. In the bag for Apple all the way.
Ruling in N CA. Koh screwed VPLM again by denying motion for dismissal. Case management conference on 12/16. UFB!
Good point on Hudnell filing the stay on the case management hearing...ironically all the plaintiffs disagree with the stay but they loved it when Albright stayed the Waco cases. Oh the hypocrisy of the Bigs!
Dates are case mile posts...orders are case movement.
The 12/16 date was set way back on July 27th when the original schedule was set by Koh’s case management order (document 42). We’re waiting on an order regarding VPLMs motion to dismiss (document 32) filed back on July 10th.
Regardless which way it goes, it shouldn’t take this damn long to make a decision based on the filings!
As they say, “ the wheels of Justice turn slowly.” And in N CA, the wheels get stuck in the mud!
Nothing of note. This doc is a joint update summarizing case progress (or lack thereof) and required by the court before the upcoming case management conference scheduled for 12/16. We’re still waiting on the court to rule on VPLM’s motion to dismiss from July. I don’t understand how anything could be allowed to move forward without a determination on this motion.
NEVER.WISE.TO.FALL.IN.LUV.WITH.A.STOCK!!!..FUNN.is.the.perfect.example...
Years of warnings, but folks will believe what they want to believe!!!
All the narratives/dd/positive "reviews" in the World ever changed FUNN from its true being....A TURD!
Zero progress made? Are ALL the cases done and decided yet?
There is no timeline...the courts decide when they decide. Many of us would prefer sooner rather than later but only time will tell which side is corrrct!
Continuing to argue about VPLM without either reading all the patents and/or understanding them is like administering medicine to the dead. It will make you feel good but won’t change the outcome!
Thanks DB. Seems like Judge Albright knows his stuff when it comes to patents...unlike the judge in N CA. Fairness is all VPLM needs.
I thought the most telling part of the article was when the author, who worked with Albright in private practice and argued the 1st patent case in his court, spelled out what to expect when in his courtroom:
“... parties and practitioners before Judge Albright will find themselves before a smart judge who is always well-prepared and takes a lawyer-friendly approach to his cases. Parties in his courtroom with a patent dispute will quickly learn that they have a judge with deep experience with patent cases, local rules designed to get a more efficient resolution of the case, and a reasonable approach to litigation.”
Potential...if cases get consolidated I’d imagine there will be future important court dates for the joint cases.
ALWAYS eat too much on Thanksgiving! And you’re starting to sound like my wife about the couch!
Clark Country NV court Schedule for Kipping Case:
12/18/2020 Motion to Consolidate (3:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Kishner, Joanna S.)
Defendants' Motion to Consolidate Cases
Clark County NV court minutes:
Events & Orders of the Court
10/13/2020 Motion to Dismiss (9:30 AM) (Judicial Officer Kishner, Joanna S.)
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
Minutes
10/13/2020 9:30 AM
- Arguments by counsel regarding the transfer of the shares. COURT ORDERED, motion DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Ms. Smith to prepare the order.
And maybe he should throw in “I want my MTV” for good measure during his tantrum!
Old news. The 2nd motion to dismiss was heard back on 10/13. Based on court minutes, it was known then it was going to dismissed since the court clearly instructed Kipping’s council to submit the order. The next important date is the hearing to consolidate cases in December. Then watch out for both cases to be dumped together.
??? Well done like a steak? What’s up DB?
Sure, let’s further piss off a judge that holds our future in her hands. Not too bright!
Unfortunately, that’s not how the law works.
I disagree with your premise for the stay being “professional courtesy.” If both cases were to proceed at the same time, then there is a strong possibility for conflicting rulings to occur which could cause any positive ruling in Waco to be potentially overturned on Appeal. Albright is doing the right thing by staying his case. It will be moving again soon and the outcome in Waco will then be rock solid when it comes. Koh can’t delay the decision forever. Patience my friend, patience.
Agree!
Yep and it looks like Koh may have punted the decision to her Magistrate Judge Demarchi.
Albright “allowed” the stay because it was the correct move to avoid any conflicts that may arise from the same issues being litigated in multiple court jurisdictions. More than likely has absolutely nothing to do with potential settlements.
IKR. Unreal that we need to rehash the same information over and over.
Already happened? Nope. It there was a decision made there would be a docket entry posting the formal court order of said decision. I check the dockets every day and there is no final order posted for the VPLM motion to dismiss from June.
It’s no big deal and not an issue. The initial case schedule was set way back on July 27th and hasn’t changed.
It’s on Judge Koh’s weekly calendar.
https://apps.cand.uscourts.gov/CEO/cfd.aspx?7142
Doesn’t matter. That schedule was made back on July 27th. The decision on VPLM’s motion to dismiss can come at any time.
So let’s agree that if VPLM is a patent troll then we should be calling Apple a patent thief!
After all, being found guilty of infringing on multiple companies patents & having to pay many multi-million dollar jury awards would indicate Apple is a patent thief!
Deal?
Let’s hope sooner. I never think about the tax loss season because I never believed in selling something at a loss just so Uncle Sam can give me back roughly $0.31 on the dollar in tax savings. I’d rather pay the taxes on my gains and not lose $0.69 on a different transaction.
Although, I think if Koh ordered a dismissal on the Wed before Thanksgiving it would potential be less impactful than waiting until mid-Dec. My reasoning is that a late docket entry right before a 4 day holiday weekend will attract less attention and publicity.
Seems reasonable. Unfavorable loss of time? At this point, a positive outcome for VPLM is all that matters. What’s another month after waiting years for the IPRs & first N CA cases to play out.
So how does this “monitoring” affect her decision on VPLM’s pending motion to dismiss?
Totally agree Butter. Delay, deflect, & defer...the Apple patent strategy.
Interesting article DB. Koh smacked down again. My favorite paragraph was at the end...and you just can’t make this up!
“Without any evidence of harm to competition, increased prices to consumers, or a decrease in innovation, Judge Koh still ruled Qualcomm guilty. At the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the three-judge panel unanimously overruled every one of Judge Koh’s rulings, citing the vast difference between being anticompetitive and hypercompetitive.”