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.
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.”
“The law is on the defendant side...” is FALSE in any real patent court that believes, as it should, in the presumption of VALIDITY rather than rush to invalidate legitimately prosecuted & issued patents WITHOUT ANY CLAIMS CONSTRUCTION HEARINGS.
DB - Not saying anything will happen to but most of the N CA document postings seem to hit around 5 PM PST. If anything were to be entered into the docket, my guess is it would be updated at close of business.
Excellent explanation of different market makers can be found here.
https://www.32trades.com/market-makers-knowing-what-youre-up-against/
Yep...good old Timmy Cook. So crooked, if he swallowed a nail he’d shit a cork screw. But let’s rag on Emil.
After reading that, maybe we should ask ourselves, if Apple is willing to SCREW and DECEIVE their own paying customers like this, what are they willing to do and how far will they go to conceal intentional and unlawful use of other company’s patents to “profit for a year” or until they’re caught?
Allegedly, Apple is such an ethical company that many spend their time ripping on Emil...in reality the ire should be aimed at the “honorable” little Timmy Cook.
No. For less complicated cases, the lead judge can delegate or refer the case to their Magistrate to free them up to handle the more complicated cases.
I’m not aware of Dimarchi being affiliated with Nevada. According to her “judge” page below, she’s the Magistrate in NDCA.
http://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/demarchi-virginia-vkd/
P2P - you certainly bring up valid points. My belief is that Apple trying to connect the new cases to the previous cases by any means they can. While I’m no lawyer, it would appear to be a difficult haul given the previous litigation was first filed by VPLM in Nevada.
My feeling is the Declaratory request is a pre-emotive move by the Bigs to further delay & avoid potential future litigation on the remaining claims from the original cases.
Putting the cases in W TX on hold was the right thing to do to avoid confusion in rulings BECAUSE Apple filed the 2nd case in N CA. Once the N CA controversy is dismissed or resolved, Hudnell has 7 days to notify Albright to remove the stay and proceed on W TX.
Rapz. While we wait for a decision on the Motion to Dismiss, the case still continues on the original schedule set back on July 27th. This mutually agreed joint order just allowed the court to resolve the disputes on the previously stipulated Protective & Discovery Orders. Essentially clearing up some administrative housekeeping. The big court order we are awaiting is the decision on the VPLM motion to dismiss.
These are just administrative orders allowing the joint modifications to the protective orders. Nothing of any substance to see here.
Are they still in business and fighting in court or not?It’s not a difficult question to answer.
Weird how come the biggest and richest multinational corporations still HAVE NOT squashed the tiny, pesky VPLM. Hmmm...I wonder why.
What’s not the story? VPLM is still fighting the Bigs in court and Hudnell’s court filings are impressive. That’s 100% supported by FACTS...NOT BS!
What’s not the story? VPLM is still in the fight with the Bigs and Hundnell’s filings are impressive. Those are the facts and the data supports it 100%. Anything other than that is BS!
It’s weird how many know everything about VPLM patents and the company yet the most basic facts about both points are constantly being misrepresented or deliberate lies. FACTS MATTER!
Stef - I thought the same thing when I read her decision. Let’s hope she decides soon so we can move on already.
Again, if VPLM was such a pesky little patent troll with worthless patents & no money, why are they still standing in the fight against the Biggest Multinational Corps in the world? Hmmm, maybe there’s something to their technology after all!
Hudnell’s work is only unimpressive if we don’t understand how patent laws work. Many IP attorneys who I’ve spoken to, along with the PTO, who issued the patents, are on the side of VPLM. So there’s those nagging little facts.
The link should work now...I forgot to turn the public link sharing on which is why it kept asking for a login. Duh!
Let’s hope for a ruling in N CA sooner rather than later.
Nothing is ever a slam dunk. We have 50-50 shot at getting the N CA dismissal but I’m liking our chances more after reading both of the filings.
Again, nobody knows for sure until the Order comes down from the bench.
Weird. Are you getting an error on the link?
Yes, there was previous patent litigation but not in N CA...that should not really be an issue as VPLM “first filed” the new cases in W TX. The new cases are separate and distinct from the previous settled cases, which is why they’re trying the Hail Mary in N CA to try to make some kind of connection between the cases. It’s spelled out very well on the Koh ruling.
In patent litigation, the patent owner has a right to file where ever they chose. It’s incumbent on the defendants to prove a different venue is more appropriate than where the plaintiff first file in order to move...further, it would be Albright’s decision on transferring cases since the ‘606 was filed in his court.
V - Good questions. I think your concerns may be addressed by reading Koh’s full response in Ruckus v Harris that I just posted.
Anyone interested in reading Koh’s full decision in the Ruckus v Harris case cited by Hudnell can find it below. Also, her decision clearly spells out why Albright had to issue a stay in the W TX cases due to pending/duplicitous complaints brought in N CA. Enjoy.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oJmolUNTVs13n6SOTGrrPAcSwI82HXqg/view?usp=drivesdk
Curious...how do we know what was communicated to Hudnell?
Your truth only matters to you. As I’ve said many times, nobody knows for certainty how the court cases will end until the final rulings come down from the bench. 50-50 shot at winning or losing. We’ll see who’s eating crow when this all ends...but it’s definitely a dish served cold!
Referring to Kipping cases in NV.
Motion to consolidate cases..,just going to leave this here.
VPLM is nothing? Lol. Obsessive negativity and continual complaints magically appearing daily about the company but nobody gives a shit? Sure seems like there are some who do.
“Amount of interest?” How does one measure this?
Share prices of ALL stocks rise and fall and rise and fall over time. It’s illogical to believe any company’s price would perpetually rise without setbacks...especially for an OTC company battling for their life against the largest tech companies in the world. It also doesn’t make any sense that they WOULD NOT experience turn over for some portion of their shareholder base if people are trading on the price swings...meaning people are jumping in and out of their stock holdings.
Show us the data! Been asking for awhile...hell even provided years with of share price history & press releases but still haven’t seen any dots connecting the dumps to pumps.
There is not a single person who can tell us with absolute certainty how any of these court cases will end...until the rulings come down from the bench. THAT IS A FACT!
VPLM could prevail or they could lose. Only time will reveal the outcome. Could some be GUESSING the outcome correctly? Sure...We always have a 50-50 shot at being right and hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20. SMH!
What “venue” motions? The pending cases in N CA are for a Declaratory Judgement! It’s an advisory opinion. To transfer a case, the moving party needs to file a motion to transfer in the court where the cases were filed, not file a completely new lawsuit in a court where they’re hoping to take it to.
If Apple et al gets the declaratory judgement they are after, they still need to convince Judge Albright to transfer cases to N CA to be heard...which he can refuse to do based legal facts!
Not ominous...it’s standard court procedure to set a case schedule. Pleadings and motions pop up all through cases so if you don’t have any set schedule, there are no guideposts along the way to provide any structure.
This is a nothing burger! Normal case administration. The case schedule dates were set on July 27th and nothing has changed with the case schedule since.
The bigger issue is waiting on the decision on the Motion to Dismiss (filed by VPLM on July 10th). Hopefully we’ll get an answer soon.
God I hope so. The longer this drags on the worse it gets!
Doesn’t matter if you physically have the shares and can see the share certificates...the RECORD of the shares are said to be cancelled at the transfer agent.
To help clarify all the misinformation floating around in this issue, please publish the verdict document here so shareholders can see it for themselves.