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.
Rapz - great minds think alike. I just went back and read your previous post in it’s entirety. Both of our posts are in alignment on fact. I never read your original “Declaratory Judgement” post before I wrote mine. I asked my question because it was clear from all the back and forth “panic”, that IMO it doesn’t appears many understand the purpose and potential outcome of the Apple request for Declaration.
Keep up the good work. Hopefully the cases will be resuming in Waco shortly.
Thanks. Generally speaking, a circuit judge may refer “simple” or “less complicated” cases to the magistrate judge to free themselves to deal with more complex or involved cases. I’m not sure if Koh provides any guidance on the final decision or not.
I think you’re correct Butter.
Exactly Rapz. The new complaint isn’t really about venue...Koh doesn’t get to decide if she wants to keep anything since the ‘606 was never filed in N CA. It would be up to ALBRIGHT to transfer the case out of Waco. The new complaint is a PRE-EMPTIVE move by APPLE in an attempt to limit the unknown of further lawsuits by VPLM for the ‘815 & ‘005 patents.
There is no connection between the new ‘606 patent infringement claims in Waco and the 2 previously settled N CA cases that invalidated only 20 claims of the ‘815 & ‘005 patents and were affirmed on appeal. Since the 2nd pending appeal is now settled, there is no longer any real controversy that exists in N CA. The previous cases are long settled and done. VPLM still has roughly 100 valid claims total in the ‘815 & ‘005 patents that could be asserted in the future against Apple for infringement IF VPLM CHOSE TO FILE NEW CASES. IMO it would be a dumb move to file new cases in N CA for any of the remaining ‘815 and/or ‘005 claims.
Apple knows they got beat at the PTAB sanctions appeal where they tried the totally unprecedented Hail Mary to invalidate the whole ‘815 & ‘005 patents. They understand there could still be lawsuits brought for the remaining ‘815 & ‘005 non-overlapping claims and are trying to limit any future exposure by getting the Declaratory Judgement in N CA.
Apples whole first to file argument is BS and has zero merit since the ‘606 patent was NEVER ASSERTED IN N CA. It was filed FIRST in Waco.
In addition, argument for subject matter jurisdiction in N CA is also BS. The ‘972 patent was never asserted for infringement against Apple anywhere. Seems like another Hail Mary move by Apple adding this patent to their 2nd amended complaint in an attempt to mitigate any potential future risk.
One other point, looks like Koh referred this case to her Magistrate Judge, Virginia Demarchi, who should hopefully be dismissing shortly.
Serious question...who here truly understands WHY Apple filed the complaint requesting a DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT in N CA 4 days AFTER VPLM filed their ‘606 patent infringement complaints against Apple in W TX?
Keep in mind, the ‘606 patent was never previously at issue in N CA.
Just checked N CA docket...nothing new yet.
No I don’t think the will for the 11/3 rule 36.
Besides, my comment was related to the false press release yesterday all over pro-Apple websites that said VPLM allegedly won an appeal on Tuesday remanding some case back to Koh in N CA. There is not a single docket entry showing that’s true at any Court of Appeals. If you have any proof that press release is true...show us what the case number is!
Still waiting for the Appeal case that VPLM allegedly won!
Pretty sure Albright wants any potential conflict cured before he continues the case in his court...any judge worth their salt would do the same. Since the VPLM Appeal is no longer creates any legal controversy for Koh to rule on, hopefully she will dismiss quickly.
Once dismissed, Hudnell has 7 days to alert Albright to remove the stay in Waco.
Then find us the Appeal case they’re writings about and post it. I can’t find anything on it.
If it’s intentionally a fake PR, the the Apples need to be chopped in the woodshed! BS move to drop VPLM PPS. Such an upstanding company that Apple is.
If you can speak to the reporter, ask them for the actual appeal case number or the originating case from N CA. You would think they would verify info before publishing crap like this!
Has anyone been able to find any shred of evidence that this is true? I cannot!
After looking into and Googling this headline, it sure looked like Apple may be putting on a pretty sneaky misinformation campaign to make it appear these cases will be dragging on in CA...fake news.
Sure hope Hudnell gets wind of this and gets the misleading info taken down.
Couldn’t tell you but I trust the Fed Courts website of their docket records over Apple websites. Share a link to where you find it.
There were a total of 3 appeals at the Fed Circuit for VPLM. Cases 19-1808 (denied on 3/16/2020) and 20-1241 (denied on 11/3/2020) were both from the original Koh cases in N CA and were Affirmed with a Rule 36 which means VPLM was denied the appeal. Case 18-1456 was Apple’s appeal on the USPTO sanctions issue. This case was affirmed in part and remanded in part on 9/25/2020. Beyond these, I’m not aware of any other Federal Appeals where VPLM is a party.
Here’s a link to the Fed Court of Appeals:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders?populate=VoIP-pal.com&field_origin_value=All&field_report_type_value=All&field_date_dropdown=date_range
What is the Appeal case number? Some seems off on this announcement.
Excellent points Butter. Your response more eloquently stated what I was trying to summarize in my “silver lining” post #97412.
Appeals Court Rule 36 link from today. Pretty straightforward.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/node/26718
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
Not sure I understand. What is highly unlikely?
Getting this decision isn’t a shock. Think about how the Appeals Court would look if they affirmed the VPLM appeal for the Apple case then, on this appeal, ruled in favor of VPLM by overturning Koh’s decision for Amazon. Were both cases not for the same patents & claims? At least the Appellate Court was consistent.
There could be a silver lining to this decision regarding the Declaratory Judgement case. It might be hard for some to accept but the Rule 36 on the Amazon appeal could actually help in the venue decision. Here’s why. In Apple’s opposition to dismiss, one of their central arguments against dismissal was that a “real controversy” existed due to the pending Amazon appeal since Hudnell’s argument in the appeal was that the original ruling should be vacated and remanded back to Koh for discovery & claims construction. Well, now there’s not even an appearance of a real controversy as Apple argued since this appeal is over. In my opinion, this was Apple’s strongest argument against dismissal and the just LOST IT! Sucks for them.
Still not sure which way the N CA Declaratory Judgement case will go but I like the chances of going to Waco even more now!
Not exactly...It could be decided before 11/13. That date is for a response to administrative/proceeding issues...no proceeding no need to wait for suggestions to modify administrative issues.
No one but the courts know for sure when a decision will come for Waco but if I were to guess, it could be anytime this month...hopefully sooner rather than later.
Just because we say VPLM is or isn’t a pump & dump scheme doesn’t make it so. I happen to believe it’s not - right or wrong, that’s my opinion.
I posted a cited spreadsheet with links to actual publicly available DATA supporting the lack of widespread pumping & dumping.
Why hasn’t anyone who believes the opposite supported their opinions with actual data, cited to a source, in a similar way? BTW - Just making up a spreadsheet with a bunch of numbers doesn’t qualify as a cited source of data!
“New interest” in a stock doesn’t equate to dumping. Exactly what event or press release (ie the pump) preceded the so called dump? What in their press releases (if any) were false that precipitated a rise in price leading to the dump cycle?
Facts matter!
AG - The wheels of justice turn slowly and for VPLM, it almost feels like they're standing still!
Rapz,
Didn't seem like a big deal. The order was on the joint request in the protective order for a prosecution bar. The issues were around subject matter definition and classification/handling of previously undisclosed prior art and trade secrets.
Regarding the subject matter definition, Apple wanted a very broad definition whereas VPLM requested a very narrow definition. The Court didn't like either and settled somewhere in the middle but still allowed the parties to further discuss and come back with a proposed order for any modification by 11/13.
As far as the classification and handling of the undisclosed prior art and trade secrets (ie source code, design docs, etc), the Court essentially agreed to take another compromise position by allowing Apple to classify info under the categories of "Confidential", "Confidential Outside Counsel Only", and "Restricted Confidential - Source Code" and left open the option for VPLM to seek relief of any categorization on a case by case basis to allow transfer of info or meet their statutory reporting requirements to the USPTO for further reporting.
All in all, no biggies here. As DB said in his posts the other day, this was a fairly neutral ruling for both sides. Hope this helps.
FACT...The VPLM pump & dump claims have been debunked with the share price data and press releases in the spreadsheet I compiled from VPLM public sources back in July 2020.
To date, nobody has shown where any pumping & dumping has occurred.
As a refresher, here’s a link to the file:
VPLM News vs Share Price File
It will come when the courts make a decision. The wheels of Justice turn very slowly.
Someone here always says...
“patience is a virtue!”
Apple loses again? Now how can that be when they don’t infringe on anyone’s patents. ROTFLMAO
Things that make me go hmmm...
What does “the law is on all the defendants side” even mean?
Sure, the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to SHOW where/how the infringement occurred but that doesn’t mean “the law is on the defendants side.” VPLM WANTS TO HAVE THEIR DAY IN COURT TO DO EXACTLY THAT...TO PRESENT THEIR EVIDENCE AND PROVE INFRINGEMENT HAS OCCURRED!
If the “defendants” are so innocent, they should be happy to get to trial so the judge and jury can rule in their favor. Instead, all we’ve seen from the “defendants” (i.e. the Bigs) has been delays, deception, misdirection, & obfuscation. Before responding with the same old “VPLM is the one delaying...blah blah blah”, read the damn court filings to understand the facts!
Same here. I have never experienced any issues with TD trading in the OTC Markets.
Oh yeah...AND where did I say or profess this case was being dismissed?
And what? I was addressing your previous post regarding “further due diligence.”
There is zero further due diligence that can be done at this point to see if the 11/5 hearing was rescheduled until it’s entered into the docket. Generally if a hearing IS rescheduled, the new date is noted in the docket entry stating the hearing was cancelled.
As of right now, there is nothing more to the story. Here’s the exact docket entry from the Apple case.
Wednesday, October 28, 2020
52 oth_evt 1 - Terminate Hearings Clerk's Notice Wed 10/28 1:24 PM
**CLERK'S NOTICE** VACATING November 5, 2020 Hearing on32 MOTION to Dismiss. Matter to be determined on the papers without oral argument.
Nobody should be expecting any financial judgement next week. That’s not what the hearing was supposed to be about. If anyone was expecting such a judgement, then they are not keeping up with any facts in the new N CA case that Apple filed. SMH!
AG...I agree with Butter when we get back to Waco. Right now it’s just a bit early to know if treble damages will be awarded by a jury. IMO, VPLM should be awarded something extra for all the BS that has occurred!
Yep...great Foo Fighters song! That Monkey Wrench?
Agree P2P. I struggle to see how Koh can make a declaration that the patents are similar and claim jurisdiction. Cautiously optimistic here but only because I don’t trust Koh’s judgement or decision making.