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.
thelimeyone,
As a long term holder, your words are worth in GOLD!
>>...My point is TX rulings on both stocks may ultimately make NDC mute and irrelevant...<<
Drumming,
Exactly!
>>... Seem like a good thing to be getting out of N CA!...<<
Yes, better to focus $ and time on " a few birds in hand than multitude in the bush.."
With the RBR in the mix with AMZN discussion, it is progressing well. All of us want to get the damage $ soon - before we are too old to enjoy!
Investor,
If you own or rent multiple units, in multiple geographical locations, you would have the answer.
Investor,
The question of "reasonable royalties" involves more details. The idea of the post was to keep it simple and compare with the all too familiar Real Estate transactions and legalities that many could relate.
>>...
Amazon agreeing to pay reasonable royalties AND having a licensing agreement makes complete sense to me....<<
-----
The following does not apply. No mixing, "wheeling and dealing". Each defendant is in his own "pot". One biz does not mix with others. Keep it simple and straight.
>>...
That being said... could VP waive or minimize the royalties charged to Amazon as part of a "deal" for them to agree to licensing in the future in order to put pressure on the other more MAJOR (alleged) infringers (like Vz, Tmobile & ATT)?
Does the same royalty charged to Amazon have to be used for future cases, or can VP charge a "non-deal" amount to the other (alleged) infringers.... <<
Drumming,
Well said!
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PATENTS, ROYALTY - Basics
Long term shareholders have been waiting patiently for the outcome of VPLM-AMZN discussion related to the Mobile Gateway patent infringement and damages in 45 days, ending about mid June. These "long termers" have read the patents, all of the court filings, IPR proceedings, and have gathered additional insights into the value of VPLM patents. They are not distracted by "shiny objects" floating in the cyberspace nor they waste their time chasing them! The bottom line is that US Patent Laws will prevail under Judge Albright in Waco and the plaintiff will be awarded justice. We are lucky to have Judge Albright dealing with our patent infringement cases.
A few basic ideas about patents and the US patent law may help clarify issues relating to Patents, Intellectual Property, Royalty and Infringement Damages that are routinely discussed.
US Patent laws are simple to understand. Investors MUST rely on the patent law for answers to many questions! Court orders from Judge Albright show that understands patents, their intricacies, and the law.
US Patents and Trademark Office issues patents and registers Trademarks. US Copyrights office registers your original work for Copyrighting purpose. Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights are all considered INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. By the way, US PTO is in the Dept. of Commerce, not Dept. of Justice, for a reason.
Royalty or Rent: An Intellectual Property or a patent is similar to a REAL ESTATE PROPERTY! If you own a home, you have the Title to it and to the land it is built. If a stranger wants to live in your home for a period of time, you write a lease agreement valid for a period of time and charge a rent for the use of your property - just like a typical REAL ESTATE PROPERTY! Similarly when a patent is issued to you with a USPTO patent number, you own that patent and its idea - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, instead of REAL ESTATE PROPERTY. You have the right to charge the user a "rent" or in the case of patents , you charge a ROYALTY for the use of your patented idea. Will you allow a stranger to live in your home without a lease agreement or paying a rent? No! Similarly when someone uses your idea patented by you, they have to pay a royalty ("rent") to you. It is SILLY to say that you beg or hope the defendants pay royalty out of their kindness. Nonsense! Patent owner has the right to earn a royalty according to the US patent law! There is no "if, and, or but". That simple!
Infringement: Suppose the stranger has been living in your home without a lease or permission and not paying a rent for several years, what will you do? Will you abandon the property and let the stranger live forever? Hell no! You send a legal letter to that stranger claiming your home ownership and demand the rent and sign a lease agreement as well. That is what VPLM did since 2010. VPLM wrote letters to APPL, AMZN, T, VZ, et al telling them about their patents and complaining about their illegal use of "VOIP" ideas taught by their patents. When VPLM's complaints were ignored, VPLM went to the court (starting in Nevada) to prove that the stranger has been living in your home without your permission or a lease agreement and not paying a rent - in other words - a stranger has been using your idea patented by you without your agreement and not paying a royalty ("rent") for the use. In the Patent language it is called "INFRINGEMENT" (using your home without an agreement and not paying a rent). When you prove your ownership and infringement in the court before a Judge (which is what happened in April 2023), the Judge rules that you submit a claim for the damages (past unpaid rents). In the patent language, past unpaid rents are called "INFRINGEMENT DAMAGES". Parties proposed to "meet and confer" discussion for 45 days. Judges like "meet and confer", saves time for all.
What happens next? You have proved your home ownership and the illegal occupation. Will you be stupid enough to let the stranger continue to live in your home without paying rent? You will get a lease agreement for specific term (a few years), a reasonable rent and yearly rent increases, etc. In the patent language it is called ROYALTY AGREEMENT. Is there a person in this world who will give up their rights to rent and property ownership?
How big the damages can be? The US Law allows you to demand MAXIMUM DAMAGES. Recently Judge Albright awarded $2.5 Billion against Intel after a trial in which the jury did not see "willfulness". Compare how how a landlord deals with tenants. A lease agreement is a MUST if the stranger wants to continue to live in your home. Similarly a license agreement from AMZN and royalty rate schedules are a MUST to settle the infringement case. It is silly to question or doubt whether or not VPLM will get a license agreement.
THE LAW DOES NOT SET A LIMIT ON MAXIMUM DAMAGES. The law allows you to include attorney fees, court expenses, interest, etc.
Now AMZN and VPLM are discussing unpaid rents, a licensing agreement and a reasonable royalty rate. A license agreement is valid for the life of the infringed patent (say 20 years since the intial issue date.) It may include a provision to continue for a child patent under certain conditions like QCOM continues with their CDMA patents agreement.
No Appeals after "meet and confer": The best part of "meet and confer" discussion between parties is the terms of their settlement, approved by Judge Albright, will not go to the Appeals Court. It is silly and laughable to go for Appeals after spending 45 days on a "meet and confer" settlement discussion.
Another point about AMZN case is the inclusion of RBR 606 patent case. Routing, Billing and Rating (RBR) is the backbone of VPLM's VOIP technology which impacts e-Commerce. AMZN e-commerce business is huge. When online shoppers click AMZN web site the signal travels to AMZN web sites, click to select a product, and click again to move to cart and click to pay. All RBR.
A side note: Since VPLM patents have been issued in Europe (Germany, France, UK, etc.), India, Indonesia, some assume that more benefits would accrue to VPLM patents if they file lawsuits in those countries. Unfortunately lawuits outside of US will not be easy or fruitful. Five years ago, India merged the special patent courts that use to expedite patent cases with the regular courts. Regular courts take decades to resolve. Indonesia story is not appealing nor practical to sue. In Europe, Germany offers the best potential. France and UK are highly bureaucratic and takes years. A strange thing about Germany is that they have 4 or 5 regions for patent courts, each with their own regulations and incentives. Some are patent friendly. Hamburg is different from Frankfurt, etc. Although people think that US courts are "screwed up", US courts still offers the best chance to resolve patent cases. By the same token, the advantage of US Courts is that they can issue an injunction on defendant's US business operations and sales of the infringed services and devices inside US if the defendants breach the agreement. US business can be a huge portion of their business.
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS Title 35 U.S.Code § 284
Patent Act Title 35 U.S.Code §284. Damages
Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.
When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154(d) of this title. The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances. (July 19, 1952, ch. 950, § 1, 66 Stat. 813.)
ATTORNEY FEES AND COURT COSTS
US Supreme court ruled that the burden of proving infringement is on patent holder. Therefore a patent holder is entitled to compensation that includes all attorney fees, court costs and interest, all on inflation-adjusted basis.
https://www.infoworld.com/article/2609919/us-supreme-court--burden-of-proof-of-infringement-on-patent-holder.html (Justice Stephen G. Breyer)
WA:21-CV-00674: VPLM vs. T Mobile
The following Zoom hearing is NOT OPEN to public.
>>...126 order Order ~Util - Set Hearings Tue 05/16 3:42 PM
ORDER Setting Zoom Discovery for 5/22/2023 02:30 PM before Judge Alan D Albright. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (bot4)...<<
From the outset TMobile was playing it rough. Mr. Hudnell has a challenge proving the infringements in a jury trial and if found willful infringement, will be held for punitive damages. Most probably TMobile would throw some $$$ and fight the verdict in an Appeals court. If the Appeals court rules in VPLM's favor, the company could file for "injunction" against the use of their patents (MG patent) and block sales and services of all TMobile smart cell phones in the USA. Wish Emil and Hudnell show their resolve.
Other defendants in Waco wouldn't be so stupid. Show them how tough VPLM is when the law is on their side.
T-Mobile has gone back to their defense of T-Mobile HotSpot @Home prior art in spite of VPLM's argument refuting the HotSpot idea which may not address Mobile Gateway technology.
VPLM compromised with AMZN to 10 claims which Mr. Hudnell think sufficient to capture the essence of MG technology and the damages.
Looks like a trial is coming up. If the Judge and Mr. Hudnell think 11 hours are enough, why T-Mobile complains? It sure will cost them $$$.
Aside - From the Talks in progress with AMZN so far, Mr Hudnell should have a feel for where things are heading and any pitfalls to avoid. jmo
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Drumming,
Similar sentiments prevail. Maybe we can review some basics on patents, royalty, infringement damages, etc. and show where a "ball-park" figure could be. And why it could be "huge"?
Is there a need for AMZN to buy out? Business purpose is not clear. So are terms of purchase.
HD,
Thanks for sharing Carnac's insights.
The company says publicly that all "options are on the table" (viz. sale of company or patents, merger, capital infusion, etc.) As shareholders, we have been following the legal proceedings for years; we have to sort out facts from "rumor" or "fiction".
Company sale: Possible, but who would buy and for what price OR for what purpose? What will be a fair market value in a buyout? Is anyone of the defendants interested in the business of managing VPLM intellectual property/royalty income/licensing, like QCOM is managing their CDMA licensing for the telecom sector?
Will AMZN buy in order to control the use of VPLM technology by others like AAPL? Who will audit the technology use? Auditing could be a separate business function. Supposedly QCOM's one-third of revenue comes from royalty/licensing and they have a dedicated staff for managing the IP.
Let us assume the company succeeds in settling X billions of damages for infringement and get royalty/licensing agreements from all of the defendants in two years, what is their next step in VPLM's business plan? Do they have personnel to manage Royalty income and the related audit functions? For how many years? As old patents are nearing expiry, are they ready with child patents to continue the licensing/royalty? Does their royalty agreement allow child patents?
Please check in with Carnac and let us know his/her insights. We may not have answers.
HD,
$2/sh? We shall see all predictions will be tested and blown away by mid June 2023. Reasonable outcomes from negotiations: (1) Company share structure and capitalization confirmed (2) Infringement damages based 10 claims of MG patent (excludes RBR) (3) Royalty and licensing agreement, (4) no trial for MG patent (exclude RBR 606 patent). Not distracted by rumors and predictions.
V,
Good to see you back!
Trend-
Thanks for pointing out the essence of 8-K.
Drumming,
You are right! Barrons' covered the news of 8-0 IPR win a few years ago. Got the attention!
Thanks. Know all about Parrish and more!
Bravo Lickity,
You are 100% right about the quality of patents. Add the new legal team lead by Mr. Hudnell.
Patience will be rewarded!
The circumstance behind the stay on Samsung is not adverse as it appears to be. In due time we shall know. Confident that IPR will not stop VPLM. Samsung will move to trial or settlement talks like AMZN. all jmo. We shall see!
Butters,
>>... TMobile and Verizon, two REALLY big infringers...<<
Include SAM SUNG, big one.
Hay Day
you got it! Yes, something very big!
HayDay
Good to see you back!
VPLM's legal team also knows all about the defendants' legal teams.
Drumming,
Any settlement of patent infringement damages will include licensing and loss of reasonable royalty income for those applications infringing patents, attorney and court expenses. THAT IS THE PATENT LAW. PERIOD! The patent law states the plaintiff is entitled to REASONABLE LOSS OF ROYALTY INCOME DUE TO INFRINGEMENT. It does not make sense to pay for the past damages but continue infringement by not licensing the patents. Don't the defendant want to STOP FUTURE infringement law suit?
Infringement damages are calculated using models and a reasonable royalty rate (Parrish, et al) for EACH AND EVERY application violating patents (phone call, video call, texting, etc.), and count the number of infringements and sum them up to get a total damage amount. It could be a huge amount. $100-200 billion? The law does not put an upper limit.
No jury trial means no chance of willful violation and triple damages. Negotiation starts with the huge amount under a threat of going to the jury trial. There will be a compromise between both parties on the final damage amount and how it will be paid: cash, stock, etc. How VPLM will structure a shareholder vote for deal approval?
If AAPL discussion has been successfully concluded, the news release could spell out the details. ... and a shareholder approval? JMO Keeping fingers crossed.
Forgot! Not clear if the current settlement covers only the MG patents. If RBR (Rating, Billing, Routing) is included the AMZN's E Commerce (online shopping, prime movies, etc.) damages will be Huuuge!
Butters,
Hear you!
>>...thus making any 101 refile impossible...<<
That could happen in due time. Patience. First, wait until AMZN conference is successfully completed. Expecting Infringement damages $ plus royalty licensing and part of attorney/court expenses. Second, a possible conclusion of AAPL + T discussion!
Aside -
Royalty licensing is no brainer, because the infringement damage is typically calculated using a reasonable royalty rate (well explained in Damage estimates for AAPL, et al - VPLM web site). That means the infringement damage calculation is made had the defendant licensed VPLM's patents as of the date VPLM contacted the defendant, what would have been the royalty income or loss of income to VPLM - loss of royalty income.
Secondly, as pointed earlier, there is no maximum limit for infringement damages.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170957637
January 16, 2023 Post# 112132 of 112132
Is there a maximum for patent infringement damages? No, says the Law.
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
Patent Act Title 35 U.S.Code §284. Damages
Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court. When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154(d) of this title. The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances. (July 19, 1952, ch. 950, § 1, 66 Stat. 813.)
THERE IS NO UPPER LIMIT FOR INFRINGMENT DAMAGES!
Infringement estimates, methodologies, reasonable royalty rates, etc. are found on VPLM web site.
AMZN is not the only news! How AAPL and T?
They have been in a long discussion since NDCal days and mutual dismissal of MG patent cases out of Waco. Emil's target has been AAPL since 2016. Hoping for a breakthrough!
Just a gut feel!
>> ...If Alice Rule applies, why the Settlement Conference Call?... <<
Settlement in NDCal is not the same as that is progressing in Waco.
In Waco, we went through claim construction, definition of terms, Markman hearing, Discovery and deposing VPLM personnel including the CEO, original code check, followed by the Experts Discovery that ended last February. Next step was to schedule the trial. Then we got the news of "settlement" talks and BOTH PARTIES needed 45 days to work out a settlement. This discussion is for the Mobile Gateway patents. It is not clear if it includes RBR 606 patent. This is a typical settlement talk.
In NDCal, both GOOG and META escaped Waco hearing and switched the venue to NDCal where the local rules encourage the use of Alice law to dismiss patent cases. No claim construction or Markman hearing, etc.
They filed an IPR with PTAB trying to negate the MG patent claims. Since they took an Expert with them, PTAB automatically "instituted". The hearing will be this summer and tehy will announce their decision sometime early next year Jan-Mar 2024. Having won several IPR's (20-0), VPLM is confident of winning again.
META and GOOG not only filed an IPR, they also filed petitions in Donato's court, citing Alice law to dismiss MG patent claims. Judge Donato asked all parties to consolidate Alice complaints and invited to a settlement conference. It is not the same type of settlement conference like we have in Waco. Obviously VPLM responded with a strong opposing argument to NDCal defendants' Alice law filings. In addition, VPLM brought an expert witness with them. NDCal's local rules for insist Alice law use on patent cases so that their courts improve the case load in their courts. Weird! VPLM dealt with a clueless or arrogant judge before on two RBR patents and this woman used a Declaratory Judgement (AAPL et al) to bring the 606 RBR patent case from Waco to NDCal and dismissed, although she allowed a month of ADR (Alternat Dispute Resolution) discussion between parties and ended.
VPLM has to respond to NDCal's clueless courts and safeguard our Intellectual Property interest against the Silicon Valley infringers. All VPLM needs now is a successful finalization of AMZN settlement conference. Just one win to validate MG patent claims and blow off Alice law shenanigans of NDCal court local rules and Silicon Valley infringers.
KauaiGrl,
Good to see you back.
Facebook and Google are in NDCal where the local rules promote using Alice law to dismiss patent lawsuits. VPLM was the victim. The defendants use Declaratory Judgement and Alice to "corner" us. Wise to rule them out for the time being.
Only cases that have potential for win/settlement are in Waco under Judge Albright and Judge Gilliland.
AMZN is the starting point. All we need now is just one win and a fair settlement. A domino will begin. jmo.
Butters,
My personal opinion is a buyout is not practical for defendants unless they want to pursue the patent infringement cases in courts and lawyers as part of their business strategy. Maybe a GOOG wants to shutdown Meta? Or maybe MSFT wants to stop AMZN's video streaming for prime members? Qualcomm has IP as one-third of their business portfolio. They are happy with licensing their communications tools like CDMA, etc.to T, VZ, TMUS, et al. Maybe a group led by ex- Apple CEO Amelio has interest. Would Emil agree to sell to his group? No idea. But whoever buys would have cash flow from licensing. That cash flow aspect will contribute to the VPLM stock valuation in a few years.
One nice thing about a settlement of dispute is there may not be a need for Appeals. Perhaps the settlement includes cash (or cash + stock) for the infringement damages PLUS royalty licensing generating future cash flow. Cash flow could bolster VPLM's pursuit of several other infringers for damages - big and small - inside US or outside. Long term investors wait and watch.
Yes! Waiting and hoping for an announcement.
AMZN is not the only news!
Remember AAPL and T? They were in a long fight with VPLM - IPR's, Alice in a clueless woman's court, followed by a month-long ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution) etc. Later in Waco they were supposed to head for venue change. Around that time (?), VPLM dismissed cases vs. AAPL and T. We wondered why and guessed there was some discussion going on. Tell-tale signs of that discussion may be concluding and Emil getting what he wanted. If true the company could announce soon. Keeping fingers crossed with hope!
Interesting! Thanks HayDay for the response.
HayDay,
Does your "Golden Egg" prediction have to do with the end of Experts Testimony in the first week of April? Next, we have final discussions and pre-trial preparations for the trial in July.
T Mobile's expert testimony by Salk is being questioned and objected to by VPLM.
It is not the first time that experts' testimony on behalf of TMobile or AAPL were proven wrong.
The pending IPR hearing around August will show more clues as to the strength of another expert testimony on behalf of Meta and other "joinders". So it goes...
So far 20-0 IPR win tells one where those "so-called" experts stand. The simplicity of inventions baffles experts! But we keep marching on to the July trial.
Let us hope for a "Golden Egg" between now and the trial starting date. jmo
Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi's setting a Settlement Conference for 4/27/2023 at 09:30 AM in San Jose, while Judge Donato is waiting for replies from parties - Meta, GOOG, VoIP - by 3/27/23 looks "premature" or it could be a court procedure that Judge Donato follows viz. schedule a settlement conference before Markman, etc. Like cart before the horse?
Reviewing Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi's standing order for Settlement Conferences and her Settlement Conference Statement, parties will not have complete answers.
Parties had not enough time to confer with each other while addressing issues for replies to Donato by 3/27/23.
Meta and GOOG fought for venue transfer to NDCal since local rules of NDCal "encourages" the use of Alice law to weed out patent cases. One would conjecture that the clueless woman exploited the Alice law to rule against VoIP.
The Settlement Conference could be a formality in Donato's court. Interesting to watch how Donato's court handles patent cases.
Expecting to see this:
"Friday, March 10, 2023
89 motion Reconsideration Fri 03/10 11:58 PM
Opposed MOTION for Reconsideration re87 Claim Construction Order by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC..(Hudnell, Lewis)"
Seeing the disappointed look on Mr. Hudnell during the last Markman hearing (Zoom call) when the Judge took a long time to deny VPLM's argument for retaining one of three elements viz. "time-to-live".
Inventors like to keep their claims as broad as possible to catch more infringement violations. Hope the judge is now convinced VPLM's argument and rules in VPLM's favor. It is not a big deal if he doesn't . VPLM got most of their claim.
Drumming,
Verizon case is in Waco too!
Not familiar with Court procedures. It will be pleasant to hear about "two infringement cases against AMZN" despite the RBR technology is the basic platform upon which the MG patent was to have been developed.
In spite of personal anxiety about the RBR patents and the technology, no clue as to why the "stay" was not lifted for other defendants. Someone could provide a clue?
Butters,
Yes, except the 20 claims, the old and new RBR patents (Re.: Justice Reyna at the Appeals court) are still alive. Hence the use of quotes "died" instead of going to that level of detail. Thanks for the correction.
Any news about Markman hearings for the rest of the defendants?