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.
Nice! I've been playing the drums for 28 years...great stress reliever. I no longer am stressed but I can't hear for crap!
Better yet, maybe they should just keep asking Alexa. The more she accesses the internet adds value to the lawsuit!
DB,
I've uploaded the Voip-pal vs. Amazon complaint. Here's a link to the full complaint filed on 6-15-2018. All 39 pages. Enjoy.
Voip-pal vs Amazon
Long...I did the Google Map search of each as well. Something sure seems fishy..ha! Now where did that PO Box go?
I found all addresses located legitimate addresses...some looked to be places of business other were their homes. Did you see the same thing?
Not sure what you mean by "all the other raises." Why are you always trying to spread false information...please stick to to the facts.
Feel free to research any of VPLM Edgar filings...they are all publicly accessible since they are a public company! Seek the knowledge you desire.
Hmmm...72 investors in a private placement, where at least 35 must be accredited investors, is "the usual suspects"? Please elaborate on this one. Please tell us what an "accredited investor" means to you.
Typically don't know anything on investors in private placements unless one of the participants makes a public announcement, which is not very likely unless they want the info out there.
All of Form D filings are made for Small Businesses seeking to raise capital by private placements and can have no less than 35 accredited investors.
I believe the SEC rules are that Form D filings must be made no later than 15 days after the placement closes therefore there is no "covering their butts by VPLM here. Completely legit transaction to raise over $ 2,000,000.
Lots of chatter going on here regarding what's driving price up and/or down, yet there has not been a single comment regarding a seemingly important SEC filing made by VPLM yesterday. Has anybody read the Form D filed on 4/2? If so, what is your take on it? Pay close attention to the type of transaction that was made...all $ 2,015,055 worth by at least 72 investors!
You can read it here!
By they way, for those not familiar with SEC filings, here's a few good websites that can help provide clarity.
SEC Form D
Investopedia
Thompson Research
UoC Library Edgar Filings
DB - My dreamland would involve a 3-way...not of the Stormy Daniels variety but of the VP into Tweeter into Sofbank kind!
Keepem - You're certainly entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts! Kipping's counsel was admonished by the court on 10/26/2017 for not getting their client to the scheduled deposition to move the case along. In addition, they missed the 2nd scheduled deposition date of 2/7/2018 as shown in the court case listing on the Clark County Court website.
If this is "doing extremely well", I'd hate to see what going poorly looks like!
If anybody wants to follow this case, go to my post 42003. It has a link and instructions on how to get to the case docket.
--------------------
Here's the text of the minutes entered into the court record on 10/26/17 for your reading pleasure:
10/26/2017 Minute Order (7:45 AM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
Minutes
10/26/2017 7:45 AM
- NOTICE AND ORDER: Supplemental Trial Order MINUTE ORDER Case No. A717491 The Jury Trial for this case has been continued to a Stack date of 09/04/18 at 1:30 p.m. The continuance was by stipulation between counsel pursuant to Rule 2.35 EJDCR. The stipulation should contain the dates for the close of discovery pursuant to Rule 2.35. The date for the deadline for filing dispositive motions shall remain no more than 30 days following the discovery cutoff, pursuant to NRCP 16.1 (c) (8). Counsel should not presume that by informally stipulating to continue some discovery past the discovery cutoff date that the above deadline for dispositive motions is somehow affected. The deadline to file motions in limine, in accordance with Rule 2.47 EJDCR remains no less than 45 days prior to the stacked trial date, and heard not less than 14 days prior to the same stacked trial date. The Pretrial Conference/Calendar Call will be held on 08/16/18 at 9:00 a.m., District Court Dept. 1. The lead trial attorney trying the case shall attend and should come prepared with his/her calendar for the entire 5-week stack, as well as the 5-week calendar for all witnesses to be called in the trial. Your case may be tried anywhere within the 5-week stack, regardless of age of the case. The Court notes that it becomes increasingly difficult to accommodate the schedules of out-of-state witnesses, particularly expert witnesses. It is up to counsel to anticipate scheduling difficulties with witnesses and to notify the Court and opposing counsel well in advance of the Pretrial Conference/Calendar Call date. It will not do to simply appear at Calendar Call expecting to notify the Court at that late date of the need to reschedule the trial. If you do so, you may expect to be treated with the same consideration which you have shown for both the Court and opposing counsel. A ready alternative to live, in-court testimony is available through the use of either deposition testimony or live video testimony, through the use of now-available technology installed by the Eighth Judicial District Court. The Court has presided over a number of trials where expert testimony was admitted utilizing a live video feed technique and has noted little or no diminution in the effectiveness of live video testimony compared to live in-court testimony. Rule 2.47 EJDCR The Court is singularly unimpressed with attorneys who wait too close to motion deadlines to hold meaningful conferences pursuant to EJDCR 2.47(b), prompting the filing of many form motions in limine, or worse yet, a form omnibus motion in limine, with little or no particularized reference to the facts of the present case. Often the motions merely ask that settled law be enforced at trial. A motion in limine is moving counsel s opportunity to raise prior to trial those few evidentiary issues which are novel or as to which the law is thus far silent. Rather than ask that settled law be enforced in a motion in limine, counsel are invited to file a trial brief outlining an issue in which, in counsel s estimation, the Court may not be as well versed as counsel would wish. An omnibus motion in limine is a sure tip-off that the very stock motions which EJDCR 2.47 seeks to avoid are being filed and accordingly should not be filed. The failure to evidence that meaningful Rule 2.47 conferences are being held will likely result in all motions in limine being stricken by the Court sua sponte. The Court will make the determination not only from the certificate evincing compliance with the Rule but also from the substance of the motions themselves. Also, given that the deadline for filing dispositive motions will have already passed, a motion in limine should not be a motion for summary judgment in disguise. This Order shall supplement the original trial order, which counsel are invited to re-read. 8/16/18 9:00 AM PRETRIAL CONFERENCE 9/4/18 1:30 PM JURY TRIAL CLERK'S NOTE: The above minute order has been distributed to: Kurt Bonds, Esq. (kbonds@alverstontaylor.com) and Harold Gewerter, Esq. (harold@gewerterlaw.com). /mlt
LT - Ex 1 is legal Q & A from Voip-Pal's website. You don't need Pacer to view this. Here's a link to save you some time...just download the PDF to read it.
voip-pal.com_legal-action-q-a
Bud - Here's a link to the Order. It's hard to give an exact ruling date as these are only dates for the Discovery period and not the actual trial. I didn't have time to do the math on time line below.
ORDER - Proposed VP-Twitter Joint Discovery Plan_Schedule
New 8-page order filed jointly by Twitter and Voip-Pal on Monday, 3.12.18 to propose joint Discovery Plan/Scheduling. Assuming no settlements are made, this schedule takes the Discovery process well into 2019! I think this will change significantly once SCOTUS rules on Oil States & other stays are removed.
Link to Pacer Monitor:
Voip-pal vs Twitter Case: 2:16-cv-02338
Bud - Haven't read it yet but here's a link to the actual brief. Enjoy.
Security People, Inc Amicus Brief
No problem DB. Like you and many others, I'm more interested in seeing the Apple stay lifted once the motion to sanction is shot down.
Then Katy bar the door because it's GAME ON baby!
DB - I believe the Twitter stay was lifted on 2/27 and they are proceeding with the case. According to Pacer filings below, replies to the motion for Twitter's request to change the venue is due by 3/14.
Paper 25 posted on 2/27 Tue 2:49 PM
Minute Order ~Util - Case Stay Lifted ~Util
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Richard F. Boulware, II on 2/27/2018. IT IS ORDERED that the parties'13 Request for Case stay is LIFTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Proposed Joint Pretrial Order is due by 3/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - BEL)
Paper 27 posted on 2/28 - Wed 2:00 PM
MOTION to Change Venue. Responses due by 3/14/2018.
NYT - I get it. My formal education is in electrical engineering! You're correct in saying i misinterpreted your comparison...my apologies BUT I didn't really need the word salad explanation. Sometimes, less is more.
NYT - There is no RMS vs non-RMS in electrical meters. All digitial meters use RMS or True RMS to measure AC voltage and current. Without getting into the weeds, True RMS is the more accurate method to measure AC volts or amp similar to what DB promotes for using VWAP to understand the stock price OVER TIME for a given company.
--------------------------------------------------
If anybody is interested, here's a better explanation of RMS vs True RMS.
What’s the Difference Between RMS and “True” RMS?
This entry was posted on October 12, 2012 by pass-admin.
When you use a multimeter to measure an AC voltage or current, the reading on the meter is an "RMS" or "root mean square" reading. We sometimes call the RMS value the "effective value" of an AC voltage or current. By that we mean that the RMS value of an AC voltage or current has the same effect as a DC voltage or current of the same value.
Let's consider an example. If I had a 10V DC power supply connected across a 10-ohm resistor, the power being dissipated by the resistor would be:
P = V2/R = 100/10 = 10 W
If I substitute a 10VRMS AC supply for the 10V DC supply, the power calculation would be exactly the same, and the resistor would dissipate 10W of power. The AC voltage is, however, constantly changing, so the 10W is an average over some period of time. At any particular point in time, the resistor will be dissipating more power, and at other times, less power.
Assuming that the AC voltage supplied is a pure sine wave, the peak AC voltage will be 1.414 times the RMS voltage, or 14.14 V. Taking the inverse of that, you can see that the RMS value of a sinusoidal AC voltage is 0.707 times the peak value.
Most inexpensive meters use an averaging technique for determining the RMS reading of an AC voltage or current. This method gives you an accurate reading when you’re measuring an AC voltage with a sinusoidal waveform, but if the waveform of the AC voltage or current you’re trying to measure is not a pure sine wave, the reading will be inaccurate, usually low. Depending on the type of AC waveform, the reading might be up to 40% low.
If you need to measure the voltage or current of AC signals that are not pure sine waves, such as when you’re measuring the output of adjustable speed motor controls or adjustable heating controls, then you need a “true RMS” meter. A true RMS meter works by taking the square of the instantaneous value of the input voltage or current, averaging this value over time, and then displaying the square root of this average.
The important thing to remember is that a “true RMS” meter will give you better readings. And, better readings will pay off in the long run, whether you’re making these measurements in the lab or out on the factory floor.
Hmmmm...never really got an answer to a very direct and straight forward question. Not sure why but let me throw this out there. In an effort to help educate, I'd be happy to send anybody the PDF of the Nov. 20th PTAB Final Written decision. Yep, all 29 pages.
Totally agree. I hope the Judge really takes a giant bite out of Apple for wasting valuable court resources with all their shannigans and delays. Assuming we win, lets all hope that the payback to VPLM for enduring all this crap will be an judgement on their behalf ordering immediate payment of damages NO LATER THAN 5 DAYS AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE CASE.
After all, Apple is one of the richest corporations in the world...and it may soon be proven that Apple piled on the cash using VPLM intellectual property.
Simple question follows that requires a YES or NO answer, not a long drawn out opinion.
Did you actually read the FULL 29 PAGE PTAB final written decision (Paper 53 from the board) posted on Nov. 20, 2017?
Agreed...while everybody is entitled to their own opinion, the facts were pretty clear in the PTAB final written decision for all to see.
The full 29 page decision provided point-by-point, detailed reasoning on why Apple's arguments failed.
And the key part of the Nov 20th statement is "the PTAB held that Apple did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the asserted claims of the '815 and '005 patents were unpatentable."
Note they said, "APPLE DID NOT SHOW BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE", which means that the PTAB made their judgement based on evidence presented in the trial.
Nowhere does it say that Voip-Pal cheated because they had open communication with the board and swayed the board to rule in Voip-Pal's favor. The BOARD made the decision by THE SOUND ARGUMENTS AND PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PATENT OWNER.
Am I missing something here?
Nope, I don't see it that way. Apple is pulling out every dirty trick they can find to say that Viop-Pal played "unfair". The huge irony here is that Apple KNEW they had a stacked board and are PISSED that they lost their unscrupulous advantage over the little guy.
As far as the stays, all parties have agreed to remove them however ALL of the defendants have inserted a contingency plan to put them back in place if, for some unlikely reason, Apple wins the PTAB motion to sanction Voip...which, by the way, would be unprecedented in the history of the PTAB!
Good day and GLTA!
Voip-pal vs ATT/Verizon Case: 2:16-cv-00271
Joint Status Report filed 1/26/2018 in Nevada District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF
JOINT STATUS REPORT
Pursuant to this Court's order (see ECF No. 37), Plaintiff Voip-Pal.com, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "Voip-Pal") and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon") and AT&T Corp. ("AT&T," and together with Verizon, "Defendants"), through undersigned counsel, hereby submit the following Joint Status Report outlining the parties' positions on how this case should proceed in light of recent developments in proceedings concurrently pending in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB").
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 10, 2016, VoIP-Pal filed this action against Defendants alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,542,815 (the "'815 patent") and 9,179,005 (the "'005 patent"). (ECF No. 1.) VoIP-Pal filed an Amended Complaint on April 6, 2016 and a Second Amended Complaint on May 5, 2016. (ECF Nos. 8, 10.) By stipulation, Defendants' deadline to respond to the Second Amended Complaint was extended to July 29, 2016. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.)
On July 29, 2016, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to stay this litigation pending decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") on whether to institute inter partes review ("IPR") on the '815 and '005 patents based on petitions filed by Apple (the "IPR Petitions"). (ECF No. 31.) On November 21, 2016, the PTAB instituted IPR on all asserted claims of the '815 and '005 patents. (See ECF No. 36 at 6-7.) On February 2, 2017, the Court granted the parties' stipulation and proposed order to continue the stay pending final written decisions by the PTAB in the pending IPR proceedings. (ECF No. 32, 33.)
On January 8, 2018, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to extend the deadline to provide the Court with their respective positions on how the case should proceed in light of the PTAB's final written decisions to January 26, 2018. (ECF No. 37.) Similar status reports are being concurrently filed in two other cases filed by VoIP-Pal, pending in this district and asserting the same patents: VoIP-Pal.com, Inc v. Apple, Inc.., Case No. 2:16-cv-00260-RFB- VCF and VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02338-RFB-VCF. (See ECF No. 36 11).
On November 20, 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions concerning the IPR Petitions. In its decisions, the PTAB held that Apple did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the asserted claims of the '815 and '005 patents were unpatentable. (See ECF No. 36 at 9.). Additionally, the PTAB denied institution of IPRs for five other petitions filed against the '815 and '005 patents, namely, three IPR petitions filed by AT&T (IPR2017-01382, IPR2017-01383, and IPR2017-01384), and two follow-on petitions filed by Apple (IPR2017- 01398 and IPR2017- 01399). (See id.).
II. THE PARTIES' POSITIONS
VoIP-Pal and Defendants respectfully request that the stay of this case be lifted, and that Defendants' answer or other response to VoIP-Pal's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10) shall be due thirty (30) days after an order of this Court lifting the stay of this case. The parties agree to confer on a case schedule and discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) after Defendants file their responsive pleadings, and the parties agree to submit their plan to the Court no later than seven (7) days before the Court's scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). In preparing responsive pleadings and conferring under Rule 26, the parties will confer further on issues regarding venue.
Defendants contend that there is a misjoinder issue with having AT&T and Verizon in the same case that will need to be addressed. It has also come to Defendants' attention that Plaintiff did not identify the Apple and Twitter cases pending before Judge Boulware as related cases in the civil cover sheets. Defendants anticipate one of the parties filing a notice of related cases.
The parties further respectfully inform the Court that Apple has filed post-judgment "Motion(s) For Entry Of Judgment In Favor Of Petitioner As A Sanction For Improper Ex Parte Communications By Patent Owner, Or, Alternatively, For New And Constitutionally Correct Proceedings" in the PTAB proceedings. (See Case No. IPR2016-01198, Paper No. 55 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017); Case No. IPR2016-01201, Paper No. 55 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017).; see also ECF No. 36 10.) Briefing on Apple's motions close on January 26, 2018. According to the Joint Status Report being filed today in the Voip-Pal/Apple case, Apple may renew its request to stay that case if the PTAB grants Apple's requested relief; similarly,
Defendants may renew their request to stay this case if the PTAB grants Apple's requested relief.
Dated: January 26, 2018
Voip-Pal vs Twitter Case: 2:16-cv-02338
Joint Status Report filed 1/26/2018 in Nevada District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CASE NO.: 2:16-cv-02338-RFB-CWH
JOINT STATUS REPORT
Pursuant to this Court's order (see ECF No. 10), Plaintiff Voip-Pal.com, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "Voip-Pal") and Defendant Twitter, Inc. ("Defendant" or "Twitter") (together, the "Parties"), through undersigned counsel, hereby submit the following Joint Status Report outlining the
Parties' positions on how this case should proceed in light of recent developments in proceedings concurrently pending in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB").
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 9, 2016, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Apple, Inc. ("Apple") in this district entitled VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00260-RFB-VCF. On February 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a second lawsuit against Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, and related entities ("Verizon") and AT&T Corporation ("AT&T") in this district entitled VoIP- Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF (together with the suit against Apple, the "Initial Actions"). The Initial Actions allege infringement of Plaintiff's U.S. Patent Nos. 8,542,815 (the "'815 patent") and 9,179,005 (the "'005 patent"). On June 15, 2016, Apple filed a petition for inter partes review ("IPR") by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") concerning the '815 and the '005 patents (the "IPR Petitions"). (See ECF No. 10 at 3.) On November 21, 2016, the PTAB instituted IPR on all asserted claims of the '815 and '005 patents. (See ECF No. 10 at 6-7.)
On October 6, 2016, VoIP-Pal filed this action against Twitter, again alleging infringement of the '815 and '005 patents. (ECF No. 1.) On January 31, 2017, the Court granted the Parties' stipulation and proposed order to stay this litigation pending the PTAB's final written decisions in Apple's pending IPR proceedings. (ECF No. 12.) The Court also ordered the Parties to submit a status report by January 26, 2018, outlining the Parties' respective positions on how the case should proceed in light of the PTAB's final written decisions.
On November 20, 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions concerning Apple's IPR Petitions. In its decisions, the PTAB held that Apple did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the asserted claims of the '815 and '005 patents were unpatentable. Additionally, the PTAB denied institution of IPRs for five other petitions filed against the '815 and '005 patents, namely, three IPR petitions filed by AT&T (IPR2017-01382, IPR2017-01383, and IPR2017-01384), and two follow-on petitions filed by Apple (IPR2017-01398 and IPR2017- 01399). Apple has filed certain post-judgment motions in the PTAB proceedings.
Twitter was not involved in any way in the IPR petitions or trials that were initiated by defendants Apple, AT&T, and/or Verizon.
Status reports are being concurrently filed by Apple, AT&T, and Verizon in the Initial Actions.
II. THE PARTIES' POSITIONS
VoIP-Pal and Twitter respectfully request that the stay of this case be lifted, and that Twitter's answer or other response to VoIP-Pal's Complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be due thirty (30) days after an order of this Court lifting the stay of this case.
a. VoIP-Pal's Positions
VoIP-Pal proposes that the Parties agree to a case schedule and discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) after Twitter files its answer or other response to the Court no later than seven (7) days before the Court's scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). VoIP-Pal further proposes that in preparing responsive pleadings and conferring under Rule 26, the Parties will confer further on issues regarding venue.
b. Twitter's Positions
As to Twitter, venue in Nevada is improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Accordingly, Twitter plans to respond to the Complaint by filing a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper venue. Given that there is a question as to whether this action is properly filed in this district, Twitter believes that, in the interest of judicial efficiency and conservation of the Court's and the Parties' resources, scheduling and discovery in this action should not go forward until resolution of Twitter's planned motion to dismiss.
Dated: January 26, 2018
Voip-Pal vs Apple Case 2:16-cv-00260
Joint Status Report filed 1/26/2018 in Nevada District Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:16-cv-00260-RFB-VCF
JOINT STATUS REPORT
Pursuant to this Court's order (see ECF No. 34), Plaintiff Voip-Pal.com, Inc. ("Plaintiff" or "Voip-Pal") and Defendant Apple Inc. ("Defendant" or "Apple"), through undersigned counsel, hereby submit the following Joint Status Report outlining the parties' positions on how this case should proceed in light of recent developments in proceedings concurrently pending in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB").
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 9, 2016, Voip-Pal filed this action against Apple alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,542,815 (the "'815 patent") and 9,179,005 (the "'005 patent"). (ECF No. 1.)
Voip-Pal filed an Amended Complaint on April 6, 2016 and a Second Amended Complaint on May 5, 2016. (ECF Nos. 4, 11.) By stipulation, Apple's deadline to respond to the Second Amended Complaint was extended to July 29, 2016. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.)
On July 20, 2016, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to stay this litigation pending decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") on whether to institute inter partes review ("IPR") on the '815 and '005 patents based on petitions filed by Apple (the "IPR Petitions"). (ECF Nos. 24, 25.) On November 21, 2016, the PTAB instituted IPR on all asserted claims of the '815 and '005 patents. (See ECF No. 27 at 6-7.) On December 21, 2016, the Court granted the parties' stipulation and proposed order to continue the stay pending final written decisions by the PTAB in the pending IPR proceedings. (ECF No. 26, 27.)
On November 20, 2017, the PTAB issued final written decisions concerning the IPR Petitions. In its decisions, the PTAB held that Apple did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the asserted claims of the '815 and '005 patents were unpatentable. (See ECF No. 34 at 9.)
The parties agreed to provide the Court with their respective positions on how the case should proceed in light of the PTAB's final written decisions. (See id. at 10.) Similar status reports are being concurrently filed in two other cases filed by Voip-Pal pending in this district: VoIP-Pal.com, Inc v. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00271-RCJ-VCF and VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02338-RFB-VCF.
II. THE PARTIES' POSITIONS
Voip-Pal and Apple respectfully submit that, under the current circumstances, the stay of this case should be lifted, and that Apple's answer or other response to Voip-Pal's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) shall be due thirty (30) days after an order of this Court lifting the stay of this case. The parties agree to confer on a case schedule and discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) after Apple files its responsive pleading, and the parties agree to submit their plan to the Court no later than seven (7) days before the Court's scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
III. ONGOING PTAB PROCEEDINGS
The parties further respectfully inform the Court that Apple has filed post-judgment "Motion(s) For Entry Of Judgment In Favor Of Petitioner As A Sanction For Improper Ex Parte Communications By Patent Owner, Or, Alternatively, For New And Constitutionally Correct Proceedings" in the PTAB proceedings. (See Case No. IPR2016-01198, Paper No. 55 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017); Case No. IPR2016-01201, Paper No. 55 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017).)
A. Apple's Statement
In its motions, Apple contends that Voip-Pal engaged in misconduct during the IPR proceedings, including by delivering six letters to the PTAB, this Court, and many others (but not Apple), alleging PTAB bias and threatening criminal liability against the PTAB, the former director of the USPTO, and others. Voip-Pal concealed these letters from Apple; Apple received notice of two of those letters only after the clerk of this Court posted those letters on the docket for this case. (See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 28, 32.) Apple argues that the letters were improper ex parte communications, and that the letters and Voip-Pal's conduct violated federal regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, and Apple's due process rights. Apple's motions seek judgment in favor of Apple or new and constitutionally correct IPR proceedings as a sanction for those alleged violations. Briefing on Apple's motion closes on January 26, 2018. Apple may renew its request to stay this case if the PTAB grants Apple's requested relief.
B. Voip-Pal's Statement
Voip-Pal vehemently opposes Apple's motions and the allegations therein. Foremost, as pointed out in Voip-Pal's opposition to the motions, the first and the last communications were known to Apple; the first of which more than six months before Apple's motions were filed. Despite this, Apple did not raise any objection to the communications until after Apple lost on the merits of its IPR proceedings - likely because Apple believed the communications had no effect. Secondly, as addressed in Voip-Pal's opposition to the motions, the communications did not address any technical or substantive merits, but were instead, communications about systemic issues regarding USPTO and PTAB processes, which communications are expressly authorized by the USPTO Rules of Practice and the Code of Federal Regulations. Finally, the relief requested by Apple is unprecedented and perceptibly nothing more than an attempt to drag out a process that Apple lost on the merits. Voip-Pal also contends that Apple's request for relief is untimely and statutorily barred.
Dated: January 26, 2018
Very interesting article DB. Thanks for the post. Let's all hope that SCOTUS upholds that private property rights for patents soon.
Pick...what's the source of this request by Apple? Can you post a link? I'd like to read the whole request.
PP - Seemingly you appear to know a lot about IPR's.
Please explain how any company with a "properly filed IPR" can re-challenge claims that already have been challenged and upheld by the PTAB? Remember, 5 new IPR's were DECLINED essentially because they were filed too long after the instituted trial with APPLE.
Please enlighten us o' wise one!
Hmmm...funny how PP always seems to get active on down days. Any chance of trying to get cheaper shares?
NYT - Over the last 4 years that I've been in this stock, a lot of people on this board give you a lot of crap or try to beat you down because you're thinking differently than most here. Your reasoning seems sound and logical. I completely understand how excitement from drinking the VPLM Kool-Aid can go from sweet to sour over time...I've been in the same boat and have vacillated back and forth between being the eternal optimist, then sink to being a deep pessimist, only to be rebound back to the optimistic view when good news breaks.
That said, I'm a long with a very sizable position and continue to hope for the best possible outcome for all stakeholders in the company. One thing that doesn't make sense to me is this. If VPLM doesn't have the goods or the patents aren't worth anything nor have any value, why would Knobbe Martens, arguably the best IP law firm in the country, stake their reputation on this fight? I know firms are motivated for many reasons but this is one thing I just can't wrap my head around since KM agreed to represent VPLM. Looking for your insight...what are your thoughts?
That's certainly an option but they would need to settle 1 claim and not sell all the rights in order for your suggestion to work. Many here talk about a quick buyout rather than a settlement.
All good points. Hopefully they hold out for the better of individual vs. group settlement and not just accept the quickest payout at a discount. Let's hope you're right on the sky high part.
NYT gave you some good advice. As NYT suggested, do some due diligence & learn what this company is about. There is a lot of info in the older posts on this board...reading them will help. Then decide for yourself how much risk you're willing to live with and for how long you're wiling to wait for the "happy ending." It may come in a day, 1,000 days, or not at all but nobody, with absolute certainty, knows for sure.
Yes, VPLM will still face some challenges if the existing cases are pursued through the Federal District Court for infringement litigation; however, it's nice to know that Knobbe Martens is all over the Alice tests. Based on what we've already seen, KM knows what they're doing here.
Here's some good info from their website.
Post-Alice Section 101 Eligibility Roadmap for Software Inventions
50x on current value of $ 0.10 pps not so good. All the more reason to drive up the current value, then I will agree with your 50x assessment. 50x of a much higher pps works.
As far as risks, that's life. IMHO, the biggest risk was removed with the PTAB win. While I agree that all of your stated risks are real, some are more controllable for the company than others. The thing to keep in mind, other than legal expenses, VP doesn't really have any significant fixed overhead burden. Since KM has been with them for the last 8 years and stuck by VP when the cards looked stacked against them, KM must know there will be a significant payoff down the road and willing to work on minimum retainer fees.
BTW, I also think your "ridiculous" thought of Nuclear War is more real than any of us know right now...especially with 2 unstable leaders in charge of the US & NK!
IMHO, $ 5.5 Billion would be negligence on the part of the BOD. A BOD in a PUBLIC company is bound by a Fiduciary Duty of Loyalty (FDOL) or they can be sued by any corporate stakeholders. As NOLO.com defines FDOL, the Officers & Directors owe a Duty of Loyalty to the corporation and shareholders. They are expected to put the welfare and best interest of the corporation above their own personal or other business interests.
If the potential damages are so significantly higher, and there is a reasonable likelihood that they can achieve at least 50% of the $ 298 billion maximum, why would any BOD, or any sane shareholder for that matter, vote to dump the company for pennies on the dollar at $ 5.5 billion? Makes no sense to me.
Voip-Pal made it through the the last 18 months fighting for their survival and finally can smell some sort of financial gain for their pain, why settle so cheap?
I say screw "amicable"...the BOD needs to bury those Mo Fo's in damages as a payback for the last 18 months!