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.
You are not the person who is wrong, April 24th was the original date for the Petitioners reply. Through a joint motion, it has been agreed upon to move this date to May 17th... Below is the original scheduling order, I have included in bolded red the new dates...I would also anticipate that they will move the DUE DATE 3 once 2 is completed. I hope this clears things up!
DUE DATE 1 ..................................................................... February 10, 2017
Patent owner’s response to the petition
Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
DUE DATE 2 ........................................................................... April 24, 2017 May 17, 2017
Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
DUE DATE 3 ............................................................................ May 22, 2017
Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
DUE DATE 4 ............................................................................ June 12, 2017 June 14, 2017
Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
Motion to exclude evidence
Request for oral argument
DUE DATE 5 ............................................................................ June 26, 2017
Response to observation
Opposition to motion to exclude
DUE DATE 6 ............................................................................... July 3, 2017
Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
DUE DATE 7 ............................................................................. July 20, 2017
Oral argument (if requested)
Ultimately Apple is getting more time, probably to depose all VPLM's witnesses who provided declarations. It doesn't adjust the end goal and as much as I agree, tell them to shove it, it actually bodes well for VPLM to show an amicable approach as this would reflect well by the courts when push comes to shove IMO.
Has nothing to do with Emil.
Meh, hardly news worthy. Virtually every VPLM application has been given a rejection at some point but always seem to get through in the end!
Time to pay the piper!
03/10/2017 Notice of Taking Deposition
Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Richard G. Kipping
01/18/2018 Pretrial/Calendar Call (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
02/05/2018 Jury Trial (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
Scheduling Order!
DUE DATE 1 ..................................................................... February 10, 2017
Patent owner’s response to the petition
Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
DUE DATE 2 ........................................................................... April 24, 2017
Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
DUE DATE 3 ............................................................................ May 22, 2017
Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
DUE DATE 4 ............................................................................ June 12, 2017
Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
Motion to exclude evidence
Request for oral argument
DUE DATE 5 ............................................................................ June 26, 2017
Response to observation
Opposition to motion to exclude
DUE DATE 6 ............................................................................... July 3, 2017
Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
DUE DATE 7 ............................................................................. July 20, 2017
Oral argument (if requested)
If you a referencing your question to myself regarding the meaning, ultimately IMO the technicalities are now mute, the simple evidence that antedates VPLM's RBR patent basically takes most of APPLEs defense off the table as CHU & CHEN were filed after VPLM's RBR was discovered. If the PTAB affirms this evidence, then this one is done and APPLE must either come up with another one or pay the piper but IMO, it's still a journey and we are not quite done yet...
There are literally thousands of pages with declarations from many persons in favor of VPLM who swear the RBR source code pre-exists CHU and CHEN. The deposition of Dr. Houh is hundreds of pages on it's own and I have only completed reviewing about 30% of it so far. Regardless of ones own opinion, they can be read on the PTAB site by everyone and I encourage them to do so.
I love the quote "Declarants shifting position", I guess they mean shifting in his seat as he squirms around...
You have to love it when the defendants own expert declarant realizes that they are wrong, I guess you call it the "OH SHIT" moment. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And we're off!
Proactivity. The deadline for service is February 3, 2017. If it gets served, the dismissal is mute. IMO.
VPLM Patent Status
1) Pub #20100150138 - Lawful Intercept - Patented case
a) LI 1st child - Patented Case
b) LI 2nd child - Patented Case, Patent issue date, Jan 17, 2017
c) LI 3rd child - Filed Dec 20, 2016, Not yet published
2) Pub #20100150328 - Rating, Billing & Routing - Patented Case
a) RBR 1st child - Patented Case
b) RBR 2nd child - Patented Case
c) RBR 3rd child - Patented Case
d) RBR 4th child - Patented Case, Patent issue date Jan 3, 2017
e) RBR 5th child - Non-final rejection, PARALEGAL Terminal Disclaimer filed Dec 22, 2016
f) RBR 6th child - Published, Case Docketed to Examiner in GAU, Dec 16, 2016
3) Pub #20100172345 - Emergency 911 - Patented Case
a) E911 1st child - Application Is Considered Ready for Issue, Jan 10, 2017
4) Pub #20110122827 - Mobile Gateway - Patented Case
a) MG 1st child - non-final rejection Nov 15, 2016 - prosecution ongoing
5) Pub #20120170574 - Uninterrupted Transmission of Internet Protocol - Patented Case
a) UI 1st child - Patented Case
b) UI 2nd child - Application Is Considered Ready for Issue, Nov 25, 2016 - Printer Rush- No mailing Dec 20, 2016
July it is!
Because Patent Owner fails to show that we misapprehended or
overlooked a matter, or abused our discretion, we conclude that Patent
Owner is not entitled to the relief it seeks.
V. ORDER
Accordingly, it is:
ORDERED that Patent Owner’s request for rehearing is denied.
Of course they'll oppose if they can find just cause but they can't oppose on the frivolous merits of "because we want to!"
Correct me if I'm wrong but unless the PTAB receives a filing of opposition to the rehearing from Apple, their decision is due one month from filing for rehearing.
Simply put, the testimony put forth by Apple in their IPR petition was incorrect, mischaracterized and wrong. Knobbes is merely pointing this deficiency out to the PTAB board. In other words, they either misinterpreted the classification of claims within Chu & Chu or they lied in an attempt to deceive the board.
"Improper Testimony (FRE 701, 702, or 703, or Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)):
Paragraphs 18 and 34 of the exhibit include opinions that are
not based on sufficient facts or data, and do not reliably
apply facts and data using scientific principles in reaching
their conclusions."
"Relevance and Mischaracterizes the Document (FRE 401,
402, 403):
Paragraphs 23-25, and 48 mischaracterize Ex. 1001 (‘005
patent) and provide misleading arguments. Paragraphs 36-
38, 41-43, 45, 48 and 49 mischaracterize Ex. 1006 (Chu
‘684) and provide misleading arguments. Paragraph 48
mischaracterizes Exs. 1007 & 1008 (Chu ‘366 and Chen,
respectively) and provides misleading arguments."
Thanks GBC, I can look up virtually everything on my phone but the copy and paste function is not always cooperative.
12/15/2016 CANCELED Dismissal Hearing (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
I guess I didn't realize how big a conspiracy it truly was. Thanks.
On a side note, IMO it is interesting, I for one am not surprised they instituted the review, statistically it was bound to happen. I was more shocked the Unified petition was denied. I guess that's just my spin on things though.
So you are implying that the the PTAB board made their decision well in advance and notified the company well in advance so they could sell a ton of shares. Interesting theory, it is sinking faster than the Titanic but hey, you are definitely free to have your opinion.
Well you see, I opened my Google chrome browser, PTAB won't open in IE for me, typed in PTAB E2E, went through the security recaptcha, all along searching Voip-Pal.com. Then I clicked on view documents and voila, right there at the top of the page it said like out of no where,
Entered: November 21, 2016
That is today BTW in case you didn't realize the date...And that's how I am privy to when the PTAB decision was disclosed!
The decision to implement the Apple review was not published until this afternoon. The PTAB decision is clearly dated within all the case documents...
815 & 005. It appears they will run them concurrently.
Apple's IPR will proceed I guess two CHU's do make a wong..
INITIAL CONFERENCE CALL ..................................... UPON REQUEST
DUE DATE 1 ..................................................................... February 10, 2017
Patent owner’s response to the petition
Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
DUE DATE 2 ........................................................................... April 24, 2017
Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
DUE DATE 3 ............................................................................ May 22, 2017
Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
DUE DATE 4 ............................................................................ June 12, 2017
Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
Motion to exclude evidence
Request for oral argument
DUE DATE 5 ............................................................................ June 26, 2017
Response to observation
Opposition to motion to exclude
DUE DATE 6 ............................................................................... July 3, 2017
Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
DUE DATE 7 ............................................................................. July 20, 2017
Oral argument (if requested)
Why hasn't Unified Patents PR'd their loss yet, man I don't know how anyone could tolerate such deliberate disregard for their own membership in keeping them up to date with such important development's.
11/10/2016
Order to Show Cause
Order to Show Case Re: Dismissal
12/15/2016
Dismissal Hearing (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
One has to wonder if this is that day in court when we will all see the...
Exactly, nobody won a thing, the federal courts stated previously that they would await the outcome of the proceedings in the state case, done, simple. As for discovery, it was always going there.
Again, nothing has been won or lost, period.