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.
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?
Child patent 606 is RBR, filed first (2021) in Waco but the Judge stayed the 606 case for all defendants after AAPL et al got the declaratory judgement petition from NDCal and the clueless woman belatedly took it over to her court claiming that child patent or not, it belonged to the same family of old RBR patents, and went on to perform all gymnastics on Alice and then conducted Alternate Dispute Resolution discussions among parties for a few months that did not go anywhere. The Judge in Waco waited almost 1-2 years until VPLM filed the MG patent case in Waco. MG patent cases started moving ahead while the RBR patent 606 remained "stayed". AAPL or TWTR tried to get a favor from the clueless woman in hijacking the MG patent case back to NDCal using another Declaratory Judgement tactic again but the clueless woman denied. Then Waco MG patent cases proceeded in spite of several venue transfer petitions. After all MG patent Markman hearings completed, recently the Judge lifted the stay on RBR (606 patent) in AMZN case. It was a pleasant surprise. This Markman was conducted recently in Feb. Perhaps it was the first Markman on RBR in Waco as we remember. First and the only RBR Markman against AMZN so far. RBR is a crucial technology. Have been watching for RBR closely and was pleasantly surprised when Albright lifted the stay.
Older RBR patents like 815, etc. "died" in NDCal, due to misapplication of Alice laws, appealed, Appeals denied, en banc hearing, even tried to list on SCOTUS, etc. Mr. Hudnell tried his best disprove the clueless woman. So some of us ended up with PTSD.
That has been the memory without the referring to notes. Welcome corrections. The point is that RBR is now part of AMZN infringement damages in addition to MG patent infringements.
Yes!
VPLM sent the infringement damages to all defendants and filed with the Judge. I could have been clearer. Thanks for pointing out. Assumed all folks are familiar with details of all cases and history.
All defendants in Waco are for violating MG patent. RBR was added to AMZN. Not sure if RBR Markman has been scheduled for VZ and T-Mobile. Waiting for Samsung and Huawei.
FYI. A defendant we have not heard much about is VZ. Their damage could be HUGE! . Next will be Meta/WhatsApp/Instagram/ etc., under Judge Donato in NDCal. All violations of VPLM's RBR and MG patents. After PTAB hearing of Meta IPR's this August, we wait for PTAB ruling in Feb 2024.
This Fall will be a bountiful harvesting season in the garden and a prosperous Spring 2024 (PTAB ruling)! Back to planting!
Keeping fingers crossed!
A couple of points:
1) A rumor is that VPLM is filing for reconsideration of 606 RBR Markman discussion "elements" - Judge Albright not allowing one of the three elements viz. "time to live" (elapsed time that a message lasts, 10 sec or 10 hours?)
It is not absolutely critical but VPLM's claim will be BROADER and infringement damages could be bigger, if the judge reconsiders and allows this exception requested by VPLM. Inventors always try to make their claims as broad as they can, in order to catch as much" fish" (violations) as they can. (Re.: Boolean algebra!)
2) AMZN experts discovery is scheduled to end around April 2. If AMZN decides to settle it will be any time between the end of Discovery (April 2) and the trial date in July, 2023. Watching for news until a day before the trial date.
FYI, VPLM has already sent AMZN their finalized infringement damages and sent to the Judge. AMZN knows how huge the damage is! Also AMZN knows how huge it CAN BE if they allow the trial to proceed and if the jury verdict confirms WILLFULNESS. Until then, wait and watch.
3) VPLM vs. T-Mobile filing - One can expect that VPLM rebuke is understandably quite extensive and rips T-Mobile arguments and personal character assassination. Hope Judge Albright will see right through T-Mobile's "shady" defense of inequitable conduct. Not sure what their next step will be if Judge Albright rejects their inequitable conduct defense. Is T-Mobile next after AMZN. Wait and watch. jmo.
Butters,
Thanks for posting VPLM's response Re.: Samsung.
Samsung has fought many IP battles with AAPL. They get paid about $200 for each iPhone OLED screen from AAPL. iPhone sales are at 200-220 million/year. It is surprising that their attorneys could not put up a better defense against VPLM.
As expected VPLM's legal team is doing a wonderful job sticking to "the facts and the law". No BS like the defendants. A sure sign of a loser is when they start throwing out nonsense instead of facts. One can see the pattern as the trial date approaches.
The legal team sounds confident of even beating the two defendants in NDCal. Wait and watch.
Butters,
Very well said! Worth repeating:
"...defendants are now looking for ANY reason to file against and would take any public slip up by VP IR as a gift..."
Samsung is trying to evade, and so are other defendants. For example, T-Mobile's inequitable conduct filing is an act of desperation.
All defendants are trying to grasp at the " straws". BUT the noose is tightening under Judge Albright who has allowed VPLM's case to proceed so far (Markman, Discovery, etc.).
Mysteriously AAPL and AT&T are somewhere in the mix. AAPL's past confrontations with Judge Albright regarding "Forum shopping" explain AAPL's hesitation to show up in Waco. Time will tell soon.
KauaiGrl,
You'll be happy and very rich soon! Call it a personal vision like yours! Not sure about your $28 but it better be more than 50 cents.
Butters,
Yes, Time line starts with CMC, the initial Case Management conference date.
Hello KauaiGrl,
Sorry to hear about the accident. Wish you speedy recovery!
Oh GTCar,
Nice to see you back!
Butters,
Well said. Your words expressed the same sentiment as all longs have. "PTSD" as someone said.
Stef,
The number of AMZN are quite a few. Each AMZN subsidiary has 3 or 4 attorneys:
Amazon.Com, Inc.
Amazon Technologies, Inc.
Amazon.com Services, LLC
Amazon Web Services, Inc.
FYI Amazon.com is the web site you go to to cut off AMZN's (Alexa) recording, conversations, etc.on AMZN devices like Fire TV, Fire Stick. Try google for detailed steps.
Butters
Agreed!
90%? More than 90%! One can expect the company to fight back.
The very idea that the Judge is discussing "specifics of three fields in the "routing message" term of RBR 606 patent in Markman hearing with both parties, confirmed one thing that RBR patent (or MG patent) is not subject to Alice law in Waco. The Judge struggled a bit but he got it. Getting a successful Markman hearing of RBR terms is crucial because of the huge potential infringements that AMZN offers in e-commerce, on-demand videos, etc.
The two defendants in NDCal are hoping to file Alice with Donato. Donato can not be so clueless!
Dollar,
Yes, the argument was about the term "Routing message". AMZN claimed it requires three fields: caller number, "route", time-to-live", etc. (missed the recording). VPLM's position: one need not use the caller number, or call forward number, or voice message number" as stated in 606 patent claim and additionally stated in the old 815 patent, claiming that VPLM's tech makes all those three fields optional and yet it can route a call mainly using the "node" address. Anyone understands this? Did the Judge understand?
The discussion involved minute details and the judge ended up allowing AMZN's use of three fields, at least the caller number. VPLM patents (606, 815) clearly state the option of using any one of those three. No "time to live" is needed. "Time to live" means how long a voice msg will stay alive on the recorder; 10 min, or 10 hours, etc.
Mr. Hudnell was very convincing and highly technical. May be the fine details went over the Judge's head or the Judge had another reason not to side 100% with Hudnell, thinking that this minute detail will not impact the core of the 606 patent or the infringement damage calculation. With limited knowledge and expertise in these matters, one can only speculate that if the Judge picked "the routing message" as the only topic for discussion, he must have allowed the rest of VPLM's claims and terms in the Markman hearing. It is not clear how it will impact a jury trial, whether the jury will understand the minute details. For some folks it was not that hard to follow Mr. Hudnell's technical points.
Caution: Waiting for the correct assessment from the company.
Another issue - VPLM is suing Meta and Goog in NDCal for the 606 patent according to the recent 10Q released yesterday. Not sure if Judge Donato is technologically "tuned" to understand the fine technical details.
Aside -
T-Mobile motion complaining about two items:
1) VPLM's prior art missed T-Mobile's HotSpot@Home service in 2006
2) False inventorship for including Emil
1) A search of technical and patent abstracts did not show HotSpot@Home service in 2006. Was able to find T-Mobile's new wifi service announcement in June 2007, requiring a dual cell phone use for wifi calling using home wifi network.
Wonder why T-Mobile did not publish about this technology in patents or technical journals unless they were keeping it a secret and operating the device in their garage. A "NO, NO" in patents. For a patent to issue, one of three requirements is to teach the invention to folks familiar in the art so that they practice and verify.
2) Even after checking hundreds of thousands of pages of emails and documents and after listening to testimonies of three co-inventors, T-Mobile could not state "SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS" Instead they engaged in character assassination of Emil. Playing dirty is a sign they are losing. JMO.
Even a UK company lost a crucial patent case against a Texas company patent in a jury trial against in Eastern Texas court!
From the filing (Re. Pacemonitor). The first line in bold of the post.
yes, my opinion and wish.
Posting in a hurry, Did not complete the sentence. It will be Judge Albright to skip...
The post was about T-Mobile's Feb 2, 06, 23 filing, Document 84.
Today's zoom conference was closed to public.
How is it possible for one to write a post on a closed zoom conference topics??
========
T-MOBILE’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO ADD ALLEGATIONS OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
Case 6:21-cv-00674-ADA Document 84 Filed 02/06/23
======
From Pacemonitor -
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al
Texas Western District Court
Judge: Alan D Albright
Case #: 6:21-cv-00674
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: Jun 25, 2021
Docket
Parties (6)
Opinions (2)
Docket last updated: 6 hours ago
Wednesday, February 08, 2023
86 order Order ~Util - Set Hearings Wed 02/08 7:00 PM
ORDER Setting Zoom Discovery for 2/10/2023 01:30 PM before Judge Alan D Albright. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (bot2)
========
Today's zoom call is NOT open to public. FYI
Currently a "closed" zoom conference in progress.
T-MOBILE’S MOTION TO AMEND ITS ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO ADD ALLEGATIONS OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT
Case 6:21-cv-00674-ADA Document 84 Filed 02/06/23
Some opinions. Two major accusations from T-Mobile:
(1) incomplete prior art
(2) False "inventorship" by including Emil Malak as an inventor.
Both accusations are weak at best, not strong enough to invalidate MG patents for INEQUITABLE CONDUCT. jmo.
First - T-Mobile's wi-fi calling system, HotSpot@Home System, existing in 2006 was ignored in prior art by VPLM when filing for MG patents in 2008. T-Mobile has operated a Wi-Fi calling system that uses “DNS queries” since 2006, long before the earliest claimed priority date for the mobile gateway patents in this case.
"...inventors and patent applicant never disclosed T-Mobile’s prior art Wi-Fi calling service (“HotSpot@Home”) to the Patent Office during its six years of prosecution. "
"...HotSpot@Home was based off the Unlicensed Mobile Access (“UMA”) specification, a technical standard developed by multiple telecommunications companies (including T-Mobile) meant to provide alternative access to cellular networks through IP-based broadband connections—i.e., the Internet. Because HotSpot@Home used the Internet, it required the use of Domain Name System (“DNS”) servers, with a specialized domain name (i.e., a Fully Qualified Domain Name (“FQDN”)) from a user’s mobile phone and translated that domain name into an IP address that network protocols can use to locate networked T-Mobile servers connected to the Internet in order to initiate a Wi-Fi call.
HotSpot@Home used DNS servers to connect to a UMA controller, which was required to route a call made over Wi-Fi to T-Mobile’s core cellular network, T-Mobile’s current Wi-Fi calling system uses the same type of DNS queries to deliver IP addresses for its servers to a user’s mobile phone (similar to VPLM's ex. G at TMO-VOIPPAL-00023447)—precisely the functionality that VoIP-Pal seems to claim infringes.
Once T-Mobile became aware of this overlap in accused functionality between its current system and its 2006-era HotSpot@Home system, T-Mobile produced documents describing its HotSpot@Home system and additionally disclosed and charted HotSpot@Home in its invalidity contentions in July 2022. Until recently, however, T-Mobile did not know that VoIP-Pal or its predecessor-in-interest (Digifonica, also an entity associated with Emil Malak) ..."
(weak argument, first TMobile accuses of VPLM ignoring their HotSpot@Home in 2006, which was later to to Unlicensed Mobile Access (“UMA”) specification system modified perhaps after VPLM MG patent filing 2008 (?)to route wi-fi calls which infringes VPLM's MG patents. Why use an "unlicensed mobile access system"? Unlicensing = stealing.)
Second - False inventorhsip
"...Mr. Malak filed declarations for both mobile gateway patents swearing that he was properly an inventor. Yet testimony from the other listed inventors makes clear that, -- redacted --
Misrepresentations regarding inventorship are grounds for finding inequitable conduct.
Rule 9(b) is easily satisfied here. Mr. Malak can show no inventive contribution to the alleged inventions of the mobile gateway patents because he cannot show conception. Rather than conception, he can show only a general goal, which is insufficient for inventorship."
Malak story -
Digifonica (now VoIP-Pal) filed the application that led to the first mobile gateway patent, the ’234 patent, on July 28, 2008. The application identified three inventors: Maksym Sobolyev, Pentti Kalevi Huttunen, and Johan Emil Viktor Bjorsell. Ex. J. More than five years later, VoIP-Pal filed a request to correct inventorship, indicating that Mr. Malak had been omitted as a named inventor “without deceptive intent” and that his addition “was necessitated by amendment of the claims.”7
As to the basis for Mr. Malak’s claim of inventorship,
(a) inventor Mr. Bjorsell testified that Mr. Malak...
(b) inventor Mr. Sobolyev likewise testified:....
(c) inventor Mr. Huttunen’s testimony was similar:.
"...using discovery, T-Mobile had to move to compel email discovery from VoIP-Pal. Judge Gilliland then issued an order directing VoIP-Pal to produce the four inventors’ emails before their depositions. None of the first three inventors deposed produced emails before their depositions; instead, each day (November 29, November 30, and December 1), VoIP-Pal produced each inventors’ documents (or what later turned out to actually only be a subset of those inventors’ documents) during those inventors’ depositions. Gilmore Decl. at ¶ 26. The fourth inventor’s (Mr. Malak’s) voluminous emails were then produced on December 9, 2022,4
VoIP-Pal had not produced over a hundred thousand pages of inventor emails from a Digifonica (now VoIP-Pal) email archive that VoIP-Pal did not access and search until January..."
(Are they kidding? hundred thousand of pages of emails/dodcuments from VPLM and Digifonica? Grasping for straws?
Judge Albright's decision to skip settlement talk and go to trial for triple damages.. A weak argument from T-Mobile.)
Now we are talking!
"...$150 billion from one defendant? ..." AAPL?
Add VZ, T and AMZN's e-commerce, Meta/WhatsApp, GOOG, Samsung. et al. AMZN case ruling could be historic in many respects!
Emil is vowing to fight to the end! The company is busy working out ALL scenarios. After Waco, they may be heading to NDCal for Meta and GOOG.
Meta IPR's "instituted" (not denied) since an Expert witness appeared on behalf of Meta. Hearing may be late summer and announcement in Feb, 24. If this expert was the same guy that testified for AAPL in NDCal, the company's legal team is confident of arguing this guy's errors and defeating the META case.
BTW, meta IPR's have ZERO effect on Waco. Looking forward to the Markman on RBR on Feb 17 and proceeding with claim construction, discovery, etc.
Penny,
Well said. It is a tall task for investors.
"...Patent law is difficult and tedious. It's an area of law that many/most courts dread because of the sheer redundancy of often highly technical information beyond one's skillset. .."
The reason why someone in NDCal is termed "clueless".
Spyke,
Appreciate your comments and your perspective. Your day job functions sound familiar. Perspectives like yours add value to the forum.
Not TWTR, but AMZN news related to lifting of stay on RBR 606 patent was a some news papers, including WS Journal.
Not TWTR, but AMZN news related to lifting of stay on RBR 606 patent was a some news papers, including WS Journal.
Nevershort,
You asked for it! A long post is coming your war.
Patents, royalty, licensing, etc. are not common subjects. It is a pleasure to provide an explanation of steps involved, terms used, and the process, to give you realistic expectations.
Keep fingers crossed.
Please do not mix licensing agreement with "buyout". Buy out is like you buy a real estate or a car. Buyer inspects property's condition and negotiates a price. Similarly when a buyer wants to buy VPLM the buyer will inspect finances, outstanding debt, pending court cases, expenses, cash on the balance sheet and cash flow from their licensing agreements. Then buyer offers a price. Let us leave the buy out alone.
Currently our focus is to recover infringement damages starting from the date when VPLM contacted the defendant pointing out they are infringing and possibly sign a licensing agreement to avoid infringement damages in the future. VPLM held meetings AAPL, T, VZ, AMZN et al. Infringement is unauthorized use of VLM's technologies (RBR and MG patents) without a licensing agreement, knowingly (willfulness) or unknowingly. The US patent law says there is no upper limit to the amount of damages to claim; the patent holder (VPLM) is entitled for compensation for each infringed service (imsg, facetime, WhatsApp) and infringed product (iphone). There are methods for estimating the damages starting when infringement began. VPLM estimated damages for all defendants and currently is arguing with AMZN on the amount of damages in Waco. Damage info is not public or other defendants. Shareholders need not know what they are. They'll know the amount of damages awarded when the judge announces.
Some say many cases settle before the trial with Albright, perhaps because defendants want to avoid a jury award of 3 times the original damage if willfulness is proved. Jury trial may be unpredictable and defendants may not want to risk a trial.
What comes after the award announcement? The defendant can not continue to infringe. Therefore they HAVE to write a licensing agreement which will be in effect until the patent life expires. Better to have the judge mediate the royalty rate, other terms, etc. One thing of interest is setting up an auditing process to monitor AMZN's books for revenues for infringed items.
Cash award plus licensing agreement increases VPLM's worth (cash plus cashflow, legitimacy of VPLM patents, etc. ). Then a buyer may be interested in buying provided the buyer will not mind continuing the current cases in Waco and NDCal or pursue 5o other possible defendants. Sorry for the long reply. Hope you follow the steps in IP case.
Judge Albright decides when. If there is a trial, we do not know how much it will be shared with the public.
A buyout offer conflicts with a license agreement. A license agreement is negotiated between two parties: buyer and patent owner. The post surmised that when Waco announces the infringement award it should include a license agreement. Infringement happened because the defendant practiced VPLM's technology without the license. The future royalty revenue continues until the patent life expires in 5 or 10 years or so. Inventors patent child patents along the same technology and continue the royalty for that technology for another 20 years. QCOM used to allocate a third of its revenue for IP management. Does any shareholder envision for such a high-leverage business without any manufacturing or marketing?
Buyout may not happen until the courts cases are resolved, patents are tested, damages are settled and upheld, etc. because a buyer may want to know the company's cash, cash flow, expenses, etc. like any business.
The judge is expected to announce Damages order. Defendant will fight hard to reduce VPLM's damages for reasons: royalty rate of 1.25% is too high, apportionment fraction is large since most of the technology is their own, etc. The Judge may have his input. We wait.
Instead of a dollar figure, one needs to wait until the first infringement award and a licensing agreement are announced. The announcement itself will boost the price. After these awards are upheld in the higher courts, analysts will figure out total cash flow from just one defendant like AMZN and raise the share price. A selling opportunity?
Some knowledgeable investors wait for the next 2 or 3 defendants. Infringement awards from those cases will boost the price. (Personally better wait to see the end of WhatsApp and Apple.)
It may be volatile until investors gain confidence from the CEO guidance. CEO uttering price predictions does not help shareholders especially when cases are proceeding. If that trend continues, the Board better replace Emil, or find a replacement and go home to retirement with a lot of cash. Some opinions.
Butters,
Yes! If AAPL and T are in confidential discussion with VPLM is going on, VPLM's hand will be stronger. The negotiations will turn for better for shareholders. Hope.
Butters,
How about Mr. Hudnell pre-empting NDCal's possible Alice motion by defendants GOOG and Meta, although Meta and Samsung IPR's are pending. Compare Donato's date and Waco's Markman hearing date. Why Waco moved so fast? Some think that Judge Albright's rocket docket was the reason. How about Mr. Hudnell trying blow NDCal defendants' possible motion for Alice on MG patents? Speculation or PTSD syndrome? Drumming's "kill shot"?
Judge Albright takes 1-1.5 hours for Markman hearing. If VPLM succeeds in the Markman hearing, Donato will laugh defendants out of the court.
investor,
No need to hold the shares till the fundamental value, because the theory says that market never achieves the true fundamental value, daily price fluctuations are attempts to achieve the true value. So many set a target price and sell. The market will boost the share price as soon as the infringement awards are announced. The financial media and traders would have accumulated enough shares before talking about VPLM in public. We can seek for financial media's attention. Nothing happens until media persons have accumulated enough. jmo.
Drumming,
Now we are talking! Maybe the PTSD has made many afraid of holding out for the "kill shot". Lighten a little to recoup the capital plus a little profit. Then hold onto the rest till the end.
Agree! Many seem to ignore there are 5 or more defendants, each owing huge infringement damages. NDCal's Donato seems to want to coordinate NDCal cases wtih Waco. CEO's expectation of $0.5, 1 or 2 does not reflect the fundamental value. If age is a problem for the CEO, HIRE a top notch, knowledgeable CEO endorsed by Mr.Hudnell and the IP team. Generate licensing agreements along with damage awards. Cash and cashflow.
Willful damage is the icing on the cake. Copy QCOM IP licensing model and management. Try more infringement cases in Waco or other venues. jmo
"...more than happy with .5 per share..."
$0.5 sale price does not reflect the fundamental value judging from the infringement damages estimate (for both RBR 606 and MG patents) just for one defendant AMZN. There are more defendants. jmo.
Remember my response to your share prediction a while ago? Time to reveal the fundamental value of VPLM shares and patents - regardless of infringement arguments or not.