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.
Unfortunately you are obviously not up to date, Dr. Ryan Thomas. Legal counsel. He has never claimed what you put forth.
Suspicion is a long way from conviction!!!
It would be our opinion that any legal occurrence of a criminal matter would be much further down the line than November and history has proven that the likely hood of said opinions has not come to fruition...Even when said opinions have been stated at multiple times on various situations.
Unfortunately, the Chill does not just expire, they can complete the application based upon the time horizon to have it removed in November, Dr. Thomas said the letter was written and will be sent in November.
I just read this great book, here are some fantastic quotes for you to chew on. If this is why the burn rate spiked, so be it, money well spent IMOB's...
It is good news, on an additional note, the prior art included in this new NOA included Kaczmarczyk, Turner and Klein as well.
And UI 2nd also got past Chen, Chu and the rest of them...
Quarterly filings out!
I guess the Crowd funding was not needed, $319,000 raised ending June 30th...
The situation is irrelevant, it was merely an example of an NDA that was broken before the two year clause expired.
Two year NDA, the terms can be set to appease both parties but can be costly to violate...
NDA Example
Just a quick correction,
Mobile Gateway is about eliminating roaming, UI is about a seamless transition between WiFi and Cellular/Data networks.
The filings were made by VPLM.
Well that explains a whole bunch. BTW, Mobile Gateway has nothing to do with long distance, it has everything to do with roaming which is a huge issue in Europe where the regional governments want roaming done away with but hey, WTFDIK...
VPLM filed the NPL and all the additional literature, unfortunately, NPL is not reviewable, the more interesting facts of what they filed however are the IDS submissions which included Chen, Chu, Kaczmarczyk and Turner.
Then why pay to research and file an IPR, why not just go right for a dismissal and avoid the others altogether...
Precisely, we could be done in six months, we could be in for the long haul as VVVVV says at four years but nothing is set in stone, in fact this really doesn't change anything, it is what it is and the "chips will fall where they fall". Good stuff, thanks for the updates.
Chen, Chu, Kaczmarczyk, Turner...Check, oh this is getting fun...
929, done!
Just to put it to bed, the sole mention of Dr. Sawyer was at the beginning of the call, it was stated that he was on the call however it was never said or announced ever that he would be speaking. I just listened to it for the sole purpose of answering you and again, it was never stated he would speak. Zzzzzzzzz..
No Turner or Kaczmarczyk anywhere in those, must not be an issue...
A little bit surprised the topic hasn't been brought up.
Unified Patents
I see some big names here, right at the top, Google, followed by MasterCard and JP Morgan as far as implications to VPLM. No sign of the likes of Apple, AT&T, Verizon or any other major telecom, I'm not saying they aren't there but definitely not being flaunted by them.
It's interesting, they are a consortium of companies where you can buy membership which offers no guarantees per se. I guess we could say they are like the old world mafia, they charge the store owners on the block a fee offering "protection" but when push comes to shove, you may still have to fight your own battle. And when I say protection, they file IPR's in hopes they can thwart off legal battles. I guess because they really offer no product but mainly provide proactive legal challenges, one could call them a "TROLL"... You know because they didn't invent IPR's.
It was stated that 24-72 hours after service would be a reasonable time frame to notify shareholders of service however it does not mean it will occur. Honestly, I'm more interested in seeing proof that it hasn't already happened.
Cheers
Can anyone show evidence that service has not already occurred or not? As for knowing, a PR confirming this would be nice but unfortunately we just may be sitting here until proof is due 30 days from now.
Here is the Link but it is on this page right above the posts, news alerts!
Read the news release!
Hmm, Fully reporting now, interesting...Next.
Additionally, Hurry and Scottsdale DID open an account for Locksmith and Kipping, Canadian entities!
Actually, a Canadian can have an American brokerage account! Guaranteed,
1)Complete an account application,
2)complete a Form W-8BEN, Certificate of Foreign Status of Beneficial Owner for United States Tax Withholding all part of FACTA rules
3)show them a passport!!!
As for Hurry, he has appealed the judgement, not sure if there will be a resolution soon.
John Hurry, Scottsdale Capital Advisors
He managed to do it for Locksmith and Kipping.
[img]102. CSCT deposited 9,318,000 shares of VPLM stock in certificate forni into its
account at Scottsdale on February 7, 2014, liquidated a substantial number ofthe shares between
February and June 2014, and wired over $1.4 million in proceeds out ofits account shortly after
the sales. See Schedule B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, for a table detailing
the deposit and sales of VPLM stock.
103. In support ofits VPLM deposit, CSCT provided Scottsdale with, among other
documents, a Debt Settlement Agreement dated August 15, 2013 and a Stock Purchase
Agreement dated August 23, 2013. The documents reflect that: (a) LSF, which was controlled
by RK, obtained the shares directly from VPLM on August 15, 2013, in settlement ofdebt owed
by VPLM to LSF, in connection with a verbal line of credit that LSF extended to VPLM
beginning in July 2010; and (b) LSF transferred the shares to VI, a Belizean corporation, on
August 23, 2013-only eight days after acquiring them.
19[/img]
Only if you had certificates with a restricted legend, the only way one could deposit them would be a shady broker or a blind mouse!
DS,
I honestly cannot point to just one thing unfortunately. I think there may be some form of familiarity and relationship built between the examiners and the patents. Remember that all five parent patents received 100% rejection, after further review and gathering a greater understanding about the technology, they turned from 100% rejection into 100% approval.
Additionally, I think that some of these examiners when given the opportunity to move onto a child patent or some other continuation after working on another patent in the family will do so without having to go back and review their original work thus giving them a head start on the examination process. A good example of this is the 2nd LI child, it was only published in July of 2015 and given it's first NOA in December 2015, the examiner, Thompson, had been working on the 1st LI child patent and it received NOA in July 2015, it appeared he moved right into the 2nd child and was able to move swiftly as it was all at the top of his mind, probably saving months of reading.
Keep in mind, the E911 child that just received NOA was published 2 1/2 years ago, it was a bit of a drawn out process compared to some of the recent child approvals but still not too bad for time, it also had to overcome a non-final rejection but like most of the other child apps, it was based upon the same rationale as the parent patents which as we know, were all approved so really it was a matter of semantics.
Probably not exactly what you were looking for but hopefully it helps.
AIMO
Lucky number 13!
VPLM Patent Status
1) Pub #20100150138 - Lawful Intercept - Patented case
a) LI 1st child - Patented Case
b) LI 2nd child- NOA Dec 27, 2015, PUBS Case remand to TC, Feb 12, 2016
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 - Published, No Actions
e) RBR 5th child - Published, No Actions
f) RBR 6th child - Published, No Actions
3) Pub #20100172345 - Emergency 911 - Patented Case
a) E911 1st child - final rejection, Applicant response to non-final, Jan 24, 2016 dsiposal for RCE, Examination in progress
4) Pub #20110122827 - Mobile Gateway - Patented Case
a) MG 1st child - non-fianl rejection - prosecution ongoing
5) Pub #20120170574 - Uninterrupted Transmission of Internet Protocol - Patented Case
a) UI 1st child - Patented Case, 10/06/2015
b) UI 2nd child - Feb 18, 2016 - NOA
UI 1st child NOA
02-18-2016 Reasons for Allowance
02-17-2016 Information Disclosure Statement considered
02-10-2016 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
02-04-2016 Information Disclosure Statement considered
02-04-2016 Information Disclosure Statement considered
02-02-2016 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
02-04-2016 Reference capture on IDS
01-18-2016 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
02-04-2016 Date Forwarded to Examiner
01-18-2016 Response after Non-Final Action
02-02-2016 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
01-18-2016 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
01-18-2016 PARALEGAL OR ELECTRONIC TERMINAL DISCLAIMER APPROVED
01-18-2016 Terminal Disclaimer Filed
11-23-2015 Electronic Review
11-23-2015 Email Notification
11-23-2015 Mail Non-Final Rejection
11-16-2015 Non-Final Rejection
LI 2nd child given reaffirmation,
02-16-2016 Printer Rush- No mailing
02-16-2016 Printer Rush- No mailing
02-16-2016 Information Disclosure Statement considered
02-16-2016 Information Disclosure Statement considered
02-12-2016 Pubs Case Remand to TC
02-10-2016 Reference capture on IDS
02-10-2016 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
02-02-2016 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
02-02-2016 Reference capture on IDS
02-10-2016 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
02-02-2016 Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
01-22-2016 Electronic Review
01-22-2016 Email Notification
01-22-2016 Mail Notice of Allowance
Doesn't everybody!
And yet when you switch the search from "IP" to "Patents", Knobbes, who is providing support to Alverson for the suits happens to be a "tier 1" firm in the US.
Pure sarcasm.
Not sure if this went up yet this AM, if so, Thanks to that poster.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
1 cmp Complaint Wed 6:30 PM
COMPLAINT VOIP-PAL.COM against All Defendants (Filing fee $400 receipt number 0978-3995829), filed by Voip-Pal.com, Inc.. Certificate of Interested Parties due by 2/20/2016. Proof of service due by 6/9/2016. (Bonds, Kurt)
Att: 1 Exhibit Table of Exhibits,
Att: 2 Exhibit Exhibit A,
Att: 3 Exhibit Exhibit B,
Att: 4 Exhibit Exhibit C,
Att: 5 Exhibit Exhibit D,
Att: 6 Exhibit Exhibit E,
Att: 7 Exhibit Chart 1 of Exhibit E,
Att: 8 Exhibit Chart 2 of Exhibit E,
Att: 9 Exhibit Chart 3 of Exhibit E,
Att: 10 Exhibit Chart 4 of Exhibit E,
Att: 11 Exhibit Chart 5 of Exhibit E,
Att: 12 Exhibit Chart 6 of Exhibit E,
Att: 13 Exhibit Exhibit F,
Att: 14 Exhibit Chart 1 of Exhibit F,
Att: 15 Exhibit Chart 2 of Exhibit F,
Att: 16 Exhibit Chart 3 of Exhibit F,
Att: 17 Exhibit Chart 4 of Exhibit F,
Att: 18 Exhibit Chart 5 of Exhibit F,
Att: 19 Exhibit Chart 6 of Exhibit F,
Att: 20 Exhibit Exhibit G,
Att: 21 Exhibit Exhibit H,
Att: 22 Exhibit Addendum 1 to Exhibit H,
Att: 23 Civil Cover Sheet,
Att: 24 Summons ATT CORP,
Att: 25 Summons ATT INC,
Att: 26 Summons VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS,
Att: 27 Summons VERIZON WIRELESS
Correct! And only one company...