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.
All good points Rapz. Some exciting times with VPLM right now. Can’t wait to see how much comes out in the end.
Of course. Just trying to keep the court happenings and facts out front for all to see.
And court document don’t lie. Follow the facts.
New status report in T-Mobile case hit the docket yesterday.
For those new or unfamiliar with patent cases, this is fairly typical of strategy by plaintiff & defendants. Courts ask the parties to “meet and confer” on reducing asserted claims for infringement & prior art references to help keep cases manageable. The plaintiffs always push for the broadest number of claims & defendants hope for the least. In this case T-Mobile believes they can prove their case for non-infringement if it goes to trial by only asserting 1 prior art reference.
———————————
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
T-MOBILE USA, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 6:21-cv-674-ADA
JOINT REPORT ON MEET-AND-CONFER
The parties respectfully submit this joint report on their discussions regarding narrowing the number of asserted claims and prior art references to triable limits. Counsel for the parties exchanged e-mail correspondence beginning on May 4, 2023, and continued their discussions through correspondence after that. On May 12, 2023, the Court indicated that it “anticipates giving the parties 11 hours of trial time per side, exclusive of 30 minutes of openings and 30 minutes of closing per side.”
Plaintiff’s Position: Plaintiff proposes “narrowing the number of asserted claims in the T- Mobile case to 10 provided that T-Mobile narrows the total number of asserted prior art references (i.e., total anticipation references and/or obvious combinations) to 10. Though [its] understanding is that T- Mobile has already effectively narrowed the number of asserted prior references to 1.” VoIP-Pal believes that narrowing the number of asserted claims to 10 at this point is reasonable in light of the number of issues that remain in the case, which are not limited to the one prior art reference that Defendant intends to present at trial.
Defendant’s Position: Defendant has already narrowed its total number of prior art references (anticipation references and/or obviousness combinations) to 1 prior art system (the T-Mobile HotSpot @Home prior art system) and identified that 1 reference to Plaintiff. In light of the limited amount of trial time (where it cannot be seriously contemplated that 10 claims can be presented to the jury), and in light of its commitment to present only 1 prior art reference (its own prior art system) at trial, Plaintiff should narrow its number of asserted claims to 5. Plaintiff has refused this proposal.
Lol.
Lol…all excellent questions Rapz. I think Carnac’s head will explode and his turban will unravel after these thoughtful and important questions.
Good to know but you can’t really put much faith into after hours prices when looking at penny stocks. Many days you’ll see huge spreads between bid & ask prices after hours.
The 5 billion authorized shares do.
Right on DB! Totally agree with your points!
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so!”
~ Mark Twain
Wish reading comprehension was a skill better taught in schools!
“…Amazon is just a springboard to bigger and better deals down the road…”
Just a thought…even though there are many VERY wild dreams & speculative guesses of $2, $10, and even $50 per share, I personally don’t believe any agreement WITH AMAZON will provide that kind of bump to the share price. Dreaming is fine but we also need to remain realistic.
Not trying to be a downer here…I’m a 14-year long with many, many millions of shares and would LOVE that kind of payout but I really believe Amazon is just a springboard to bigger and better deals down the road with the main telecom companies…which is where the most infringements are happening!
Hate on me if you want…just keeping it real with my feet on the ground and head out of the clouds.
GLTA!
Just my
Nope…the info below he was asking for is only known at this time to those involved in the discussions.
“…does anyone know what is actually on the table over which the two parties could come to terms? Are you in possession of information regarding the financial details of this agreement…”
Who you asking for this info? If anyone has this it would be considered insider info and would be illegal to trade shares on.
Just to be clear…it was an official Waco court filing that announced the stay for an agreement in principle to the world not an investor relations firm. Lawyers don’t file false court docs unless they don’t want their law license much longer.
Right on Rapz.
Welcome back and well stated.
There’s NOT A SINGLE FIRM on Wall Street that covers penny stocks which is why there are no Wall Street firms covering VPLM…YET!
Once word gets out about the Bigs settling lawsuits, paying royalties/licensing fees, and VPLM PPS gets into dollar land, EVERY Wall Street firm will have eyes on VPLM and have something to say.
Heard it here on 5/9 @ 11:47 EST. Mark it!
Got it. Thanks for the explanation.
I know you’re calculating royalties per year but that would depend on the number of devices, no?
Interesting take but wouldn’t any royalty/licensing be calculated in a per unit of infringing device basis and not on share counts?
Right on Rapz! You KNOW the patent system well! As always, thanks for your insights.
Agreed and feel a licensing deal could be the springboard for the future. Licensing creates cash flow, cash flow builds profits, consistent profits increase PPS, sustained higher PPS provides opportunity to up list to NASDAQ, being on NASDAQ can lead to institutional investors taking large positions, institutional investors attract more public attention & main stream press coverage, press coverage builds sustained momentum leading much higher PPS & success over time!
Right on SO!
Been here over 10 years and have experienced the euphoria of an great PPS run & multiple wins at PTAB and also experienced the absolute brutal & rapid decline in PPS on perception of a loss, bad court ruling, and increases in OS count. Through all those highs & lows, I’ve tried to remain true to my original reason for investing in a substantial position with VPLM. That reason was because I read every patent & still believe they have the goods!
We’ve heard a lot this week about a settlement in principle and everyone is speculating it may be a possible buyout (immediate satisfaction) or licensing deal (longer term play/future satisfaction). Now think if VPLM-Amazon deal as s baseball game and answer this question….
If VPLM were batting with bases loaded, are you pulling for an immediate 4 runs with a grand slam or are you hoping for a string of base hits that score 1 or 2 runs per hit? Me…I’m pulling for the base hit (ie licensing) and have VPLM 1st & 3rd the defendants to run up the score big time. Sure takes longer to score runs & win but much more sustainable than 1 hit for 4 runs!
Just something to ponder.
Settlement agreement as in future licensing? Don’t think VPLM will just slap them on the wrist and let Amazon off by paying for past infringement only.
True but that was a week before the motion for stay when we learned there was a potential deal with Amazon. If you haven’t been watching DPLM has been financing their lawsuit through dilution of shares out of necessity. If anybody’s worried about delusion, they’re focused on the wrong thing.
What the hell are you talking about? There was no increasing outstanding shares.
No problem. The court could have denied the motion but typically won’t when both parties file a joint motion agreeing to some request.
Odds are, the court is/was well aware this was in the works since the court is usual involved/facilitating/encouraging settlement/agree between parties if there is possibility of amicably resolving a case.
One correction…it’s not the court’s language…it’s the mutually agreed upon language from VPLM & Amazon in THEIR JOINT MOTION filed with the court.
Agree this is a very positive development. After all, if one party disagrees why would they allow the other to file a co-signed court document?
Lol…even a broken clock is correct 2 times a day. Nobody can HONESTLY say they saw this stay coming due to potential settlement coming using technical analysis!
Good point…should have said at most not at least.
Hope you’re correct. Shorter is better but they can take up to 45 days and people should set their expectations based on court filings.
No clue. Guessing we won’t know until any details become public. DB says all the time, and I agree, VPLM isn’t going to negotiate in public. We need to be patient for at least 45 more days.
Exactly! At the very least, I would guess Albright has had his magistrate judge kept in the loop or involved throughout the process.
One other point, this is a Stay, because the parties jointly agreed that they have a settlement. As with any negotiation, something could come up at the last minute and derail it, but I personally believe that highly unlikely in this case.
Standard boiler plate legal language. They already have an agreement in principle, which means they already have a framework for what what the settlement will look like. The leave is to iron out and document the details. The court is always going to proceed cautiously until the final deal is signed.
Here’s the order:
Text Order GRANTING 128 Motion to Stay Case entered by Judge Alan D Albright. Before the Court is the Parties Joint Motion to Stay the case for forty-five days. Having considered the motion, the Court finds that the motion should be GRANTED. All deadlines in the case are hereby stayed for forty-five days. If the case is not settled and closed by the end of forty-five days, the parties are directed to file a joint status report within seven days. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court.
Case officially stayed in Waco. Order just hit docket.
Butter…damn it, now that’s impossible because they never have reached any settlement in the past and VPLM would be $ 50 a share if they weren’t a patent troll. Lololol!
We’ve all heard that somewhere but just can’t remember where.
ROTFLMAO!