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.
Long before filing lawsuits in Nevada against AAPL, VZ, T, and TWTR in 2017-2018 time frame, VPLM estimated infringements at $9B as of 2017.
At 200-220 million AAPL iphone sales growth/yr, doubt it still will be $9B. For 9 defendants?
There are experts specializing in reasonable infringement recovery and amounts.
NS,
Digging into the venue transfer issue, found Judge Albright's order on inter-district transfer that may be helpful.
https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/Standing%20Orders/Waco/Albright/Standing%20Order%20Regarding%20Motion%20For%20Inter%20District%20Transfer%20032321.pdf
STANDING ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR INTER-DISTRICT TRANSFER
"Henceforth, all parties who have filed motion(s) for inter-district transfer are required to provide the Court with a status report with respect to whether the motion(s) has been fully briefed and ready for resolution no later than six weeks prior to the date of the Markman hearing that is scheduled in that case. With respect to any parties who have such motion(s) pending at the time of the entry of this Standing Order and a Markman hearing scheduled for a date that is less than 6 weeks from the date of the entry of this Order, the Court ORDERS the party who has filed the motion to provide the same status report as quickly as is reasonable, but in no case more than five business days after the entry of this Order."
For May 17 Markman hearing, the status report should have been provided to the the Court by April 5 to meet the six week deadline. There has been no hearing nor ruling on venue so far.
By the way, a district court judge's has the discretionary 1404(a) transfer decision.
If you like to get into "the weeds of the venue issue" the following article talks about two cases specific to Judge Albright. Judge Albright denied transfer in both cases. One of the two cases went to Supreme Court. Judge Albright is hates "docket congestion" and wants to move fast with the cases to end in 18-24 months.
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/1068590/should-i-stay-or-can-i-go-recent-developments-regarding-venue-transfer-in-the-western-district-of-texas
United States: Should I Stay Or Can I Go: Recent Developments Regarding Venue Transfer In The Western District Of Texas
14 May 2021
imo,
Court procedures are highly structured and sometimes laborious. It one step at a time, each time both a defendant and the plaintiff gets a chance to prove their case. A simple example: so many postponements of Markman hearings, May 17, 26, 31, June 2, etc. Similar steps would be followed during Discovery, etc. Judge Albright seems to be fair and accommodates all parties, not like the clueless woman in NDCal.
Therefore one can never predict how and when an event will occur and to whose favor. Keep an open mind.
HayDay,
Agree. Remember the clueless woman ruled Alice without going through Claim Construction?
She even issued a Declaratory Judgement ruling to help move the 606 RBR patent case from Waco to NDCal. It helped AAPL and the gang to transfer the case to NDCal. The clueless woman is no longer there to do similar favors. Judge Albright stayed those cases until now.
Now the same 606 RBR patent case is back, being part of MG patent cases in Claim Construction, Markman hearing, Discovery. We wait for the Judge to rule. If infringements are confirmed, before the ruling is made public, there is room for some defendants to negotiate for settlement amounts. Those that disagree with Judge Albright's ruling may opt for a jury trial. Good luck with Texas jury!
Isn't it unusual that Judge Albright has scheduled only a half day for the Markman hearing and hearings for all defendants at 9 AM?
A writ of Mandamus is filed after District Court judge denies transfer. Has anyone seen such a ruling from Judge Albright?
Markman Hearings and claim construction are in full swing. Is there is a special court procedure that allows filing a writ of Mandamus without cause?
No one needs to negotiate now when claim construction, Markman hearings and Discovery are in progress. After claims are verified and infringements confirmed the judge rules. After the ruling, there is room for negotiation. Or parties may opt to proceed to jury trials. Reminder: Plaintiff (VPLM) won 12-0 at PTAB.
Yes. MG case was postponed to next Tuesday. RBR case is still on this Thursday.
Some believed RBR (606) case will not be argued in Waco, maybe because of a clueless judge's Alice ruling in NDCal.
Certain RBR claims are tied to MG patents. It is all spelled out there in the patents. Judge Albright seems to take one step at a time and understand the RBR IP and claims first. Wait and watch.
Yes. That is what was said in the last post.
RBR is not rescheduled. Only MG hearing is postponed to next Tuesday.
Butters,
if you see "green shoots", it is not a dream!
Not RBR
1) A recent one-sentence summary on PACER is misleading.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/40777695/VOIPPALCOM,_INC_v_AMAZONCOM,_INC_et_al
Opposed MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Brief Regarding New Disclosure from VoIP-Pal that Supports Amazon's Motion to Transfer by AMAZON.COM. INC., Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC.(Shvodian, Daniel)
The phrase "... New Disclosure from VoIP-Pal that Supports Amazon's Motion to Transfer..." sounds as if VPLM supports AMZN's motion to transfer. How can this be?
Digging further into past filings and the case history reveals quite the opposite. VPLM has been consistently opposing defendants' attempts to transfer out of Waco. It appears that VPLM attempted to file a Supplemental Brief opposing AMZN's recent motion to transfer. As expected AMZN opposed it!
A realistic picture could be that "...AMZN opposed VPLM's motion to File a Supplemental Brief refuting AMZN's motion to transfer..."
"Opposed" doesn't mean that the Judge accepted or granted transfer to AMZN.
2) No venue ruling so far. But Claim Construction has been proceeding as part of the impending Markman hearing on May 26. This reality is contrary to the opinion that a venue ruling must precede Claim Construction and Markman hearing. No idea when and if a venue ruling will come. Watch and wait.
3) Proxies in May 26 Markman hearing -
The first Markman hearing on the T-Mobile case scheduled at 10:30 AM May 26 could be a proxy for other telecom companies like ATT and VZ.
The second Markman hearing on the FB/WhatsApp in the afternoon could be a proxy for APPL viz. VOIP phone and video calls, video chats, etc.
3) If Markman hearing is over in a day, Discovery could begin next day on May 27 according to Judge Albright's Scheduling Order.
4) Magistrate judge Gilliland is handling the two IP infringement cases against Samsung and Huawei.
MARKMAN HEARING - MAY 26, 2022 10:30 AM
WA:21-CV-00674: VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. vs. T-Mobile USA, Inc. (May 13, 2022)
Thursday, May 26, 2022, Waco District Courtroom #1
10:30 AM MARKMAN HEARING
WA:20-CV-00267: VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. vs. Meta Platforms, Inc., WHATSAPP, INC.
Thursday, May 26, 2022, Waco District Courtroom #1
1:30 PM MARKMAN HEARING
91 order Order ~Util - Set Hearings ~Util - Set/Reset Deadlines Fri 05/13 2:42 PM
ORDER Resetting Markman Hearing by Zoom for 5/26/2022 01:30 PM before Judge Alan D Albright.
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Facebook, Inc. et al
WA:20-CV-00269: VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. vs. Google LLC
WA:20-CV-00272: VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. vs. Amazon.Com, Inc., Amazon Technologies, Inc., Amazon.com Services, LLC, Amazon Web Services, Inc.
May 10, 2022
Case #: 6:21-cv-01247 VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Huawei Technologies Co., LTD et al Judge: Alan D Albright
Referred: Magistrate Judge - Derek T Gilliland
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. Referral Magistrate Judge: Derek T. Gilliland. (bot2)
May 10, 2022
Case #: 6:21-cv-01246 VOIP-PAL.com.Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd et al Judge: Alan D Albright
Referred: Magistrate Judge - Derek T Gilliland
19 order Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge Mon 05/09 11:18 AM
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Derek T. Gilliland. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (bot2)
No Venue Ruling yet!
Butters,
VPLM (Emil and others) estimated infringement damages for AAPL, T, VZ, and TWTR at $9 Billion in 2016. ( A detailed analysis is on their web site.) In about the same time around 2016-2017 they met AAPL and other defendants to explain the technology, their patents, possible infringements and offered licensing options. They were ignored or refused. That is when they sued them in Nevada. Unfortunately, the great Heartland case came along and, at the height of wisdom as usual, the SCOTUS issued a Venue ruling. VPLM had to move to NDCal and ended up with the clueless monkey woman. (Venue ruling has zilch to do intellectual property rights.)
When the Judge and jury are presented with the evidence of VPLM's licensing discussions with defendants and defendants' outright refusal to license but steal the technology for their profit, is it not a willful infringement? No brainer?
Between 2017 and 2022 there was a news article in GlobeNewswire about the 2016 damages for AAPL, VZ, T and TWTR have increased substantially.
SCHEDULING ORDER, CRSR, Claim Construction - Part II
A few points of interest to investors.
1) Part I: Venue Transfer - Contrary to some investors' belief, Judge Albright has proceeded with Claim Construction preparation as early as Nov 16, 2021, instead of issuing a final Venue Transfer ruling.
Markman hearing is scheduled for half-day on May 17. Next day, May 18, DISCOVERY begins. Google and FB keep trying for venue transfer to NDCal.
In the meanwhile, Judge Albright has been sticking to his Scheduling Order as described below and confirmed on PACER.
Scheduling Order:
The Court GRANTS the parties Joint Motion to Lift Stay and enters the following schedule:
SCHEDULING ORDER https://www.voip-pal.com/_files/ugd/c4fad6_b8256ae633a9445ea977c4d6648dcee6.pdf
PACER - Case 6:20-cv-00267-ADA Document 52 Filed 11/09/21
(A condensed version of the Scheduling Order is given below for reference.)
2) CRSR - Case Readiness Status Report
It literally means parties are ready with documents and all to proceed with the case.
04/18 9:22 PM STATUS REPORT REGARDING CASE READINESS by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. vs Huawei Technologies Co., LTD
04/18 6:00 PM STATUS REPORT REGARDING CASE READINESS by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC vs Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd
Sch. Order:
"Once the CRSR has been filed, the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) shall be deemed to occur fourteen (14) days after the filing date of the CRSR." That would put us May 6-8 for the CMC to begin.
Next comes the crucial part.
Sch. Order:
"Plaintiff shall also identify the priority date (i.e. the earliest date of invention) for each asserted claim and produce: (1) all documents evidencing conception and reduction to practice for each claimed invention, and (2) a copy of the file history for each patent in suit."
Sch. Order: 1. the earliest date of invention
Eleven RBR patents: over a span of 14 years, starting with a patent application as early as 2009 for the work in 2003-2004. ( 2009 RBR patent Application No. W00 2009 01165, US8542815 2013-09-24, US8774378 (B2) 2014-07-08, US9137385 (B2) 2015-09-15, US9179005 (B2) 2015-11-03 US9537762 (B2) 2017-01-03, US9813330 (B2) 2017-11-07, US9826002 (B2) 2017-11-21, US9935872 (B2) 2018-04-03, US9998363, US10218606 (B2) 2019-02-26)
Two Mobile Gateway technology patents over six years starting with US8630234 (B2) 2014-01-14 and US10,880,721 2020-12-29.
Patents in suit:
a) US 8,630,234, Jan. 14, 2014 Mobile Gateway (Emil Malak is listed as one of the inventors)
b) US 10,880,721 Dec. 29, 2020 Mobile Gateway (Emil Malak is listed as one of the inventors)
c) US 10,218,606 Feb. 26, 2019 RBR - PRODUCING ROUTING MESSAGES FOR VOICE OVER IP COMMUNICATIONS
Why the RBR patent is listed above?
When it was posted in the past that RBR would be included in the Waco MG patent cases, some dismissed the idea. They probably assumed that RBR is a separate a piece of paper, unfit for inclusion here, due to problems with the Alice ruling by a clueless woman of NDCal.
Why it is included here? The answer is that the RBR patent was the new technology that led to the development of additional technologies like Mobile Gateway. As the company continued with technology development, the RBR technology formed the foundation for new technologies and is now part of prior art. That is how a family of patents in the new VOIP-based communication technology area are developed. The Judge seems to understand this because he did not cite Alice law from the outset like a clueless woman. Maybe the Alice issue might be reviewed at a later stage if needed or the discovery step might make the Alice issue irrelevant. Wait and watch.
How RBR is related to MG patents? RBR is a technology that provides a method to connect a caller's smart phone with a callee's smart phone via the internet (WiFi) using the internet protocol: IP address, MAC address, etc. Prior to this method, people were dialing numbers on their cell phone for access to a number outside of the local phone network, or outside of a state or outside of the country, using prefixes like "9", "8", 01", etc. The call is then routed to a central switching station where the calls are connected by a mechanical switchboard or an electronic "switchboard" to complete the call. RBR eliminates these mechanical or electronic switching step and passes a string of numbers (IP address of caller- IP address of callee, MAC address, etc., into lines of code, without dialing prefixes) via the ISP's server where the call match is made almost "instantly" on the device.
MG patent technology is built upon the RBR patent. RBR connects two people with smart phones using the internet protocol (without the need for dialing prefixes). When the callee moves away from home (or away from the IP address of home WiFi network), the caller can not connect. We need GPS coordinates to locate the callee's phone location.
US govt. provides free GPS for the development of maps and navigation software, etc. On the iPhone when the user allows the ISP to access the phone's location, the GPS tracks the device and stores the up-to-date GPS coordinates in the form of "latitude and longitude angles" that define the precise location of a point on the globe. MG patent teaches how to access and use those coordinates stored on the ISP's server connected to the callee, and connects to callee's phone to compete the call instantly.
Sch. Order: 2. documents evidencing conception and reduction to practice for each claimed invention
This is a crucial part of the case where the asserted claims and infringements are confirmed or rejected. The chance of winning the case depends upon a convincing evidence and a history of "reduction to practice" records.
If Judge Albright sticks to a similar analysis of patents he may lean favorably to MG patent. Nothing is guaranteed. Wait and watch.
Claim construction requires a review of the patent's (a) intrinsic evidence and, (b) when appropriate, extrinsic evidence.
Phillips standard for claim construction:
The Phillips standard differs by requiring that claims be given their ordinary and customary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, by considering the claims, specification, and prosecution history, as well as evidence extrinsic to the patent, when construing patent claims (Nov 25, 2020). It appears that Mr. Hudnell is using the Phillips standard: "ordinary and customary meaning". But in the event of questions about the meaning of words used in the claim, "the inventor’s lexicography governs”, because new inventions need new but relevant words with meaning to define the invention. For example, terminology like "pots" used by the telephone exchange operators like ATT, VZ, et al. are not relevant to RBR patent use of IP address, etc.
(a) Intrinsic evidence
In any organization involved in technology development, guided by patent attorneys or a patent department, researchers are required to record their daily development activity viz. experiments, positive or negative results, failed attempts, drawings, sketches, etc. on each page, consecutively numbered, in a bound notebook, each page signed and dated by the researcher, and witnessed by a colleague or another researcher familiar with the technology or drug being developed, (not a friend or any non-technical person, or a "gardener" as claimed by FB). The records may be written in ink by hand and the associated computer records, etc. These notebooks are sequential to confirm continuity of the effort and they are used in the patent application. Relevant records are subject to verification by patent examiners at the time of patent application, when needed. This stage refers to reduction to practice and it continues until successful finalization of technology development, a proto type demonstrated, and claims summarized in a patent application. The application step may involve a detailed discussion of legal and business issues by the management. These notebooks are stored in the company vault for years. This intrinsic evidence should convince Judge Albright and a jury. These records can not be duplicated and matched with "dated history" by defendants.
Infringers do not have such records and can not produce records with "time history", dated signatures and witnesses. If infringers do not produce these records, did they steal the technology after reading the published patent? The patent law requires the inventors to teach their inventions in the patent so that practitioners experienced in the related art can follow the methods described by the inventors, perform the tests and get the same result as in the claims of the original patent. That is how the patent law works. Outside of patent law, attorneys throw roadblocks like venue transfer, first to file, subject matter jurisdiction, declaratory judgement, etc. that have the nothing to do with a patent process.
(b) Extrinsic evidence
In some cases, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during the relevant time period.
Extrinsic evidence consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert and inventor testimony (e.g., Emil), dictionaries, and learned treatises. Remember a patent examiner performs all these tasks with cooperation from the applicant. Why re-invent the wheel? A judge that understands the patent law and exprience with patents, should know this.
Prior art - Extensive reviews of prior art is a critical aspect when filing a patent application. The patent examiner wants to ensure that your invention is not duplicating a published invention (a la Alice law). VPLM 721' MG patent of 2020 yr lists almost 4000 citations on 19 pages out of 61 pages. The company goes overboard in citing prior art, because they want to cover every "crack" that could later be argued against the patent.
Finally, “the claim construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.”
Infringers attempt to misuse the claim construction process to invalidate the patents-in-suit and escape patent infringement liability and violate basic claim construction principles.
The Court intends to set aside one half day for the Markman hearing; live tutorial, it should be: (1) directed to the underlying technology (rather than argument related to infringement or validity), and (2) limited to 15 minutes per side at the start of the Markman hearing.
7 days before CMC, Plaintiff serves preliminary infringement contentions each asserted claim and produce: (1) all documents evidencing conception and reduction to practice for each claimed invention, and (2) a copy of the file history for each patent in suit."
SCHEDULED ORDER
Claim Construction
November 16, 2021 - Plaintiff shall serve preliminary infringement contentions in the form of a chart setting forth where in the accused product(s) each element of the asserted claim(s) are found.
Plaintiff shall also identify the priority date (i.e., the earliest date of invention) for each asserted claim and produce: (1) all documents evidencing conception and reduction to practice for each claimed invention, and (2) a copy of the file history for each patent in suit.
(The above are the most crucial parts of any patent case: (1) earliest date of invention for each asserted claim (compare dates)
(2) all documents evidencing conception and reduction to practice for each claimed invention (a lab notebook of numbered pages, each page witnesses by an colleague familiar with the art, spouse, friends not familiar with the art can not be witnesses. These notebooks are preserved by the company for years.
January 25, 2022 Defendant shall serve preliminary invalidity contentions in the form of (1) a chart setting forth where in the prior art references each element of the asserted claim(s) are found, (2) an identification of any limitations the Defendant contends are indefinite or lack written description under section 112, and (3) an identification of any claims the Defendant contends are directed to ineligible subject matter under section 101. Defendant shall also produce (1) all prior art referenced in the invalidity contentions and (2) technical documents, including software where applicable, sufficient to show the operation of the accused product(s).
February 8, 2022 Parties exchange claim terms for construction.
February 22, 2022 Parties exchange proposed claim constructions.
March 1, 2022 Parties disclose extrinsic evidence. The parties shall disclose any extrinsic evidence, including the identity of any expert witness. The parties may amend preliminary infringement contentions and preliminary invalidity contentions without leave of court so long as counsel certifies that it undertook reasonable efforts to prepare its preliminary contentions and the amendment is based on material identified after those preliminary contentions were served, and should do so seasonably upon identifying any such material. Any amendment to add patent claims requires leave of court so that the Court can address any scheduling issues.
Date Event they may rely upon with respect to claim construction or indefiniteness. With respect to any expert identified, the parties shall identify the scope of the topics for the witness’s expected testimony. With respect to items of extrinsic evidence, the parties shall identify each such item by production number or produce a copy of any such item if not previously produced.
March 8, 2022 Deadline to meet and confer to narrow terms in dispute and exchange revised list of terms/constructions.
March 8, 2022 Defendant files Opening claim construction brief, including any arguments that any claim terms are not indefinite.
April 5, 2022 Plaintiff files Responsive claim construction brief.
=========
04/08 - 04/22
04/08 11:14 PM Reply Claim Construction Brief regarding Claim Construction Brief, by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Facebook, Inc.
04/08 11:18 PM Reply Claim Construction Brief regarding Claim Construction Brief, by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Google LLC
==========
April 19, 2022 Defendant files a Reply claim construction brief.
May 3, 2022 Plaintiff files a Sur-Reply claim construction brief
May 6, 2022 Parties submit Joint Claim Construction Statement. See General Issues Note #9 regarding providing copies of the briefing to the Court and the technical adviser (if appointed).
May 10, 2022 Parties submit optional technical tutorials to the Court and technical adviser (if appointed).
May 17, 2022 Markman Hearing at 9:00 a.m. This date is a placeholder, and the Court may adjust this date as the Markman hearing approaches.
May 18, 2022 Fact Discovery opens; deadline to serve Initial Disclosures per Rule 26(a)
June 28, 2022 Deadline to add parties.
July 12, 2022 Deadline to serve Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. After this date, leave of Court is required for any amendment to Infringement or Invalidity contentions. This deadline does not relieve the Parties of their obligation to seasonably amend if new information is identified after initial contentions.
September 6, 2022 Deadline to amend pleadings. A motion is not required unless the amendment adds patents or patent claims. (Note: This includes amendments in response to a 12(c) motion.)
November 15, 2022 Deadline for the first of two meet and confers to discuss significantly narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior art references at issue. Unless the parties agree to the narrowing, they are ordered to contact the Court’s Law Clerk to arrange a teleconference with the Court to resolve the disputed issues.
December 2, 2022 Close of Fact Discovery.
December 9, 2022 Opening Expert Reports.
January 10, 2023 Rebuttal Expert Reports.
February 7, 2023 Close of Expert Discovery.
February 14, 2023 Deadline for the second of two meet and confer to discuss narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior art references at issue to triable limits.
======= END
Great news! Thanks for posting.
Thanks, Drumming, for the heads up on FB.
I am trying to finish Part II on Claim construction. I see that the judge is already "stealing" the thunder. Note: He has not ruled on venue transfer yet.
Defendants' strategy of getting a declaratory judgement or Alice motion is losing.
Venue Transfer - Part I
A few points of interest to investors:
1) Some believed that venue ruling should come first before proceeding with the Markman hearing, Claim construction, etc. If Albright denies venue transfer the cases will stay in Waco and that may boost VPLM stock because Albright could rule in VPLM favor. The assumption could be premature.
What is happening? So far, no venue ruling! Hint: It is Judge Albright's court. He makes decisions and follows his schedule just like the clueless woman ruled Declaratory Judgement a few years ago and helped transfer the 606 patent case from Albright's court.
Defendants keep trying for a venue transfer, trying similar tricks like those used by AAPL and the gang.
Pacer - VENUE TRANSFER
03/28 3:23 PM STATUS REPORT Regarding Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of California by Meta Platforms, Inc., WhatsApp LLC.
04/19 2:48 PM STATUS REPORT REGARDING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) by Google LLC
04/25 11:10 PM SUPPLEMENT to Sealed Document Proposed Order by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
STATUS REPORT REGARDING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) by Google LLC.
But the claim construction started 04/08. How can that be? It is Albright's court and his schedule.
2) Claim Construction Brief
Yes, Claim construction started 04/08 before the venue ruling is issued:
04/08 11:14 PM Reply Claim Construction Brief regarding Claim Construction Brief, by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Facebook, Inc.
04/08 11:18 PM Reply Claim Construction Brief regarding Claim Construction Brief, by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Google LLC
04/22 9:49 PM Reply Claim Construction Brief regarding Claim Construction Brief, by Meta Platforms, Inc., WhatsApp LLC.
Apr 21, 2022 Claim Construction Brief
04/22 9:16 PM Reply Claim Construction Brief regarding Claim Construction Brief, by Google LLC
April 22, 2022 Defendants' Reply Claim Construction Brief regarding Claim Construction Brief,, by Amazon Web Services, Inc., Amazon.Com, Inc., Amazon.com Services, LLC.
Defendants even replied to the claim construction brief filed by the plaintiff VPLM. Albright allowed claim construction to proceed before ruling on the venue transfer. Check out the SCHEDULING ORDER!
Pacer - Case 6:20-cv-00267-ADA Document 52 Filed 11/09/21 The Court GRANTS the parties Joint Motion to Lift Stay and enters the following schedule: (more about the SCHEDULING ORDER later)
FB tried lame excuses for the inability of certain witnesses to travel to Waco, like non-technical workers as witnesses. Their lawyers do not seem to understand a patent, due diligence, reduction to practice, or the patent law overall.
Regarding MG patents, the clueless woman ruled against defendants, excluding MG patent from a family of RBR patents. Since then, the defendants are losing hope. Mr. Hudnell clearly pointed out the Alice ruling on RBR patents was a misapplication of the law, a la the non-obviousness issue. Also, those on the Appeals bench did not get it either with the exception of Justice Reyna. Many judges and attorneys in US Courts do not seem to really understand the crux of patent laws or the relevant technology associated with patents being argued. They keep making arguments to prolong trials, costing money and time.
Judge Albright shows an understanding of technology. He is open to hear testimonies from technology experts during claim construction and discovery.
If the case proceeds on Albright's schedule, expect CRSR, claim construction, May 17 Markman hearing, followed by Discovery starting right after a half-day of Markman hearing on May 17.
Albright venue transfer ruling may come any day or just before May 17 Markman hearing or whenever he decides. Defendants are stuck!
If venue transfer is denied, it may be too late in the game for the defendants to take next steps viz. filing a writ of mandamus for transfer or continue in Waco with discovery and figure out infringements.
Ruling on a writ of mandamus may take 1-3 months. In 2-3 months after the Markman hearing, the case could have proceeded beyond the discovery stage, infringements identified, etc.
If the defendants win the writ of mandamus, are they going to pack up all their Waco court records and go to NDCal and start from scratch? Watch what happens.
Next, Scheduling order, CRSR, Claim construction, etc. - Part II
>>...Real news coming soon...<<
Recent trading and price fluctuations seem to confirm your prediction.
1-2 weeks?
Markman hearing starts May 17. Albright keeps the venue ruling on "hold" until the last minute. Maybe he has a good reason!
After the Markman hearing, judge Albright will gain a good understanding of the MG patent technology. He would wonder why RBR patent was not included.
Bother to elaborate and help us understand the type of help he provides? Why only a year? You think the case will be over then?
The public does not look in the nooks and corners inside VPLM. He is new to Judge Albright in Waco.
Order -
" ORDER GRANTING80 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Sean Franklin Parmenter. Attorney added for VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order,..."
Public knowledge is what matters to court watchers. Help us by sharing more about Sean's successful cases and wins? What is Internet Law and its role here?
In the last post we pointed out a need to add more legal staff to handle the amount of legal work in Waco, arguing several cases, approaching Claim Construction phase of the hearing.
That just happened. Meet the new Internet Attorney on the VPLM team.
SEAN FRANKLIN PARMENTER
Internet Law attorney from Walnut Creek, CA. Licensed for 18 years.
California, Walnut Creek, Internet Law
https://www.ask4justice.com/attorney/sean-franklin-parmenter-ca-1439029
Sean Franklin Parmenter is practicing law since 2003 (currently in Walnut Creek) and has over 18 years of experience in Internet Law and related legal activities. Sean Franklin Parmenter is a lawyer who handle cases in Patent Prosecution & Counseling, Intellectual Property Law, Internet Law, Technology & Science and related legal areas.
DB
Thanks for posting Eileen's article. She has been keenly watching VPLM lawsuits.
Mandamus denial -
Its impact is not negative. The court pointed out:
1) mandamus is the last resort
2) the last resort is not warranted now since your Motion to dismiss TWTR II or III has been already scheduled for hearing in Donato's court. Wait for the conclusion of those motions and decide (to go further with Mandamus.)
Albright's favorable ruling in Waco: (as someone read it over the phone)
Specific examples of Google's infringing apps were missing in VPLM's statement of infringement or invalidity contentions, (a step preceding Claim Construction). Google wanted VPLM to include those specifics and resubmit in 14 days; therefore Google wanted Albright to postpone claim construction date.
Albright declined to postpone. He went further and explained the issue to VPLM. VPLM will include the required changes and resubmit within 14 days. Back on track!
Looks like the MG patent suit against all 7 defendants is progressing. RBR is likely to enter the picture at the appropriate time; 606 patent is still around. VPLM may soon need additional litigation attorneys and a separate group of experts working on infringement damages with or without a jury trial.
Aside - TWTR II or III case in NDCal may take 12-16 months. In 12-14 months Waco cases will end. VPLM will have nothing to do with NDCal after the TWTR case is over.
3/14:
Claim Construction Briefs - MG patent
- Google
- Amazon
Expecting claims from RBR patents to come up sooner or later, since RBR is more fundamental to MG patent.
(1) RBR connects caller with callee over smart phones at a specific location (e.g. like a landline connection).
(2) MG locates and connects a callee anywhere on the globe.
Where will be the venue for Samsung and Huawei? In Eastern District of Texas, patent infringement cases were successfully finished in favor of an Texas company vs. a UK company. Wait and watch.
Agree that Markman hearing will expose defendants' vulnerabilities and their liabilities. Even if defendants are quick to settle, VPLM may choose to await the end of hearing so that all claims are checked and confirmed.
After the Markman hearing, Albright's concluding remarks normally give a hint whether the case would go in VPLM's favor. In discovery, the bottom line is to confirm the no. of claims infringed, etc. Out comes, a set of claims and specific damages. These steps could happen simultaneously.
A good thing is that VPLM has come this far. jmo.
Investor expectations of the Waco hearing can better be served by knowing what Markman hearing is all about. It is not a settlement, nor revealing source codes, etc. Those events can not happen until infringement is confirmed by judge or jury.
For example, in the MG patent case, a term called "location identifier" is used on smart phones. Apple calls it "location identifier" but VPLM MG patent calls it by a different name. Are these two same?
"Patience is a virtue." jmo.
Markman Hearing: What Is It?
https://www.upcounsel.com/markman-hearing
A Markman hearing is a court hearing in which a judge determines the meaning of disputed words in a patent infringement lawsuit. A Markman hearing is also known as a construction hearing. When a judge determines the meaning of the disputed words, it's called claim construction.
To determine patent infringement, a jury must fully understand the definition of words used in the patent. A patented invention must be described with precise wording on its patent application. This wording and the defined definitions from the Markman hearing is what jurists use to determine if patent infringement has occurred.
Butters,
Agreed.
Heard that he does not entertain motions and appeals that waste time. Looks like he is pretty much on schedule for the Markman hearing. He values IPR rulings from PTAB. Wait and watch.
B,
>>...gives patent owners a fair shake and doesn't like transferring cases out of WACO..<<
Well said.
Those familiar with AlBright's past arguments vs. AAPL, know he charged AAPL for forum shopping. A clueless judge blamed VPLM for the same thing when she was asked to dismiss VPLM cases in NDCal.
Yes, in excess of 5 Million is significant. Possible reasons could be the recent Writ of Mandamus.
In the petition, VoIP-Pal seeks relief from the Court “to stop Twitter’s manipulative and harassing practices.”
Twitter’s response to the petition is due by January 31, 2022 and
VoIP-Pal’s reply is due by February 3, 2022.
If CAFC rules in favor of VPLM, that will be positive! Wait and see!
The petition has been posted on the Company’s website www.voip-pal.com
Highlights below:
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Mandamus Is Warranted Because The District Court Exceeded The Proper Scope Of Its Jurisdiction By Not Dismissing Twitter II ... 14
1. The district court’s conclusion that the 2016 NDCAL cases constituted an affirmative act as to the ’872 patent was clearly erroneous ..... 14
2. The district court ignored facts showing that there was no active controversy regarding the ’872 patent at the time Twitter filed suit .. 18
3. The district court abused its discretion by giving dispositive weight to prior litigation on related patents.
Who was the district court judge? The clueless one?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/voip-pal-files-petition-writ-100000575.html
VoIP-Pal Files a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
The Company seeks to overturn a Northern District of California’s order denying dismissal of a declaratory-judgment action filed by Twitter
WACO, Texas, Jan. 27, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) announces that on January 20, 2022, the Company filed a petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), challenging the decisions of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in a declaratory-judgment action filed by Twitter: Twitter, Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 5:21-cv-02769. The case name and number for the petition is In re: Voip-Pal.com, Inc., No. 22-123.
The Company is asking the CAFC to reverse the district court’s order denying VoIP-Pal’s motion to dismiss the underlying declaratory-judgment action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The declaratory-judgment action filed by Twitter involves VoIP-Pal’s Patent No. US 9,935,872. This patent has never been asserted by VoIP-Pal against Twitter.
WRIT OF MANDAMUS!
It is about time for TWTR and the clueless judge to get hit with this writ.
Wonder what the clueless judge's response will be? Just clueless as usual?
Hudnell tears it apart.
WRIT OF MANDAMUS (highlights)
Mandamus Is Warranted Because The District Court Exceeded The Proper Scope Of Its Jurisdiction By Not Dismissing Twitter II ... 14
1. The district court’s conclusion that the 2016 NDCAL cases constituted an affirmative act as to the ’872 patent was clearly erroneous ..... 14
2. The district court ignored facts showing that there was no active controversy regarding the ’872 patent at the time Twitter filed suit .. 18
3. The district court abused its discretion by giving dispositive weight to prior litigation on related patents.
PS - Thanks DB for posting it.
Thanks, Drumming.
The TMobile situation could be confusing. Glad you published the evidence.
"stipulation to cancel."
>>...Has anyone confirmed it with Rich?...<<
Yes!
Cancelled? Yes, but no evidence of discussions.
The issue was addressed in the last post:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=167618309
More clarity may come as we approach the Markman hearing around May and "discovery" commences afterward.
Kipping case:
Company should soon announce their successful conclusion of the Kipping case. The shares in question never left the company. The shares remained in the stock transfer agent's custody, safe on their books. Based on the final court order, one expects the company would clarify the final outcome and whether the those shares would return to the Treasury, just like all public corporations do. There was some confusion about this issue.
TWTR case:
If the upcoming case in Koh's court is for MG patent, it is frivolous for many reasons: (1) TWTR was not sued for MG patent violation. (2) TWTR was sued for the RBR violation, which was minimal compared to T, VZ and AAPL. (3) MG and RBR patents are separate. Even the clueless judge ruled it so. Does TWTR enable voice calls? When you make a long distance call inside US or overseas, you do not pay a long distance charge for that call to the phone company. MG patent makes it free by avoiding the call-switching tasks.
T-Mobile:
Several rumors are going around about the cancellation of cases. Cancellation of cases does not mean they are negotiating for a settlement unless and until the company declines to comment. Declining to comment on AAPL and T could mean they are in discussions but no one knows those discussions will end up in a positive settlement or go for a trial. Investors have no choice but to wait patiently.
Triple damages:
On the company web site, one could dig up a couple of infringement worksheets for AAPL, T and VZ. At 1.25% royalty rate and for various applications (voice call, video call, etc.) the total was approximately $6-9 billion excluding the punitive damages. A rumor is that judge Albright does not hesitate awarding the triple damages. Emil talks about face-to-face discussions with CEO's and technical officers of the current defendants in Waco (except may be T-Mobile and Huawei). These infringers reviewed VPLM's RBR and MG patents in early 2016-2017 or so and still went ahead and copied VPLM patents. Albright would think that a willful behavior of infringement deserves triple damages. jmo.
may be more than 200 claims between those two patents! It is normal for
inventors to cover all possible variations and combinations of their main idea.
Takes a few minutes to skim through through the claims section at the end.
Check the history of prior art and dates. Clueless judge hates patents!
More claims in 606 RBR patent too.
Apple tried venue change the hardest, arguing with Albright and going to the Fed Circuit Appeals and won. Fed Circuit is supposedly not happy with Albright's refusals.
In a similar vein, FB supposedly has been trying for a venue change. But look up the recent news.
https://www.businessinsider.com/meta-signs-lease-austin-texas-sixth-guadalupe-largest-skyscraper-property-2022-1#:~:text=Facebook%27s%20parent%20Meta%20just%20acquired%20589%2C000%20square%20feet,construction%20and%20due%20to%20be%20completed%20in%202023.
Why venue change if they will soon have 1000's of employees living in Austin where Albright's District Court is located?
Meta signs huge lease, allowing it to snap up 33 floors of Austin's soon-to-be largest skyscraper
Zahra Tayeb, Business Insider
Sun, January 9, 2022, 8:21 AM
Austin, Texas
Facebook's parent Meta will lease 589,000 square feet of office space in Austin, Texas.
Austin Business Journal reported that the leased space will be in the city's tallest building.
The 66-story skyscraper is still under construction and due to be completed in 2023.
Facebook's parent company Meta has signed a deal to snag a huge amount of extra office space in Austin, Texas.
Austin Business Journal recently reported that the company will lease the entire commercial section of Sixth and Guadalupe, a 66-floor tower that is still under construction.
The building is expected to be the city's largest and is due to be completed in 2023.
The deal, which took place on December 31, according to the outlet, appears to be the second-largest single office lease in the city. Meta will rent 589,000 square feet of office space across 33 floors of the property, it added.
Meta did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.
Katherine Shappley, head of Meta's Austin office and vice president for commerce customer success, told Austin Business Journal: "We first came to Austin over 10 years ago with just seven employees, now over 2,000 of us are proud to call Austin home. We're committed to Austin and look forward to growing here together."
Last December, Meta joined other major tech companies, including Google and Lyft, in delaying mandatory office returns, amid the rise of the Omicron variant.
The company still planned to forge ahead with the reopening of its offices on January 31, although it said it would give staff more flexibility over how they worked. As part of this move, workers would have the option to delay returning by three to five months.
The fact that the Transfer agent is holding the shares proves the point made ie., those shares are in the treasury. Check SEC rules or verify with Investor Relations on the issue of authorized share count change.
If the Board agrees with the final court ruling and finalizes the share count changes, the Transfer Agent will adjust the share count accordingly. A press release or SEC form usually follows and confirmed in the 10Q.
HD,
>>... hundred and forty million shares,come off of the authorized share count... <<
No, those shares will return to the company Treasury. The authorized share count will be unchanged, unless the company issues new shares. Not likely.
>>...I believe the Markman Hearing will be combined and trials on their own...<<
Yes, it is looking more likely to have a combined Markman hearing and separate trials, instead of waiting beyond 2023. Good to finish with trials by the end of 2023.
005/815 -
The company (Hudnell - CAFC) has been consistently saying "reserving their right to sue remaining hundreds of ‘005/‘815 RBR claims". Included is 606 patent case which is unique in that it was not rejected for Alice like 005/815. The first time 606 case appeared was in Waco, never argued in NDCal or Waco or rejected for Alice by Koh. All 606 claims are in "tact". No wonder Koh referred to (child) patents as "cancer" and hated patents.
Wait and see.
It was only a guess. Only Hudnell and Albright can confirm, not Investor Relations. We shall see what happens. Several weird events have happened in US courts, e.g., Koh's declaratory judgement.
Drumming,
A way both patents can be argued:
RBR makes it possible for a cell phone-call to connect to a specific cell phone that was called. The receiver of phone call could be at a home or some business location or a stationary location.
MG patent makes it possible to connect at a location away from home, or a few miles from home or thousands of miles across the globe, wherever the receiver phone is located. MG uses a location identifier attached to the contact name to locate the phone.
Hudnell can explain MG as a continuation of RBR or the next step from RBR.
May save time overall. jmo.