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.
thelimeyone,
Thanks for your kind words. Call it a soft corner for true, long time, fellow investors. It was worth the time spent. Too long but it was intended to cover all aspects.
Your point about momentum building when the news gets out is true. The news about the IPR wins moved the share price to 45 cents; the news was covered by all major financial media. A similar event is likely to occur as soon as the news about huge infringement award published by the court.
It is difficult to predict even if we have access to VPLM's most recent estimates. VPLM used a very low royalty rate to make the estimate realistic, counting each infringed item. Infringers will "negotiate" for almost zero damage. But the law is on plaintiff's side and the judge follows the law. Between VPLM's numbers and zero royalty, the judge has to find a number.
Suppose the judge awards $2-3 billion per defendant. For nine defendants we get $18-27 billion total on apportioned basis. Apportionment issue is arguable. If the jury concludes willfulness, which is likely, Judge Albright may escalate the jury award three times. $90 billion TOTAL. AMZN's ecommerce business is huge, so is infringement award.
We have no idea unless it goes to trial and the jury awards a high number close to VPLM's estimate plus willfulness escalating it three times. Recall Intel vs. VLSI case award of $2.2 billion in Waco and no willfulness. Judge Albright awarded $2.2 billion. He would not have hesitated to escalate it three times to $6.6 billion if jury concluded willfulness. jmo.
Our hope is Judge Albright. Recall how cleverly he handled AMZN venue transfer petition. CAFC agreed with him citing almost all of Judge Albright's points. The hope is that he would handle infringement awards in a similar fashion and defendant appeals will be denied. jmo.
No.
Final ruling is Judge's call. Court order will be public, not intermediate steps or FMV's. Who wants to know, why?
here it is! it took a while to organize. Comments welcome!
Is there a maximum for patent infringement damages? No, says the Law.
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS
Patent Act Title 35 U.S.Code §284. Damages
Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court. When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154(d) of this title. The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances. (July 19, 1952, ch. 950, § 1, 66 Stat. 813.)
=======
ATTORNEY FEES AND COURT COSTS
US Supreme court ruled that the burden of proving infringement is on patent holder. Therefore a patent holder is entitled to compensation that includes all attorney fees, court costs and interest, all on inflation-adjusted basis.
https://www.infoworld.com/article/2609919/us-supreme-court--burden-of-proof-of-infringement-on-patent-holder.html
(Justice Stephen G. Breyer)
35 U.S.C. § 285 Attorney fees: The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.
=======
PATENT INFRINGEMENT DAMAGES = REASONABLE ROYALTY + LOST PROFITS
VPLM does not produce or sell any products. Therefore they do not have "lost sale profits" for compensation. VPLM's damages will be reasonable royalty revenues lost due to infringement.
Reasonable royalty is the most common form of patent infringement damages. Once an individual or entity is found to have infringed upon another’s patent, the court will decide 'FAIR MARKET VALUE' of a royalty license. This is typically done by creating a ‘HYPOTHETICAL NEGOTIATION' of a license to use the infringed technology/method where it is assumed the plaintiff and defendant both willingly enter into a licensing agreement negotiation prior to use. When envisioning this HYPOTHETICAL agreement, the court focuses on the time the infringement began.
At the beginning of the case last year, Judge Albright held a Case Management Conference that required all evidences of invention and infringement contentions, etc. before the Markman hearing. This process is highly EVIDENCE-BASED and experts will often be brought in to testify. The court will typically calculate the license of a single item’s FAIR MARKET VALUE and then multiply that calculation by how many items the defendant infringed (e.g. Cost of invention license: $100 x 500 units of infringed products/services sold = $50,000). This constitues a reasonable royalty.
=======
As of 2017, Apple has sold 1.16 billion iPhones. Apple's infringement began in 2010. The iPhones have contributed significantly to Apple’s several hundred billions of dollars in profits over the period 2010-2017. Emil Malak CEO of Voip-Pal stated, “We believe that our patents are utilized in each iPhone voice call and iMessage routed through legacy telephony or the internet."
APPL has been selling ca. 200-230 million iPhones/yr until now. Do the arithmetic. GOOG, Samsung, and Huawei produce and sell smart phones.
========
Initial Damages Calculations
May 15, 2017 - Voip-Pal.Com Announces Plans to Increase Damage Demands in Lawsuits vs Apple, Verizon and AT&T
https://www.voip-pal.com/voip-pal-plans-to-increase-damages
Voip-Pal has determined its initial claim for damage was calculated using a significantly lower royalty rate of 1.25% in their monetization model that is 87% lower than a weighted average of 9.88% used in actual court awards in recent patent infringement cases. Utilizing the updated damages award calculation methods, the revised total damages sought by Voip-Pal:
1) would rise to more than $25,642,557,840 from $2,836,710,031 from Apple; punitive damages if awarded by the court, up to triple damages, increases the revised potential maximum total award to $102,570,231,360.
2) $2,382,872,100 from Verizon
3) $1,804,795,745 from AT&T. These published damages were as of 2017.
Damage Calculation Methods
Each infringed product (smart Phone) and each infringed service (imessage, audio/video calls) are listed and the total cost of a license is calculated. An example calculation was presented earlier:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170770279
But VPLM has several patents covering various technologies of audio and video transmissions using the internet protocol. https://www.voip-pal.com/current-applications
Voice-over-IP
Messaging (iMessage)
Video Calling (FaceTime)
Bundled Voice & Messaging Over IP
Mobile Payment
eCommerce (RBR patent - Routing-Billing-Rating: steps involved in how a smart phone links to Amazon web site on a server, browse displayed products, click on an item to select and move it to a cart, click to checkout and billing using a payment method, approve the purchase and have it shipped to a delivery address, etc.) Billions of sales transactions occur per day, producing billions of dollars in sales WORLDWIDE. A royatly of one cent per transaction will be huge!
=====
Apportionment and risks of miscalculation
Apportionment is that fraction of profit from sales of infringed products or services that is attributable to VPLM's IP technology use. In a case involving a large infringement damage the defendants found a mistake made by the plaintiff's expert attorney in the apportionment calculation. The plaintiff lost.
On the other hand, one can expect VPLM's legal team will not make such mistakes in the damages calculations. Bill Parrish, a 40-year veteran of IP negotiator and a member of Stradling’s Intellectual Property practice group and Mr. Hudnell's legal team are careful and conservative.
=======
Expert testimony
The law elaborates further that the court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty rate would be reasonable under the circumstances. (July 19, 1952, ch. 950, § 1, 66 Stat. 813.)
Experts testimony is scheduled in January 2023. The testimonies will come from VPLM as well as from defendants. After listening to all testimonies, Judge Albright will decide on the FAIR MARKET VALUE for each infringed item. It is a long process. Our experience shows that Judge Albright moves fast in these matters. He scheduled only a half-day for the Markman hearing and finished it in one day.
After successful Markman hearings last year, VPLM must have revised their damages estimates, jury trial strategies, mock trial arguments, and analyzed damage estimates several times. Their legal team could be rehearsing court arguments in the upcoming trials as well as strategies for successful negotiation. As a patent litigator for 20 years Judge Albright understands these issues. VPLM is under no obligation to release their damage estimates to the public. For what reason? What the public can do to influence it, up or down? Shareholders could play a role by voting their shares to accept or decline the proposed deal. Only the Judge has to hear damage estimates from VPLM and responses from the defendants.
=======
FAIR MARKET VALUE
At present, the FAIR MARKET VALUE IS UNKNOWN. Without knowing the FMV why an investor would feel happy to sell the stock at $0.05-0.25 or $0.50/share, a price that may not represent the fair market value?
Similarly talks about a "BUYOUT OF THE COMPANY" APPEARS TO BE PREMATURE. A buyout at this time is like killing the goose after one egg or a partial egg! Who will buy a property of unknown fair market value and uncertain future patent enforcement or absence of licensing aggreements? The buyer needs to know the amount of cash on hand, royalty revenues responsible for cashflow, balance sheet, debt, potential lawsuits the can negatively impact these items, etc. Does the buyer understand and has experience with IP licensing and IP management like QCOM? How many years are left for VPLM's patents to expire? VPLM Directors have to examine several issues before recommending acceptance vote to shareholders. The NDA agreements will not allow release of information to the public.
When buying a used car, one refers to the Blue Book. When buying or selling a real estate, a realtor gives you the market analysis of comparable home prices in your neighborhood. Stock prices continually go and down seeking a fair market value. Without knowing the outcome of a single lawsuit in Waco or a positive ruling, how can anyone guess a fair market value or declare a price for the share? Not even the CEO can declare the share price!
========
LESSONS FROM PAST CASES, HUGE AWARDS AND FAILURES TO COLLECT
It is up to a shareholder to review and learn lessons from similar patent infringement cases, why awards were huge and why plaintiffs fail to collect? These comparisons viz. similarities vs. differences, may shed light on potential pitfalls or risks VPLM could face.
Top 10 US Patent Infringement Cases with Largest Patent Damages
https://www.greyb.com/blog/largest-patent-infringement-awards/ (GBC posted)
1. Merck's Idenix vs Gilead Sciences Inc (2016) – $2.54B
2. Intel vs VLSI Technology (2021) – $2.18 Billion
3. Pfizer vs Teva Pharmaceuticals & Sun Pharma (2013) – $2.15B
4. Centocor Inc vs Abbott Laboratories (2009) – $1.672B
5. Alcatel-Lucent vs Microsoft (2007) – $1.5B
6. Litton vs Honeywell (1993) – $1.2B
7. Carnegie Mellon University vs Marvell Technology Group (2012) – $1.17B
8. Apple vs Samsung (2012) – $1.04 billion
9. Monsanto Company vs Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc. (2012) – $1B
10. Polaroid vs Kodak (1991) – $925M
=====
SELECTIVE CASES, ISSUES RELEVANT TO VPLM, AND POTENTIAL RISKS, IF ANY
1) Centripetal vs. Cisco - $2.75 billion award
https://smithhopen.com/2020/10/12/largest-patent-infringement-award-ever-not-so-fast/
In 2012, the Eastern District of Virginia awarded the largest patent infringement damages, in a patent infringement case involving a cybersecurity firm Centripetal asserting 11 U.S. patents against Cisco.
AN IPR BATTLE ENSUED
Within six months, Cisco filed 14 IPRs against 9 of Centripetal’s patents and invalidated 6 of the asserted patents and partially invalidated another patent. Nevertheless, Centripetal walked out of the IPR trial with some enforceable claims of US Patents 9,137,205 and 9,686,193.
(VPLM's case: PTAB win 20-0, this trend might continue. PTAB IPR's have not invalidated VPLM patents and claims.)
The court held that Cisco willfully infringed Centripetal’s patents and awarded $756 million in damages. Upon finding that Cisco acted willfully and egregiously, the judge multiplied the damages by a factor of 2.5, yielding a total sum of $1.9 billion. The judge did not stop there. Next, the judge imposed a 10% royalty on the infringing products for the next 3 years and a 5% royalty for the subsequent 3 years. Tech experts estimate that the total verdict could amount to $2.65 to $3.25 billion. this will be the largest patent infringement award ever.
(VPLM's case: trials have been scheduled. US Supreme Court (Roberts) relaxed the criteria for proving "WILLFULNESS OF INFRINGEMENT". VPLM has sent letters to each defendant, discussed the matter with all defendants, especially AAPL executives, etc. The jury will hear about them.)
WHAT HAPPENED NEXT FOR CISCO?
https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-supreme-court-rejects-centripetal-appeal-cisco-patent-fight-2022-12-05/
WASHINGTON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a bid by Centripetal Networks Inc to reinstate the largest award in the history of U.S. patent law - $2.75 billion - to be paid by Cisco Systems Inc in a cybersecurity patent dispute.
The justices turned away Centripetal's appeal of a lower court's decision to negate the award after the judge who presided over the trial disclosed that his wife owned Cisco stock worth $4,688.
(VPLM's case: As an ex-patent litigator Judge Albright would avoid such conflicts of owning stock in VPLM or defendant companies.)
========
2) Merck vs. Gilead Sciences $2.54 billion award
$2.5B verdict is largest patent infringement award in US history; the award to be tripled?
by DEBRA CASSENS WEISS - December 19, 2016
https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/2.5b_verdict_is_largest_patent_infringement_award_in_us_history_will_award
Jurors awarded $2.54 billion to a unit of Merck & Co. last week in a suit alleging its patented compound was used by Gilead Sciences Inc. to make the hepatitis C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni.
Jurors upheld the patent on behalf of Merck’s Idenix unit and found the infringement was willful, reports Bloomberg News and Law.com (sub. req.). The $2.54 billion award is the largest patent infringement verdict in U.S. history and the finding of willfulness means it could be increased to as much as three times the amount.
The award of $2.5 billion patent damages awarded to Idenix Pharmaceuticals was overturned on invalidity grounds.
(VPLM's case: PTAB win of 20-0 has confirmed the validity of all patents and claims. The above risk is not expected.)
========
WILLFULNESS ISSUES AFFECTING TRIPLE DAMAGES
Let us see what willful infringement is and conditions that escalate to triple damages.
WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT AND DAMAGES
Not every instance of patent infringement is malicious or intentional in nature. If the court believes that a violation was deliberate, the infringer could face willful damages. Patent holders ONCE HAD to prove that objective recklessness occurred in order to receive enhanced damages. Thanks to a Supreme Court decision; this is no longer the case. As long as it is shown (Justice Roberts) that an infringer’s actions were subjectively willing, the patent holder may be eligible for enhanced damages. This allows them to collect three times the normal damages amount.
Proving that willful patent infringement occurred also increases the likelihood that the defendant will have to pay court costs and attorney fees. Additionally, defendant's knowledge of actual knowledge of infringement isn’t even necessary to prove willful intent.
==========
3) A WACO CASE OF INTEREST: INTEL vs VLSI
Intel is told to pay $2.18 billion after losing a patent trial by Judge Albright (Waco)
BY SUSAN DECKER AND MATTHEW BULTMAN, MARCH 2, 2021
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-03-02/intel-told-to-pay-2-18-billion-after-losing-patent-trial
Intel infringed two patents owned by closely held VLSI, the jury in Waco said. The jury awarded $1.5 billion for infringement of one patent and $675 million for infringement of the second. The jury rejected Intel’s denial of infringing either of the patents and its argument that one patent was invalid because it claimed to cover work done by Intel engineers.
The jury said there was no willful infringement. A finding otherwise would have enabled District Court Judge Alan Albright to increase the award even further, as much as three times the amount set by the jury.
The damage award isn’t so high when the billions of chips sold by Intel are taken into account, Chu said. Intel paid MicroUnity Systems Engineering Corp $300 million in 2005 and paid Nvidia Corp. $1.5 billion in 2011 even though a settlement in that case involved a cross license of technology, he said.
Intel had sought to postpone the case because of the pandemic but was rejected by Judge Albright, a former patent litigator and magistrate who was sworn in as a federal judge in 2018. Judge Albright agreed and ruled $2.18 billion award.
In totality, this is the second-largest patent infringement damages ever awarded. Intel stock fell 2.6% to $61.24 in New York trading. This amount is about half of Intel’s fourth-quarter profit. The magnitude of damages had to do with the reason that Intel has sold billions of infringing devices (similar to current defendants: Apple, Samsumg, Google, etc.)
(VPLM's case: Considering that the defendants like Apple and Google make billion dollars of profits selling infringed products, the award would be huge too! If the jury found Intel's infringement was willful, Judge Albright would have escalated the award of $2.18 billions three times to $6.5 billion!!!)
Intel's case went to Delaware court where the patent infringement award was $4 Billion.
Intel and VLSI this week agreed to settle one of their ongoing legal disputes. The legal battle in Delaware covered five patents, and VLSI asked for more than $4 billion in damages, reports Reuters.
The two parties agreed to settle the dispute in Delaware with prejudice, so the lawsuit cannot be brought to court again. VLSI agreed not to sue Intel's customers and suppliers over the five CPU patents at the issue of the case, whereas the processor giant agreed to dismiss its counterclaims. The two companies will not pay anything to each other.
"The parties have agreed to dismissal of claims and counterclaims asserted in this action," a court filing reads.
Intel wants $4 bln VLSI patent lawsuit tossed over ownership disclosure
By Blake Brittain December 12, 2022
(Reuters) - Intel Corp has asked a federal judge in Delaware to dismiss a $4.1 billion patent lawsuit from VLSI Technology LLC, claiming VLSI is purposefully concealing its "opaque ownership structure" from the court.
Intel in a filing unsealed Friday asked U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly to throw out the case, arguing that VLSI failed to comply with his standing order for parties to name "every individual and corporation with a direct or indirect interest" in them.
VLSI is owned by investment funds managed by Fortress Investment Group LLC, a SoftBank Group Corp subsidiary. It has won two jury verdicts in West Texas worth over $3 billion on accusations that Intel infringed patents VLSI bought from Dutch chipmaker NXT Semiconductors NV.
Other VLSI lawsuits against Intel are still pending in Delaware and Northern California. Connolly paused the Delaware case in August after finding VLSI's CEO provided vague information about the investors that own it.
Intel said in its Friday filing that VLSI's refusal to detail its investors is "no accident" and warned that without adequate disclosures, Connolly could not determine whether he has any conflicts in the case.
Intel, VLSI drop Delaware dispute in blockbuster patent fight By Blake Brittain
December 27, 2022
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/intel-vlsi-drop-delaware-dispute-blockbuster-patent-fight
========
US Supreme Court Rejects Willfulness Requirement for Profit Awards in Trademark Infringement Cases
April 24, 2020
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Anthony J. Dreyer Jordan Feirman
https://www.skadden.com/insights/publications/2020/04/us-supreme-court-rejects-willfulness
==========
UNIQUENESS OF VPLM CASES IN WACO THAT INVESTORS SHOULD NOT IGNORE
The above review of past infringement cases, huge awards and reasons why plaitiffs failed to collect even after proving infringement.
Above cases and rulings were between a single palintiff vs a single defendant.
In VPLM case, plaintiff VPLM is suing NINE DEFENDANTS: AAPL, ATT, VZ, TMobile, AMZN, Meta, GOOG, Samsung, and Huawei. Perhaps more cases may be filed later.
Potential damages in the above single plaintiff cases were in range of $1.5-6 billions, with $2.18 billion award from Waco, and $4 billion from Delaware, on Intel vs VLSI case. Considering the time factor or years of infringement one can expect an average of $3-8 billion or more per defendant. Nine times $3-6 billion comes to $35-60 billion total for all nine defendants. The ruling may come over a period of time. Some defendants may decide to appeal and others may settle.
Settlement need not be all cash since not all companies have much cash awarded. Defendant companies can offer some shares of their stock, a percentage in cash and the balance in company stock. Shareholders can decide. Each award will be individually ruled after the trial or if defendants choose to settle before the trial. Investors quoting $25-40/share or more may have a good reason! We shall see!
=============
House keeping:
Discovery of VPLM personnel postponed at the last year end, might have resumed. Experts testimony is next.
Current infringement laswuits in Waco are mainly about Mobile Gateway patents. Defendants: AMZN, TMUS, VZ, Samsung, and Huawei. RBR patent is expected to come up somewhere in the arguments.
Donato stayed NDCal's GOOG and Meta cases until Jan 26 and terminated all Alice cases. GOOG lost 4 IPR's on MG patents, bringing VPLM's win to 20-0. This PTAB trend might continue. So far none of VPLM patents or claims have been invalidated.
VPLM has no debt. VPLM is a reporting company, filing Q's and K's without fail.
When NDCal's Donato court meets on Jan 26, what is left for the defendants to pursue? VPLM need not re-visit Alice and defend against it. Maybe VPLM ought ask for next steps: Claim Construction, Markman hearings a la Waco cases? Or Judge Donato may extend the stay until the Waco trial is over. Who knows?
thelimeyone,
You are on the right track. Look for my post soon.
AMZN denial was expected for anyone that read Judge Albright's elegant analysis of AMZN venue transfer petition. Federal Circuit judge repeated essentially Judge Albright's points in denying the writ of Mandamus.
Remember AMZN's argument about an input device developed by engineers in Sunnyvale, CA. We called their bluff. The Federal Judge cited the same. VPLM does not produce electronic devices. Do these folks understand what the patents teach?
NDCal is watching Waco Markman and Discovery proceedings. Meta and GOOG are in for surprise if they try to revive Alice again.
drumming,
Long time, no see! Thanks for your kind words.
Over the years, investment in VPLM was a big challenge for many investors. They do not appear to have background or knowledge in:
USPTO Patent Act, patents and claims, fait market value of patents, royalty and licensing, infringement and remedies, IP business aspects, court proceedings especially NDCal's clueless woman's arrogance and ignorance, twisting Declaratory Judgement into defendants' favor, etc. On the other hand, those with the required background and knowledge do not post here. We are dealing with only 2 of the 8 patents so far: RBR and MG. The current issue involves only the MG patent. You know the history.
The upcoming session in Jan 2023 deals with Experts testimony from both sides. Judge Albright may listen to both sides to help with his conclusions - as the Law states. Not like selling in a "flea market", ignorant of fair market value of the MG patent in question. They the RBR patent and six more patents. How many investors have read the two patents (RBR and MG) or all of the eight patents?
Many talk about a "settlement", without any idea about the level of negotiations involved and how long it takes to arrive at a fair market value. It may be specific to each defendant. If Judge Albright's elegant analysis of "AMZN transfer denial" order is upheld by CFAC, we can expect the Judge to be careful with the infringement award to compensate VPLM for "Reasonable Royalties" lost provided by Patent Act, US Code 284.
Shareholders do not control the damages calculation or the amount awarded. It is mediated between the patent-holder and the infringer by the court - all subject to Title U.S.Code § 284 (2014).
============================================================
Patent Act Title U.S.Code §284. Damages
Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.
When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154(d).
The court (Judge Albright) may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances.
========================================================
Judge Albright has not arrived a fair market value. A lot of calculations.
Hypothetical question to you - would you refuse to sell if it comes out higher than $2 or 3/sh? How can one run a business without any idea of what their patents are worth?
Review VPLM calculations for APPLE below. Note similar Apple cases are compared.
(Similar Excel worksheets can be set up for other infringers and get a ball-park idea.)
Apple, Inc. (Case No. 2:16-CV-00260)
Document 1-11 Filed 02/09/16 2016 1. APPLE ROYALTY MONETIZATION ANALYSIS OVERVIEW
apportioned profits from infringing products and services sold by Apple beginning FY 2010 to Feb 2016 (6 yrs 2 mo) methodologies of recent court cases including VirnetX v. Apple, Summit 6 v. Samsung and others in which a reasonable royalty rate is applied to apportioned profits (those specific to infringing features) on devices and services that are found to have infringed.
1.25% royalty rate (applied to apportioned profit) based upon our analysis of ten (10) recent major patent infringement court decisions. The weighted average court award (or settlement) as a percentage of apportioned profits in the analyzed cases is, by our calculations, 9.88%. As such, we believe that a 1.25% royalty rate on apportioned profits (which is 87% less than this weighted average) is reasonable if not conservative, particularly considering the very foundational nature of the VPLM patents.
1.25% royalty rate is almost twice the amount awarded in the recent VirnetX litigation. [ The basis for this difference is the relative frequency of use of the VPLM classification and routing patents as compared to the four VirnetX patents, which deal with creating a Virtual Private Network (VPN), which is typically used in the Apple Products for a video chat or some other secure communication. The data that was available on the usage of the VPN patents suggested that they would be used approximately one fourth as often as the Voice-Pal classification and routing patents, which are used with almost all cellular and WiFi voice and message communications.
Apple’s estimated historical profit from its iPhone, iPad and Mac devices (for conservatism, we have excluded any figures from sales of iPod, Watch or Apple TV, and iTunes/App Store). Average sale price is calculated as historical sales value divided by unit sales, by device, over the period. An estimated profit margin percentage is then applied for each device, based upon best available public information and research. An apportionment percentage rate is then applied as follows, based upon estimated end consumer usage of key infringing features for each device, including iMessage, voice calling, WiFi calling and Facetime: ?iPhone – 55% apportionment ?iPad – 35% apportionment ?Mac – 10% apportionment. This results in an estimated apportioned profit per device. The 1.25% royalty rate is then applied to such apportioned profits to arrive at a royalty figure per device, and this figure is multiplied by units sold for each device to arrive at total royalties.
2016 For Period Beginning FY 2010 (Jan 2010 through Feb 2016 - 6 years 2 months)
=========== iPhone === ======= iPad ============ Mac =======TOTAL
Sales ($)==$549,815,000,000==$147,645,000,000==$140,262,000,000= $837,722,000,000
Sales (Units)==853,801,000=====308,150,000======109,701,000=====1,271,652,000
Aver Selling Price= $643.96======= $479.13 ====== $1,278.58 ========$658.77
Est. Average Profit Margin (%)
====== =========65.00% ======== 52.00%====== 25.00% ========58.40%
Est. Aver Profit($)= $418.57=========$249.15=======$319.65========$384.71
Apportionment==55.00%========35.00%=======10.00%========46.27%
Apportioned Profit Per Device
=================$230.22========$87.20========$31.96========$178.01
Royalty Rate on Apportioned Profit
================1.25%===========1.25%=========1.25%========1.25%
Royalty per Device
=================$2.88============$1.09========$0.40=========$2.23
TOTAL ROYALTIES
==============$2,456,985,781=====$335,892,375===$43,831,875==$2,836,710,031
(Total about $2,8 billion 6 yrs, 2 mos)
Analysis: This analysis does not reflect any amounts for royalties that may be owed to VPLM by Apple for iPod, Watch, Apple TV, and iTunes and App Store revenues. As an overall methodology note, we have applied these apportionments and rates to Apple figures on a global basis, based upon (i) the place of device invention/design and (ii) the location of company data centers that handle various data communications. In terms of invention and design, all of Apple’s devices are designed in Cupertino, California (notably Apple’s headquarters is in close proximity to the Silicon Valley USPTO). As far as data center locations, all of Apple’s data centers are located within the United States Maiden, NC; Newark, Cupertino, and Santa Clara, CA; Reno, NV; and Prineville, OR.
APPLE - 2016 ADDENDUM
RECENT PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES ANALYSIS DETAIL
B. Case Analysis
1. VirnetX v. Apple, Inc. (6:12-CV-00855 (E.D. Texas))
2. Wisconsin Alumni Research Facility (WARF) v. Apple (14-CV-0062 (W.D. Wis.))
3. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 180 L. Ed. 2d 131 (2011)
4. VirnetX v. Microsoft (6:07-cv-00080 (E.D. Texas))
5. Wisconsin Alumni Research Facility (WARF) v. Intel (08-C-78-C (W.D. Wis.))
6. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Ltd., Inc. (12-CV-00630-LHK (N.D. Cal))
7. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Ltd., Inc. (11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal))
8. Carnegie Mellon University v. Marvell Technology Group, Ltd. (09-CV-00290-NBF (W.D. Pa.))
9. Summit 6, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
10. ActiveVideo Networks v. Verizon Communications (10-CV-0248 (E.D. Va.))
C. Conclusion
the weighted average damage award as a percentage of court award or settlement amount the ten (10) cases analyzed is 9.88%. Comparatively, Voip-Pal has utilized a modest royalty rate of just 1.25% in its Royalty Monetization analyses, which represents an 87.3% discount to this weighted average figure.
Document 1-12 Filed 02/09/16
Please review the attached news release May 15, 2017. Add the effect of inflation, interest charges, lost royalties and penalties, etc. Albright's court and patent experts know more about them, meaning higher amounts.
Experts use various models for calculating comparable Infringement damages. They begin their testimonies in January 2023. Comparable technologies, uses, damages, penalties, market value, etc. Not just opinions! Experts from both sides will present damages and argue. VPLM has used the most conservative estimates, royalty rates, even if the final damages turned out be huge. That is the reason these defendants have been fighting tooth and nail to bury VPLM's lawsuits. The irony is that VPLM's ideas were too simple but novel! Those that hold patents and dealt with patent examiners, know.
If shareholders bothered to notice, VPLM's Waco court cases are proceeding like a textbook case under Judge Albright. A huge blessing! Example: Albright's recent order denying AMZN's transfer and his elegant analysis for the conclusion.
We need to dig into damage issues, amounts and the patent laws governing them. Patents are not "flea market" commodities! $0.05/sh, 0.5/sh, 50/sh are guesses not based on law, rational analysis, and reality. Peter Lynch said: "Know what you own."
https://www.globenewswire.com/fr/news-release/2017/05/15/984693/0/en/Voip-Pal-Com-Announces-Plans-to-Increase-Damage-Demands-in-Lawsuits-vs-Apple-Verizon-and-AT-T.html
Voip-Pal.Com Announces Plans to Increase Damage Demands in Lawsuits vs Apple, Verizon and AT&T
Company preparing responses to new petitions for Inter Partes Review
BELLEVUE, Wash., May 15, 2017 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal,” the “Company”) (OTCQB:VPLM) announces their intent to increase the damage claims in its lawsuits against Apple, Verizon and AT&T. Over the past few months the Company has been reevaluating the initial damage calculation claims made in its February 2016, lawsuits against Apple, Inc, in the United States District Court, District of Nevada case number 2:16-CV-00260, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and AT&T Corp. in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, case number 2:16-cv-00271. Voip-Pal has determined its initial claim for damages was calculated using a significantly lower royalty monetization model than has been used in actual court awards of recent patent infringement cases.
Voip-Pal remains cautiously conservative with its newly revised calculations, using an amount 25% below actual recent court awards for damages. Upon the lifting of the current stay pending the completion of the instituted Inter Partes Reviews expected later this year, the Company may file an amended pleading to reflect the more accurate damage calculation model.
Utilizing the updated damages award calculation methods, the revised total damages sought by Voip-Pal from Apple would rise from more than two billion dollars ($2,836,710,031), to more than twenty-five billion dollars ($25,642,557,840).
An award in Voip-Pal’s favor may also include additional punitive damages awarded by the court, up to triple damages increasing the newly revised potential maximum total award to Voip-Pal to over one hundred two billion dollars, ($102,570,231,360).
Applying the updated damage award calculation method to Verizon and AT&T, the current damages sought from Verizon of more than two billion dollars ($2,382,872,100) would increase to over seventeen billion dollars ($17,262,042,011).
The current damages sought from AT&T would increase from more than one billion dollars ($1,804,795,745) to over thirteen billion dollars ($13,540,863,431).
Applying the maximum potential punitive damages, increases the maximum potential award from Verizon to more than sixty-nine billion dollars ($69 billion).
Applying the maximum potential punitive damages, increases the maximum potential award from AT&T to more than fifty-four billion dollars ($54 billion).
The complete monetization analyses and damage calculation methodologies will be posted on www.voip-pal.com.
The Company also reports the filing of five more petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) from AT&T and Apple. The deadline for filing an IPR petition by Apple, Verizon and AT&T was May 9, 2017, one year from the date of the completion of service of process to the defendants.
On May 8, 2017, AT&T filed the following three petitions for Inter Partes Review: IPR2017-01382, against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 8,542,815, IPR2017-01383, against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 9,179,005, and IPR2017-01384, against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 9,179,005.
On May 9, 2017, Apple filed the following two petitions for Inter Partes Review: IPR2017-01399, against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 8,542,815, and IPR2017-01398 against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 9,179,005.
Voip-Pal CEO Emil Malak stated, “We will continue to vigorously defend these challenges to our technology and protect the interests of our shareholders. Once the stay is lifted we will make a final determination on amending the asserted damages of our lawsuits with Apple, Verizon and AT&T.”
“We are now faced with defending five new IPR’s, three filed by ATT and two filed by Apple, all on the same two patents we have been defending for the past year. We are confident we will prevail based on the merits. We appreciate the patience of our shareholders and we assure them we will persevere to a successful end.”
Their strategy to transfer to NDCal:
1) Could not resurrect past Alice 101 cases. Donato TERMINATED ALL ALICE CASES.
11/29/2022 NA - DONATO
ORDER. Pending the coordination hearing set for January 26, 2023, all VoIP cases before this Court are stayed. All pending motions are administratively terminated without prejudice to renewal after the hearing, as circumstances warrant. Signed by Judge James Donato on 11/29/2022. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jdlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on: 11/29/2022)
2) Meta must be wondering whether they can use Alice. AAPL, T, VZ et al exploited Alice under the clueless woman.
3) GOOG must be hopeless after losing 4 IPR's. Does it make 16-0 win?
4) Discovery continues in Waco. Now it is VPLM's turn. Directors, inventors, lawyers, CEO et al. are deposed by defendants AMZN, TMUS and VZ. So far, no "needle" found in the hay stack.
5) The scope of MG patent is looking bigger than originally thought.
All good news so far, for shareholders!
Only $3/sh?
Reviewing methodologies for calculating damages mainly from the lost Royalty revenue for the infringed products and services it will be much higher.
When you do a division of two numbers, there is a numerator and a denominator. When the outstanding shares increase, the denominator increases and the price per share decreases. The numerator (damages) is not sitting idle. It also increases much more than the denominator.
VPLM's last report on damages released in Feb 2016 for 6 years from 2010 through Feb 2016 shows damages for AAPL, VZ and T (TWTR omitted) at $7Billions. For 2 Billion shares that comes to $3.5. This was only for 3 defendants. We have many more than 3 defendants in Waco and NDCal. Read further.
AAPL has been selling appx 220-220million iphones/yr since 2016. About 7 years since 2016. 7 times 200 million = 1.4 Billion. The numerator has grown huge. That is only one defendant - AAPL.
Now add revenues increases for other defendants: ATT, VZ, GOOG, FB/WhatsApp, Samsung, Huawei, Tmobile, et al. We get many multiples of the initial $7 billion damages.
One can wonder whether it is practical to demand such high amount of damages. Do not forget we are doing business. Business is all about profit and loss. If VPLM had the licensing agreement they would have earned this much amount. The defendants stole it. That is the reason why they wanted to bury VPLM. Albright has come to our rescue. Hope.
In the limited space it is hard to squeeze that analysis. But one can refer to VPLM's Monetary Analysis Reports at their web site:
APPLE - https://www.voip-pal.com/_files/ugd/768c4e_084fdd0a84b042edad5f9a5622f47806.pdf
https://www.voip-pal.com/_files/ugd/768c4e_2ed37326ff3c4f15b911b597172ef5ad.pdf
VZ and T
https://www.voip-pal.com/_files/ugd/768c4e_ac771649d40b4832a5be1d738b9ef8ca.pdf
https://www.voip-pal.com/_files/ugd/768c4e_0d1ae77474de47c39ba6f52d898be3e1.pdf
https://www.voip-pal.com/_files/ugd/768c4e_5524c2812c524edda302a2c87a4c02cd.pdf
Now that a big thorn like Alice is out of our back, the potential for this stock has increased. We have a chance to add RBR claims in Waco if the judge permits. Defendants that ran to NDCal to follow the clueless woman's strategy of using Alice to destroy VPLM patents may be shocked. Donato should have dismissed GOOG's case. Good luck on Meta's IPR filing with PTAB. Donato case mgmt conf scheduled for Jan 26 may likely be postponed. Waco will be done with Discovery by December end and begin the Experts testimony in Jan-Feb. The experts testimony will be crucial to convince judge Albright. By the way, while GOOG and Meta were asking for venue transfer, they supposedly went through Markman hearing. The Albright's Markman ruling in favor of VPLM may be on the court records of GOOG and Meta.
Forgot to add:
Judge Albright revised two schedules:
Current cases scheduled to end by Dec 2022.
Expert testimonies, if any: Jan-Feb 2023.
Then begin trial in June, 2023?
Hayday
Current silence (no filings) makes one wonder what is going on. What is Judge Albright doing? Everything seems to be moving - but slowly. We heard many things about how Judge Albright handles patent cases, how fast he settles the case, how knowledgeable he is about patents and how experienced he is in handling patent plaintiffs as plaintiff lawyer. Many expected settlement right after the first Markman hearing. It is not so easy dealing with big corporations. Their legal expenses are miniscule compared to the infringement amount. Having come this far (Markman hearings), without a negative setback, is a great achievement for just 2 MG patents.
We now see:
1) Judge Albright has strict schedules and tries to follow them. Only a half-day for the last Markman hearing but it took the whole day. VPLM came out successful.
2) We heard about why Judge Albright does not care about IPR's being filed during his case. He does not pause his case for IPR or IPR ruling. We get the impression that he and other judges rely on their own court's findings rather than IPR rulings. US legal system, not PTAB. The District judges have their legal jurisdiction.
3) Looks like Huawei is least prepared for a patent case like this. Huawei's market is huge in Asia, Europe, etc. Samsung and Apple sell huge no. of smart phones (Apple: 200-220 million iphones/yr).
4) AMZN went through last Markman hearing, along with TMUS and VZ under Judge Albright. Albright is quite familiar with VPLM patents, claims, claim terms, etc. He has not objected to any of them so far.
5) AMZN tries hard to transfer. It is not working so far. Their creative excuse of pointing out input technology designed by their middleware engineers in Sunnyvale, CA did not go far. What a joke!
6) A point investors need to appreciate is how big the infringements could be. Big companies will fight as hard as they can from paying out such enormous amount.
If Judge Albright rules infringement in favor of VPLM and, if the trial affirms infringements, defendants must pay VPLM. If they do not pay VPLM can file an injunction against all defendants from selling their devices and/or doing business in US. We hope they do not go that far and quickly settle.
Looks like cancellation of Markman hearing has spooked a few investors. Understandable because we are used to negative outcomes from NDCal days. The following calendar shows that defendants were allowed extra time to respond to claim construction briefs from VPLM. So the court had to cancel the Markman hearing that was previously scheduled. Markman hearing is likely to be rescheduled.
Tuesday, August 30, 2022
35 misc Claim Construction Brief Tue 08/30 10:18 PM
Reply Claim Construction Brief regarding 34 Claim Construction Brief by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC..(Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Affidavit Declaration of Lewis Hudnell, III
Monday, September 12, 2022
47 notice Notice Mon 09/12 9:02 PM
NOTICE of Agreed Extension of Deadlines for Reply and Sur-reply Claim Construction Briefs and Joint Claim Construction Statement by Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., LTD, Huawei Technologies USA Inc. (Kamber, Matthias)
Wednesday, September 14, 2022
48 1 pgs order Order Cancelling Deadline Wed 09/14 12:30 PM
ORDER CANCELLING Markman Hearing Via Zoom. Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (bot2)
Friday, September 16, 2022
49 misc Claim Construction Brief Fri 09/16 6:22 PM
Reply Claim Construction Brief regarding 28 Claim Construction Brief, by Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei Technologies Co., LTD, Huawei Technologies USA Inc..(Kamber, Matthias)
Att: 1 Exhibit 4
===
Monday, September 12, 2022
36 notice Notice Mon 09/12 8:34 PM
NOTICE of Agreed Extension of Deadlines for Reply and Sur-Reply Claim Construction Briefs and Joint Claim Construction Statement by Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Sirota, Neil)
Wednesday, September 14, 2022
37 1 pgs order Order Cancelling Deadline Wed 09/14 12:10 PM
ORDER CANCELLING Markman Hearing Via Zoom. Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (bot2)
Friday, September 16, 2022
38 misc Claim Construction Brief Fri 09/16 5:30 PM
Reply Claim Construction Brief by Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd..(Sirota, Neil) Att: 1 Exhibit 4
Curious if the new witness comes from Sunnyvale, CA or Austin, TX? The new order to depose AMZN's witness could be the result of VPLM's response to AMZN's transfer request. We have discussed how AMZN was using the chip design for "INPUT" to their device (via touch or voice) is missing in VPLM's patents and Alexa middleware engineers in Sunnyvale, CA, designed the chip.
This is a distraction. VPLM patents have nothing to do with any chip design for the input signal to any device. VPLM could have other points to dispute as well.
Perhaps VPLM rebuttal convinced Albright. Albright is allowing it.
Looks like AMZN is being exposed for having chip design engineers write the justification for transfer on behalf of AMZN's lawyers who have no clue and no idea what VPLM's patents teach.
GKT1181
Well put. A voice of reason and facts!
For some folks, AMZN's venue transfer filing looks "strong". Here is another perspective.
If one reviews VPLM MG patents (234 and 721) again and compare with AMZN's venue transfer filing, it looks as if AMZN tries to play a clever game. They distract court's attention to:
1) the importance of how an "input" signal is received by their DeviceOS and
2) how their Alexa middleware engineers designed the input signal transmission into the DeviceOS via voice or touch screen, and
3) Alexa middleware engineers responsible for the input design, live in Sunnyvale, CA. Therefore the case has to be transferred to NDCal. As simple as that!
Their second avenue of distraction is to challenge VPLM MG patents because VPLM's patents do not teach how the input signal is transmitted via a voice or touch screen (designed by Alexa) to their OS chip, to their GPS chip, and to their WiFi chip to complete the call. RBR technology?
One can surmise it is an attempt to distract from the main issue.
VPLM: VPLM MG patents do not teach how the input signal is received by the DeviceOS. VPLM is not a hardware or chip design company.
Their technology (as illustrated by a flow chart in 234 patent) only deals with a series of checks ("if"... "then" tests) to guide the received signal through networks and database profiles to complete the call. DeviceOS engineers are supposed to design this code/logic into their smart phone chips to verify callee (contacts) profiles associated with phone's IP addresses, wifi networks, and current GPS locations, etc. using their database of "contact profiles" residing on their servers and route the call. These conditions are coded into the chip/hardware by manufacturer's chip design engineers, not VPLM. Therefore engineers responsible for answers to VPLM's infringement issues in Waco are DeviceOS engineers in Austin, TX, not Alexa middleware engineers in Sunnyvale, CA.
AMZN has to prove to the judge if their chip design follows VPLM's logic outlined in 234 patent or they have AMZN's own unique logical tests for call routing. Therefore Waco is the appropriate venue.
It is similar to a LG case where the inventor proposed a method for accumulating all internal inquiries to a common point on the device into a database and processing all inquiries accumulated in the database, intermittently, to increase efficiency. Justice Reyna agreed it was innovative and ruled in favor.
If the above line of reasoning is valid, investors may hope that VPLM points out AMZN's game in opposing venue transfer. Hope Judge Albright is convinced and continue Discovery to its conclusion by December. Mr. Hudnell may have a better argument than this. Wait and see.
Aside - It was often pointed out that MG patent discussion could not be separated from RBR, although Judge Albright has not ruled on RBR yet. Current Discovery discussion shows that RBR is providing a platform for the MG patent discussion.
Drummings,
The way Judge Albright conducts proceedings we may not get updates on the progress. He uses "meet and confer" on some occasions and not all the time. This is the first time we see how this judge runs his cases.
Several predictions were made about Venue transfer, Mandamus, and how long the venue transfer issue will last (may be a year or so). The reality is Albright released his venue transfer ruling FB and GOOG just one day before the Markman hearing. BTW, the Markman hearing was positive to VPLM. VPLM's strength is PTAB 12-0 win from 3 judge panel who know patents, not some clueless judges.
HD,
>>... price level worthy of the true value... <<
Valuing a business like VPLM may mainly rely on potential royalty income from all of their patents. The amount can be huge. It will depend upon yearly growth of smart phone sales, subscribers, audio and video msgs, devices running apps, etc.
Will be interesting to what the true value is from your sources.
Agree. The msg was "tongue in cheek".
It was not my place to call them out, but VPLM's.
Infringement damages! NOW?!!
Infringement damages discussion comes after the final infringement contentions are resolved at the "meet and confer" sessions that started July 26.
Not too much time is spent on paperwork or filings in Albright's court. Some orders are even sealed.
In the infringement discussion, if parties - AMZN vs. VPLM - do not come to an agreement then judge Albright might step in and resolve disagreements. That step is probably the most important ruling from judge Albright - a judge who understands patents and claims. It is similar to the Markman hearing.
Only after infringements are confirmed, it makes sense go to the next step of discussing damages. DETERMINE what the violations are before claiming damages!
Probably judge Albright might let the parties do another "meet and confer" discussions on damages or take another approach.
Defendants are expected to fight the hardest at this stage but they also know business risks if they do not compromise. We shall see how good Judge Albright is. If VPLM gets a favorable ruling from these discussions - infringements confirmed and damages assessed - that will be an important milestone for VPLM.
Keep fingers crossed and hope for the best.
The TWTR case of a pre-emptive protection from a possible infringement of MG patent sounds silly for the court to allow to proceed. TWTR was not sued for MG patent infringement yet. Why a DJ case was justified by a NDCal judge? NDCal seems to love DJ cases.
TWTR imagines that they could be sued because VPLM has sued other defendants in Waco and is going through Discovery phase with AMZN. A court that allows such baseless DJ cases to proceed looks silly. Expecting that VPLM will point out the "folly" when their turn comes.
tradeking,
Last week's ruling, Albright put a noose around Amazon's neck. He tightened it with today's news. Volume will pick up as "meet and confer" discussions continue. Those who forgot VPLM's technology or why they invested or want to learn, check out their web site for current applications:
https://www.voip-pal.com/current-applications
Voice-over-IP
Messaging
Video Calling
Bundled Voice & Messaging Over IP
Mobile Payment
eCommerce
How many used one or more apps, free of cost? Telco's and FB/WhatsApp, APPL, Samsung and Huawei have been eating our lunch thus far. Under Albright's guidance they discuss which of AMZN's devices (or Apps) infringe. Whether you own the stock or not, we need to know "whether VPLM patents stands the test where the rubber meets the road".
Review the list of applications above and calculate the amount of $ that AMZN earned from eCommerce, mobile payment (like Venmo), video calling (and may be video streaming movies?) It is a global business. Astronomical revenues!
Folks may feel great getting 10 cents on a stock bought at 2 cents. A million shares costs $20K. Selling at 5 times higher is only $100K. Not bad. If one takes a broader global view of business, the shares are worth much more provided that Albright rules in favor of VPLM at the "meet and confer". You see APPL, T, VZ, et al tried the hardest to escape facing this stage of patent test.
The stage has been set for many more sequels to follow. APPL, T, VZ, Samsung, Huawei, TMobile, FB/WhatsApp, GOOG, et al.
Wish VPLM all success. They did win 12-0 at PTAB. If AMZN falls, the rest of them will fall like dominos. Delaying only costs more damages for them.
Drumming,
Thanks for posting Albright's ruling: meets and confers with Plaintiffs to determine if the parties have any infringement dispute that depends on the workings of the operating system of the accused devices
Albright put a noose around Amazon's neck. Mr. Hudnell is ready with final infringement contentions for "meet and confer". His preliminary list was reviewed by both parties. Expecting similar steps for other defendants.
Either the parties come to an agreement at "meet and confer" sessions or the judge resolves. Next step, is about the damages. Then settlement or go to trial.
AMZN looks different from other defendants in terms of devices and their use.
T Mobile, VZ, FB, ATT - users of smart phones for communication.
AAPL , Samsung, Huawei - makers of smart phones incorporating communication technology.
Curious why Albright has not ruled on RBR for claim construction.
indy,
We hope your information comes true. During Discovery, parties file infringement contentions and opposition for discussion. This step takes time. Was this step completed or skipped? Can your sources elaborate?
Drummings
Thanks a lot for posting updates on cases - a contribution very helpful to investors.
Check out CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OREDER SIGNED JUNE 3 2022
https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Monterey-Research-LLC-v-Broadcom-Incorporated-et-al/CLAIM-CONSTRUCTION-ORDER-Signed-by-Judge-Alan-D-Albright/txwd-6:2021-cv-00541-00072
1. Getting the judge understand and accept the claim terms is a great success for VPLM and lays the foundation for next steps: Discovery, Trial, etc.
2. One claim is unique. All defendants are phone companies operating phone switching networks: ATT, VZ, T-Mobile, et al. Terms they used were applicable to their phone switching technology. VPLM introduces a new technology. No need for electronic or mechanical switches to connect the call.
Another intricacy of this invention, provided if folks pay attention, is the ability of VPLM MG patent code to trick the smart phone to think they are making only local calls, although it connects overseas phones. It saves $. The clueless idiotic woman did not understand internet protocol. This specific understanding of the claim protects MG patent from Alice law because it was not obvious to phone companies too. No worries!
3. VPLM has been successful in laying a strong foundation with Judge Albright and start building the case brick by brick. They will eventually reach the end successfully soon.
4. Finally there will be no further need for posting on these issues from me. Enjoy!
Butters,
Thanks for the nice summary. (Glad you are back actively posting.)
A few points about RBR patents to keep in mind.
The clueless woman ruled Alice on RBR based on 20 claims ONLY. The RBR patent is not dead as some believed. There are 100's of claims left in the RBR patent. They need only one claim to re-litigate, prove infringement and demand damages. Time will come soon.
During Alice appeals, CAFC court Justice Reyna ruled against AAPL on RBR saying there are other valid claims besides the 20 discussed in the trial. AAPL lost, so did AMZN, ATT, VZ. They are still on the hook.
AMZN was part of the clueless woman's fiasco in NDCal. They could have used it as an excuse from Markman hearing Not sure if they can escape MG hearing and rest of RBR. AMZN did not get a transfer yet.
Second, VZ was part of the AAPL gang winning Alice ruling on RBR in NDCal. Why RBR hearing is not stayed for VZ like AMZN? Not clear.
The new attorney has 40 yrs of experience with IP settlement and resolving obstacles during settlement discussion. That help is exactly needed now.
VPLM does not think Judge Albright will give them a free pass. We can imagine VPLM legal team is practicing mock hearings and adding more legal brains. Defendants are fighting hard because the damages they have to pay are huge. A small win and a settlement in Waco will give them cash to beef up their legal and royalty dept., and sue more violators.
DB,
If this is true, it is a calculated move by Judge Albright: "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".
Remaining defendants: AMZN, VZ, TMobile, will be on Markman hearing June 3 1:30 PM. Discovery starts next day after Markman hearing.
Later Samsung and Huawei will join Markman followed by Discovery the next day.
Both RBR and MG are being argued.
After FB/GOOG transfer to NDCal, how many months will it take them to get started?
If at all FB and GOOG want to continue their cases vs. VPLM, VPLM could ask for a stay in NDCal until Waco cases are done. How many months?
Perhaps Waco records of claim construction statements may transfer with them to NDCal. Or VPLM will bring up those records.
If VPLM wins a settlement before the trial, VPLM will have plenty of cash to continue the lawsuits.
AAPL and ATT are standing on the sidelines waiting to see the fate of RBR patent under Judge Albright that may come back to bite them.
Butters,
yes, such high numbers are hard to fathom. But in business, they are just numbers and values the technology brings to defendants' business. Samsung gets $120 per iphone for their patented screen. This year AAPL set a flat production rate of 220miilon units, down from last year's 220million. Now get the calculator and see how much Samsung gets 220million x $120 = ? For last 5 years?
Remember the infringement amount will be high because the infringement is calculated includes all past violations since 2017 or whatever VPLM proves and judge accepts. In a word, it is all business.
What you need to worry is actually your taxes due when you sell shares when it turns positive. Imagine what a pain to handle!
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.