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.
Yes, the cases listed are for RBR patents (e.g., 606). I was told MG patent cases will proceed simultaneously with RBR.
No idea how Hudnell and Albright will manage both - for several defendants. The Markman hearing may not be too bad. jmo.
The court schedule announced in the last press release include both RBR and MG patents cases against those companies according to IR.
Drumming,
Exactly right!
News posted on their VPLM website:
VoIP-Pal CEO Cancels Anti-Dilution Provision, Forgoes Compensation
April 13, 2021 -- VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to announce that CEO Emil Malak has agreed to cancel the anti-dilution provision in his original contract that required the Company to maintain his 40% ownership in its issued stock, and to return several hundred million shares of common stock to the Company treasury in exchange for an equivalent number of warrants to purchase shares at yesterday’s closing price. In addition, he has forgiven current accrued compensation owed to him totaling over $318,000, representing salary for the past three years.
Under his contract for the sale of intellectual property (IP) to VoIP-Pal, Mr. Malak has received 513,535,229 restricted shares, and is due to receive an additional 107,935,333 restricted shares which are not yet issued. He has agreed to return or relinquish any interest in those 621,470,562 shares and instead will receive warrants to purchase 621,470,562 shares of VoIP-Pal common stock at a price of $0.021. In addition, by mutual consent the Anti-Dilution provision has been rendered null and void retroactive to April 1, 2021, and no shares or warrants will be issued pursuant to that clause from that date forward.
On these actions, Mr. Malak said, “I am deeply committed to VoIP-Pal’s success and to increasing value for our shareholders. After careful consideration, I decided to take these steps to strengthen VoIP-Pal and show resolve to the Company. As CEO, my main objective has always been to achieve success alongside all our shareholders, not at their expense.”
Additionally, the Company announces that it has granted up to 100,000,000 options to purchase Common shares to its new directors, management, consultants and advisors. The options will be exercisable for a period of five years at a price of $0.025 per Common share.
a couple of tidbits missed in the last post.
1) 606 RBR patent did not go through IPR at PTAB. Patent issued in 2019. +20 years life puts expiry at 2039.
2) similarly other RBR patents 815 issued in 2013 +20yrs good till 2033
patent 015 issued 2015 +20yrs good till 2035
3) Claim construction is already underway. commencing November 2, 2021 Plaintiff shall also 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.
This is the part VPLM uses to show how their ideas were conceived and reduced to practice. ABC's of invention and patenting.
(4) 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 (Alice arguments) 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 products.
(this is where defendants will be tested if they can show how their software performs same function as the VPLM claim and how it is implemented in their products.)
Fantastic news!
Updated RBR patent 606 case survives, in spite of clueless judge's DJ action in NDCAL. Damages have multiplied!
Note: AAPL, T and VZ are missing in the list. Are they negotiating the RBR issue "out of courts" under NDA? It can not be a good sign for these defendants if the remaining RBR cases tilt positive for VPLM during Markman hearing in May 2022. Investors will know one way or another soon.
FYI - In 2017 the original RBR patent lawsuit in Nevada demanded $9.7 Billion damages from AAPL, T, VZ and TWTR.
(https://www.voip-pal.com/voip-pal-files-9-7-b-pioneertech
Voip-Pal Files $9.7 Billion Lawsuit to Protect its Pioneering Telecom Technology) About $2.5/share?
Those underestimating current damages at $1-2/sh have to reconcile with VPLM's 2017 estimate of $9.7 Billion - just for RBR.
Now add MG (Mobile Gateway) and add more defendants (FB, Samsung, TMobile, etc.). If infringement is confirmed, damages are likely to be more than $2/share. Time to re-work estimates!
Punitive damages can not be ruled out. It will not be a question of VPLM can recover those damages. There are alternate ways to recover the damages, say their stock, for example.
tidbit - Samsung gets $100-110 from Apple for every iPhone sold for Samsung's patented screen and related parts. Apple may not mind if Samsung is added to share the infringement burden.
Note: Last press release on suing Samsung and Huawei Technologies states these companies have headquarters in Texas, doing business in USA. IP lawsuit can sue any defendant from any country as they are doing business in USA or selling products in USA or listed in SEC in USA. When infringement is confirmed and damages are finalized, VPLM has the right for an injunction stopping sales of their products in USA. It is not a joke! Their CEO's report lawsuits and damages, etc. in their 10Q and 10K.
>>...
The Court has lifted the stay on legal proceedings in the following cases:
VoIP-Pal v. Facebook/WhatsApp; Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-267
VoIP-Pal v. Amazon.com Inc. et al.; Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-272
VoIP-Pal v. Google LLC; Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-269
The above cases, originally filed in April 2020, assert VoIP-Pal’s United States Patent No. 10,218,606, “Producing Routing Messages For Voice Over IP Communications.” The cases were stayed on September 30, 2020, pending the outcome of certain motions in declaratory-judgment actions filed against VoIP-Pal in the Northern District of California (NDCAL).
With those actions in the NDCAL cases now dismissed, the stays in the WDTX cases have been lifted. The cases are now moving forward together with the new cases filed by the Company in June 2021, asserting VoIP-Pal’s United States Patent Nos. 8,630,234 and 10,880,721, “Mobile Gateway.” A Markman hearing is scheduled for May 2022, to conduct claim construction on the asserted patents in both sets of cases prior to a jury trial.
drumming,
Agree. A crucial point to remember!
>>...the infringement claims are primarily for the occurrences in the PAST...<<
Let me add - "...VIOLATIONS in the PAST..."
Licensing applies to the remaining period. A reason for child patents is to extend a patent's underlying technology life. VPLM has child patents.
example - QCOM. QCOM royalty income (IP earnings) is supposedly almost one-third of revenue. Cell phone communications use a version of CDMA.
InvestorinAZ
Agree. Many are underestimating the value of VPLM intellectual property. The value is based on the cost savings the IP brings. First, know what those benefits/savings are, instead of approaching it like a "flea market" or subjective evaluation, eg., $1, $2, etc. What if iHub charges 5 or 50 cents per post? It is free. Does it mean it is worthless?
DB,
Thanks for sharing. When the court confirms, even a small bit helps shareholders. Hope it comes true.
The original schedule was:
"...Markman Hearing set for 5/17/2022 09:00 AM..."
Stef,
You quoted correctly. One claim per patent, 2 MG patents. One claim is sufficient to sue.
Mobile Gateway is similar to getting a movie ticket for admission. Here a code connects to another contact's phone. VPLM calls it "access code". Others call it "location identifier".
>>...I’ve been here 8 1/2 years (since 2013)...<<
2013! Isn't it the time of acquisition of Digifonica VOIP patents, etc. 2012?
Voip-Pal.Com Inc. Acquires Five Major VoIP Patents Through Acquisition of Digifonica (International) Limited Gibraltar May 11, 2012
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/voip-palcom-inc-acquires-five-major-voip-patents-through-acquisition-of-digifonica-international-limited-gibraltar-151103975.html
"...acquisition of Digifonica (International) Limited Gibraltar ("Digifonica Gibraltar"), owners of a vast and varied VoIP patent portfolio containing revolutionary proprietary digital voice technologies. Digifonica Gibraltar is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Voip-Pal.Com..."
The history is relevant to claim construction in Waco or any other normal court (not clueless judges) where the defendants have to prove ownership and commercial implementation of an infringed technology prior the historical date above.
Drumming
Interesting prediction! Wish it comes true.
VZ was looking more like the type to have given up continuing the nasty fight jointly with AAPL and ATT in N CA. ATT initially showed resistance to VPLM's 606 case dismissal proposal and filed for DJ action on Mobile Gateway patent after its filing in Waco.
PTAB 12-0 win provides the foundation for VPLM cases.
Clueless Koh got confirmed and gone! No more Koh!
Her RBR 606 patent case schedule for the Nov 2022 jury trial, etc. does not hold. Wait and see what NDCal decides to do.
Judge Donato has to figure out what Oct 14 hearing is about and the "proposed order" requested by plaintiffs - AAPL, VZ, ATT - and why the heck these plaintiffs have ignored the rulings from two judges - Koh and Albright - regarding the Mobile Gateway ’234 and ’721 patents case.
SCOTUS denial of VPLM petition was expected. However, on the Amer Axle case, SCOTUS is waiting for input from the solicitor general. If SCOTUS issues revisions to Alice tests for Amer Axle, the new tests may apply to all Alice decisions - perhaps retroactively (!).
Waco case is proceeding well.
Got it! Thank you.
Donato has a standard schedule for IP cases. Unlike Koh, he is more knowledgeable in the IP-related technology and infringement issues. The court clerk could not have scheduled it without any input from the judge. Did judge Donato ignore Hudnell's motion for dismissal and ignore judge Albright's/Koh's rulings on the patent similarity issue? Or there are other issues? Waiting for the NDCal courts bless us next week with disclosures.
In the recent past, when Donato was assigned a case against FB, he endorsed the Illinois court ruling against FB a fine of $1000/subscriber for violating individual privacy, amounting to several billions. Later he changed his mind; heard very little news about the FB case.
After the Wall St Journal report of stock ownership influencing judge's rulings, no one knows how to interpret these rulings anymore.
Any response from the other two judges?
Drumming,
Missed to include Koh's ruling on the Gateway patent similarity issue.
Koh's ruling adds weight to Albright's ruling.
Was the "...joint case management statement filed on 10/7..." (with the 3 judges before ruling on the DJ motion) after the dismissal motion from Hudnell? Confusing.
Oct 14:
Expecting a response to the DJ action motion filed by ATT, VZ, and AAPL that were assigned to judges - Donato, Freeman, Chen - NDCal.
Hudnell motion for dismissal of the above motion due to Judge Albright's ruling on the First to File. Judge Albright also rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the Gateway Patent was similar to RBR patents, the basis for the DJ action.
Expecting dismissal, if NDCal courts uphold justice. That leaves AAPL RBR 606 patent claim construction as the only case in Koh's court in NDCal.
I wonder how soon the clueless judge will pack up leave the 9th Circuit Dist. court. The sooner the better.
TYT.com show talks more about federal district judges. Watch the tidbit about a Colorado judge responding about the conflict of interest: "That's news to me."
The court clerk is supposed to watch. There is a software to point out the conflict of interest. Wonder about SCOTUS judges.
https://tyt.com/watch/7j1ZcEin1Q9JuhUaSTqt9Z/clips/7aLSAYE4f19LBdkG6hloFf
The same thing was reported in 1999.
Wonder if any judges in NDCal are in the group being investigated, considering some rulings favorable to the Silicon Valley.
131 federal judges failed to recuse themselves from cases in which they had financial interest: report
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/131-federal-judges-failed-to-recuse-themselves-from-cases-in-which-they-had-financial-interest-report/ar-AAOUW35
One hundred and thirty-one federal judges oversaw court cases involving companies in which they or their family members owned stock, according to a new investigation.
Those judges violated U.S. law and judicial ethics as they failed to recuse themselves from a total of 685 court cases in which they may have had a conflict of interest, an investigation by The Wall Street Journal found.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/131-federal-judges-broke-the-law-by-hearing-cases-where-they-had-a-financial-interest-11632834421?mod=hp_lead_pos5
By James V. Grimaldi, Coulter Jones and Joe Palazzolo
Sept. 28, 2021 9:07 am ET
In those cases, about two-thirds of the rulings were in favor of the financial interests of the judge, the Journal reported.
The cases took place between 2010 and 2020, and of the two-thirds of federal district judges who disclosed individual stock holdings, about 20 percent of them heard at least one case that involved their stock, according to the Journal.
After the Journal notified the judges of its findings, 56 of them began to alert parties involved in 329 of the lawsuits of their conflict of interest.
The judges gave the Journal various explanations for failing to recuse themselves, including issues with conflict-screening search software and their insignificant roles in cases that did not require legal exemptions.
While nothing prohibits judges from holding individual stocks, the code of conduct for federal judges requires that they recuse themselves given any financial interest in a case or "ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small."
"The Wall Street Journal's report on instances where conflicts inadvertently were not identified before a case was resolved or transferred is troubling, and the Administrative Office is carefully reviewing the matter," the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts told the Journal.
The Hill has reached out to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for comment.
FYI.
The Nov 8 cases on Albright's calendar are not Mobile Gateway patent cases.
They spill over from the 606 patent RBR cases against GOOG, FB, AMZN.
Check case numbers.
The case management conference on Mobile Gateway patents is expected soon.
drumming
Ha...ha! If logic pay lots of $$$$, take and run! Who cares about who is frowning or drowning?
If one plays a game of chess, why the initial trial starts with FB and AMZN, not AAPL? Is WhatsApp/FB easy and straightforward to deal with? If VPLM wins the FB/WhatsApp case without the Alice issues, it proves that VPLM Gateway technology patents (Claim 20) are valid and that they have been infringed. Not looking good for AAPL and the gang. No Koh either!
New development in Waco -
Sep 21, 2021: IP infringement cases are back on Judge Albright's calendar, mixed with a few non-IP cases.
Developments in NDCal - two groups of cases are scheduled.
1) Oct 14, 2021 - a set of 3 motions for dismissal of DJ actions requested by ATT, VZ and AAPL - judges Donato, Freeman and Chen. Due to Albright's ruling of "first to file". Albright also rejected defendants' claim that the Gateway patent case is related to NDCal's RBR patent cases. Koh already denied the same, long before Albright's decision. Therefore the above 3 cases are expected to be dismissed. Good riddance, if dismissed!
2) Koh's long running 606 patent case schedule has been postponed. Current schedule:
APPLE INC, Plaintiff, v. VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., Defendant. The case schedule remains as set in the February 25, 2021 Case Management Order. Case No. 20-CV-02460-LHK, ECF No. 69. The Court reproduces the schedule below for the convenience of the parties:
Opening Claim Construction Brief September 14, 2021
Responsive Claim Construction Brief September 28, 2021
Reply Claim Construction Brief October 5, 2021
Claim Construction Hearing October 28, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.
Close of Fact Discovery February 25, 2022
Opening Expert Reports March 18, 2022
Rebuttal Expert Reports April 15, 2022
Close of Expert Discovery May 13, 2022
Last Day to File Dispositive June 3, 2022
Motions and Daubert Motions
Hearing on Dispositive Motions July 21, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.
and Daubert Motions
Pretrial Conference October 6, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.
Jury Trial October 31, 2022 at 9:00 a.m.
Length of Jury Trial 5 days
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 27, 2021
3) What happens to the 606 case after Koh moves to the Circuit court? Someone else will be assigned? How the defendant will play this game without Koh?
4) While we are waiting to see the "after effects" of Koh, the next session of SCOTUS (Oct2021-Sep2022) is likely to address the Alice test issue. SCOTUS is waiting for input from Solicitor General. A revision of Alice test is more than likely in Spring 2022. Any revision of the tests will be cause for Hudnell to re-litigate Koh's past Alice rulings on the RBR cases. Hudnell wants them vacated from NDCAl and remanded to another court. The above NDCal case schedule (from Koh) will become meaningless. Perhaps all NDCal cases could be wiped out! Wait and see what happens.
Long term investors focus their diligence in three areas:
1) US patents and practices, US and foreign patent law
2) Legal filings in US courts
3) SEC regulations regarding OTCQB stock companies
A set of court hearings is coming up soon in ND Cal (DJ action related):
October 14, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor (San Francisco) before the Honorable James Donato (Case No. 3:21-cv-5078-JD);
on October 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor (San Francisco) before the Honorable Edward M. Chen
(Case No. 3:21-cv-5110-EMC); and
on October 14, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor (San Jose) before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman (Case No. 3:21-cv-5275-BLF) of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCAL),
1 Defendant VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) will move the Court, under the first-to-file rule and Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss these actions. The grounds for this Motion, as set forth in detail below, are simply that these cases do not belong in this Court: by filing their Complaints, the Plaintiffs contravened the long-standing principle that the cases filed concerning the patents-in-suit should proceed in the first-filed jurisdiction—the Western District of Texas (WDTX). Additionally, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal in all three cases, and venue is improper as to VoIP-Pal in all three cases. Accordingly, all three cases should be dismissed, stayed, or transferred to the WDTX.
What the court should decide:
1. Whether the Court should dismiss, transfer, or stay these declaratory-judgment actions under the first-to-file rule because the DJ Plaintiffs filed these cases after VoIP-Pal filed suit for patent infringement on the same patents in the WDTX?
2. Whether the Court should dismiss these declaratory-judgment actions because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)?
3. Whether the Court should dismiss these declaratory-judgment actions because venue is improper as to VoIP-Pal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3)?
Wait and see what happens.
>>...like starting the Boston marathon a mile from the finish line then saying my final time broke the 2 hour mark!...<<
Apt description of clueless Koh's legal acumen and AAPL strategy.
Local rules of N CA are set up to speed up the case turnover and reduce court costs. Clueless Koh figures using Alice as the fast way to shut down patent cases and help the local district and companies like AAPL.
Ninth Dist. court's local rules are listed on their web page.
Well said!
Further note:
"...If an IPR challenge is instituted, Judge Albright does not stay the case(s) while the IPR(s) proceed and I believe the PTAB considers this fact..."
Suddenly all of them want jury trial, some even revealing glimpses of their highly protected secrets (say, an infringed copy).
>>...Koh will fit right in with all the other idiots in D.C.!!<<
Yes! Maybe she will be strong enough to join the fist fight with the rest of the gang proficient with Hooke's law in Amer Axle case. Like some knuckleheads on SCOTUS ruling on nonsense Alice tests.
>>...Koh's skirt no longer available to hide...<<
Yes!
1) clueless Koh is on the list of ethnic, woman quota of nominations for the circuit court. Perhaps she will wrap up the AAPL cases one way or another before leaving the Dist. Court. Her case schedule goes until Nov 2022 with a jury trial, etc. Looks like AAPL is trying hard to hurry up and get a favorable ruling from her before she quits.
Even is she rules negative, Hudnell will appeal which will take a year or so. By Spring of 2022, the SCOTUS is supposed to address the Alice tests for American Axle. Revised Alice tests will be a good reason for Hudnell to ask to vacate RBR-Alice cases from N CA. jmo.
2) In the meanwhile, if Albright rules in favor of VPLM in the Gateway patent case in Spring 2022, there be a discussion of jury awards against 5 to 7 defendants in Waco. jmo
DB,
Your observations are valid. Some attorneys only write but do not participate in trial. Ravel sounds like a trial attorney who wrote in haste.
An interesting point to note. You have seen motions so far in N CA. The only subjects AAPL (including clueless Koh) talked about were: Alice this Alice that, subject matter ineligible for patent, Venue, First to File, etc. This is the first time, AAPL talks about iMessage, video call, Facetime, etc. use a different process. Hudnell calls "access code", "access code servers", etc. to complete a caller and a callee. AAPL calls "Apple system server" or different names and use a pair of codes to complete the call. So far we have never seen AAPL's black box until now. Hence the excitement!
The point for VPLM is:
even if AAPL argues that AAPL's process is slightly different from VPLM's Gateway patent, Albright will figure out the differences or similarity. But most of all, he will confirm when VPLM patent was issued. The issued date will be important is important in deciding who precedes whom. The earlier date will be an important point to argue against all seven defendants, including AAPL.
Note there is a case management conference in N CA. Is AAPL is trying to distract Hudnell?
AAPL 9/7/21 answer was very interesting to read, almost as exciting as unwrapping the wraps of Xmas gift! An exhibit was missing. As usual AAPL claims VPLM copied from another patent.
They want a jury trial. Their new attorney discusses how their iMessage system, Facetime work, etc. is different from VPLM Gateway technology. Very first time, an outline of their actual technology is being revealed. They call it Apple system, not an "access code server" and so on. Exciting to read!
Among the 6 or 7 defenses he offers, he uses Alice as often as possible. The problem is Albright does not even care about Alice until the end.
ATT, VZ, and T-mobile selling iphones and phone services may have nothing more to add to technology discussion. They sell the infringed products and services. It is Hudnell's turn!
Drumming,
Agree, no significant development in Waco.
Hudnell mentioned (Attn: Albright) a deadline of Sep 7, 2021 for filing in N CA Re. DJ action. He filed a motion to dismiss on Sep 7 in N CA to judges Donato, Chen, and Freeman Re.: ATT, VZ and AAPL (Re.: First to file already ruled by Albright).
Helps to know how Judge Alright reacts to defendant's tricks. He is fully booked, most of September.
https://cclaw.com/2019/09/09/judge-albright-denies-google-section-101-motion-to-dismiss/
September 9, 2019 - Waco Division Update: Albright Denies Google’s Section 101 Motion to Dismiss
Google filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the grounds that the representative claims of the lawsuit claim ineligible subject matter. (Alice 101) Google argued that two claims of eight different patents were representative and presented arguments only as to those two claims.
MOTION DENIED BEFORE ARGUMENTS RAISED ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
DON’T EXPECT EARLY DECISION ON SECTION 101 IN WACO DIVISION
=========
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2021/06/15/judge-albright-enters-new-standing-orders-on-motions-to-transfer-for-conformity-with-cafc-mandates/id=134619/
June 15, 2021 - Judge Albright Enters New Standing Orders on Motions to Transfer for Conformity with CAFC Mandates By Steve Brachmann
On June 8, U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas signed an amended pair of standing orders regarding motions to transfer filed in patent infringement cases on his docket. The standing orders, which limit venue and jurisdictional discovery as well as require party status reports on motions to transfer, balances judicial efficiency with fairness to patent litigators in a court that has absolutely become one of, if not the, most important court in U.S. patent law today.
Amendments Mandate Status Reports on Transfer Motions, Limit Venue Discovery -
WDTX On the Rise Due to TC Heartland-Compatible Factors, Judge Albright’s Patent Experience
the new amended standing orders will provide structure for conformance with the directives on motions to transfer being issued by the Federal Circuit. It will also allow the court to dispense with the issue of motions to transfer prior to the all-important Markman process — a process that should occur in the court in which the case will proceed, in part because of the clarity claim construction provides as to issues of infringement, non-infringement and patent claim validity, based on which party’s definition of claim terms are adopted by the court. “Judge Albright’s goal is always to handle cases efficiently and to get to trial in as short a time as possible,” Henry said.
>>... Koh should be a non-factor in Waco...<<
Yes! In denying VPLM's motion to dismiss the case against ATT, it suddenly dawned on her that her court was not a preferred place to conduct legal business. In her own words (Re.: Aug 25 2021 denial of VPLM's dismissal against ATT)
Page 16
"... As further evidence that Defendant (VPLM) does not want to litigate the ’606 patent in this Court, Defendant has represented to the Western District of Texas that Defendant’s aim in filing a motion to dismiss with a covenant not to sue is to resolve the declaratory judgment actions pending in this district so that Defendant can litigate the ’606 patent in its preferred forum, the Western District of Texas..."
Drumming!
Agree! The First-to-File and "no stay" are two most critical decisions made today to support VPLM, besides the "nonissue" of the venue!
Denying the TRO was expected but Hudnell had to pull that trick to discourage defendants. Koh got the message. jmo.
Well, there is quite a bit of literature on the SCOTUS Alice test issue.
SCOTUS is under immense pressure to improve Alice Tests (Context: American Axle). Prior to Axle's writ of certiorari, Fed Circ judges had almost a "fist-fight", 6 judges vs. 6 judges, regarding Amer Axle. Yes! Each side thought that their high school physics and Hook's law were sufficient to interpret Axle's patentable innovation. Their problem was Alice test that did not give consistent results. SCOTUS genius!
Besides, some senators like Tom Tillis, retired judges, several District Courts all over the country are clamoring for help with reliable Alice tests from SCOTUS. Intellectual Property is a subject above the level of supreme court judges head. So they asked the Solicitor General for input. Amer Axle case is due to be heard in the next session starting Oct 2021. Maybe early Spring of 2022, just about when VPLM and Hudnell are wrapping up the Gateway case in Waco and discussing jury awards.
SCOTUS Roberts has to face the music on this issue and demonstrate he understands IP and propose intelligent modifications, that are better than his last "nonsense" test. Since VPLM too has a writ of certiorari (along with Amer Axle's) asking for an improved Alice test, a revised test from SCOTUS for Amer Axle is enough to justify re-visiting Koh's court Alice rulings and asking to vacate RBR cases from Koh's court.
By the way infringers like AAPL utter words like "invalid RBR patents". Wrong! A patent may be considered invalid only if each and every claim of that patent is proved invalid. VPLM's patents have hundred claims each. What then?
Are infringers going back to Koh again and continue the RBR cases using the revised Alice tests? But Hudnell has already demonstrated the use of TRO/injunction in Waco and will have another smart move for the RBR patents. jmo.
Waiting and watching each step in Waco until a positive Markman hearing in VPLM's favor. Will the defendants reveal the operation of their "access code server and the access code use" in claim construction? Speculating.
TRO/injunction ruling in VPLM's favor is worth - may discourage other infringers FB, GOOG, AMZN and T mobile from seeking to transfer to N CA courts - to Koh or anyone.
Looking forward to a case mgmt conferences with defenders and come up with a schedule for each or all seven.
Drumming,
Agree, prescient! You took the words out of my mouth.
Yes, looking forward to SCOTUS' revised Alice tests, eventual "vacating" of RBR cases from Koh's court.
Butters,
Glad to see you back! Koh had enough of RBR lawsuit headache. Her schedule goes until end of 2022. Hope SCOTUS revises Alice tests for American Axle and let Hudnell "play it again" for Koh.
Judge Albright runs two courts: Austin and Waco. Lives in Austin; commutes to Waco.