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.
>>... 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.
Just a reminder -
"... https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=165517293
rapz Thursday, 08/19/21 01:15:23 AM Re: None 0 Post # 104095 of 104095
Is it a coincidence that some points discussed in this post appeared in Hudnell's Aug 16 response from VPLM? https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=165448142
There may not be an oral hearing. Judge Albright has enough information to rule, in a matter of days, unless defendants try "dirty" delay tactics...."
If Judge Albright has already decided on the following issues, there may be no need for the oral hearing or arguments, wasting court's time. If there were a conference the Judge would quiz infringers false claims. jmo.
Issues to be affirmed -
1) The Gateway case is the first-to-file case in Waco and Waco is a proper venue for the case.
2) Due to reason (1) above, a TRO/Injunction order is granted to prevent infringers from going to NDCal for the Declaratory Judgment actions. Therefore there is no need to stay the Gateway cases against all infringers. (not just AAPL)!
3) the Gateway patent issue is different from the RBR patent issues. Waco stayed the 606 patent RBR case due to Hudnell's case dismissal in NDCal.
Mr. Hudnell did a great job of linking each of the above issues like a chain.
HD,
Mr. Hudnell provides several "nuances" and "hints" in his motion. Too little space here and too little time to go over all. Example, it was wrong to assume that Koh had the power to grab the 606 patent case from Albright.
NDCal has not assigned the case to Koh. Wait and see how it develops.
Yes, called it "rumor" since it is not public news yet and not updated on the Pace Monitor. Pace Monitor is slow.
Strong rumor: oral hearing is set for 1:30 (Central) for Monday Aug 23. Should not take too long.
Is it a coincidence that some points discussed in this post appeared in Hudnell's Aug 16 response from VPLM? https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=165448142
There may not be an oral hearing. Judge Albright has enough information to rule, in a matter of days, unless defendants try "dirty" delay tactics.
Good news about "Accused Products" at the end.
1) 234 Gateway - "access code" "access code server", "access code table", etc. Not required for RBR technology.
Hudnell:
that Figure 1 the Mobile Gateway and RBR patents is dramatically different and that the RBR patents contain no disclosure analogous to Fig. 6 (access server), Fig. 10 (access code association table), Fig. 12 (access code selection algorithm), and Fig. 18C (access code based routing method) of the Mobile Gateway patents. They neglect to mention that even the Mobile Gateway routing controller has unique features such as access code generator, table, and store
2) Deceptive comparison of abstracts: 815 RBR vs 234 Gateway patents.
Hudnell:
...And Defendants have deceptively edited the abstracts to omit all the portions of the Mobile Gateway abstract that are nowhere disclosed or claimed in the RBR patents. Even if the specifications were the same, which they are not, ... it would not be appropriate to apply the first-filed rule to (earlier patent cases) (when) those cases involve different patents.
... Defendants concoct superficial similarities between the instant cases and the earlier NDCAL cases to conceal that the jurisdictional inquiry under the first-to-file rule concerns the 2021 NDCAL actions, not the earlier cases...
3) NDCAL's local bureaucracy assigns the cases. It could be the NDCAL bureaucracy that assigned the 606 patent case to Koh that ended up with DJ action. Koh did not have the power to grab the 606 patent case from Judge Albright as some had assumed. That assumption may be wrong. Koh has no unusual power over scheduling or picking VPLM cases to favor AAPL. If defendants request for Koh, NDCAL seems to oblige as in the TWTR case initially assigned to Donato last year.
Hudnell:
... the Court stayed the 2020 WDTX cases pending Judge Koh’s determination of ... the relationship between the (2020 NDCAL actions) and the earlier actions in her Court” is demonstrably false. At the time the Court stayed the 2020 WDTX cases, Judge Koh had already related the 2020 NDCAL actions to the 2016 and 2018 cases. Rather, the Court stayed the 2020 WDTX cases because VoIP-Pal moved to dismiss the 2020 NDCAL actions under the first-to file rule...
4) NDCAL bureaucracy assigned TWTR case filed last year to Donato (San Francisco). Later TWTR requested Donato to have their case moved to Koh's DJ action. The case continued with ADR discussions. Now Hudnell reports new assignments of 2021 Gateway cases.
Hudnell:
... Moreover, the 2021 NDCAL actions are not even assigned to Judge Koh. They are assigned to Judges Chen (Apple), Donato (AT&T), and Freeman (Verizon). The only issue pending before Judge Koh is the ... miscellaneous administrative matter of whether the 2021 NDCAL actions are related to her prior cases...
(Chen, Donato, Freeman et al. know technology. Chen awarded a large patent infringement award recently. Anyone better than Koh!)
... NDCAL actions are not assigned to Judge Koh. Because there is nothing for Judge Koh to decide regarding the first-to-file rule, a stay is unwarranted.
Second, at the time the Court stayed the 2020 WDTX cases (606 patent case), VoIP-Pal had already moved to dismiss in the 2020 NDCAL actions (606 patent case) under the first-to-file rule. In the present situation, no such motion is pending. So again, because there is nothing for Judge Koh or the judges who are assigned to the 2021 NDCAL actions to decide (Gateway patents), a stay is unwarranted...
...Even assuming that these actions (2021 Gateway cases) are reassigned to Judge Koh and VoIP-Pal again moves to dismiss under the first-to-file rule, Judge Koh likely will not set a hearing for VoIP-Pal’s proposed motion for at least four months based on her congested calendar...
5) False claim terms that defendants report are common words like "communication", "controller", etc.
Hudnell:
... Third, Judge Koh is not “in the process of construing (allegedly overlapping) claim terms” in the 2020 NDCAL actions. She is considering whether to dismiss those actions for nearly five months. Defendants’ argument that the Mobile Gateway patents recite four claim term that are disputed in the 2020 NDCAL actions means nothing because the parties have yet to determine which terms of the Mobile Gateway patents they will ask this Court to construe.
Fourth, Judge Koh’s familiarity with the eligibility (Alice) issues in the 2016 and 2018 cases is irrelevant because the first-to-file issue concerns the second-filed 2021 NDCAL actions, not the 2016 and 2018 cases. Even if the 2021 NDCAL actions are reassigned to Judge Koh, her prior eligibility rulings still have little relevance because they concern different patents and materially different claims...
Hudnell:
...It is black letter law that “(e)ach patent asserted raises an independent and distinct cause of action. Separate patents represent separate property rights as do separate claims within the same patent. Patent eligibility must be evaluated, like any other ground of invalidity, claim-by-claim. Thus, Judge Koh’s prior orders are not a compelling reason to depart from the first-to-file rule...
6) IMPORTANT BONUS FROM HUDNELL - Accused products. Koh did not rule on accused products (AAPL iMessage and Facetime, WhatsApp video/call, FB messenger, etc.) because Koh stopped with Alice and declared patent invalid based on a few claims and ended the 2016 cases.
Hudnell:
... Fifth, any alleged similarity between the accused products in the instant cases and the accused products in the 2016 and 2018 cases is meaningless. Due to Defendants’ successful 101 motion, [color=red]those cases never made it past the pleadings stage...
No ruling to protect their imessage, facetime, etc. YET!
Missed a couple of points.
1) The TRO hearing and DJ action in N CA have deadlines from Hudnell petition.
VoIPPal’s response in the Apple declaratory-judgment action is due by August 30, 2021.
VoIPPal’s response in the AT&T and Verizon declaratory-judgement actions is due by September 7, 2021.
Judge Albright decision is not too far off.
2) In the Mobile Gateway patent, VPLM talks about "access code" and "access code server" in the Abstract. Later in the discussion Hudnell talks about "location identifiers" and ISP's "locations identifier database server". "Access code" may be same as "location identifier". Check your contacts list and location services on your phone. You may be providing ISP's with free memory from your phone.
If the location services is turned on, the phone keeps tracking callers and callee. ISP's have servers that use the data on your phone.
It will be interesting to see the technology used on defendants' servers and if it is any different from VPLM patents. Time to prove it!
Aside - patents, petitions, rulings, etc. are public information for everyone to read.
That phrase was taken from defendants petition. Check it yourself. References have been posted.
TRO/injunction
As soon as VPLM filed 06/25/21 (6:21-cv-665) a Complaint for Gateway Patent Infringement, demanding jury trial,
ATT filed 06/30/21 (5:21-cv-5078) a motion for DJ action in N CA to counter the Gateway case in Waco. Their N CA petition is pathetic as usual and is full of lies and misinformation. ATT defendants claim that both the Gateway and the RBR patents are similar and related. Since Koh invalidated the RBR patents based on Alice, the Gateway patent must be similarly invalidated. They are wrong.
Compare the abstracts of both patents:
US8630234 (Gateway - a method of initiating a call to a callee using an access code selected from an access code table on a server to identify a callee and complete calls without the roaming charges) vs.
US8542815 (RBR - A process and apparatus to facilitate mobile phone communication between a callee and a caller over public and private networks.)
In the 606 patent case, AAPL et al argued for N CA as their proper venue. Koh justified the first-to-file argument to move the 606 patent case, and even ruling a DJ action, in spite of several objections from Hudnell.
To thwart dirty moves by AAPL et al. Hudnell files TRO/injunction motion (6:21-cv-00670-ADA), claiming that the Gateway case in Waco is the "first-to-file" case and that Judge Albright has the right to enjoin defendants from going to N CA as in the past. In addition, he requests for oral argument to expose their shenanigans.
Defendants took 9 extra days to file (6:21-cv-00670-ADA, 08/09/21) COMBINED OPPOSITION. Anyone familiar with AAPL's responses over the years - PTAB final ruling on sanctions, Mandamaus writ, other appeals, etc. - knows how pathetic they were. The current motion is no different. Pathetic as usual!
AAPL's counter points:
1) Waco is not a proper venue for VPLM
2) The Gateway patent case is not the first to file case. It is a continuation of the first to file 2016 cases from Nevada which were transferred to N CA after the TC Heartland ruling by the SCOTUS.
3) Defendants make another stupid claim that since the inventors of both patents are the same persons, their patents are related (technology). Just because inventors are the same their patents need not address the same or similar technology. They can patent different technologies or improvements. That is the dumbest claim from AAPL attorney Modi.
US8630234 Mobile Gateway -
Inventors: Johan Emil Viktor Bjorsell, Maksym Sobolyev, Pentti Kalevi HUTTUNEN, Emil Malak
US8542815 Producing routing messages for voice over IP communications
Inventors: Clay Perreault, Steve Nicholson, Rod Thomson, Johan Emil Viktor Bjorsell, Fuad Arafa
4) Koh is the best judge and has the most expertise on all VPLM patents. She considers VPLM patents are all related and therefore invalid based on Alice. What a genius this woman is!
If Judge Albright allows the oral argument, his court will hear about Koh's extra ordinary legal expertise and her enormous love for patents/cancer. It is about time Koh gets exposed by Hudnell in a court hearing under the watchful eye of Judge Albright.
For further clarification, see:
Case 6:21-cv-665 Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case 5:21-cv-5078 Document 1 Filed 06/30/21 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY
- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case 6:21-cv-00670-ADA Document 14 Filed 07/19/21 PLAINTIFF VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Case 6:21-cv-00670-ADA Document 16 Filed 08/09/21 COMBINED OPPOSITION OF APPLE, AT&T, AND VERIZON TO VOIP-PAL’S CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Drumming,
Thank you. ATT and FB are in Sep, 2021. No idea about T Mobile.
Watching curiously how Judge Albright and Mr. Hudnell are handling 7 defendants, in the same infringement case. Will the defendants decide to collaborate as a single team against VPLM or each fight individually? What if one or two decide to give up, want to settle, and move on?
Normally a pre-order after the Markman hearing indicates which way the Judge is likely to rule. Hope the case progresses that far and favors VPLM.
Hold it! What if the SCOTUS issues a new standard for Alice tests next Spring or earlier for all plaintiffs like American Axle and Mr. Hudnell uses the new standard to re-litigate and get the old cases vacated from Koh's court, thus reviving the RBR technology patents? Possibilities!
Waco update (source: Pace Monitor)
1) July 27, 2021 VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al
Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED. (no date)
2) July 08, 2021 VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Facebook, Inc. et al
WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. as to Facebook, Inc.. Waiver sent on 7/1/2021, answer due 8/30/2021. (Hudnell, Lewis). similar - WHATSAPP, INC.
3) August 05, 2021 VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Google, Inc.
MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Paige Arnette Amstutz for Robert W. Unikel ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15088558) by on behalf of Google, LLC.(Amstutz, Paige) (no date)
4) July 27, 2021 VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Apple Inc.
Unopposed Motion for Extension is GRANTED, and Apples deadline to respond to VoIP-Pals Consolidated Application is hereby extended through and including August 9, 2021. (Monday, next week)
5) July 02, 2021 VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al
Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer , MOVE, OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT by T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc..(Smith, Melissa). (no date)
6) July 27, 2021 VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. AT&T, Corporation, et al
Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Wed 07/21 11:52 AM.
GRANTS the Motion. Defendants shall have up to and including September 7, 2021 to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint.
(maybe ATT is hoping for Koh to use her DJ action to pull the Gateway case from Waco to N CA. A section from their petition for amusement:
Page 1 - "... Honorable Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California has extensive experience with
VoIP-Pal’s patents, the technology claimed in its patents, and its litigation campaign against AT&T, making it logical and judicially efficient for the parties’ dispute to be heard in this Court... ")
7) July 01, 2021 VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC. et al
SUMMONS Returned Executed by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.. AMAZON.COM. INC. served on 6/28/2021, answer due 7/19/2021. (Hudnell, Lewis)
12 service Summons Returned Executed Thu 07/01 2:52 PM
SUMMONS Returned Executed by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.. Amazon Web Services, Inc. served on 6/28/2021, answer due 7/19/2021. (Hudnell, Lewis)
11 service Summons Returned Executed Thu 07/01 2:49 PM
SUMMONS Returned Executed by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.. Amazon.com Services LLC served on 6/28/2021, answer due 7/19/2021. (Hudnell, Lewis)
9 service Summons Issued Thu 07/01 11:16 AM
Summons Issued as to Amazon Web Services, Inc.. (lad)
It was a copy and paste of ipWatchdog article. (link provided.)
Worth checking with ipWatchdog or WDTX Judge Albright's Standing orders for updates.
Judge Albright’s Latest Rules Ensure the WDTXs Place as the New Patent Rocket Docket
By Victor Johnson
November 27, 2020
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/11/27/judge-albrights-latest-rules-ensure-wdtxs-place-new-patent-rocket-docket/id=127632/
“While not all patent cases can be filed in Waco due to post-Heartland venue restrictions, the WDTX is home to many companies with regular and established place of business and Judge Albright has solidified his place at the nation’s go to judge for patent cases.”
Judge Alan Albright
Numbers don’t lie. By any account, Judge Alan Albright’s Western District of Texas courtroom in Waco, Texas is the preferred venue for patent cases and the new patent rocket docket. Prior to Judge Albright taking the bench, patent cases filed in Waco were scarce. In 2016 and 2017, the two years prior to Judge Albright’s appointment, there were only five patent cases filed in Waco. Indeed, since the division’s creation in 1984, fewer than 10 patent cases had been filed in Waco. But since taking the bench, patent cases have exploded. In 2018, the WDTX had 90 patent cases. Last year, in 2019, the WDTX saw a three-fold increase, with 278 patent cases in the district. In 2020, the pace has continued. Through November 23, 2020, 3,863 patent cases have been filed nationwide. Of that number, nearly 791 have been filed in Judge Albright’s court, meaning 1/5th (20%) of all new patent cases are filed in his court. If this pace continues for the year, the WDTX will see a tripling of the number of patent case from 2019 and a more than 700% increase in patent cases over the last four years.
Lawyer-Friendly Approach
Having practiced with Judge Albright for five years while he was in private practice and, more recently, trying the first bench trial involving IP to Judge Albright since he took the bench, my personal experience is that parties and practitioners before Judge Albright will find themselves before a smart judge who is always well-prepared and takes a lawyer-friendly approach to his cases. Parties in his courtroom with a patent dispute will quickly learn that they have a judge with deep experience with patent cases, local rules designed to get a more efficient resolution of the case, and a reasonable approach to litigation.
Indeed, his local rules and predictable case schedules will help clients, in-house counsel, and outside attorneys develop and stick to case budgets, avoid gamesmanship, and eliminate needless motion practices that cause too much delay and costs in the federal court system. More importantly, his refinement to his local rules for patent cases (called is Order Governing Proceedings) not only reflects how Judge Albright likes patent matters handled but also ensures his goal of rapidly advancing patent cases in his court.
September Modifications
On September 22, 2020, Judge Albright again modified his Order Governing Proceedings. Like his July modification, Judge Albright maintained his order that motions to transfer motions must be filed within two weeks of the Case Management Conference (CMC). The deadline for filing an amended complaint was moved to 16 weeks after the Markman hearing, giving the plaintiff four more weeks. The order also provides that no motion is required to file an amended complaint during this period, even if a party seeks to amend in response to a 12(c) motion.
As for the Court’s Markman procedures, the Court moved up its target Markman hearing date by a week, from 24 weeks after the CMC to 23 weeks after the CMC. Judge Albright also changed Order regarding the limit of terms for claim construction, noting that the “presumed limit” is the maximum number of terms that “each side” (versus “the parties”) may request the Court construe without leave of Court. So now, the presumed limits absent leave of court per side are:
1-2 Patents-----------3-5 Patents------------More than 5 Patents
10 terms---------------12 terms----------------15 terms
The Order also made changes to expert testimony. Notably, the Order now requires that 12 weeks after the CMC, the parties need only identify expert witnesses and their expected testimony they plan to rely on in their opening claim construction briefs. Rebuttal expert witness and their expected expert’s testimony are to be identified up to 16 weeks after the CMC (two weeks after the parties file opening claim construction briefs). The Order also seeks to eliminate any disputes over what is required to be provided by stating the parties must “provide a summary of the witness’s expected testimony including the opinions to be expressed and a general description of the basis and reasons therefor.” Failure to follow this disclosure requirement can result in the exclusion of the proffered expert and testimony.
The modified Order also clarifies the procedure for argument at the Markman hearing, Specifically, the Order provides that generally the party opposing the Court’s preliminary construction will go first. If both parties oppose the Court’s preliminary construction, the Plaintiff will go first.
The modified Order also addresses changes to the trial setting. Namely, once the trial date is set, the Order makes clear that the Court will not move its “except in extreme situations.”
Judge Albright’s prior Orders on discovery disputes required a telephone conference with him to discuss the dispute before any motion could be filed. In practice, Judge Albright has made himself available on short notice and more than then not makes decisions about the dispute over the phone. The modified Order continues this requirement but also states that summaries of discovery disputes raised with the Court are to be neutral and non-argumentative.
The Patent Community’s Go-To Judge
While not all patent cases can be filed in Waco due to post-Heartland venue restrictions, the WDTX is home to many companies with regular and established place of business and Judge Albright has solidified his place at the nation’s go to judge for patent cases. If patent filing trends continue through the rest of this year, we should exceed the 3,600 patent cases filed in 2019. And while no one can predict the number of cases that might be filed in 2021, we can rest assured that Judge Albright and Waco, Texas will get the lion’s share.
THE AUTHOR: Victor Johnson
Victor Johnson is a member of the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the Dallas, Texas office of Dykema. Mr. Johnson's practice focuses on IP litigation including patent, trademark, brand protection and trade secret misappropriation, as well as domain name disputes and other forms of unfair competition.
Agree on the timings for both Waco and SCOTUS. The TRO hearing is expected to begin next week! Interesting to watch how AAPL manipulates and how Judge Albright responds. 7 defendants!
ATT's N CA filing is at best "childish", asking Koh to bring the Gateway case from Waco to N CA under the old declaratory judgment action.
The TRO petition in Waco is all about Koh and how she used a declaratory judgment to pull the 606 patent from Waco to N CA. Will Koh try to repeat the same pattern again for ATT? Will Judge Albright let her have her own way this time too? Maybe things are different this time. Let us watch what happens.
SCOTUS -
VPLM petition has been docketed by the Supreme Court as No. 20-1809. VPLM is piggybacking with American Axle and another company, asking SCOTUS for standard tests on Alice 102, 103, 112. SCOTUS is under a great pressure to review and revise the currently vague Alice tests to benefit all US District and Federal Courts. SCOTUS starts next session in Oct, 2021.
DB, remember ENE?
The Enron scandal was an accounting scandal involving Enron Corporation, an American energy company based in Houston, Texas. Upon being publicized in October 2001, the company declared bankruptcy and its accounting firm, Arthur Andersen – then one of the five largest audit and accountancy partnerships in the world – was effectively dissolved.
Thank you.
DB,
>>... Just waiting on good Judge Albright in Waco! ...<<
Like your style: post a hint here and there. Let posters dig for "FACTS", themselves, instead of spoon-feeding them.
Check for a link to SCOTUS posted a few days ago.
Up to you to look for facts yourself!
Koh is not in the picture in the mobile gateway case in Waco. Did you or anyone see a new declaratory action ruling from Koh this year, 2021? Did AAPL's N CA petition include the mobile gateway patent case? Please post a link, so we can follow.
Last week's claim construction filings (from AAPL and VPLM) in N CA were required according to last year's (July 2020, not July 2021) case management order from Koh. July 2020! Not July 2021! No typo!
By the way, Koh's 2020 schedule continues until Nov 2022!!! More filings or hearings are likely in N CA. That does not mean Koh has taken over the mobile gateway patent case from Waco. AAPL and other defendants might try. It has not happened yet. Koh paranoia seems to be overwhelming!
The Waco mobile gateway case may be over hopefully before Nov, 2022! A single claim is in dispute!
On Alice case, the SCOTUS might issue a modification of Alice tests before Nov 2022, on three Alice petitions including American Axle and VPLM. (Supreme Court's 2023 session starts in Oct 2022.)
A modification is likely. If modified, Mr. Hudnell has requested the SCOTUS to vacate the two old Alice cases from Koh's court and remand them back to a Fed Circuit. Read his petition! The RBR technology might survive!
A serious investor has to be diligent and keep track of dates, schedules, petitions, proceedings from all three courts, etc. Some take their time to post updates and links.
Mr. Hudnell, single-handedly, manages cases against 6-7 defendants in both district courts and the supreme court.
There is some confusion about court proceedings in N CA and Waco.
Anyone saw new declaratory management ruling from Koh related to mobile gateway patent, TRO/INJUNCTION FILED IN WACO? Post a link please!
Old declaratory judgment action -
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=165192305.
Read the post again:
"... The case schedule remains as set in the July 27, 2020 (not 2021) Case Management Order. Case No. 20-CV-02397-LHK, ECF No. 35 ..."
AAPL's claim construction statement and VPLM response filed last week were part of Koh's case management order of July 27, 2020 (not 2021) - part of the continuing ADR and last year's declaratory management action.
AAPL's Claim Construction Statement and VPLM's response were filed in Koh's court last week in N CA. Parties are following Koh's schedule.
Schedule of events in Koh's Case Management Order below. By the time it comes to the jury trial in November 7, 2022, SCOTUS may modify the Alice tests that could impact Koh's schedule and may even the vacate the case. jmo.
The case schedule remains as set in the July 27, 2020 Case Management Order. Case No.
20-CV-02397-LHK, ECF No. 35. The Court reproduces the schedule below for the convenience
of the parties.
Scheduled Event ---------------------------------------------------------------Date
Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions --- January 6, 2021
Further Case Management Conference ------------------------------ January 20, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.
Invalidity Contentions -------------------------------------------------February 19, 2021
Exchange of Proposed Terms for Construction -------------------------March 5, 2021
Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions and
Extrinsic Evidence ------------------------------------------------- March 26, 2021
Damages Contentions ------------------------------------------------ April 12, 2021
Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement ------------------ April 21, 2021
Responsive Damages Contentions ---------------------------------------May 12, 2021
Close of Claim Construction Discovery --------------------------------May 21, 2021
Opening Claim Construction Brief ------------------------------------June 7, 2021
Responsive Claim Construction Brief ---------------------------------June 21, 2021
Reply Claim Construction Brief --------------------------------------June 28, 2021
Claim Construction Hearing ------------------------------------------ July 22, 2021 at 1:30 p.m.
Close of Fact Discovery ----------------------------------------- November 19, 2021
Opening Expert Reports --------------------------------------------January 10, 2022
Rebuttal Expert Reports ------------------------------------------February 9, 2022
Close of Expert Discovery ----------------------------------------- March 11, 2022
Last Day to File Dispositive Motions and Daubert
Motions ------------------------------------------------------------ April 25, 2022
Hearing on Dispositive Motions and Daubert Motions ------------------June 30, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.
Pretrial Conference ---------------------------------------------September 22, 2022 at 1:30 p.m.
Jury Trial ------------------------------------------------------November 7, 2022
Length of Jury Trial --------------------------------------------------- 5 days
Case Nos. 20-CV-02397-LHK, 20-cv-02460-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
Judge Albright has several Standing Orders on Venue Transfer, Discovery, case schedule, etc. Insists on a hearing.
https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/judges-information/standing-orders/
American Axle - Supreme Court case Re.: Alice
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-891.html
May 03 2021 The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
>>... VPLM heating up?...<<
Naturally! And expected! A minor point worthy of note:
The Waco lawsuit on the mobile gateway patent was filed against 7 defendants (highlighted below).
Mr. Hudnell has requested the court for ORAL arguments of VPLM's TRO/injunction petition.
AAPL is the only defendant asking for extra time to appear before the court for ORAL argument.
(Judge Albright is familiar with AAPL's past tactics. This time Judge Albright is acting on plaintiff's (VPLM) TRO petition, not a defendant's (AAPL) request for venue transfer as in the past. Transcripts of oral arguments may help clarify in the appeal. jmo)
The remaining 6 defendants are presumably subject to Albright's "rocket docket" case schedule. Hence, the heat?
United States: VoIP-Pal Opens Up Another Litigation Campaign
09 July 2021 by RPX Corporation (San Francisco)
VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (VPLM) has filed separate Western District of Texas lawsuits against a mostly familiar set of defendants — Alphabet (Google) (6:21-cv-00667), Amazon (6:21-cv-00668), Apple (6:21-cv-00670), AT&T (6:21-cv-00671), Facebook (6:21-cv-00665), T-Mobile (6:21-cv-00674), and Verizon (6:21-cv-00672)—asserting a family of two patents new to litigation.
>>... Crooked Koh can’t help... <<
Note: VPLM petition for writ of certiorari along with American Axle and another party to clarify/modify Alice tests on patent eligibility matter. Contentious debates went on at the Fed Circ (Judge Moore) and confusion at several dist. courts. Mr. Hudnell and the judiciary press have pointed out Koh's misuse of Alice tests. If SCOTUS ruling goes against Koh's misapplication of Alice tests (most likely), Mr. Hudnell requests all Alice rulings against VPLM are to be vacated and remanded back to Fed Circ. VPLM can take the lawsuits elsewhere.
Another point: A single claim is enough to prove infringement, example, current Mobile Gateway case in Waco.
VPLM has 100's of claims and several patents. Their research on prior art is voluminous, runs 4-5 pages of technical references, submitted with all patent applications.
A minor difference: Mr. Hudnell wanted ORAL arguments on this TRO-injunction motion. No "papers"!
AAPL's "Contract" law firm from another state has now a local attorney for this. Maybe AAPL may need to get used to driving around Waco, instead of facing the "raging fires" in California. One step at a time...
1) SCOTUS - need time to organize the info. Will post later. Info is available at the SCOTUS web site.
SCOTUS yearly sessions run October to October. Next year session, Oct 2022, begins in October 2021. Some expect them to issue the ruling before the next session starts in Oct 2021. They are waiting for input from the Solicitor General. Depending upon the SG input, etc. a ruling may be expected soon.
2) Market reaction to the TRO petition - The market has been down due to concern about the uncertainty of the new Covid pandemic of the unvaccinated and its effect on the economic recovery.
Filing a petition is just the beginning - "opening the door for the possibility to stay in Waco." Glad they found a tool! But Judge Albright has not ruled yet. Even if he rules in VPLM's favor, expect the defendants to come up new tricks to block VPLM trial. Wait for the claim construction arguments, expert testimonies, etc. to boost VPLM's case and see a trend in the stock price. Considering the expected size of a possible settlement and punitive damages, the case may make a history!
SCOTUS ruling will be another bonus. As soon as SCOTUS issues Alice test modifications, one would expect Mr. Hudnell filing an appeal in the Fed Circ court (not Koh's district court!) to vacate the old Alice cases and move to sues RBR claims in Waco. jmo.
1) If Judge Albright grants "TRO and injunction" (most likely) the new tool will open up the Waco court to pursue not only the mobile gateway case but also other infringement cases.
>>... asks the Court to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction under the first-to-file rule enjoining Apple, et al....<<
Wait until Judge Albright's court schedule moves through discovery, etc. to claim examination. Keeping fingers crossed.
2) Looks like Koh got "the wind of it" and cancelled her hearing scheduled this week. Hope Koh will dismiss the declaratory judgement actions involving the 606 patent.
3) Next, a bonus! The SCOTUS is expected to revise or modify Alice tests. When SCOTUS issues new tests, Mr. Hudnell, American Axle and others will ask to vacate the old cases and sue for infringement. Some judges blame the confusing Alice test. If a judge is crooked, the confusion can be used as a pretext to issue negative rulings to benefit some infringers. Investors and patent owners have known such crooked folks.
DB,
Excellent post! Your friend hit the nail on its head.
>>... a fellow VPLM holder this morning and he brought to my attention a basic, simple fact. Nearly all VPLM's issues come down to one lazy, disrespectful judge!!... <<
One can be arrogant but not stupid. Mixing stupidity with arrogance will get anyone in trouble. The judiciary community is watching how desperate she gets! Get a feeling of being "boxed in"? The ADR was just a show?
Defendants' ultimate target has always been to get sanctions against all VPLM patents. They are failing time and again.
Will she regret issuing a declaratory judgment to placate AAPL et al. and for including the 606 patent case from Waco?
In her declaratory judgment ruling, she suggested Mr. Hudnell to file a petition for writ of certiorari with SCOTUS.
Petitions have been filed along with two more plaintiffs. The case is scheduled before the next SCOTUS session starts October 2022. If SCOTUS revises the Alice tests, Mr. Hudnell requests the SCOTUS to vacate the VPLM's Alice cases and remand back to a Fed Circ court.
This week is worth watching.
>>... hoping this gets settled before going to trial... <<
Not easy to predict settlement or an outcome of a case. Remember the poster Hayday?
As DB posted today the judge is about to face her "follies" soon. One can be arrogant but not stupid. Mixing both arrogance and stupidity will get anyone in trouble.
SCOTUS petition for writ of certiorari includes a record of her misusing the Alice tests. Mr. Hudnell team petitions to have VPLM Alice cases vacated and remanded back to the Fed Circ. SCOTUS is under pressure to revise and clarify Alice tests, hopefully before their Oct, 2022 session.
Today's share volume 2,133,728. Such high share volume is a hint the they have found a tool to stop the case from going to N CA or some other positive development. jmo.
Too early to talk about damages and punitive damages. Better to be pessimistic at this time and be prepared for any unexpected roadblocks that the defendants may throw in order to disrupt the trial.
When the markets see that Koh is out of the picture, it will help the share price. If the Waco trial progresses on schedule, investors will gain confidence. The share price will reflect the underlying optimism. Higher share price will torture the defendants because the company, instead of running out of cash, can raise equity capital by selling shares at higher prices.
Not only investors but the patent media like ipWatchdog, are watching this trial closely.
The Gateway patent case is a "fresh" and separate case for Judge Albright in Waco. The RBR case came to Judge Albright, in the middle, as continuation from NDCal's Koh. Defendants had issues like "venue", "First to File", etc. to ask for transfer back to NDCal.
The gateway case is different. It has no connection to any other court in US. That should give Judge Albright and Mr. Hudnell (plaintiff attorney headquartered in WACO,TEXAS) more tools to proceed with the case in Waco. Unlike Koh, Judge Albright knows patents, real cancer, and understands technology. He spent almost 20 years defending patents. Maybe TEXAS does NOT "roll over" for the Silicon Valley like N CA.
As the gateway case unfolds in Waco, the defendants will start throwing more roadblocks, misinformation, lies, and dirty tricks to prevent VPLM entering the claim construction phase under Judge Albright. The reason may be that AAPL et al. have to open up their codes on their "calling system servers" to disprove the infringement charge. No wonder, the defendants have avoided claim construction in NDCal so far, under Koh. (aside - SCOTUS knows how Koh misused Alice tests.)
Based on the negative experiences with the defendants and Koh, VPLM and Mr. Hudnell are preparing for the worst. Hope they (plaintiff) achieve the goal of winning and proving the infringement.
A single win in Waco will change VPLM's dozens of future cases in Waco. And then...one day, a defendant or two with a "smart" management will realize it is a better "return on investment" to buy them out rather than spending time and money in the never-ending court cases and ultimately facing possible injunction against the sale of their products like cell phones and services.
My comment was about AAPL's effort to take the "gateway" case from Waco to Koh using the pretext that the gateway patent is "related" to RBR patents, and therefore Koh should include it in her "Declaratory Judgement".
Whether or not Koh understands the technology differences or "cancer" types, she will LIKELY agree with AAPL and rule against VPLM. That has been the pattern so far and the market seems to expect it.
Investors wondered why Judge Albright allowed the 606 RBR patent cases to go back to Koh and get a declaratory judgement ruling. Were issues like "venue", "first to file" etc. important? Why such issues did not affect other defendants like FB, GOOG, AMZN?
This time is different. AAPL did not raise such issues like "venue", "first to file", etc. like the last time. They went straight to Koh, while waiting for a hearing in Oct 2021 on the current RBR case. Is there a legal process to stop the defendants or Koh this time? Maybe there is. If there is, it'll be worth watching what happens next.
Reading about Judge Albright and listening to his podcast, once the "gateway" patent case goes on the court calendar, it may proceed fast, in spite of several "roadblocks" from the defendants.
The gateway case is about a single claim (from each of the two patents). It is highly focused and short. A single claim is enough to sue for infringement. Winning in the US court is worth a lot compared to 12-0 PTAB win. Chances are looking good! jmo.