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.
??? It’s a declaratory judgement case. I could be wrong but don’t believe there is ever any claim construction in a DJ case. Pretty sure the ruling is a judgement call by the judge based on the filings of each party.
If there’s an IP lawyer on here, please correct me if I’m wrong.
These articles were about 2 different cases DJ cases in N CA. One which was allowed to proceed and the other was dismissed.
Anyone know if VPLM served Amazon, Verizon, & T-Mobile with final infringement contentions on 7/26? The deadline was to “serve” these defendants with the docs but not sure if there is any requirement for filing a corresponding court document or notice of service. Nothing showing in the docket yet.
Lol HDrider…No hype or rumors will come from me so I’m not going to give any numbers.
My feeling is the further along the cases progress in Waco, the higher the price becomes. Where it ends is anyone’s guess and pure speculation. That is why I pay close attention to the court documents, which provide factual information.
BFD…so were a lot of other stocks. Doesn’t change the fact that the court cases are progressing and the Bigs are having one hell of a time escaping from the coming discovery phase!
Next stop…final infringement contentions to be served. Then on to the next step…see there’s a defined process to patent cases in Albright’s court and he’s following the law! Weird how some don’t understand how patent cases work.
Maybe some should focus on getting their Nevada briefs filed correctly and then go back & read all the previous posts about the companies who are commonly referred to as the Bigs.
The same brief rejected 5 times lol…can’t make this crap up. Oh, and in our opinion of course.
Right on Rapz. Albright understands patents & technology and the bigs hate that they can’t baffle him with BS like they were able to with Koh!
Why? That’s a standard step in the parties discussing infringement contentions.
Well, it is encouraging that Albright isn’t allowing the bigs to play their deceptive games in Waco. Once VPLM serves their final infringement contentions, we’ll all have a better understanding of what direction this will go.
If the infringement does not involve the Amazon Fire operating systems in accused products, I believe this stays in Waco. Even if it involves Fire OS, a transfer will depend on the witnesses/knowledge available in Amazon’s Austin facility to address any infringement contentions.
Albright denied Amazon’s motion to reconsider transfer to N CA without prejudice on the grounds that the “…facts have yet to fully develop.”
Since the parties agreed to extend the deadline for serving final infringement contentions to 7/26, Albright determined…
“Amazon has leave to refile the motion for reconsideration after it 1) receives final infringement contentions and 2) 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.”
Just saw Kipping’s attorney had his 3rd attempt at filing his opening brief at the Nevada Supreme Court rejected. It should be like baseball…3 strikes & time to take the bench.
Filed briefs/appendix on 6/27, 7/2, & 7/11 and court rejected each filing on 6/28, 7/5, & 7/11 respectively. Tell us again how VPLM’s stud attorney Hudnell is second rate…Now that’s some funny stuff.
Check out the docket…
https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=63385&combined=true
No problem Rapz. Like you and a few other here, I try to provide FACTUALLY ACCURATE information to the best of my ability and as time free time allows.
Let’s go Emil! GLTA!
Guess you were wrong, eh?
Regardless who or when someone comments, it has zero bearing on the the likelihood of Locksmith losing or VPLM prevailing in the appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. I predict this final grasp at the VPLM straw will be over sooner rather than later…that is unless Locksmith/Kipping have more stall tactics up their sleeves!
Then what will their next failed attempt be…SCOTUS??? Good luck with that!
All my opinions…of course.
No big deal, it’s pretty likely that Locksmith loses this one too! When criticizing VPLM about transparency to shareholders, maybe a link to the Nevada Supreme Court case docket would have been more helpful for everyone to show some transparency; but then again, after reading the work from the Locksmith’s B-team attorney, now it makes sense why the info was cryptic.
For anyone interested in following along, all court documents are public access at the link below.
https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=63385
Just posted in N CA…Judge Donato ruled in VPLM’s favor to deny Twitter’s request for attorney’s fees in case 3:20-cv-02397. I believe that was the last open issue with that case since the legal proceedings were previously dismissed in W TX.
But don’t worry, some will say that VPLM had never won a court case.
Go VPLM!
Exactly…seems like Kipping only filed appeal try to skip out on paying court costs to VPLM & delay further by filing counter motion for stay pending appeal…but the Judge declined.
Here’s the minutes from the 3/15/22 hearing in Nevada. Keep in mind, Smith is Kipping’s attorney and VPLM is the Defendant in this case.
——————————
Events & Orders of the Court
03/15/2022 All Pending Motions (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Kishner, Joanna S.)
Minutes
03/15/2022 10:00 AM
- DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO NRS 18.010(2)(B) AND NRS 7.085 (DOC95)... PLAINTIFF S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES PURSUANT TO NRS 18.010(2)(B) AND NRS 7.085 AND COUNTERMOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL (DOC99) Court stated its inclination and gave a tentative ruling. Colloquy regarding NRS 18.010(a), 18.010(2)(b) and 7.085. Upon Court's inquiry Mr. Havili stated Plaintiff made misrepresentations in the Second Amended Complaint that rose to the level of harassment and resulted in the denial of the Motion to Dismiss. Additionally, Plaintiff alleged the shares were not an issue in the previous case which were not true. Mr. Smith acknowledged the Countermotion's deficiencies and stated Defendant prevailed in the case but was not entitled to fees considering the matter was brought in good faith and Plaintiff thought it had a statutory right to pursue it. Mr. Havili stated Defendant prevailed and costs were appropriate given the ruling on the Summary Judgment. Furthermore, the Countermotion had no authority, rules cited to or a compelling reason to stay the matter. Colloquy regarding untimely Notice of Non- Opposition. Court stated its Findings and ORDERED, Motion DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to fees and GRANTED as to costs. Court FURTHER ORDERED, Countermotion, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to EDCR 2.20 and the Notice of Non- Opposition was untimely. COURT DIRECTED Mr. Havili to prepare the Order with detailed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, circulate to opposing counsel, and submit to the Court pursuant to EDCR 7.21 and the current Administrative Orders.
Thank you Frio!
FYI…Amazon filed a motion for Albright to reconsider the decision (Court Doc #75) to not transfer to NDCA. Right on there filing, Amazon stated they were filing the motion “…rather than filing a Mandamus request…”. Not sure why they used that language but it’s right there in the filing. If ultimately they were going to file a Mandamus because they feel the decision was in error, why screw around and not go right to the Mandamus?
Also, VPLM’s response (Court Doc 76) shot down every attempt by Amazon to twist the facts of Albright’s ruling.
Interesting… who filed Mandamus requests? Links?
Loflz
“For example both Emil Malak and Rich Inza are known to be recidivist conmen.”
Wow…Where the proof? We’re still waiting on all those so called SEC investigations many have professed in the past.
Exactly lndy.
Name one penny stock Wall Street ever cared about…just 1.
Lol…I’m starting to believe in Santa Claus.
Right? Just the start of good things to come.
Right on!
Contrary to popular belief, IP & patent infringement cases are never straightforward…it takes a lot of brass to stay focused & persist!
Thank you Emil…we’re counting on you to get this across the finish line!
Wow…outstanding work Rapz. Are you sure you’re not a patent attorney?
Yep…probably one of the 2 youts!
Nice analysis Rapz. Did you also see that Albright denied FB motion to dismiss VPLM claims of willful, induced, & contributory infringement. This just hit the Waco docket today and was very interesting read. Below is the opening salvo on Albright's order.
---------------------------
Case 6:21-cv-00665-ADA Document 56 Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff
v
FACEBOOK, INC. and WHATSAPP,INC.
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Facebook, Inc.’s and WhatApp, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff” or “VOIP”) claims of pre-suit willful infringement, pre-suit induced infringement, and contributory infringement of U.S. patent Nos. 8,630,234 (“’234 Patent”) and 10,880,721 (“’721 Patent) (collectively “Asserted Patents”). ECF No. 25. Plaintiff filed a timely response. ECF No. 28. Defendants filed a timely reply. ECF No. 31. After careful consideration of the parties’ briefings, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion.
Lofl…a “smart” investor would be smart enough to recognize VPLM was and still is a speculative play and not bought if the PPS were over $ 0.10 per share. Wrong again!
Lol…Black 17 never disappoints on the roulette table!
Lol. So the 95% probably is a GUESS there’s a 5% chance of something else happening other than staying in Waco?
Just messing around…having some fun with words. I get the point and hope you are 100% correct!
We all want the same positive outcome.
GLTA!
Hope you’re right DB. None of us want to see this transferred to N CA and the VPLM response was pretty strong IMO. Until Albright rules we’re all just guessing.
Agree but I’m not at 90% yet…just don’t trust the lovely US court system. Maybe 75% fir me right now.
Just look at NDCA, Judge Koh declines to relate the newer MG case to past Apple & ATT RBR cases yet, in the very same court, Judge Donato ruled for Twitter that the cases are related. Makes absolutely zero sense,
VPLM filed their response to the FB Motion to Transfer. Link to the redacted copy below.
Seems like a pretty strong argument to keep in Waco. Wish we could see the redacted parts.
W TX Doc 45 - VPLM Response to Transfer
Enjoy!
Interesting. Where’s this info coming from? Why do you think I have any concerns regarding Facebook vs MasterObjects case?
Agree and as they say, volume precedes price. I’m cautiously optimistic but not convinced of a VPLM slam dunk yet as we’ve seen big moves in volume before. So we’ll continue to wait for rulings in Waco from Albright or an update from the company to give us a clue which way the future goes. Hopefully sooner than later.
Be well.