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.
Some would think what a big deal is about a cell phone and associated technology patents, that has been there the last 20 years. Check out its history.
(For the benefit of those geriatric, technology-challenged senior citizens sitting on the bench in the Courts.)
https://www.knowyourmobile.com/phones/the-history-of-mobile-phones-from-1973-to-2008-the-handsets-that-made-it-all-happen-d58/
Check the Robing room - a web site where individuals can complain about any judge and check their ratings. Note the 9th District judges. A place for public opinions.
http://www.therobingroom.com/
http://www.therobingroom.com/AlphaList.aspx?ID=0K
Koh - http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1788
Sheepdog,
Totally agree with every sentence.
Yes, Alice itself is a problem. The Supreme Court contributed to this mess by offering the misused Alice tests (Alice vs. CLS bank). The age-old US patent law grants a patent if it meets three basic criteria:
1) the idea is novel (new) - Alice 102
2) the idea was non-obvious to experts practicing the specific art - Alice 103
3) the inventor teaches how to implement the idea and get the published results - Alice 112
Patent examiners review these issues before awarding a patent. Now a District judge comes along and invalidates all of VPLM patents! PTAB is VPLM's side and gave 12-0 win. This is the anomaly that kills the American innovation. Sad!
Reviewing some events regarding a patent application -
When a new patent application is filed, a patent examiner does all the due diligence to verify the claims, including Alice requirements - 102 (novelty of the idea), 103 (non-obviousness to the practicing experts in the art), 112 (this part explains how the idea is implemented to give the claimed result). This is what Koh got confused: she and some district courts asked the "how" question when analyzing the prelimianry sections 101, 102, 103 before jumping to the "how" section 112. Generally lawyers are not inventors. A lawyer knowing Newton's laws of motion from the high school days does not make him/her an inventor.
Patent examination takes a long time, diligence, several communications between the applicant and the examiner, because there is no patent examiner who knows everything, especially the new idea. The idea can not be new or novel if it is already known to the public. The inventor ends up explaining the underlying technology to the examiner to his/her satisfaction. After the patent is issued, there will be challenges from parties that missed the boat - why we didn't think of that? - and those that do not want to license the idea and pay royalty for its use. Example: AAPL, Ford, etc. PTAB is set up to resolve those disputes. After going through all of the challenges, VPLM comes out a winner 12-0, with all of hundreds of claims as valid. None of their claims were rejected.
Now comes US judiciary in black robes - district courts, Appeals courts - to rehash everything from the beginning that a patent examiner already verified and approved, followed by challenges in PTAB. These judges on the District and Fed Circ courts are fighting head-to-head about fundamental physics like Hooke's law vs. American Axle's novel improvement in a manufacturing process. They rely on some mundane tests to determine subject matter eligibility, patentability, etc. and Alice issues. A group of reformers point out their inconsistent results.
SCOUTS keeps adding more to the mess with their own ignorance packaged into Alice tests, Venue test, etc. to determine a creative process like "invention". Congress and politicians make it even worse. American inventors are stuck with no solution. Big companies keep on stealing new ideas without paying royalty.
Now comes a district court judge and rules Alice to invalidate VPLM's 20 RBR claims. Koh and AAPL know how she would rule after the Oct 2021 hearing. AAPL has been fighting to invalidate VPLM patents and claims since day one from PTAB days. Koh's faulty analysis of the 20 claims gave the Alice which was surprisingly upheld by Fed Circ courts, except the CAFC (Justice Reyna et al.) Appeals court ruled against AAPL, admitting that many of VPLM claims were valid. It was consistent with 12-0 PTAB win. She is arrogant enough to consider the entire family of VPLM patents invalid. Is SCOTUS capable of doing anything to stop these maverick judges from making blunders? Isn't there a yearly performance review for judges like we have in businesses, schools, and other government entities? They enjoy life-time jobs at the expense of tax payers.
Koh's ADR was just a "cover". All know it was going nowhere. Koh knows how she would rule. The hearing is in Oct 2021.
Is Koh so busy? Her calendar is open to public.
>>... one big mess! ...<<
Yes! The market seems to agree.
12-0 PTAB in USPTO (executive side). VPLM has been relying on.
"clown show" in US courts (judiciary side) that has no clue about patents.
Alice 101 - 102, 103, 112 all jumbled up.
Albright is their hope to get the Waco trial moving and force defendants to expose how their "calling system servers handle callee location identifiers" to complete the smartphone call without the roaming service.
It is best to leave the Alice law and validity tests to USPTO and treat the issued patents/claims are valid. US courts can discuss damages, etc. Just do not muck around the Alice provisions and try to define what is law of nature, obvious or not, etc. jmo.
Mr. Hudnell's well-written writ of certiorari combines arguments for both VPLM and American Axle. SCOTUS, having little expertise on patents, smartly seeks for advice from USPTO and other experts. Professors, senator, retired judges are fighting for clarity of Alice law. Fed Circuit judges are fighting among themselves to find a solution. District courts have no idea. Koh only knows how to make a jambalaya out of Alice law.
Check out the cartoons about the clown show in this article:
Alice v. CLS Bank: United States Supreme Court Establishes General Patentability Test - August 2014
https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2014/04/article_0004.html
A couple of judges on the ninth circuit (NDCal) appear to be good. One judge awarded a huge amount in a patent infringement case. Google it.
Judge Donato did not hesitate to side with Illinois court ruling in a case against FB on personal privacy issue - facial recognition. $5000 fine per individual.
Koh must be confused by patents, claims, and the dismissal offer. If ATT accepts the dismissal offer, that leaves her boss AAPL holding out. For what?
If the TWTR case continues in Donato's court, and if Mr. Hudnell raises errors of the lazy clueless judge made on Alice ruling and redirects the case into revisiting claim construction, ... what then?
SCOTUS recently ruled 9-0 negatively on the Ninth Court procedure used in immigration cases - by the Fed Appeals court. How about the patent cases where the geriatric gang upheld erroneous Alice ruling of the lazy judge?
Good news! Thanks for posting. Does it mean that VPLM's dismissal offer was accepted by VZ and contributed to this outcome? It took an ADR and a year at Koh's court for this outcome?
Suspected VZ and TWTR were losing interest with AAPL's circus with the "declaratory judgement" and the 606 patent.
TWTR was happy how the declaratory judgement worked in their favor Re.: 606 patent. Perhaps they got greedy and filed separately to recover their attorney fees. But their case was reassigned to judge Donato, not to Koh. Judge Donato seems to have signed a case mgmt order (?), hearing scheduled for July 23. Will Mr. Hudnell manipulate this hearing into revisiting claim construction that was cancelled by Koh.
Unlike Koh with an MS degree in social sciences, Judge Donato knows technology, electronic communications, Discovery, etc. (Re. his web page).
That leaves AT&T and AAPL continue the ADR or let Koh dismiss their cases.
HayDay,
Nice to see your optimism and patience. A couple of comments.
1) TWTR case: The new TWTR case was reassigned to Donato in SF due to case-load sharing pilot program or Koh is fed up dealing with patent cases. The hearing is set for July. In the meanwhile TWTR and VPLM sent a joint letter to the Magistrate Judge in San Jose about TWTR making confidential negotiations public.
2) Suing the entire NDCal for bias is a waste of company resources. Company's focus is to monetize their patents. Getting out of NDCal and Koh's courts seems to be their primary goal at this point, in return for dismissal of cases in NDCal and CNTS defendants for infringement of patents 606 and 872 in NDCal and WDTX. The offer expires July 22, 2021 at 1:30p. As defendants are confident of Koh's ruling in their favor, there is no need to extend the settlement discussion beyond this deadline. A lot can happen.
3) USPTO assistance: USPTO representative was present at the last CAFC hearing of AAPL's appeal Re.: PTAB's sanctions ruling. AAPL suddenly hoodwinked the court into a new appeal for sanctions of all VPLM's claims. The PTAB representative did not feel he was needed there. Justice Reyna shot down AAPL's appeal to sanction all claims as there were non-overlapping valid claims - something to think about.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1456.OPINION.9-25-2020_1659104.pdf
4) The American Axle case in SCOTUS is moving ahead with support from retired judges and a senator, to address the nonsense Alice tests and how they have ruined the American innovation. The Solicitor General is expected to seek advice from the experts in USPTO and others. If SCOTUS modifies the Alice criteria and the tests this July, maybe VPLM re-litigate the Alice ruling since clueless Koh made errors Re.: Hudnell's mandamus petition etc.
Hope July brings some good news.
Hay Day,
Wish the Solicitor General guide SCOTUS to USPTO's expertise on patents and infringement instead of other attorneys from ivory towers.
Agree, suspected FB or others like Amelio, et al.
FB could be a suitor because of their "youthful management" with modern business perspectives and a huge potential liability with WhatsApp voice and video calls, Instagram, Facebook, etc.. Imagine billions of users around the globe: Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram. If Albright turns less aggressive with defendants, holds them in Waco and begins claim construction, investors will find out if the PTAB win of 12-0 was real.
Another angle that's brewing is Donato in NDCal. How Mr. Hudnell will play the new case and turn it around into re-litigation of Alice rulings, specifically the 606 patent. If he shakes it loose and Donato begins claim construction, the domino may start falling, beginning with AAPL, VZ and T cases. No idea what the reality will be but one can speculate possibilities.
DB,
A couple of notes on Donato:
1) he sided privacy rights against Facebook and open to fine FB $billions!
2) On the Alice issue he stood his ground. Not like clueless Koh.
either Koh was clueless about other District Courts were applying the updated Alice test (Re.: Mr. Hudnell's petitions)
or
she was arrogant (punish patents holders) and crooked (favor AAPL). Time to find out the truth from Donato.
Who are the potential buyers?
The only known offer so far has been from an ex-CEO of AAPL, Amelio. He offered to buy Emil's shares.
Is he back offering to buy all of company shares? Maybe or maybe not.
But his associate, Bill Sweet, has an interesting business making several types of IP deals, worth checking.
Donato cases -
The following is a brief summary of some cases and links.
(1) FB faces billions of fine on privacy issues breaking the Illinois law.
https://www.law.com/therecorder/2020/02/06/judge-overseeing-550m-facebook-tag-suggestions-settlement-wants-details-on-individual-payouts/?slreturn=20210330184239
Judge Overseeing $550M Facebook ‘Tag Suggestions’ Settlement Wants Details on Individual Payouts
Judge James Donato said at a hearing Thursday that he wants a clear explanation of why the proposed deal would pay less than the $1,000 statutory damages for negligent violations set by the Illinois Legislature in the Biometric Information Privacy Act. “The phrase litigation risk is not sufficient,” he said. “Every case has litigation risk.”
By Ross Todd | February 06, 2020 at 03:13 PM
(2) Facebook photo-scanning lawsuit could cost it billions
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/17/facebook-photo-scanning-lawsuit-could-cost-it-billions/
By JOEL ROSENBLATT, BLOOMBERG NEWS | Bloomberg News
PUBLISHED: April 17, 2018 at 7:50 a.m. | UPDATED: June 1, 2018 at 6:05 a.m.
Facebook may have to pay a real price for claims it invaded users’ privacy: billions of dollars.
A federal judge ruled Monday that millions of the social network’s users can proceed as a group with claims that its photo-scanning technology violated an Illinois law by gathering and storing biometric data without their consent. Damages could be steep — a fact that wasn’t lost on the judge, who was unsympathetic to Facebook’s arguments for limiting its legal exposure.
But under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act of 2008, both Alphabet and FB could be fined $1,000 to $5,000 each time a person’s image is used without consent.
The company “seems to believe” that the lawsuit should be pursued by individuals, not as a group, because “damages could amount to billions of dollars,” U.S. District Judge James Donato wrote in the ruling.
The Illinois residents who sued argued the 2008 law gives them a “property interest” in the algorithms that constitute their digital identities. The judge has agreed that gives them grounds to accuse Facebook of real harm.
Facebook, which got the case moved to San Francisco from Illinois, argued the users hadn’t suffered a concrete injury such as physical harm, loss of money or property; or a denial of their right to free speech or religion.
Donato has ruled that the Illinois law is clear: Facebook has collected a “wealth of data on its users, including self-reported residency and IP addresses.” Facebook has acknowledged that it can identify which users who live in Illinois have face templates, he wrote. Donato previously rejected Facebook’s argument that the case had to be dismissed because the attempt to enforce Illinois law runs afoul of its user agreement that requires disputes to be resolved under the laws of California, where it’s based. The case is In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation, 15-cv-03747, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).
(3) SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge has dismissed a patent complaint on the grounds that Rothschild Digital Confirmation LLC's patent
https://norcalrecord.com/stories/529922881-patent-complaint-against-skedulo-dismissed
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge has dismissed a patent complaint on the grounds that Rothschild Digital Confirmation LLC's patent was directed to an abstract idea and not added to an inventive concept. U.S. District Judge James Donato filed his order in the Northern District of California last month.
Rothschild had accused that Skedulo Holdings Inc's products violated U.S. Patent No. 7,456,872, which isn't specific, but deals with a device and way to embed and retrieve digital images, which isn't to fix a computer issue but rather to solve the never-ending task of organizing pictures. Skedulo asked the court to dismiss the complaint under the grounds of Alice, which is limited to the actual patent.
Rothschild had argued that the case was complicated and its claim was directed toward the abstract idea of associating information such as date, place and who took the picture with the image and securing it. The patent's specification focuses on computer technology. The court routinely looks for "fundamental practices long and prevalent" to figure out if a patent claims an abstract idea.
In his order, Judge Donato wrote that the court didn't need to look far when it comes to organizing pictures by date or different categories, since "these practices have been routine in family, business and academic life since cameras became widely available decades ago."
Rothschild did not argue that the elements in the product include "well-understood, routine conventional activity previously engaged in by researchers in the field," so Donato found the fact that the issue lacks an "inventive concept" doesn't need to be addressed. Donato set an April 20 filing deadline; otherwise the case will be dismissed.
Donato cases
https://www.google.com/search?rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&q=IP+cases+ruled+by+NC+District+judge+Donato&spell=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjZtNDMiKfwAhXdFjQIHeQhCAAQBSgAegQIARAx&biw=1335&bih=604
Judge blocks wide-ranging asylum limits, finding DHS chief ...https://www.cbsnews.com › news › another-judge-finds...
Jan 9, 2021 — Another federal judge on Friday ruled that Chad Wolf was likely ... In a scathing 14-page decision, Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court in San ... of their U.S. court cases — are necessary to prevent border-crossers ... to be released to the family of the Black man shot by North Carolina deputies.
Largan Precision Co, LTD v. Genius Electronic Optical Co., Ltd ... https://www.docketbird.com › court-documents › cand-...
James Donato granting in part and denying in part {{172}} Motion to Strike Expert ... 172 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 Largan, ... 18 LEGAL STANDARD 19 "The local patent rules in the Northern District of ... 20 and the defendant in patent cases to provide early notice of their infringement ...
IP Newsflash - Akin Gump https://www.akingump.com › categories › district-court
The court also ruled that unless the patent owner's infringement contentions were so ... the cases should be transferred to the Western District of North Carolina because ... Judge Donato in the Northern District of California granted defendants' ...
Patent Case Management Judicial Guide, Third Edition (2016) https://www.fjc.gov › sites › default › filesPDF
Appendix 2.2b Revised Procedures for Managing Patent Cases (Chief Judge Leonard. Stark, District of ... Appendix 2.4a Northern District of California, Patent Local Rule 2-2 Interim Model. Protective ... lent on the issue, but the Western District of North Carolina suggests the par- ... District Judge James Donato. • District ...
New TWTR case -
But, what kind of judge is Donato? Same as Koh or worse?
The following website rates all judges. http://www.therobingroom.com/RatingListing.aspx?ID=2552
Robing room - rating http://www.therobingroom.com/
The Robing Room judge Hon. James Donatohttps://www.therobingroom.net ›
where judges are judged · Hon. James Donato · District judge · N.D.Cal. · 9th Circuit · Average Rating: · 2.4 · - · 17 ... Donato rates low in many areas: temperamental, etc. How about his IP and patent matter?
The Robing Room https://www.therobingroom.net › judgesarejudged
James Donato. N.D.Cal. Hon. ...
The Robing Room - Here are our current "top 10" and ... https://www.facebook.com › posts › here-are-our-curre...
Create New Account. See more of The Robing Room on Facebook. James Donato (N.D.Cal.) Calculated on a minimum of five ratings.
Recently TWTR filed a new case in clueless Koh's court San Jose. It was reassigned to judge Donato in San Francisco - as posted earlier.
Some would say that TWTR will move the case back to Koh's court and continue to curry her favor. Doubtful! Why?
Check out NDCal local rules below. Both Koh and Donato participate in the ND Patent Pilot caseload rebalancing program. https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/rules/patent-local-rules/
Northern District Extends Caseload Rebalancing Pilot Program
Current Patent Pilot District Judges
Hon. Lucy H. Koh
Hon. James Donato
Maybe Koh's caseload was overwhelming. Hence the District reassignment. TWTR was left alone to fend for itself, without the coat tails of AAPL that they were riding so far. Their attorney partially admitted validity of some VPLM patent claims at Fed Circuit during the maiden appearance of Mr. Hudnell.
Aside - If SCOTUS redefines the Alice for the American Axle, Mr. Hudnell should re-visit Koh's Alice ruling errors and make Donato review the case.
Hay Day,
What if your prediction of news comes true next week? Finally?
DB,
great news! Hope SCOTUS clarification of Alice ruling comes out soon. Hope they really know IP, what Alice means, and relevant patent issues.
>>...(American Axle) petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari, arguing that the Federal Circuit is “at a loss as to how to uniformly apply § 101...<<
In her Declaratory Judgement, clueless Koh recommended that VPLM file writ of certiorari and head to the SCOTUS. Knowing how useless the geriatric gangs on Fed Circuits and clueless Dist courts, American Axle move is to be applauded.
>>... former USPTO Director David Kappos, former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel, and Senator Thom Tillis from North Carolina also jointly filed an amicus brief, arguing that the “disparate and inconsistent application” of the current Section 101 jurisprudence...<<
VPLM is stuck in the mud mainly due to the two Alice rulings that clueless Koh pulled from the seat of her pants, while a majority of district courts were using a more updated Alice tests. Mr. Hudnell pointed out to this woman. 12-0 PTAB win said it all.
AAPL's whole strategy, (Alice and Declaratory judgement to link 606 patent,) relied on those Alice rulings, per Mr. Hudnell petitions.
Hope Mr. Hudnell gets an opening to re-visit the Alice ruling and question Koh's errors (Re.: en banc filing to appeal Fed Circuit both Alice rulings.)
Sorry, no idea what is said about him>
>...a post on him, he seams more knowledgeable of IP patient...<<
A re-post of this info would help.
Glad to see you back.
Very encouraged by this line:
>>...Common sense after many years of wall banging will prevail....<<
A sign of serious negotiations, approaching a reasonable compromise.
Posted earlier.
TWTR did file a new case with Koh's court as posted.
But... the case was reassigned to judge Donato in the same NDCal.
The reassignment was also posted earlier.
What kind of judge is Donato? What are TWTR's chances with the "detour"?
drumming,
A few days ago, saw TWTR court activity on pace monitor. This morning the case has been reassigned to judge Donato. Who asked for the reassignment: TWTR or VPLM? Case no. is different: TWTR vs. VPLM.
checking further it was quite encouraging that Donato is a real judge, and the case has been reassigned to him compared to clueless Koh with MS in Social Sciences. His web page is worth a look. He has standing orders for "Claim construction", "Electronic and e mail evidence discovery, etc.". The judge's technology background may make Mr. Hudnell's job easier. What if judge Donato turns out to be better and more favorable to VPLM's technology than judge Albright in Waco? Hoping for a better legal experience with judge Donato. Need to check his case history and rulings in IP infringement cases. Getting NDCal's Koh out of the picture may be a better news than a buy out offer. Not clear yet what is going on with buy out or possible settlement. But the stock price is creeping up daily with a decent volume.
As all defendants declined VPLM's dismissal offer, what Koh will do next to cover her rear end? TWTR case reassignment to another dist judge in the same NDCal court system. It will be interesting to watch if a conflict arises between the two judges. We'll find out in July 2021, near the deadline for VPLM's dismissal date.
Donato background:
https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/donato-jameshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Donato#Federal_judicial_service
web page - https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/donato-james-jd/
Article III Dist. Judge stationed in San Francisco, same rank as clueless Koh with MS in Social Sciences
UCBerkeley(BA), Harvard (AM), Stanford (JD), Assumed office 2014,
Books: The Role of Technology in Evidence Collection: Leading Lawyers on Preserving Electronic Evidence, Developing New Collection Strategies, and Understanding the Implications of Social Media
Standing orders: (check the pdf on Claim construction)
Judge Donato's Standing Order for Claim Construction in Patent Cases (.pdf, 44 KB) 01/5/2017
JD_Standing-Order-for-Claim-Construction-in-Patent-Cases.pdf
Expert testimony - something clueless Koh ever heard of
point 9. "Depending on the technology involved, the Court may determine that the assistance of a neutral expert would be helpful. In that case, the Court may direct the parties to confer and, if possible, reach an agreement as to three experts in the field who would be appropriate to act as a neutral expert to assist the Court during the claim construction proceedings and/or the trial. The Court will then choose one to appoint as a neutral expert pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 706. The parties will split the cost of the expert equally."
Judge Donato's Standing Order for E-Discovery and Email Discovery in Patent Cases (.pdf, 23 KB) 06/20/2014
HayDay,
Any comments on the new TWTR case will impact Mr. Hudnell's negotiations?
Can he ever get out the NDCal "quick sand"?
DB,
Several activities in NDCal Re.: TWTR - judge reassigned, etc,
Your Comments? A new case against VPLM?
California Northern District Court
Judge: James Donato
Case #: 3:21-cv-02769
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:145 Patent Infringement
17 CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Case Management Conference set for 7/23/2021 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 7/15/2021. Signed by Judge James Donato on 4/27/2021. (lrcS, COURT STAFF)
16 order Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice Tue 04/27 1:28 PM
ORDER by Judge James Donato granting 10 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Thomas Matthew. (lrcS, COURT STAFF)
15 order Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice Tue 04/27 1:27 PM
ORDER by Judge James Donato granting 9 Motion for Pro Hac Vice as to Gene Lee. (lrcS, COURT STAFF)
14 notice Notice (Other) Tue 04/27 10:06 AM
NOTICE by Twitter, Inc. Re Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related(Manek, Amisha)
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge James Donato for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley no longer assigned to case, Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras.. Signed by The Clerk on 4/26/21. (haS, COURT STAFF)
13 1 pgs order Order Reassigning Case ~Util - Case Assigned/Reassigned Mon 04/26 2:18 PM
ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned using a proportionate, random, and blind system pursuant to General Order No. 44 to Judge James Donato for all further proceedings. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley no longer assigned to case, Notice: The assigned judge participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order No. 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras.. Signed by The Clerk on 4/26/21. (haS, COURT STAFF)
12 Clerk's Notice of Impending Reassignment - Text Only Mon 04/26 1:04 PM
CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice. (ahm, COURT STAFF)
11 misc Consent/Declination to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge Mon 04/26 11:57 AM
CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by Twitter, Inc... (Manek, Amisha)
For the control of the company the CEO might have stipulated to keep 40% of the outstanding shares per the anti-dilution clause. A simple math shows how the a-d clause actually was diluting the company shares so far.
Suppose the share price is $1. The company can raise equity capital of $10 by selling 10 shares at $1/sh. Due to the a-d clause, to meet the 40% condition for the CEO, they actually issue 16.67 shares (6.67/16.67 = 40%) and give the CEO the extra 6.67 shares to get the 40% condition. Extra shares were issued every time they sell shares to raise equity. Think about appx 620 million shares converted to warrants now. Were they given free or as compensation?
Shareholders should be relieved that such dilution in the name of anti-dilution clause is not there anymore. If a buyout offers $1/sh, common share "value" is about $1/sh for all shareholders including the CEO.
HayDay,
Glad to see your response. We have had some experience in this matter, probably your experience is much more than mine. We have a much different perspective, expectation and interpretations of events amidst "twists and turns". All subject to speculation. This matter is much more complicated than people realize. Just because we move the case to Albright's court in Waco, it does not assure 100% win for VPLM. There is always a risk with common shares.
The question was: "Does Emil have the cash to buy about 620 million shares?"
Selling warrants directly takes much less cash out of his pocket.
If a shareholder is dreaming of making $$$, the money comes from a buy out or merger or winning lawsuits. Understanding the power of warrants should concern those involved in buy out talks because Emil's warrants will not impact the buy out decision. Removing the anti-dilution clause frees up the company open for deals. Sounds right?
OK. Warrants do not have the voting right, only shareholders have. He can not stop a merger or buyout.
DB,
just a minor point to add. A Warrant guarantees his purchase price at 0.021. The Warrant itself can trade in the market to match the stock price premium. ie., if the stock is at $1, his warrant may be worth $0.98 or so. Currently the warrant may not be worth much. He may elect to sell the warrants in the open market if the agreement allows it and pockets the cash as capital gain. A buyer of his warrant can hold for higher stock price and sell the warrant or buy the stock and hold. Nothing new to a stock broker like you.
Love your little birdie!
HayDay,
Thank you for sharing more. Reminded me of experiences representing a large corporate employer for joint development negotiations with a few medium-to-small companies on a cutting edge technology. Good enough to know that you have confidence in Mr. Hudnell. All it takes is one deal to get over the "hump" of Alice rulings. Hoping for a positive outcome.
HayDay,
If all defendants decline VPLM's dismissal offer, the ADR will be over. No need for an extension.
NDCal Koh circus will be over? Are you still optimistic for a positive news?
OK, thanks. We shall see what happens and how Koh ends.
>>... Mr. Hudnell/Emil Team cooking up?...<<
Mr. Hudnell enjoys filing IP cases and winning infringement damages.
Emil and company owns critical patents that he wants to monetize for shareholders.
Maybe both got a "white knight" tech company to fund their efforts.
Albright's WDTX court in Waco may be their playground, conveniently near Waco their headquarters.
Dropped 1 billion shares to 1.4 billion outstanding shares. $1.4 billion award for (infringement + punitive) damages gives $1/share that boost the share value from one settlement. When they sue several companies and win, IP monetization will shoot up. But first... they have to figure out how to escape NDCal Koh's grips without serious damage and run to Waco. Begin suing FB, AMZN, GOOG, etc. in Waco starting with claim construction under ALbright's tutelage.
VPLM's dismissal offer as soon as ADR started gave rise to a speculation that defendants may consider a modest settlement in return for the dismissal. The history shows AAPL would not settle for the dismissal since they have been winning every suit with the help of crooked Koh and the geriatric gang on the Fed Circuit. Recall AAPL wanted PTAB and Fed Circuit to sanction all of VPLM patents. Justice Reyna shot them down.
Do not have a Pacer Account.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/33465218/Apple_Inc_v_VoipPalcom,_Inc
Wed 04/21 6:55 PM
80 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE Related [+] Plaintiff Apple's Opposition to VoIP-Pal's Motion to Dismiss All Claims Without Prejudice Under Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(1) filed byApple Inc.(Modi, Ameet)
Att: 1 Declaration of Ameet A. Modi In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to VoIP-Pal's Motion to Dismiss All Claims Without Prejudice Under Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(1),
Att: 2 Exhibit 1,
Att: 3 Exhibit 2,
Att: 4 Exhibit 3,
Att: 5 Exhibit 4,
Att: 6 Exhibit 5,
Att: 7 Exhibit 6,
Att: 8 Exhibit 7,
Att: 9 Exhibit 8
Monday, April 19, 2021
79 minutes Settlement Conference Mon 04/19 2:33 PM
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi: Settlement Conference held by Zoom on 4/19/2021. Settlement conference held; case did not settle. Plaintiff Attorney: Ameet Modi, Joze Welsh, Raymond Habbaz; plaintiff representative: Ryan Moran. Defendant Attorney: Lewis Hudnell, Nicolas Gikkas; defendant representative: Emil Malak. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (pmcS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/19/2021)
An update from NDCal on PaceMonitor regarding AAPL.
HayDay,
Thanks for posting the reference to Law360 news snippet. No court filing to validate this.
https://www.law360.com/articles/1376819/twitter-says-voip-pal-offered-250k-to-drop-patent-challenge
Twitter Says Voip-Pal Offered $250K To Drop Patent Challenge
Law360 (April 19, 2021, 10:47 PM EDT) -- Twitter Inc. asked a California federal court to confirm that it is not infringing a Voip-Pal.com call-routing patent, noting...
TWTR was hanging on to the coattails of AAPL and Cellco partners initially in NDCal cases, in which clueless Koh handed over two Alice rulings. TWTR joined the Declaratory Judgement case in NDCal to counter the 606 patent case in Waco, although TWTR was not sued in Waco.
But when it came to ADR, TWTR was left out of discussions. AAPL's counsel was the one to suggest ADR to Mr. Hudnell as he was preparing for the Interlocutory appeal petition. AAPL and the Cellco partners are the participants, not TWTR.
TWTR declined VPLM's dismissal offer and is arguing for attorney's fees. VPLM filed a rebuttal to TWTR.
>>...trying to tarnish a competitor purchase attempt...<<
A buyer in this field knows all about the technology, infringement issues, PTAB wins, etc. They will not be tricked by TWTR or anyone.
Wish your speculation comes true and reward shareholders.
Of all speculations posted so far (buy out, settlement, etc.), a partnership with companies like FB posted by DB sounds interesting. A company that buys out must have clear financial incentive to proceed with lawsuits. They may allow VPLM to pursue lawsuits against others for a portion of the damages awarded. Several companies can afford to buy out or "partner" with VPLM if their objective is to fight AAPL's dominance: FB, MSFT, AMZN, GOOG, VZ, etc.
Dropping the anti-dilution clause and returning the shares to the treasury streamlines the company share structure to facilitate a buy out or a merger. When the two Directors (from UK) quit after the Mandamus petition was denied, their shares were returned to the treasury. The total outstanding share count has significantly dropped by about a billion.