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.
Brent Babcock represents high-technology clients in every aspect of intellectual property disputes, focusing on federal district court litigation throughout the country, trials and post-grant patent proceedings before the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (formerly the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences), and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings (including domestic and international arbitrations). His practice also includes pre-litigation counseling, pre-interference and post-grant proceeding consulting, and appellate briefing and oral argument before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Brent heads the firm’s USPTO Trials and Post-Grant Proceedings practice group, and has been involved in more than 30 patent interferences and reexaminations during the past twenty years. He has also been involved in more than 60 recent Inter Partes Review and Covered Business Method Review proceedings before the PTAB. Brent's experience and skills have led to him being named one of the 40 top attorneys nationwide in PTAB post-grant practice by Intellectual Asset Management (IAM Patent 1000) magazine.
Backup Council added 6/19/2017
PR2016-01198
Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal
-1-
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(3), Patent Owner Voip-Pal.com, Inc.
(“Voip-Pal”) hereby provides notice that it is designating registered patent
practitioner Brenton R. Babcock (Reg. No. 39,592) at Knobbe, Martens, Olson, &
Bear, LLP, as additional backup counsel in this proceeding.
Not sure but it was filed after VPLM submitted
03/10/2017 Notice of Taking Deposition
Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Richard G. Kipping
04/27/2017 Motion to Disqualify Attorney
Motion to Disqualify Attorney
04/28/2017 Errata
Errate to Motion to Disqualify Counsel
Next date is 6/27/2017 that had been changed from 5/30/2017
05/30/2017 Motion to Disqualify Attorney (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
05/30/2017, 06/27/2017
Third Party Defendant Richard Kipping's Motion to Disqualify Attorney
Minutes
05/31/2017Reset by Court to 05/30/2017Result: Continued
01/18/2018 Pretrial/Calendar Call (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
02/05/2018 Jury Trial (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
Entries submitted today on
https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login
80 Patent Owner Request for Oral Argument 06/14/2017
81 Petitioner's Request for Oral Argument 06/14/2017
82 Patent Owner Motion to Exclude 06/14/2017
83 Patent Owner Sur-Reply in Response to Petitioner's Reply 06/14/2017
Listed after minutes
01/18/2018 Pretrial/Calendar Call (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
02/05/2018 Jury Trial (1:30 PM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
Monday May 22 is VPLM's due date to reply to Apple's opposition to motion to amend.
Wednesday June 14th - Apple's next due date for motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness, Motion to exclude evidence, Request for oral argument
Sorry don't use a mac but this should hopefully help
Where do the downloads go on a Mac?
Method 1: In recent versions of Mac OSX, the downloads folder can be accessed from the Dock.
Method 2: From the Finder, click Go from the menu bar and select Downloads.
If you don't see a Downloads option under the Go menu, click Home. The downloads folder should also be visible in your Home folder.
Good luck!
They are there NRG
Go to document number 68 to 76 on both.
Go to https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login
Add voip-pal.com in Party name
Complete the Captcha
Apple has posted their response!
Apple response is due today. Looking forward to reading it!
Good post! Let's hope your right.
Good question Jag. Guess who just recently became a moderator on this very board
What stands out to me under "Representative Matters" is the numerous 'Achieved favorable case-dispositive settlement for client.' There are 18 settlements in that list.
USPTO UPDATE on
INTERCEPTING VOICE OVER IP COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER DATA COMMUNICATIONS
04-25-2017Pubs Case Remand to TC
04-21-2017Issue Fee Payment Verified
04-21-2017Amendment after Notice of Allowance (Rule 312)
04-20-2017Reference capture on IDS
04-20-2017Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
04-21-2017Response to Reasons for Allowance
04-21-2017Issue Fee Payment Received
04-20-2017Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Filed
European Patent Office update
The European patent application is published as soon as possible after the expiry of eighteen months from the date of filing or the earliest priority date.
Bibliographic data: US2017111265 2017-04-20
PRODUCING ROUTING MESSAGES FOR VOICE OVER IP COMMUNICATIONS
US2017111265 (A1) - PRODUCING ROUTING MESSAGES FOR VOICE OVER IP COMMUNICATIONSInventor(s):PERREAULT CLAY [PA]; NICHOLSON STEVE [NZ]; THOMSON ROD [CA]; BJÖRSELL JOHAN EMIL VIKTOR [CA]; ARAFA FUAD [CA] +Applicant(s):VOIP-PAL COM INC [US] +Classification:- international:H04L12/725; H04M3/42; H04M7/00; H04Q3/70- cooperative:
A61K39/39558; A61K45/06; C07K16/18; H04L12/14; H04L12/1439; H04L12/1496; H04L12/66;H04L45/3065; H04L9/3226; H04M15/51; H04M15/56; H04M15/8083; H04M15/8228; H04M15/887;H04M15/888; H04M3/4211; H04M7/006; H04M7/0075; H04Q3/66; H04Q3/70; H04Q2213/13091;H04Q2213/13141; H04Q2213/13196; H04Q2213/1322; H04Q2213/13384
Application number:US201615396344 20161230 Priority number(s):US201615396344 20161230 ; US201514877570 20151007 ; US201313966096 20130813 ; US20100513147 20100301; WO2007CA01956 20071101 ; US20060856212P 20061102Also published as:
WO2008052340 (A1) WO2008052340 (A8) US2016028619 (A1) US9537762 (B2) US2016006882 (A1)
Changed to May 17th as per Appl's request
The last one is scheduled for April 19th & 20th
For more specific details please see https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login
The 5 have been called upon
Petitioner's Notice of Deposition to John Rutter
Petitioner's Notice of Deposition to Stuart Gare
Petitioner's Notice of Deposition to Clay Perreault
Petitioner's Notice of Deposition to Pentti Kalevi Huttunen
Petitioner's Notice of Deposition to William Henry Mangione-Smith
The Importance of Protecting Patents
Voip-Pal and other emerging telecom companies are fighting to protect their patents
(NewsUSA) - America's economic engine is fueled by innovation. The ideas and inventions that emerge from researchers' labs or the garages of budding entrepreneurs have spawned powerhouse companies, even new industries.
But turning ideas into products usually requires a crucial step: getting a patent. Patents provide years of protection, ensuring that innovators' investments won't be undercut by copycats. As Abraham Lincoln once famously said, patents add "the fuel of interest to the fire of genius."
So it's not surprising that intellectual property can be immensely valuable. Universities bring in millions of dollars every year from licensing patents. Billions of dollars in damages have also been awarded when patent holders sue companies for infringement.
In fact, patents can be so valuable that some people and companies do nothing but snap up obscure patents, often of dubious quality, to use as weapons to extract licensing fees or damages from major corporations. The tech industry derisively calls these entities "patent trolls" and has set up an "anti-troll" organization, Unified Patents, to challenge the validity of patents.
So is it possible to tell the legitimate innovators from the trolls? There are two ways. First, did the company actually make the invention -- and file for patent -- itself? Second, have the company's patents survived the inevitable challenge from Unified Patents?
There's one interesting company for which both answers are a resounding Yes.
Long before the iPhone was introduced, the engineers at Voip-Pal (OTCQB: VPLM) had a vision that telephone calls, text messages and other information would travel over the So they invented and patented all the technology needed to route calls back and forth from the Internet to other networks.
That technology is now used by major telecom and social media companies, but none have licensed the patents. That's why Voip-Pal has sued a number of giant telecom companies for billions of dollars in damages. And, crucially, the effort by Unified Patents to invalidate Voip-Pal's patents failed.
Voip-Pal hopes to either win or settle the cases, demonstrating once again the enormous value of high-quality patents.
http://m.brownsvilleherald.com/online_features/business_and_careers/article_1d894114-3869-5153-b871-2a8c17d63c73.html?mode=jqm.
Petitioners Notice of Deposition of Johan Emil Viktor Bjorsell.
The deposition will be taken at 9:00 a.m. on March 29, 2017 at Smart & Biggar/Fetherstonhaugh, 2300-1055 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada V6E 3P3
Here are other possible purchaser's as they appear to have received the letter giving notice
Letter dated Dec. 1, 2015, from VoIP-Pal.com Inc. giving notice and inviting the company listed herein below to contact VoIP-Pal.com about U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,179,005 and 8,542,815 and related patents listed in the accompanying Attachment A. Sent to the following company: Verizon Communications in the U.S.
Letter dated Nov. 30, 2015, from VoIP-Pal.com Inc. giving notice and inviting the company listed herein below to contact VoIP-Pal.com about U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,179,005 and 8,542,815 and related patents listed in the accompanying Attachment A. Sent to the following company: Apple Inc. in the U.S.
Letters dated Dec. 18, 2015, from VoIP-Pal.com Inc. giving notice and inviting the companies listed herein below to contact VoIP-Pal.com about U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,179,005 and 8,542,815 and related patents listed in the accompanying Attachment A. (Please Note: Attachment A is attached here only to the first letter.) Sent to the following companies: Airtel in India; Alcatel Inc. in the U.S.; AT&T in the U.S.; Blackberry in Canada; Cable One in the U.S.; CenturyLink in the U.S.; Charter Communications in the U.S.; Cisco Systems in the U.S.; Comcast in the U.S.; Cox Communications in the U.S.; Cricket Wireless in the U.S.; Facebook in the U.S.; Freedom Pop in the U.S.; Frontier Communications in the U.S.; Google Inc. in the U.S.; HP in the U.S.; Juniper Networks in the U.S.; LoopPay, Inc. in the U.S.; Magic Jack in the U.S.; MetroPCS in the U.S.; Ooma in the U.S.; PayPal in the U.S.; Republic Wireless in the U.S.; Rok Mobile in the U.S.; Samsung Electronics-America in the U.S.; ShoreTel, Inc.
Letters dated Feb. 2, 2016, from VoIP-Pal.com Inc. giving notice and inviting the companies listed herein below to contact VoIP-Pal.com about U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,179,005 and 8,542,815 and related patents listed in the accompanying Attachment A. (Please Note: Attachment A is attached here only to the first letter.) Sent to the following companies: Netflix Inc. in the U.S.; Skype Technologies in the U.S.; and WhatsApp Inc. in the U.S.
Letters dated Jan. 21, 2016, from VoIP-Pal.com Inc. giving notice and inviting the companies listed herein below to contact VoIP-Pal.com about U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,179,005 and 8,542,815 and related patents listed in the accompanying Attachment A. (Please Note: Attachment A is attached here only to the first letter.) Sent to the following companies: Alibaba (China) Co., Ltd in China; Comwave Telecommunications in Canada; and Intel in the U.S.
Letters dated Jan. 4, 2016, from VoIP-Pal.com Inc. giving notice and inviting the companies listed herein below to contact VoIP-Pal.com about U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,179,005 and 8,542,815 and related patents listed in the accompanying Attachment A. (Please Note: Attachment A is attached here only to the first letter.) Sent to the following companies: Rogers Communications Inc. in Canada; Shaw Cable in Canada; Walmart in Alaska; and Wind Mobile in Canada
https://www.google.com/patents/US9549071#npl-citations
EP2084868
12.03.2017 New entry: Communication of intention to grant a patent
https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP07816106&lng=en&tab=doclist
Dates were set by the PTAB.GTCAR posted the Scheduling Order
GTCar Tuesday, 02/28/17 06:28:27 PM
Re: None
Post # of 39017
Scheduling Order!
DUE DATE 1 ..................................................................... February 10, 2017
Patent owner’s response to the petition
Patent owner’s motion to amend the patent
DUE DATE 2 ........................................................................... April 24, 2017
Petitioner’s reply to patent owner’s response to petition
Petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
DUE DATE 3 ............................................................................ May 22, 2017
Patent owner’s reply to petitioner’s opposition to motion to amend
DUE DATE 4 ............................................................................ June 12, 2017
Motion for observation regarding cross-examination of reply witness
Motion to exclude evidence
Request for oral argument
DUE DATE 5 ............................................................................ June 26, 2017
Response to observation
Opposition to motion to exclude
DUE DATE 6 ............................................................................... July 3, 2017
Reply to opposition to motion to exclude
DUE DATE 7 ............................................................................. July 20, 2017
Oral argument (if requested)
Posted at bottom of article
ceocfointerviews.com does not purchase or make
recommendation on stocks based on the interviews published.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/voip-pal-files-9-7-150000837.html
Appears that interview is going to be shared on a number of sites
Top Patent Firms for 2016
By Paul Harrity & Anna Yee
February 15, 2017
Class of 2016
We compiled a list of the top patent firms that are ranked based on the total number of U.S. utility patents that issued in 2016 where the patent firms were listed on the front of the utility patents. We have included only patent firms that have obtained at least 50 utility patents.
Rank Law Firm Name 2016 Utility Patents
1 OBLON MCCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT 5586
2 SUGHRUE MION PLLC 4182
3 BIRCH STEWART KOLASCH & BIRCH LLP 3595
4 FISH & RICHARDSON PC 3284
5 KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP 3170
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/02/15/top-patent-firms-2016
Voip-Pal rebuts Apple’s IPR challenge
13 February 2017
Virginia
Reporter: Barney Dixon
Voip-Pal has opposed two inter-partes review challenges against its private call network patents, as Apple bids to invalidate key rights of the telecoms licensing company.
Apple filed the challenges in 2016 to contest that the patents, which are owned by subsidiary Digifonoca, are obvious based on prior art.
In its response on 10 February, Voip-Pal said that Apple had failed to establish an obviousness case, which was “premised on a fundamental misunderstanding” of the prior art.
Further, Voip-Pal presented evidence, including source code, reports, emails and declarations, to contradict Apple’s argument.
It said that Digifonoca had a system in place utilising the invention since as early as June 2005, and since Apple’s argument “relied on secondary references that were filed after June 2005”, they could not be used as prior art against the patents.
Voip-Pal said it “fully expects the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to reject all grounds asserted by Apple” on this basis.
Commenting on the case, Voip-Pal CEO Emil Malak said: “Beyond the strength of our technical arguments, as we previously noted, we have provided independent evidence of ante-dating.”
“We remain focused on our strategy of completing the sale or licensing of our valuable 16-patent intellectual property portfolio and providing a meaningful return to our shareholders.”
Voip-Pal has also lodged a $2.7 billion patent infringement suit against Twitter in the US District Court for the District of Nevada
http://www.ippropatents.com/ippropatentsnews/article.php?article_id=5280
NITE : This is the king MM of the OTCBB. He intimides traders and other MMs use that to their advantage knowing that he scares them. That's why NITE is the shaker on most stock runs; he is the most common ax. NITE could be on the ask all the time, he could be leading a dip scaring sellers to SCHB and TDCM on the bid.
Interesting read - https://stockalyzing.com/stock-trading-school/trading-lesson/2/
Due date #2 - April 24th Petitioner's reply to patent owners response to petition
Reply posted on ptab.uspto.gov Too long to post all here
Type voip-pal.com in Party Name in the PTAB Search section
Here is the PTAB Website
https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login
European Patent Office
EP2084868 - PRODUCING ROUTING MESSAGES FOR VOICE OVER IP COMMUNICATIONS
Status.- Grant of patent is intended
Database last updated on 27.01.2017
Planning ahead for the Unified Patent Court and the Unitary Patent System
14 April 2016
Morag Macdonald
The Unitary Patent System and Unified Patent Court (UPC) are on the horizon in Europe and will bring about one of the most significant changes in European patent law in 40 years. Expected to come into force in 2017, the UPC will be effective for existing and future European patents and applications, so patentees need to be thinking about what to do to prepare.
Morag Macdonald, partner at Bird & Bird in the UK sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss the Unitary Patent costs, filing strategies, UPC costs, and the ins and outs of opting out.
“The Unitary Patent System and UPC are on the horizon in Europe because the relevant treaty and European legislation are all in place and the preparatory work is well under way to create the Unitary Patent with a Court that can handle disputes relating to it affectingover 400 million consumers in 25 separate European countries,” explained Macdonald.
This will bring about one of the most significant changes in European patent law in 40 years. While you can apply for a European patent through the European Patent Office any dispute – normally about infringement of the patent – it has to be carried out separately in the Courts of each of the countries where there is a problem. “This means that when you are enforcing a European Patent it is complex and costly as it will involve litigating before the Courts in a minimum of two and sometimes five or six different countries in Europe often at the same time,” she said.
However, the UPC will change all of that since it will give the patentees the additional option of suing infringers in just none Court with one procedure and no multiplication of costs. Infringement actions will be cheaper, quicker and less complex than the existing multiple national proceedings and will lead to remedy awards where infringement is found to have occurred including an injunction that will apply across 25 countries and damages awards in respect of all infringements occurring in all 25 countries with a population totalling 417 million.
In 2017, when the UPC comes into force the Unitary Patent will come into existence at the same time so that patentees will either be able to have traditional European patents granted to them covering four or five countries or they will be able to ask for any of their patents about to grant in the European Patent Office to have"unitary effect" which means it will cover 25 countries at once – at the same cost as a traditional European patent designating just four countries. As soon as the UPC starts it will hear all patent disputes in relation to both European and Unitary Patents except for traditional European Patents where the patentee has made a specific application to opt them to of the UPC system.
According to Macdonald, patentees need to decide whether they want to opt their current existing European Patents out of the UPC system otherwise disputes in relation to those patents will be dealt with by the UPC and not the national courts. Licensors and licensees need to review their licenses where they cover European Patents and agree on what is to be done about opting out those patents or not. Additionally, patentees need to update their filing strategies to decide when and why they will seek unitary effect for any of their patent applications.
“Companies who think they may get involved in patent disputes or potential disputes in Europe in the next three years need to get up to speed with the pros and cons of the new system so as to make sure they have maximum strategic advantage,” she said.
Registration and renewal fees for the Unitary Patent are the same as for a European Patent designating the UK, Germany, France and Italy. But, you cannot drop country designations and therefore decrease renewal fees on the way you can for a traditional European Patent, according to MacDonald. Further, it is possible to seek to have a mixture of Unitary Patents and European Patents in the same family by for example seeking unitary effect for a parent application but keeping one or two divisional as European Patents.
“One of the things that is often suggested is that there will be no more forum shopping with the advent of the UPC,” she said. “Since the UPC is a single Court with multiple divisions spread across about eight countries at present, strictly speaking this is true.”
However, this does not mean that there will not be "tribunal shopping.” Each tribunal is made up of a panel of three judges and depending on the existing experience with patent litigation in the country where a division is located will have only one or two of those judges of the nationality of the country where the division is located. Meanwhile each of the tribunals has wide discretion as to which procedures to adopt within the rules of the Court and it has been recognized that each tribunal will have its own "local color" as a result.
Macdonald said, “This is therefore going to be of key importance when developing a litigation strategy for the UPC.”
*First published by "Inside Counsel" on 12 April 2016
Perhaps the cross-examination with Houh went well. Hope they post the outcome
Also listed in their Annual Report
"For so long as we remain an “emerging growth company” as defined in the JOBS Act, we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies” as described above. We cannot predict if investors will find our common stock less attractive because we will rely on some or all of these exemptions. If some investors find our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock and our stock price may be more volatile. If we avail ourselves of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements, as is currently our plan, our reduced disclosure may make it more difficult for investors and securities analysts to evaluate us and may result in less investor confidence."
Locksmith vs Voip-pal.com Update
01/19/2017 Scheduling Order
01/25/2017 Order Setting Civil Jury Trial
01/18/2018 Pretrial/Calendar Call (9:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
02/05/2018 Jury Trial (10:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)