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.
Ya I had posted it on this board back in November
Answer from Twitter is due tomorrow
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Voip-Pal.com, Inc. re6 Summons Issued. Twitter, Inc. served on 1/4/2017, answer due 1/25/2017. (Knecht, Adam)
The Annual report posted today states
On December 28, 2016, the lawsuit was officially served to Twitter, Inc.
This will be interesting as the court document listing shows
10/17/16
Summons Issued as to Twitter Inc. re 1FComplaint. (ADR)
Mobile VoIP Market Size To Reach $145.76 Billion By 2024
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/press-release/global-mobile-voip-market
Posted on Ptab.uspto.gov
01/03/2017 - Denying Patent Owner Request for Rehearing 37 C.F.R. 42.71
Sounds good! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!
Here is also an article I found with an explanation of timelines when requesting a rehearing of a decision.
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/376246/Patent/Appellate+Review+Of+Patent+Trial+And+Appeal+Board+Decisions
Here is an article that I found thst explains what can be done after a PTAB denial.
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/331364/Patent/IPR+Spotlight+Series+What+To+Do+When+The+PTAB+Denies+Your+Petition+To+Institute+IPR
Here’s Our Take On VOIP PAL COM INC COM NPV (OTCMKTS:VPLM)’s Patent Cases
By Chris Sandburg / in Momentum & Growth, Momentum Stocks,Stocks, Tech / on Tuesday, 29 Nov 2016
https://www.insiderfinancial.com/heres-our-take-on-voip-pal-com-inc-com-npv-otcmktsvplms-patent-cases/118419/
The patent dispute landscape is an increasingly complex one, and the rise in popularity of companies whose sole operational function is to file patent disputes against big name tech companies has only added to this complexity. The ethical ramifications of this practice are, and likely will be for a long time, subject to intense debate – but we’re not here to comment on the ethical side of the space. We’re here to determine whether there’s money to be made backing the plaintiff in these sorts of cases, and as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions in the recent past, there is.
One company currently seeking to defend its patents against a slew of big names is VOIP PAL COM INC COM NPV (OTCMKTS:VPLM), but it’s situation is becoming increasingly complex, and this is making it tough to make a judgment call as to the validity of its claims.
Here’s an attempt to inject some clarity into what’s going on, and in turn, an attempt to come down on one side of the argument or another.
The company has three current suits ongoing, targeting Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL), AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T), Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE:VZ) (these latter two are being targeted as part of the same case) and – more recently – Twitter Inc (NYSE:TWTR). We don’t really need to go into the complexities of the cases here, but they all revolve around the same patent U.S Patent No. 8,542,815, and a follow on patent called U.S Patent No. 9,179,005. The suits describe the patents as relating to “caller attribute classification and routing product design,” which essentially relates to the various direct messaging applications each of the companies offer. Direct Messaging for Twitter, iMessage for Apple, etc. Bottom line, they are big claims if upheld, and claims that the companies in question would have no choice other than to pay (and pay heavily) for their continued use of if the suits go in Voip’s favor.
That’s a big if, however.
When a company like this files for infringement, the first thing the defendant usually does is request what’s called an inter partes review (IPR). An IPR is basically the company saying that the patent has no validity, and in turn, can’t be enforced. If an IPR is granted, it dramatically increases the costs to both parties, and of course, the smaller company, in this case Voip, will find it more difficult to meet these costs.
For a company like Voip, the goal is to avoid IPRs.
There’s an entity called Unified Patents, which was founded in 2012 with basically one goal – to help big tech companies file for IPRs. Unified Patents immediately took on the Verizon and the AT&T suit, and filed for an IPR. On November 18, this filing was denied. The implications here are positive for Voip.
However, a few days later, the same board (the PTAB) issued its decisions to institute two IPRs, one for each patent, in the Apple case.
And herein lies the confusion.
The PTAB is essentially saying that the patents are enforceable, and then three days later, saying they are not. That the cases are against different companies shouldn’t be a factor –IPRs are about the fundamental implications of enforceability. The disparity in the decisions have raised questions about conflict of interest (are there members of the decision making panel that have an interest in Apple’s outcome, but not Verizon’s?).
We can’t really speculate on that, but there’s something not right about the situation.
Voip now has to defend the enforceability of these patents as part of two IPRs, and that’s going to be costly. The company reports that it thinks it’s got a great chance, but we wouldn’t expect it to say otherwise.
The Twitter case is yet to develop, but chances are we will see a request for IPR, and again, the disparity in the two cases that have matured makes the outcome of this request uncertain.
So the situation now, is this: can Voip raise the capital it’s going to need to fund an IPR, and fight the Unified Patents case (the Verizon, AT&T case) and the Twitter case, all at the same time. If yes, then there’s a great bull case. In turn, the real question is this: are Voip shareholders willing to accept continued dilution, as the company raises to fund the litigation, in anticipation of a large payoff come end-date?
We think the decline on the UP IPR application tips the scales in favor of the bull case. It’s not going to be a smooth ride for a shareholder, but the reward on offer is very large, and those willing to get on board could take home a sizeable chunk in added value when the decisions finally come in.
We will be updating our subscribers as soon as we know more. For the latest updates on VPLM, sign up below!
Disclosure: We have no position in VPLM and have not been compensated for this article.
Response due by Dec 18th
No im not. Just posted on Ptab.uspto.gov website.
Just in
Unified Patent - Trial Denied!
Go to this site
https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/login
Scroll down to Search PTAB
Enter voip-pal.com in Party Name
Complete "Im not a
Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Locksmith Update
Monday, August 29, 201625 minutes Status Conference Mon 5:17 PM
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS - Status Conference held on 8/29/2016 before Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach. Crtrm Administrator: J. Ries ; Pla Counsel: Adam Knecht ; Def Counsel: Elaine Dowling ; Court Reporter/FTR #: 10:12 - 10:16 ; Time of Hearing: 10:00 a.m. ; Courtroom: 3D ; The court canvasses and hears representations from the parties. The parties advise that the state court action is still pending and they are proceeding with discovery. The parties agree to file a stipulation for dismissal without prejudice in this matter by 9/12/16. (no image attached) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JAR)
Back to the Days When We Talked on our Cell Phone
Steve Kanaval| Tuesday, 09 August 2016 12:10 (EST)
Today we only Look at our Cell Phone....
Text messaging is still the base-level communication in the United States. In a study done in 2012, an adult 18-year old sends on average 10 text messages a day, a boy ages 14-17 sends 30 texts a day, and, not surprisingly, a girl ages 14-17 sends over a 100 text messages per day. So, with those numbers, a family of four sends 150 text messages per day.
In 2008, Nielsen reported that mobile users were receiving more text messages than calls. In 2013, a study conducted byTelecommunication Gateway found that an overwhelming majority of people polled would rather text than call.The growth of the communication has gone from 0.4 texts per month in 1995 to 193,000 per second in 2013.On New Year’s Day 2015, a record number of text messages were sent worldwide.
Of course, the rise of mobile phones is mostly responsible for that level of growth, but the expansion of the phone as something we look at compared to something we listen to is the real culprit. Phones were once small and hard to read, but now phones have large pristine glass screen where we watch movies and videos, making text messages much more simple and easy.
Although many have argued that text-messaging is at its peak, the communication is not slowing down. A record 135 countries and over one billion users rely on text-messaging for business and personal communication. Fraud revolving text messages is on the rise. Disguised as legitimate businesses or organizations, scam artists send messages trick users into revealing personal data that inevitably leads to identity theft. These phishing scams have reached into the billions worldwide and are only expected to rise. Criminals steal phone numbers from online databases and then send large amounts of automatically generated messages, usually with a link, and when you respond to the message your personal information is at risk. These messages disguise themselves as banks verifying information or financial information.
However, the engineers that built this technology and the technology that allows for lawful intercept have improved our world and allowed the simple communication between wireless carriers. Voip-Pal (VPLM) a company that now has a portfolio of thirteen total patents in the United States and five internationally is in the process of seeking compensation for their hard work and innovation. VoIP-PAL is taking the high road in securing fair compensation via the legal battle with behemoth MegaCap public companies like Apple, AT&T and Verizon. They are the David with the sling.
Last week, VPLM received receipt from United States Patent Office for the company’s “Intercepting Voice over IP Communications and Other Data Communications” application. The patented technology allows for the covert intercept of voice, media and messaging communication. As stated above, as text-messaging fraud grows, the lawful intercept technology will be useful and essential as law enforcement attempts to deal with not only the growing number of fraud, but also the increasing use of text messaging between terrorists. The terrorists who planned and executed the attacks in France last year used SMS messages.
The attacks in France were not the first to be orchestrated by text message. A federal case in Detroit foiled a terror suspect who threatened to blow up churches in the surrounding area. The plot was discovered by an FBI agent who became friendly with the attacker and began to text with the suspect. However, the messages were not observed in real-time but were screenshot by the undercover agent who passed them along to authorities. The messages reveal the attacker’s mindset as he falls further into rage and begins to flesh out details of his plot.
VPLM’s recent patent would allow for a judicially authorized intercept of data on the phone and the user would never know.This type of technology has been attempted to be duplicated by the likes of Microsoft, but the company was unsuccessful due to the strength of VoIP-PAL’s existing patents. After the Paris attacks, American government officials revived calls for increased government surveillance to cell towers and encrypted communications. The intelligence and law enforcement community are petitioning for legislation that would allow for text message backdoor s and intercept, which would provide an avenue for Voip-Pal’s available and already proven technology.
Microcap stocks are often on the forefront of technology and innovation, and these small companies must defend their discoveries against the larger players that are better positioned to quickly implement new capability but recently the little guy is winning the legal battles as public opinion (and daily use of the service or tool) leans to the founder/inventor of these Technologies.
Everyone loves the story of David and Goliath and those texting teenage millennials who stopped talking on the phone and started to interact with the smart phone by texting and messaging can look back and know from where they came- the days when we talked on our Cell Phones.
https://www.equities.com/news/back-to-the-days-when-we-talked-on-our-cell-phone
An additional entry posted today
07/28/16 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff Voip-Pal.com Inc. . (Knecht, Adam)
07/27/16 STIPULATION of Dismissal Stipulation Regarding Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Wireless Services, LLC and Substitution of Cellco Partnersheip d/b/a Verizon Wireless by Plaintiff Voip-Pal.com Inc. . (Bonds, Kurt)
https://search.rpxcorp.com/lit/nvdce-113204-voip-pal-com-v-verizon-wireless-services
The Classification and Routing of Modern Telecommunications
Spotlight Companies | Tuesday, 05 July 2016 13:23 (EST)
https://www.equities.com/news/the-classification-and-routing-of-modern-telecommunications
If you ever wondered how calls and messages reach your phone even when you are away from home or changing locations; Voip-Pal (VPLM) technology can show you the answer. In August 2015,the company received notification of allowance of the continuation patent of “Producing Routing Messages for VoIP Communications,” US Patent 9,179,005(a continuation to US Patent No. 8,542,815 for VOIP communications). This patent completed an important stage in Voip-Pal’s 12-year suite of fundamental Internet Protocol (IP) tools and processes. To date, the company has been awarded 16 patents pertaining to the classification and routing of modern telecommunication.
To better understand Voip-Pal’s position in today’s world of telecommunications, let’s take a look at its history and journey. In early 2000,Voip-Pal’s engineers and scientists had a vision of the future structure of Internet Protocol: a complex world of nodes, routers and end points requiring that each IP “call” (a communication utilizing IP data packets) would have to be precisely classified and routed in order to guarantee functionality and efficiency in a world-wide system. They envisioned a world of switched, routed, fixed and mobile networks communicating with each other through dynamic systems that could provide data security and high transmission quality by using the best available networks, and moving in and between networks seamlessly and efficiently.
Paradigm Shift from Legacy Telco
The filing (November 2006) and subsequent granting (September 2013) of the initial RBR patent was followed by patents dealing with lawful intercept of IP communications, enhanced IP 911 services, mobile gateway, uninterrupted transmission of IP among moving endpoints, and allocating communication charges. These patents and their progeny represent a technology that will allow an entity to operate as a fully functional wireless Telco. Each day, the vision of these engineers has become reality as mobile telecommunications applications and services are expanding at a rapid rate.
Applications such as WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook, Apple iMessage, FaceTime, Skype; various mobile payment services; carrier services such as Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint; and hardware providers such as Cisco and Blackberry have become increasingly vital to our daily lives, and few of these companies are legally compliant and many of these prominent applications and devices reflect Voip-Pal’s vision, and this vision has become reality.
Becoming a fully compliant wireless Telco, one which integrates legacy technology with the internet, is the most critical and foundational step, and one that cannot be undertaken without the unique technology of Voip-Pal. The world must provide comprehensive solutions that include mobile payment and banking, voice, data and video communications, public safety and law enforcement solutions, and systems that can provide the greatest economy to the user.
The company’s long term strategy has been to develop this portfolio of technology and partner with companies that would benefit from the implementation of this foundational IP. Voip-Pal has reached out to these leading tech companies to discuss licensing/acquisition. However, to date, these discussions are progressing slowly, and therefore, the company took the course of legal remedies against infringer's. The Voip-Pal team had a vision a few years back, and that precise vision has become the reality we hold in our hands every day.
Stay tuned for future articles which will highlight the specific components of the patent portfolio and how they overlap with technologies that are used by the world’s leading tech and telecommunications companies to power our every day mobile connectivity.
----------------------------
ParkerVision’s Deal with Samsung: Pressure on Ongoing CasesSpotlight Companies Follow | Tuesday, 26 July 2016 20:25 (EST)
https://www.equities.com/news/parkervision-s-deal-with-samsung-pressure-on-ongoing-cases
ParkerVision, Inc. (PRKR) has entered in an agreement with Samsung over the use of ParkerVision’s patented radio-frequency technologies. Samsung and its affiliates have agreed on patent and licensing terms for PRKR’s current patent portfolio.The news of the licensing agreement sent ParkerVision’s stock soaring 76%, but dabbled in the +120% at certain times throughout the day.
The Korean technology giant was using parts supplied by Qualcomm, Inc. in its products that infringed upon ParkerVision’s patents on wireless communication technology. In 2013, PRKR was in the news over a similar case against Qualcomm that led to a Florida jury awarding ParkerVision $173 million. However, the case was eventually thrown out by a district judge due to vague testimony from an expert witness. The Samsung license agreement could be the first of many because ParkerVision has ongoing litigation against Apple, LG Electronics, HTC Corp. and Qualcomm.
The suits against Samsung were filed in May 2014 and second suit was filed in December 2015, both cases were to be heard in Florida. ParkerVision’s CEO Jeffrey Parker said this after the announcement,“Samsung is a world leader in technology and innovation, and we are pleased to welcome Samsung as a licensee of our technologies and to dismiss the outstanding litigation between the parties.”
The result of this ITC case certainly could lead one to assume that other similar cases may end in a similar fashion. The Samsung lawyers saw the scope of the evidence and considered it in the company’s best interest to strike a deal. Now, every Samsung cellphone worldwide will contain ParkerVision’s technology and with an ITC hearing coming up in August against Apple, LG and Qualcomm, it is likely that more licensing agreements will be struck. Those three companies are all able to pay hefty fines, but may be more inclined to strike a deal. The pressure will be on Apple and others to avoid the case and settle.
The trajectory of this case is very reminiscent to another ongoing Apple infringement case with Voip-Pal, Inc. (VPLM), a VOIP (voice over internet protocol) technology company that made breakthroughs in the field in early 2000s. The company came up with the ability for calls and data to move in between networks seamlessly. VOIP-Pal has filed a patent infringement case against Apple due to the latter’s unlicensed use of SMS (text) and voice communication technology.A similar patent infringement lawsuit was also filed against Verizon and AT&T.
In addition to the Samsung settlement, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Patent owner rights was a major victory for companies likeVPLM. In Halo v. Pulse, the Supreme Court lowered the threshold that patent holders needed to meet to receive punitive damages in patent infringement cases. Justices overturned the strict two-part test utilized to determine damages and lowered the patent owner’s burden of proof. This holding creates incentives for large companies like Samsung and Apple to consider settlement, rather than protracted litigation as the best course of action to resolve infringement claims. which are armed with teams of lawyers seek to drag on patent infringement cases and when the cases got to court, the old laws put a heavy burden on the patent owners. In the past, it has not been unusual for technology corporate giants to attempt to overwhelm smaller companies that have alleged patent infringement. expropriating technology and the reaping of profits by using another company’s intellectual property was commonplace. With the conclusion of the ParkerVision and Halo v. Pulse digest that Case and the new Supreme Court ruling, the tide could be turning for VoIP-Pal and other patent innovators and the dedicated engineers and technology developers at VOIP-Pal may be able to get fairly rewarded to be compensated for the key communications technologies they have been building over the past decade.
I had read the OTCQB Certification requirements from the OTC Markets website
Verification Requirements
OTCQB Annual Certification
Each OTCQB company must post initial and annual certification on the OTC Markets website, signed by the CEO and/or CFO which contains the following:
The company's reporting standard (e.g. SEC Reporting, Bank Reporting, International Reporting) and brief description of the registration status of the company. Confirmation that the company is current in its reporting obligations to its regulator and such information has been posted either on EDGAR or the OTC Markets website. Name of the Law Firm and/or Attorney involved in helping the company prepare its Annual Report
or 10-K Confirmation that the company profile on the OTC Markets website is current and complete confirmation that the total shares outstanding and in the public float as of the most recent fiscal year end. Names and shareholdings of all officers and directors, as well as beneficial shareholders who hold more than 5% of outstanding shares.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/services/companies/otcqb/requirements
I didn't read in the OTCQB certification requirements where that requirement is to be disclosed. Can you provide the link? Thanks
VPLM - OTCQB Certification
VOIP PAL.com, Inc. (VPLM: OTC Pink Current) | OTCQB Certification
July 18th, 2016 OTC Markets Group - News, Filings & Corporate Actions
Mon, Jul 18, 2016 11:24 – VOIP PAL.com, Inc. (VPLM: OTC Pink Current) released their OTCQB Certification concerning . To read the complete report, please visit:http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=VPLM&id=157476.
http://www.investingnewsalerts.com/blog/voip-pal-com-inc-vplm-otc-pink-current-otcqb-certification/
Apologies, I did not read that through.
Here is another I found
Tenor Investments
Tenor Investments Inc. engages in the evaluation, financing and development of early stage companies with a focus on disruptive new media and internet technologies. We have a keen interest in bringing new technologies to market. We selectively invest in early stage companies that do something different – with style, commitment and a zest for success.
http://www.tenorinvestments.com/investments/
Sharing some DD. Check out West Coast Ventures Inc?
An early-stage private investment firm focussed on innovative software & green/blue tech companies.
They have listed that they have invested in VPLM
https://ca.linkedin.com/in/michielriedijk
I'm sure this video had been posted on this board before.It is however from a few years ago but they do discuss the patents and state interest.
Will certainly be looking out for for it in the Quarterly.
Also under the Contributor tab in same Crunchbase site is:
OverviewTimelineFollowersContributors
STATISTICS
1
TOP CONTRIBUTORS
Contributors (1)
ContributorsContributionsLast Updated
CrunchBase Staff 12. June 11, 2016
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/voip-pal/contributors
As per Crunchbase on April 15 2016 an Undisclosed amount was apparently raised.
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/voip-pal/timeline#/timeline/index
Actually the " People who follow this profile also follow " actually keeps changing each time you open the site...so my apologies.
Total Equity Funding Undisclosed Amount in 1 Round ?
Check out who's following
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/voip-pal#/entity
Same for AT&T & Verizon
06/02/16SUMMONS Returned Executed by Voip-Pal.com Inc. re 10F Amended Complaint,,,. AT&T Corp. served on 5/9/2016, answer due 7/29/2016. (Bonds, Kurt)
06/02/16SUMMONS Returned Executed by Voip-Pal.com Inc. re 13F Summons Returned Executed, 10F Amended Complaint,,,. Verizon Wireless Services, LLC served on 5/9/2016, answer due 7/29/2016. (Bonds, Kurt)
APPLE’S AURA OF INVINCIBILITY TAKES A HIT AFTER PATENT SETTLEMENT WITH MARATHON AND RPI
Posted on APRIL 25, 2016 7:31 AM by DAN LONKEVICH
Apple Inc.’s (APPL) aura of invincibility took a hit this week when it agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle an enforcement action filed by Marathon Patent Group (MARA) and Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute over patents related to the Siri personal assistant application.
The company’s willingness to settle reveals a truism that is often underappreciated today in the U.S. patent market where many patent owners feel outmaneuvered and outgunned.
Patent Quality and the Strength of the Case matter a great deal, especially to so-called patent trolls or non-practicing entities.
While the anti-patent troll movement has been dominant for several years now and won significant victories through the America Invents Act, NPEs can still win settlements when their patents are strong and when their cases are even stronger.
The Marathon/RPI settlement was perhaps made possible by the comparison with the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation’s case against Apple, which resulted in a $234 million verdict in WARF’s favor.
Apple is appealing that verdict, which is its right. It’s wise to do so because the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s skepticism of large damages awards means the award will almost certainly be reduced.
The same is likely true with the $625.6 million verdict VirnetX Holding Corp. (VHC) won against Apple. The computer giant already successfully threw out a $368 million award for VirnetX and a $533 million award for SmartFlash LLC.
In addition, Marvell Technology Group (MRVL) surprised many in the patent market when it agreed to settle an enforcement action brought by Carnegie Mellon University for $750 million after a seven year litigation battle.
To be sure, the strength of a case also is critical. Marathon rival Vringo Inc. (VRNG) used a multitude of missteps by Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE Corp. to force a $21.5 million settlement in December.
The missteps occurred in a breach of nondisclosure agreement case Vringo filed against ZTE in U.S. District Court in Manhattan. Among the missteps by ZTE were discovery delay tactics designed to conceal that its chief counsel refused to be deposed in New York because he feared being detained by the FBI in connect with a criminal probe of alleged violations of trade sanctions against Iran.
ZTE also was accused of breaching the NDA by sharing it with Google Inc. and several public relations agency allegedly in an effort orchestrate a scheme to publicize information that would hurt Vringo’s stock price.
In addition, ZTE failed in an attempt to change the venue of the NDA dispute with Vringo. The same day ZTE was engaged in settlement talks with Vringo in New York, its attorneys were filing a complaint against Vringo in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware, citing breach of contract in connection with Vringo’s alleged unwillingness to negotiate a license to its patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory or FRAND terms.
To companies like Apple, ZTE, Marvell and Google, anyone who brings an enforcement action against them is a troll, whether it’s an operating company, a university or an NPE.
Juries sometimes agree and sometimes they don’t.
“ZTE has been involved in a lot of enforcement actions for a company of its size,” said Sanjay Prasad, principal of Prasad IP, a Los Altos, Calif.-based IP advisory firm. “The settlement may have been reasonable based on a cost benefit analysis. They’re likely looking at their overall litigation docket and allocating limited resources.”
Apple, on the other hand, “has unlimited resources,” so the cost of litigation of any given case isn’t really an issue, he said.
“A $24.5 million settlement of a case where they concluded the patents were strong and where their chances of winning were slim may have been a smart choice. Otherwise, it could be have been hit with a big judgement.”
“It’s all about the specifics of the case. It’s about patent quality. NPEs can be successful. A lot of the losses have come in weak cases and the law has changed to make such cases less winnable.”
Patent market observers say that NPEs typically can expect to win at best about a third of their cases, which means defendants win two-thirds of the time.
Every year, Apple is near the top of the list of companies targeted with enforcement actions by NPEs. A former Apple executive once told me he could have wallpapered his office with demand letters and that it understandably, if not justifiably, made him angry.
Despite this fact, Apple has carefully cultivated a reputation for fighting NPEs and has spent tens of millions of dollars defending against NPE litigation.
“It’s not really true that they fight everything,” said the former Apple licensing executive who spoke on condition of anonymity. “They fight the ones they think they can win.”
Apple wants to have a track record of wins in order to act as a deterrent to more NPE litigation.
“To have a good track record you need to win a lot of cases. Typically, a good track record is to win two out of three cases. But if you start losing a third of your cases you’re going to look like a good target.”
That’s why the cases against Apple keep coming, including ones by thinly capitalized Voip-Pal Inc. in February in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, which is seeking $2.84 billion in damages.
Apple also is facing an enforcement action filed by Daisy Washington-Gross, a 68-year-old Detroit, Michigan-based poet and inventor who claims to have a patent pending for a detachable beeper disc digital gym shoe. Washington-Gross, who filed her complaint in federal court in Detroit, is seeking $3 billion from Apple.
By settling what it considers its weakest cases for relatively modest amounts, Apple can focus its legal firepower on the stronger cases that matter more and preserve its aura of invincibility.
To be sure, invincibility is in the eye of the beholder and can be quite relative.
Newegg Ltd., the online computer retailer whose chief legal officer Lee Cheng has a reputation for fighting NPEs to the mat, has been successful at defeating all the NPE litigation it’s faced. Its been much less successful, however, in winning motions for exceptional case fees, which are seen as a deterrent to NPE cases.
Moreover, “patent trolling” is a behavior more than an identity and defendants can be just as troll-like as NPEs and other plaintiffs. Take ZTE’s over the top behavior for example in the dispute with Vringo.
Apple and other large companies can’t expect to win all their cases and they don’t.
Marathon and Vringo are perhaps showing the way NPEs can beat the big companies by being scrupulous both about the quality of the patents they enforce and about their enforcement tactics.
To reach the reporter responsible for this story, please contact Dan Lonkevich of The Patent Investor at 707 318-7899 ordan@thepatentinvestor.com.
http://patentvue.com/2016/04/25/apples-aura-of-invincibility-takes-a-hit-after-patent-settlement-with-marathon-and-rpi/
I thought the same!
VoIP-Pal serves Apple in $2.8B patent infringement suit over iMessage & Wi-Fi Calling
By: Roger Fingas
Tuesday, May 10, 2016 1:16 PM
Patent holder VoIP-Pal on Tuesday announced that it has formally served Apple in an infringement lawsuit, claiming over $2.8 billion in damages from concepts used in services like Wi-Fi Calling and iMessage.
The lawsuit was originally launched on Feb. 9, but VoIP-Palsaid it waited until May as it was trying — and is still trying — to reach a settlement through talks. The company is also pursuing actions against AT&T and Verizon, in total seeking some $7 billion if it can't negotiate out of court. The tally against Apple was calculated assuming a 1.25 percent royalty rate based on iPhone, iPad, and Mac profits.
The company is specifically accused of exploiting patents related to VoIP-Pal's "caller attribute classification and routing product design." In the case of iMessage, for instance, this involves the automatic switching system that will direct messages through Apple networks if both people are on Apple devices, or SMS if one person is not.
That system has previously proven controversial, and was in fact the subject of a failed lawsuit over problems switching from an iPhone to Android. iMessage links a person's Apple ID with their phone number, and people who switch away from iPhones can find that texts from iPhone-owning friends will go missing.
Although that case ended up dismissed, Apple was long barraged by public complaints about the underlying problem, and ultimately had to create Web tool to let people delink their phone numbers.
VoIP-Pal's case is likely to be settled out of court, presumably through patent licenses or a special agreement. Most such patent disputes don't go to trial, given the expenses involved and the potential penalties for losing.
http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/16/05/10/voip-pal-serves-apple-in-28b-patent-infringement-suit-over-imessage-wi-fi-calling
Voip-Pal.com gets good news in Lawsuit against Apple, Verizon, and AT&T
Stephen L Kanaval | Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:28 (EST)
When Voip-Pal.com Inc. (VPLM) acquired bankrupt Digifonica International in order to push the development of the latter’s patents, Emil Malak knew that the technology would be essential and he also that getting the money for the patent infringement would be a long, difficult road. Voip-Pal, a small company, is suing Apple, Verizon, and AT&T for patent infringement. Malak is also adding 50 more companies to the lawsuit as well.
Recently, Voip-Pal received receipt of Notice of Allowance from the US Patent office for the companies “Intercepting Voice Over IP Communication and Other Data Communications,” which strengthens the Lawful Intercept parent patent and broadens the scope of its practical implementation specifically with regards to the interception of messaging.
Malak made this statement in a press release:
“I believe our technology, specifically our three Lawful Intercept patents, do provide a solution to this important discussion. Our Lawful Intercept patents provide the means for social networking platforms and telco operators to cooperate with law enforcement agencies whenever surveillance is judicially approved, by specifically targeting criminal and terror suspects while avoiding blanketed surveillance programs that violate subscriber privacy…legislation may be required to allow other systems of internet telecommunications to comply with federal and state law. However, we have designed our Lawful Intercept patents to operate by the same rules as legacy telephony today.
The patent infringements case presented in Nevada has mostly to do with the intellectual property of Apple’s iMessage and the WiFi calling technology.
DISCLOSURE: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors, and do not represent the views of equities.com. Readers should not consider statements made by the author as formal recommendations and should consult their financial advisor before making any investment decisions. To read our full disclosure, please go to: http://www.equities.com/disclaimer
https://www.equities.com/news/voip-pal-com-gets-good-news-in-lawsuit-against-apple-verizon-and-at-t
Not sure what it all means either. Was just sharing the posted update.
Event entry on Case No. A-15-717491-C
05/02/2016 Motion
Defendants' Counterclaimant's and Third-Party Claimant's Motion to Deem Unanswered Allegations Admitted and Preclude Affirmative Defenses
06/06/2016 Motion (3:00 AM) (Judicial Officer Cory, Kenneth)
Defendants' Counterclaimant's and Third-Party Claimant's Motion to Deem Unanswered Allegations Admitted and Preclude Affirmative Defenses
Look under News - Form 10
See post #29790 on Dec 23/15 for steps to court link.