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.
Yes - that's the game. We do have, now, yet another carrot on the table. After years of throwing Jr. league, unimpressive lawyers at this problem, surely, because they truly did not take it seriously - Apple, et al have now hired Desmarais, LLP. Which is considered by most to be the #1 Patent Litigation attorney firm. Period.
Just imagine that you are a clever lawyer - a damned fine lawyer, as we have seen from the briefs. It has been a very long time since I have been so impressed with legal writing and the ability to clearly and concisely present an argument as I have witnessed in reading the recent legal briefs presented by Kevin Malek. Imagine that you have a unique opportunity to beat the top lawyer firm in your field, and their clients, the most powerful companies in the world.... simply because you are not only armed with your skills, but also, have the facts and "the goodies" on your side.
Can you even imagine how SWEET that would be, if you were to pull this off? I will bet you, good money, that this occurs to Kevin Malek each morning, when he wakes up.
I know. And they have been spurred on by the fact that the Euro patent is already enforceable. That's money on the table, waiting to be gathered. What infringer - and they know who they are - in their right minds, would not be at that table right now? It's taken a long time to get to this point, but this point is where the money starts flowing. Wait for it -
Based on what, and predicted by whom?
Nonsense. One cannot apply algorithms for stock tickers to a company with pending litigation, when the entire valuation of the company is the outcome of the litigation.
In short, these little daytrader stock hints don't work here. Never have, never will. They are meaningless.
I absolutely believe there are both buyout and licensing talks happening right now. And multiple suitors. It would be INSANE based on the facts of the case for this not to be happening.
Ah... I find that Mythbuster gets a lot of things right, but sometimes can be prone to premature conclusions - Intelligent guy - but all of us can get a little swept away occasionally - these are exciting times with a lot of good things on the horizon!
DESMARAIS LLP
John M. Desmarais (SBN 320875)
Ameet A. Modi (pro hac vice)
Robert C. Harrits (pro hac vice)
Michael J. X. Matulewicz-Crowley (pro
hac vice)
230 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 351-3400
Facsimile: (212) 351-3401
jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
amodi@desmaraisllp.com
rharrits@desmaraisllp.com
mmatulewicz-crowley@desmaraisllp.com
Peter C. Magic (SBN 278917)
pmagic@desmaraisllp.com
101 California Street, Suite 3070
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 573-1900
Facsimile: (415) 573-1901
pmagic@desmaraisllp.com
Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 5:18-cv-06216-LHK
Case No. 5:18-cv-06217-LHK
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING
TREATMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) agree and
stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS the parties are in ongoing negotiations over a proposed protective order
governing the confidentiality and disclosure of discovery produced during this litigation and intend
to file a joint letter brief outlining the disputed issues in the coming days;
WHEREAS pursuant to the Court’s Case Management Orders (Case No. 5:18-cv-06216-
LHK, ECF 53; Case No. 5:18-cv-06217-LHK, ECF 77) and Patent Local Rule 3-4, Defendant Apple
Case 5:18-cv-06217-LHK Document 93 Filed 03/18/19 Page 1 of 3
JOINT STIPULATION REGARDING
TREATMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION
5:18-cv-06177-LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
is required to and intends to produce documents on March 18, 2019, some of which will contain
highly sensitive and confidential information;
WHEREAS because the Model Protective Order in the Northern District of California does
not resolve the disputes between the parties, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED that both parties and
their counsel will be bound by the proposed protective order governing the treatment of confidential
information (attached as Exhibit 1), including Apple’s/Defendants’ proposals, for the limited
duration of the period between this stipulation and the Court’s resolution of the parties’ forthcoming
letter brief on the disputed protective order issues.
The parties agree that the fact that Plaintiff so-stipulated shall not be used against Plaintiff
to argue that the stipulation itself proves that Defendants’ proposals are acceptable to or workable
for Plaintiff.
This Stipulation is filed in good faith and is not intended to cause unnecessary delay.
Exactly. To do so would be an extremely unprecedented and strange move for a sitting District Court Judge. My guess, she recommends that the parties discuss settlement, and barring that, we proceed with discovery. If you have read the latest Apple filing, they are "stipulating" (one-sidedly) to a proposed agreement that makes the upcoming round of discovery private and sealed, to prevent damaging disclosures that could harm their business from hitting the streets. So they are concerned. Oh, yes they are.
You got it, my friend. This is precisely right.
I agree with you TB2J - and in reading through the recent filings from the 14th to yesterday, it seems more certain than ever to me that Judge Koh is laying down the law - and unwilling to be a circus master for shenangins. Apple, et al did, in fact, try to slip something in a motion to dismiss that isn't permitted. One cannot introduce new evidence in a Motion to Dismiss. It isn't allowed. Voip-Pal objected and asked for permission to dispute - Judge Koh said (paraphrasing) No need - I have what I need here to rule. That's how I read it. And I believe that investors will be pleased with the result. Just My 2 Cents.
I'd caution people about believing that tomorrow is some drop dead date for the Judge's decision.... I heard that first on the board here, and I have looked at all of the filings over the past week - the 21st was taken off calendar, and I can find NO reason, in an official context, to believe there will be an answer tomorrow. So, unless somebody has info to the contrary, I would file that as a rumor. Please enlighten me -
Policy is very fluid right now. Iancu issued new guidance on January 7th, which addresses judicial exceptions, which was then followed by a unanimous Supreme Court Opinion issued on January 12th which appears to have invalidated any Judicial exceptions.
These patents were reviewed - issued - reinvestigated - confirmed in 8 IPRs, challenged, and had the challenge shut down by Unified Patents... and now Apple is trying to invalidate, yet again, now that they have finally woken up and decided not to assign the matter to junior attorneys - a move that I feel will be seen as too little, too late.
Oh, and the identical patent granted in Europe, which has now gone beyond the challenge period, unopposed, and is, therefore, enforceable immediately.
But anything can happen. It's a very fluid situation right now. Stay tuned!
Director Iancu makes Statement to Senate Subcommittee:
https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/statement-director-iancu-united-states-senate-subcommittee-intellectual#
You are correct on all points.
Not sure of the specific timing - I'd definitely take a look -
Yes she did!
I don't think it's fair to call PTAB a bunch of crooks, necessarily. I do see that Director Iancu is trying hard to wrangle in a bunch of bad policy trends that had gone on far too long, and reshape the PTAB into what it was originally designed to be.
He has a good amount of work in front of him, but he's doing a good job, as far as I can see, in tackling some very complex issues.
Agreed.
Yes, and since the recent Supreme Court ruling and issued opinion, effectively negates the same question of "obviousness arguments" that Apple has been trying to get reheard before the PTAB, under the Alice tests - it's a moot point anyway. Consider the patents...Validated.
Yes. Precisely.
So based upon these new developments, there seem to be only two possible outcomes to the "Alice" pleadings currently before Judge Koh:
1. The District Court finds against Voip Pal, and invalidates the patents based on her understanding and application of Alice - Bucking the recent guidance from the Supreme Court on the matter (unlikely, but anything is possible) - In which case, that finding will eventually be reversed, at a great unnecessary expense. BTW District Court Judges NEVER want to see their rulings reversed...
or
2. The District Court will find in favor of Voip Pal, in keeping with the recent Supreme Court guidance.
We shall see very shortly.
It remains to be seen. However, what we know right now is that Judge Koh said it's a "no go" to the notion that Apple, et al gets a jury trial to yet again explore something that has already been looked at, asked and answered before.
She has what she needs to make her ruling.
Clarification: denial
of Apples motion to dismiss this case with prejudice, and denial of their DEMAND of jury trial March 21.
I stated previously that those interested should look into the latest Supreme court's opinion on Alice. No patents have, since, been invalidated based on Alice. Poor Alice, has lost her way. Go Vplm
You have an extra decimal place - but, hey - what's decimal place between friends?
FYI PPS ALWAYS drops short term after virtually any announcement around here. Check the history. It means less than nothing. Watch.
New Highs. Incredible New Highs. And it's about time. Also - you've been here a long time - haven't you also noticed - There's a pattern. Right after a positive announcement, although it seems bizarre - there's a dip in PPS. Followed shortly by a jump. Perhaps we experience unnatural and orchestrated movement during those times that can't be sustained. I don't claim to know. But it happens. Each and every time.
What kind of question is that? Why should VPLM win?
Why should any company who owns proven technology, who got to the patent filings first, before competitors, and has stayed the course, battled the opposition, outlasted the onslaught of those who would defeat it, win? Because it is right and proper that it is so.
Sometimes the little guy does get it right - the stars align, and the good guy wins. Not often. Sadly. But this time. Yes. Watch.
You do realize, of course, that if this is a "scam" as so many like to cry over, and over again, without offering any more offers of proof beyond tidbits taken out of context and tired old one liners - that any share based compensation, bonuses, etc. that are not free trading, and being held for the express purpose of maintaining controlling interest in this company are worth exactly zero, if the stock is worthless?
Hmmm...
Alice hearing on March 21st is because Apple is killing time. They know Alice is all but dead. Everyone in IP Litigation knows this by now. There was a Supreme Court Opinion issued regarding ALICE in January authored by Justice Kavenaugh. There have been precisely ZERO dismissals based on ALICE hearings since that time. Lower courts have taken notice. That doesn't mean Apple can't waste time, until the final nail goes in the coffin. Supreme Court opinions are issued, for the express purpose of giving guidance to the lower courts, in order to prevent a waste of time and energy pursuing matters that will ultimately be overturned.
The implications of this fact are staggering for Apple. Not only for this case - but for all of the Tech AND Big Pharma bullies, in all of their cases. Hang on to your britches.
I guess that kinda depends. See I bought at .02 - sold PLENTY at .24 ...Bought more at .04.... SOLD PLENTY at .39 - Bought all back, and then some between .06-.09.
I'm good. Just sayin'
Thank you GBC - I was made aware of this on Feb 28th - A few things that are important to know and understand about the significance of this development:
European Patents are MUCH easier to protect and enforce because the process is more streamlined, with far fewer pitfalls for the inventor. Also any opposition to this patent HAD TO BE - not only filed, but the filing fee PAID in order to be considered. This did not happen. No.Opposition.Was.Filed. Under EU laws, there ARE NO EXCEPTIONS to a failure to file an opposition. None.
Apple could have filed an opposition, and didn't. Why? I believe it was because they KNOW there were no dirty tricks available to them in the EU. It's a different playing field - and although we sometimes forget there is a world outside of USA - There is - and EVERYBODY - in virtually all industrialized nations are using VOIP at this point. Think how immense that is - Now enjoy knowing that you have stock in this company, that owns an integral patent for its use and operation. Enjoy knowing that you were able to pick up those shares at rock bottom prices.
We are so close to monetization - and this is NOT the only event taking place behind the scenes, just the tip of the iceburg.
The addition of the European, Unchallenged and ISSUED patent to the portfolio makes the value of this company to potential purchasers incredibly more valuable.
This will be a monumental experience for those who have waited. And Yes, You can Mark My Words.
Nope.
PTAB is extremely unlikely to issue a rehearing based on merits of filings
ALICE is all but done, based on new Supreme Court Opinion rendering ALICE a thing of the past
Apple & other Plaintiffs have been using ALICE as their get out of jail free card for years, and are frantically figuring out what comes next according to journals on IP Litigation
No infringement has ever been needed, yet, to have been proven, HOWEVER - it is quite clear to any sane person that Apple would not have spent ungodly amounts of time, energy and money to fight something that is wholly irrelevant to them, and therefore, they would be immune from any liability for having been using it - Common Sense 101
Value you want value? Hang on - you're about to get it.
Oh - and here's the kicker: "Patience is, INDEED, a Virtue"
Best Regards,
It's not yet been asked to. That is in the process of being done right now, at this juncture.
The proof lies, as I have outlined before - and I believe, in response to you, specifically, if I am not mistaken, in the actions of Apple.
Apple had many other options, most importantly, to simply ignore the patent filings altogether.
But they did not. If they are not infringing, why would they care? Why would they file to overturn the patents? Why would they fight years and years on end, brief after brief, expert testimony, after expert testimony...attorney fee after attorney fee to respond to something that they aren't EVEN DOING??? That, my friend would be insanity.
If I were a cobbler, and someone erroneously accused me of stealing their patented application for installing zippers in dresses, I can assure you, I would lift no finger, nor pay any solicitor to disprove their lunacy.
More important to you perhaps. But many other investors go a little further in their due diligence -
Everything is fine. More than fine. The movements and "dance" towards the ultimate (and obvious to me, after doing my due diligence, and consulting with legal professionals in this specific field) result of monetization of this stock, and proving, beyond any legal recourse remaining that infringement has taken, and continues to take place is a foregone conclusion.
Each to their own. For me, and my house - we're accumulating. I give it 6 months or less. Likely MUCH less. Please feel free to mark my words.
Those facts are irrelevant. I suggest you hang onto your britches. Some very interesting developments have just taken place - you're going to have to trust me on that (or, of course, do your own due diligence into the state of patent litigation in the US - either way)...
Best of luck to you -
Thank you. I agree...there are, undoubtedly, interesting developments afoot!
Do you think there is any possibility of a Monday revelation? Having watched this company over many years, I find a pattern that special, significant announcements are often rolled out Monday morning, prior to open of business.
No, you didn't make that up - you simply misapplied it.
Voip-Pal acquired Digifonica - while entirely in the active pursuit and R&D stage of developing the initial suite of patents, and then, continued that work, actively employing engineers, and subject matter experts and furthering that same patent suite, and expanding upon it through engineering pursuits, discoveries and improvements, to become a company, which, now, has expanded, through applied science, from the original 5 patents, to include 17 Issued US patents, 3 Allowed US Patents, and 3 Granted patents internationally.
Doesn't really fit your "patent troll" definition, does it?
I rest my case.
With all due respect - I stopped reading at "patent troll". If one does not have even the most basic understanding of the definitions they are throwing around, one has to wonder if there is any value in reading further...
It is not on stay - it is moving forward as calendared.
Here's the order & case info if you want to follow:
1
Case Nos. 18-CV-07020-LHK, 18-CV-06216-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMAZON.COM INC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 18-CV-07020-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 18-CV-06216-LHK
Plaintiff’s Attorney: Kevin Malek
Amazon.com Inc.’s Attorney: Daniel Shvodian
Apple Inc.’s Attorneys: John Desmarais and Peter Magic
An initial case management conference was held on January 16, 2019. A further case management conference is set for May 22, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall file their joint case management statement by May 15, 2019. Case 5:18-cv-06216-LHK Document 53 Filed 01/16/19 Page 1 of 3
2
Case Nos. 18-CV-07020-LHK, 18-CV-06216-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
One consolidated motion to dismiss may be filed by February 15, 2019. The page limits in the Civil Local Rules shall apply.
Defendants shall file 1 consolidated claim construction responsive brief of no more than 25 pages.
30 days following issuance of the Court’s claim construction order, the parties shall reduce the number of asserted claims to 16, the number of accused products to 9 per defendant, and the number of prior art references to 40 (to be served 14 days after Plaintiff’s election of asserted claims, with no more than 20 references against each patent).
30 days following the close of fact discovery, the parties shall reduce the number of asserted claims to 14, the number of accused products to 8, and the number of prior art references to 30 (to be served 14 days after Plaintiff’s election of asserted claims, with no more than 15 references against each patent).
21 days before filing any motion for summary judgment, the parties shall reduce the number of claims asserted to 5, the number of accused products to 5 per defendant, and the number of prior art references to 12.
30 days before the pretrial conference, the parties shall reduce the number of asserted claims to 4, the number of accused products to 4 per defendant, and the number of prior art references to 10. These same limits apply at trial.
The discovery rules in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure shall govern the case.
The Court will address limits on the number of summary judgment and Daubert motions at a later time.
The Court set the following case schedule:
Scheduled Event Date
Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions
January 30, 2019
Last Day to Amend the Pleadings/Add Parties
February 13, 2019
Invalidity Contentions
March 18, 2019
Exchange of Proposed Terms for Construction
April 1, 2019
Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence
April 22, 2019
Damages Contentions
May 7, 2019
Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement
May 17, 2019
Further Case Management Conference
May 22, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. Case 5:18-cv-06216-LHK Document 53 Filed 01/16/19 Page 2 of 3
3
Case Nos. 18-CV-07020-LHK, 18-CV-06216-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Responsive Damages Contentions
June 13, 2019
Close of Claim Construction Discovery
June 17, 2019
Opening Claim Construction Brief
July 1, 2019
Responsive Claim Construction Brief
July 19, 2019
Reply Claim Construction Brief
July 26, 2019
Claim Construction Hearing
September 5, 2019, at 1:30 p.m.
Close of Fact Discovery
December 6, 2019
Opening Expert Reports
January 10, 2020
Rebuttal Expert Reports
February 7, 2020
Close of Expert Discovery
March 6, 2020
Last Day to File Dispositive Motions and Daubert Motions
April 3, 2020
Hearing on Dispositive Motions and Daubert Motions
May 21, 2020, at 1:30 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 16, 2019
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
Case 5:18-cv-06216-LHK Document 53 Filed 01/16/19 Page 3 of 3
The shares were frozen. They remain frozen. They were not dumped because they are frozen. Beware relying upon the many dubious claims that some people make on this board when they haven't even done any due diligence.
When the PTAB takes a year to respond - due to no fault of the company, and during the wait, the PPS declines as patience is tested, and investors are convinced that their money can be shifted elsewhere for gains, instead of parked in the interim - can anyone wonder that "the market" temporarily lost interest? It'll be back - in SPADES - as soon as the very next announcement is made from either District Court or the PTAB. You can mark my words if you'd like.
All of this talk about PPS - a waste of time and nonsense.
I truly don't care whether it's .06 or up from .04 or down from .12 at this moment, and neither should you, unless, of course, you are busy daytrading this stock, instead of looking at very real and imminent events playing out.
FACT: Voip-Pal prevailed in VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE IPR thrown at them from the BEST AND MOST SUCCESSFUL litigators in the entire world. Shut out. 100%.
FACT: The current challenge before the PTAB has been answered so completely and eloquently with points and authorities that several top level IP attorneys have weighed in on, predicting a quite obvious outcome of Apple's attempt to overturn being denied. PTAB's response is expected shortly.
FACT: The lawsuit against Apple, Verizon, Twitter, At&T has been combined, is currently before Judge Koh in Federal District Court, and has a finite calendar assigned to it. Voip-Pal's attorneys have answered - again, with exceptionally well written, with points and authorities - the Alice challenge. Voip-Pal is performing exceedingly well in this legal challenge.
FACT: The European patent for RBR was granted 5/30/2018 and the end of the challenge period is within one week with no challenges.
One can spin the fear factor - and claim the sky is falling until the cows come home. One can point to "Why hasn't anybody bought this - or why doesn't the market see the value" - and the definitive answer to both of those questions is: "Yet". Timing is everything, and Patience is, indeed a virtue.
If one chooses to believe that an elaborate hoax that involves the worlds largest and most litigious companies, the US Patent system, the European Patent System, the Indonesian Patent system, dozens of inventors spanning well over a decade....has been orchestrated to this level simply to get your relatively little bitty shekels - well, one deserves to be absent from the windfall that is about to happen for those longtime shareholders who have weathered the storm and stuck with this process.
JMHO