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.
Couldn't be a worse disaster for VZ than hanging onto TMUS coat tails. Anyone that knows "2 cents" about patents would know that a promotional ad of their "Hotspot" or whatever they used is not their prior art. A 300-page synopsis of an internet article is not a prior art as well. All public information! Nothing proprietary! TMUS counsel's discovery demanded knowing how much money VPLM has reserved for running this lawsuit, its source, and what their trial strategy will be.
The Jury in Waco is smarter than what people might assume.
Investors who claim to have held this stock for 10 years or longer and were frustrated by defeat after defeat in the hands of "clueless" judge of NDCal and Silicon Valley IP "thieves" have to enter the arena to fight for their IP rights and claim the damages (enhanced damages for willful infringement). No time to "chicken" out or pity the defendants whether they have enough cash to pay or not. Win or lose, its worth the fight! Would any land lord let a tenant live in their own property and run a business making money forever without paying the rent for years? Remember Justice Roberts's words on punishment for "willful infringers!".
HayDay,
Let the VPLM legal team pursue their IP rights allowed by the patent law US Code 35. The law does not discuss "what if" scenarios or alternatives. It is up to the Judge. VPLM can present a realistic damages estimate of REAONABLE ROYALTY FIGURES ALLOWED BY LAW.
Both sides have qualified attorneys who know what they are doing. VZ legal team better be prepared for the next RBR lawsuit coming shortly, again demanding willful infringement damages! The fast growing Fiber internet business and its module are covered by RBR claims.
It may not help defendants by bringing up the Alice issue even after it was shot down twice, once by Judge Brantley and next by the USPTO reexam office.
Be prepared to prove TO THE JURY, the infringement and demand enhanced damages and legal expenses for WILLFUL infringement just as Justice Roberts said.
The US patent law does not discuss "what if" scenarios. Justice Roberts statement on willful infringement was as simple as it can ever get. The jury's willful infringement verdict in VPLM's favor will be the icing on the cake. Investors ought to expect a tough fight, no settlement. Buyout is not in the cards. Is there any buyer?
We expect Appeals. Last time AMZN went for a writ of Mandamus Appeals to change the venue they were turned down, praising how well Judge Albright handled the venue issue.
Drumming,
They already have lawsuit vs. Verizon pending. (Re.: Last Hudnell filing). They need to get their act together!
SOu, Your experience with AT&T is interesting, not in line with the published survey. Google Fiber is ranked number one! Wonder how reliable the survey is! Thanks for sharing.
FIBER INTERNET!
Ads for Gigabit internet are appearing! They call it Fiber Internet. Fiber internet technology is expanding home internet services, wifi access, faster speeds at competitive rates, fast download speeds, and attractive contract terms.
Is it a new opportunity for companies like VPLM that holds patents on audio and video communications over the internet protocol? Is that a reason for VPLM to pursue RBR cases NOW against TMUS and VZ, when the Mobile Gateway patents trials are still progressing? One can only guess. But the RBR patents lawsuit filings vs TMUS and VZ are pretty strong with an emphasis on "Willful infringement and enhanced damages". Details later.
Verizon:
It’s 5G Home Internet. Verizon Home Internet service: 5G Home and LTE Home (Whole-Home Wi-Fi). no data caps or data overage fees. https://www.verizon.com/business/search/?query=fiber%20internet
T-Mobile:
T Mobile's fiber net https://t-mobilefiber.com/
General introduction:
Internet Connection Types Explained -- and Ranked Best to Worst.
https://www.cnet.com/home/internet/internet-connection-types-explained-and-ranked-best-to-worst/
Fiber internet providers review: https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/annual-internet-service-provider-review
Google fiber, Xfinity, Earthlink, Verizon, AT&T, T Mobile, etc.
Best value: best - Frontier, optimum; mid range - Verizon and Xfinity; lowest value - AT&T; and worst: T Mobile
Home internet speed: 62 to 238 Mbps - Cox, Google fiber, Xfinity. 1000 Mbps or higher speed is available.
Most Reliable: Google fiber Least reliable: T Mobile
A download speed comparison with common ISP connections:
----------------------- Approximate file size -----------1,000 Mbps fiber connection ----------100 Mbps cable ------------ 25 Mbps DSL
4-minute song ------------- 4 MB ----------------------- 0.03 sec. ---------------------------------- 0.03 sec. ------------------- 1 sec.
45-min TV show ---------- 200 MB --------------------- 1 sec. --------------------------------------- 16 sec. ---------------------- 1 min. 7 sec.
2-hour movie -------------- 1.5 GB ----------------------- 12 sec ------------------------------------- 2 min. 8 sec.--------------- 8 min. 35 sec.
2-hr HD movie ------------- 4.5 GB ---------------------- 38 sec. -------------------------------------- 6 min. 26 sec.------------- 25 min. 46 sec.
How Does Fiber-Optic Internet Work? https://www.reviews.org/internet-service/how-does-fiber-optic-internet-work/
What Exactly is Fiber Internet: Understanding High-Speed Connectivity
https://computercity.com/hardware/networking/what-exactly-is-fiber-internet
Pre-Trial filing highlights: Case 6:21-cv-00674-ADA Document 255 Filed 06/07/24
VPLM - VoIP-Pal accuses T-Mobile of infringing claims 32, 38, 51, and 62 of the ’234 patent (Basic claim 30); claims 77, 130, 133, and 138 of the ’721 patent.
(Comment: The preceding Claim 30 is basic; it defines the network elements and the communication setup, etc. Claim 32 shows a method to use those elements: asking for an access code, getting it, etc. )
seeks monetary damages in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
VoIP-Pal also claims that T-Mobile’s alleged infringement has been willful since June 25, 2021, but agrees that any infringement before that date was not willful.
(Comment: An important and impactful sentence, not to be ignored. VPLM brings "willful" infringement issue since June 25, 2021.but allows room to include non-willful infringement prior to June 25, 2021. VPLM has to convince the jury.)
TMUS - alleges the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid and should not have been issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("Same as old complaints" Who TMobile is to tell USPTO? Funny!) T-Mobile contends that it does not owe VoIP-Pal any damages. (Let the jury tell the court!)
VPLM asks for:
a) A judgement that T-Mobile has infringed the ’234 patent;
b) A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’721 patent;
c) A judgment and order requiring T-Mobile to pay VoIP-Pal damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
d) A judgment and order awarding enhanced damages to VoIP-Pal under 35 U.S.C. § 284; (US Patent law code 35)
e) A judgment and order declaring this case to be exceptional based on VoIPPal’s infringement and/or litigation conduct; and
f) An assessment of costs, including awarding VoIP-Pal its attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
TMUS denies:
T-Mobile does not concede that all of these issues are appropriate for trial. In particular, T-Mobile does not waive any of its pending or future filed motions which, if granted, may render some or all of these issues moot. (makes no sense!)
1. T-Mobile denies each of VoIP-Pal’s contentions.
T-Mobile denies that T-Mobile’s communication platform including an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), generally known as WiFi Calling, Voice Over WiFi, or VoWiFi, infringes or has infringed any
T-Mobile contends that each of the asserted claims is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103, (Alice issue again! Don't they read Judge Brantley Starr's ruling? EDTX) at least based on the T-Mobile prior art system, T-Mobile Hotspot@Home.
5. T-Mobile contends that T-Mobile Hotspot@Home is prior art because it was known and used by others in this country before the date of the invention and it was in public use in this country more than one year before July 28, 2008.
T-Mobile contends that the ’234 and ’721 patents are invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice issue again!) unenforceable due to VoIPPal’s inequitable conduct during prosecution.
VoIP-Pal’s damages calculations are inflated and inaccurate even assuming that any asserted claim is determined to be valid,
enforceable, and infringed. T-Mobile contends in particular, as detailed in TMobile’s motions to exclude the expert testimony of Jacob H. Salk, Dkt. 131, and John B. Minor, Dkt. 129, and as tacitly acknowledged by VoIP-Pal in its Motion to Substitute Damages Expert (Dkt. 243), that VoIP-Pal’s damages theory is legally deficient and methodologically unsound and thus should be excluded from trial. T-Mobile contends that damages, if any, are limited to a reasonable royalty, should any asserted claim be determined to be valid and infringed, calculated using the methodology set forth in the expert reports of Mr. Boushie.
7. Whether an injunction should be granted for T-Mobile’s infringement of the patents-in-suit;
8. Whether, if the jury finds willful infringement, any damages award for infringement after June 25, 2021 should be enhanced; etc. etc.
T Mobile's arguments seem weak!
Drumming,
>> ... Did I miss a favorable 101 ruling by Albright in W TX on RBR?...<<
You did not miss a RBR/Alice ruling in WDTX Albright's court. Judge Albright did not even consider Alice so far. AMZN RBR trial has not started. Like the rest of dumb attorneys, they will regurgitate the old Alice issue when the trial begins.
By the way, Cellco partnership (DBA) VZ's reexamination of our MG patents talks again about Alice issue, pulled from NDCal Mantra since 2017-20. They could have saved time and $, by filing an IPR, instead of a reexamination request. The guilty tries all sorts of moves to escape but the exit door is closing fast.
Look to pay hefty damages, and heftier damage with willful ruling by the jury. Recall Justice Roberts words on "Punishment" besides reasonable royalties plus expenses, interest, allowed by law.
Ex parte Reexam of RBR patents examined among other things the rejection of certain claims due to Alice in 606 patent at the outset. The examiner agreed with our negative view of Alice, viz. the subject matter underlying our claims is not Abstract. Patents are valid. Our response was a beautiful expose.
Judge Brantley Starr in EDTX arrived at a similar conclusion; No Alice for MG patent. The smart attorneys at VZ and AMZN should get a lesson from Judge Starr and stop making the same mistakes. Between Judges Starr and Albright, Texas District Courts will help VPLM reap the rewards soon.
Filing 2 RBR lawsuits against VZ and TMUS so closely is the best strategy. "Strike while the iron is hot!" It conserves trial preparations, claim construction, discovery, etc. about 3 months per trial in Albright's court.
In NDCal the clueless one did not even conduct Claim Construction!!! Clueless and Arrogant. She used the DJ rule and eagerly pulled out our cases from WDTX. Wasted 3-4 years in NDCal.
Aside - a jury trial is much preferred rather than a settlement. No matter how much we wish, a buyout does not look feasible. Are there businesses with appropriate business model like QCOM to buy VPLM and integrate into their business? No matter how much some wish to know the damages. The company is not likely to reveal the amount. A wild guessing game: say VPLM's estimate is $10. The defendant's estimate could be 10 cents. The judge would arrive at a figure in accordance with the law: REASONABLE ROYALTIES WITH ATTORNEY EXPENSES AND INTEREST (word for word from the law.). Until that happens, investors need patience. jmo.
CFO knows about money!
Current CFO is a WOMAN, a recent hire!!!!
Peter Lynch said: "... many reasons for insider sells, but only one main reason for insider buys..." Details, details! On one side folks get "hot under the collar" for insider sales and the stock price drop, on the other hand they do not know who the CFO is. SHE PURCHASED the stock! From VPLM web site:
MANAGEMENT & DIRECTORS
JIN KUANG - Chief Financial Officer
Jin Kuang has over 15 years of extensive professional expertise in various financial domains gained across the USA and Canada, including IFRS, US GAAP, financial reporting, financial planning, merger and acquisition, financial analysis, and tax. She has also spent over a decade in progressively responsible financial leadership roles within publicly traded companies. Over the years, Jin has served as CFO for multiple publicly listed companies, in addition to her years of auditing experience with KPMG LLP Chartered Accounts. Jin holds a BA in Accounting and an MBA from the University of Northeastern China, along with a US-CPA and CGA designation.
Drumming, here is Chief Justice Roberts views on willful infringement, NOTE: he says not only a compensation is owed to the inventor but USC 35 section 284 patent law requires PUNISHMENT to the infringer... It is in Judge Albright's hands. Full text is posted for the shareholders not familiar with US patent law and potential damages.
Supreme Court Makes It Harder for Willful Infringers to Escape Punishment - June 14, 2016
By Michael T. Renaud, Richard G. Gervase, Jr., James Wodarski, Sandra J. Badin
https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2016-06-14-supreme-court-makes-it-harder-willful-infringers-escape
The Supreme Court has made it easier for patent owners to prove willful infringement and entitlement to enhanced damages. In a unanimous opinion issued yesterday in a pair of cases decided together, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Stryker Corporation v. Zimmer, Inc., the Court did away with the Federal Circuit’s “unduly rigid” test for proving willfulness, which had allowed even “wanton and malicious” infringers who intentionally set out to steal the patent owner’s ideas and business to evade liability for enhanced damages if clever counsel were later able to articulate non-trivial—even though unsuccessful—infringement or invalidity defenses.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts explained that section 284 of the Patent Act (read US Patent Act code 35 section 284) provides that in a case of infringement, courts “may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” In its 2007 en banc decision in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, the Federal Circuit held that a district court may increase damages pursuant to section 284 only if the patent owner first showed by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer had acted “despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement,” and then also showed, again by clear and convincing evidence, that the risk of infringement “was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.” In Halo, the Court held that the Federal Circuit's test is not consistent with section 284.
Returning to first principles, Chief Justice Roberts observed that “[e]nhanced damages are as old as US patent law,” and have as their chief purpose not compensation to the patent owner—who is compensated by the award of actual damages or a reasonable royalty—but punishment of the conscious and deliberate infringer. The Seagate test frustrated that purpose, however, by allowing a deliberate infringer, “such as the ‘wanton and malicious pirate’ who intentionally infringes another’s patent—with no doubts as to its validity or any notion of a defense—for no purpose other than to steal the patentee’s business” to escape willfulness liability if he presented “a substantial question as to the validity or non-infringement of the patent” during the course of the litigation, even if he was not aware of any such argument at the time he undertook his infringement.
“In the context of such deliberate wrongdoing,” the Chief Justice observed, “it is not clear why an independent showing of objective recklessness—by clear and convincing evidence, no less—should be a prerequisite to enhanced damages.” Culpability is generally measured against the knowledge of the accused at the time of the conduct in question, not against “the strength of his attorney’s ingenuity” in later fashioning a reasonable, if ultimately unsuccessful, defense. The same applies here: “The subjective willfulness of a patent infringer, intentional or knowing, may warrant enhanced damages, without regard to whether his infringement was objectively reckless.”
The Chief Justice went on to observe that the language of section 284 is unrestricted—it “contains no explicit limit or condition”— and indeed, “allows district courts to punish the full range of culpable behavior.” The language of section 284 is also permissive—courts “may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” The Court has emphasized that the word “may” connotes discretion; thus the provision must be read as granting district courts the discretion to decide whether to award enhanced damages and in what amount. But discretion, the Chief Justice cautioned, “is not whim,” and the development of the law of enhanced damages under the Patent Act over the past 180 years reflects a recognition that such damages “are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case but are instead designed as a ‘punitive’ or ‘vindictive’ sanction for egregious infringement behavior.”
The Chief Justice explained that while the principal problem with the Seagate test is that it has the effect of “insulating some of the worst patent infringers from any liability for enhanced damages,” it is also inconsistent with section 284 because it requires clear and convincing evidence to prove recklessness. Just as the Octane Fitness court rejected the Federal Circuit’s requirement that a prevailing party must prove entitlement to an award of attorney’s fees under section 285 by clear and convincing evidence because there was no statutory basis to support such a heightened standard of proof, so too here. “Like §285, §284 ‘imposes no specific evidentiary burden, much less such a high one.’”
The Court also rejected the Federal Circuit’s trifurcated standard of review of enhanced damages awards—de novo review for objective recklessness (the first part of the Seagate test); substantial review for subjective knowledge (the second part of the test); and abuse of discretion for the ultimate decision whether to award enhanced damages—in favor of an abuse of discretion standard. Having determined that section 284 gives district courts discretion to award enhanced damages and to determine their amount, the conclusion that such decisions should be reviewed for abuse of discretion follows naturally, the Chief Justice explained.
In arriving at its rejection of the Federal Circuit’s Seagate test, the [color=red]Court dismissed respondents’ argument that Congress ratified Seagate when it added section 298 to the Patent Act, which provides that “[t]he failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel” or “the failure of the infringer to present such advice to the court or jury, may not be used to prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed.[/color]” The provision’s reference to willful infringement cannot be an endorsement of Seagate’s willfulness test, the Chief Justice observed, since “willfulness has always been a part of patent law, both before and after Seagate,” and nothing in section 298 suggests Congress ratified the particular conception of willfulness reflected in Seagate.
The Court also rejected respondents’ underlying policy argument that making it easier to prove willfulness will “embolden [patent] ‘trolls.’” Such a concern may have merit if enhanced damages were to be awarded in “garden-variety cases,” the Chief Justice noted. “As we have explained, however, they should not be. The seriousness of respondents’ policy concerns cannot justify imposing an artificial construct such as the Seagate test on the discretion conferred under §284.”
By making it easier for patent owners to prove their patents were deliberately infringed and that they are entitled to enhanced damages for the wanton and malicious pirating of their ideas, the Supreme Court’s opinion affirms the importance and value of intellectual property, and sends a clear signal that such deliberate infringement will no longer be tolerated. And by restoring to the discretion of the district courts the determination of whether to award damages, and in what amount, the Court’s opinion ensures that the “full range of culpable conduct” may be punished—and thereby deterred. American innovation will be all the stronger for it.
Fourth good cause factor from Mr. Hudnell's filing:
"... The fourth good cause factor considers the availability of a continuance to cure any prejudice to the non-moving party. This matter is still 90 days away from its trial date, and VoIP-Pal can commit to serving a new report by June 30, 2024. With an expedited schedule, expert discovery could be completed before trial, which is set for the week of August 19, 2024. While trial could still begin that week as currently scheduled, Mr. Brida would need one small accommodation as the earliest he is able to appear at trial is August 26, 2024, which is the Monday of the following week. If, however, Verizon contends that such a schedule is infeasible, then VoIPPal would of course be agreeable to a reasonable continuance[/color]...."
The point of using a substitute, Mr. Brida, was to address, PRE-EMPTIVELY, Verizon's complaint about Mr. Salk, as VPLM's expert for damages. The first step is whether Judge Albright will accept that VZ's concerns are justified. If it is not justified, Judge Albright may reject VZ's concerns. We proceed with the trial.
Judge Albright was an IP attorney arguing patent cases for plaintiffs over a decade. He is also the Judge that rejected AMZN's venue transfer motion three times. AMZN took an extraordinary step of filing a writ of Mandamus against Albright in the Appeals court. The Appeals court swiftly rejected AMZN's motion with compliments to Judge Albright on his handling of AMZN venue transfer motion. If the judge rejects VZ's complaint, we proceed with the trial in August.
If the judge decides VZ's concerns are justifiable, we go to the next step of using a substitute. Mr. Hudnell has put forth justifications for a continuance for one week from the August trial date. The next available trial date is in Nov, 2024. We'll soon know how the Judge will decide. Too early to worry about unknowns!
About reading Mr. Hudnell's filings:
Reading Mr. Hudnell's filings requires "reading between the lines". In responding to AMZN's motion to stay on the RBR case (partly due to Reexam of RBR patent), Mr Hudnell quoted a statistic of a mean pendency of 25.2 months for reexaminations, perhaps to get the attention of "rocket docket' Judge Albright. But the reexamination certificate was approved in 5-6 months after VPLM response to Office Action.
Drumming,
On the contrary, Treble damages has been made easier to award by a ruling from Chief Justice John Roberts at the SCOTUS: he eliminated the onerous job of proving infringement by the plaintiff. It is much easier to show with a simpler argument. More details later.
Willfulness is what we should work towards.
Drumming,
A settlement could imply the defendant admitting to infringement and agrees to pay a certain amount for a negotiated settlement. Is that not guilty of infringement? If not guilty, why would they pay any amount? The defendant may try to hide their defeat with the usual comment: "neither confirm nor deny!"
Why we have not heard about licensing of those MG patents? Did AMZN's Alexa device not come under the guilty charge? Why would they not reveal licensing news? Will the 10Q/10K include the licensing news or terms? Wait and see.
2 settlements: AMZN and Huawei. Huawei too is guilty of infringement. Possible licensing in EU, India, and China will be great. Waiting for details.
An advantage of settlement is that parties do not justify going for an appeal.
Jury trial:
Not just finding guilty of infringement in a jury trial, but proving the "willfulness" by the jury will be a sweet spot that will trigger a 5 alarm fire to other defendants. Treble damages!
US patent law sets no maximum for damages. Those hoping for 1 million and 2 millions award, check VPLM's the preliminary 2017 estimates for VZ, T, AAPL.
VZ estimated damages were $2.4 Billion in 2017. Update the 2017 estimate by adding appx 10 years of damages to make it current, 2024.
Judge Albright awarded $2.4 billions damage against Intel just TWO years ago. Up to 4 billions of damages have been awarded over the years. No wonder VZ tries all sorts of gimmicks: Reexamination of MG patent in lieu of another IPR and arguing about the damage estimates.
Hudnell expects to use the substitute to address complaints about Mr. Salk and still complete the discovery prior to June, 2024 in time for the pre-trial conference. VZ lawyers have nothing better to argue than the Alice issue against VPLM.
Alice issue: Judge Starr exposed Huawei's nonsense Alice argument last month. Judge Brantley Starr did an excellent analysis of the Alice issue. He is as good as Albright. Brantley Starr is the nephew of former special counsel Ken Starr. jmo
Distracted from half-done posts on Re.: Brantley Starr's judgement and Alice 101 tests and ex parte reexamination issues of MG patents. Will post soon.
Drumming,
This article refers to Law360.com web site, a promotional outfit for lawyers.
https://legalnewsfeed.com/2024/05/10/voip-pal-drops-patent-suit-against-huawei-after-failed-invalidation-attempt/
If foot = 3 months, looking for a yard, for a possible conclusion this year.
foot #1 = Apr-Jun foot #2 = Jul-Sep foot #3 = Oct-Dec
Announcement of 2 Indian patents also said a couple of companies are interested. The talk must have started. If so, an announcement could come any time. A guess only.
Apr-Jun: Pre-trial conference, VZ and TMUS together. Parties including the Judge should know how much damages are claimed. A willful infringement ruling by a jury entails triple damages including legal expenses and all fees.
Reexamination of RBR patent took about 6 months. MG patent reexamination issue is much simpler. The patent examiner is David England, the same examiner that examined the RBR patent. He did not reject or modify any claim but allowed 8 new claims. VPLM "destroyed" all those Alice claims from prior art, heavily used by the Silicon Valley company defendants, a clueless judge, and the local rules of ND Cal courts.
Bill Parish stepped out from VPLM employment. He is a State recognized (TX-Austin) MODERATOR, NEUTRAL moderator, not a negotiator. A negotiator negotiates for terms on behalf one of the disputing parties. A moderator works out a compromise between two disputing parties, with consent from both parties.
Jul-Sep: VZ. VPLM win in this trial could be a big deal. The judge could cancel the jury trial is the party decide to settle, to avoid triple damages.
News release about three advisors and a share count increase could be efforts to restructure the management and the company that could pursue the remaining cases, while Emil could step down to a less active role. The life of a patent is about 20 years. All guesses, what really will happen is unknown!
RBR case vs. AMZN comes later. Even with top-notch legal team, they can not rewrite the US patent law, invalidate a single claim, argue or throw fluff at the Judge who knows patents. Even the appeals court Re. AMZN Venue transfer ruling (three denials) sided with Judge Albright.
HD,
>>... something is afoot...<<
Not something, but several things afoot. Two trials, TMUS and VZ.
LLP - not LLC
LLP - Limited Liability Partnership eg. Deloitte LLC - Limited Liability Company
Both provide legal protection from unlimited liability. Licensed professional (Attorneys, Accountants, et al) form LLP. Licensed Professionals CAN NOT form LLC. LLC is a hybrid between Corporation and (Private) Partnership.
Stradling firm has been advising VPLM since 2021 or 2022 on Infringements estimation, negotiations, strategies, etc. Bill Parrish was assigned to VPLM for helping with the same issues. Remember his biodata was published as soon as he joined VPLM group of attorneys.
Mr. Hudnell and his firm manage court cases. Stadling helps with negotiation, infringement damage calculations and developing models for each defendant and their court case in real time, as the cases progress. VPLM has another a group of attorneys that specialize writing patents, example: USPTO Reexam response which was excellent! ALL attorneys cost $$$. VPLM is financing with equity (stock sales). No debt (or convertible debt to stocks) on the books so far! Stock dilution? Recall the IT company stock splits in the seventies: CISCO, APPL, GOOG et al. As VZ trial begins, shareholder will hear more news about potential damages.
Judge Albright recently awarded $2.2 Billion in patent infringement damages against Intel a few years ago.
A couple of confidential negotiations may be in progress: (1) AAPL and AT&T from the NDCA's days a la ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution), (2) Parties from India for licensing VPLM patents. All discussions are strictly under wraps like the AMZN settlement discussion. Hoping to hear good news from all fronts in 2024.
Yes! It's 36/36 IPR's won!. As the CEO stated in the recent news release: "not a single claim denied!" A single claim is all one needs to demand infringement damages. Waco may be the favorable venue.
The recent reexamination certification of 606 patent is a gem for those shareholders that read the draft! Hats off to Dr. Cabrice! Wonder why these facts and value about VPLM PATENTS escape shareholders! Is share price the matter! For how long?
TMUS seems to be engaged in a "street fight", demanding 60,000 or more documents of privilege logs including emails and calls to CEO's wife, son, friends, et al., VPLM's trial strategy, VPLM's funding sources for the trial, etc., not a zilch about THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY they own or patented, comparable to the MG patent.
Stef,
This issue was posted sometime ago (2022) while reviewing largest infringement damages awarded. Recall that VLSI had some problems with how their company was set up in the development of the patented technology. Intel questioned who the real inventor was. Time to dig up and post.
Such issues are not expected with RBR patent infringement especially after the successful reexamination with 8 new claims and 36 IPR wins. Successful RBR trial vs AMZN next year will augment our patent validity and corporate structure.
From memory: the award was issued from Judge Albrigtht's court, without the treble damages since the jury did not rule "willfulness".
VPLM's reexamination response discussed many details of the 606 RBR technology, parts of which could apply to Mobile Gateway technology case vs TMUS and VZ. (AT&T, GOOG, Meta/WhatsApp may be included later.)
Phone calls: both audio and video calls, regardless of phone device used. e.g., Video call - Facetime on iPhone.
VPLM patent claims define network elements: a modem connected to the phone, a router connected in the network, etc. TMobile had trouble with their phone-modem-router connections at the beginning.
Phone companies charge for the "data and minutes" used by a customer: video or audio calls that could be an infringement of use. This aspect of trial will be interesting when the jury learns to know how much these phone companies are charging for their wifi services , most of which should be free.
InvestorinAZ,
Yes - definitely under Judge Albright who knows patents and defended IP rights for plaintiffs. If other judges are clueless or "influenced" by other factors, we hope to argue and win at the Fed Circuit Appeals, especially AAPL, GOOG and Meta. jmo.
>>...can be re-opened in Texas?...<<
No! AAPL, GOOG, Meta went to NDCA from Waco due to the Venue issue. It took 2 or 3 tries for AMZN to keep their case here in Waco.
Local rules in NDCA rely on using Alice issue to "cut down" or reject patent infringement lawsuits (Silicon Valley's strong influence). VPLM spent 2-4 years fighting the battle.
That was the reason for a comment: "Funny!".
AMZN perhaps did not know about the successful conclusion of the ex parte reexamination certificate.
Another point:
AMZN and APPL went to Fed Cir court challenging to cancel all RBR claims ('815 patent?) moving from NDCal's clueless dist court. Now that the reexamination patent 606 is strengthened with 50+ original claims and added new claims to eliminate Alice "obviousness" arguments, we have a good opportunity to test our new patent in Albright's court. If our arguments win, it will serve as a basis for future Alice challenges in NDCal or other US courts. We only need a single claim to demand infringement damages from AMZN. We have 50+ claims!
Butters,
As far as trials with or without the jury go, we are told that if the jury finds the infringement was willful, you can get a maximum of treble damages. US patent law does not set a maximum for the damages. The sky is the limit. In the past, Judge Albright awarded $2 Billion against Intel without the treble damages because the jury did not rule "willful". Recently heard that even if jury finds it willful, the judge may not go with treble damages. What have you heard?
Butters,
Where we go from here depends upon the company. They have several legal teams (Patent, infringement modeling, trial, etc.) who will pick the best path forward.
Personally it is nice to test the upgraded RBR patent claims (with no Alice issue) vs. AMZN in Waco under Judge Albright. AMZN's infringement of RBR will be huge compared to very little infringement for the MG patent since AMZN does not provide phone service like TMUS and VZ. Since e commerce (shopping off their web sites) involves R B R (Routing, Billing, and Rating - customers going to AMZN site regardless of physical location, picking a product, moving it to their CART, and pay). There may be AMZN's or other's technologies may be "intermingled" with a few RBR steps. If we prevail vs. AMZN we can go after others like GOOG, AAPL, T, META/WhatsApp in Donato's NDCal court where we can test Alice issue. The company may pick a path. The market will follow our successes.
SOu812, Time frame for the conclusion of Reexamination proceedings: The Director approves the findings and issues a Reexamination Certificate to the patent owner by mail and also mails a copy to the requestor of reexamination. The Reexamination Certificate to be issued by USPTO includes : all amended claims and 8 new claims that were allowed.
Also the Director will publish the Reexamination Certificate in the Official Gazette when they mail the Certificate to the owner (VPLM). Maybe 2-3 weeks for these official steps, in time for the RBR trial vs. AMZN in May 2024 (?). Heard AMZN just filed for stay again! Funny!
(Who was the Requestor? None other than Twitter!!! The IPR route did not work for them. 36 IPR wins out of 36! Some may recall TWTR attorney vehemently objecting at the Fed Cir Appeals hearing while Mr. Hudnell appeared the first time. Now TWTR got a stronger RBR patent as a gift from us!)
Personal experience did not involve reexamination, but communications between inventors and Patent examiners are similar and the steps are usually favorable to inventors since inventors have more knowledge about the invention.
Patent reexamination is not an IPR involving PTAB panel of judges where two parties have a dispute about certain claims.
The Certificate will look like the reexamined patent with amended claims and the new claims, with the same patent number,
patent number US '606 C1,
Certificate issued: November 25, 2023 (made up date)
Wish the company decides to get the patent re-issued. The re-issued patent will be considered a reexam certificate.
Yes! Communication has been going on between USPTO patent examiner and VPLM (scientists, team). This is the "back and forth" common at this stage. Positive allowance of 8 new claims and upgraded language of original claims will make the RBR family of patents stronger against the Alice 101 issue. After allowance, the patent defense falls on Mr. Hudnell's lap, just in time for the AMZN trial. Time to re-visit all those dismissals of cases against GOOG, Meta/WhatsApp, et al. jmo.
Butters,
Bravo, for quoting passages from VPLM's response to USPTO's Office action!
The following post touched on the subject, "in a tongue in cheek" fashion. A full review was avoided because it was already shared with another party.
All shareholders got a copy of VPLM's response which addressed the RBR issue, improving the precision of current claim language, addition of 8 new claims, and a personal interview with Dr. Cabric. Therefore it was not necessary to repeat it on this forum.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172594327
...."4. Reexamination (RBR 606) - All shareholders have received VPLM's response to USPTO's Office Action and have had the time to read it. You will note:
(a) several original RBR claims have been modified in a clear language with details (giving no room for Alice or other issues) and
(b) new claims have been added, making the RBR patent much stronger.
Getting a stronger RBR patent perhaps motivated VPLM to dismiss cases? After USPTO approves the changes, they could start suing for RBR infringement? Who knows!..."
Your quote: "...Once this RBR re-examination is denied, it's my opinion that Amazon will have no choice but to settle or purchase..."
My opinions:
1) Instead of saying "RBR reexamination is denied" it'd be better to say "VPLM's claim modification and new claims are ALLOWED by USPTO, ...". IF common sense prevails the examiner should at least offer an interview to discuss and learn the technology behind claims in order to make a decision to allow. Two or three responses, back and forth, with patent examiners is common and usually they allow claims as requested with little or slight modification. The question is the time the examiners take is longer than normal.
2) If USPTO allows as per VPLM's response, the Alice 101 section on "obviousness" argument will not be an issue any longer in NDCal or other US courts. Judges that are clueless can not rely on a "blanket" argument of obviousness.
3) If USPTO allows as VPLM requested and if RBR family of patents (606, etc.) are strengthened, the immediate impact may be that AMZN will re-think about going to trial in May 2024, on the RBR 606 patent. It is too early to jump to "settlement" or "acquisition" simply because there needs to be a lot of work involving RBR infringement analysis and discussion/compromise, licensing issues, etc. This part of diligence and the time it takes applies to each and every patent (MG and RBR, two so far) and for each infringing company. Each company management has to go through their official approval process to accept the terms of the deal for payments/licensing. The larger the settlement amount the longer the time. That means more wait which many shareholders hate to hear. jmo.
send an email to Investor relations and ask to add you to the list. All public companies do that.
VPLM's MG patent lawsuit, our first case, already settled in Waco. A settlement discussion was held for 45 days and completed. Some sort of a non-disclosure agreement prevents VPLM from revealing the monetary settlement amount. They are tight-lipped because perhaps they still have the 606 RBR patent lawsuit pending, without the stay that AMZN requested.
VPLM is also tight-lipped about their discussions with APPL and T.
TMUS and VZ are trying to avoid a trial with pre-trial moves and playing hide and seek with their expert witnesses. A jury trial will be nice, so that the jury can find them guilty of willful infringements.
Judge Albright holds the key.
In the meanwhile, VPLM Dr. Cabric sent a powerful re-exam response to USPTO regarding 606 RBR patent. All share holders on the email list got a copy of this document. Highlights:
8 new claims have been added for a total of 57 claims,
3 main claims still hold strong and are unchanged.
VLNC's Dr. Cabric asserts that the patent examiner has made errors by assuming that the network combinations cited in prior art, as proposed by Mermel, Bedingfield, Dr. Min and Koch are valid. These combinations are not workable. They fail. Dr. Cabric, asserts [b]invalidity of network combinations cited in the prior art, they fail and not workable. If Dr. Cabric succeeds in proving the invalid network combinations as proposed in the prior art, there will be no more issue of Alice or obviousness argument in NDCal or elsewhere with regard to RBR patents. jmo
Rumor: Mid Feb 2024. Heard that both TMUS and VZ are fighting hard to postpone the trial with distractions. Not sure if VPLM has yet finished deposing the Expert Witness, Ms. Hamade, as part of Discovery.
HayDay
Has any of Carnac's predictions come true? Name one.
Positive news from USPTO Re.: 606 patent Reexamination could be a catalyst! Wait and see!
HayDay,
Hope Carnac's prediction comes true. The only event that is likely to happen by next week is company's announcement of AMZN's MG patent settlement amount that missed the last 10Q deadline June 30. Maybe the company is now free to reveal limited information without breaching any NDA they have. TMUS and VZ likely may decide to settle MG patent infringement and begin talks, a la AMZN. But their settlement decision takes Judge Albright's approval which is not likely to happen by next week. What say you , Carnac?
lbird33,
>>...a company that has 24-0 IPR sweep...<<
I was more like 28-0 win?
" WACO, Texas, Aug. 01, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to announce the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has terminated Samsung’s involvement in Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) filed against U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,234 and 10,880,721 and denied T-Mobile’s request for joinder to those IPRs. The PTAB has also denied institution of T-Mobile’s corresponding IPR petition. As a result of these events, all IPR petitions against the Company have now been terminated. In total, VoIP-Pal has endured a total of 28 IPR petitions dating back to 2016.
... said Emil Malak, CEO of VoIP-Pal. “It is a very significant accomplishment for us to have survived 28 IPR challenges over the past seven years without losing a single claim..."
Yes, makes sense to raise cash to pay for the legal team, consultants, court fees, Patent office fees, insurance, etc. (Re.: 10Q). Pay employees and a few others cash plus company stock. They have avoided borrowing and debt so far.
All likely to change for better by next qtr when the cash settlement (MG case) from AMZN shows up in their books and the trial decisions by AMZN (RBR case), TMUS and VZ before the year end.
Yes, Hayday!
1. New CFO - The new CFO Ms. Jin Kuang did an excellent job of presenting with fine details as readable as possible, along with the accounting policy changes. e.g. Sarbanes–Oxley Act
2. 10Q - AMZN MG patent settlement talks for the 45 days began after they filed a stay on May 2, 2023. The 45-day deadline was around the end of June. VPLM did not make an announcement citing the nda or perhaps a delay with the royalty agreement issue. If VPLM got paid by AMZN (with a royalty agreement and license) hope to see it in the next 10Q.
3. Settlement - AMZN filed a stay on 606 RBR patent case, citing a possible delay due to VPLM's reexamination of 606 claims by USPTO. VPLM countered AMZN's stay request by citing that a stay at this time will cause a severe setback in the resolution of the 606 case after all discovery, claim const., expert testimony, etc. were completed. We shall see what Judge Albright thinks.
4. Reexamination (RBR 606) - All shareholders have received VPLM's response to USPTO's Office Action and have had the time to read it. You will note:
(a) several original RBR claims have been modified in a clear language with details (giving no room for Alice or other issues) and
(b) new claims have been added, making the RBR patent much stronger.
Getting a stronger RBR patent perhaps motivated VPLM to dismiss cases? After USPTO approves the changes, they could start suing for RBR infringement? Who knows!
VPLM hopes for a fast, positive response from USPTO in a few weeks. Is that a reason for waiting? We hope VPLM will proceed with AMZN RBR case, with the original or modified claims. jmo.
5. Judge Albright got to see VPLM's filing in response to TMUS bogus claim of using HotSpot@Home in 2005 for WiFi calling. In previous posts we have analyzed the history of HotSpot@Home technology, its development, and the technical basis in the patent or printed literature. We found none. In a recent filing Mr. Hudnell confirmed our finding and went further to question TMobile's expert witness Proctor for his several hundred pages of "bogus" testimony based on public information and public information available on the Internet. After several problems with TMobile handset they finally came up a second handset (in 2010 about the time of VPLM technology patent) that could communicate with a WIFi router. Their first or second handset does not have the technical strength to defend HotSpot@Home technology in a trial. Similar arguments may hold good for VZ because they also relied on free public information available in a forum (internet) for their technology.
Judge Albright needs to schedule a trial. If it is a jury trial, wish the jury finds the infringement was willful, thus raising the potential for triple damages. We wait and see.
IPR wins 28-0 without losing a claim is an achievement.
After successful reexamination and issue of a certificate validating the modified claims, RBR patent will be stronger against defendants. e.g. AMZN and others in Waco. Their communication is between VPLM and the patent examiner.
Add to the above, the Judge Albright ruling in favor of recharacterization of RBR routing message, further boosting claim construction and stronger infringement damage model.
TMUS and VZ have been relying the UMA designation for their wifi audio and video calls, etc. They have not showed or used any of their own patents in court filings so far.
Good for VPLM to focus on these defendants in Waco under Judge Albright. It is all about PATENTS and the process. jmo
Yes. It was one of the 10 largest damage awards in recent history; they were screened for appeals and end results. The award could have been higher, had the jury found willfulness on Intel. Thanks.