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.
What’s up next for vplm ?
Establish a nice base here for a strong move higher !
Vplm is Gonna have some pumpamentals today pump it up !!!
It’s Friday you know how this goes . Next week is a new week : )
If we break 10c today it’s on to 20c
Thought I was done with this years ago but things are looking up for VPLM filled a 200k buy order this morning : ) whale alert ??
What’s happening with this upcoming court date And what are we looking for ?
Pretty much Appl pays big if the patents are valid Appl used them hudnell has to crunch their balls like deerballs
I think the news is bigger than what it may seem. Just look at the share price. These patents are all valid some of them were never used against Appl yet in court
Lew picked his venue and he picked his winning patents
Google in Texas aswell. just got announced
What did happen?
The buys are coming in ! Most will sell cause he stutters lol idiots
Lol stuttering doesn’t mean anything . All his cases are the same. He sounds that way . If you listen he got his message across . He did a good job.
Mr hudnell already kicked appl butt in court !! Check his history !! Go HUD !!! Go HUD!!!! This guy is a beast!!! Hopefully we get some sort of settlement this monster will chew up anybody in the court room . Bye bye Appl ?? . This is why the pps is going to the moon ??
Representative Cases
Opticurrent, LLC v. Power Integrations (N.D. Cal.), Won jury verdict of infringement of patent relating to circuit for minimizing power leakage
Next Lighting Corporation v. Cree, Inc. (N.D. Cal.), Obtained favorable settlement in patent infringement action involving lighting unit design
MEC Resources, LLC v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal. and PTAB) Obtained favorable settlement in patent infringement action and dismissal of petition for inter partes review in matters involving semiconductor technology
Talsk Research Inc. v. Evernote Corporation (N.D. Cal.)Successfully represented internet archiving company who obtained favorable settlement in patent infringement action
Phenix, LLC v. Integrated Memory Logic et al. (E.D. Tx.)Successfully represented programmable gamma correction licensing company in obtaining favorable settlement in patent infringement actions
RPost Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Responsys, Inc. (E.D. Tx.)Successfully represented email authentication software company in obtaining favorable settlement in patent infringement action
RPost Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Exact Target, Inc. (E.D. Tx.)Successfully represented email authentication software company in obtaining favorable settlement in patent infringement action
RPost Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Readnotify.com et al. (E.D. Tx.)Successfully represented email authentication software company in obtaining favorable settlement in patent infringement action
Worldwide Home Products, Inc. v. Time, Inc. et al. (S.D.N.Y.)Successfully defended major retailer and won summary judgment of inequitable conduct in patent infringement action
RPost Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Zix Corporation (E.D. Tx.)Successfully represented email authentication software company in obtaining favorable settlement in patent infringement action
RPost Holdings, Inc. et al. v. Telarix, Inc. (E.D. Va.)Successfully represented email authentication software company in obtaining favorable settlement in patent infringement action
RPost Holdings, Inc. et al. v. CanadaPost Corporation et al. (E.D. Tx.)Successfully represented email authentication software company in obtaining favorable settlement in patent infringement action
Main Hastings, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation (N.D. Cal.)Successfully represented qui tam realtor in obtaining favorable settlement in patent false marking action regarding solid state disk drives
Japan Cash Machine et al. v. MEI, Inc. (D. NV.) Won jury verdict of invalidity in patent infringement action involving bill validation technology
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Renesas Technology Corporation et al. (ITC)Led litigation team that obtained favorable settlement after trial in patent infringement action involving direct memory access controller technology
Mars et al. v. Japan Cash Machine et al. (D.N.J.)Defeated Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity and obtained favorable claim constructions on almost all disputed terms at Markman hearing in patent infringement action regarding bill validation technology.
DataTreasury Corp. v. Bank of America Corp. (E.D. Tx.)Defended large financial institution in patent infringement action regarding check imaging technology
Web Chang v. Atmel Corp. (E.D. Tx.)Successfully defended semiconductor manufacturer in obtaining dismissal with prejudice of patent infringement action regarding field programmable gate arrays
Seagate Technology LLC, v. Cornice, Inc. (ITC and D.Del.)Obtained favorable settlement on the eve of trial in patent infringement action regarding hard disk drive technology
Millennium, LP v. ScanSoft, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) Successfully defended document imaging software manufacturer in obtaining favorable early settlement in patent infringement action
Highland Industries, Inc. v. Toyobo Co., Inc. (M.D.N.C.)Successfully defended air bag manufacturer in obtaining early dismissal with prejudice of patent infringement action
Plasma Physics Co. v. LSI Logic Corp. (E.D.N.Y.) Successfully defended semiconductor manufacturer in obtaining favorable settlement in patent infringement action
Cisco Systems Inc., v. Huawei Technologies, Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.)Represented major networking company in patent litigation regarding operating system for networking devices
Amazon.com, Inc. v. BarnesandNoble.com, Inc. (W.D. Wash.)Won reversal of the District Court's preliminary injunction order on appeal and settled the case favorably to BarnesandNoble.com
Wistron Corporation v. Phenix Longhorn, LLC (PTAB), Defeated petition to institute Inter Partes Review of patent relating to programmable gamma integrated circuits
Symantec Corporation v. RPost Communications Limited (PTAB)Defeated two petitions to institute Inter Partes Review of patents relating to verifying delivery and integrity of electronic messages
Symantec Corporation v. RPost Communications Limited (PTAB)Partially defeated petition to institute Inter Partes Review of patent relating to verifying delivery and integrity of electronic messages
Experian Marketing Solutions, Inc. et al. v. RPost Communications Limited (PTAB)Defeated two petitions to institute Covered Business Method Review of patents relating to verifying delivery and integrity of electronic messages
Epsilon Data Management, LLC et al. v. RPost Communications Limited (PTAB) Defeated petition to institute Covered Business Method Review of patent relating to verifying delivery and integrity of electronic messages
Mr. Hudnell has successfully represented clients in patent trials in federal court and obtained numerous settlements and dismissals of patent lawsuits in favor of his clients. He has also successfully represented clients in post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial & Appeal Board.
Someone just bought 238k shares
100k buy orders! The insiders know what’s up
You missed the point ! Clearly vplm has a case
Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. Therefore, no inter partes review is instituted in this proceeding.
Sorry Appl!!
BOOOOM!!! Better stack some vplm
D. Obviousness over Chu and Scott
Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 7-20, 25, and 30-42 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Chu and Scott. Pet. 20–46.
BOOOOM!!!!!! Patent Owner argues, among other things, that the asserted prior art combination fails to teach or suggest “using the first participant identifier to locate a first participant profile,” as required by the claims. Prelim. Resp. 31-51.
For the reasons provided below, we agree with Patent Owner and determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1, 7-20, 25, and 30-42 are unpatentable.
BOOOOM!!! Better stack some vplm
D. Obviousness over Chu and Scott
Petitioner asserts that claims 1, 7-20, 25, and 30-42 are unpatentable under § 103(a) as obvious over Chu and Scott. Pet. 20–46.
BOOOOM!!!!!! Patent Owner argues, among other things, that the asserted prior art combination fails to teach or suggest “using the first participant identifier to locate a first participant profile,” as required by the claims. Prelim. Resp. 31-51.
For the reasons provided below, we agree with Patent Owner and determine that Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1, 7-20, 25, and 30-42 are unpatentable.
Lots behind the scenes
Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), an inter partes review may not be instituted unless the information presented in the petition “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons stated below, we determine that Petitioner has not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to at least one claim. Therefore, no inter partes review is instituted in this proceeding.
Sorry Appl!!
Don’t be so quick to forget
Today we received the news that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has denied institution on the remaining four IPR's filed against us by Apple and Amazon on the four patents asserted in our lawsuit against Amazon and our 2nd lawsuit against Apple. This is another major victory for Voip-Pal. We are undefeated at the PTAB. Apple, Amazon, AT&T and Unified Patents have collectively challenged our patents 12 times with IPR challenges and each time Voip-Pal has emerged victorious. Attached are the four decisions by the panel of PTAB judges denying institution of these IPR's which was posted on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board website today.
I agree!
You can bet your ass VPLM is gonna win !!!
VPLM will win this appeal!! You can bet on that !!
Appeal ready to go with new representation.. I think we got this!!!
Appl rigging at its finest !
Nice!! Let’s get some interest brewing again. 12 wins will bring interest and boost to the sp. I think VPLM case will be heard by the courts
Amen!!!!
He’s putting his name out for the company
Yup he putting his nam
Appl go by by.. now or later. In the words of Emil! The clock is ticking
Oooooo budddy!! Cha Ching !!!
CEOCFO: What is going to be the outcome?
Mr. Malak: We are going to win. However long it takes we will fight to the very end and achieve monetization for our intellectual property. We developed these patents that have enriched many big companies and in the end they will have to pay us. The meter continues to run each day.
CEOCFO: Are you going to survive?
Mr. Malak: YES! We have had many ups and downs and we have always gotten back up. If they knock us down again we will get up again and keep fighting. We are not fighting this battle just for us. This fight is bigger than Voip-Pal. It is for all small inventors and innovators like us that are fighting for their piece of the American dream.
We fight until the end:
CEOCFO: What is going to be the outcome?
Mr. Malak: We are going to win. However long it takes we will fight to the very end and achieve monetization for our intellectual property. We developed these patents that have enriched many big companies and in the end they will have to pay us. The meter continues to run each day.
CEOCFO: Are you going to survive?
Mr. Malak: YES! We have had many ups and downs and we have always gotten back up. If they knock us down again we will get up again and keep fighting. We are not fighting this battle just for us. This fight is bigger than Voip-Pal. It is for all small inventors and innovators like us that are fighting for their piece of the American dream.
Malek-
I have a fiduciary responsibly to my shareholders and I take that responsibility very seriously. I recently rejected an offer that could have resulted in a huge payday for me personally, but I never considered it for one minute. Our shareholders have supported and stood by us through this fight and I will never hang them out to dry. We will all succeed together in the end.
I agree with you on that DB