I am disappointed that VPLM has not filed immediately the updated damages for each of the infringers. This would keep the pressure on them and increase it on Apple.
PLUS it would start the timer for these PUBLIC companies being required to record a contingent liability.
Anyone agree?
------
I CAN UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO HAVE DAMAGES INCREASED AND ANNOUNCED - WE ALL WANT TO SEE THE SHARE PRICE INCREASE. WHO WOULDN"T. BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT THAT MIGHT SHED SOME LIGHT ON WHY VPLM HAS NOT DONE SO THUS FAR.
PERTINENT PART OF VPLM'S LAST NEWS RELEASE ...
Voip-Pal.com Inc. Announces Removal of the Stay of Legal Proceedings in its Patent Infringement Lawsuits vs. Twitter, Verizon and AT&T
GlobeNewswireMay 16, 2018
BELLEVUE, Wash., May 16, 2018 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (VPLM) is pleased to announce that the patent infringement lawsuits brought by Voip-Pal against Twitter, Verizon and AT&T have been authorized by the United States District Court for the District of Nevada to move forward. Voip-Pal anticipates engaging in discovery and serving its evidence of infringement in the coming months, according to schedules set by the District Court. Furthermore, Voip-Pal is in the process of engaging expert witnesses in order to prepare damages analyses for submission to the District Court in connection with Voip-Pal’s infringement cases.
------
My read of the damages issue is that the increased/revised damages analysis on the various defendants are most likely COMPLETE but that VPLM needs an expert witness to VALIDATE and SUPPORT the new findings and support WHY the changes are justified. To do this, one has to find an expert that is willing to do this and has the expertise to do this damages analysis. Finding an expert WITHOUT conflict is difficult sometimes.
There could also a strategic decision to hold back on announcing the increase in damages - there is no use in announcing an increase in damages while a case is still being stayed! Releasing the increase in damages simultaneously to the stay being lifted is DRAMATIC and will garner more attention with the news outlets and public.
Another reason for NOT announcing damages that may or may not be reliant on the involvement of an expert witness is also that the JUDGE may have advised VPLM to wait for discovery to pinpoint the actual points of infringement so that an expert can then further validate VPLM's revised damages analysis.
Just my 2 cents.....
