TRO/injunction
As soon as VPLM filed 06/25/21 (6:21-cv-665) a Complaint for Gateway Patent Infringement, demanding jury trial,
ATT filed 06/30/21 (5:21-cv-5078) a motion for DJ action in N CA to counter the Gateway case in Waco. Their N CA petition is pathetic as usual and is full of lies and misinformation. ATT defendants claim that both the Gateway and the RBR patents are similar and related. Since Koh invalidated the RBR patents based on Alice, the Gateway patent must be similarly invalidated. They are wrong.
Compare the abstracts of both patents:
US8630234 (Gateway - a method of initiating a call to a callee using an access code selected from an access code table on a server to identify a callee and complete calls without the roaming charges) vs.
US8542815 (RBR - A process and apparatus to facilitate mobile phone communication between a callee and a caller over public and private networks.)
In the 606 patent case, AAPL et al argued for N CA as their proper venue. Koh justified the first-to-file argument to move the 606 patent case, and even ruling a DJ action, in spite of several objections from Hudnell.
To thwart dirty moves by AAPL et al. Hudnell files TRO/injunction motion (6:21-cv-00670-ADA), claiming that the Gateway case in Waco is the "first-to-file" case and that Judge Albright has the right to enjoin defendants from going to N CA as in the past. In addition, he requests for oral argument to expose their shenanigans.
Defendants took 9 extra days to file (6:21-cv-00670-ADA, 08/09/21) COMBINED OPPOSITION. Anyone familiar with AAPL's responses over the years - PTAB final ruling on sanctions, Mandamaus writ, other appeals, etc. - knows how pathetic they were. The current motion is no different. Pathetic as usual!
AAPL's counter points:
1) Waco is not a proper venue for VPLM
2) The Gateway patent case is not the first to file case. It is a continuation of the first to file 2016 cases from Nevada which were transferred to N CA after the TC Heartland ruling by the SCOTUS.
3) Defendants make another stupid claim that since the inventors of both patents are the same persons, their patents are related (technology). Just because inventors are the same their patents need not address the same or similar technology. They can patent different technologies or improvements. That is the dumbest claim from AAPL attorney Modi.
US8630234 Mobile Gateway -
Inventors: Johan Emil Viktor Bjorsell, Maksym Sobolyev, Pentti Kalevi HUTTUNEN, Emil Malak
US8542815 Producing routing messages for voice over IP communications
Inventors: Clay Perreault, Steve Nicholson, Rod Thomson, Johan Emil Viktor Bjorsell, Fuad Arafa
4) Koh is the best judge and has the most expertise on all VPLM patents. She considers VPLM patents are all related and therefore invalid based on Alice. What a genius this woman is!
If Judge Albright allows the oral argument, his court will hear about Koh's extra ordinary legal expertise and her enormous love for patents/cancer. It is about time Koh gets exposed by Hudnell in a court hearing under the watchful eye of Judge Albright.
For further clarification, see:
Case 6:21-cv-665 Document 1 Filed 06/25/21 ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT - DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case 5:21-cv-5078 Document 1 Filed 06/30/21 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NONINFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY
- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case 6:21-cv-00670-ADA Document 14 Filed 07/19/21 PLAINTIFF VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.’S CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION - ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
Case 6:21-cv-00670-ADA Document 16 Filed 08/09/21 COMBINED OPPOSITION OF APPLE, AT&T, AND VERIZON TO VOIP-PAL’S CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
