Long term investors focus their diligence in three areas:
1) US patents and practices, US and foreign patent law
2) Legal filings in US courts
3) SEC regulations regarding OTCQB stock companies
A set of court hearings is coming up soon in ND Cal (DJ action related):
October 14, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 11, 19th Floor (San Francisco) before the Honorable James Donato (Case No. 3:21-cv-5078-JD);
on October 14, 2021 at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor (San Francisco) before the Honorable Edward M. Chen
(Case No. 3:21-cv-5110-EMC); and
on October 14, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3, 5th Floor (San Jose) before the Honorable Beth Labson Freeman (Case No. 3:21-cv-5275-BLF) of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCAL),
1 Defendant VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) will move the Court, under the first-to-file rule and Rules 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss these actions. The grounds for this Motion, as set forth in detail below, are simply that these cases do not belong in this Court: by filing their Complaints, the Plaintiffs contravened the long-standing principle that the cases filed concerning the patents-in-suit should proceed in the first-filed jurisdiction—the Western District of Texas (WDTX). Additionally, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal in all three cases, and venue is improper as to VoIP-Pal in all three cases. Accordingly, all three cases should be dismissed, stayed, or transferred to the WDTX.
What the court should decide:
1. Whether the Court should dismiss, transfer, or stay these declaratory-judgment actions under the first-to-file rule because the DJ Plaintiffs filed these cases after VoIP-Pal filed suit for patent infringement on the same patents in the WDTX?
2. Whether the Court should dismiss these declaratory-judgment actions because the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over VoIP-Pal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)?
3. Whether the Court should dismiss these declaratory-judgment actions because venue is improper as to VoIP-Pal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3)?
Wait and see what happens.
