Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[rapz]

Removing potential "landmines": IPR's, Alice, etc.
Today's news about a legal update is meant for all investors, not just a few that follow this stock very closely from Court filings, Pace monitor and other sources. For those "close followers", the legal update is not new. But the company has to inform all shareholders.

As stated in the news release:
"... pleased to be done with the cases in California and to have the Alice motions behind us. This now allows us to focus all of our attention on the upcoming trials this October in Waco, Texas, vs. Verizon and T-Mobile, and the ongoing case against Amazon asserting our RBR continuation patent.”...

It is an effort to remove "landmines" and minimize potential risks ahead of impending trials (T-Mobile, VZ) in Waco. Although VPLM has won 20 out of 20 IPR's, they want to avoid risks while completing negotiations with AMZN.

Conducting the two trials and completing the current damage negotiations with AMZN requires financial resources that the company needs the most. Patent infringement damage experts are working on both MG and RBR patents with AMZN. The 45-day deadline for the MG patent infringement negotiations has arrived.

If anyone is interested in reviewing the role of IPR risks in the past cases, you can access a long post from Jan 16, 2023 which is still accessible. In this post we analyzed patent laws, cases, size of damage awards, IPR risks, etc.

Check the section on Intel vs. VLSI case in which $2.18 Billion damage was awarded against Intel by Judge Alright, Waco. The jury did not find "willfulness" against Intel.

Parts of Jan 16 post follow:

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=170957637
rapz Re: None Monday, January 16, 2023 6:56:29 PM Post# 112132 of 119630

Is there a maximum for patent infringement damages? No, says the Law.

INFRINGEMENT OF PATENTS...

...SELECTIVE CASES, ISSUES RELEVANT TO VPLM, AND POTENTIAL RISKS, IF ANY

1) Centripetal vs. Cisco - $2.75 billion award
https://smithhopen.com/2020/10/12/largest-patent-infringement-award-ever-not-so-fast/

In 2012, the Eastern District of Virginia awarded the largest patent infringement damages, in a patent infringement case involving a cybersecurity firm Centripetal asserting 11 U.S. patents against Cisco.

AN IPR BATTLE ENSUED

Within six months, Cisco filed 14 IPRs against 9 of Centripetal’s patents and invalidated 6 of the asserted patents and partially invalidated another patent. Nevertheless, Centripetal walked out of the IPR trial with some enforceable claims of US Patents 9,137,205 and 9,686,193.

(VPLM: PTAB IPR win 20-0, this trend could continue. So far IPR's have not invalidated VPLM patents or claims.)

The court held that Cisco willfully infringed Centripetal’s patents and awarded $756 million in damages. Upon finding that Cisco acted willfully and egregiously, the judge multiplied the damages by a factor of 2.5, yielding a total sum of $1.9 billion. The judge did not stop there. Next, the judge imposed a 10% royalty on the infringing products for the next 3 years and a 5% royalty for the subsequent 3 years. Tech experts estimate that the total verdict could amount to $2.65 to $3.25 billion. this will be the largest patent infringement award ever.

(VPLM: US Supreme Court (Roberts) relaxed the criteria for proving "WILLFULNESS OF INFRINGEMENT". VPLM informed all defendants soon after the patents were issued.)

WHAT HAPPENED NEXT FOR CISCO?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-supreme-court-rejects-centripetal-appeal-cisco-patent-fight-2022-12-05/
WASHINGTON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a bid by Centripetal Networks Inc to reinstate the largest award in the history of U.S. patent law - $2.75 billion - to be paid by Cisco Systems Inc in a cybersecurity patent dispute.
The justices turned away Centripetal's appeal of a lower court's decision to negate the award after the judge who presided over the trial disclosed that his wife owned Cisco stock worth $4,688.

(VPLM: As an ex-patent litigator Judge Albright is not expected to have conflicts of owning stock in VPLM or defendant companies.)
========

3) A WACO CASE OF INTEREST: INTEL vs VLSI

Intel is told to pay $2.18 billion after losing a patent trial by Judge Albright (Waco)
BY SUSAN DECKER AND MATTHEW BULTMAN, MARCH 2, 2021
https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2021-03-02/intel-told-to-pay-2-18-billion-after-losing-patent-trial

Intel infringed two patents owned by closely held VLSI, the jury in Waco said. The jury awarded $1.5 billion for infringement of one patent and $675 million for infringement of the second. The jury rejected Intel’s denial of infringing either of the patents and its argument that one patent was invalid because it claimed to cover work done by Intel engineers.

The jury said there was no willful infringement. A finding otherwise would have enabled District Court Judge Alan Albright to increase the award even further, as much as three times the amount set by the jury.
The damage award isn’t so high when the billions of chips sold by Intel are taken into account, Chu said. Intel paid MicroUnity Systems Engineering Corp $300 million in 2005 and paid Nvidia Corp. $1.5 billion in 2011 even though a settlement in that case involved a cross license of technology, he said.
Intel had sought to postpone the case because of the pandemic but was rejected by Judge Albright, a former patent litigator and magistrate who was sworn in as a federal judge in 2018. Judge Albright agreed and ruled $2.18 billion award.

In totality, this is the second-largest patent infringement damages ever awarded. Intel stock fell 2.6% to $61.24 in New York trading. This amount is about half of Intel’s fourth-quarter profit. The magnitude of damages had to do with the reason that Intel has sold billions of infringing devices (similar to current defendants: Apple, Samsumg, Google, etc.)

(If the jury found Intel infringement was willful, Judge Albright could have escalated the $2.18 billions award to three times to $6.5 billion!)

Intel's case went to Delaware court where the patent infringement award was $4 Billion.

Intel and VLSI this week agreed to settle one of their ongoing legal disputes. The legal battle in Delaware covered five patents, and VLSI asked for more than $4 billion in damages, reports Reuters.
The two parties agreed to settle the dispute in Delaware with prejudice, so the lawsuit cannot be brought to court again. VLSI agreed not to sue Intel's customers and suppliers over the five CPU patents at the issue of the case, whereas the processor giant agreed to dismiss its counterclaims. The two companies will not pay anything to each other.
"The parties have agreed to dismissal of claims and counterclaims asserted in this action," a court filing reads.

Intel wants $4 bln VLSI patent lawsuit tossed over ownership disclosure
By Blake Brittain December 12, 2022

(Reuters) - Intel Corp has asked a federal judge in Delaware to dismiss a $4.1 billion patent lawsuit from VLSI Technology LLC, claiming VLSI is purposefully concealing its "opaque ownership structure" from the court.
Intel in a filing unsealed Friday asked U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly to throw out the case, arguing that VLSI failed to comply with his standing order for parties to name "every individual and corporation with a direct or indirect interest" in them.
VLSI is owned by investment funds managed by Fortress Investment Group LLC, a SoftBank Group Corp subsidiary. It has won two jury verdicts in West Texas worth over $3 billion on accusations that Intel infringed patents VLSI bought from Dutch chipmaker NXT Semiconductors NV.
Other VLSI lawsuits against Intel are still pending in Delaware and Northern California. Connolly paused the Delaware case in August after finding VLSI's CEO provided vague information about the investors that own it.
Intel said in its Friday filing that VLSI's refusal to detail its investors is "no accident" and warned that without adequate disclosures, Connolly could not determine whether he has any conflicts in the case.

Intel, VLSI drop Delaware dispute in blockbuster patent fight By Blake Brittain
December 27, 2022
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/intel-vlsi-drop-delaware-dispute-blockbuster-patent-fight