Yes, Hayday!
1. New CFO - The new CFO Ms. Jin Kuang did an excellent job of presenting with fine details as readable as possible, along with the accounting policy changes. e.g. Sarbanes–Oxley Act
2. 10Q - AMZN MG patent settlement talks for the 45 days began after they filed a stay on May 2, 2023. The 45-day deadline was around the end of June. VPLM did not make an announcement citing the nda or perhaps a delay with the royalty agreement issue. If VPLM got paid by AMZN (with a royalty agreement and license) hope to see it in the next 10Q.
3. Settlement - AMZN filed a stay on 606 RBR patent case, citing a possible delay due to VPLM's reexamination of 606 claims by USPTO. VPLM countered AMZN's stay request by citing that a stay at this time will cause a severe setback in the resolution of the 606 case after all discovery, claim const., expert testimony, etc. were completed. We shall see what Judge Albright thinks.
4. Reexamination (RBR 606) - All shareholders have received VPLM's response to USPTO's Office Action and have had the time to read it. You will note:
(a) several original RBR claims have been modified in a clear language with details (giving no room for Alice or other issues) and
(b) new claims have been added, making the RBR patent much stronger.
Getting a stronger RBR patent perhaps motivated VPLM to dismiss cases? After USPTO approves the changes, they could start suing for RBR infringement? Who knows!
VPLM hopes for a fast, positive response from USPTO in a few weeks. Is that a reason for waiting? We hope VPLM will proceed with AMZN RBR case, with the original or modified claims. jmo.
5. Judge Albright got to see VPLM's filing in response to TMUS bogus claim of using HotSpot@Home in 2005 for WiFi calling. In previous posts we have analyzed the history of HotSpot@Home technology, its development, and the technical basis in the patent or printed literature. We found none. In a recent filing Mr. Hudnell confirmed our finding and went further to question TMobile's expert witness Proctor for his several hundred pages of "bogus" testimony based on public information and public information available on the Internet. After several problems with TMobile handset they finally came up a second handset (in 2010 about the time of VPLM technology patent) that could communicate with a WIFi router. Their first or second handset does not have the technical strength to defend HotSpot@Home technology in a trial. Similar arguments may hold good for VZ because they also relied on free public information available in a forum (internet) for their technology.
Judge Albright needs to schedule a trial. If it is a jury trial, wish the jury finds the infringement was willful, thus raising the potential for triple damages. We wait and see.
AI
