Pre-Trial filing highlights: Case 6:21-cv-00674-ADA Document 255 Filed 06/07/24
VPLM - VoIP-Pal accuses T-Mobile of infringing claims 32, 38, 51, and 62 of the ’234 patent (Basic claim 30); claims 77, 130, 133, and 138 of the ’721 patent.
(Comment: The preceding Claim 30 is basic; it defines the network elements and the communication setup, etc. Claim 32 shows a method to use those elements: asking for an access code, getting it, etc. )
seeks monetary damages in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
VoIP-Pal also claims that T-Mobile’s alleged infringement has been willful since June 25, 2021, but agrees that any infringement before that date was not willful.
(Comment: An important and impactful sentence, not to be ignored. VPLM brings "willful" infringement issue since June 25, 2021.but allows room to include non-willful infringement prior to June 25, 2021. VPLM has to convince the jury.)
TMUS - alleges the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid and should not have been issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("Same as old complaints" Who TMobile is to tell USPTO? Funny!) T-Mobile contends that it does not owe VoIP-Pal any damages. (Let the jury tell the court!)
VPLM asks for:
a) A judgement that T-Mobile has infringed the ’234 patent;
b) A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’721 patent;
c) A judgment and order requiring T-Mobile to pay VoIP-Pal damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
d) A judgment and order awarding enhanced damages to VoIP-Pal under 35 U.S.C. § 284; (US Patent law code 35)
e) A judgment and order declaring this case to be exceptional based on VoIPPal’s infringement and/or litigation conduct; and
f) An assessment of costs, including awarding VoIP-Pal its attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
TMUS denies:
T-Mobile does not concede that all of these issues are appropriate for trial. In particular, T-Mobile does not waive any of its pending or future filed motions which, if granted, may render some or all of these issues moot. (makes no sense!)
1. T-Mobile denies each of VoIP-Pal’s contentions.
T-Mobile denies that T-Mobile’s communication platform including an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), generally known as WiFi Calling, Voice Over WiFi, or VoWiFi, infringes or has infringed any
T-Mobile contends that each of the asserted claims is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103, (Alice issue again! Don't they read Judge Brantley Starr's ruling? EDTX) at least based on the T-Mobile prior art system, T-Mobile Hotspot@Home.
5. T-Mobile contends that T-Mobile Hotspot@Home is prior art because it was known and used by others in this country before the date of the invention and it was in public use in this country more than one year before July 28, 2008.
T-Mobile contends that the ’234 and ’721 patents are invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice issue again!) unenforceable due to VoIPPal’s inequitable conduct during prosecution.
VoIP-Pal’s damages calculations are inflated and inaccurate even assuming that any asserted claim is determined to be valid,
enforceable, and infringed. T-Mobile contends in particular, as detailed in TMobile’s motions to exclude the expert testimony of Jacob H. Salk, Dkt. 131, and John B. Minor, Dkt. 129, and as tacitly acknowledged by VoIP-Pal in its Motion to Substitute Damages Expert (Dkt. 243), that VoIP-Pal’s damages theory is legally deficient and methodologically unsound and thus should be excluded from trial. T-Mobile contends that damages, if any, are limited to a reasonable royalty, should any asserted claim be determined to be valid and infringed, calculated using the methodology set forth in the expert reports of Mr. Boushie.
7. Whether an injunction should be granted for T-Mobile’s infringement of the patents-in-suit;
8. Whether, if the jury finds willful infringement, any damages award for infringement after June 25, 2021 should be enhanced; etc. etc.
T Mobile's arguments seem weak!
