Replies to post #48413 on Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[LongBalls]

Smart educated legal Decisions are not made in a hurry it takes time for a Judge to decide! Surmise or assume it doesn’t matter what Anyone else’s opinion, it is for a judge to decide and no one else when the stay will be lifted. Have patience buy more shares!

[GTCar]

You surmise wrong, it's procedural and it's readily available information, DD.

II. THE PARTIES' POSITIONS
Voip-Pal and Apple respectfully submit that, under the current circumstances, the stay of this case should be lifted, and that Apple's answer or other response to Voip-Pal's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) shall be due thirty (30) days after an order of this Court lifting the stay of this case. The parties agree to confer on a case schedule and discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) after Apple files its responsive pleading, and the parties agree to submit their plan to the Court no later than seven (7) days before the Court's scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).

II. THE PARTIES' POSITIONS
VoIP-Pal and Twitter respectfully request that the stay of this case be lifted, and that Twitter's answer or other response to VoIP-Pal's Complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be due thirty (30) days after an order of this Court lifting the stay of this case.

II. THE PARTIES' POSITIONS
VoIP-Pal and Defendants respectfully request that the stay of this case be lifted, and that Defendants' answer or other response to VoIP-Pal's Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10) shall be due thirty (30) days after an order of this Court lifting the stay of this case. The parties agree to confer on a case schedule and discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) after Defendants file their responsive pleadings, and the parties agree to submit their plan to the Court no later than seven (7) days before the Court's scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). In preparing responsive pleadings and conferring under Rule 26, the parties will confer further on issues regarding venue.
Defendants contend that there is a misjoinder issue with having AT&T and Verizon in the same case that will need to be addressed. It has also come to Defendants' attention that Plaintiff did not identify the Apple and Twitter cases pending before Judge Boulware as related cases in the civil cover sheets. Defendants anticipate one of the parties filing a notice of related cases.
The parties further respectfully inform the Court that Apple has filed post-judgment "Motion(s) For Entry Of Judgment In Favor Of Petitioner As A Sanction For Improper Ex Parte Communications By Patent Owner, Or, Alternatively, For New And Constitutionally Correct Proceedings" in the PTAB proceedings. (See Case No. IPR2016-01198, Paper No. 55 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017); Case No. IPR2016-01201, Paper No. 55 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2017).; see also ECF No. 36 10.) Briefing on Apple's motions close on January 26, 2018. According to the Joint Status Report being filed today in the Voip-Pal/Apple case, Apple may renew its request to stay that case if the PTAB grants Apple's requested relief; similarly,
Defendants may renew their request to stay this case if the PTAB grants Apple's requested relief.