The point is: thats wrong...
The ptab never "awarded" any "wins" to vplm. The ptab simply denied apples challenge to vplm patents being valid. That is not a "win". To win something you have to gain something. Vplm did not gain anything. Apple DID lose something, they lost their challenge. Vplm defended itself and warded off those challenges. The fact that the whole thing was totally phony, imo, in the 1st place, because of the threat of the sawyer letters of federal Rico charges against the ptab. If it wasn't for that, there's no way in hell there would've been that unprecedented sweep, but that's a whole other story. The point is that vplm gained nothing and it wasn't an "awarded win". Patent validity, which was the question looked at, simply means that a challenge is presented against the judgement of the original USPTO granting of patents, as though they made an error in originally awarding a patent. There is a certain criteria required for USPTO to award a patent, which has nothing to do with efficacy, need or value. I studied those prerequisites way back when the IPRs were 1st announced & I posted those criteria here. I think it was about 4 basic requirements to get a patent awarded and not all that difficult to accomplish. So vplm had there patents approved by USPTO & a couple few years later apple & others threw up their challenges to those patent awards. Those challenges failed in ptab court, so apple et al were handed defeat of the challenges. Vplm, on the other hand gained or lost nothing. That were left with exactly the same things they had all along for years, ie, their patents. They never lost those patents at any time and they gained nothing above and beyond what those patents were all along. That can be viewed as a win in a certain sense, but it's a false view. It's a similar idea as the false claims recently made that vplm was somehow the winner in the locksmith trial, because, lol, they didn't have to pay some ridiculous fantasy $60 million figure. Of course, in reality, in this case, there was no win whatsoever for vplm & it WAS indeed a loss across the board for vplm, so actually much different, but I mean to say it's an example of how some can falsely claim a win when there is no true win. To win, you must gain something. So what happened then, in the ptab affair, is that vplm MAINTAINED their patents and were not "awarded" anything. They already had their awards and kept them. Of course that is no longer the case as the recent Koh rulings rendered the patents as ineligible thus invalid. I find that very ironic becsuse vplm now doesn't have the patents that it never was able to sell or license anyway. So again, not much if a loss, nevertheless it IS a loss.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
