AAPL filed for Declaratory Judgement in NDCA. The question is why TWTR filed along with AAPL? Why TWTR is also asking for the Declaratory Judgement or Relief? TWTR is not being sued in Waco, TX. And yet, why TWTR is filing in NDCA? Before we analyze TWTR's motivation and plan, let us understand what Declaratory Judgement or Relief is.
What is a declaratory judgment? Declaratory Judgement - a judgment of a court which determines the rights of parties without ordering anything be done or awarding damages. While this borders on the prohibited "advisory opinion," it is allowed to minimize controversies between parties. https://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=448
No Alice or no ruling on patents. I don't know why some investors are unnecessarily worried?"Advisory opinion", "ordering anything be done or awarding damages." That is not in the scope of a Declaratory Judgement. It may not be even a lawsuit. That may be a reason why oral hearing is not needed.
How Declaratory Judgment Works Any party to a contract may petition a court to clarify the party's rights and obligations in the event of a legal controversy. A court-issued declaratory judgment outlines the rights and responsibilities of each involved party. This judgment does not require action or award damages.A declaratory judgment is unlikely to file a lawsuit, as the suit is much more likely to be dismissed. Declaratory judgments may help prevent unnecessary lawsuits. It does not prevent the third party from suing to recover damages.
For example, an insurance policyholder believes that his claim was unjustly denied. As a result, he informs the insurer that he is considering a lawsuit to recover losses. The insurer seeks a declaratory judgment to clarify its rights and obligations with hopes of preventing the lawsuit. If a declaratory judgment indicates that the insurer is not obligated to cover the loss, the insurer will likely avoid litigation. If the judgment shows that the insurer is responsible, then the policyholder is likely to sue the insurer to recover losses.
(What is the point of filing for declaratory relief in the middle of the Waco case? After all, it is only an "advisory opinion." A delay tactic?)
Highlights from TWTR filing: If Drumming thinks Apple filings sounded like "a toddler throwing a temper tantrum", TWTR filing is very bad - lack of law or logic and lack of legal context or evidence supporting their arguments. The motion was filed by Gene W. Lee (pro hac vice) Thomas Matthew (pro hac vice) and other attorneys. Who is "pro hac vice"? pro hac vice - Pro hac vice is a legal term for adding an attorney to a case in a jurisdiction in which he or she is not licensed to practice in such a way that the attorney does not commit unauthorized practice of law.
("Patience is virtue" originates from old Christian faith meaning "good things come to those who wait." In today's world, waiting without action is not enough but keep doing due diligence or persevere.)
In a nutshell, TWTR's logic is that (1) VPLM's ’815 and ’005 patents were ruled for invalid claims (a la Alice) by clueless Koh and (2) since the '606 patent that is being sued for infringement in Waco, belong to the same family of patents, they want declaratory judgment to protect them from further lawsuits.
Only 20 claims of ’815 and ’005 patents were ruled invalid a la Alice. VPLM has many more claims in ’815 and ’005 patents and some non-overlapping claims as CAFC's judge Reyna pointed out a few months ago. Mr. Hudnell stated that VPLM would re-assert those non-overlapping and other claims in future lawsuits. How a Declaratory judgment from clueless Koh will help these defendants?
Judge Albright seems tough and methodical. He starts with claim construction. Alice issue comes later during the construction process.
Highlights from TWTR filing: 1) This First Amended Complaint for declaratory judgment of noninfringement ... arises from a real and immediate controversy between plaintiff Twitter, Inc. and defendant VoIP-Pal.com Inc. as to whether Twitter infringes any claims of U.S. Patent 10,218,606 (“the ’606 patent”) 2) The ’606 patent shares a common specification with the six previously-asserted patents. All six of the previously-asserted patents were found to be invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for claiming ineligible subject matter, including U.S. Patent 9,179,005. 3) 6. The claims of the ’606 patent asserted in those new lawsuits are very similar to the claims of one or more of the patents that VoIP-Pal previously asserted in the first and second wave actions and were found to be invalid by this Court, including the ’005 patent, which was asserted against Twitter 4) Twitter believes that it does not infringe and has not infringed any claims of the ’606 patent, and that the claims of the ’606 patent are invalid. (Where is the proof?)
(TWTR's Venue and Jurisdiction argument is a joke.)
Highlights from TWTR filing: III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims alleged in this action. (NO!) Jurisdiction is also proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Twitter and VoIP-Pal are citizens of different states, and the value of the controversy exceeds $75,000. (BS! VPLM resides in Washington State, Incorporated in Nevada State) 16. All six patents previously asserted by VoIP-Pal were held invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by this Court, (not really! Only 20 claims! How about those non-overlapping claims?) and based on the substantial similarities between those invalid claims and the claims of the ’606 patent—the ’606 patent is invalid for at least the same reasons. 20. In doing so, VoIP-Pal has established sufficient minimum contacts with the Northern District of California such that VoIP-Pal is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California for this action. (Non-sense! VPLM's contact in N. California is probably Mr. Hudnell's office in Mountain View, CA?) Further, the exercise of personal jurisdiction based on those repeated and highly-pertinent contacts does not offend traditional notions of fairness and substantial justice.
Highlights from Mr. Hudnell filing: Read Mr. Hudnell's powerful arguments with legal citings and precedents that would make clueless Koh's head spin. Mr. Hudnell's ARGUMENT A. The Second-Filed Declaratory Judgment Actions Should Be Dismissed Under The First-to-File Rule. 1. Legal Standard 2. All of the relevant factors weigh in favor of applying the first-to-file rule in favor of the WDTX cases. 3. The Consolidated Plaintiffs’ motion to stay the WDTX cases should not lead the Court to believe that it is the first-filed court. (Mr. Hudnell - VPLM wanted Judge Albright to stay the Waco cases. Someone posted as if Albright is giving his authority to clueless Koh. Strange posts! Please know the facts.) B. The Court Should Dismiss These Cases For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction. 1. Legal Standard 2. The Court lacks personal jurisdiction because VoIP-Pal has never enforced the ’606 patent in this District. C. The Court Should Dismiss These Cases For Improper Venue. D. The Court Should Dismiss The ’872 Patent For Lack Of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Further, Apple’s claims related to the ’872 patent must also be dismissed because this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over them. Thus, in a declaratory judgment case, if there is no case or controversy, there can be neither a claim for declaratory relief nor Article III subject-matter jurisdiction. A controversy must be “definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.” Id. (quoting MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, 549 U.S. 118 (2007)). It is no longer sufficient for a declaratory judgment plaintiff to have a “reasonable apprehension of imminent suit”; rather, an actual controversy requires “an injury in fact traceable to the patentee,” which exists only if the plaintiff alleges “both (1) an affirmative act by the patentee related to the enforcement of his patent rights and (2) meaningful preparation to conduct potentially infringing activity.” [color=red]Apple’s Complaints do not specifically address any of the factors, alleging only that a case and controversy exists because “Apple does not infringe and has not infringed any claims of the . . . ’872 patent[]” [/color]that VoIP-Pal “previously filed lawsuits” against Apple alleging infringement of related patents.
The above paragraph from Mr. Hudnell clarifies what is to be expected if clueless Koh follows law. Apple is falling flat in their several lawsuits against VPLM. Judge Albright called out AAPL on their forum shopping practices. Sections of various documents were taken to get the points, the post may not be cogent.
Market Data 
Markets 
