Replies to post #132135 on Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[VVVVVV]

It’s states, “WITHOUT PREJUDICE”!!!!

[sunspotter]

Game over.

Watch for the pimps trying to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, though.

[sunspotter]

So the much maligned Nuuut’s claim to have received an email from the court clerk seems to have been in fact true, at least as far as T-mobile is concerned:

“ $VPLM Email response today from Kevin Yang Law Clerk for Judge Albright.

Thank you for your email. At the July 9 consolidated final pre-trial conference for both the VoIP-Pal v. Verizon and VoIP-Pal v. T-Mobile cases, Judge Albright orally granted both defendants’ joint motion for summary judgment of non-infringement. Accordingly, the previously scheduled trials have been taken off calendar. A written opinion memorializing the terms of Judge Albright’s ruling will issue in due course.”

No doubt the other shoe (Verizon) will drop soon.

If the SEC doesn’t take action against all the insiders dumping their free shares since July 9, and the failure to report obviously material events, perhaps shareholders (real ones, not the VPLM sock puppets) should consider their own law suit.

[Dontnosheet]

Sorry Suckers or should I say SAWEEE!! But wait, maybe DB will say this is a good thing, LMAO!!!

[keepemcloser]

Nothing to worry about troops,clearing the deck to focus and the Grand Finale

[DesktopDR]

Whereas a case that is dismissed “with prejudice” is dismissed permanently, a case that is dismissed “without prejudice” is only dismissed temporarily!

[drhome]

I wonder what rule VPLM violated? (2) Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions Based on
VoIP-Pal’s Violation of Court Order (Dkt. No. 219) is DENIED

And if the Judge will dismiss the 2 newer cases files?