chazzy1
34 minutes ago
Thanks Butters. Sometimes, in the absence of a PR, we simply have to do what every good detective does, and that is to read between the lines. The facts are that VP received a favorable ruling from the judge in April, asserting that Huawei failed to invalidate VP's patents on Alice 101 grounds (a side note here is that whenever a company is guilty of infringement, they invariably seek to invalidate the patent instead of denying infringement of the patent). One month later, this case was dismissed with prejudice. Let's think logically now. Would VP agree to a dismissal with prejudice, thereby relinquishing any recourse to retry this case, without first securing a favorable settlement offer? I don't think so. Huawei had just struck out in April and was now facing an immanent jury award with possible treble damages. I assert that Huawei saw the handwriting on the wall, and did the logical thing, which would have been to settle with VP out of court. Where is the proof? The lack of any tangible evidence at this time does not, in and of itself, constitute proof that a settlement did not occur.
ButtersOnARoll
1 hour ago
Hi Dr,
The original case (6:21-cv-01247) was transferred from TXWD to the TXND, which from the filings states:
"On Monday May 13th:
ORDER granting122 Motion to Dismiss. VoIP-Pal's infringement claims for the Asserted Patents relating to any other products or services are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs. The clerk will prepare the final Report to the Patent/Trademark or Copyright Office."
I too remember it was WITH Prejudice, but the filings show "Without".
Unfortunately, and many think unbelievably, there was no PR from the company on this settlement and/or any other settlement. Hudnell's policy I guess.
chazzy1
2 hours ago
An obnoxious and persistent ad was blocking full access to the edit page of my last post until my time expired, causing that post to look like gibberish, so I will restate it here in its entirety for the most clarity:
I beg to differ, straightword. What information the company is allowed to put out publicly is a matter that is best determined by the legal team representing VP. It would be irresponsible and reckless for the IR department to divulge details that are being negotiated in private, merely to placate some nervous investor. That kind of manipulation would be more in line with what scam companies do. Therefore, I fail to see how this is somehow a red flag, but a scam? No way. Investing involves risk, and not everyone has the stomach for it. If the reasons that you invested in VP still exist, then ignore all of the noise and remain focused.
chazzy1
2 hours ago
I beg to differ, straightword. What information the company is allowed to put out publicly is a matter that is best determined by the legal team representing VP. It would be irresponsible and reckless for the IR department to divulge details that are being negotiated in private, merely to placate some nervous investor. That kind of mamipulation would be more in line with what scam companies do. Therefore, I fail to see how this is somehow a red flag, but a scam? No. Investing involves risk, and not everyone has the stomach for it. If the reasons you invested in VP still exist, t704 292 9736hen ignore all of the noise and remain focused.
sunspotter
8 hours ago
Apparently denial is not a river in Egypt, but a way of life for VPLM longs, and those insiders posting on this board pretending to be longs.
Here’s the truth about the Huewai case:
“The last defendant to exit from the campaign was Huawei, the most recent suit against which was dismissed with prejudice on May 13, 2024. That dismissal was with prejudice from the Northern District of Texas, shortly after District Judge Brantley Starr—on April 30, 2024—denied a motion to dismiss a complaint asserting two mobile gateway patents (8,630,234; 10,880,721) because the asserted claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter. The court refused to treat claim 1 of the '234 patent as representative of the remaining asserted claims (claims 10-11, 19-22, 24-25, 28, 30-33, 35, 37-40, 43, 45-48, 51, 53-54, 61-62, 64-65, 70, 72, and 75 of the '234 patent and claims 1, 6, 15-16, 20, 25, 34, 38, 39, 43, 45-46, 49-51, 63, 67, 77, 103-104, 109-110, 124, 130, 135-136, and 138-140 of the '721 patent), some of which contain means-plus-function elements.“
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/1495130/voippalcom-sues-tmobile-and-verizon-over-previously-unasserted-claims-from-previously-asserted-patents
rapz
13 hours ago
RBR 606 patent cases against VZ and TMUS were filed quite a while ago.
U.S. District Judge David Counts
200 East Wall, Midland, TX 79701
Totally three RBR cases are pending: AMZN, VZ, TMUS.
TWO MG cases are in progress. Trial dates were canceled, not dismissed as many have already guessed.
Conflicts with damages, expert testimonies, the use of specific infringement models should have been sorted out during or before the pre-trial. A big reason a defendant would back out of a jury trial is the risk of triple damages; or they might have other reasons.
chazzy1
17 hours ago
That is music to my ears, Butters. To recap, the trial dates have been cancelled but the cases have NOT been dismissed. A huge distinction! New trial dates can always be assigned. On top of that, two brand new complaints have just been filed against T-Mobile by Hudnell Law Group P.C, and a judge has not yet been assigned for those. Because of some rule changes, there is no guarantee that these new cases will be assigned to Judge Albright. In these new claims, only the '606 patent is asserted. Through the IPR re-examination process, VP's patents have been strengthened, and are considered to be "Alice proof", plus new patent claims have been added to VP's suite of enforceable patents.
So folks, this ain't over yet, by a long shot. Stay tuned, the pps may fluctuate as investors figure this out, but I see the stock rebounding over time. JMHO.
ButtersOnARoll
18 hours ago
Regarding Huwuai, VP won the Alice 101 ruling against MG and then immediately settled. that case is closed.
The cases that are open, are the RBR against Amazon, which mysteriously hasn't budged in almost 8 months, V and Tmob, which were recently filed. Remember the RBR patent has won an exparte re-examination from the PTAB (IMO, is basically and should be the same as an Alice 101 win) and is now stronger with 8 additional claims.
Regarding the MG V and Tmob cases, to my knowledge at this point, all that has happened is that the TRIAL DATES have been cancelled, but the cases are still active. The cases have NOT been dismissed and are NOT terminated. Hoping for more clarifying information to come out soon on why the cancellation is needed, but IMO VP needs to continue that effort and in an escalated manner.
sunspotter
19 hours ago
“ I saw in May Huwuai had asked for Summary Judgment, and the Judge denied the motion. Nothing further since that PR so I'm assuming that case is proceeding.”
Your assumption is incorrect:
The last defendant to exit from the campaign was Huawei, the most recent suit against which was dismissed with prejudice on May 13, 2024. That dismissal was with prejudice from the Northern District of Texas, shortly after District Judge Brantley Starr—on April 30, 2024—denied a motion to dismiss a complaint asserting two mobile gateway patents (8,630,234; 10,880,721) because the asserted claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter. The court refused to treat claim 1 of the '234 patent as representative of the remaining asserted claims (claims 10-11, 19-22, 24-25, 28, 30-33, 35, 37-40, 43, 45-48, 51, 53-54, 61-62, 64-65, 70, 72, and 75 of the '234 patent and claims 1, 6, 15-16, 20, 25, 34, 38, 39, 43, 45-46, 49-51, 63, 67, 77, 103-104, 109-110, 124, 130, 135-136, and 138-140 of the '721 patent), some of which contain means-plus-function elements.“
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/1495130/voippalcom-sues-tmobile-and-verizon-over-previously-unasserted-claims-from-previously-asserted-patents
nyt
21 hours ago
If it comes from Vplm, it automatically is fake news, as that is their MO and their ultimate legacy. If it comes from the avg self styled, self proclaimed "true long", it's fake news and/or ignorance. Most of the anti Vplm speak the truth or give somewhat supported opinion. There are a couple, well known, some stupidly revered, who, if their lips are moving or they can still fog a mirror, they are not only lying but get compensated for doing so. Disgusting Bastard(s).
Myself.....anti Vplm, long for close to 15 yrs, always tell the truth, have done much DD, have opinions and theories that I've supported and backed up with logic, critical thinking and by connective dotology. Most if not all of my calls and predictions and explanations have been proven true again and again over time, except for the ones you might see from time to time, not from me, but from a small number who fabricate and tell out and out lies, who gaslight, and who attribute things to me that were never said or twist what was said to their own decrepid agenda and therefore are never backed up with proof and that is how pure scoundrels and rats operate.
Almost everything Vplm has put out in the past is a downright lie or distortion of the truth and has been designed to support what vplm truly is.....which is a fiat share printing, share selling, self enrichment scheme with an insider ATM to boot. They even were found guilty of "unjust self enrichment" AND "breach of Fiduciary duty" BY A JURY OF THEIR PEERS and with lord emu of eGipped at the top of the list.