rapz
1 día hace
Waiting for the reconsideration hearing by Albright could be a waste of time!
VPLM should prepare to go to the Appeals Court and argue the MG patent case aggressively. Point out errors made by the District Court Judge viz. using a wrong precedent involving a statistical analysis of financial investments, missing the intrinsic evidence for ACRM (Access Code Request Message) as outlined in both of Mobile Gateway patents, and allowing UNSTATED CLAIMS from claim construction hearing. If VPLM wins in the Appeals Court the case will be remanded back to Albright.
Unfortunately Mr. Hudnell let himself sucked into trash arguments about the precedents like ABS Global and Salazar as well as semantics about how “a” could mean one or many. While he asserted that Albright could have erred in his judgment of non-infringement of VPLM Mobile Gateway patent, he drifted away from specific elements of a patent dispute, ignoring: Judge’s Scheduling order (due diligence of initial patent filing), claim construction, studying specific claims of 234 and 721 MG patents. This issue will be discussed later in another post.
In this post, we address the Wi-Fi calling issue used by VZ and TMUS to bamboozle the Judge Albright and others. Wi-Fi calling has been cited as an Anti Trust tool to suffocate ordinary calls relying on Wi-Fi network at home or elsewhere. It was similar to MSFT using Internet Explorer as a gatekeeper for MSFT users. Similarly DOJ is suing Google for the restricted use of its search engine.
VPLM and their legal team should study the following Wi-Fi calling cases.
1) A professor from a South Korean University invention won the case vs Verizon and T Mobile with help from a US firm KAIFI LLC (L&P). The case settled and infringement damages paid. Even AT&T settled and paid the damages earlier.
2) Second case was won by General Access Solutions in East Texas for damages of $847 millions!. Mr Hudnell and his legal team must study these cases and try win MG patent case, instead of getting side-tracked with Anti Trust and RICO cases.
Verizon Letter: (Exhibit A Case 1:24-cv-03051-RDM Document 1-2 Filed 10/25/24 Page 1 of 24)
A month ago a link to “Exhibit A” was posted on this forum. The Exhibit included a letter from attorneys working for Verizon with their comments on Verizon’s technology that are worth a review.
Quoting: (bottom section of page 6)
“…The claims of the patents asserted in the Mobile Gateway case required Verizon’s technology (questionable) to have an access code request message containing both a destination identifier and a location identifier. VoIP-Pal’s expert testified that asserted claims required a single message to contain both identifiers. At the conclusion of fact discovery, however, neither VoIP-Pal nor their expert could identify any Verizon access code request message that included both elements. Nonetheless, VoIP-Pal pressed on with its claim despite clear Federal Circuit law foreclosing its increasingly tortured positions. Judge Albright ultimately every one of VoIP-Pal’s infringement claims at an oral summary judgment hearing on July 9, 2024, with a written opinion docketed on July 29, 2024…”
Who are in the tortured positions? Verizon and T Mobile?
VERIZON AND T MOBILE CASES - Wi-Fi Calling
Verizon has been involved in several patent lawsuits and cases related to Wi-Fi calling,including:
CASE #1: VoIP-Pal
In 2021, VoIP-Pal filed a lawsuit against Verizon and other telecom companies, alleging that they blocked the emergence of a Wi-Fi calling market by tying the service to voice and text offerings. However, Verizon and T-Mobile won the case, with Judge Albright ruling that VoIP-Pal's patents did not describe the services that Verizon marketed.
In August 2024, VoIP-Pal.com filed an antitrust lawsuit against Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Deutsche Telekom. The lawsuit claims that the companies have limited consumer choices and increased costs by tying Wi-Fi calling to voice and text services.
CASE #2:
https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/01/verizon_patents_ruling/
Verizon hit with a whopping $847M verdict for infringing 5G and hotspot patents.
Must be hard to face a huge, unexpected bill, amirite?
Jude Karabus, 1 Jul 2024
In one of the most massive patent verdicts in legal history, a federal jury in East Texas has ordered cellular giant Verizon to pay patent holder General Access Solutions $847 million. That's a $583 million "reasonable royalty" for infringing US Patent No 7,230,931 (the '931) patent, and $264 million for infringing the other, 9,426,794 ('794), a jury decided late last week.
Verizon banked a $12 billion profit in 2023, so the judgment represents seven percent of that annual income, or about 26 days of annual profit.
Dallas-based non-practicing entity General Access, which acquired the patents from original inventor Raze Technologies, claims elements of Verizon's 5G wireless networks, smartphone hotspots, wireless home routers, and MiFi devices violate its intellectual property.
(Verizon also has patents related to Wi-Fi calling, including:
US9906992B1: A patent on PDN management between LTE and Wi-Fi
US11039297B1: A patent on systems and methods for handover for user equipment that supports 5G standalone operation.)
According to the complaint, devices that infringe '794 include Wi-Fi home or office routers with cellular backhaul, Wi-Fi "hotspots," and even smartphones that have Wi-Fi hotspot functionality. Both patents were originally filed in 2001. (VPLM’s AntiTrust and RICO complaints)
It claims in the original complaint that Verizon's base station equipment infringes its '931 patent – to do with beamforming networks across cell sites – and that Verizon wireless devices that receive 4G and 5G cell signals infringe its '794 patent when they route information to mobile stations using 802.11 Wi-Fi comms protocols.
CASE #3:
Verizon and T-Mobile Sued For Infringing Wi-Fi Calling Patent
https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/tech/verizon-and-t-mobile-sued-for-infringing-wi-fi-calling-patent/
In 2020, KAIFI LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Verizon and T-Mobile.
L&P Secures Positive Reexamination Outcome for Valuable “WiFi Calling” Patent
https://www.lpiplaw.com/news/2022/5/05/lampp-secures-positive-reexamination-outcome-for-valuable-wifi-calling-patent
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has concluded two reexaminations of U.S. Patent No. 6,922,728 owned by KAIFI, LLC. The reexaminations were requested by T-Mobile and Verizon and then merged by the PTO’s Central Reexamination Unit (CRU). The reexamination certificates, issued today, confirmed the patentability of all claims. One dependent claim was amended, and all other claims were confirmed in their original form. T-Mobile and Verizon filed the reexamination requests after KAIFI had sued each company alleging that their WiFi calling feature infringed the ’728 Patent. Both parties (Verizon and T Mobile) have since settled with KAIFI, as did AT&T following an earlier lawsuit.
The ’728 Patent was invented by Dr. Dong-Ho Cho when he was a professor at the Korea Advanced Institute for Science and Technology (KAIST)…
Plaintiff KAIFI LLC, a self-described “intellectual property consulting company that promotes and manages intellectual property directed to telecommunications technologies,” filed complaints against Verizon, T-Mobile and other related entities for patent infringement on Friday in the Eastern District of Texas over their alleged use of Wi-Fi calling technology.
The patent-in-suit is United States Patent No. 6,922,728 (the '728 patent), “Optimal Internet Network Connecting and Roaming System and Method Adapted for User Moving Outdoors or Indoors.” The ’728 patent is “directed to an Internet network connecting and roaming system and method.” Specifically, “with the patented invention, voice and data communications may be seamlessly transitioned to a Wi-Fi network from an LTE network.” The plaintiff claimed that this “reduces load and congestion on cellular networks, reduces network costs, and increases voice and data communication coverage quality and range.”
KAIFI averred that Verizon and T-Mobile adopted this patented technology to “enable seameless (sic) voice and data communication services, including Defendants’ Wi-Fi calling” and other services. The plaintiff noted that Verizon began offering Wi-Fi calling in 2015. Verizon stated that its customers could “make and receive calls and initiate video calls over a Wi-Fi Internet connection…Once Advanced Calling is enabled, customers can activate Wi-Fi Calling.” T-Mobile allegedly made similar claims about its Wi-Fi Calling. According to Verizon, the call experience should be the same, except carried out over a Wi-Fi connection instead of a cellular connection. For example, “(i)f you have a Wi-Fi connection and are in an area where voice service is weak or unavailable, use Wi-Fi calling to continue making voice calls.” KAIFI alleged that Verizon’s and T-Mobile’s accused instrumentalities include “systems, networks, and components and services thereto used and controlled by Defendants for implementing seamless network transition, including off-loading to a customer’s home Wi-Fi network, (VPLM Anti Trust and RICO case) such as through their Wi-Fi Calling system and service, and include both native and third-party, over the top (OTT) voice and data applications,” which can be used to make a Wi-Fi call.
Specifically, Verizon is accused of infringing at least claim 1 of the patent-in-suit through its instrumentalities that include a wireless network, user mobile device, Wi-Fi Calling service, internet service, etc. to make the Wi-Fi call possible. The plaintiff proffered that Verizon utilized the patented technology to provide its Wi-Fi Calling service. As previously mentioned, a user can switch between a Wi-Fi and an Advanced Calling call. As described in the patent, Verizon’s Wi-Fi Calling service is comprised of a “data communication terminal,” namely, a mobile device that can connect to both Wi-Fi and a cellular network and stores both of the connecting information in the device, which can be evidenced through Auto Join, whereby the device recognizes the Wi-Fi network and auto joins said network. Verizon’s Wi-Fi Calling system also use an “indoor gateway,” which “may be any Wi-Fi access point, to connect to a Wi-Fi network and the internet via a wire, such as a…router, modem, or ‘hotspot.’” This helps to connect the phone to the Wi-Fi, thus allowing an individual to make a Wi-Fi call. Verizon’s Wi-Fi Calling system also allegedly takes advantage of location data to recognize and use networks, as described in the patent. (VPLM Anti Trust-RICO case) Thus, by using the patented system to create and allow users to have Wi-Fi Calling, Verizon has purportedly infringed the ’728 patent. The allegations against T-Mobile are similar to the claims against Verizon.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendants were notified of their infringement, but continue to infringe the ’728 patent in addition to not obtaining a license for this patent. KAIFI charged the defendants with direct, indirect and induced infringement.
KAIFI has sought declaratory judgment in its favor, an award for monetary relief, for the defendants to pay ongoing royalties, to enjoin defendants from further infringement, and other relief. The plaintiff is represented by Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth PC and LTL Attorneys LLP.
Summary Judgment Granted in Favor of L&P Client
https://www.lpiplaw.com/news/2023/07/19/summary-judgment-granted-in-favor-of-lp-client
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas today granted summary judgment in favor of Laurence & Phillips IP Law (L&P) client KAIFI LLC and against T-Mobile. T-Mobile brought the case to get out from under a settlement agreement T-Mobile entered into with KAIFI to resolve an infringement case concerning Kaifi’s U.S. Patent No. 6,922,728, which covers so-called “WiFi calling.” L&P had successfully represented KAIFI in two ex parte reexaminations of the ’728 Patent, which was fully confirmed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO’s) Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) during the reexaminations. In this latest suit, T-Mobile accused L&P partner Matt Phillips of inequitable conduct during the reexaminations, but the court’s summary-judgment ruling sided with KAIFI. Phillips remarked, “There was absolutely no merit in T-Mobile’s inequitable-conduct assertions,(T Mobile game - sounds familiar?) and today’s ruling appropriately puts those unpleasant and unfounded accusation behind us.”
https://www.lpiplaw.com/news/2022/5/05/lampp-secures-positive-reexamination-outcome-for-valuable-wifi-calling-patent
VZ cases and patents
Google search: verizon patents in wifi calling technology
Aspen Networks Inc.
In 2023, Aspen Networks filed a lawsuit against Verizon and T-Mobile, alleging that they infringed US Patent No. 8,009,554. The lawsuit claims that the companies incorporated protected technology into their networks without permission.This patent is related to technology that allows customers to switch from cellular service to Wi-Fi without dropping calls.
nyt
2 días hace
Now ya see it, now ya don't... This whole crazy thing is nothing more than an emu created DIVERSIONARY TACTIC! It's designed to divert attention from the huge steaming pile that is Vplm and all it's doings. Don't forget that he was found guilty of breach of fiduciary duty and unjust personal enrichment BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS. He had numerous failures in the past but learned ea time how to keep the farce alive. Hey Malak.....there are some ppl who want to make a sizable donation to your cancer research company, you know, the one you founded.....but they cannot seem to locate that cancer research company anywhere on the face of the globe. Hey Malak....why/how did you convince every newspaper out there to say you founded Vplm.......when you certainly did not? Hey Malak....where do you get off claiming to be an inventor? I know you invent lies daily but aside from that, what did you actually ever invent? I know you invent Vancouver class schemes, but what actual inventions did you create and patent? And while you're at it, please show us the official results of the worldwide nodal testing of the core patents. Inquiring minds would not only like to see but fully deserve to see..
Why do you claim to be the leader of the voip industry......when you have no followers?
People with keen common sense should be able to understand that this whole anti trust, monopoly thing is nothing but pure, unadulterated bull. There is no monopoly. It will be laughed out of court just as soon as you quit playing musical complaints (making them, then recinding, then remaking and refiling, et al). It's beyond fallacious. It's plain silly. There are 4 big dog carriers, recently down to 3 because Sprint was acquired. But there is at least one other company, I can't think of their name at the moment, but very well known, who are approx 75% independant, having built their 5g network from the ground up and the other 25% or so exists as MVNOs. I'll see if I can remember and post who they are, but that makes close to 4 biggies. In addition, there are I don't know how many MVNOs. While the generally just rent tower space and signal bandwidth, they are still individual companies who provide a variety of different services and prices. They are seperate legitimate cell companies such as visible, now defunct Yahoo mobile, and many others. All that above means CHOICES! Choices of services, service levels, pricing, prepaid, postpaid, wideband, 4g, 5g, etc etc etc. And they have various differences in geographical coverage. THAT IS NOT THE SIGNS OF A MONOPOLY! THAT IS NOT THE SIGNS OF ANTI TRUST. THAT IS the signs of diversity and HEALTHY
COMPETITION! Healthy competition which has resulted in not only every imaginable choice of services and phone deals, but the so called antitrust/monopoly "case" has, as it's main claim, that the consumers are being ripped off for what they pay. That's more bullshit piled on. Cell service has, because of the healthy competition, become over the years, cheaper and cheaper and cheaper! It is now very easy to get unlimited everything for $25 per month incl all taxes and fees and it's truly unlimited. No throttling. and that includes a Hotspot to boot! That.....is not the result of a monopoly. It's the result of competition!
Additionally, re: the matter of monopoly, and what a farce of an excuse it is to divert attention from the pickpocketing of Vplm, it's also ridiculous to make the claim about wifi calling. 1st of all, the friggin emu is now, out of the blue, for the 1st time ever, claiming that he and Vplm INVENTED WiFi calling. YES, HE IS INDEED MAKING THAT CLAIM IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS! Just read his latest crap. Vplm did not invent wifi calling nor have I ever heard them claim to offer wifi, but that's what that lying emu is now saying... Furthermore, the whole idea of wifi calling, in terms of offering that as a seperate cheaper calling plan IS NO LESS THAN LUDICROUS! NO ONE WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO DEPEND ON OR USE WIFI CALLING AS THEIR PLAN, unless they were perpetually homebound. Wifi is only good for extremely short distance. In other words, it would be stupid to have a calling plan that did not include BOTH cellular and wifi. I doubt there is a single person here who uses wifi as their exclusive only signal to use for calling. Wifi calling, as it's own plan, makes no sense whatsoever, unless you are confined to your home always or a Mcdonalds parking lot.
And yet, the suit actually has the balls to claim customers are being ripped off by not being offered a plan with wifi only calling. Plain stupid.
Fact of the matter is that I posted the exact same points weeks ago BEFORE I read the MOFOs piece. When I finally did get to it, courtesy of Suns... I saw that they madeTHE EXACT SAME POINTS that I did about this debacle and they are lawyers.
traderking60
3 días hace
VoIP-Pal Announces Filing of Amended Complaint in Antitrust and RICO Lawsuit
Press Release | 12/19/2024
WACO, Texas, Dec. 19, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (OTCQB: VPLM) today announced the filing of an amended complaint to the original complaint filed in October 2024, in Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-03051-RDM, currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This latest filing represents a significant escalation in the company’s legal efforts to address alleged antitrust violations, breaches of federal law, and racketeering activities that VoIP-Pal believes have caused harm to the company.
The amended complaint names Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, along with several of their directors and members of their management teams, as defendants. "Our amended complaint builds on our commitment to seeking justice for the harm VoIP-Pal has endured due to alleged antitrust violations and other unlawful practices," said Emil Malak, CEO of VoIP-Pal. "By incorporating RICO claims, we are addressing not just the alleged monopolistic and exclusionary conduct we believe the defendants engaged in, but it also alleges systemic violations and coordinated actions that have targeted our company."
VoIP-Pal CEO Emil Malak reassured shareholders that the strategic focus on antitrust and RICO claims is the most efficient path to address the harm caused by the defendants. “While patent litigation remains ongoing in Waco, Texas, we believe this approach offers the quickest and most effective route to justice,” Malak stated. “Our goal is to hold Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, their directors, and key management accountable through the judicial process, restore fair competition in the mobile telephone communications industry, and drive shareholder value. We are working diligently to ensure that the defendants are served soon, with the goal of doing so before the end of the year.”
Malak highlighted the importance of the filing as a step toward achieving accountability. "This legal action is not just about VoIP-Pal; it’s about holding powerful corporations accountable for practices that harm innovation, competition, and fairness in the telecommunications industry. We are confident that this expanded approach will demonstrate the strength of our case."
The amended complaint outlines detailed allegations, including:
Antitrust Violations: Claims of tying arrangements, exclusionary practices, and monopolistic control that have suppressed VoIP-Pal’s ability to compete.
RICO Claims: Allegations of coordinated racketeering activities, including fraudulent misrepresentation, deceptive practices, and systemic exclusion of VoIP-Pal from the market.
Harm to Consumers: The impact of these actions on market competition and millions of smartphone users across the United States.
"Filing this amended complaint marks a pivotal moment in our pursuit of justice," Malak added. "It reflects our commitment to protecting our shareholders, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring a level playing field in the telecommunications sector."
Additionally, a new article and interview with CEO Emil Malak has been published on CEOCFO Magazine, providing additional insights into VoIP-Pal's strategy. The article can be accessed here: https://www.ceocfointerviews.com/voippalantitrust121824.html.
About VoIP-Pal.com Inc.
VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Waco, TX. The company owns a portfolio of patents related to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Forward-Looking Statements
Any forecast of future financial performance is a “forward-looking statement” under securities laws. Such statements are included to allow potential investors to understand management’s beliefs and opinions with respect to the future, but patent litigation involves various risks and uncertainties that could affect the company’s ability to monetize its patents. It is impossible to predict specific outcomes of litigation.
Corporate Website: www.voip-palusa.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
Primary Logo
Regístrate para interactuar en nuestros foros activos para discutir con inversores de ideas afines.
ORCA
1 día hace
fung_derf
2 días hace
Nick Papagiorgio
3 días hace
sunspotter
4 días hace
Hot Features
Premium
