Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
DON;T STOP AT .068 COME LOWER.LET ME PUT SOME 500K ORDERS IN:))
KEEP HITTING THE BIDS BRO:)))
I LOVE IT.I WILL LOAD A COUPLE MILLION WITH THIS STUPID GUY,LMAOOOOKEEP THEM COMING :))
CDEL, HIT THE BIDS BRO.I GOT A TON ON THE BIDS:)))
BIG LIE FOR SOME.$$$$ FOR OTHERS:))I AM STARTING TO LOAD THE BOAT AT .07 NOW.
So, if I understand,VPLM is a big lie……Thank you for informing all of us. Wish I hadn’t spent so much time reading the court documents and the patents……I appreciate your advice.
I didn't say you did say it was illegal, but I thought about it before I replied, that the comment might seem to imply to some that it was illegal as some already seem to think. I didn't mean to imply you felt it was illegal and I noticed that you didn't say illegal. My point, was that since or if, it was not illegal inside trading, that it was moot since you can't do anything about it, but admittedly, as I was sending, it occurred to me that it's not totally moot because one can, like you, tailor there trading accordingly and I don't blame you a bit for how it's affected the pps apparently. Sorry for not wording better
Glad you asked that question as it brings up a forgotten memory... that being that all 60 or so companies were named on the vplm website and then, mysteriously erased from the record to this day. Details like that have always caught my attention as potentially important in the scheme of things, such as all the well documented lies, mistruths, misstatements and cockamamie prs they have put out over the yrs. The only way to know the facts and or truth about vplm is to read the entire board from the beginning, which of course is a ridiculously long read but one of the best reads out there, better than any movie script you could find. (EMU should've sold the story to Cameron).
For ex, did you know that this entire roughly 10 year debacle is 100% based on the biggest lie I ever heard in the world of stocks and is fully documented and also fully ignored?
Who said it was illegal that wasn't my point. I don't buy into insider selling I won't touch the trade for gains when I see it more likely to go down. And I have 2.7 million free shares that I will be looking at in the fall. I'm not a dreamer the markets have a track record of broken dreams
Well, since insider trading is not illegal, it's a moot point
Trying to see if Dish is on the list.
“We are going to be adding some more...we put 62 companies on notice."
The patents are real! The patents are real! The patents are valid! The patents are valid!
This has been the clarion call from the gjtgo... Its so misunderstood by so many for so long, it's amazing, given that the truth of the matter has been explained, with facts over ignorance, so many times here...
1st of all, of course the patents are real, lolol.....they can't be anything but real. A real patent is born when an application gets approved by the uspto, based on a short list of criteria the application must meet. I have reported many times that such patent criteria and approval does NOT in any way, shape or form, imply, suggest, prove or validate that the patent includes EFFICACY, VALUE or WORKABILITY... That is such an important fact, yet one has ever seen it even so much as worthy of comment.
Additionally, with respect to all the IPR so called "wins". While they once had the power to help see the price spike to 45 cents, along with many paid and unpaid pumps, some of which I identified by name and amount paid, they simply were a LOSS for the entities that brought the IPR's. That's the proper way to look at it because vplm didn't gain or lose anything in the deal. In other words, the patents in question were valid from the start and remained valid til the end. There was nothing truly gained or lost. It was just a wash for vplm I guess you could say. But it was indeed a loss for those who tried to invalidate certain aspects of the patents. So to reiterate, the patents have been valid from the moment of birth up to the present. That affords them NO VALUE, NO EFFICACY, NO PROOF OF WORKABILITY, NO PROOF OF NEED.
VPLM has exactly the same thing, patent wise, as always, nothing more nothing less.
The fact of the matter is that many many many so called "valid" patents have later been found to be invalid.... but far more importantly, have never realized any value whatsoever. The reasons for that are various and sundry and no doubt sometimes could be attributed to a faulty or corrupt congress or in some cases the patents, though perfectly valid, are useless for a variety of possible reasons, such as out of date, incompatability, flaws, etc.
And it's a curious thing, how vaunted the ptab has been characterized here, when connecting to all the IPR "wins", curious when considering how before those wins, the ptab, it's leader, it's judges, were clearly found to be corrupt. That was all reported here with the cynicism appropriate to the facts, but oh so conveniently forgetten, lol, once ol Sawyer threatened them with federal RICO charges...... hahaha...... and then, and only then......lolol....they did their 180° and approved EVERYTHING for vplm in an unprecedented way.
I believe this is in regards to the RBR patent
As I thought everything hinges on october
With the same results then. No financial judgements!!
I guess Vplm and Amazon are ahead of schedule!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, June 8, 2023, Waco District Courtroom #1
1:30 PM MOTIONS HEARING
WA:20-CV-00272
35:271 PATENT INFRINGEMENT
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
Plaintiff
ATTY: Nicolas Spiros Gikkas
650-617-3419
ATTY: Lewis E. Hudnell III
650-564-7720
Versus
Amazon.Com, Inc.
Defendant
ATTY: M. Craig Tyler RET
737.256.6100
ATTY: James F. Valentine RET
(650) 838-4300
ATTY: Wing Hay Liang RET
415-852-3087
ATTY: Daniel T. Shvodian RET
(650) 838-4300
Amazon Technologies, Inc.
Defendant
ATTY: Wing Hay Liang RET
415-852-3087
ATTY: M. Craig Tyler RET
737.256.6100
ATTY: Daniel T. Shvodian RET
(650) 838-4300
ATTY: James F. Valentine RET
(650) 838-4300
Amazon.com Services, LLC
Defendant
ATTY: M. Craig Tyler RET
737.256.6100
ATTY: Wing Hay Liang RET
415-852-3087
ATTY: Daniel T. Shvodian RET
(650) 838-4300
ATTY: James F. Valentine RET
(650) 838-4300
Amazon Web Services, Inc.
Defendant
ATTY: M. Craig Tyler RET
737.256.6100
ATTY: James F. Valentine RET
(650) 838-4300
ATTY: Wing Hay Liang RET
415-852-3087
ATTY: Daniel T. Shvodian RET
(650) 838-4300
Amazon.com Services, LLC
Counter-claimant
ATTY: M. Craig Tyler RET
737.256.6100
ATTY: Daniel T. Shvodian RET
(650) 838-4300
ATTY: Wing Hay Liang RET
415-852-3087
Amazon.Com, Inc.
Counter-claimant
ATTY: M. Craig Tyler RET
737.256.6100
ATTY: Wing Hay Liang RET
415-852-3087
ATTY: Daniel T. Shvodian RET
(650) 838-4300
Amazon Web Services, Inc.
Counter-claimant
ATTY: Daniel T. Shvodian RET
(650) 838-4300
ATTY: M. Craig Tyler RET
737.256.6100
ATTY: Wing Hay Liang RET
415-852-3087
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
Counter-defendant
ATTY: Nicolas Spiros Gikkas
650-617-3419
ATTY: Lewis E. Hudnell III
650-564-7720
Albright - Voip-Pal - Amazon et al....June 8 @1330
At the time of the "offer", I was the 1st of many to say it smelled fishy. After some investigation, I reported here, that there had been a somewhat obscure post made here approx 1 to 2 months prior to the "announcement", which CLEARLY identified both Amelio and the EMU as being friends and cooperating/conspiring, to do something to boost the long lagging pps. The post was of either an overheard conversation OR it also could've been a purposeful leak. In either event, it documented, way ahead of time, the plan of Amelio and the EMU to find a way to boost the price. A month or 2 later, boom, the "offer" is pr'd.
Just reminding...
Ptab was nice made good money principle agreement on whatever made me more money it allowed me to have 2.7 million free shares I would never have paid $200,000 for my position and I highly doubt any of the regular long posters here would either. Does this trading look like anything but insider trading going into the unknown? It certainly does so its a crap shoot for near term trading if the bench trial works in vplms favor was a good buy here if not it wasn't. Hope is a poor strategy unless it's free
Absolutely right LB!
The patents ARE REAL, they've been proven by the industries top professionals in the courts through successful claims construction, the USPTO with top tier patent attorneys and the PTAB with over 20 IPR wins without 1 claim being changed or removed. If that doesn't prove it, then nothing will. The effort to tarnish that record is quite funny at this point.
And after ZERO proof has been presented after endless requests, the notion that VP is a scam is again laughable.
Bench trial results are the catalyst for direction the trade is a crap shoot insider selling continues into it.
Thanks. I probably should have clarified that the things I noted are only potential red flags to me at this point. None of them have caused me to sell any of my VPLM stock, at least not yet. But I don't want to be blind to things that run contrary to my initial investment decision. Absolute certitude is a dangerous thing
Yeah, I get that guilt by association isn't always correct or fair.
So do you know for sure that the Cameron suit was settled with a non-disclosure payoff? In my research I could only find sources that said Emil dropped the charges, not anything that said there was a settlement. Of course, that wouldn't be surprising if there was an NDA.
What I most appreciate about your post and Sunspotter's replies to me earlier today are that they're simply a calm discussion. That's what I come here for - information and reasoned exchanges of ideas. I don't think sarcasm, name-calling, insults or dismissiveness provide any benefit to anyone. Cheers, and good luck!
Yeah, me too, just wish they were more accurate.
Loophole is on fire! Really like you’re posts!!!
Thank you. I likewise appreciate the courteous response and additional information in this and your subsequent post.
Based on the chart, this looks to be headed back down, and before you tell me charts don't matter here, read my last few posts
“If "Babs" didn't file, as required by law - how, again did you know about it? These things make no sense to me - words are funny that way.”
It’s quite simple. She didn’t file her sales within two days as required for some years. And then she very belatedly filed some of them with the SEC recently which is how we know.
It’s been discussed on this board many times.
And what have Emil, Barbara & Rich ever done to indicate they are not trustworthy?
Probably the same as the VPLM scam claim!
Thank you for the info. If they could have just mentioned a certain lawsuit going on… (Lol)
From another article today….
“To anyone wondering how Amazon could pay a carrier $120 a year within a $139 Prime subscription, and then offer free service to members, the report points out that the company isn’t afraid to lose billions of dollars in the short term in order to gain business in the long term.
Anytime Amazon enters a new market, it sends shivers through the industry because the Seattle-based retail giant has shown it’s willing to absorb billions of dollars in shipping and movie production costs to fuel Prime membership growth. Wireless service could be just one more item that Amazon’s willing to take a hit on if it gives the company a leg up versus Walmart”
RSS RSS Track this Docket
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on May 23, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Date Filed Document Text
May 23, 2023 Opinion or Order Parties shall comply with Judge Albright's updated Standing Orders: #Order Regarding Court Docket Management and #Amended Standing Order for Pretrial Procedure. Both orders are available by clicking the hyperlink. (bot2)
May 12, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 95 STATUS REPORT oint Report Regarding Case Narrowing by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.. (Hudnell, Lewis)
April 7, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 94 ORDER GRANTING #93 Motion to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines: Motions due by 6/2/2023. Pretrial Conference set for 10/4/2023 before Judge Alan D Albright. Jury Selection set for 10/16/2023 before Judge Derek T. Gilliland. Jury Trial set for 10/16/2023 before Judge Alan D Albright. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (ad3)
April 6, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 93 Joint MOTION to Extend Scheduling Order Deadlines Joint Motion for Extension of Case Schedule by Cellco Partnership, Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., Verizon Services Corp.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Hector, William)
April 4, 2023 Opinion or Order Parties shall comply with Judge Albright's updated #Standing Order Governing Proceedings - Patent Cases available by clicking the hyperlink. (bot2)
March 17, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 92 Joint Claim Construction Brief or Statement by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.. (Hudnell, Lewis)
March 2, 2023 Opinion or Order Reset Deadlines: Dispositive/Daubert Motions due by 4/28/2023, (lad)
March 2, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 91 NOTICE of Agreed Extension of Deadlines by Cellco Partnership, Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., Verizon Services Corp. (Hector, William)
March 2, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 90 REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Cellco Partnership, re #82 Opposed Sealed Motion Defendants' Opposed Motion to Stay Case Pending IPRs by Cellco Partnership, Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., Verizon Services Corp. filed by Defendant Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., Defendant Verizon Communications, Inc., Defendant Verizon Services Corp., Defendant Cellco Partnership (Hector, William)
Winner winner…chicken dinner! :)
I believe the same. That was RBR when they were trying to move out of Nevada.
On May 3rd, Amazon announced that they arrived at an agreement with VPLM….. ( 4 weeks ago). ONE WOULD THINK THAT THEY WERE IN DISCUSSIONS 2-4 weeks prior ( to have arrived at an agreement)…this falls in to the time frame mentioned by the Amazon spokesperson….
Move along…. Nothing to see here……
I believe that was referring to the RBR, if I’m not mistaken in NDCA. I believe no dollar amount has been established, in Waco.
“The discussions have been going on for six to eight weeks and have also included AT&T (T) at times,” ……from Amazon article this morning. Question…. How long has Amazon been in settlement talks with VPLM?
I got invested in this patent play a LONG time ago. What had me intrigued were:
The highly regarded names from the telecom industry on the BOD (Collin Tucker, Thomas Sawyer and Edwin Candy)
Knobbe Martens was the driving force in getting these patents approved with USPTO
The patents (IP) were becoming the fundamental way of telecom communications
I was always told to stay away from penny stocks in my 35+ years of investing, but I’m glad I took a flyer on this one!
A big flyer actually
Let’s not forget that the lawsuit against Verizon was for $2.4 Billion back in 2018.
“Verizon Wants $2.4B VoIP Patent Suit Moved To Calif.” 8-21-2018
Still in Texas.
Verizon named in suit
T-Mobile named in suit
AT&T named in suit
Amazon named in suit
Amazon and T- Mobile BOTH represented by same law firm vs. VPLM…….
Settlement agreement with Amazon to be completed any day…
Amazon( out of nowhere) releases this announcement 2 hours ago….
“Move along… nothing to see here….”
Question: If "Babs" didn't file, as required by law - how, again did you know about it? These things make no sense to me - words are funny that way.
I’ll leave the patents to the real experts and to the courts.
But one thing that scams like LLEG (Laidlaw Energy) have taught me is that penny stocks often don’t actually own the things they tell their shareholders they do.
That’s why the probity and integrity of the CEO and the management team is critical.
If they can’t be trusted then they can’t be trusted period.
And Emil, Babs and Rich have shown themselves to be far from trustworthy.
So are you sure the shareholders still own these patents?
LOL.
I think you’ll find IR guys for highly targeted penny stock affinity scams are somewhat more “in the loop” than Director level minnows in Fortune 100 companies (although even there the IR folk usually know exactly what is going on).
As for Babs selling millions of shares hand-over-fist for years, she’s certainly entitled to do that.
What she’s not entitled to do is to hide those sales by spitting in the face of regulations and the law and not filing the disclosures required by law as an insider.
As for you having met Cameron, I hope you got his autograph. LOL again.
I drank that Kool-Aid years ago and the after taste wasn’t good. VPLM’s not going to pursue that avenue revenue, now or in the near future.
But, as I’ve stated numerous times, it’s an excellent asset for someone to have when acquiring VPLM’s patents. But, I don’t believe that’s going to happen anytime soon.
Amazon would be an excellent prospect, as they’re going into the telecom industry.
IMHO
i.e. if someone else was in charge (you know who), he would have taken the money. I agree DB, glad Emil is in charge.
One can twist facts into any shape of balloon one wishes - however, a logical person might see that if someone had the misfortune to cross paths in the business world with a psychotic person, who was eventually convicted of his crimes, to such a degree that said psychotic person was displeased enough with him to want him "shot in the legs so that he couldn't run any more marathons"... the logical person would likely conclude that Rich was the good guy in this story - to have gotten so FIRMLY on the bad side of a psychopath....
Many people have the bad fortune to encounter bad people. It doesn't make them guilty by association. High stakes money gathers bad players. Running into one occasionally is inevitable. Getting on the hit list for one of them... actually speaks incredibly WELL of Rich.
I think this is huge!
I think the fly in this ointment is that Dr. Gil Amelio isn't part of VPLM. He didn't build a long and brilliant career in order to sully his name by having it linked to a "scam" - especially with leaving a well-publicized but "bogus" offer hanging out there with his name all over the press, and making no efforts to correct said information -
Was he paid off? Blackmailed over his secret involvement in international drug cartels? Did someone know something he didn't want released? LOL - Now, who is selling fantasy scripts to hollywood? -
Sorry, that tale, as interesting as it might be - holds water like a broken glass - GLTU
Followers
|
464
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
25
|
Posts (Total)
|
133163
|
Created
|
06/16/10
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators sunspotter Sheepdog GreenBackClub Russ777 Spyke37 |
11810 NE 34th Street
Bellevue, WA 98005
Estimated Market Cap $27,166,417 As of November 05, 2021
Authorized Shares 3,000,000,000 As of October 18, 2021
Outstanding Shares 1,951,330,092 As of Feburary 28, 2019
Outstanding Shares 1,731,447,863 As of October 18, 2021
(Shares outstanding dropped by 219mm++)******
Float 831,342,791 As of September 23, 2021
Revenues: $0 to date.
Voip-Pal's intellectual property value is derived from ten (10) issued USPTO patents including five parent patents, one of which is foundational and the others which build upon the former.
The five (5) core patents are:
1.) Routing, Billing & Rating ("RBR");
2.) Lawful Intercept;
3.) Enhanced E-911;
4.) Mobile Gateway; and
5.) Uninterrupted Transmission
The Voip-Pal inventions described in the ten-patent portfolio provide the means to integrate VoIP services with any of the Telco systems to create a seamless service using either legacy telephone numbers of IP addresses, and enhance the performance and value of VoIP implementations worldwide.
The Voip-Pal patented technology provides Universal numbering ubiquity; network value as defined by Metcalfe; the imperative of interconnect, termination, and recompense for delivery of calls by other networks; regulatory compliance in regulated markets; interconnection of VoIP networks to mobile and fixed networks; and maintenance of uninterrupted VoIP calls across fixed, mobile, and WiFi networks.
While there are several popular VoIP implementations, VoIP is utilized in many other lesser-known places and by practically every modern telephony system vendor, network supplier, and retail and wholesale carrier.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13148084&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13146397&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13146353&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13145009&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13144993&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13110545&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13110507&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099496&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099423&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099381&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING! COMPANY CONTINUES TO RAISE AS AND OS WITH NO REVENUES IN SIGHT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VPLM'S CASE DISMISSED BUT WILL BE APPEALED.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/VPLM/news/Voip-Palcom-Reports-Decision-in-the-Alice-101-Motion?id=222536
https://www.scribd.com/document/403267736/VOIP-PAL-Obviousness-Ruling
BELLEVUE, Wash., April 16, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) announced that at a meeting of the Board of Directors on April 15, 2019, the Directors of Voip-Pal unanimously rejected a formal offer from Dr. Gil Amelio and his associates to take over management of the Company. Part of the offer provided options to purchase only the stock owned by Voip-Pal’s CEO, Emil Malak. Fully exercised, the options would have paid Mr. Malak approximately $150 million for his shares of Voip-Pal stock.
Voip-Pal’s Board of Directors including CEO, Emil Malak, carefully considered the offer but unanimously voted to reject this proposal; however, the Company is open to further discussions with Dr Amelio. Voip-Pal is actively pursuing the sale of all of Voip-Pal’s shares, on behalf of the more than 4500 shareholders, not just the shares owned by Mr. Malak.
Dr. Amelio has held prominent positions with various technology companies, including serving as the CEO and Chairman of Apple Computer, (1996-1997), President, CEO and Chairman of National Semiconductor, and President of Rockwell Communication Systems. He has also served on the board of directors of several companies including Apple, (1994-1996), AT&T, (1995-2013) and Interdigital. He received a Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, and Ph.D. in physics from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Amelio has been awarded 16 patents and a 17th is pending.
Renowned patent and IP expert, William Sweet is one of Dr. Amelio’s associates on this proposal. According to Dr. Gil Amelio, Mr. Sweet and his team have conducted extensive research on Voip-Pal’s patent portfolio.
Emil Malak, Voip-Pal CEO, “We have great respect for Dr. Gil Amelio and his team and we are very pleased to know they see such value in our patents or they would not have tendered this offer. We are currently focused on our legal appeal to the recent Alice 101 decision as well as finalizing our strategy to move forward in Europe. In the meantime we are working diligently to add to our patent portfolio with patent continuation applications. Patience is a virtue.”
About Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB:VPLM) headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Corporate Website: www.voip-pal.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
“Courts should never be tasked with dealing with the complexities of patent validity because they lack the necessary technical expertise.”
I am Emil Malak, CEO of VoIP-Pal.com Inc., and a named inventor on two U.S. patents–Mobile Gateway: US 8,630,234& Electrostatic Desalinization and Water Purification: US 8,016,993. To date, our company owns 22 issued and or allowed patents, which we developed over the past 15 years. Against all odds, we have been 100% successful in defending eight Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs): four from Apple, three from AT&T, and one from Unified Patents. We are presently in litigation against Apple, Verizon, AT&T, Twitter and Amazon.
My experience with Voip-Pal has made it painfully clear that the deck has been stacked against companies who own IP being used without license by large tech companies. The America Invents Act (AIA), orchestrated by Silicon Valley, was designed to destroy the very ladder they climbed to ascend to their lofty perch, and make certain that they could not be challenged.
Owning a patent used to be the dream of every small inventor in America. For more than 200 years, the intellectual property rights of American inventors—both big and small—were protected by patent laws that encouraged innovation and risk-taking for the promise of reaping financial rewards for their inventions. That all changed in 2011 with the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which has since caused irreparable harm to the United States’ patent system and has stacked the deck against the little guy in favor of the Silicon Valley and other giants. Post grant reviews of issued patents existed prior to the AIA, but the AIA, through the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Inter Partes Review (IPR) created a post grant review process hostile towards patent owners. The lack of oversight, appointment of judges with apparent conflicts of interest, and allowing unlimited challenges to a single patent regardless of standing are just a few of the changes that placed a heavy hand on the scales of justice weighing in favor of Silicon Valley.
At the time, members of Congress said they were enacting legislation that would strengthen and streamline patent protection law, passing it by overwhelming majorities of 71% in the House and 95% in the Senate. However, eight years after its passage, the evidence clearly shows they have crippled the patent system.
This was never about streamlining the patent system—in fact, it has had the opposite effect. Instead of going into court to adjudicate an infringement case based upon the merits of the granted claims, the process is all about stalling, obfuscating, and forcing small companies to burn through their capital fighting a system that has been paid for by Silicon Valley. The AIA provided the legal mechanism for the Silicon Valley and others to destroy small companies and inventors, drain their limited resources and drive them out of business.
Small patent owners often engage in the futile effort of attempting to license their patents. Discussions with big tech companies are mostly fruitless and usually prove to be nothing more than a delay tactic by the infringer. The inventor is then forced to turn to the courts for enforcement and sues the unlicensed user of the technology. A lawsuit by the patent owner will usually trigger the IPR process. More often than not, the infringer will succeed in revoking all or part of the asserted patent. Even if the infringer fails in their efforts to cancel the patent, they will have succeeded in stalling as much as 18 months, costing the inventor precious capital, and knocking many out of business.
Courts should never be tasked with dealing with the complexities of patent validity because they lack the necessary technical expertise. Patent validity issues such as sections 101, 102, 103, indefiniteness, and all other technical matters should be decided prior to a patent being issued by technically qualified examiners at the USPTO, not by the court. Once issued, a patent should only be challengeable at the USPTO, and only for a predetermined period, i.e. six months. The courts should only decide matters of infringement and damages.
No aspects of patent law should ever be subjective. Congress can fix the inconsistencies between the USPTO and the courts and put them on the same page by passing laws that clearly define patent validity guidelines, i.e. what is abstract. Life in the 21st century is dependent on computers. Consequently, many software-centric patents adding new inventive steps are being developed, only to be labeled abstract by the courts and invalidated. The lack of uniformity is responsible for nullifying valuable patents and strengthening the chokehold the Silicon Valley has on the necks of small inventors. Courts should only deal with infringement and damages based solely on clearly these defined guidelines.
Director Iancu has a very tough job ahead. He inherited a broken system, heavily biased against the little guy. Since taking the reins he has made positive changes and has shown his commitment to leveling the playing field for all inventors. He recently published revised 101 guidelines for his department that he hopes will lead to changes in how the Federal Circuit views eligibility under 101. To date, the courts have refused to apply the USPTO’s guidelines.
The current rigged system is killing innovation in the United States. In this time of special prosecutors, it is appropriate for one to be appointed to investigate exactly how we got here. There are many questions that need to be answered:
After spending the last 15 years dealing with patent issues, my advice to inventors and small companies is to not waste their time and money spinning their wheels in the current patent system. It takes too many years and often millions of dollars to secure a patent, only to have it taken away by a hostile IPR process. The USPTO has the most technically competent examiners in the world. These highly qualified experts in their field work diligently to issue quality patents, only to have their work erased by the PTAB and the courts. Despite their efforts, the value of the patents they carefully issue is often worth less than toilet paper. The AIA has reduced once valuable patent ownership into a fraudulent representation of what it used to signify.
While the Silicon Valley conspires to steal intellectual property and stifle innovation, supported by the PTAB and the court system, China’s Shenzhen is emerging as a technical powerhouse; with plans to install 7,000 new 5G base stations this year alone. If the Silicon Valley continues their suppression of technological innovation, they will be displaced by Shenzhen as the hi-tech leaders of the world.
If the United States is to lead the world again in patent protection and innovation, the AIA must first be repealed and replaced with a set of laws that protect innovators and offers them the opportunity to profit from their inventions. The patent issuance process should be streamlined. It currently takes many years to issue a single patent, often followed by several years and potentially millions of dollars in post-grant defense costs. Reduce the issue time to one year and allow a six-month post-issue period for any challenges, which should all be handled by technical experts at the USPTO. The USPTO can fund these changes by increasing patent filing and issue fees. It is preferable for an inventor to spend $30,000 in fees for a patent’s issue within a reasonable amount of time than to get stuck in a process that takes years for issuance followed by more years and millions of dollars to defend.
Is Silicon Valley attempting to turn us into a corporatocracy through massive political contributions and their influence over policy making? Have they become too big and too controlling? Does the AIA rise to the level of fostering antitrust and anti-competitive practices described in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890)? Did its passage by Congress and its eventual implementation violate any antitrust or anti-competitive laws? Was the AIA a collaboration between paid politicians, the Silicon Valley and the USPTO to stifle competition? Only a special prosecutor can answer these questions.
Some have made the case that the AIA has all the ingredients of antitrust. It has undoubtedly given the upper hand to the infringers and makes it nearly impossible for the small inventor to monetize their inventions and intellectual property. One thing is certain; if the AIA had been in place 40 years ago, the world would never have known Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell or Mark Zuckerberg. The tech giants of the time, IBM and Texas Instruments, would have used the PTAB to eliminate them in the same way Apple and Google do today.
It’s time to take a serious look at breaking up monopolistic corporations like Facebook, Google and Amazon. Facebook and Google, especially, control the flow of information in the United States and worldwide. They are restricting the free flow of ideas, news and opinions, and manipulate search engine and newsfeed results for their own purposes. With some obvious exceptions like child pornography, sex trafficking, drugs and harmful scams, they should not be the arbiters that decide which information people receive. They have to cease in being a political platform. Information should flow freely without going through a corporation’s biased filters.
Recently, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and Silicon Valley investor and former mentor to Mark Zuckerberg, Roger McNamee, have publicly called for the breakup of Facebook. In addition to Facebook, McNamee is also calling for the breakup of Google and Amazon, which he says have all undermined democracy, violated user privacy and gained monopoly power. The transformation of the U.S. patent system over the past decade is evidence of the harm caused when companies like these are allowed to monopolize their industries. These powerful providers of information have become “governments in waiting.” Capitalism only thrives when the rules encourage innovation and competition.
I am not making accusations. I am only hoping that we can dig deep and get to the bottom of what happened that caused the radical transformation of American patent law and injured so many inventors and stakeholders. We need the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate these matters. Every day I wake up and work diligently to move Voip-Pal forward towards monetization. We are no stranger to the landmines which have been laid by the AIA, but we will keep battling until we succeed. As long as I am breathing, I will continue to fight for each of the more than 4,600 shareholders I represent. America will always be the greatest country for freedom and justice in the world.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Photo by iqoncept
ID: 10088061
Emil Malak is the largest single shareholder of Voip-Pal.com, Inc., a publicly traded company where he serves as a Director and Chief Executive Officer. He has spent the last 16 years overseeing the development of the company’s intellectual property comprised of more than twenty telecommunications patents in the United States and several international patents in Europe, India, Canada and Indonesia. In addition to his work as Voip-Pal’s CEO, Mr. Malak has spent the last 7 years involved with a medical research team of doctors, serving as the chairman of the board of Thorne BioMed Ltd. They are currently conducting cancer research in Germany where they are committed to pursuing a possible reduction to cancer metastasis.
For more information or to contact Emil, please visit his company profile page.
www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/05/28/1851157/0/en/Voip-Pal-com-Announces-the-Patent-Trial-and-Appeal-Board-Rejected-Apple-s-Request-for-Rehearing.html
BELLEVUE, Washington, May 28, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to provide an update on its current legal activities:
Recently, Voip-Pal CEO, Emil Malak authored an op-ed on the current status of the United States patent system. In his article, Mr. Malak calls for revamping the current patent system and praises the efforts of USPTO Director Andrei Iancu, who Mr. Malak believes is determined to correct the problems at the USPTO to better protect inventors and encourage innovation.
The op-ed was published on IPWatchdog.com. IPWatchdog.com has been recognized by their peers as “one of the leading sources for news, information, analysis and commentary in the patent and innovation industries”. The article can be viewed on IPWatchdog.com or at the Company’s website www.voip-pal.com
CEO, Emil Malak, stated, “We are very pleased with the PTAB’s decision to deny Apple’s request for a rehearing. For the second time in recent months three senior PTAB judges have sided with Voip-Pal. They have confirmed the two challenged patents on their merits and rejected Apple’s accusations and innuendo. Since we launched our first legal actions in 2016 our patents have been heavily challenged and we expect more challenges may come. We are very confident in the strength of our patents and we believe they will survive any challenges that may come our way based on their technical merits.”
“The current patent system favors the tech giants of Silicon Valley making it difficult for small companies to assert their patents against infringement. However, we are determined to see this through until the very end. The defendants, Apple, Verizon, AT&T, Twitter and Amazon are working together and will do whatever they can to drag this process out. We want everyone to know we are not going away. We will continue this fight until we reach a settlement, sell the Company or have our day in court. Eventually the defendants will have to deal with us and our patents will prevail. Patience is a virtue”
About Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Any forecast of future financial performance is a "forward looking statement" under securities laws. Such statements are included to allow potential investors the opportunity to understand management’s beliefs and opinions with respect to the future so that they may use such beliefs and opinions as one factor among many in evaluating an investment.
Corporate Website: www.voip-pal.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
THE PTAB IS FINALLY DONE!!! VPLM 8-0 VS Unified Patents, T and BIGGEST, LONGEST CHALLENGES OF ALL...aapl! aapl LOSES!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OS HAS DROPPED TO 1.75B. CEOS
BUYOUT OFFER, EMIL WAS OFFERED $150m.
Voip-Pal’s Board of Directors Has Rejected a Formal Offer from Dr. Gil Amelio and Associates to Purchase CEO Emil Malak’s Shares and Take Over Control of the Company
VPLMs data shows they are out of cash, commonsense is VERY concerned over this. The last Q alone cost $974,427 in expenses and they have $390,025 left. Sell shares machine in full effect. They made a bunch off that initial Pump and Dump cycle and burning through it since. But now, they can't get the price over $.03 really because the weight of the OS is too high, so millions more need to be dumped EVERY single month going forward.
*******WARNING ********
FALSE CLAIMS BEING MADE IN ORDER TO LOWER VPLM PPS
ALL LAWSUITS ARE MOVING FORWARD THROUGH
APPEAL OR OTHERWISE
EUROPEAN UNION IS UP NEXT, SHORTLY
VERY SIMPLE VPLM THEME:
VPLM HAS BEEN GRANTED 26 PATENTS IN THE U.S., THE E.U., INDIA, INDONESIA, BRAZIL AND CANADA!
VPLM WILL PROSECUTE THOSE PATENTS AND HAS GONE 8-0 IN PATENT CHALLENGES AT PTAB
VPLM HAS NEVER MADE A NEW LOW UNDER EMIL MALAK, ALTHOUGH VPLM HAS MADE THREE NEW HIGHS UNDER EMIL
NO QUESTION, VPLM IS VOLATILE; VPLM IS FIGHTING SOME OF THE LARGEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING
RETAIL SHAREHOLDERS INTERESTS DIMINISHING AND SHARES HITTING THE FLOAT CONSISTENTLY WITH TONS OF STOCK ISSUED OVER PAST YEARS!
DEFINITION OF TOXIC IN THIS ARENA! ITS RIGHT THERE IN THE FILING!
REMEMBER, VPLMS IP MIGHT BE WORTH BILLIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Continued chaos about the patent eligibility of non-physical technological advancements imposes devastating costs on innovators and industry.” – InvestPic counsel, Bill Abrams
On May 15, SAP America, Inc. filed a respondent’s brief with the Supreme Court in InvestPic, LLC v. SAP America Inc., a case in which InvestPic’s patent claims covering systems and methods for performing statistical analyses of investment information were invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Petitioner InvestPic is asking the nation’s highest court to determine whether the “physical realm” test for patent eligibility under Section 101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied contravenes both the Patent Act and SCOTUS precedent. SAS’ brief contends in response that the mentions of “physical realm” are scant in the case record and that the present case provides a “textbook application” of Supreme Court precedent on claims involving mathematical equations.
InvestPic’s U.S. Patent No. 6349291, Method and System for Analysis, Display and Dissemination of Financial Information Using Resampled Statistical Methods claims a method that involves selecting a sample space, including an investment data sample, generating a distribution function using a re-sampled statistical method and a bias parameter that determines a degree of randomness in a resampling process, and generating a plot of the distribution function. SAP America filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ‘291 patent in the Northern District of Texas in 2016 and, in 2017, the district court declared the challenged claims invalid under Section 101 on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The Federal Circuit’s decision on appeal was first issued in May 2018, before the opinion was modified that August. In affirming the lower court’s invalidity findings, the CAFC panel of Circuit Judges Alan Lourie, Kathleen O’Malley and Richard Taranto noted that the appellate court may assume that claimed techniques are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant” yet may still be determined to be patent-ineligible subject matter:
“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.”
The Federal Circuit’s discussion of the non-physical aspects of InvestPic’s claimed invention mainly take place in the context of discussing other cases decided by the appellate court in which physical aspects of the claimed invention led to determinations that the invention was patent-eligible. In 2016’s McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., the challenged claims were directed to the display of lip synchronization and facial expressions of animated characters, which the court determined was physical, unlike InvestPic’s invention, which claimed no improved display mechanism. Likewise, in 2017’s Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, the claimed improvement was implemented in a physical tracking system. By contrast, the Federal Circuit held that InvestPic’s improvement in the selection and mathematical analysis of information followed by display of the results wasn’t an improvement in the physical realm despite the fact that some claims required databases or processors.
InvestPic’s petition contends that the Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement ignores the primacy of preemption avoidance in Section 101 jurisprudence stemming from Supreme Court case law. In 19th Century cases such as Le Roy v. Tatham (1852) and O’Reilly v. Morse (1853), the Supreme Court struck down patent claims that were overbroad in a way that would preempt future innovation. However, in 1981’s Diamond v. Diehr, the Court upheld claims involving a mathematical equation because only a specific application of the equation was claimed. The Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement is detached from Section 101 preemption jurisprudence, InvestPic argues, despite the fact that preemption concerns are at the center of the Alice patent eligibility test in which the “physical realm” requirement was applied.
InvestPic also contends that the Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement exists in conflict with Congressional allowance of patents on novel processes that are executed by computers. Section 101 of the U.S. patent law allows for the issue of a patent for a “new and useful process” and “process” as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 100(b) includes “a new use of a known process,” such as the ‘291 patent’s use of the known process of resampling in the new application for investment portfolio analysis. Changes to U.S. patent law under the 2011 America Invents Act didn’t amend the definition of “process” in Section 100 and the patent-eligibility of inventions that didn’t exist in the physical realm led to the proliferation of calculator patents in the 1970s and digital patents in the 1990s, the latter period including the “PageRank” algorithm granted to Google.
The application of Section 101 jurisprudence has led to major patent-eligibility concerns in valuable and rapidly growing tech sectors. InvestPic cites to data published in July 2016 by IPWatchdog Founder Gene Quinn, which showed extremely low allowance rates in certain tech sectors post-Alice, including a 1.3 percent allowance rate in Art Unit 3689, which covers financial data processing patent applications. InvestPic also cites an October 2018 guest post on PatentlyO penned by Santa Clara University Law School Professor Colleen Chien which showed that art units affected by Alice saw a rise in office actions that rejected applications on Section 101 grounds, from 25% of all rejections pre-Alice up to 75% after the Alice decision.
The lack of predictability in patent-eligibility matters has led the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to release revised guidance on Section 101 eligibility this January. InvestPic cites this updated guidance as a result of the “crisis for invention posed by the lower courts’ [Section] 101 morass.” Petitioners also argue that the present case presents an ideal vehicle to restore consistency of the application of Section 101. Unlike the claims in Alice, the invention covered by the ‘291 patent claims is not a trivial coding project and the patent survived Section 102 anticipation and Section 103 obviousness challenges in reexamination proceedings at the USPTO, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and an appeal of those proceedings to the Federal Circuit, says InvestPic. Further, the ‘291 patent has been cited by more than 50 other issued patents, proving both the narrowness and non-preemptive nature of the patent claims.
In SAP America’s response brief, filed May 15, it argues that InvestPic overstates the application of the “physical realm” requirement, as the phrase only appears twice in the Federal Circuit’s decision. A “cursory look at the patent claims” defeats the physical realm argument, as they require physical elements such as databases and processors, which the Federal Circuit held to be generic computing components. SAP also argues that the decision is consistent with 80 years of Supreme Court precedent on the patent-ineligibility of mathematical expressions or formulas in cases such as Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America (1939), Gottschalk v. Benson(1972) and Parker v. Flook (1978).
Because InvestPic’s patent claims elements in the physical realm, SAP argues that the present case isn’t a suitable vehicle for deciding the issue of the Federal Circuit’s test. SAP also cites Federal Circuit decisions following InvestPic in which software patent claims have been upheld as eligible under Section 101, thus contradicting the notion that the appellate court has adopted such a test; these decisions include Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. and Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC (both 2018).
SAP further pushes back against InvestPic’s contention that an intra-circuit split on the application of Aliceexists. InvestPic had cited cases such as DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.(2014) and Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (2015) to argue that some Federal Circuit panels held that the absence of preemption conferred patent-eligibility, while others held that preemption was only relevant as a factor. “To be sure, some of these decisions discuss preemption in greater depth,” SAP argues, but none of the cases expressly held what InvestPic contended. While InvestPic’s claims survived Section 102 and Section 103 challenges in other proceedings, SAP notes that Section 101 statutory subject matter is a different matter than Section 102 novelty, noting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012) expressly refused patent-eligibility inquiries outside of Section 101.
Bill Abrams of Foster Pepper PLLC’s Intellectual Property Group and Counsel of Record for InvestPic in its appeal to the Supreme Court, sent the following comments to IPWatchdog:
“InvestPic v. SAP Americainvolves perhaps the most important issue in patent law today—what it means for an idea to be ‘abstract.’ Are software and other computer-implemented inventions ‘abstract’ and, therefore, ineligible for patenting? The answer dramatically impacts patent law and innovation across our modern, digital economy….
“Despite the Supreme Court’s preemption test to determine if an invention is an ineligible abstract idea, the Federal Circuit, in InvestPic and other cases, evaluated the physicality or tangibility of inventive ideas, rather than if the claimed invention would preempt basic fields of technology. This competing understanding of what constitutes an ‘abstract idea’ has resulted in irreconcilable decisions by different Federal Circuit panels. The ensuing uncertainty has made it nearly impossible to predict what inventions are eligible for patent protection. Such uncertainty damages the predictability of the incentive structure that is so central to the United States’ innovation landscape.
“This is why 18 amici, in seven separate briefs, have urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hear this case. The amici recognize the “physical realm” test’s potential to gut patent protection in some of the highest-growth sectors of our economy….
“Continued chaos about the patent-eligibility of non-physical technological advancements imposes devastating costs on innovators and industry. Review and intervention by the Supreme Court would bring much-needed clarity and stability to this vital question of law affecting digital innovations at the heart of our modern economy.”
In the meantime, the coming weekshould provide an indication of whether or not Congress will get to the matter first.
Steve Brachmann is a freelance journalist located in Buffalo, New York. He has worked professionally as a freelancer for more than a decade. He writes about technology and innovation. His work has been published by The Buffalo News, The Hamburg Sun, USAToday.com, Chron.com, Motley Fool and OpenLettersMonthly.com. Steve also provides website copy and documents for various business clients and is available for research projects and freelance work.
Tags:CAFC, Capitol Hill, Congress, Federal Circuit, innovation, intellectual property, InvestPic LLC, McRo v. Bandai Namco Games America, patent, patent eligibility, patent eligible, Patent Reform, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, PTAB, SAP America v. InvestPic, SCOTUS, US Supreme Court
Posted In:Capitol Hill, Courts, Federal Circuit, Government, Inventors Information, IP News, IPWatchdog Articles, Litigation, Patents, Technology & Innovation, US Supreme Court, USPTO
GOVERNMENTAL/LEGISLATIVE TIDE TURNING IN
VPLM'S FAVOR?
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |