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.
Ya as soon as I saw insiders increase available options in January it was a signal to buy more cheap stock. The real gamesters are not playing for chicken trios brother haha everyone is loading up for these pre-trial conference dates. Looked back at the numbers lol 120,000,000 million shares bought between .016 and .02+ last 3 months steady haha this will continue until the court is forced to pressure the defendants to talk settlements there are limits to delay tactics hence the hiring of trial lawyers lol. Too funny all those buyers are smarter than you you gave Barbara .025 while you kicked and screamed about insider selling people are happy to give them .016 here. You're eating week old chicken trios for 6 months now. Hahaha it's OK brother you have no idea what's happening its gonna be alright even for you. Lol
Can’t see the forest through the trees?
Class Beneficial Owner Information Number of Shares
Percentage of
Class (%)
Common Stock Emil Malak (1) 1,835,028,500 (2) 37.47
Common Stock Jin Kuang (3) 12,000,000 (4) 0.39
Common Stock Kevin Williams (5) 40,000,000 (6) 1.29
Common Stock Dennis Chang (7) 30,300,000 (8) 0.98
Common Stock Clifton Saylor (9) 125,333,334 (10) 3.93
Officers and Directors as a Group 2,042,661,834 40.01
Series A Preferred Stock (11) Emil Malak (1) 787,916 (12) 100
Officers and Directors as a Group 787,916 100
(1) Emil Malak is our President, Chief Executive Officer and director.
(2) Represents warrants to purchase 1,790,028,550 shares plus options to purchase 45,000,000 shares.
(3) Jin Kuang is our Chief Financial Officer.
(4) Represents options to purchase 12,000,000 shares.
(5) Kevin Williams is our director.
(6) Represents warrants to purchase 30,000,000 shares plus options to purchase 10,000,000 shares.
(7) Dennis Chang is our director.
(8) Includes 5,300,000 shares plus warrants to purchase 25,000,000 shares.
(9) Clifton Saylor is our director.
(10) Includes 87,333,334 shares held by the Saylor Marketing, Inc., Profit Sharing Plan, of which Mr. Saylor is the trustee, and 13,000,000 shares held by Mr. Saylor directly, plus warrants to purchase 5,000,000 shares and options to purchase 20,000,000 shares each held by Mr. Saylor directly.
(11) Each share of our Series A preferred stock entitles the holder to 1,550 votes per share on any matter that may come before a meeting or vote of our stockholders.
(12) Represents votes equivalent to 1,221,269,800 shares of our common stock.
READ THIS OUT TODAY.LOOK AT THE WARRANTS.THESE GUYS ARE GREEDY.UNREAL.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14C
Information Statement Pursuant to Section 14(c)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Check the appropriate box:
? Preliminary Information Statement
? Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14c-5(d)(2))
? Definitive Information Statement
VoIP-PAL.COM INC.
(Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)
Payment of Filing Fee (Check all boxes that apply):
? No fee required
? Fee paid previously with preliminary materials
? Fee computed on table in exhibit required by Item 25(b) of Schedule 14A (17 CFR 240.14a-101) per Item 1 of this Schedule and Exchange Act Rules 14c-5(g) and 0-11
(1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
(2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
(3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
(4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
(5) Total fee paid:
VoIP-PAL.COM INC.
7215 Bosque Boulevard, Suite 102
Waco, TX 76710-4020
March 7, 2024
Dear Stockholder:
We are furnishing the enclosed information statement to you in connection with a proposal to increase our authorized capital from 5,000,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001, to 8,000,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 (the “Authorized Capital Increase”).
WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU FOR A PROXY AND YOU ARE REQUESTED NOT TO SEND US A PROXY.
Our board of directors reviewed and approved the Authorized Capital Increase by consent resolutions dated February 15, 2024. The holders of a majority of our issued and outstanding stock also approved the Authorized Capital Increase by written consent dated effective February 15, 2024. However, pursuant to applicable securities laws the Authorized Capital Increase will not be effected until at least 20 days after a definitive information statement has been sent to our stockholders who did not previously consent to the Authorized Capital Increase.
By Order of the Board of Directors:
/s/ Emil Malak
Emil Malak
Chief Executive Officer
INFORMATION STATEMENT
Introduction
The holders of a majority of our issued and outstanding stock have taken an action by written consent without a meeting, pursuant to Section 78.207 of the Nevada Revised Statutes (the “NRS”), to approve an increase in our authorized capital from 5,00,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001, to 8,000,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 (the “Authorized Capital Increase”). The purpose of the Authorized Capital Increase is to provide flexibility to issue additional shares of our common stock, which management believes will better position us to attract financing.
This information statement is being filed pursuant to Section 14(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and provided to our stockholders pursuant to Rule 14c-2 under the Exchange Act.
WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A PROXY AND YOU ARE REQUESTED NOT TO SEND US A PROXY.
We were incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada and our common stock is registered under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act. Our common stock is currently quoted on the OTCQB tier of the OTC Markets under the trading symbol VPLM. We are a fully-reporting Exchange Act company.
Information about us can be found our most recent annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Additional information about us can be found in our public filings that can be accessed electronically by means of the SEC’s home page on the Internet at http://www.sec.gov as well as by other means from the offices of the SEC.
We will incur all costs associated with preparing, printing and mailing this information statement.
Item 1. Information Required by Items of Schedule 14A
Date, Time and Place Information
There will not be a meeting of our stockholders to approve the Authorized Capital Increase and we are not required to hold a meeting under the NRS when a corporate action has been approved by the written consent of holders of a majority of our stock entitled to vote on the matter. This information statement is being mailed on or about March 8, 2024 to the holders of our stock as of February 15, 2024.
Dissenters’ Right of Appraisal
Under the NRS, our stockholders do not have dissenters’ rights in connection with the Authorized Capital Increase.
Voting Securities and Principal Holders Thereof
The record date for the determination of stockholders entitled to consent to the Authorized Capital Increase was February 15, 2024 (the “Record Date”). As of that date, we had 3,062,698,692 issued and outstanding shares of common stock, par value $0.001, plus 787,916 issued and outstanding shares of Series A preferred stock, par value $0.01. Each share of our common stock entitles the holder thereof to one vote per share on any matter that may come before a meeting or vote of our stockholders, while each share of our Series A preferred stock entitles the holder thereof to 1,550 votes per share on any such matter.
The Authorized Capital Increase was approved by the holders of a majority of our stock entitled to vote on the Record Date. The vote required to approve the Authorized Capital Increase was 50% of the shares entitled to vote plus one vote, a simple majority. The actual affirmative vote was 65.33% of the shares.
Under applicable securities laws, we are not permitted to effect the Authorized Capital Increase until at least 20 days after we distribute a definitive information statement to our stockholders who have not previously consented to the corporate action.
Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management
The following table sets forth the ownership, as of the Record Date, of our common stock by each of our directors, by all of our executive officers and directors as a group and by each person known to us who is the beneficial owner of more than 5% of any class of our securities. As of the Record Date there were 3,053,173,940 issued and outstanding shares of our common stock and 787,916 issued and outstanding shares of our Series A preferred stock. All persons named have sole or shared voting and investment power with respect to the securities, except as otherwise noted. The number of securities described below includes shares which the beneficial owner described has the right to acquire within 60 days of the date of this information statement.
For purposes of computing the percentage of outstanding shares of our common stock held by each person or group of persons, any shares that such person or persons has the right to acquire within 60 days of the date of this information statement is deemed to be outstanding, but is not deemed to be outstanding for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership of any other person. The inclusion herein of any shares listed as beneficially owned does not constitute an admission of beneficial ownership.
Class Beneficial Owner Information Number of Shares
Percentage of
Class (%)
Common Stock Emil Malak (1) 1,835,028,500 (2) 37.47
Common Stock Jin Kuang (3) 12,000,000 (4) 0.39
Common Stock Kevin Williams (5) 40,000,000 (6) 1.29
Common Stock Dennis Chang (7) 30,300,000 (8) 0.98
Common Stock Clifton Saylor (9) 125,333,334 (10) 3.93
Officers and Directors as a Group 2,042,661,834 40.01
Series A Preferred Stock (11) Emil Malak (1) 787,916 (12) 100
Officers and Directors as a Group 787,916 100
(1) Emil Malak is our President, Chief Executive Officer and director.
(2) Represents warrants to purchase 1,790,028,550 shares plus options to purchase 45,000,000 shares.
(3) Jin Kuang is our Chief Financial Officer.
(4) Represents options to purchase 12,000,000 shares.
(5) Kevin Williams is our director.
(6) Represents warrants to purchase 30,000,000 shares plus options to purchase 10,000,000 shares.
(7) Dennis Chang is our director.
(8) Includes 5,300,000 shares plus warrants to purchase 25,000,000 shares.
(9) Clifton Saylor is our director.
(10) Includes 87,333,334 shares held by the Saylor Marketing, Inc., Profit Sharing Plan, of which Mr. Saylor is the trustee, and 13,000,000 shares held by Mr. Saylor directly, plus warrants to purchase 5,000,000 shares and options to purchase 20,000,000 shares each held by Mr. Saylor directly.
(11) Each share of our Series A preferred stock entitles the holder to 1,550 votes per share on any matter that may come before a meeting or vote of our stockholders.
(12) Represents votes equivalent to 1,221,269,800 shares of our common stock.
Amendment of Charter, Bylaws or Other Documents
We are undertaking the Authorized Capital Increase to reorganize our capital structure and provide flexibility to issue additional shares of our common stock, which management believes will better position us to attract financing.
The Authorized Capital Increase will be effective upon filing a Certificate of Amendment with the Nevada Secretary of State pursuant to Section 78.209 of the NRS.
Item 2. Statement that Proxys are not Solicited
WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU FOR A PROXY AND YOU ARE REQUESTED NOT TO SEND US A PROXY.
Item 3. Interest of Certain Persons in or in Opposition to Matters to be Acted Upon
No director, officer, associate of any director or officer, or any other person, has any substantial interest, direct or indirect, by security holdings or otherwise, in the Authorized Capital Increase that is not shared by all of our stockholders pro rata and in accordance with their respective interests.
Item 4. Proposals by Security Holders
None.
Item 5. Delivery of Documents to Security Holders Sharing an Address
We will deliver only one copy of this information statement to multiple stockholders sharing an address unless we have received contrary instructions from one or more of such stockholders.
We undertake to deliver promptly upon written or oral request a separate copy of this information statement to any stockholder at a shared address to which a single copy of the document was delivered. A stockholder can notify us that he or she wishes to receive a separate copy of this information statement or any future Information Statement by writing to us at 7215 Bosque Boulevard, Suite 102, Waco, TX 76710-4020, or by telephoning us at 1-954-495-4600.
Stockholders sharing the same address can also request delivery of a single copy of annual reports to security holders, information statements or Notices of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials if they are receiving multiple of such documents in the same manner.
By Order of the Board of Directors:
Date: March 7, 2024
/s/ Emil Malak
Emil Malak
Chief Executive Officer
I understand that the truth hurts. Those with personal integrity are the ones that can accept it. My challenge doesn't go away in then meantime. You can either meet it or you can't. My crystal ball says that you can't and I have yet to be proven wrong!!
"My challenge stands."
So does a dead tree in the forest, and nobody cares about that either.
My challenge stands. You will never meet it. Accept the truth!
Even if this were ever it would be far, far from the so-called worth of the patents that the CEO has spouted off about and that should actually be an insult. If they took an offer like this it would only validate that the patents aren't worth anything remotely near as claimed. The smart ones know that they aren't. No company in the entire world has Microsoft type revenues at stake and with a price per share below .02 When will people get this?
NITE PUT ON THE BREAKS.MAYBE WE STAY DOWN FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS.THAT WILL BE GREAT.
Nothing substantive yet. The last filing was VOIP-PAL’s Response/Objection to Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Defendants are entitled to file a Reply (usually have about a week to do that), the Court could permit VOIP-PAL to file a Sur-Reply (sometimes granted, sometimes not), then the Court may or may not have a hearing on the matter. If the Court denies the Motion (it usually takes MONTHS for a federal court to rule on a dispositive motion), then the case keeps moving forward. If the Court grants the motion (presuming the Defendants are asking the Court to find completely in their favor), the case will be over unless it’s appealed.
BTW, really funny seeing deerballs back. I guess they were making too much fun of him on the other website....he may be fired soon for lack of effort.
Pointing out the truth.
THE LAST TIME IT WAS 5,5 MILLION AND IT WAS REAL.I BOUGHT SOME OF THAT 5,5 MILLION.SO I THINK THIS 5 MILLION IS REAL TOO.
Do you think that 5 mil offer is real? Try buying it BIG BUCKS...it will disappear faster than you can put your order in!!
Hahaha what are you in control of your microwave? Haha have a good one brother weather is too nice today gotta go take it in. Great day one of my other stocks that I've been waiting on to start its move has finally come haha you know the way it is when one starts to go they all start to go. Lol
Today is Thursday. This morning it was Thursday. This afternoon it remains Thursday. Tonight it will still be Thursday. Get back to me when it is Friday when it is in line with the end of week predictions all the calendar pundits have been pushing. Means nothing as that will never happen.
I’m a genius, I tell you, a genius!!!
We’re back. Here comes the chatter. Here comes the sun. Do do do do!
Emil is just working on tying up loose ends.
Just wait.
CaaaablammmO
The usual suspect wannabe pumpers been showing up lately, right on cue. Too bad you can't pump a dead horse... They don't care. Some just want their paycheck and some think that can get the price up even tho they can't anymore. Pathetic..
I've told you more than once that the die hard beliebers informed us all initially about the Allbright rocket docket but they have also been proven wrong, as it's actually a rock at the end of the dock.
Like Bono said..."every gambler knows...that to lose...is what they're really here for". (the gamblers being the share holders)
Vplm....home of the neurotics...
LMAO.I AM IN CONTROL BRO.NO WORRIES:)))))I KEEP MAKING CHICKEN TRIOS BRO:))SELL AND SALVAGE WHAT EVER YOU CAN.
Just love being in this stock. It is a real joke.
Judge Albrights calendar now goes out to June 3rd. Still not one item VOIP related on his calendar. How do the believers justify that. I remember getting involved and everyone saying Judge Albright is known as the "Rocket Docket" He also pushes hard for a settlement prior to trial.
That was 1H 23. Then for some reason the trial is delayed to Oct. Then delayed further. I remember the days to follow talking with Rich and he says it should be rescheduled prior to year end. Emil then said shortly after year end. Later i talk to Rich and he says the preliminary date is Feb 14th and that they can't release anything until it is on the judges docket.
Now we see documents that indicate the date slid all the way to August. Still no PR from the company. That indicates to me that the date is not solid. With insiders selling like they need out now and the date of a trial not being PRed it is really hard to believe.
What the hell is Emil and the team doing?
Buddy you have no understanding of what is going on. They want as much as they can pick up here mms are working it every time you post your confusion is obvious. You're lucky you got caught with .025s. Haha you're gonna have more stock that way than you would have flipping in the dingy. Haha
THIS IS INTERESTING.LAST MONTH AROUND THE SAME TIME FIRST WEEK OF FEBRUARY WE HAD A SELLER FOR 5,5 MILLION.
NOW TODAY AROUND THE SAME TIME IN MARCH WE HAVE A 5 MILLION.SELLER.ANY TAKERS????
ORCA
Member Level
Re: InvestorinAZ post# 128214
Friday, February 09, 2024 1:18:17 PM
Post#
128215
of 128628
5,5 million at .016 is a tremendous negative.I have never seen such a big block on the offer.I am hoping whom ever it is does a fire sell,open market.We maybe get some shares in the .006s:)))
$.0162 Well, being the real VPLM fun is about to begin very shortly, I figure I might as well join "the fun here".
It is amazing how a 5mm offer is so TOTALLY MISREAD; so much of the market is not what first comes to mind. Does anyone believe if you have 5mm to sell you'd just throw it out, SHOWING OFFER SIZE???? Might it be an entity trying to scare folks into selling, or manipulation in some other way? Do ya, huh, do ya? Ok...
The real fun is about to begin... Wish the GREEN here was more vibrant!
NITE OFFERING 5 MILLION SHARES AT .0164.UNREAL.LMAOOO.I MEAN THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT HAVE THIS AMOUNT OF SHARES ARE INSIDERS AND THE PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT IN THE .005s.HEY NITE COME DOWN LITTLE MAN.SO I CAN TEACH YOU A LITTLE LESSON.PRAY MFs I DO NOT GET IN THE SMALL ACCOUNT.YOU WILL BE SELLING IN THE .01 MF.
Means nothing. Get back to me when they get financial judgements that are in-line with the "billions and billions of ongoing" infringements that the CEO has spoken about. Results matter.
VOIP-PAL.COM INC v. Huawei Technologies Co LTD et al
Texas Northern District Court
Judge: Brantley Starr
Case #: 3:23-cv-00151
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: Jan 20, 2023
Case in other court: Texas Western, 6:21-cv-01247
Docket
Parties (6)
Docket last updated: 03/05/2024 11:59 PM CST
Tuesday, March 05, 2024
106 respm Appendix in Support Tue 03/05 11:25 PM
Appendix in Support filed by VOIP-PAL.com Inc re105 Response/Objection to Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Huff, Winston)
Att: 1 Exhibit(s)
105 respm Response/Objection Tue 03/05 11:24 PM
RESPONSE AND OBJECTION filed by VOIP-PAL.com Inc re:79 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings (Huff, Winston)
104 respm Brief/Memorandum In Support Tue 03/05 9:53 PM
Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by VOIP-PAL.com Inc re103 MOTION to Strike81 Appendix in Support (Huff, Winston)
103 motion Strike Tue 03/05 9:52 PM
MOTION to Strike81 Appendix in Support filed by VOIP-PAL.com Inc (Huff, Winston)
Att: 1 Proposed Order
Monday, March 04, 2024
102 notice Notice (Other) Mon 03/04 1:38 PM
NOTICE of Special Master's Certification of Hours and Costs filed by Special Master (Denton, Daniel)
Wednesday, February 28, 2024
101 order Order on Motion to Expedite Wed 02/28 10:10 AM
ELECTRONIC ORDER denying99 Motion to Expedite. See Brittan Commc'ns Intern. Corp. v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 313 F.3d 899, 904 (5th Cir. 2002). And see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 2/28/2024) (chmb)
Tuesday, February 27, 2024
100 respm Response/Objection Tue 02/27 5:00 PM
RESPONSE filed by Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co Ltd, Huawei Device Co Ltd, Huawei Device USA Inc, Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, Huawei Technologies USA Inc re:99 MOTION to Expedite Ruling (Cornelia, Matthew)
500K BLOCKS DUMPAGE.I AM GLAD I MADE MY CHICKEN TRIO TODAY:)))LOOKING FORWARD FOR THEM TO SELL,SO I CAN RELOAD AND SELL AGAIN FOR ANOTHER CHICKEN TRIO.MY SMALL ACCOUNT GOT THEM BY THE BALLS,UNTIL THE BIG ONE START TO PROFIT IN THE .023 AND ABOVE.WHEN EVER THAT HAPPENS.10 YEARS FROM NOW????20 YEARS FROM NOW???NO PROBLEM.ORCA IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE.SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR MY CHICKEN TRIOS:))))
Man, this board has gotten quiet.
Is it possible reality has slipped in?
I would be very curious to know what the people who may have bought either January or May of last year are thinking? I mean the share price spiked on "news", which clearly in retrospect can be seen to have been nothing. Of course it also spiked in 2013 and 2017 on no real news. So, I'd love to know, do you all really care if the news is fake, as long as it gives opportunities to dump your stock on someone else? Or are you still ignoring all the evidence that the company officers are just dumping stock and prolonging any news for their own gain because you truly believe that beyond their apparent greed, they really want to share any awards with you......after the lawyers take most of it anyway?
As a side note, does it bug you at all that Emil claims to have never sold any shares for gain,......all the while, giving shares to his wife so she can? I mean, when she's on a selling spree, it's around $22k per week. Not a bad paycheck.
One last side note....on the other website, someone posted a pic of Barbara. I'm pretty sure that's the wrong Barbara.
Just some random thoughts of course.
At this juncture with the jockeying for more insider options and the authorized share proposals / defendants exhausting delay tactics / pre-trial conference dates on 2 key cases / hard trial dates on the calendar / portfolio standing not only holding but expanding / expanding global patent coverage / trial lawyers being added by multiple parties. Its my opinion the plaintiffs legal posture is transitioning into an offensive strategy to leverage settlement options ahead of trials. My money is on leveraging options towards settlement resolutions favoring the plaintiff. Go team lol. Have a great day its a beauty
OK, interesting. So lets focus on you....
First off, telling someone else to ignore my posts, but you reading them, sounds a bit disingenuous.
Secondly, I never said the lawsuit has zero chance of winning. In fact, from what I've seen, they've already settled one.
I did say, based on Nevada corporate laws, they have this structured so they have to keep any money for themselves....and it appears on the first
settlement, this is exactly what they did.
I've said it thousands of times on hundreds of boards, I do not short stocks....even when I know it is the correct strategy.....but shorting a stock around a penny would be idiocy in my opinion. Justify for me why I would short a stock that can only go down by a penny.
You had said back in April of 2023 in your first post, that THAT was the right time to buy in. Ironically, it was, based on your posts, you bought around 4 cents. Two weeks later it's at 10 cents and you post that you will not sell a share.....and you dare to call me dumb?
Fung has nothing to help himself with here. Fung has no skins in the game. Fung likes to teach people willing to learn. Fung has also found out that making fun of
dumb people is just as useful as trying to teach someone who refuses to learn. Fung has been trying to help people on IHUB for almost 25 years now. Fung can now recognize who Fung is wasting time on, but hopes someone else learns from me pointing out illogical thinking.
Lastly, if Fung was wasting money shorting penny stocks, why does Fung only recommend quality stocks on Fung's stock board? Fung is never posting on these penny pump boards like many do around here.
I don't know how much they will make entering here but make they will. Lol
Some of what fung says makes sense and some doesn't . But the issue with many is that he attacks anyone that doesn't see things the way he does. Do you think this stock is a fraud. Are the lawsuits for infringement fake or with zero or little chance of winning? I don't think so. Along with the negatives, there are a lot of positives. Anyone that is invested and thinks it's a fake is shorting the stock and needs to lead people that way. Fung is not trying to help anyone but fung.
I personally think that anyone that buys now has a great chance of making 10x times their money. And if any of the infringement lawsuits are won, the chance to make much more is very possible. I also think that there is a great chance of Amazon being a big player in one way or another.
Why? To live in DeerBalls fantasy world where everything is rainbows and unicorns. If you don't think that Fung brings up valid points you are just another sheep.
THE SELLING CONTINUES TODAY.THEY HATE FLIPPERS.SO THE SELLING MM TRIES TO HAVE IT IN A RANGE FOR ONLY HIM SELLING.F YOU.THAT CRAP IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU MF.
HERE SHE IS.SHE WAS TAKING THE PPS DOWN WITH HER SELLING ALL LAST WEEK.
https://archive.fast-edgar.com/20240304/AIZZB22CZ2222222222P22Z2FGAAZW28BX62/
COMMON 02/26/2024 S 150,000 D $ 0.0163 96,785,805 D
COMMON 02/27/2024 S 30,029 D $ 0.017 96,755,776 D
COMMON 02/27/2024 S 220,000 D $ 0.0163 96,535,776 D
COMMON 02/28/2024 S 169,971 D $ 0.017 96,365,805 D
COMMON 02/28/2024 S 250,000 D $ 0.0165 96,115,805 D
COMMON 02/29/2024 S 200,000 D $ 0.0163 95,915,805 D
COMMON 03/01/2024 S 250,000 D $ 0.0168 95,665,805 D
You are arguing with a six year old post. I have no issue with the facts you present. The problem lies with the predictions, assumptions, and conclusions that you deem to be facts. They are not facts! And the desperate need to convert people to your way of thinking and then calling anyone that doesn’t agree with you childish names. You are so blinded by your need to be validated that you can’t even see the difference between facts and opinions.
Deerballs trying hard to flip this
TREMENDOUS PUNISHMENT TO DB.NO DOUBT.THE MORE THE EMOJIS.THE BIGGER THE PUNISHMENT.KEEP THAT CRAP UP AND SEE HOW LONG YOU WILL BE CRYING MF.
AS FOR ME I KEEP MAKING CHICKEN TRIOS TO SUCKERS LIKE YOU.NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE BIG ACCOUNT.AS I KEEP FLIPPING ON THE SMALL ACCOUNT MAKING CHICKEN TRIOS.PRAY THE BIG ACCOUNT DOES NOT ENTER THE PICTURE.
LMAO.YOU ARE TOAST SIR.REALLY TOAST.WE WILL SEE WHO MAKES MONEY HERE THIS YEAR AGAIN.
BRO IF YOUR LIFE WAS ALL AS SAY IT IS..YOU WOULDNT BE HANGING AROUND HERE DAY IN AND DAY OUT..AS FAR AS CHICKS GO, THE PROFILE PICTURE OF A NAKED DUDE MAKES EVERYONE WONDER, ...WHAT KINDA BONE SMUGGLER ARE YOU?
YEA ALL MY STOCKS ARE TOAST ALRIGHT.THUS I MAKE OVER $21,000.00 PER MONTH SO FAR THIS YEAR.LMAOOOOOO
VPLM IS MY CHICKEN TRIO.STOCK.HERE HAVE SOME TASTE HOW A REAL TRADER MAKES OVER $21 K PER MONTH.LOOK AT THE NUMBERS,FROM ACCOUNTS,AND LOOK AT THE HUGE SMILE ON THIS INCREDIBLE MAN.BTW I HAD A TON OF CHICKS DANCING ALL OVER ME THIS WEEKEND.IT WAS SPECTACULAR.THE HOTTEST CHICKS.WHAT A LIFE ORCA HAS.YOU HAVE TO SEE IT LIVE.
VPLM MADE ME A LOT OF CHICKEN TRIOS.:)))))AND I CONTROL THE SHOW NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.SO ORCA YOU CALL THE CARDS,ON A OVER 3 BILLION SHARE O/S????YUP.HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE???BECAUSE WHEN ORCA SELLS EVEN 100K SHARES.THE WHOLE THING GOES RED.LIKE THEY SAY.DEPENDS WHO THE BUYER OR SELLER IS.THA CHANGES THE OUTCOME.
EXAMPLE.A JELLY BEAN TRADER,LIKE YOU OR ANYONE ELSE CAN PUT 2 MILLION ON THE OFFER.AND MAYBE THEY WILL KEEP BUYING HIS SHARES.THEN ORCA WILL PUT 10K TO 20K SHARES ON THE OFFER.AND THAT WILL STOP TRADING FOR HOURS.
IMAGINE THAT????CRAZY NO????I CAN NOT EXPLAIN IT.FOR OVER 32 YEARS NOW.IF THEY DARE UNDERCUT ME????THEY ARE TOAST.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C38puUQAOTp/
Haha all your stocks are toast stocks and you're playing this one where everyone has .005 stock even long open market participants are in at half your cost lol. Why don't you go out and have some ice cream today and take a breather. The move up is coming when you least expect it. Lol
ZERO VOLUME FOR THE FIRST TIME.PUT A FORK IN THIS B4TCH.
Looks like “honest” Apple is going to be short another $ 2 billion after fine from EU.
😂😂😂
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/04/tech/apple-europe-antitrust-fine-music-streaming/index.html
THESE PEOPLE GOT STOCK IN THE .005.THUS THEY ARE ALWAYS POSSITIVE NOT MATTER WHAT IS GOING ON.WHERE IS THIS DOG DB??I KNOW HE IS PUTTING EMOJIS UNDER MY POSTS,WHAT HE DOES NOT KNOW IS HE IS FING HIMSELF UP BY DOING THAT.AS THE STOCK WILL BE FALLING LOWER AND LOWER.BUT LIKE I SAID::::YOU CAN NOT FIX STUPID THESE DAYS.
I swear, you people should just be labeled "deniers" and get it over with. You deny facts from ANY source!
That wasn't "an artificially created timeline! That was from the moment I first started posting here. I can definitely go back shorter if you like, but nonetheless...it was almost SIX YEARS AGO. The price was 1000% higher then that it is now. OF course you could have waited and FACTS show you should have. How are you now arguing with history?? You could have just bought the S&P 500 and be up 78% today.
BTW, here are your deleted posts that you call "willful blindness"....which on second thought, would be a great alias name for you. Of course YOU can't see them since they've been deleted.
Go to Pacer Monitor & look up the cases.
AS LONG AS THEY PAY ME .0225 I AM OKAY:)))
VVVV LET;S HOPE IT GOES DOWN TO .005 AREA TO LOAD UP AND BRING AVERAGE DOWN.NOTHING IS HAPPENING IN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS ANYWAY.OTHER THAN INSIDERS AND SHARES THAT GOT OFF RESTRICTIONS SELLING HUGE BLOCKS.
Can someone post the link to my 50 cents? Tia
Followers
|
463
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
24
|
Posts (Total)
|
133606
|
Created
|
06/16/10
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators 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: |