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.
3/21. VPLM VWAP=$.0158 VOLUME=1.65mm Offer-side 6 to 1
3/20. VPLM VWAP=$.0156 VOLUME=1.13mm Bid-side nearly all
3/19. VPLM VWAP=$.0159 VOLUME=1.98mm Bid-side 2 to 1
3/18. VPLM VWAP=$.0158 VOLUME=1.74mm Offer-side 3 to 1
3/15. VPLM VWAP=$.0158 VOLUME=636k Bid-side 9x
3/14. VPLM VWAP=$.0159 VOLUME=831k Bid-side 6x
3/13. VPLM VWAP=$.016+ VOLUME=1.3-mm Bid-side 2x minus
A COUPLE OF SCAMBAGS TRYING TO ENTICE BUYING.SO THE INSIDERS CAN SELL HIGHER.IT TRADES BETWEEN .0156 AND .0163.
I AM MAKING MONEY ON BIG BOARDS BRO:)))I AM KICKING THE CRAP OUT OF THE MMs.THEY CAN NOT COMPETE WITH ME THERE
BECAUSE OF THE TREMENDOUS VOLUMES.IN AND OUT.I LOVE IT.SOON I WILL MOVE TO BIG BOARDS 100%.THE LAST WHALE WILL BE LIVING THE PENNY STOCKS.=A COMPLETE DEAD VOLUMES WILL COME ONCE I MOVE COMPLETELY ON THE BIG BOARDS.
VPLM NO WORRIES.I CALL THE CARDS:)))
Buddy your sitting on your hands. I am busy moving money so many ways to go and just for fun may simply make a million free shares of vplm. Lol. Your chicken and pizza strategy is just that chicken and pizza. Come on brother read your posts on all these stocks you're into what are you doing? Lol
I reported this in a more brief way here around 6 mos of a year ago. No one here gives a shit. Once they latch onto the eletist, "true long" mode, wherein Allbright, the emu, etc, are the "gods", they STAY locked into that no matter what is said, reported or transpires. There's a few who realize and listen to such facts and reason. Historically, (that means here..), everything they explain, predict, proselytize, promise, attempt to convince....HAS turned out to be so much hogwash in the long run. Above you see a form of Allbright corruption, we were shown blatant ptab corruption, and they are an arm of the uspto, plus their former leader (I forget her name), all the bullshit PRs over the years, now the disgusting inside selling of shares en masse as fast as they can. Then there was the guilty decisions against the emu and the rest of the then BOD, being found guilty or responsible for unjust financial enrichment and failure of fiduciary duty, by a jury of peers, , etc etc etc etc etc etc......
Keep Selling....the Buyers Thank You!!
It's a good thing Albright is appointed for life. He's getting some heat in Texas....
I wonder if his financials get audited regularly? Not sure if Judges are required to have a blind Trust?
Well, I guess they don't yet....but should.
https://schiff.house.gov/news/press-releases/reps-schiff-johnson-and-spanberger-introduce-justice-is-blind-act-to-limit-judges-stock-trading
If foot = 3 months, looking for a yard, for a possible conclusion this year.
foot #1 = Apr-Jun foot #2 = Jul-Sep foot #3 = Oct-Dec
Announcement of 2 Indian patents also said a couple of companies are interested. The talk must have started. If so, an announcement could come any time. A guess only.
Apr-Jun: Pre-trial conference, VZ and TMUS together. Parties including the Judge should know how much damages are claimed. A willful infringement ruling by a jury entails triple damages including legal expenses and all fees.
Reexamination of RBR patent took about 6 months. MG patent reexamination issue is much simpler. The patent examiner is David England, the same examiner that examined the RBR patent. He did not reject or modify any claim but allowed 8 new claims. VPLM "destroyed" all those Alice claims from prior art, heavily used by the Silicon Valley company defendants, a clueless judge, and the local rules of ND Cal courts.
Bill Parish stepped out from VPLM employment. He is a State recognized (TX-Austin) MODERATOR, NEUTRAL moderator, not a negotiator. A negotiator negotiates for terms on behalf one of the disputing parties. A moderator works out a compromise between two disputing parties, with consent from both parties.
Jul-Sep: VZ. VPLM win in this trial could be a big deal. The judge could cancel the jury trial is the party decide to settle, to avoid triple damages.
News release about three advisors and a share count increase could be efforts to restructure the management and the company that could pursue the remaining cases, while Emil could step down to a less active role. The life of a patent is about 20 years. All guesses, what really will happen is unknown!
RBR case vs. AMZN comes later. Even with top-notch legal team, they can not rewrite the US patent law, invalidate a single claim, argue or throw fluff at the Judge who knows patents. Even the appeals court Re. AMZN Venue transfer ruling (three denials) sided with Judge Albright.
Haha patience is the key
There's also afoot in mouth.... for those who continue to defend and explain how it's all good.......especially "the best position ever" cult.
I guess you don't have one...
If by chance you do have a point, my suggestion would be to grow some hair and cover it up.
The only thing afoot is talk of more court dates with no results. My challenge continues to stand. Get back to me when the company gets financial judgements that are in-line with the "billions and billions" of proclaimed "ongoing" infringements that we have heard about from the CEO and a share price that reflects it.
But, has Discovery been completed?
Wishful thinking, the 04/04/24 trial date is incorrect. Typo…It’s November 4th, 2024. If it were April, when’s the pre-trial date? This would be only 14 days away. It’s November, sorry to say.
RAPZ.THERE IS NOTHING GOING ON WITH THIS POS,OTHER THAN IT PILES UP WITH CASH THE POCKETS OF INSIDERS.THESE DIRTY DOGS,HAVE GOTTEN SOOOOOOO GREEDY.THEY KEEP SELLING EVERY DAY FOR A VERY LONG TIME NOW.THEY ARE GOOD FOR NOTHING ELSE.FIRE THEM ALL.SEND BARBARA TO DELIVER DOMINOS PIZZA ALONG THE MALAKAS.
Rapz, great to hear from you. Missed all your excellent insight regarding vplm. Is it afoot or a yard? The recent T-Mobile court schedule confusion seems to still be at play. What really surprises me is the silence regarding the Amazon 606 case. If discovery is completed, why no updates?
HD,
>>... something is afoot...<<
Not something, but several things afoot. Two trials, TMUS and VZ.
PacerMonitor
pacermonitor.com
=
Sign In ?
Texas Western District Court
Judge:
Alan D Albright
Case #:
6:21-cv-00674
Nature of Suit
830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause
35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Filed:
??? 25, 2021
Docket
Parties (6)
Opinions (2)
Docket last updated: 03/19/2024 11:59 PM CDT
Friday, March 15, 2024
239
1 pgs
order
Order ~ Util - Set Hearings
Fri 03/15 5:43 PM
ORDER RESETTING JURY TRIAL for 4/4/2024 09:00
AM before Judge Alan D Albright. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (lad)
Yeah. The line just came to me as sounding like it could fit in terms of my general outlook on Vplm as something that has by now, at least to me, proved itself to be just a pack of lies created to support the "STORY" (ie., "nothing is real"...........and.........my realization that therefore, "nothing to get hung about" (ie., no need to be so hung up about having the yacht dealer on speed dial, aka, being such diehard beliebers who disregard so so many dots (that truly seem to connect) as silly or illogical or agendized, etc etc. No matter what happen, there are literally tons of things that point pretty clearly to the farce. I find it astonishing that not 1 single voip service provider, large, medium or small, anywhere in the world, nor any uber deep pocketed investor......seeing and knowing that Vplm has proved it can survive monetarily, against all the push back from the alleged infringers for so many years and all the supposed good things that keep getting credited to Vplm's favor (such as all the ipr outcomes and many more recent rulings by the courts), which would seem to point to the fact that it's only a matter of time before 1 by 1, the infringers will have to pay the piper....thaf their are missiles of death with their names written upon them and pointed in their direction to INEVITABLY eventually find their targets (the infringers). And yet, not a single one, outside of doing what they have to in court to avoid default judgment against them, seem to not have a single worry about it, to warrant them acquiring the company or the patents or to license whatever they presumably would know they are infringing upon, regardless of how much time goes by or how close to trial it may be. Not ONE! Not one single ceo or manager with enough of a voice, to decide that doing so would be the fiduciary thing to do or at least to save the company from multi billion dollar fines. Not one..... They must be borg with hive mentality and all think alike.....
yeah, right
Oh, and not to mention the alleged priceless incalcuable value of the patents. Which....uh.....guess what that means...?.......means they do not see any such value...??!! Who woulda thunk?
3/20. VPLM VWAP=$.0156 VOLUME=1.13mm Bid-side nearly all
3/19. VPLM VWAP=$.0159 VOLUME=1.98mm Bid-side 2 to 1
3/18. VPLM VWAP=$.0158 VOLUME=1.74mm Offer-side 3 to 1
3/15. VPLM VWAP=$.0158 VOLUME=636k Bid-side 9x
3/14. VPLM VWAP=$.0159 VOLUME=831k Bid-side 6x
3/13. VPLM VWAP=$.016+ VOLUME=1.3-mm Bid-side 2x minus
I just LOVE THIS and the inability to put two and two together: "I have been wondering who has been buying millions or shares every day." Lololololololol
So, the constant whining about insider sales, so therefore the sky must be falling, VPLM=scam, and FINALLY THE CRUCIAL QUESTION...HAIRROW! Don't you think if this insider selling was the huge concern we need to worry about, VPLM WOULD BE TRADING ON NEW LOWS??????? VPLM volume over the past year was around 625mm shares; YES, 625,000,000+ SHARES!!!!! GEE, WHO HAS BEEN BUYING THESE SHARES??? LOL No new lows? We aren't even on new lows for the past year... Think about it, please!
Strawberry fields forever................
I've been busy What are you gonna do? Lol.
"Rocket Docket" translation: a rock on the end of a dock. (because that's the way it HAS TO BE....)
"Nothing is real....nothing to get hung about..."
Don't worry... come this fall, it'll be reset to 4/4/25.......or maybe 26?
I predict it will be one or the other.
THE November 4th,2024,WILL MOVE TO NOVEMBER 2034.THE WAY THIS SCAM SYSTEM IS PLAYING IT.
Typo…., I saw that as well…..It’s unfortunately November 4th, hate to burst your bubble.
Verizon is set for August. TMobile would have never been set for the same month. It was tentatively set for September, but TMUS pushed their way out of it until November.
What makes you think the IR person would have any idea when these dates would finally be set?
Where is the volume today. almost 3 hours in and volume is 49,000 shares.
With a company like this I would not be shocked to see 49,000 shares a day. I have been wondering who has been buying millions or shares every day.
I have to wonder if volume will continue to be millions of shares a day or drop significantly. I just don't know who the buyers are, especially with insiders selling and trial dates continuing to slide.
Date is reset for 11/4/24 not 4/4/24, Got excited about the post for a minute. Then I looked at the document.
As I said I fully expected the Aug date to be reset. Now it's 11/4/24, What makes anyone believe the date won't slide to 2025 later this year.
First date was 7/23,
Moves to 10/23,
Then delayed and Rich said a couple months but prior to year end 23.
Then Rich indicated a preliminary date of 2/14/24.
Then moved to Aug 24,
Now moved to Nov 24.
How long until that date moves to 2025.
Wow, the judge seems to be pushing this to final get things going in the court!
Thanks for posting, but if you click on the actual order from the judge it’s scheduled for November 4, 2024.
ORDER RESETTING JURY TRIAL for 4/4/2024 09:00 AM before Judge Alan D Albright. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (lad)Friday, March 15, 2024
239 1 pgs order Order ~Util - Set Hearings Fri 03/15 5:43 PM
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/40777700/VOIPPALCOM,_INC_v_TMobile_US,_Inc_et_al
ROTFL!!! Great chat you had with the IR, but you refuse to share your info.....you are a pillar of the community.
Here is the real volume...
03/19/24 04:00:00 PM 5 0.0157 5 0.0164 100 X 45901 BBO
03/20/24 10:16:03 AM 5 31500 0.0156
03/20/24 10:15:49 AM 5 1500 0.0159
03/20/24 09:43:46 AM 5 0.0156 5 0.0161 1000 X 500 BBO
03/20/24 09:30:00 AM 5 15000 0.0157
{{{{Great chat with Rich}}}}}LMAO.THE END IS NEAR FOR THIS POS SHARE SELLING SCAM.I AM DOING ANOTHER DOWNGRADE IN THIS POS.FROM CHICKEN TRIO,TO DOMINOS PIZZA,AND NOW I WILL FLIP IT FOR A BAG OF POTATO CHIPS.THAT COST $3.99 PER BAG.
3/19. VPLM VWAP=$.0159 VOLUME=1.98mm Bid-side 2 to 1
3/18. VPLM VWAP=$.0158 VOLUME=1.74mm Offer-side 3 to 1
3/15. VPLM VWAP=$.0158 VOLUME=636k Bid-side 9x
3/14. VPLM VWAP=$.0159 VOLUME=831k Bid-side 6x
3/13. VPLM VWAP=$.016+ VOLUME=1.3-mm Bid-side 2x minus
Great chat with Rich today which was very helpful. Have to rate it a 9 out of 10.... I believe there is some cooking in the VPLM kitchen, brewing in the VPLM brewery and, maybe, some gold being mined in the VPLM mine!
Good Riddance. Thought you would be gone after your last long winded tantrum.
Dennis Chang is the BIGGEST blatant liar ever for Vplm. He is the one who put his name to all the absolute lying PRs he put out yrs ago (13/14 yrs ago) and did so over and over and over, serving up total lies that can later and now be clearly seen as blatant bold faced lies that were designed solely to garner new shareholders and sell many shares as well as creating so much support that still exists to this day by a few fools who swallowed it all. I reposted many if not all of those lying pieces of toilet paper PRs over the yrs but because the STORY and the execution of the whole scheme was done so well, many have been taken for a long ride off a long pier. They will of course never admit it and some are already jumping ship or weighing it. And you can watch them make every excuse in the book and gaslight whoever is convenient.
Screw these guys. This is a scam.
I am registering and selling my shares now. Barb selling 21.0M shares, Williams 3.6M, Clifton 15.0M and Chang 7.5M. Over a 3 month time frame that is 4.3M shares per week, assuming they sell 11 of the 13 weeks. No sales the 2 weeks prior to earnings.
To be fair Clifton filed on 2/20 and has not sold. So if he doesn't sell the weekly sales would total be 2.9M per week.
Weekly volume has averaged almost exactly 10 million shares.
So the shares registered to be sold by insiders is 43% of weekly volume today or 29% if Mr. Clifton doesn't sell.
There will be no settlement or trial in the near term. One person selling can be understood. But it looks like this is all the rats abandoning the ship.
You would think that insiders and the company would know that even if things went well regarding the trials the sale of shares by insiders will create a trade imbalance that will kill the share price.
lmao Bro.i call the cards bro.no worries.This pos is destine to stay here for the next 10 to 20 years.You better sell while you still can imo.
You are in the money.I:f i was in the money in my big account i would be selling from left to right.You see they are scared crapless to take her lower???Why you think that is???Because The small account will enter,and they will be absolutely fd.Or i will start taking a loss on the big account and that will drive her to .01 in a hurry.Will see how i feel soon.
HERE YOU GO.UNFREAKEN REAL.LOOK HOW MANY SHE WANTS TO SELL,AND HOW MANY SHE SOLD.AND HOW SHE GOT THEM.
UNBELIEVABLE.IN MY 32 YEARS OF TRADING,.I HAVE NEVER SEE AN ATM FOR INSIDERS THIS CALIBER.
Form 144 Filer Information UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 144
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SALE OF SECURITIES
PURSUANT TO RULE 144 UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
FORM 144
144: Filer Information
Filer CIK
0001967370
Filer CCC
XXXXXXXX
Is this a LIVE or TEST Filing? LIVE TEST
Submission Contact Information
Name
Phone
E-Mail Address
144: Issuer Information
Name of Issuer
Voip-pal.com Inc
SEC File Number
000-55613
Address of Issuer
7215 BOSQUE BLVD
SUITE 102
WACO
TEXAS
76710
Phone
253-219-9512
Name of Person for Whose Account the Securities are To Be Sold
Baggio Barbara
See the definition of "person" in paragraph (a) of Rule 144. Information is to be given not only as to the person for whose account the securities are to be sold but also as to all other persons included in that definition. In addition, information shall be given as to sales by all persons whose sales are required by paragraph (e) of Rule 144 to be aggregated with sales for the account of the person filing this notice.
Relationship to Issuer
Member of immediate family of any of the foregoing
144: Securities Information
Title of the Class of Securities To Be Sold Name and Address of the Broker Number of Shares or Other Units To Be Sold Aggregate Market Value Number of Shares or Other Units Outstanding Approximate Date of Sale Name the Securities Exchange
Common
Wilson-Davis & Co
236 So. Main Street
Salt Lake City UT 84101
21010976 344580.00 3062698192 03/01/2024
otcqb
Furnish the following information with respect to the acquisition of the securities to be sold and with respect to the payment of all or any part of the purchase price or other consideration therefor:
144: Securities To Be Sold
Title of the Class Date you Acquired Nature of Acquisition Transaction Name of Person from Whom Acquired Is this a Gift? Date Donor Acquired Amount of Securities Acquired Date of Payment Nature of Payment *
Common 12/06/2021 Gift Emil Malak 12/04/2018 127590142 12/06/2021 Gift
* If the securities were purchased and full payment therefor was not made in cash at the time of purchase, explain in the table or in a note thereto the nature of the consideration given. If the consideration consisted of any note or other obligation, or if payment was made in installments describe the arrangement and state when the note or other obligation was discharged in full or the last installment paid.
Furnish the following information as to all securities of the issuer sold during the past 3 months by the person for whose account the securities are to be sold.
144: Securities Sold During The Past 3 Months
Name and Address of Seller Title of Securities Sold Date of Sale Amount of Securities Sold Gross Proceeds
Barbara Baggio
3702-1211 Melville St
Vancouver A1 V6EOA7 Common 02/29/2024 9616010 163561.51
144: Remarks and Signature
Remarks
Date of Notice
03/19/2024
ATTENTION:
The person for whose account the securities to which this notice relates are to be sold hereby represents by signing this notice that he does not know any material adverse information in regard to the current and prospective operations of the Issuer of the securities to be sold which has not been publicly disclosed. If such person has adopted a written trading plan or given trading instructions to satisfy Rule 10b5-1 under the Exchange Act, by signing the form and indicating the date that the plan was adopted or the instruction given, that person makes such representation as of the plan adoption or instruction date.
Signature
Barbara Baggio
ATTENTION: Intentional misstatements or omission of facts constitute Federal Criminal Violations (See 18 U.S.C. 1001)
Actually we don’t exactly when they were hired on. It could have been months ago. Parrish withdrew to also be involved with the negotiations. IMHO
BS.HE SELLS EVERYDAY.HE IS BROKE??LMAO.YEA RIGHT.HE MAKES 20K$ PER MONTH SELLING.ARE YOU KIDDING ME???FIRE HIS A$$
Orca you sound like a jilted lover.Dennis Chang has always been in an important
Position within Voippal and has operated the company since 2010.
Listening our opinion
WHAT YOU MADE,YOU GAVE IT BACK.SO PLAY A DIFFERENT SONG BRO.AND YES THEY NEED TO GET FIRED.LOSERS.
Hahahahaha fire the people that run the company that made me a hundred grand last year on this stock and at this current pps low has me up an additional fifteen grand if I sold all my stock. Are you nuts? Lol. I need them so I can make at least a quarter mil before I take my leave on the current play. Stocks going to move up they just started gearing up for the playoffs special teams are running through the plays lol
THE VPLM CEO HAS TO BE REPLACED IMMEDIATELY.THEN FIRE DENNIS CHANG ON THE SPOT.TIME FOR A CHANGE THESE LOSERS ARE NO GOOD.DO NOTHING.
Followers
|
463
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
22
|
Posts (Total)
|
133604
|
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: |