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.
I’ve never said I spoke to Emil on a regular basis. I know someone who does but that’s it. But I agree.. trial is ideal. Buyout is the best case scenario. We’ll see how July-August plays out.
Like I said. If he doesn’t like the stock, he can get out. I’m sitting on my hands and watching closely
Hey pal, why don’t you do us all a favor, since you say you speak to Emil on a regular basis. Please ask him when is VPLM, ever going to lets us know what are the damages they’re seeking from Verizon. Is he going to shun us like with the Amazon case or will the shareholders know what value our patents are worth.
I’ll give VPLM the benefit of the doubt, up until pretrial. Then all bets are off, if they don’t come to a settlement or acquisition, shareholders need to know.
Because if they settle with an NDA, the PPS won’t do anything. All more the reason we need to go to trial and win in court.
If ParkerVision, Netlist and Virnetx can win in court, so can we.
IMHO
The odds are better than 34%, DesktopDR. Based on loophole lawyer's statistics, the odds of winning at the appellate level are 66% (Since only 34% of all Western District cases are overturned on appeal, this means that 66% of these cases are NOT overturned). One VPLM court win in Waco would hit the newswires, sending the stock price to unprecedented levels. Many new investors, including institutional investors, would jump in. VPLM would, almost overnight, become widely known throughout the investment community. There would be plenty of opportunities to take profits off the table BEFORE an appeal could even be scheduled (assuming that there would even be grounds for one). I am not saying that this is the way it will happen, but I am saying that this is entirely within the realm of possibility.
I feel it's worth repeating..... you've been saying the same nonsense for 12 years... saying this when the stock was at .008... Called it a SCAM at that time, yet didn't sell all out at .35... after it hit .35, just continued the daily whimpering.... 2 years later, didn't sell all out at .45.
honestly, what normal person does this... You could have been all out with 1000% to 3000% gains... instead just hung out and continued with the daily crying...
When called out on it, you must have felt embarrassed, b/c it just sounds so idiotic. You attempt to change history and say you weren't around during that time, yet I've posted proof that you were posting during that time...
Who's lying?
Not a basher though... I love that
Once this silver squeeze happens, we’re golden. Go $VPLM
Oops... Now we're into the .012's. Damn close to subpennies again. I guess all those who keep talking about how the pps is about to explode, their heads are exploding... All they're doing is manipulating the price to get yall to start buying again. That's the way the Vplm ball bounces...
As I may have mentioned, I was told Amazon wasn’t going to let us benefit from their settlement.
Who really knows. Apparently, the damages weren’t much as the three remaining.cases.
This is why we need to know what the damages they’re seeking! If not, we’re going to get the same results. That’s why going to trial may be best for the PPS.
One would think after pretrial VPLM would be more transparent to their shareholders and potential shareholders.
IMHO
It's not! Go buy a ticket..
If this were a lottery ticket, and you had a 34% chance of winning. I'd buy tickets!!!
There are 3.2B issued and outstanding plus the warrants that have been issued to Emil to maintain a 40% ownership. He gets 66.67% of the outstanding shares.
That is 2.1 billion shares. Total shares if Emil exercises his warrants is 5.3 billion.
Who the F!ck knows, do you? Nobody does and what did that supposed settlement do for the PPS, you and i!? thats why I think another settlement would suck.
I thought it was only $40k but I'm prolly mistaken. It was reported here a few mos back. I thought I had seen $40k on the 10q. Regardless, whatever it was, it wasn't anything for us.. Emu is like a black hole.
Where did the $185k come from?
You should be more concerned with the market knowing what the damages VPLM is seeking than a few insiders selling sales. It’s meaningless.
IMHO
insiderbuyingselling
Apr 22, 2024 6:36 PM
$VPLM new insider selling: 350000 shares.
insiderbuyingselling
Yesterday 10:54 PM
$VPLM new insider selling: 910357 shares.
From what I’ve heard, they needed the extra authorized shares in case Emil exercises all his warrants/options or whatever he has.
Verizon filed the recent ex part. According to statistics, it can take an average of 25.7 months. Although the ‘606 was under a year, if I’m not mistaken.
I’d be more concerned with knowing what the actual damages VPLM is seeking with Verizon. This is essential and will determine how the market reacts once we get closer to trial. If we get no word on damages sought, don’t expect much appreciation in the PPS. We didn’t with the Amazon case. Just saying…
IMHO
I used to be blindly loyal too, not anymore!
Do you know why they added the 3B additional shares?
Does anyone even know anything about the latest MG exparte re-examination or do we have to dig up all the info on that like all the others?
Going on 3 months now on the amazon case without a peep, that's about the only thing we do know for sure, that there's nothing new to see.
In the last PR, Emil stated that we're on what "we hope is our final march to monetization". What does that monetization look like; does anyone have a clue; what are they trying to negotiating to, another $185k that they can't talk about?
Voip-Pal.Com Announces Plans to Increase Damage Demands in
Lawsuits vs Apple, Verizon and AT&T
Company preparing responses to new petitions for Inter Partes Review
May 15, 2017 -- Voip-Pal.com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal,” the “Company”) (OTCQB:VPLM) announced their intent to increase the damage
claims in its lawsuits against Apple, Verizon and AT&T. Over the past few months, the Company has been reevaluating the initial
damage calculation claims made in its February 2016, lawsuits against Apple, Inc, in the United States District Court, District of
Nevada case number 2:16-CV-00260, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and AT&T Corp. in the United States District Court,
District of Nevada, case number 2:16-cv-00271. Voip-Pal has determined its initial claim for damages was calculated using a
significantly lower royalty monetization model than has been used in actual court awards of recent patent infringement cases.
Voip-Pal remains cautiously conservative with its newly revised calculations, using an amount 25% below actual recent court
awards for damages. Upon the lifting of the current stay pending the completion of the instituted Inter Partes Reviews expected later
this year, the Company may file an amended pleading to reflect the more accurate damage calculation model.
Utilizing the updated damages award calculation methods, the revised total damages sought by Voip-Pal from Apple would rise from
more than two billion dollars ($2,836,710,031) , to more than twenty-five billion dollars ($25,642,557,840) .
An award in Voip-Pal’s favor may also include additional punitive damages awarded by the court, up to triple damages increasing
the newly revised potential maximum total award to Voip-Pal to over one hundred two billion dollars ($102,570,231,360) .
Applying the updated damage award calculation method to Verizon and AT&T, the current damages sought from Verizon of more
than two billion dollars ($2,382,872,100) would increase to over seventeen billion dollars ($17,262,042,011) .
The current damages sought from AT&T would increase from more than one billion dollars ($1,804,795,745) to over thirteen billion
dollars ($13,540,863,431) .
Applying the maximum potential punitive damages, increases the maximum potential award from Verizon to more than sixty-nine
billion dollars ($69 billion) .
Applying the maximum potential punitive damages, increases the maximum potential award from AT&T to more than fifty-four billion
dollars ($54 billion) .
The complete monetization analyses and damage calculation methodologies are linked below.
The Company also reports the filing of five more petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) from AT&T and Apple. The deadline for filing
an IPR petition by Apple, Verizon and AT&T was May 9, 2017, one year from the date of the completion of service of process to the
defendants.
On May 8, 2017, AT&T filed the following three petitions for Inter Partes Review: IPR2017-01382, against Voip-Pal’s Patent No.
8,542,815, IPR2017-01383, against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 9,179,005, and IPR2017-01384, against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 9,179,005.
On May 9, 2017, Apple filed the following two petitions for Inter Partes Review: IPR2017-01399, against Voip-Pal’s Patent No.
8,542,815, and IPR2017-01398 against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 9,179,005.
Voip-Pal CEO Emil Malak stated, “We will continue to vigorously defend these challenges to our technology and protect the interests
of our shareholders. Once the stay is lifted we will make a final determination on amending the asserted damages of our lawsuits
with Apple, Verizon and AT&T.”
“We are now faced with defending five new IPR’s, three filed by ATT and two filed by Apple, all on the same two patents we have
been defending for the past year. We are confident we will prevail based on the merits. We appreciate the patience of our
shareholders and we assure them we will persevere to a successful end.”
Next Article
Apple Royalty Monetization Analysis.............................................................
Verizon Royalty Monetization Analysis..........................................................
AT&T Royalty Monetization Analysis.............................................................
______________________________
*** $103 billion for just 3 companies in this revised damages template. And that was like 6 or 7 yrs ago, lololol......and Vplm named 60 companies! And I personally identified at least 100 voip service providers years ago. There are likely many more out there and lord emu said that all voip service providers were automatically infringers. So that means that my years old estimate of damages being worth in the range of $1 trillion, I was right on the money! Except the context.....the all important context is that's all nothing more than fantasy math and money. The real value in this point is it shows that with money like that at stake.........no company on earth, WOULD LET THAT KIND OF RISK HANG OVER THEIR HEAD AND THEY WOULD'VE EITHER PURCHASES THE PATENTS........OR..........LICENCED......... OR Settled!!!
Atltraderken
Re: nyt post# 129405
Wednesday, 04/17/2024 1:33:13 AM
"Keep selling NYT....We have buyers sucking up stock at all prices. We already ran ORCA off, he said we would see .005. Next is you...whats your price target? WE WILL NOT CLOSE BELOW .0135.....loser!“
______________________
Meanwhile....few days later.....pps was below .0135 all day long and indeed has closed at . 0132
BOINK... BOINK... BOINK!
AND......
That whole bullshit story about silver and the short squeeze and how Vplm would be on the giddyup........HAS NOW BEEN OFCICIALLY......
BOINKED AND DEBUNKED.........
JUST AS I CALLED IT LAST WEEK
bada-bing...bada-boom
NEXT.....
There are 8B shares authorized. There are 3.2B shares issued and outstanding.
I don’t either but I’m very positive it will all work out. I’ll always be Bullish on VPLM
What you meant to say is that you can't rush a turd!!
But it does. The FACT that this share price is below .02 tells you that there is little confidence in the company. First rule of stock price: When their is high confidence the share price is high not far from zero!
Since VP is soo golden; Do you know how much VP is suing the defendants for and if so; what is that knowledge based on?
I've been here since the very beginning of VP and still don't know!
It has little to do with the PPS. Do you really think they’re selling because they know of bad news?
IMHO
Nope. We all know you can’t rush a good thing. VPLM is golden, and if you don’t like it, shut up about it and get out. It makes no sense that you waste your breath on us Bulls loll
Who are you referring to? This is regarding the Defendants not plaintiffs.
Therefore, what’re the standard reasoning for VPLM for not disclosing the damages, pre trial.
If they fail to do so pretrial, as they did with Amazon and they settle with Verizon, without disclosing the details aka settlement amount, don’t expect the PPS to react as one would expect it to.
PPS is falling because the market doesn’t know the value of these lawsuits aka DAMAGES.
IMHO
And we have the freedom to bash and expose the real truth. Our truth is easily trumping yours right now. LOL. My challenge is to 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.
He's also the one that told us that the AMZN settlement was going to happen last fall. Still waiting for this...............
Because they know that the real truth that the patents aren't worth remotely near the "billions and billions of ongoing" that we have been told about by the CEO. I don't think that investors understand what that statement really means in terms of revenues as that would put them in the category of those from Microsoft. Meanwhile the share price can't even break .02 which tells you all that you need to know. LMAO!!!!! If those numbers were real then this would easily be a $50+ per share stock and even much, much more than that. It's simple math folks.
"however, if only 34% of those appeals were reversed, that means that a whopping 66% of those appeals failed to achieve a reversal at the appellate level. Those odds favor the plaintiff in Albright's Western District court."
______________________________
Surprise, surprise........and that's what I mean by "monkey wrenches"...
Like Roseanne Roseannadanna's daddy used to say: "it's ALWAYS SOMETHING!"
However, there are some standard reasons a company may not disclose the litigation: The claim or damages is less than 10% of the company's assets…..
Doesn't it bother the real bulls that Barbara, Chang and Williams continue selling shares and never stop.
May is only a few days away. The first trial is scheduled for Aug and the other is in Nov. With a trial less than 4 months from now would you anticipate insiders selling to stop around now? Waiting for 3-4 months for a settlement or win in the trial should result in a far higher share price. Why sell hundreds of thousands or millions of shares at $.0133 when you can sell for $.05 - $.25 within 4 months? That is why I can't say I am upbeat on the outcome of the trial.
The share price makes it is obvious others agree. The share price has done nothing but fall since last May when Barbara was force to begin filing form 4s. If Barbara, Chang and Williams stopped selling the share price could begin to recover. There is a trade imbalance that is present every day driven by their selling. No buyer is going to bid the price higher. They just sit and wait for the share price to fall further to pick up shares. To tell you the truth I don't know where they are finding a buyer at all. I guess there are a few out there willing to buy some shares at a price they believe is cheap. For Deerballs who wants to pretend it is whoever might acquire the company you need to remember that when someone owns 5% of the company they need to file with the SEC. Currently there are around 5B shares o/s. So 5% would be 250 million shares. If someone is accumulating shares for a possible takeover they currently have less than 250M shares. And for every share they buy they are getting diluted. There was 2-3 B shares in early 2023, Now there are more than 5B shares, next year there could be 8B shares. I will remind everyone that the company issues shares at $.005 a share. Even when the share price was $.10 a share. Huge discount, That is not normal. Does anyone have the name of the buyer of all the shares issued last year? Not sure if that was one individual but if it was they should be filing a form 3 revealing the ownership. If someone talks to Rich inquire about who bought all the new shares issued in 2023.
My expectation was always that insiders would be forced to stop trading within a few months of the trial date. Emil and Barbara have insider knowledge related to the case. They should not be allowed to trade any shares in my opinion. I think a poor judgement will bring huge personal lawsuits against Emil, Barbara, Chang and Williams. They all have insider knowledge. If they are selling and have any knowledge related to the case that is not given to the public they should not be trading. And they do have that knowledge.
Hell they never revealed any details related to last years settlement with Amazon or whoever the settlement was with. I think the settlement was for around $185,000. Settling for that amount doesn't instill great confidence for huge settlements to come but hopefully the settlement was the lessen exposure to the California courts and not for other reasons like a weak case.
But on the flip side if the insiders stop selling the trade imbalance will go away and the price will naturally strengthen. Add to that speculation of a good result at the trial or a settlement prior to the trial and the share price is likely to be north or $.03 by June or July. Maybe $.05+ by July or early Aug prior to trial. The $.10 price last year was with far less shares.
But any increase in price can only begin with insider selling stopped. As long as the squad continues to sell the share price will remain under pressure. I guarantee if they stop potential investors will take notice. I would never consider buying a share as long as I see the form 4s weekly. I think they will be forced to stop for the blackout the first 2 weeks of May. I will wait for the second half of the month and if no form 4s are filed for 2 weeks after the blackout I will likely buy some additional shares. Not that I believe the trial result will be positive. I have no idea what will happen there. But the fact they stop selling will change the entire trade balance and with the trial drawing near the buyers will outnumber the sellers. If I can buy at <$.015 and sell at >$.03 I would be thrilled. A 100% profit and get out prior to the settlement or trial in Aug.
But personally I do not see insider selling ending any time soon.
Good post, a trial verdict maybe the only time (until financials) shareholders find out the damages and value of the patents.
VPLM needs to be more transparent on the damages. I would expect they do after pretrial. Until they do so, I don’t expect the PPS to appreciate much.
Why haven’t they done so? Will they after pretrial? They didn’t with Amazon last year?
IMHO
Go $VPLM!! Middle of the year is going to be great. I’m excited for it!
Loophole lawyer, you wrote, “For patent cases that were appealed to a federal appellate court and terminated from 2021 to 2023 with a decision on the merits of the appeal, 34% were ultimately reversed. Sometimes a settlement is worth considering."
Yes, sometimes a settlement IS worth considering, however, if only 34% of those appeals were reversed, that means that a whopping 66% of those appeals failed to achieve a reversal at the appellate level. Those odds favor the plaintiff in Albright's Western District court.
Another point that should not be overlooked is that in the aftermath of a court victory in Waco, according to statistics, the pps of the prevailing party would likely skyrocket to unprecedented levels, allowing investors to take sizable profits off the table while waiting for the appeals process to play out (assuming that Judge Albright's decision left any grounds for an appeal). I would take a settlement but would prefer a court victory for VPLM, as this would likely become a strong inducement for the remaining infringers to settle (or even buy out VP).
BTW, I always enjoy your insightful and informative posts.
To all of the Bears my challenge still stands: if you don’t like the stock, get out. Why waste your breath and your time bashing?
To all of the believers my challenge stands. 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.
Yeah that's sure to happen as soon as pigs fly!! Don't hold your breath.
Boy, that silver short squeeze is really doin the trick....lol, duh
Oh, we’ll need more than hope for any settlement and or buyout, from what I understand.……It’s off to trial. IMHO
PPS won’t change until the market knows the damages VPLM, is seeking.
Settlement, Buyout, Settlement, Buyout. We can only hope. If one happens, it will be soon. If not, it’s off to trial and a likely sure win with treble damages. We have a very positive future for all vplm holders. The question is how big it will be. Hoping for the best for all longs.
For what….that hearsay deal fell through. There’s another four months to go….prepare to go to trial in August.
IMHO
Getting ready?
I wouldn’t expect any positive change in the PPS until we approach the trial date, or at least the July 9th pretrial date.
Something also worth mentioning, VPLM better start doing a better job at letting the market place aware of the damages sought from at least the Verizon case!!
Until investors are aware of the potential damages, don’t expect the PPS to appreciate.
Why in the world hasn’t VPLM done a better job at this? Possibly not to upset Albright? Or have they agreed with the defendants not to do so? They didn’t do it with the Amazon case last year.
I could understand up to the pretrial date, to stay quiet but, once we’re into mid July, one would expect VPLM to let the public know exactly what damages they’re seeking! As of now, only a handful have some sort of speculation.
VPLM has done a great thus far with the legal battle. Much appreciated. NOW, they need to start promoting the value all these patents.
All shareholders must be concerned if VPLM settles with Verizon, we don’t get shunned as we did last year, with Amazon.
Everyone is expecting a buyout but, be prepared to go to trial. Just saying!
IMHO
Followers
|
464
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
14
|
Posts (Total)
|
133577
|
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: |