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.
Honestly.. it's beyond ridiculous that you are confused why someone would question your motives...
Talk about confusion
being a shareholder as you claim????why day in and day out beat it down, or as in the old phrase such as ""cut your nose off to spite your face""..doesn't make sense..or you don't want to make money? is that it?..history is history...lets see what transpires in the future.
Go VPLM!!! It suffers from being Emil’s Lil Bitch! Emil owns him and a few others. Too FUNNy. Emil is living rent free in Nytwyts head.
I am with you. This reminds me a bit of a big time prize fight that has been scheduled for over a year. All the talking, posturing, etc., starts to fall away and we actually get to see how our predictions stand up to reality. At this point I just really want to see what will actually happen and what each side has up their sleeves....and I hope VPLM has the winning hand.
Reading your posts, it not surprising you are so confused, even though I have liberally explained everything many times. I would ask you why you feel it's your business to ask me why I spend any certain amount of time here (as though one needs to explain that in the 1st place). I'd add to that I find you to be wasting your time here. As for me, you might explain why I shouldn't be here. By the way, I'm glad that I manage what time I spend on this, that or the other? Maybe you, on the other hand, choose to have other ppl choose for you. Obviously I choose to spend my time because I want to. I'm also a shareholder. I would love to hear your honest explanation why you have a problem with me being here.
If you need to question whether or not I'm fully negative about the company, I'd say you're not paying much attention.
Verizon tried like heck to transfer to NDCA but was denied. Looking back, but letting go of the NDCA cases paid off bigtime in keeping the case in Texas. I can't wait to see what develops. With a little over 3 months to trial, Verizon has got to be a bit behind the 8ball. This is going to be a very, very interesting next few weeks.
Can you answer, if your sentiment is entirely negative regarding VPLM, why do you spend so much time here? What would justify your time spent? Shouldn't you logically spend time focused on investments YOU believe in? I continue to be confused by your comments and the amount of time it must take.
I don't think truly smart investors would ever get heavily invested in otc pennystocks, esp not one with this record.
I got involved with many pennystocks. The vast majority were losers. Vplm has been a 27 yr loser. The ceo has been a past loser on numerous counts. All past bod, who were not part of the shenanigans, most likely, all left, most without a reason or good reasons. The only one left was the biggest liar ever in vplm, ie Chang. The company has put out so many lies and half truths and misleading overall, the count is long lost. Their avg pps over the 15 to 20 yrs with price quotes online, is about 1 or 2 cents at best. They told the biggest lies imaginable starting with the beginning of the acquisition, in order to aquire many shareholders and sell them many shares to kick off the big farce of the past 12 or 13 yrs. They had nothing but trouble pre acquisition when they were allegedly a voip service provider and all their partners in that endeavor accused them of being a ripoff in one way or another. That can all be found here in the history. They've never made a dime selling product as far as I know, certainly not in the past 15 yrs or so. Above are all docuemented facts. There is miles more to the list... They have never been able to maintain any price jumps which are ALL ALWAYS followed by dropping back down. Does not sound like a winner. The market knows.
Most stock traders will not touch or follow a penny stock and for good reasons. They don't have to follow the rules and regulations of non penny stocks. I've been burned before by penny stocks, many of the CEO's etc were crooks. But the winners have outweighed the losers. I truly believe that VPLM is a winner! and I am heavily invested.
Patent validity is not in question. The patents are valid. They were valid when they became patents. There have been numerous challenges to that validity and all those challenges were lost, therefore the patents always have been and still are valid. Patent validity is not the issue. Patents can be legally valid, yet not have any value, nor be useful in the real world, nor be necessary to the operation of voip. Also, in the past, many valid patents have later found to be invalid by virtue of information not previously found or brought up.
Additionally, the cases are not about patent validity, they are about infringement. Whether or not the companies are using the same technology that the patents contain in their voip products. To your point, it's possible the patents may, at some point still be found to be invalid in some way, but I don't know if legally, that would automatically cause a loss of the case for Vplm because there still might be infringement happening. In other words, just because part of a patent is found to be invalid at some point, currently oes that mean it can't be infringed on regardless? I don't know. It's complex. My point is the patents are all currently valid but that does not give them any value nor does it mean any are being infringed upon. So if the alleged infringers know this and the market know it, then of course there's not a high pps. More importantly, if the alleged infringers knew the patents were not only valid but also were ALL THAT in terms of what vplm has claimed for them in terms of being foundational and necessary to the very operation of voip.......THEN........THERE IS NO WAY IN THIS WORLD THAT THEY WOULD RISK ALL THEY ARE RISKING BY NOT LICENSING, SETTLING OR BUYING THE PATENTS AND/OR WAITING AND WAITING, AS THE LONGER THEY WAIT, THE MORE THE DAMAGES WILL BE PLUS THEY WILL LOSE THEIR PRODUCT AND LOSE THEIR ABILITY TO COLLECT THEIR OWN DAMAGES. So it's actually more than merely risky, it's very close to an inevitable certainty that the above mentioned things will befall them. Therefore, it is my contention, via inference, that they must know that the patents are not ALL THAT and that they are not infringing. If that was the case, then ppl ask the valid question of the why do they delay and fight in court. I believe that's because when you're charged you must put up a defense so as not to be found guilty by default. Also because even tho they feel they are innocent, it's not unusual for judges or juries to find for or against litigants IN ERROR or another factor is concerns about appeals. So there do seem to me to be reasons to fight even if you know your innocent.
bears don't want to give it up..everything is gonna be just dandy..!! bears keep your sphincters intact ;)
For me it's simple. Verizon pretrail on July 9th with a trial on August 19th. This will either validate claims or not made by the CEO. I'm willing to wager .02 at this time. That's what the market thinks as of today. Why would an analyst follow this stock? Who would pay him for his research
Think about the statement by the CEO and his claim about the value of the patents and that they are worth billions and billions ongoing. The keyword here is "ongoing" which means that if the patents were valid (which is highly questionable at this point based on the current share price alone and the fact that no analyst on wall street cares abut the company) then this would be a consistent tool booth of billions and billions of revenues each and every year and would be be at and beyond those of companies like Microsoft/Google/Meta. Putting this in perspective this would mean then that the number you have shared is way, way too low and not in line with what the revenues would be. The CEO has in a matter of words said that every time any call is made on any of the hundreds of millions of cell phones that VPLM would generate a revenue. Just put the numbers together. The catch is that none of what the CEO has stated has proven to be true, so hear we are with a share price below .02 and if the claims were true then the share price would be in line with these other companies that I have mentioned. The fact that the share price is where it is only con firms that his claims aren't valid.
Another falsity spread by out fearless leader with a handful of cult followers is...... He managed to get ALL the online stock news sites to list him as the founder of Vplm......which of course he most certainly is not! I think he says it on Vplm site as well. Blatant lie but I know, I know, it's ok, no biggie, he's perfectly within his rights to lie like a rug........you know why?
Because you allow him to thus encourage him to and so he knows he has some wrapped around his finger and they will support him 100% no matter what he does or says........just like someone else you all know...
So a $999,999,999.99 settlement/buyout would be a complete BUST? Looking at the chart upside down maybe.
That's the same cheap talk that we have heard for years. 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. If not then it's a complete failure and confirmation that the patents aren't worth near as claimed.
Not being paid at all, just sharing FACTS and the truth about this turd. Get back to me when you can meet my challenge. Until then this is a complete bust!!
the decimal point will move a space to the right before we know it...an stay there..then another space to the right..hang tight .
They have their ways to sell.
Imo
The blackout period, insiders cannot sell
Why not the insiders?
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
Who do you think is willing to sell millions of shares daily at these levels? Cannot blame the insiders this time...
Perhaps short sellers? Any ideas?
Have you ever seen someone work harder against their own investment
Does it give anyone else a positive boost knowing that some have spent 12 years. 12 years searching for any possible negative and this is all they come up with.
"Anything "material" should be made public."
Oh, like Amazon, right?
VERIZON NEXT UP, THEN T-MOBILE - Anything "material" should be made public. As of now, seems to be the Best Position VPLM has been at in a long time!
I see your post volume is increasing as we get closer to the court dates. Do you get paid by the post? Asking for a friend.
To be honest, SF, I'm not sure where you got the "billions and billions of ongoing infringements the emu has talked about"... I'm fully aware of the billions and billions of dollars in damages alone, that they have not only spoken of but they gave specific damages amounts in line with that twice now. I don't remember the year, but their 1st published damages was put out when they sued the 1st handful of company's. It was 4 or 5 companies I think and using that 1st metric/formula, I believe it came to approx $12 bil in damages sued for. Around that time, I think prior, they had named approx 60 companies as infringing. Quick basic math is easily many billions and billion, in the company's own words. Years later however, they decided to revamp the metrics used for figuring damages. That was around 2017 or 18. I recently posted those figures direct from Vplm published PRs. In that revision, again around 4 or 5 company's were used and this time it came to roughly $102 bil. Multiply that against the 60 or so companies and I know there exists more than 60 sizable voip service providers, of which Vplm stated that ALL voip service providers were automatically infringers......and you can see why some time ago I attributed the company's alleged value just in damages, to be upwards of a trillion bucks... It was very realistic using vplm's own published numbers and if you consider that those numbers were from 6 or 7 years ago, and consider all the inflation since, those numbers would be even higher. If you sliced it by 90%, it would still be billions and billions. The irony is Carl Sagan never said that, BUT VPLM DID!
Now, if you consider all the alleged infringers and the number of phones they sell with allegedly infringing abilities and crunch the numbers, not hard to see how that would add up to billions and billions of ongoing infringements, but I never heard Vplm put it in those terms. If they did, when, where? It goes without saying anyway, as shown above. It's all a bunch of silliness anyway. It's like how you could be dying of thirst and be drawn to a desert mirage showing a pool of water. It's all good til you get there...
As to your pharma analogy, it could very well be far more than just an analogy... Lord Emu of eGipped has stated many times that he founded or confounded a cancer research company in Germany years ago, still in operation according to him. He has given the name of the company which escapes me at the moment, but when he 1st noted it, I did a very extensive search for anything about this biomedical research company. I really searched hard, hi and lo for it, even specific Germany only searches. I could never find a single word naming or about this alleged company. What if someone had important info for them or wanted to make a donation. It does not appear to exist, then or now. In my research, I did find an American cancer research company of THE EXACT SAME NAME but they have no affiliation with the emu. I have asked for anyone who has any info regarding the mere existence of this company to let me know. Crickets... I just remembered the name.. It's Thorne biomedical. So happens that Thorne is a very famous name in American cancer research. So that's just one more thing to add to the list of emu failures, fantasies and schemes. The list is real, but some as yet unproven and significantly long.
The name should be changed to VPLMW aka voip pal monkey wrenches.
You forgot the billions and billions of "ongoing" infringements which only makes this that more of a farce!! Those are Microsoft type numbers, yet this is a company with a share price below .02 Talk about confirmation of what a true turd this is! The speculation alone would have this share price be significantly higher and someone/anyone on wall street would actually be talking about it. The FACT that no one is (not even one single firm) tells you all that investors need to know. The analogy is that it would be like a pharma company saying that they have a drug in trial that they believe is a cure for cancer yet a penny stock and no one mentioning them. When will people face reality and acknowledge the truth?
Get back to us in another 20 years when they are still "grinding". LOL!!
Are you referring to the patents that have produced not a single dime in financial judgements? Yeah those.
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. If not then it's a complete failure and confirmation that the patents aren't worth near as claimed.
Are you lost? Need a compass or a map? You are trespassing on Vplm. Infringing. You hereby owe us $1 billion. Will that be visa or mastercard.? No...? How bout venmo....zelle? Ok, we'll take DWIS shares....
“I'm relatively new & relatively unknowledgable about this stuff. If you have a buyer, must then be a seller & vice-versa, right? So when u say buyers, no selling, what does that mean.. buy or sell from MM's?”
Butter, EXCELLENT POST!!!
Totally agree the PPS is being held down. Probably not intentionally but, collateral damage nonetheless. aka, lack of potential damages and patent (s) value.
But, I agree things might just change after pretrials. I believe VPLM knows they have to get the PPS up. I heard any potential buyer will use the current PPS as leverage in their negotiations.
Which doesn’t make sense. The value of the patents determines the value of any acquisition. Not the current PPS determines value of the patents (infringement).
By now, if some can’t comprehend the importance of the court filings and material information to make decisions on their investment, I don’t know when they will. We’re wasting our time. I know I’m tired of schooling some.
IMHO
I truly wonder if you know how many times that, almost verbatim, has been said here in the last 13 yrs. I'm serious. I don't mean that rhetorically, I mean it as literally as can be. The answer, truthfully, is many many times and I'd be very surprised if anyone denied that. It doesn't necessarily mean or prove your wrong, it just illustrates a very human trait. We were told 12 or 13 yrs ago that a sale was imminent and that the company was immediately folding the tech into their own so called Voip services platform and that up to $200 million per year in royalties was about to come forth and so on and so forth, for yrs in the lying, unabashed PRs. That was 13 yrs ago and continued on to 1 degree or another until the present, incl your comment. It's sooo so meaningless... And soooooo worn out. Of course it's ok for the company or the super longs to keep berating it but so not ok for those of us who no longer subscribe to that belief. That is my definition of unfair and unbalanced. I am very fair and balanced. Nothing would be better than for me to be dead wrong, as I would once again make some big bank, for me. 27 yrs of a dud, in many ways, plus a past big time loser like lord emu, plus never any interest aside from digi-phony-ca, Vplm and the few on this board, for something that would literally turn the communications world upside out and inside down, and no sales, no licenses, no settlements, no partnerships and barely over a penny pps, IS ENOUGH FOR ANY REASONABLE PERSON TO POO POO THIS COMPANY AND THE PATENTS. So you see, my hard core determinations are derived indirectly by inference I guess you could say.............but so are atoms and atomic structure.
Putting down, vehemently and almost violently, those who see it same as I or similarly, is very ridiculous and waaay indicitive of the way society has devolved, at least in part.
Closer then ever before to a real monetization of these assets. Of course we are excited.
How ironic that the patents are bogus and worthless. That will, in the end, be revealed. There is not a single case in human history where something valued by the seller at many billions of dollars (not just via conjecture or arbitrarily, but via a very coherent set of metrics which I recently posted and while out of date, should be much higher like everything else is with the various inflationary causes that we all know too well, but could actually, all things consideded beside the fact the patents are trash, might have dropped by 99%, lol) has sat in the middle of the road, untouched, unbought, unsettled, unlicensed, unknown to the rest of the world for............drumroll please........approx 13 years. That is common sense. That is critical thinking. That is so obvious that I know at least some of you know it... All the dots connect for the big, mean green, monster fiat share printing and selling machine/insiders personal ATM.
I DON'T LIKE IT EITHER BUT I BELIEVE IT. I already know I'll be using my unsold shares for wallpaper... I should have learned my lesson with TIV, a 50 year old fraud that all but a couple who knew better, refused to listen to. They were advised for years by a former insider and not just any insider, but one who knew intimately, exactly what was going on because he has been the chief of operations of an all important aspect of the company. And the ceo was beloved by many more, as I recall, than the emu worshippers here. Near 50 yrs company and on the market platform and on every msg board especially the classic 5 year long or longer raging bull board. That was the only board ever that could top the ihub Vplm board.
Anyways.....keep your helmets on.......more nasty monkey wrenches to be launched into vpreality
Read post # 129789, as well as the following posts.
Apologies accepted
I’m not a betting man on something I have zero control over. You seem like you’re too unstable for me to ever meet in public. Seems you’re way too sensitive, thin skinned and can’t take constructive criticism. I like to stay away from people like you. But, hey I know you’re sticking up for your buddy and you felt the need to attack me.
I don’t have to restate what you said in your previous posts, just go back and read them. Who attacked whom first?
$2.5 billion is a sellout. Estimated at $.50, estimated fully diluted. That would be under the value of just one case. Why would VPLM turnover their patent portfolio for a value under what one case is worth? Especially with the recent Huawei/Alice news. Anyone with business sense should understand this.
Most can figure out why that would be acceptable to some. I’ve stated that in numerous posts. It doesn’t take much to figure that one out.
Let me point something out. I’ll be kind of careful because I know how sensitive you appear to be. If VPLM settled pretrial with Verizon at even 30% of the value of the damages, AND ANNOUNCED THEM, the PPS would skyrocket more than your measly $.50. Any substantial settlement would validate VPLM’s patent (s). Now, add the upcoming T-Mobile trial, as well as the ‘606 Amazon. Not to mention the Asia patents. And you believe a $2.5 billion revaluation is good? Is this what you’re telling me and the other shareholders? Really?
Now, let’s get back to your risk, reward concern, if VPLM goes to trial. As it was asked to me, why would another company acquire VPLM if they would have to go through the same trouble, as VPLM has been experiencing? Don’t you think any potential buyer, would have the same concerns?
Shareholders and the market have no knowledge of the exact damages being sought and the potential value of VPLM’s parent portfolio. Hence, the PPS.
Huawei and Verizon just settled mid trial and no details (damages) were made public. This is a big concern I have that this’ll happen if VPLM settles with Verizon.
As I’ve stated, I’d love for an acquisition at a fair and reasonable price. Not with any sweetheart deal. Maybe back last May, that would be acceptable but, not after the ex parte and Alice 101 decisions. IMHO
I feel like I have to apologize to the other ihub readers but, from where I grew up, I stand up for myself and will respond back to anyone that disrespects and belittles me.
BTW, did you ever reach out to the shareholder that was looking for assistance on depositing shares?
Thanks for serving.
I wish you luck!
IMHO
AWESOME GBC!!!
These sorts of PRs should keep the volume up over the next 30 days. hopefully we don't see as much resistance into that volume. If so, it should be a good ride here on out.
Thanks GBC for posting this!
This is exactly the type of stuff we need to see to get the PPS rising, not unfounded rumor BS based on someones feelings for the day.
Huawei can’t get patents axed
By Adam Lidgett
May 2, 2024, 9:52 PM EDT
A Northern District of Texas judge has shot down Huawei's motion that two VoIP-Pal.com patents on initiating mobile phone calls are invalid under the Alice standard for claiming only abstract ideas....
https://www.law360.com/amp/articles/1832888
Bloomberg News
Case: Patents/Eligibility (N.D. Tex.)
A federal district court in Texas denied Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Huawei Technologies USA Inc., Huawei Device Co. Ltd., Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., and Huawei Device USA Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings in VoIP-Pal.com Inc.'s action for infringement of patents for mobile gateways. The court said that Huawei didn’t show that a patent claim is purely abstract and doesn’t capture an asserted improvement in the art.
Source:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/case-patents-eligibility-n-d-tex-2-3
texting someone and calling them stupid and criticizing the work they do is the very definition of stupid.
Like we agreed on, no one F'ing cares about the non-sense verbal vomit here on ihub, i certainly don't.
You can take little VP playground ball and go home (i mean where ever), it won't miss it.
And, welcome to my ignore list!
You can't be serious? You need to go back and read the posts.
There was no bragging about how many shares the person owned.
I know you beat to your own drum but taking a week off from this board might not be a bad idea.
I very seldom post because I think most people here don't want to keep hearing the same opinions but updates.
GLTAL
Followers
|
464
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
23
|
Posts (Total)
|
133563
|
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: |