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.
$.0157. Really? This is all you got? I could write a book on your claims naming it, 'The Little Engine that Couldn't'! You are the dog chasing its tail and because he can't catch it he stops, goes the other way, thinking he was going the wrong way in the first place! Hint, hint for you: His tail is the same distance either way he goes!
So, here we go: You have been making ridiculous claims for longer than I've been here and I've been here nearly eleven years: VPLM is a scam....VPLM is a scam...VPLM is a scam...on and on. How many different folks have I been over the years? Emil, Rich, some guy paid to post...All bullshit. A wager? I'm just an investor with a decent position waiting on the goods! More on me later and although this isn't about me, all I can speak to is my confidence and reasoning to my investment!
You freely call out Rich/Emil(I guess that mean me, cuz I'm both of these folks, right?) as crooks/scammers. Well, I don't know Emil nearly as well as Rich, but if Emil were such a scammer, why didn't he take Gil Amelio's deal @ about $.17 per share??? Well over $100mm and Emil could have rode off into the sunset** I could go on, but Emil has fought and fought a corrupt system and the payday is near.
Rich(me again?), I respect as much as anyone I know and do know some great people! He is working his ace off for VPLM shareholders currently(working nearly all Mother's Day), but he is also VERY active in his church and in helping those in need!(damn, I'm a better guy than I thought) I could go on and on and on! RICH IS A GREAT, GREAT GUY!
Me(the REAL one) is just a VPLM investor who strongly believes in VPLM. I have vowed/chosen to live in my same car until we are done with VPLM! Weird, I'd agree, but I'm done feeding a corrupt system!!!! Always felt the system was broken/corrupt, but didn't realize how badly it was until VPLM/"judge" koh, etc. Look how long this has taken...the VPLM patents took decades to "book" and then prosecution goes through round after round, because of government's corrupt protection of the "bigs"! The system ALLOWS a "judge" like koh, who is stupid enough to say in a courtroom, WHILE ADJUDICATING A PATENT CASE, "this is why I hate patent cases"!!!!! WTF?
Again, too much about me, but I can only truly go to my motivation: I've put in my effort(13,300++posts × 10min/=2,200 hours=over one year @ a full time job and that's just posting) because I believe in VPLM/the team/the supporting shareholders and pray VPLM breaks the system in a small way! How many times has the system broken the small patent holder/THE INVENTOR!
So, there it is and you? The Savior, or what? Don't let the Mark Twain quote keep you from changing directions in the tail chase!
Now a bit on VPLM more directly and current situation: Got a call from an investor in Utah wondering about the selling pressure: All I can ever say is maybe a sale on G.I. Joe with kungfu grip? There is a buyer for every sale; buyers buy for only one reason, sellers for infinite reasons...not a worry!
As to the dismissal/settlement with huawei: Small in settlement value and I got pushback, but reason this out. The patents are regarding business in the U.S.A.; look to the article at bottom, huawei does little business here, so how could it be a large lawsuit?
How is the huawei thumping(GREAT JOB EMIL/VPLM TEAM) a HUGE THING! VPLM won the Alice challenge on the first step(not abstract) and the fact that this lawsuit is dismissed, THE ALICE RULING CAN’T BE APPEALED...LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN, IT CAN’T BE APPEALED! Going further, other litigants CAN NOT CHALLENGE ON ALICE! Happy daz!
One and out: Tomorrow on 'Deerballs, the Fourth-grade Reader', a recap of yesterday's conversation with 200mm+++++++++ Robert and his buying. Yes, that's why the extra plus signs!
Yup, by far and wide, VPLM IS SITTING IN ITS BEST POSITION EVER!
My thanks to those thanking me for my posts! You'll never how much I appreciate that and it makes the time put in all worth it! Hey, look how much Rich/Emil and team are doing!
This is a dig at NO ONE: Get your info wherever you want, but VPLM is a tough one. Mr. Hudnell has, rightfully so, decided it best to put out little in the way of PRs. I think he is correct, but whatever one thinks, it is what it is!
** https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/VPLM/news/Voip-Pals-Board-of-Directors-Has-Rejected-a-Formal-Offer-from-Dr-Gil-Amelio-and-Associates-to-Purchase-CEO-Emil-Malaks-S?id=224865
https://2017-2021.state.gov/the-united-states-further-restricts-huawei-access-to-u-s-technology/
Kinda reminds one of what he did and the outcome in his 2 avatar court incursions... Except this time he's making sure he gets a payoff before disappearing...
Not the price action you would expect if there was a multibillion dollar settlement on the way?
Volume is 5.7 million already.
Looks like Babs and other insiders have been busy dumping today, as usual:
Obviously insiders know that the "settlement" with 12 million (sic) employee company Huawei isn't worth a hill of beans.
Probably it's the same deal that was reached with Amazon: piss off, Emil, or we'll break you so bad you'll never set foot in a courtroom again.
Thank you for your post, as well as the one last night. I wasn’t sure which post you were referring to. I’m assuming it’s this one. I believe I may have missed this one, yesterday . I’m glad there’re some that are understanding when someone makes a clerical error, especially when it’s been corrected. This shows me you have good character.
I really appreciate your opinion on this.
Thank you for your service.
IMHO
I just ignored my 2nd board poster in the same week - on a roll!
You probably right
hey may need some zanny's
Wow that basher keep repeating himself
VPLM is the only company in history with patents that they claim are worth billions and billions (and ongoing) with a price pers share of less than .02 In other words a tool-booth type technology and revenues in the realm of a Microsoft. Something is very wrong with this picture as the numbers and price per share clearly don't jive at all. Just amazing to me that gullible people continue to buy into this false hype that will never result in a price per share that aligns with the claims and just tells you how stupid some people really are.
There will never be any buyout. Obviously the patents aren't worth near as claimed and the company is desperate for any settlement at this point.
Justified bashing about a company that claims that they have patents worth "billions and billions (and ongoing) and nothing to show for it. Not a single dime and a price per share struggling to hold .02 I call that a farce!
You're just mad that I'm 100% correct and that I haven't been prove wrong. LOL! My challenge stands!!
the object is to make money.just alot of crying and bashing here for sure
As usual, the cult followers, of course and again....think this ("settlement") pickpocketing is a good thing. Lord emu thanks you again and again and again for such generous donations to his Vplm go fund me page and the lifestyle you gift him and his queen sellsalot with. He rests easy knowing how well he's got you wrapped around his little finger. And they both know they'll continue to collect in this way for some time more, by continuing to have known>88 these fake settlements, so don't be surprised as it keeps rinsing and repeating.. How many times so far? This is how I see it and it's my opinion. If you don't like it, feel free to bitch, holler and complain...until the cows come home or Vplm gets shuttered.
Talk about being public record! Are you kidding me, right now? You’ve dug yourself a big hole that you’ll need an expensive ladder to dig yourself out of.
You’ve gone on record numerous times, accusing a few individuals that they’re crooks, without remorse I might add. For a long time now. I’ll reference your post # 129836. You certainly haven’t proven VPLM’s a scam and or these individuals are crooks. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!
If anyone’s stupid and ignorant is someone who can’t comprehend and process my correction with post #129996. I’ve already gone on record with my correction, numerous times.
I’ll always stand up for myself, as well for a friend I’ve known for well over ten years. I won’t be disrespected or bullied by anyone on this board, especially you.
You put yourself in this position, not I.
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”….Mark Twain ……….LMAO
IMHO
Still sore about being unable to recognize 12 million was a ridiculous, nay preposterous, figure to quote for Huawei’s employees in Europe when the real number is 207,000 worldwide?
I get it, but as other recent National news events 🐕️have shown there comes a time when one should just stop digging and shut up.
Your profound stupidity is now a matter of public record and there’s nothing you can do to fix that.
BTW commenting on Rich Inza’s past involvement in other penny stock scams or his criminal associates isn’t “slander” (or even libel, which would be the proper term).
The fact is it’s true, and the repeated SLAPP threats don’t worry me one little bit.
Some kind of an agreement including a buyout
And I also will be happy with 1 dollar
I would think a buyout would be more likely if there aren’t any ongoing lawsuits. Whoop!! Happy to see the proceedings happening. Go vplm!! To the moooon! I’d be happy with $1 JMHO
It says the parties joint motion which tells me it should bring good news
Sounds like we have a settlement
I believe this is good news. This means Huawai and VPLM as reach a settlement agreement. I’m speculating.
Is this evenings Huawei dismissal court briefing good or bad news? Anyone?
Did you get a call, text or email to attack me? You’re kidding me right now. Really, you post your disenchantment over posts of bitching back and forth among others, then you post a compliment to the very person who is responsible for instigating the animosity when he doesn’t agree with their opinion (s). UNBELIEVABLE!! WOW!
It was posted somewhere, that why would any IR guy spend hours a week talking to some shareholder, who’s a homeless, failed stockbroker? I alway thought your buddy was a successful stockbroker, from what he’s stated on this board.
It’s quoted, “Do the filings give any idea as to the work the VPLM team is putting in right now??? Huhhhhh, well yea they do. By reading the filings, one views the accomplishments Hudnell and the “team” has put into the favorable decisions. Hmmmm, is this a trick question? We all know the VPLM team is putting in hard work, JUST READ THE FILINGS! LMAO
Who was the one that called the company and cried and complained about all the insider selling and dilution. Then crying he’s going to sell all his shares. Then comes on here and instigates arguments defending it.
Nah, I’ve already posted a correction on post # 129996. It was an honest mistake, that I corrected. I didn’t write the article. But, by continuing to try and demean me and make fun of an honest mistake is laughable. This shows lack of character and self worth. Obviously, your buddy isn’t a happy person, hates his life and sees himself as a loser. That’s why he chooses to live in his car. The only way he can feel good about himself is by being cantankerous and try to prove he’s knows things others don’t. Thus, attacking others that don’t agree with him. Very sad, if you ask me. If he did in fact have any friends, I would think they would say something to him.
I certainly haven’t seen him stand up to the individual that has slandered our friend Rich. Which I find very interesting.
I will alway stand up to disrespectful bullies like him.
IMHO
Wow, DB, thank you for keeping us posted on this. If Rich is working on a Sunday (Mothers Day no less), that signals to me that something is a brewing. More than a $7 coffee from S-Bucks! Time for some good news! Thanks to Team VPLM for your persistance 🙌
Lets celebrate 🥳 a big win soon🏆 💪!
Time will tell if it’s good or bad! Without word from the company we’re all left to speculate or throw out opinions.
And we all know opinions are like a**holes…everyone has one and usually full of sh*t!
Nah, nice try thou. No article regarding a former associate implicates anyone as a criminal and or crook. As well, as there’s no proof VPLM is a scam. You’re going to need a lot more proof than that.
Please go back and read post # 129996. There you should be able to read my corrected post. Most people, even a 5th grader would be able to process and comprehend the point I was making. Continuing to try and make fun of an honest corrected mistake, clearly shows your weakness and ignorance, because every one of your posts lacks substance. You’re the one that should be embarrassed, not I.
The only difference between my mistake and yours, is mine didn’t cost me a penny to make it right. As with your slandering, from what I’ve heard, is going to cost you a pretty penny. It appears it’s about time someone taught you a lesson, your father never did…….LMAO. IMHO
Your Mark Twain quote is quite apropos.
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.”
MIC DROP
I'm assuming that this is not good news?????
Hahahaha.... You can forget that filing stuff. Vplm has a major habit of not filing when they should or never unless they are forced to and then it's often years. I think the emus motto is: "we don't need no stinkin filings". They don't foget to sell shares like there's no tomorrow tho. How can a settlement be a "non event"…??? What a shifty joint this is... Yall hand it to them on a silver matter.
Guess I'll have to wait til 2morrow to find and post some of my historicsl Vplm notes. Some are 25 yrs old... Ignorance will dispute regardless... Guaranteed.
For anyone interested…
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.
LTD, et al.,
Defendants.
§
Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-0151-X
DISMISSAL ORDER
Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss. (Doc. 122). The Court
GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES this action. Plaintiff VoIP-Pal’s infringement
claims for the Asserted Patents relating to the Huawei Cloud Meeting product and
service, Huawei Cloud Link, Google-Fi, Google Hangouts, and the Nexus 6P phone
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. VoIP-Pal’s infringement claims for the
Asserted Patents relating to any other products or services are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and costs.
IT IS SO ORDERED this
13th day of May, 2024.
_________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:23-cv-00151-X Document 123 Filed 05/13/24
Page 1 of 1 PageID 1064
They have 4 days to file an 8-K. Otherwise it’s probably a non-event.
This feels like the AMZN agreement last year. I see the filing to dismiss the Huawei case on 5/13 but the companies have no press release regarding the settlement. If the settlement was material in nature the company would have a press release immediately. Maybe the court needs to bless the order and a P/R will be released the next day. In reality the company should be forced to issue a PR on this immediately. They put out a PR for every little favorable ruling. A settlement is huge compared to any of those event.
So if there is no PR in the next day the settlement is another non event and reason to believe this entire trial is a sham. Pathetic of the company not to have something out in a PR to provide investors information. Add to that the stock price is at around $.017 a share. The shares o/s continue to increase and the number of defendants continue to shrink. If this was a real settlement the share price would have exploded higher.
I am waiting to here something soon. Tick Tock Rich. Investors are waiting.
You should be included in my last post about doing exactly what they comain about. Here's to your point and is only a tiny example of you having committed what you complain about. Many more available...
129830, 129804, 129681, 128696 (where you haven't a clue what you or I was talking about, but act like you do), 127962 (like you sometimes do?)
In any event, have you heard the rumor going around that vplm has won the gold medal in the old farts downhill slolam in "failures in fiduciary duty" AND "unjust personal enrichment"? Correction: they indeed have captured the gold! Go team Vplm!
Congratulations on the finest example of committing each and every negative you whined about in real time, as it was written, that I've seen in a long time. Don't get me wrong....you are not the only one who has derived such a talent here, but it's definitely the finest example I've seen this week.....month......year?
I mean the way you so deftly nailed ea and every one at the same time of typing it, is uncanny and funnier than hell! Thus I must tip my hat and thank you for the good laffs. Laughs are invaluable and priceless things so I hope you are able to keep up this service. No whining from me, all you. I'm happy. It's one, but certainly not the only, reason I come here......lolol hahaha.... and ppl want to know why. Too funny.
Incidently, has anyone mentioned lately that vplm is also a great example..........of being a front......an eminence front......its a put on! Glad you could come and join the party, but can't help but wonder why you shot your self in the foot and then put foot in mouth?
If Vplm was still in the casting business, I'd have them make up a small trophy for your awesome example of cutting nose to spite face. A true shining example.
Meanwhile, don't look now but your your favorite daytime soap opera, Vplm, aka "as the stomach turns", is busy picking your pocket.
COMPANY NOTES
Formerly=VOIP MDU.com until 9-06
Formerly=All American Casting International, Inc. until 3-04
Right from OTC markets site. But NYTwyt wants to argue and needs to write a book of wrongs as usual. Please go some where were you are relevant. TIA ! Boom! And for bonus credit can you name the previous CEOs?
Please make it going away. We don't care.
I understand that the truth hurts. People with true character can acknowledge reality. My challenge stands and wont go away.
I do not get to see it but I was told some less than knowledgeable goof disputes my well earned knowledge as to the history of 27 yr old Vplm so I will have to school not him/her, but those who may've seen their misinformation and know better in the future who slings the bs. I know this stuff due to my deep DD in the past about this company, and I can say that vplm (incl it's former names) was not a modeling or talent company or whatever was said. (I know it was something to that effect). It was a casting company that made toys (maybe the ignorace came from thinking casting was a casting couch or something, DUH). In fact the original name had the the word casting in it, but they also were already in the beginning, involving themselves with voip services. But I will try to dig up my DD notes from that time so as to post the facts better than just my memory. Everything I have posted as in a fact form, on this board has always been backed up and supported by documentation, either alongside the posts or waiting in the wings in my files. I have never made up anything and no one has ever been able to show different since it doesn't exist. Oh sure there's a couple nasty, rude, disrespectfuls, you know who they are, who have tried and have posted pure bullshit lies or twists of things I've said and most of them are merely copycats, posting things they nothing of except were put upon by you know who, to do so. They are followers who can't even get there facts straight yet have reposted the same bs many times as tho it's true, when it isn't and is easy to refute. But I have done so in the past and don't keep refuting the same dumb things. If readers want to blindly accept the bs and not ask for proof, then they deserve to exist in an illusionary world they live in. Not my problem. But when something new comes up, I'm happy to refute and show the facts once anyway. I forget what I was told but something about Vplm being a modeling agency or a talent agency. I have documentation, from the time, that speaks to what the company was into and I've never seen anything to do with modeling or talent scouting or whatever. If it exists, love to see it. I can, however, surmise how some dummy with no discernment skills could have seen something about modeling and/or the casting of toys and their limited mind translate that to talent scouting or casting couching, lol. I have tons and tons of notes and documents relating to vplm history and I may not be able to dig up all of it in a timely manner but I'll try to find at least some parts I can post quickly that show not only was Vplm making toys and such but that my contention they were into voip services pretty much from the beginning, is correct and based on facts documented. And that this joker is plain full of crap and has zero knowledge about Vplm history which began in 1997.
I want to first say thanks to real shareholders with valid information and not whining. useless bitch sessions patting each other on the back and ridiculos ranting.I felt like this board had turned bashers complaining and showing their stupidity. Everyone deserves a opinion but make it and shut up. No one needs people with anger issues. I am surprised the oversight here hasn't banned them. Half the time I can't read or understand the illiterate posts. GO AWAY let the adults talk. Deer balls as always thank you for sharing makes me want to at least start reading this again. Please do not stop sharing. Sorry to the bashers if I used language and words above your pea brains.
What this board needs a lot more of is simply "Grace" it is easy to mis state something or quote an old source. Generally, it is clear when someone is being intentionally obfuscatory or simply made a mistake. This slamming people for sport gets obnoxious fast and, even more troubling, makes this the last place well intentioned fellow shareholders want to go to trade ideas on VPLM.
Order just hit docket. Huawei in ND TX officially dismissed. Some claims with prejudice and some without!
$.0172 Coincidently, another 36 minute session with Rich, late afternoon yesterday. Believe what you want, but if you think I do not get infinitely more out of this time than out of filings, OK. BTW, guess who else doesn't get much out of the court filings? Ahhhhhh, Rich! OK, he does have access to the team, but he does not even see some of the filings.
Onward: After chatting(with lots of laughing over the misconceptions coming from guess where), I've decided to un-bunch my drawers and share. I have too many people I have gotten involved in VPLM to just throw in due to a few ....(you fill in the dots).
Granted, I'm only @ a 4th grade reading level(teacher says I should make it to 5th in a couple years, but she says she loves my penmanship), I did READ and the 12 million employment REFERS THE 'TOP EMPLOYERS INSTITUTE' and their "certifications", NOT huawei employment! The top 5 employers in the world, combined, do not employ 12 million folks. 'The institute' should be trusted as I've always heard china/chinese companies really look after their people!!!!!!!
Rich laughed at the suggestion Emil might leave/take a lesser role with VPLM!!!
As I've heard previously, the idea the huawei lawsuit was other than small is not horse/bullshit or any other kind. The huawei lawsuit covered only the U.S. huawei does little business in the U.S. due to sanctions put upon them by the U.S. government! The Alice ramifications are, however, HUGE!!!!! Rightly so, Rich has always been very wary of the Alice....
Just an question: Do the filings give any idea as to the work the VPLM team is putting in right now??? Rich was working on Mother's Day, took a few minutes out to speak with me and was going back at it after we got off the phone. Do the filings give the excitement level of whatever Rich is working on? Rich's excitement level is palpable!!!
Lastly, there is zero inconsistency to what I've said regarding the filings. If there were, the quotes would be shown, not just this "laughable banter"!
Folks, like it or not, I'm back sharing. No question, by leaps and bounds, VPLM IS SITTING IN ITS BEST POSITION EVER! Don't worry about the banter, it isn't a big deal!
A special thanks to Emil/VPLM Team, but especially Rich! RICH HAS BEEN WORKING HIS ... OFF FOR US ALL! Thank you, Rich!
Splurged this morning with a $7 coffee...what a world! I'm not at Starbucks, but I "READ" the average Starbucks in chyna has 200 people on duty at any given time.... ;) Just a bit of a joke.
“Vplm is 27 yrs old, has been in the voip biz pretty much from the beginning FYI and yes”
Now you know how NYT earned the name “NYTwyt” For the first 7 or 8 year it was a talent agency. Duh. What a fool. Oh and I might be down 400 pct. Smdh
I know your busy saving the world, so I will simplify the question you didn't answer... shocker...
I don't need a summary of the past 12 years, just name ONE, just ONE thing you've done to try and bring this SCAM down.
Just checking in to see if there’s any relevant updates and I see that this board has turned into a bitch fest for bored housewives with nothing better to do. It really is pathetic.
That was pretty funny. You gave a factual correction straight from their website and current to at least last few months. Indisputably making the original posted crap to be flotsam and jetsam. Let me go collate the apologies....oh wait.......there are none....only the desperate insistence you're wrong. Happens to me several x per day. It's great entertainment especially when the company never has anything good to report except crap and fluff disguised as good stuff. By the way, isn't 12 mil way more than 2 or 3 magnitudes? Are magnitudes linear or logarithmic? I thought it was linear like 2, 4, 6, 8 etc. but I never looked into what it means exactly. Sounds like maybe I had it wrong... Sounded like the number of emoyees was inflated by roughly 60x? small mistake...lol
Rich is an honorable man and a great guy. He’s not only a tremendous family man and father, he’s honest and is very active in his church.
You can disrespect an alias on this board all you want but, when you name someone and slander them, you’ve crossed the line. Your disrespectful character assassination towards him, is without merit. It’s completely uncalled for and extremely damaging to his image.
It’s one thing bantering back and forth with others on this board. Heck, I respond back only to an alias that attacks me first. And I’m laughing while I type my response(s). It’s all in fun and I find it hilarious. I will always stand up to bullies. BUT, when you falsely accuse and slander someone who has a public image representing VPLM, you’ve put yourself in a precarious position. Be prepared for what’s ahead for you. Just a heads up.
This board is meant for us to voice our opinions towards VPLM. If you can’t understand someone might have a different opinion than you, misspoke, made an incorrect statement based on information they’ve been told, or even a honest typo, then this is a “you problem, not a me problem”. It comes from your weak character as a person and inability of comprehending and processing material.
IMHO
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: |