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.
for the ones who are truly invested here it cant hurt if each one posted on different verizon t-mobile boards about it...its better than people tearing eachother apart here and possibly gets their investors concerned...jmo
i bet there would be more interest if verizon and t mobile shareholders knew of the upcoming trials..i bet both companies arent even mentioning it or giving their shareholders updates either..hmmm maybe its time for their message boards to know? hmmm
I really don't know, I don't think that anything about VPLM is normal so it is tough to say. This is the only penny stock I have ever invested in. To me the solid value that VPLM will attain, long term (or through liquidation) will be based primarily on straight fundamentals. In my mind what is going on right now with share price is fairly immaterial and the only thing that will move the needle is a legitimate buyout offer or a favorable ruling in court where actual damages are outlined and awarded. The share price in those two scenarios will be so much higher than the current trading that I don't think a couple of cents here or there will make much difference. Of course if you are a day trader it will make a difference, but if you are a long it just kind of seems like noise. No doubt, a higher price would be nice to see, but like we all realize that price is very fragile and any kind of sell volume will knock it right back down. In my very uninformed on penny stocks opinion.
If a company wins a $100+ million dollar judgement, being a material event aren’t they obligated to file an 8k?
It's easy to get wrapped up in the stock price sometimes, especially when you've been in this as long as most of us have... For me personally, I have never used the stock price to get a read on where things stand. It’s just not a good tool for knowing where things stand. It never has been. We’ve seen this sky rocket 2000% plus percent in a couple of weeks when nobody was predicting that.
I don’t care what the stock price has said the last couple of days, in my opinion, it couldn’t be more off. Several posters have already alluded to this, but I like this guy’s post from another site. Sorry, you don’t get an Alice win and VPLM just throws in the towel the next day without having a plan. I continue to trust in the team.
Post from another
the most important thing out of hauwei is we got an Alice ruling that the patent was solid. We never got that op in CA. If you follow the filings, Hudnell immediately added this to T-Mobile And VZ trials as evidence. Whatever the settlement, they knew they lost on that, it only makes the bigger players in this instance have to deal with during trial . From what I hear, cannot appeal an Alice 101 ruling, which is why it is was bs we never got one with CA judge Lucy Koh. Amazon is not in mobile like T-Mobile and VZ are…when those trials begin, that, in my opinion, will be when the fireworks start.
let me ask you something...if the sp is moving north prior to this july /august/ oct etc etc. a buyout would give more per share if the sp was higher than it is now???/ right?
Yeah right.... Like that's gonna happen..... Like they never would've thought of it if it wasn't for you.
Vplm has never advertized themselves because it's not part of the plan. The plan does not include selling company or patents.....it includes selling fiat shares hand over fist, day after day, year after year. It works perfectly! Don't forget to donate....
Sorry, but that seems un-neccessarily harsh.
They are indeed keeping their eye on where the money is.....
....and making sure it goes straight to where they want it to go....
.....into their pockets. That won't change. That's the PLAN
My sense is that the VPLM legal team is doing everything they can to signal that they ARE NOT a patent troll. They have been doing all of the blocking and tackling that is boring, but effective in court, for securing a patent infringement judgement. While screaming this from the rooftops, especially given the victories in all of the pre trial maneuvering, is tempting, it runs the risk of cheapening the main message by opening VPLM up to accusations of simply using the patent troll play book to extort the defendants. While I am frustrated by how long this takes, I always knew that to get this into court would be a long, long slog. Getting deep into this instead of playing a game of legal chicken, in my opinion, has the best possibility of creating real lasting value for VPLM. Now that we are just about there, I think it would be unwise to change strategies. It seems that the defendants are being consistently backed deeper into an alley with no exits and no more ammunition to fight with. Again, just my opinion.
Da fuk? I asked about your thoughts & opinions on where we are on price since volume was moving up and this is the answer…or should so say non-answer?
Feels like a page from NYT!
UFB!
bs..a secretary can set up interviews for tv or publications as far recruiting deep pocket investors, maybe good ol rich can handle that...the market will give this more creed if the chart looks better! .015 aint doing it big time.
When they get a notable deal done with one of the big infringers the stock market will react positively. I doubt they have time to promote right now and should keep their eye on the ball. That's where the real money is.
db. tell rich that emil needs to promote his patents to new investers!! and have them buy f****ng shares!! its a simple idea and statement fella !!!!!!!!!!
, ask him why cant emil do a financial show interview ( ex. bloomberg) so some interest will pick up...even an interview for any website / publication...we need exposure bro!..not enough interest here except for us longs who hang on, we need new meat!
$.0156 Ahhhh, the old "adult conversation" and how nice that could be, however so much of the time the board seems to turn into a therapy session. I have found, in many areas of my life, the adult conversation I find most useful is the one with the dude in the mirror! I challenge myself constantly; few seem to these daz!
So, I spoke with 200mm++++++ the past couple daz and he said he didn't understand why so many badmouth/question so harshly the investment they are supposedly in. Did I say something about "therapy"? So, let's strip this down a bit:
The lack of PRs/info coming from VPLM has been ongoing for something like seven years, ever since Mr. Hudnell took over. It's nothing new! "Concentrate on the filings"/ it's all in the filings/the filings.... Well, why the void?
VPLM is a unique play, with few PRs coming out, SO THIS BOARD BECOMES MORE IMPORTANT AS A SOURCE, wouldn't you think?! Put yourself in a newbies place, or someone invested who only has time to check the board. Much of the time what you see now is long time posters, formerly positive, turning negative, questioning VPLM! Where are the estimated damages/the settlements are hinky/insider selling/Emil would be a "sellout" if.../why the dilution(DUH?), why isn't the price rising on the volume( A LOADED QUESTION, BTW) and on and on......The filings, isn't it all in the filings?
I posed the why isn't the market price moving up on volume question to two former brokers I worked with, just for fun. One a 48 year vet and VPLM investor, the other only 42 years. Sorry, can't divulge the answers in mixed company...Ya never get that question from clients lol.
Why isn't the price rising with the volume??????? Really? The postings here might influence things more than you think. Long time "positives" going negative and not "blindly following VPLM anymore"? Why would anyone blindly follow anything?
I don't know why this is, but few folks will challenge themselves on anything thing these daz....I'M ON THIS TEAM, I THINK THIS WAY. Look at trying to have a political conversation with someone on the other side. Get folks going sour on VPLM and they have a need to blurt it out!
OK, so that being said, Rich did not have time for DeerBalls last night; we are supposed to speak today.
LET ME BE CLEAR, I AM AS EXCITED AS EVER ABOUT VPLM PROSPECTS GOING FORWARD. Emil/Rich and the whole GREAT TEAM are getting it done!!!! Yes, there is some trust involved, it's the nature of VPLM and any play which takes place between attorneys and in the courtroom! I DIDN'T SAY TOTAL TRUST; I know how words get twisted, but the team has earned trust! Isn't the new advisory board including Ray Leon a bit of a clue? Why would VPLM sign them on; why would they sign on?
My one rant for the day! Questions? Please post and I will ask Rich.... I AM TRYING TO HELP OUR COLLECTIVE SITUATION HERE WITH VPLM!
Ask yourself who is eating(buying) all these shares....buyers buy for only one reason; sellers sell for millions of reasons!
it be nice if some new retail heads come into the picture and do some buying..not the typical 5k shares high school kids that dont help at all..need some big buys here!
Appreciate the rare adult conversation IAZ.
You're right, the exparte reexam/101/IPRs are all wins that have strengthened the patent tremendously; however, not sure I see the settlements/dismissed cases as wins though, not until we get some substantial monetization and maybe a little more light shed on them. I used to look forward to a VP settlement, thinking that was going to somehow be the light at the end of the tunnel, at least a little bit, but that's not YET appearing to be the case.
I'm under the impression that the Huawei case is now settled, so not sure how they could be brought into any current/future negotiations as Huawei's infringement is no longer an issue for them as well as Amazon's concern of MG infringement. Anything on those settled cases is all speculative guesses. It's now the strength of the patents and being in WACO are the only things keeping me here, that's it!
I appreciate the response!
Great read! Thxs
Rocket Docket has slowed down but it’s due to the increase of cases. Just glad to be in a court that’s fair and the Honorable Judge follows the constitution And somehow this is VPLMs fault.
Nationwide, in 2021, Judge Albright received nearly a quarter of all patent cases (931 out of 4,005). In 2023, he received fewer than 7% (207 out of 3,123). So far in 2024, he's received a little under 10%.Apr 4, 2024
That 1.233 million to directors was the yearly payment in stock to the board members and directors of the company.
I’m not too worried about that. Surprised the stock hasn’t moved higher with trial 90 days away. It should start to get exciting soon. I’m basing this move based on other examples like PRKR and their trial date was mid April of 2023. NLST moved up into there their.date
4/23, Definitely tired of looking at .01’s but I’m expecting this to change.
Fair comments!
DB, any thoughts?
Notice how much harder one is working lately... HMMMM!!!!
Notice I still can't get ONE thing someone has done to bring down this SCAM..... .supposedly working with the feds for 12 years...
Supposedly any 3rd grader can see this is a SCAM, but 12 years isn't long enough for a SCAM buster to bring them down.
Notice that ANY basher does everything they can to stay away from the patents... in fact, mock you when you bring them up... that one kills me.
NYT???
Can’t you find what you are looking for in a filing? And I’d like to point out that you do not speak for me.
Hang in there Butters!
You mentioned running out of defendants.
I suspect this is a good thing... actually a strategy... from what I see, they have kept Apple and the other "dismissed" cases in NDCA from hurting the patents by temporarily dismissing them, while they've now succeeded with Amazon and now with Huawei. 2 smaller infringers. I don't know what the win with Amazon did for us specifically, although a win is a win, and that always helps. But clearly with Huawei case, they have now eliminated or at least severely damaged any of the remaining companies (including Apple which was dismissed WITHOUT prejudice), from using Alice against us.
Winning the ex-parte examination and all the IPR battles were also key. The way I look at it, they're just closing off all the exits and the remaining companies will be forced to negotiate seriously. Once negotiations with one begins (ahem, Huawei, ahem), the others could be brought into the mix and we have the serious potential for a bidding war.
He hasn't told me this, but I suspect that's why DB is so adamant about not focusing on the trials coming up. Yes, they are one more threat to the infringers, but it seems as if closing the Alice exit door might have been enough to really get the negotiation ball rolling, and there may not be a NEED to actually go to trial.
I've said this before... I just haven't seen anything but positive things happening related to the patents... for a LONG time now!
As Drumming said... the patents are proving to be STRONG.
And I believe the legal strategy (which includes keeping everything close to the vest so as not to allow any unforced errors) will carry this thing through to completion.
The dilution/insider selling seems to me to have some other meaning than what the bashers are using it for. I honestly have no idea what that would be, but it just doesn't make sense with all the really good things happening that they'd be purposely trying to keep the price down. I've decided to leave that issue alone and just trust the amazing legal process that has been unfolding.
$1.3 million Director's fees for the first three months of 2024 alone. Pretty damn impressive. As is the increase in the float
https://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=90423&ref=318323066&type=HTML&symbol=VPLM&cdn=8cfdf2a76d0104f67e376d62d4119e91&companyName=Voip-Pal.Com+Inc&formType=10-Q&formDescription=General+form+for+quarterly+reports+under+Section+13+or+15%28d%29&dateFiled=2024-05-15
This paragraph has me intrigued, specifically a technological improvement (patentable) as well as additional special advisory appointments. Hmmm! This seems to be extremely positive leading into Verizon and T-Mobile
The Court is particularly not persuaded by the Defendants’ argument that the
claim recites mere routine practices akin to switchboard operations that are
performed by a computer. From the record before the Court, this appears to
misrepresent the claimed invention and the asserted technological improvement. As
described in the specification, the invention does not merely involve the routing of
phone calls like a switchboard operator would do. Instead, the invention involves the
initiation of a phone call from a mobile phone. This includes a determination of
what the best manner would be to initiate the phone call to avoid roaming or long distance charges. To accomplish this, the invention includes the steps of requesting
and receiving an access code from a server. The access code identifies a number
that is local to the mobile phone and is associated with the callee. The call is then
initiated using the access code, as opposed to directly initiating the call using the
callee’s phone number. This appears to be the invention and technological
improvement captured by claim 1 of the ‘234 patent, which precludes granting a
motion to dismiss at this stage of the case.
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
Oh yeah....WACO....place to be....where the rocket Docket, lololol....turned out in truth to be a rock sitting on a dock, watching the ships go by.... and the the vaunted judge had to be admonished for stealing all the cases for himself. Go back to the beginning and read what the most assured expectations and beliefs were here for this judge. Yeah, Waco....place to be.....there was another groups who thought the same about Waco and also followed their guru cult leader there and look where that wound up. No correlation intended other than the obvious ones above but still, Waco...? Big deal... No, wait....its not a big deal.....its a 27 yr old pennystock worth a penny +. For more than a quarter century, this company, in all it's iterations, has tried to be a voip company.....and failed miserably.......until you realize it's latest iteration is not that goal at all, but just a FRONT for selling fiat shares. 25 yrs is a long time to fail but it hasn't failed, it has done very well for lord emu and partner and some bod members. All the rest, over the yrs have quit for little or no reason once, in my opinion, they realized the farce they were part of. Most were smart knowledgeable peeps but the patents have alway been shrouded in secrecy in terms of test results, failure to fold into Vplm voip platform as promised and the fact that as knowledgeable as they were they still couldn't tell if the patents actually worked as advertized because if they had the necessary knowledge to know it, they themselves could've developed the patents and written the code, as opposed to that most likely bs story about digi-phony-ca paying 20 voip engineers upwards of 17 or 18 million dollars to do so..........AND THEN........for no good reason, sell them for cheap to vplm.
The naivete' abounds....
Fact o matter is I've been promising you monkey wrenches for yrs now and I have delivered... I don't really me "I", it's just a figure of speech as it's not I that deliver them, it's Vplm. I say it tho, to demonstrate that I have this bitch figured out long ago and could fairly easily predict what would happen.......and have been doing so for many yrs. after seeing thru the mirage. Doesn't matter if you belive me or not or think it's crazy or stupid or lies or. any of the myriad of rude crude and disrespectful often made by those who don't know the point and purpose of the board and/or don't have good social skills so they come here where those that run this joke of a board, often allow anything goes and do so more than ever before because they are failing and need more advertising so they allow most anything nowadays to boost the ads and clicks. I personally saw one of them (so called admins) say exactly that to ppl who question the tactics of the newest deal over on the QA board. Couldn't believe it at 1st but the more I thought about the way things go here, it made more and more sense. Anyway, back to my ability to call, sometimes more vaguely, sometimes more specifically, whats about to happen and I do so on a regular basis and it's very easy to check the validity of that by simply checking the board posting history. The further back you go and if you read fwd without making gaps, the more you see the predictions of monkey wrenches coming true over and over. The most significant aspect is how COMPLETELY and TOTALLY the monkey wrenches that do come, without fail, WERE UNEXPECTED and NEVER SPOKEN OF, in terms of lots of specific things. For example, no one has ever thought or predicted that there would be multiple so called settlements which are more ghost settlements comprised of nothing as far as we are concerned because we are on a need to know basis and lord emu of eGipped decrees that we dont need to know anything EXCEPT HIS POLLYANNA WORDS IN PRs, eZINES, fake OP-EDS, FAKE CONFERENCE CALLS (infomercials), TV SPOTS, ETC, WHERE HE KEEPS FOR YRS TELLING YOU HOW GREAT VPLM IS, THE PATENTS THAT IS, AND HOW FIDUCIARY HE IS (in spite of having been found guilty of the opposite by a jury of his peers), AND HOW ALL YOU NEED, YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR...IS PATIENCE.......YOU KNOW....LIKE THE PATIENCE HE AND QUEEN SELLSALOT HAVE IN SELLING SELLING SELLING....LIKE THERE IS NO TOMORROW......BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT NO TOMORROW IS CONTINUOUSLY ON HAND AND COULD COME LIKE A THIEF IN THE NIGHT.
So what you read is everybody and their uncle and mandrake and Carnac and the rest of the ridiculousness that ALWAYS TURNS OUT TO BE WRONG WITHOUT FAIL...... starts predicting something big about to happen and the the excitement builds and you become so sure of the good about to come and then I call monkeys wrenches and what happen?.........stupid secret dismissals with no explanation no PRs no nothing including no improvement in the pps. That's happened several times now. I always know it's gonna happen because actual trials are not what is wanted by either side. And I have specifically posted that before. Trials are only desired when the charges are based on a truthful foundation of what the company is really about. It's not about patents or infringement and the coming events will continue to bear that out. It's a freaking big, mean, green, share printing, share selling, personal ATM machine and AS SUCH, no way lord emu and cohortage want want it to end. It has worked like a charm for them and the cabal for many yrs now and they hope it will continue to support their lifestyle. They feel very entitled but don't feel same about you.
If good stuff was on tap, they would at least wait for the price to go up. They actually did do that in recent days with lots of renewed share selling as the price was up a little.
That's another thing Ive been able to predict with a perfect record for years, that being the price always comes back down to same or lower levels.. It never maintains or keeps rising like you would expect with the bs claims of billions and billions in value and damages etc. This time over the past week or so, the spike up was very limited and the fall back is happening a little slower than usual but it's still same ol same ol. And due to the boy who cried wolf syndrome, it has become more and more difficult for news or empty speculation to drive it up..
Now the next big thing is July. Let's see what happens. PLEASE MAKE ME BE WRONG! PLEASE GIVE UP MY 50 CENT.
I always knew it would come to this, but it is not just the big churches, it is the little ones too. Oh, the humanity.
absolutely drumming! being in WACO and the strength of the patents are the only reasons why I'm here.
All great questions and valid concerns Butter. I still believe in the strength of the patents. Absent any public communication from the company, we can only assume we’re heading to trial in August.
I would have conservatively thought patents upheld & strengthened from past ex-parte re-exam, winning the 101 denial in ND TX, and trial dates set in WD TX would have been catalyst to get the PPS moving past .02 but what do I know, I’m just a dumb steel guy.
Yeah really Drumming!
Long shareholders for over a decade, holding out for a settlements/buyout/partnership/whatever etc..
We have finally gotten 2 settlements and we still know nothing about them, both of which VP appeared to have the upper hand in negotiations. Is VPs goal to "Settle" with ANY of the remaining 3 defendants? We're running out of defendants and these settlements don't appear to be improving the value of our investment.
We've had 3 billion shares added to the AS and don't know why? At the time we had 2 bill shares available and $2mm in cash.
Over 70mm shares traded over the last 2 weeks and we can't break .02. If we need more trading activity than this to increase the PPS, what is VP doing to increase investment community awareness and bring in new shareholders. How are possible new investors in VP going to make that decision to buy VP shares without knowing what the heck is in it for them? And thus, will we eventually know infringement damage amounts on ANY of the cases? How else are we (and new investors) supposed to base the value of our investments.
And I don't speak for only myself!
“Any REAL questions out there?”
Yep…any thoughts or opinions on why VPLM can’t break through the .02 PPS barrier? There’s been plenty of volume so what’s holding it down?
$.0158 Horrible news; this could be it. I've worried and warned about this for years:
rimspotter caught the tail and has busted the whole operation!
So Digifonica starts out making patent application about 24 years ago. Digi runs into financial troubles and in comes Emil to the rescue. Emil ends up folding Digi into VPLM after clearing the financial issues.
Emil becomes CEO of VPLM around 10 years ago, a bit earlier VPLM received its first patent. As time rolls on, VPLM would receive some 25 patents in the U.S. and later received patents in the E.U./India/Indonesia/Brazil. In addition, VPLM became fully audited and uplisted to the OTC QB.
Things were going great: letters out to infringers, lawsuits(remember the claims VPLM would never serve the suits?), IPR challenges.... VPLM has survived something like 38 IPR challenges, TWO OF WHICH WERE FULL YEAR LONG IPR TRIALS IN WHICH VPLM SPANKED aapl.
The fights in CA with "judge" koh, stipulated dismissals(deals) with aapl/t/amzn/huawei. The ups and downs with Alice, most recently VERY MUCH UP!
I know there is more, but I am tearing up just thinking the jig might be up: rimspotter has exposed the plan that was going to glue this all together. Rich was going to be hitting the large congregation churches and I the bingo halls and retirement communities(especially the ones with high numbers of retired brokers). Week to week, Rich and I would trade off the VPLM corporate jet(it's filled with magic chairs) and buzz around the country and maybe, later, the world!
Oh, brother, I'm so depressed, not by the "jig" being up, but by the lengths one might go in tail chasing/brown-cavity "whisdomZ". Really!
Any REAL questions out there? I'm supposed to speak with Rich later(if he can find his way out of the huge congregation he is visiting ;)..). I may speak with 200mm++++++ Robert later as well.
I know why I'm here(I'm a shareholder); others, those bad mouthing VPLM with ZIP, IDK!? They ain't short, nor are they being paid.... I guess years back, I did spend time on fb. Hey, to all, carry on, do as you please!
Lastly, Rich is still very tied up and I ALWAYS figure it means well for VPLM shareholders. And, for those who don't read the business about congratulations/retirement communities as a joke...IT WAS A JOKE!
Thanks to the two posters who have mentioned what a devout upright church-goer Rich Inza is:
Hitting it out of the park, DB!
And AMEN to the following (from your post):
With 12 business days left in May, it will be very interesting to see how the month ends.
The odd thing with VPLM lately seems to be that even perceived great news doesn’t drive the PPS up like we’ve seen in the past. Is it due to ongoing dilution, perception on insider trading, lack of belief in patents, price manipulation, or something else?
To be fair, I’m just a dumb guy with almost 40 years of metallurgical/metals industry knowledge and not smart enough to venture a guess why PPS is stuck under 2 cents but it just seems odd with the recent 101 denial in ND TX & the WD TX cases coming closer to trials actually starting. We’ve heard volume precedes price and shares have definitely been moving. Let’s hope price is not too far behind the increasing volume.
Voltaire was a wise man when he said, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one.”
Let’s freaking go
Mandrake is feeling the same vibrations. Stay calm
Excellent post, DB! Good to see you back encouraging us and sharing your insights... thank you!
I think I understand now why you've been so adamant about not focusing so much on the filings.
Clearly more info can be obtained from Rich directly.
BUT... it does seem that Rich is super busy and wouldn't have time to talk with every shareholder, so I'll hold off from calling him myself.
I'm grateful to have your insights, gut feelings, and putting 2 and 2 together (with input from Rich) back on the Board.
Keep up the good work!
Carnac is back in town reminding me of his notice of a huge May event for vplm. This time he is adding the term “earth shaking”. We shall see.
Nytwit in 2013
“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?”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
As shareholders, we are mere passengers on the VPLM bus. We are not the driver, thus we don't get to see the view from the driver's seat. We don't see the next turn or bend in the road until after the fact. We can only see where we have been by reading the filings, news releases, etc. The rest is speculation. We don't hold the roadmap, therefore we are not privy to the exact route the driver is taking. We believed in the VPLM story, so we bought a ticket to be on the bus. We have to trust the driver to navigate through some very treacherous legal waters, pitfalls and potholes, and bring us to the promised land in one piece. If we don't trust the driver (management) to navigate the VPLM bus successfully to that promised land, then we should not be on this bus. It is pointless to try to be a backseat driver, or to keep asking, "Are we there yet." We should all know when we have finally arrived. Just thought I would add my perspective to this smorgasbord of perspectives. GLTA.
I think the sunspotter moniker should be replaced with dark cloud. Not a lot of positive, uplifting or helpful messages from your side of the fence. I get that you believe you are simply being realistic. Message received, hopefully the outcome will be a pleasant surprise.
So glad to hear Buster is well. I need to call him.
Thanks, DB...
LMAO!!! Now an investor from Utah is calling you for your expert failed stockbroker advice...?? Yeah, ok you 🤡
$.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/
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: |