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.
When you say picked up 2 million plus, did he purchase or was he awarded them?
VOIP PAL.com, Inc.'s CFO just picked up 2,386,350 shares
I am glad that the intent seems to be to enforce these sanctions, however the term “justice delayed is justice denied” comes to mind. That statement was made in 2016 and here we still are 8 years later trying to get to trial and being exposed to delays as our expert (identified a year ago) has now been called into question. It seems like the practical result of the treble damages is that the deep pockets use the cost of the legal system even more to their benefit. I have no doubt that if you can last long enough and jump through enough hoops, you will get your treble damages, but I think most people give up along the way. Hopefully they survive long enough to cut a deal. Somehow the system needs to be streamlined. Great research and here’s to more real progress in these matters that benefit the inventors.
Thanks rapz for that excellent expose on treble damages. So, this award is not so much to compensate the patent owner as it is to punish the infringer. Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, it is now much easier for the plaintiff to establish willfulness in a District Court. This is another reason why I believe that VP would fare much better with a court victory under Judge Albright than with an out of court settlement, where the terms are often undisclosed, and where the compensation to the abused patent owner most often favors the infringer, and where infringement itself is NOT proven in a court of law, thereby adversely affecting the other pending cases. Of course a buyout would be another great option for VPLM shareholders, and no one (myself included) would object to a fair and reasonable settlement. But, as shareholders, we are in the back seat of the VPLM bus. We are not the driver and, as such, we are are not privy to the driver's view of the road ahead, nor do we hold the roadmap. However, we are getting closer to our destination, and I truly believe that whichever route this bus takes will be a win win for all VPLM shareholders.
Nah, there’s more to it than that. Look closer, you should understand what’s going on.
IMHO
$. 01635 The obvious answer is no, but I will explain! This is to you and anyone else without access to the filings, the inclination to read the filings(like me most of the time), nor the legal training to make a judgement.
The Hudnell filing was excellent because he is an excellent attorney; that's what he does! Guess what, the filings from the other side will be excellent as well, but the only judgement which matters is that of Judge Albright! VPLM is in great hands! Knowing every little detail of the farm that produces the wheat which goes into the bread is not necessary.
I would bet fewer than 5% of VPLM shareholders read all the files, or many. Not a big deal! I speak to many folks who, collectively, own 500mm+ shares at least. None that I'm aware of read the filings!
That being said, there are much, much bigger things going on and the excitement level has never been anywhere near this high! Stay tuned, I know you will!
Last note: did those damage estimates come out, cuz we've been working higher! Just kidding, we know the "damage estimates" aren't a huge thing for PPS!
Thanks rapz!!
So nice having all this helpful info posted!!
Thanks Rapz. You nailed it as always! Great info and thanks for posting.
Drumming, here is Chief Justice Roberts views on willful infringement, NOTE: he says not only a compensation is owed to the inventor but USC 35 section 284 patent law requires PUNISHMENT to the infringer... It is in Judge Albright's hands. Full text is posted for the shareholders not familiar with US patent law and potential damages.
Supreme Court Makes It Harder for Willful Infringers to Escape Punishment - June 14, 2016
By Michael T. Renaud, Richard G. Gervase, Jr., James Wodarski, Sandra J. Badin
https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2016-06-14-supreme-court-makes-it-harder-willful-infringers-escape
The Supreme Court has made it easier for patent owners to prove willful infringement and entitlement to enhanced damages. In a unanimous opinion issued yesterday in a pair of cases decided together, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Stryker Corporation v. Zimmer, Inc., the Court did away with the Federal Circuit’s “unduly rigid” test for proving willfulness, which had allowed even “wanton and malicious” infringers who intentionally set out to steal the patent owner’s ideas and business to evade liability for enhanced damages if clever counsel were later able to articulate non-trivial—even though unsuccessful—infringement or invalidity defenses.
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts explained that section 284 of the Patent Act (read US Patent Act code 35 section 284) provides that in a case of infringement, courts “may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” In its 2007 en banc decision in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, the Federal Circuit held that a district court may increase damages pursuant to section 284 only if the patent owner first showed by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer had acted “despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement,” and then also showed, again by clear and convincing evidence, that the risk of infringement “was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.” In Halo, the Court held that the Federal Circuit's test is not consistent with section 284.
Returning to first principles, Chief Justice Roberts observed that “[e]nhanced damages are as old as US patent law,” and have as their chief purpose not compensation to the patent owner—who is compensated by the award of actual damages or a reasonable royalty—but punishment of the conscious and deliberate infringer. The Seagate test frustrated that purpose, however, by allowing a deliberate infringer, “such as the ‘wanton and malicious pirate’ who intentionally infringes another’s patent—with no doubts as to its validity or any notion of a defense—for no purpose other than to steal the patentee’s business” to escape willfulness liability if he presented “a substantial question as to the validity or non-infringement of the patent” during the course of the litigation, even if he was not aware of any such argument at the time he undertook his infringement.
“In the context of such deliberate wrongdoing,” the Chief Justice observed, “it is not clear why an independent showing of objective recklessness—by clear and convincing evidence, no less—should be a prerequisite to enhanced damages.” Culpability is generally measured against the knowledge of the accused at the time of the conduct in question, not against “the strength of his attorney’s ingenuity” in later fashioning a reasonable, if ultimately unsuccessful, defense. The same applies here: “The subjective willfulness of a patent infringer, intentional or knowing, may warrant enhanced damages, without regard to whether his infringement was objectively reckless.”
The Chief Justice went on to observe that the language of section 284 is unrestricted—it “contains no explicit limit or condition”— and indeed, “allows district courts to punish the full range of culpable behavior.” The language of section 284 is also permissive—courts “may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” The Court has emphasized that the word “may” connotes discretion; thus the provision must be read as granting district courts the discretion to decide whether to award enhanced damages and in what amount. But discretion, the Chief Justice cautioned, “is not whim,” and the development of the law of enhanced damages under the Patent Act over the past 180 years reflects a recognition that such damages “are not to be meted out in a typical infringement case but are instead designed as a ‘punitive’ or ‘vindictive’ sanction for egregious infringement behavior.”
The Chief Justice explained that while the principal problem with the Seagate test is that it has the effect of “insulating some of the worst patent infringers from any liability for enhanced damages,” it is also inconsistent with section 284 because it requires clear and convincing evidence to prove recklessness. Just as the Octane Fitness court rejected the Federal Circuit’s requirement that a prevailing party must prove entitlement to an award of attorney’s fees under section 285 by clear and convincing evidence because there was no statutory basis to support such a heightened standard of proof, so too here. “Like §285, §284 ‘imposes no specific evidentiary burden, much less such a high one.’”
The Court also rejected the Federal Circuit’s trifurcated standard of review of enhanced damages awards—de novo review for objective recklessness (the first part of the Seagate test); substantial review for subjective knowledge (the second part of the test); and abuse of discretion for the ultimate decision whether to award enhanced damages—in favor of an abuse of discretion standard. Having determined that section 284 gives district courts discretion to award enhanced damages and to determine their amount, the conclusion that such decisions should be reviewed for abuse of discretion follows naturally, the Chief Justice explained.
In arriving at its rejection of the Federal Circuit’s Seagate test, the [color=red]Court dismissed respondents’ argument that Congress ratified Seagate when it added section 298 to the Patent Act, which provides that “[t]he failure of an infringer to obtain the advice of counsel” or “the failure of the infringer to present such advice to the court or jury, may not be used to prove that the accused infringer willfully infringed.[/color]” The provision’s reference to willful infringement cannot be an endorsement of Seagate’s willfulness test, the Chief Justice observed, since “willfulness has always been a part of patent law, both before and after Seagate,” and nothing in section 298 suggests Congress ratified the particular conception of willfulness reflected in Seagate.
The Court also rejected respondents’ underlying policy argument that making it easier to prove willfulness will “embolden [patent] ‘trolls.’” Such a concern may have merit if enhanced damages were to be awarded in “garden-variety cases,” the Chief Justice noted. “As we have explained, however, they should not be. The seriousness of respondents’ policy concerns cannot justify imposing an artificial construct such as the Seagate test on the discretion conferred under §284.”
By making it easier for patent owners to prove their patents were deliberately infringed and that they are entitled to enhanced damages for the wanton and malicious pirating of their ideas, the Supreme Court’s opinion affirms the importance and value of intellectual property, and sends a clear signal that such deliberate infringement will no longer be tolerated. And by restoring to the discretion of the district courts the determination of whether to award damages, and in what amount, the Court’s opinion ensures that the “full range of culpable conduct” may be punished—and thereby deterred. American innovation will be all the stronger for it.
Haven’t you figured out what they’re or have been doing, by now?
IMHO
So what ever happened in the Amazon 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
If memory serves me, last i looked, shares were a supplement to salary.
Your new CFO has her snout firmly in the trough now, too:
http://insiderbuyingselling.com/?t=vplm&submit=
As long as Albright denies Verizon’s motion to oppose VPLM’s current damages witness, it should be a good summer. Which I’m confident he’ll do.
IMHO
Great analysis rapz! So helpful! Thank you!
Thank you for explaining it GBC! We are so grateful for all you do here
Sounds like there is a good chance thinks will happen this year!
Fourth good cause factor from Mr. Hudnell's filing:
"... The fourth good cause factor considers the availability of a continuance to cure any prejudice to the non-moving party. This matter is still 90 days away from its trial date, and VoIP-Pal can commit to serving a new report by June 30, 2024. With an expedited schedule, expert discovery could be completed before trial, which is set for the week of August 19, 2024. While trial could still begin that week as currently scheduled, Mr. Brida would need one small accommodation as the earliest he is able to appear at trial is August 26, 2024, which is the Monday of the following week. If, however, Verizon contends that such a schedule is infeasible, then VoIPPal would of course be agreeable to a reasonable continuance[/color]...."
The point of using a substitute, Mr. Brida, was to address, PRE-EMPTIVELY, Verizon's complaint about Mr. Salk, as VPLM's expert for damages. The first step is whether Judge Albright will accept that VZ's concerns are justified. If it is not justified, Judge Albright may reject VZ's concerns. We proceed with the trial.
Judge Albright was an IP attorney arguing patent cases for plaintiffs over a decade. He is also the Judge that rejected AMZN's venue transfer motion three times. AMZN took an extraordinary step of filing a writ of Mandamus against Albright in the Appeals court. The Appeals court swiftly rejected AMZN's motion with compliments to Judge Albright on his handling of AMZN venue transfer motion. If the judge rejects VZ's complaint, we proceed with the trial in August.
If the judge decides VZ's concerns are justifiable, we go to the next step of using a substitute. Mr. Hudnell has put forth justifications for a continuance for one week from the August trial date. The next available trial date is in Nov, 2024. We'll soon know how the Judge will decide. Too early to worry about unknowns!
About reading Mr. Hudnell's filings:
Reading Mr. Hudnell's filings requires "reading between the lines". In responding to AMZN's motion to stay on the RBR case (partly due to Reexam of RBR patent), Mr Hudnell quoted a statistic of a mean pendency of 25.2 months for reexaminations, perhaps to get the attention of "rocket docket' Judge Albright. But the reexamination certificate was approved in 5-6 months after VPLM response to Office Action.
current good news vs current bad news .it.dosnt matter .the sp stays in this range till further notice..lets see what july and august bring.
Please read post # 130238, should help some. New witness would delay the August trial. Especially, that T-Mobile is opposing the same witness.
It would be a long explanation but, Hudnell argued points that if allowed would prejudicial for the jury.
IMHO
Can you please explain why the latest Hudnell filing was excellent. I neither have the expertise or access to the filing. Thank you
Options wewre expiring in June!
rapz…..you made some good points. But, I can tell you didn’t read the filing. Hudnell doesn’t expect to use the substitute because he’s not available until after the August trial date. He had to present a substitute in case Albright doesn’t deny Verizon’s motion to oppose Salk. Hudnell did an excellent job on what entails using the substitute. For one, more delays.
Both Verizon and T-Mobile already filed another motion, opposing the new substitute damages witness. All they’re doing, is trying to delay and delay.
I believe it’s stated Albright won’t rule on the motion to oppose VPLM’s original damages witness, until pretrial in July.
Just an FYI
IMHO
"US patent law sets no maximum for damages. Those hoping for 1 million and 2 millions award, check VPLM's the preliminary 2017 estimates for VZ, T, AAPL.
VZ estimated damages were $2.4 Billion in 2017. Update the 2017 estimate by adding appx 10 years of damages to make it current, 2024"
================================================
Above doesn't sound right to me. To begin with, the "preliminary estimates" were made before 2017, whenever the lawsuit was initiated. I don't remember offhand, exactly when that was but the reason I say it was before 2017 is because I'm about to show you the actual updated and recalculated estimates by Vplm which they posted in 2017. Point being that I dont think the updated figures came in the same year as the original figures with the original lawsuit. It could've been only a few months in between but I think it was longer than that. Regardless, in May of 2017 Vplm published the updated damages along with how they were determined. For Verizon and att they were far higher than the $2 bil you mentioned. Way way way more. And the total revision for the 4 or 5 companies being sued at the time, came to over $102 BILLION! And that was 7 yrs ago. It would/should be much higher now, all things considered and then, when incl all 60 or so named companies by Vplm, it becomes vividly apparent that the figure of a trillion dollars or so, that I have suggested for several yrs, as a figure I used to help me make my argument that the whole thing is one big phony farce......is very reasonable. Here are those 2017 revisions, excerpted from what the company posted back the...
_________________________________________
"The newly revised potential maximum total award to Voip-Pal to over one hundred two billion dollars ($102,570,231,360) .
Applying the updated damage award calculation method to Verizon and AT&T, the current damages sought from Verizon of more
than two billion dollars ($2,382,872,100) would in////crease to over seventeen billion dollars ($17,262,042,011) .
The current damages sought from AT&T would increase from more than one billion dollars ($1,804,795,745) to over thirteen billion
dollars ($13,540,863,431) .
Applying the maximum potential punitive damages, increases the maximum potential award from Verizon to more than sixty-nine
billion dollars ($69 billion) .
Applying the maximum potential punitive damages, increases the maximum potential award from AT&T to more than fifty-four billion
dollars ($54 billion) .
The complete monetization analyses and damage calculation methodologies are linked below." (I haven't included that here)
This is why it’s very important to read the filings. Hudnell just filed an excellent response to block Verizon’s nonsense that could have an effect on the jury, They’re trying hard to exclude anything VPLM’s witness has to offer. As well, as cause prejudice.
IMHO
All means nothing Get back to me when they get financial judgements that are in-line with the "billions and billions of ongoing" infringements that the CEO has spoken about and a price per shar that is in line with these. If not then it's a complete failure and confirmation that the patents aren't worth near as claimed.
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al
Texas Western District Court
Judge: Alan D Albright
Case #: 6:21-cv-00672
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: Jun 25, 2021
Docket
Parties (5)
Opinions (2)
Docket last updated: 1 hours ago
Thursday, May 23, 2024
174 misc Sealed Document - Patent Cases only Thu 05/23 10:15 PM
Sealed Document: ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS of173 MOTION in Limine by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. (Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Exhibit 002,
Att: 2 Exhibit 003
173 motion In Limine Thu 05/23 10:13 PM
MOTION in Limine by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC..(Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Proposed Order,
Att: 2 Exhibit 001,
Att: 3 Exhibit 004
172 motion In Limine Thu 05/23 6:31 PM
Opposed MOTION in Limine by Cellco Partnership, Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., Verizon Services Corp..(Hector, William)
Att: 1 Exhibit A,
Att: 2 Exhibit B,
Att: 3 Exhibit C,
Att: 4 Exhibit D,
Att: 5 Exhibit E,
Att: 6 Exhibit F,
Att: 7 Proposed Order
Monday, May 20, 2024
171 11 pgs motion Substitute Mon 05/20 7:47 PM
Opposed MOTION to Substitute DAMAGES EXPERT by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC..(Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Proposed Order,
Att: 2 Affidavit of Lewis Hudnell,
Att: 3 Exhibit 1,
Att: 4 Exhibit 2,
Att: 5 Exhibit 3
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al
Texas Western District Court
Judge: Alan D Albright
Case #: 6:21-cv-00674
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: Jun 25, 2021
Docket
Parties (6)
Opinions (2)
Docket last updated: 7 hours ago
Thursday, May 23, 2024
247 misc Sealed Document - Patent Cases only Thu 05/23 10:50 PM
Sealed Document: ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS of246 MOTION in Limine by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. (Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Exhibit 2,
Att: 2 Exhibit 3,
Att: 3 Exhibit 4,
Att: 4 Exhibit 5,
Att: 5 Exhibit 6,
Att: 6 Exhibit 7,
Att: 7 Exhibit 8
246 motion In Limine Thu 05/23 10:48 PM
MOTION in Limine by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC..(Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Proposed Order,
Att: 2 Exhibit 001,
Att: 3 Exhibit 009
245 misc Sealed Document - Patent Cases only Thu 05/23 8:27 PM
Sealed Document: NOTICE OF SEALED ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS of244 MOTION in Limine by T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Smith, Melissa)
Att: 1 Exhibit 3,
Att: 2 Exhibit 6,
Att: 3 Exhibit 7
244 motion In Limine Thu 05/23 8:24 PM
MOTION in Limine by T-Mobile USA, Inc..(Smith, Melissa)
Att: 1 Exhibit 1,
Att: 2 Exhibit 2,
Att: 3 Exhibit 4,
Att: 4 Exhibit 5,
Att: 5 Exhibit 8,
Att: 6 Exhibit 9,
Att: 7 Proposed Order
Monday, May 20, 2024
243 motion Substitute Mon 05/20 8:31 PM
Opposed MOTION to Substitute SUBSTITUTE DAMAGES EXPERT by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC..(Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Proposed Order,
Att: 2 Affidavit Lewis Hudnell,
Att: 3 Exhibit 1,
Att: 4 Exhibit 2,
Att: 5 Exhibit 3
------
It's motion in limine time !
MOTION IN LIMINE:
A "motion in limine" is a pretrial motion that seeks the exclusion of specific evidence or arguments from being presented during a trial. A motion in limine is decided by the judge outside of the presence of the jury. The purpose of a motion in limine is to address potentially prejudicial, irrelevant, or inadmissible information that could unduly influence a jury or hinder the fair administration of justice.
By filing a motion in limine, attorneys aim to prevent the opposing side from presenting evidence that could be highly emotional or legally problematic, thus avoiding any potential prejudice that could arise.
Motions in limine are particularly valuable in cases where the mention of certain facts or information could taint the proceedings, and where the potential harm caused by their introduction might be irreparable.
Motions in limine are often used to limit or exclude expert testimony under the Daubert Standard. Such motions regarding expert witnesses are usually filed after the close of discovery, with a hearing on the motion in limine held prior to trial. (Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/motion_in_limine)
Netlist wins $445m verdict against Micron over patent infringement
Verdict· David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images.
Kurt Robson
Fri, May 24, 2024, 5:36 AM EDT1 min read
Chipmaker Micron Technology will pay semiconductor company Netlist $445m in damages for violating its patent rights in memory-module technology for high-performance computing, a US jury said on Thursday (23 May).
Jurors in the US found that Micron’s semiconductor-memory products infringe two Netlist patents related to technology for improving the performance of memory modules.
"We are grateful for the jury's service, and their recognition of the importance of Netlist's innovation," Netlist attorney Jason Sheasby said in a statement.
The jury also found that Micron infringed the company’s patents willfully. This could mean a judge may multiply the damages up to three times.
The news comes after Netlist won a $303m verdict against Samsung in a similar patent dispute in April 2023.
In November, a lawsuit was filed against Micron by Chinese chipmaker Yangtze Memory Technologies (YMTC) over an alleged infringement of eight of its patents.
The lawsuit from YMTC was filed in early November and alleges Micron used YMTC’s patented technology to protect market share and fight off competition from the Chinese company.
YMTC also alleges that Micron did not pay its fair share to use the patented tech.
In a statement to Reuters, YMTC said that it was unable to discuss the specifics of pending litigation but confirmed the lawsuit has been filed for “infringement of our company’s patents related to the design, manufacture, and operation of 3D NAND technology”.
“We are confident that this matter will be resolved swiftly,” the statement added.
While the semiconductor industry is nascent due to emerging AI technologies, GlobalData forecasts that its market worth will exceed $130bn worldwide by 2030.
"Netlist wins $445m verdict against Micron over patent infringement" was originally created and published by Verdict, a GlobalData owned brand.
The information on this site has been included in good faith for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely, and we give no representation, warranty or guarantee, whether express or implied as to its accuracy or completeness. You must obtain professional or specialist advice before taking, or refraining from, any action on the basis of the content on our site.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/netlist-wins-445m-verdict-against-093607502.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
Drumming,
On the contrary, Treble damages has been made easier to award by a ruling from Chief Justice John Roberts at the SCOTUS: he eliminated the onerous job of proving infringement by the plaintiff. It is much easier to show with a simpler argument. More details later.
Willfulness is what we should work towards.
Drumming,
A settlement could imply the defendant admitting to infringement and agrees to pay a certain amount for a negotiated settlement. Is that not guilty of infringement? If not guilty, why would they pay any amount? The defendant may try to hide their defeat with the usual comment: "neither confirm nor deny!"
Why we have not heard about licensing of those MG patents? Did AMZN's Alexa device not come under the guilty charge? Why would they not reveal licensing news? Will the 10Q/10K include the licensing news or terms? Wait and see.
2 settlements: AMZN and Huawei. Huawei too is guilty of infringement. Possible licensing in EU, India, and China will be great. Waiting for details.
An advantage of settlement is that parties do not justify going for an appeal.
Jury trial:
Not just finding guilty of infringement in a jury trial, but proving the "willfulness" by the jury will be a sweet spot that will trigger a 5 alarm fire to other defendants. Treble damages!
US patent law sets no maximum for damages. Those hoping for 1 million and 2 millions award, check VPLM's the preliminary 2017 estimates for VZ, T, AAPL.
VZ estimated damages were $2.4 Billion in 2017. Update the 2017 estimate by adding appx 10 years of damages to make it current, 2024.
Judge Albright awarded $2.4 billions damage against Intel just TWO years ago. Up to 4 billions of damages have been awarded over the years. No wonder VZ tries all sorts of gimmicks: Reexamination of MG patent in lieu of another IPR and arguing about the damage estimates.
Hudnell expects to use the substitute to address complaints about Mr. Salk and still complete the discovery prior to June, 2024 in time for the pre-trial conference. VZ lawyers have nothing better to argue than the Alice issue against VPLM.
Alice issue: Judge Starr exposed Huawei's nonsense Alice argument last month. Judge Brantley Starr did an excellent analysis of the Alice issue. He is as good as Albright. Brantley Starr is the nephew of former special counsel Ken Starr. jmo
It probably makes sense at any market share price over the option price and by doing it now they start the clock on long vs short term capital gains. It is still a way to triple your shares as a hedge, and maybe they are doing that to simply triple the cash they might need for spending right now. There could be several reasons that have no nefarious or underhanded intentions at all.
As noted many times..... Alleged nodal test results have never been revealed afaik. You can add to that something I've been claiming for years regards efficacy, which I've pointed out that patent "validity" does not include efficacy. I've pointed that out due to the apparent belief by so many that patent validity means it does what it claims, ie, is "all that". Sorry kids, but it doesn't. Here's a couple of key sentences regards this critical thing...
"Does a patent application have to prove its efficacy?
No, an inventor doesn't need to prove that an invention works to get a patent. Instead, they only need to show that they had the idea. However, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may request a working model if the invention is novel, non-obvious, or defies expectations. A working model can strengthen a patent claim and increase the chances of making money.
_____________
People also ask
Do you have to prove something works to patent it?
An inventor need only show that he or she had the idea; the discovery that an invention is reduced to practice (i.e., actually works) is not required to prove the date or content of the invention.
Therefore, the entire question of whether or not a patent of this type can actually do what it claims to be able to do......would be IF the USPTO requested a working model. I've asked before and no one seems to know.....is if the USPTO did indeed ask Vplm for such a working model? My understanding is that they usually do not ask for. Thus, if they did not ask for, then you can now see and understand how patents can be obtained that make unsubstantiated claims, which in turn, allows A STORY to be SOLD!
I anticipate at that juncture, some would claim such claims lacking efficacy, would've been proven or disproven one way or the other in the IPR trials. To that I say ok...were any working models that could've demonstrated workability required/requested in this IPR trials? Debates between lawyers before the court, that dealt only with the patent verbiage, such as or similar to what happens in a markman hearing, would, in my opinion, not prove anything in terms of proof of workability, but rather, would simply bear out the meanings of this, that or the other verbiage used......and that......STILL.....proves nothing and only establishes the court accepted definitions of various terms. I see it as, in the end..........a major loophole, waiting for someone like lord emu of eGipped, to come along and exploit, or attempt to, just like he did in his BS Avatar claim. He learned some important lessons in that debacle, ie, that he was almost immediately shot down with proof by Cameron, thus he learned to present something big that was impossible to prove to be bogus.....unless the USPTO had the sense to require from vplm, a working model, which in turn, would require many working models since there are many different patents. So what it comes down to is if he was able to get over on the USPTO procecutions, by... how's that saying go? "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you can baffle them with bullshit".......or something like that.
Sold stock at market price to exercise options at .005!
Both sold to exercise options for more .005 stock. I am sure any wise person would do same.
Hi nwmtgirl. I'm guessing that you can't tell us the name of your company, but can you tell us how your lawsuit ended up?
Last Amazon court filing was February 8th. Hmmmmm….Still no trial date.
IMHO
FABULOUS post, NWMT! I love seeing relevant experience in infringement wars! Thankfully we have a ton of experience on the VPLM Team!
More confirmation yesterday of a real nice meal cooking in the VPLM kitchen and I look forward to finding out the spread!
Always love the drip, drip, drip of the spot... So irrelevant, but she tries hard! Samepost is great too! Sawee to both, but I think I'll run with Ray Leon and his confidence building move to join the Emil rocket team!
Remember when we were told last fall that some big settlement with AMZN was a "done deal"? Still waiting for the big announcement that was going to rocket the price per share and make it go through the roof. LOL!!
Because they know just what a complete farce this is. So much for those upcoming court dates huh?
VPLM is the only company in the entire world with Microsoft type infringements/revenues at stake and with a share price below .02 LMAO!!
Yeah, sure it is. LOL!! Get back to me when they get financial judgements that are in-line with the "billions and billions of ongoing" infringements that the CEO has spoken about. If not then it's a complete failure and confirmation that the patents aren't worth near as claimed.
Directors Williams and Chang have demonstrated their confidence in VPLM's future by starting to dump their very cheap options within days of receiving them:
http://insiderbuyingselling.com/?t=vplm&submit=
Patience is a virtue (if you're one of Emil and Rich's marks, but if you're an insider it's okay to dump as much as you can as soon as you can. LOL.)
Exactly! Companies NEVER admit nor concede infringement when settling cases. I get the TVM calc for settlements. It’s similar to a TVM calc you’d need to do when deciding to accept an early pension buyout from an employer.
The question becomes how much in potential long-term gains will be given up and are acceptable by settling early?
In the case of VPLM, there are so many unknowns and variables, I don’t believe we shareholders have any way to answer that question with any degree of accuracy. There are many complex financial models that are used to do this and that work is best left to the experts.
No other party is a part of that settlement negotiation, nor are they bound to it. Patent law is specific. Only a judge can rule on a patent infringement action. Any "patent" received from the USPTO is only a ticket for admission into court by the claimed infringed party. Even the PTAB cannot determine whether an infringement has occurred.
Correct when they come to settle they make the receiving company sign an affidavit that they are not admitting to any infringement by paying VPLM x amount of money. Very tricky. So yes only in a trial is infringement confirmed.
Followers
|
464
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
1
|
Posts (Total)
|
133583
|
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: |