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.
Patience is a virtue unless name is Emil or Barbara. A settlement will be subject to NDA. Babs will kill any run on a settlement that is withheld from shareholders, like she did last May. Only a buy-out or a court judgement will make this transparent to all.
All things considered, my vote would be that lord emu of eGipped paid off Revive, likely using either his sweetheart deal "anti-dilution clause" money or proceeds from all the kazillions he has babs raking in daily. And I bet Revive is not the only entity paid off with his vast funds that you, you and you have donated to the prop emu malak go fund me page yall so generously contribute to. It's a thing of beauty, the unpenetrable bunker the emus have dug for themselves in the badlands of Vancouver, home of the no beef whoppers. They have a gold plated doormat that says "Bring It"
I think this is the one your inquiring about Drumming and it’s status is Closed
U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York (Foley Square)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:23-cv-07281-NRB
Revive Investing LLC et al v. Malak et al
DOCKET INFORMATION Minimize
DATE FILED: Aug 16, 2023
STATUS: Closed
NATURE OF SUIT: 850 Securities/Commodities
DEMAND: $1,440,000
ASSIGNED TO: Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald
CAUSE: 28:1331sv Fed. Question: Securities Violation
DATE TERMINATED: 2024-02-14
JURISDICTION: Federal Question
JURY DEMAND: Plaintiff
https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/ReviveInvestingLLCetalvMalaketalDocketNo123cv07281SDNYAug162023Co/1?doc_id=X1Q6OK4UDMO2
“ I'm relatively new & relatively unknowledgable about this stuff. If you have a buyer, must then be a seller & vice-versa, right? So when u say buyers, no selling, what does that mean.. buy or sell from MM's?”
Lmao Idiot
lets say for the few that are buying its not enough to exceed the inside selling, while you had tea and crumpets with rich, did you think to ask rich, why are they selling? is the cash needed so urgently, ? do you know this rattles investers?, why cant they stop and let the stock price rise some?..and finally ask can emil give answers to the questions that are popping ???...rich is giving vague answers..wheres the meat and potatos...we appreciate your effort
Yep, that's what I suggest.
Sour grapes, so time to find another investment WBW?
Thanks for the update DB! Always nice to hear from you and get the latest pulse from the VPLM crew. Healthy check up from Dr. Rich!!
The 1 year chart pretty much tells the story... Price was close to 8 cents 1 yr ago. As time went by, with all the so called Vplm "wins" and rocket Docket judge and trials looking closer and closer and our alway in place "best position ever".....the pps just kept falling and falling. But....but....but...the true long experts know what's going on and keep touting how good everything is and praising the management and telling others to not listen to other sides, other opinions. I call that brainwashing. I call that narrow mindedness. I call that biased. I call that imbalanced. I call that fear. I call it insecurity. I call it seeing everything thru rose colored glasses. I think there will be much disappointment. That said, I sure hope I'm as wrong as can be. I really don't need the extra wallpaper. Where's my 50 cents?
Exciting times!
Simple solution, register your certificates and sell.
Yea insider selling doesn't matter. All while it continues to increase
This is crap.
Just look at the 144s filed.
7 filed since 5/17/24 I am expecting another in the next few days.
In total if the new one comes in, it would indicted they plan to sell a total of 59M shares in a 3 month period.
You may say that is nothing but assuming they sell those in 11 weeks, can't sell 2 of those weeks, that would be selling 5.4M shares per week.
That is significant. If good things are coming why sell 59M shares for $900K. If anything positive is going to happen from this trial at a minimum those shares will be worth $.05 a share or $3M. Makes a lot of sense selling for a fraction of the value when a 2 month wait would get you far more. Insiders are telling you what is going to happen.
I have been reading your crap for over a year. Surprises are coming, everything is going great and many other comments. Nothing but bad has happened.
If my shares were registered I would have sold already. I am glad I only put $10K into this scam. We have a trial coming in Aug and insiders are selling faster than ever. That is a massive red flag.
Are you on the companies payroll?
$.0168 Just off a long call with Rich and what he might say if he were here is, "COOL OUT, FOLKS, ALL IS WELL"!
I know I said I was done posting, but being I am one of the few to get time with Rich, I figure I owe a bit.
All is going very, very well and the whole team has been working their rears off. The excitement levels are through the roof. REALLY! Wish I knew what exactly the excitement is over, but I don't.
As to the insider selling boogiemenz which seem to keep coming up I'll just say, "CHILL", it ain't going to matter. I've explained this many times and the sales at this level will, one day shortly, appear as a huge mistake, HUGE! Clif isn't selling; Big R isn't selling...I'm not selling, but it is an option for those concerned!
The market doesn't care about our individual situations, the perceived "optics", nor anything else other than buyers/sellers. My STRONG view is the buyers are benefitting down here, not the sellers.
Without EMIL/BARBARA we wouldn't even be having this conversation>>>>>>>>>>WITHOUT THEM, THERE WOULD BE NO VPLM!!!!! My thanks to the both of them! Remember Gil Amelio? Emil could have run for the hills with about $.17/share! Remember Emil giving back 800mm++ shares and $400K to shareholders? OK, he has warrants/options on the shares, but he has to pay to get HIS SHARES BACK!
Again, CHILL, I say. We aren't at new lows, are we? NO! Yet we have a much higher # of shares outstanding! ODD, ISN'T IT? No, I really don't think so and I'm as comfortable with my investment here as ever!
VPLM IS SITTING IN ITS BEST-I-FIST SITUATION EVER! Cool out and enjoy it! Mark it @ $.0168...
My apologies to those who were enjoying no posts from DB! No, not really!
in all fairness, the optics look bad with the constant inside selling..but we need new buyers to jump into the fray . if the buying exceeds the selling, it wont be an issue..we need publicity.. why cant emil ask to go on bloomberg, or do any interviews with financial websites or other social media, ..he isnt really trying to promote vplm either...its lame imo
Oh, and don't forget.......vplm never shared the results of the alleged 3 city nodal testing. If I was the part of the organization and after successful tests were done with empirical, blind, positive test results, I most certainly would want to get that info OUT THERE!!! to quell any possibl doubters and it would sell boucoup shares and make a short play of this circus. But....
Hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahhaha! OMG! Thanks for that big laff, I needed that. Immaturity being a new low for this board.......is.........by far and away............THE most ridiculous thing ever posted since the origin of this board. It guaranteed take the cake! It even takes tastykakes! I can't believe you even said that. Is there such a thing as clinical dumbness? (because I don't want to use the term in a name calling context, in a factual context).
No, things are not going well. They are going the usual sideways direction that a fiat share printing/selling, personal insider ATM, goes. And will continue to go that way for many days weeks months and years to come, just as it has since around 2013 (earlier, depending on how you view it). You've been bamboozeled. Taken. Had. Used. Pickpocketed. Would you like to purchase a futuristic screenplay about blue peeps?
I really owe some of you for the sheer entertainment value you provide. Payback is good.
Forgot to mention....
You stating that peeps who simply express their opinion about lord emu of eGipped, are dispicable........shows how words are misused fast and loose
1
Send a Public Reply to penny2pound on Voip Pal Com Inc
You have written 0 posts today and have 30 remaining.
(The first eight words you post will automatically become the subject of the post)
My, my, my, my, my........the ignorance runs rampant and it's obviously virulently contagious re: Vplm...
You've heard of doubkethink and doublesspeak... Here's a new one... Doubledumb. It's been said, by some obscure person, not Einstein, that insanity is defined by repeating the same mistakes over and over and expecting there to be a change. I think that applies as well to seeing the same things said and written about, here, that never come close to panning out to be true, then repeating it, along with others, for the umpteenth time and expecting it to sound viable. That's not very logical, ie, using the same old worn out reasons for why something is strong and valuable, when it is actually weak and non saleable and so far, non win able in court. For the deaf and dumb, the point that it's non sellable and non winable, so far for many years in court.....is NOT a reason why the I claim the patents are no good. It's simply another nail in the coffin. It's just one of the negatives to add to the long list. Just because some idiot out there (not you) keeps saying that I use the argument of nothing has happened for so long, as the reason it won't happen is just another example of lazy, thought bare thinking. I have never said or implied that the long term fail to win, is why it can't win. It's only ever been used in the context of its just one of many connecting dots that show clearly enough to me, that this carnival is just a fiat share printing/selling machine.
Getting back to your doubledumb, I see 2 main points you make as though they are fact but they are not and it's been shown and demonstrating a zillion times why they are not fact, but you still use them as such. It's like using an adjustable wrench for a hammer......oops, now the wrench is broken.
Doubledumb #1.....
You say the patents are indisputably real. Uy-yuy-yuy..... That's like saying that car has wheels or that street sign has a pole. Of course they do captain obvious. They go hand in hand and don't need to be described as "working models". Everyone knows that a car without wheels ain't a car and a sign without a pole is just a piece of metal lying on the ground. When the car has wheels and the sign on a pole, there's no need to explain it and use the fact as a vehicle to make it a better car or a better sign.
In the same vein, a patent is at once, real, simply by virtue of the fact it's a patent. If it wasn't real, it wouldn't be a patent. Furthermore, when the USPTO examiner awards patent hood, that's it.....its now a valid and real patent. And your adding that the fact they are real has been proven out many times, I'm sure refers to all the ptab trials. Again, is nothing more than unessential redundancy. It so frickin simple... When an application recieves patent hood, that's IT! Done deal! It's a REAL patent and a VALID patent.....until it's challenged and made invalid. And 50 million ipr "wins" lend zero additional strength or realness or validity to the patent. The examiner gave it all the validity it needs, nothing more nothing less (unless of course, during a challenge, the owner adds more features and functions to the patent and the Court upholds the additions to be valid. Only in that context, would the patent become stronger.
Additionally, I recently posted, as recently as yest, I think, that in order for the USPTO to award patenthood, does not require a working model that proves it works and/or is effective. So there is your indisputable proof that the patents are obviously real simply because they are patents and that they gained zero power or validity by virtue of the IPRs, thus giving your opening points weightlessness. No substance at all. Those are facts not fluff.
You go on to offset your Vplm pro-ness, by bringing up the insider selling. I honestly don't truly know if it's detrimental to vplm or not, due to the fact that it might simply be perfectly reasonable 10b5-1, something that I brought up and brought out way back near the very beginning of the complaint and arguments about the selling. I did so to help someone who was quite upset, but because the argument goes on and on incessantly, I came to wonder myself, if it's harmful or not. It seems to me to not be very helpful or hopeful for others to keep seeing. But I also can see the possibility that they had little choice but to setup 10b5-1's and obviously, those who do work for the company deserve some kind of compensation. Babs, on the other hand, well let's just say I can certainly see why she has so many up in arms. It don't look good, in the very least and does she have special rights being the spouse?
Whatever the case may be, regards that element, it obviously doesnt do anything to bolster or support the notion of "best position ever".
What I DO know is lord emu of eGipped WAS indeed found guilty of unjust personal enrichment and lack of excercising his fiduciary duties, BY A JURY OF HIS PEERS and the rest of the crew was found guilty as well.
"Sheer impatience" & ignorance!
I smell gaslighting. Avoiding a simple question with a complex word salad.
Clarification, T-Mobile wants the bias in NDCA excluded during trial. As noted in their pretrial filing. Very interesting.
Seems like they’re relying on the HotSpot, as prior art.
IMHO
I cannot believe you accused Emil of this... you are doing this out of sheer impatience... and it is a sign of immaturity... a new low for this Board.
PEOPLE... things are going WELL!!
Emil and Barbara are the ones who have kept this thing going all these years.... THANK YOU EMIL and BARBARA!
Emil, if you get word of this, you need to know that there are shareholders here who think this is despicable.
Well said P2P.
What ever happened with the unjust enrichment lawsuit that was brought against Emil? Does anyone know the details? Is it still going?
About 3 1/2 weeks to go, to confirm trial date stands on August 19th.
I have kept quiet. But those who know me, know that I speak my mind. I hope Emil reads the messages. Because, Sir - you should be embarrassed. I believe in VPLM - The patents are indisputably real, and have been proven out again and again. Do I believe that Voip-Pal will eventually prevail - I do. Many of us Longs do. However, what is happening now is SHAMEFUL. It takes little to see what kind of lifestyle Ms. Barbara indulges in. Miss Fancy Pants loves to jet set all over the world, and is kept in fine things. Clearly - shares were put in her name - AND - under her control, at some point where a man with a wishful view THOUGHT he might exercise at least a teensy bit of control in his own household. This is how this reads: A pathetic husband who entrusted a greedy woman with both his heart and wallet - AND all the good will he ever built into his company. Only to be laughed at and mocked for his trust, as Ms B uses up all of the value that Longtime Investors once shared, for her whims and pleasures.... as her personal slush fund. Poor judgment indeed. Sad. Embarrasing.
It's CLEARLY either that - or worse - the possibly hangs in the air that Emil is, indeed, complicit, and just hiding behind the possibility that he holds no control or influence over his own household. Either way - Get ahold of yourself Man. Reclaim your Manhood. I won't sit silent, and be a victim to poor management that has laid waste to the PPS - which went from the teens down to the pennies overnight, since your "beloved" went on her spending spree. For the Love of God - get ahold of yourself man. You're harming your company.
You raise some good points, and I wish I had some better answers, however, we are not privy to what goes on behind closed doors in these cases. There is a reason for this delay, even if we do not know what that reason is. You are correct that a looming trial date could prove to be a huge catalyst to motivate the defendant to the negotiating table. As curious as it may seem, I still do not read any negative connotations, meanings or interpretations into this apparent delay. As I see it, VP has the goods and they have never been in a better position to monetize their IP.
shes a young one..there was a photo of her once posted on stock twits, fine piece, but looks high maintenance, btw she owns a restaurant in vancouver ,b.c...so how much cash is she burning god only knows..last summer it was posted on s.t. she spent a month in italy with the whole family...you do the math..
I agree. The patents have been contested 36 times and VPLM won. Aside from Babs who must be a spoiled shopaholic, the employees sell their shares since they really don't get a salary, or much of one. I for one have been buying and have over 3 million shares now. Patience is a virtue which means "waiting calmly is a good trait".
One would think but, why would that hold up establishing a trial date. If there’s no urgency to settle, why would they?
Wasn’t the projected trial date one year from the ex parte ruling? I kinda remember VPLM wanting May ‘24 and Amazon wanted around November’ ‘24. If I remember correctly.
Possibly waiting on the outcome of the Verizon trial. BUT, still that shouldn’t hold up setting a trial date.
Just doesn’t add up.
IMHO
Yes, VVVVVV, that is an interesting question. If I had to speculate, I would say that, since Amazon has already settled with VP in an earlier (smaller) case, they may still be negotiating with VP to settle the '606 case out of court, although this would be a much larger settlement. Of course, I would have no way of confirming this but it does seem logical, and could explain why we haven't seen a trial date yet. JMHO.
LOL..... politician..... not answering the question and switching topics doesn't fool anyone... I already taught you that...
I'm not trying to cause any distraction, what a stupid comment... As if the posts I make are going to make people forget about the insider selling.... .... What you post about insider sales is happening... each individual has to examine those facts and make their own judgement call.... I know some that are fired up about it and some who aren't...
For me personally. I'll give the same answer I have for 11 years. I only care about the final result . I believe the patents hold up and VPLM will win in the end..
You on the other hand focus on everything but the patents, b/c you know there's nothing you can bring against them, just like the bigs.
So 11 years, making the claim that you have worked with the feds to bring down penny scams and you can't offer up just ONE!!!!
Classic CAPED CRUSADER!!!! It's laughable.
hes not a liar , just a weasel "quasi stock cop"" with no life
Do you lie often and you can’t keep up with them, this was posted YESTERDAY.
Well said.
Just your opinion, why do you think after all this time, there still hasn’t been a trial date set for the Amazon’606 case? No filings since February!! Last news was the successful ex parte reexamination and the hiring of their new law firm.
This is seems very odd, IMHO
The clown has been here heckling for 11 years and my ONE question so easily makes him look like a fool and he knows it...
That's why he will never respond to it...
I just enjoy bashing the bashers... I find it fun.
we even bother to entertain it..in his mind he thinks hes some kind of ""quasi stock cop""..ignore him
It would be very easy for you to prove you are not lying.....
Just answer the simplest question EVER!!!!
Name ONE thing you've done to try and bring this SCAM down.
did anyone do some homework and post on the verizon / t-mobile boards of the upcoming trials?? nah , i know why try to help yourselves, bitching and maoning is better..i get it.
Nice base here and looking like it’s time to really start moving before hearings
Yes, the egg mix is all ready!
All the blah, blah, blah about validity, value, ipr wins, uspto examiners and all the rest...........yet the pps stays less than fertilizer and still no buys, licenses, real settlements, partnerships, you name it........even as trial dates get closer and closer and all the hype. Plus all the inside selling for cheap prices rather than wait for the big stuff coming, lolol. Any fool could see that a product worth billions and billions and with all it's proven "validity" and looming triple fines about to happen.........that there would be some settlements, sale or licensing. DUH!
They STILL don't comprehend what validity means even tho it's been explained many times.
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.
Sunspotter is a liar and exaggerated, no credibility on this board
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
Yes, but it makes it that much easier to keep listening to the lies and become indoctrinated.
Keepmecloser, you pose an interesting perspective, however, it falls on its face in view of the facts. I can assure you that I have never been paid to write what I write. In fact, I could not be hired to write anything that I do not believe. I am a retail shareholder with 1,000,000 shares presently, and I am above water with VPLM. I wish I had more shares. You make the VPLM team sound like gangsters, however, 38 out of 38 IPR wins makes this a legitimate investment. A scam company may be able to fool some of the shareholders some of the time, but there is absolutely no way that a scam company could fool the astute patent examiners and judges at the USPTO. The infringers' well paid attorneys have fought long and hard to invalidate VP's patents, and THEY HAVE FAILED 100%. Let that soak in. It says far more about the validity of VP's intellectual property than I could ever say. What does baffle me is why you don't see it. VP is now requesting treble damages for infringement occurring after 2021. VP is planning for a trial, and they WILL win in a court of law. They own game changing technology which is being illegally exploited (i.e., infringed) by virtually all of the big players in the communications industry. Think about this for a moment, a court win would make VP a household name, and they would become a force to be reckoned with. Institutional investors would likely include VPLM in their portfolios. This may well be the opportunity of a lifetime. A court win is one plausible scenario, however, there are other avenues which VP could choose to take, such as a settlement, buyout or merger. Disclaimer: As everyone knows, with stocks, there are no guarantees. When you buy shares, the presumption is that you will make money, but you also assume the risk. Investing in stocks is not for everyone, as some folks just don't have the temperament for it. Good luck to all VPLM longs who have put your money where your mouth is, and more, where your due diligence affirms that this is where some of your investment money should be.
But it won't change the truth about VPLM and the relentless, day-after-day insider dumping and the unending stream of lies and vitrion from EWmil and Rich's sock puppets.
Sadly.
Followers
|
464
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
17
|
Posts (Total)
|
133580
|
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: |