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.
I believe both pretrials are July 9th
Voip-Pal.Com Announces Plans to Increase Damage Demands in
Lawsuits vs Apple, Verizon and AT&T
Company preparing responses to new petitions for Inter Partes Review
May 15, 2017 -- Voip-Pal.com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal,” the “Company”) (OTCQB:VPLM) announced their intent to increase the damage
claims in its lawsuits against Apple, Verizon and AT&T. Over the past few months, the Company has been reevaluating the initial
damage calculation claims made in its February 2016, lawsuits against Apple, Inc, in the United States District Court, District of
Nevada case number 2:16-CV-00260, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and AT&T Corp. in the United States District Court,
District of Nevada, case number 2:16-cv-00271. Voip-Pal has determined its initial claim for damages was calculated using a
significantly lower royalty monetization model than has been used in actual court awards of recent patent infringement cases.
Voip-Pal remains cautiously conservative with its newly revised calculations, using an amount 25% below actual recent court
awards for damages. Upon the lifting of the current stay pending the completion of the instituted Inter Partes Reviews expected later
this year, the Company may file an amended pleading to reflect the more accurate damage calculation model.
Utilizing the updated damages award calculation methods, the revised total damages sought by Voip-Pal from Apple would rise from
more than two billion dollars ($2,836,710,031) , to more than twenty-five billion dollars ($25,642,557,840) .
An award in Voip-Pal’s favor may also include additional punitive damages awarded by the court, up to triple damages increasing
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 increase 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.
The Company also reports the filing of five more petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) from AT&T and Apple. The deadline for filing
an IPR petition by Apple, Verizon and AT&T was May 9, 2017, one year from the date of the completion of service of process to the
defendants.
On May 8, 2017, AT&T filed the following three petitions for Inter Partes Review: IPR2017-01382, against Voip-Pal’s Patent No.
8,542,815, IPR2017-01383, against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 9,179,005, and IPR2017-01384, against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 9,179,005.
On May 9, 2017, Apple filed the following two petitions for Inter Partes Review: IPR2017-01399, against Voip-Pal’s Patent No.
8,542,815, and IPR2017-01398 against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 9,179,005.
Voip-Pal CEO Emil Malak stated, “We will continue to vigorously defend these challenges to our technology and protect the interests
of our shareholders. Once the stay is lifted we will make a final determination on amending the asserted damages of our lawsuits
with Apple, Verizon and AT&T.”
“We are now faced with defending five new IPR’s, three filed by ATT and two filed by Apple, all on the same two patents we have
been defending for the past year. We are confident we will prevail based on the merits. We appreciate the patience of our
shareholders and we assure them we will persevere to a successful end.”
Next Article
Apple Royalty Monetization Analysis.............................................................
Verizon Royalty Monetization Analysis..........................................................
AT&T Royalty Monetization Analysis.............................................................
:_________________________________________
I don't consider that a monetization analysis. It's only a royalty analysis. I think a monetization analysis ought to include damages analysis with or without the triple damages applied. The royalty analysis is but a tiny fraction of what is allegedly sought. In fact, the royalty analysis you presented total roughly 1.9 billion. That is approx 2% of the revised damages analysis for only 5 companies or less (I forget if it's 5, I'll check) which was approx 102 billion a few years back. I believe 2018. And this is a great place and time for me to reiterate that we were promised by Chang long ago, to immediately begin recieving up to100 million dollars per year in royalties, which would have really added up by now.
All above is useless info other than demonstrating that it's all so much contrived BS. It was only one of many lies we were told re: what we would be recieving forthwith.
Correction: 12 years ago chang said ""A conservative estimate shows that potential royalty income alone
from the Digifonica Gibraltar patents may exceed $200 million per year for Voip-
Pal.
Haven't seen an update, but here is last monetization analysis back from 2016.
https://www.voip-pal.com/_files/ugd/768c4e_0d1ae77474de47c39ba6f52d898be3e1.pdf
So only on its own merits, why is the pps only slightly over a penny after all these years for a stock/patents supposed to be so amazingly powerful and valuable? Simply answer that if you would.
I believe that the only thing that can be said unequivocally, with the information available to the public, is that it is in the best interest of VPLM to, unflinchingly, be moving toward trial while in possession of a large number of pre trial rulings in its favor. How they get there is a strategy, and that strategy seems to be to not act like a typical patent troll with tons of bluster. This seems to be a bit different than the way things were several years ago when hints of some very large damages were made more frequently. Face it, we are merely shareholders, who liked the story when we bought the shares, and we are simply passengers on the bus. We can get off any time we want or we can become bigger players and maybe fight for a seat on the board (that is a very large buy in). We are entitled to nothing but the required reporting (which people who understand this much better than I insist is adequate), we certainly are not entitled a blow by blow of the secret and likely NDA protected negotiations that could be concurrent and further complicated by the simultaneous dependency of negotiations going on between several other defendants in other separate but related cases. Relevant facts will be revealed when they need to be, in court, and the court cases seem imminent. What the stock price is now relatively meaningless in comparison to what lies ahead. What is relevant is what happens to the price when the defendants have the true threat of a viable case staring them in the face and that time seems to be rapidly approaching. I just pray that the delays that have happened in the past have all been exhausted. We all have been patient for a long time and it looks like we are right at the cusp of being rewarded for that patience. Let's keep the faith and see what happens between now and the July pre-trial conference date and those that follow. To me, the current stock price has nothing to do with what the price will end up being once these cases truly become real to the defendants. Just my opinion.
Are these still the dates of upcoming events?
Pretrial Conference:
Verizon - July 9th, 2024
T-Mobile - July 15th, 2024
Jury Selection/Trial
Verizon - August 19th, 2024
T-Mobile - November 4th, 2024
WACO, Texas, Nov. 20, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is very pleased to announce that it has received notice of the USPTO’s intent to issue an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent 10,218,606 (“the ’606 patent”).
According to the notice, the USPTO has not only confirmed the patentability of the 31 claims that were originally challenged, but in addition, the USPTO also affirmed the patentability of 8 newly presented claims, which the Company believes further strengthen the ’606 patent. The ’606 patent covers methods and equipment for routing communications including video and voice calls within a communication system that associates user devices with particular network elements or nodes.
Some of you are just ridiculous. Stop the bashing of one another. It is getting really old. Just post the facts, if you’re capable. Grow up and put your big boy panties on.
As I’ve stated in one of my recent posts, not to mention in numerous posts, as we get closer to trial I anticipate the PPS to increase.
Now just imagine if VPLM were more transparent on the damages they’re seeking, as well as the value of their patent (s) how much higher the PPS would go. Cough, cough LMAO
I know for some this maybe hard to process and comprehend! Especially from someone that was once a successful stockbroker.
I’ve been correct on one of the main reason, the PPS has been declining. No one can predict how low or how high the PPS can go. Thus far, it’s been freaking DECLINING! You think?
Kind of funny wasting one’s only post of the day, to get it thrown back in their face! LMAO
Early onset? Just a few days ago you said the pps decline would continue, I took the otherside...
Now, we're a few days closer to trial, so the price could rise? What about the damage estimates???
YOU'RE SAYING THE PPS COULD GO DOWN, OR COULD GO UP???? Yeah, me vowing to live in my car until we rap this in a good way is the problem...
HANG IN THERE, FOLKS, LOTS HAPPENING!
Oh, so the self proclaimed know it all that jumped in there yest or the day before, stating there was no insider selling happening currently, was simply keeping par with his usual lying/ignorance. Actually I think I saw at least a couple saying that over the past few days. I remember thinking to myself, well that won't last too long (not selling). It was just more dished bs. I think they're all selling as much as they can sell as fast as they can sell it and I can't fathom how that could possibly bode well for the retail shareholders.
Here's the full link:
http://insiderbuyingselling.com/?t=vplm&submit=
It's not a pretty sight.
And even now, Baggio and Chang still refuse to file their Form 4s within the required number of days.
VPLM insiders just like to piss all over the legal niceties of Securities Law.
Here's this month's insider dumping alone:
If you were one of the alleged infringers, esp one of the bigger ones and you of course knew you were guilty, would you sit around for years, watching as trials and damages and triple damages got closer and closer and the damages grew larger and larger and you could see that vplm had no problem coming up with the cash to maintain the fight..................................................................................OR WOULD YOU BUY OR PURCHASE A LICENSE OR SETTLE FIRST? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahalolololololol
I know... I know.... Its a dumb question, eh?
$VPLM new insider selling: 333168 shares. insiderbuyingselling.com/?t..
insiderbuyingselling
5:09 PM
$VPLM new insider selling: 498890 shares. insiderbuyingselling.com/?t..
Computer: "how many nothing burgers does it take to equal billions and billions in vplm infringement damages?"
Whrrrrrrrrrrrr....."does not compute...does not compute...does not compute"
I wouldn’t expect anyone who chooses to live in his car, to comprehend the importance of the shareholders and the market to know the damages and value of these patents.
When a company bases its sole value monetizing their patents, shareholders and potential shareholders need to know what damages are being sought in litigation to make investment decisions! Hence, one of the main reasons the PPS has been declining on a weekly basis. Go figure, cough, cough!
It’s all about processing common business sense.
From what I’ve heard, we’re going to trial. Just be prepared.
This just might be the best way to get increased value in the PPS. VPLM needs a win in court to validate the patent and position themselves for an acquisition!
IMHO
As I’ve stated in numerous posts, I’d expect the PPS to increase the closer we get to the trial date. But, just remember one thing, if VPLM were more transparent with the damages they’re seeking and value of these patents, JUST THINK HOW MUCH HIGHER THE PPS WOULD GO? Cough, cough! LMAO
IMHO
🏆️ Post~Of~The~Month!
It's questionable that vplm would ever again reach the lofty height of 2 cent. I'm thinking a penny and a half is it's legacy.
I'm just kidding......obviously it's going to "BILLIONS & BILLIONS".....
......and REAL SOON from the scuttlebutt. Everyone knows that, c'mon
For life of me, the goings on about insider sales IS BEYOND BELIEF:
So, for one, the insider sales taking place when they do, will not take place later on a run... Already done.
NUMBER TWO, AND MUCH BIGGER: So, I believe/hope a deal comes prior to any trials, BUT IF NOT, THE LEGAL FEES WILL RUN IN THE $MILLIONS. WHERE WILL THESE $MILLIONS COME FROM????? Much from Emil/Barbara, so you think they might be playing safe, building funds? Could that be?????? Do you honestly think Barbara is happy to be selling at this level? I doubt it.
VPLM went up a bit, DID VPLM RELEASE DAMAGE ESTIMATES? Boy, they must have....Wink, wink!
Just relax, more going on than meets the eye... Ray Leon and the other advisors would suggest that, don't you think?
Conversed with Rich earlier, he is well...
The the clueless goings on and on about "material info": VPLM IS AUDITED AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH OTCQB STANDARDS... If it were necessary for VPLM to release damage estimates, THEY HAVEN'T, SO THEY WOULD BE OUT OF AUDITING COMPLIANCE...
A run to what? .02? LMAO!!
"VPLM will have it's day". Yeah, famous last words. 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.
I don't make a dime. I live in the world of reality and truth. Obviously you don't!
Yes! My thought is we have trials coming up. Wait till then. We will definitely see a run closer to court dates
Goin up......hahaha.......lolol......
Too funny
Has anyone seen my 50 cents?
Wow, go figure, WTF!! No insider selling (right now anyway) and look at what's happening to the PPS, it can't be, it's going up!!
Wait, are there any rumors going around!?
Counting down days
Funny thing..... Still not a single person has offered a single example of a law or a judges legal opinion, that shows there is some material benefit of positive IPR trial outcomes, to a patent owner suing for infringement. Strangely enough, but totally in keeping with the plethora of false ideas, opinions and narratives commonly found on the Vplm msg board, so far THAT is the ONLY place where such opinion can be found. And not just found, but actually shown there to be THE PREMIER number one reason, given by the highest number of ppl, quite often and more widely accepted as gospel than anything else. I suspect than anything else because there simply IS nothing else found here or anywhere else that shows, proves or validates that the patents actually live up to the hype assigned to them by Vplm, in terms of their baseline, necessary, foundational attributes, which includes the claim that voip services cannot be provided without the use of these patents.
I've noted it many times but due to the, in my opinion, fallacious beliefs as to the attributes and actual abilities, I have to keep noting that when the ptab trials result in a positive result for the plaintiff, THAT is no more of a validation than the original act of issuing the application patenthood. The law states that a patent is (of course) assumed to be valid from birth and including all the specific challenges that an IPR challenge might question. And that is because of the exhaustive work the USPTO examiners do as part of thetir procecution of the patent. That why it tabkes so long to get a patent. Of course, the examiner, being human, could have missed something or made a mistake. That's normally not the true reason the challengers start an ipr as they are more of an "throw stuff against the wall and hope something sticks". and unfortunately, often times, something does stick. I have little doubt that would've been the case for Vplm as well, but it's no secret that vplm's 100% record with the ptab, which was and is, as far as I know, up til then and since, totally UNPRECEDENTED, is the result of the also unprecedented and very powerful series of around 5 letters written by the esteemed former ceo Tom Sawyer, with his threat of federal Rico charges against the well known corrupt leader and panel judges. THAT is the reason for the so called "wins".
Thus I find it largely disingenuous or biased or agendized, that so many pro vplm voices keep bringing up their CLEARLY NUMBER 1 reason given for their belief in how and why Vplm will eventually come out a winner in court or by virtue of settlements.
IT IS A FALSE REASON! and will in my opinion, in the end, prove itself to be the very downfall of this play. .
Where are the judicially derived indicators that IPR wins are a big benefit?
Where are the results of the alleged core patents worldwide nodal testing?
Where is any proof that is equal to the alleged 25 or so voip engineers at a cost of some $17 million to create them? Where is anyone with that level of knowledge who can and will step up to validate they are "ALL THAT"??
Why is it that some here insist that some other company's alleged expert, in court, who testified about their use of relays, is believed to be some big deal when relays, which are not part of Vplm patents, are as common as doorknobs. Relays are simply common electromagnetic switches and are used in a huge portion of electronics simply for switching purposes. I can see no way the use of relays would be pivotal. And relays are hardware components. The patents are software.
And last but by no means least,
That’s exactly what you and the market maker you work for want! We’re gonna make sure both you AND him don’t get paid!
July will most likely be a big ol nothin burger.
This is one of my favorites “Don’t believe we “are entitled” to info just because someone claims it to be “ material “!
Can one imagine being encouraged into investing into VPLM, and they tell you that you’re not entitled to know material information?
LMAO
Or this might be another favorite; “ I do not want this to go to trial, I WANT IT DONE BEFORE! “ We go to trial and without some settlement, we are years out”!
Since VPLM has some sort of NDA and can’t disclose damages, like in the past, which is one of the reasons the PPS went to $.40+. The only other way for the investment community is going to know the value of the damages, is to go to trial and win! I’m not sure where it would be years out?
This just proves what I’ve been saying, all along!
IMHO
Guy is a clown, a lot of those on this board. Vplm will have its day.
Hopefully, you’re right.
Still a little more on the downside then as we get closer to July we should see the PPS increase more. But, not as much as it should if VPLM were more transparent with the market!
IMHO
If anything, we have a lot of good news coming our way! The middle of the year is gonna be exciting!
Agreed
Number of reasons and isn’t because of any bad news !
If my previous post (s) haven’t explained it, not sure what will.
IMHO
100%!! 🏆️ Post~Of~The~Week!
Insider selling is NOT an issue. Insiders were selling everyday when we ran to .11
Just wait for the trial dates and don’t listen to paid bashers!
The shareholder and insider selling continues....
It's no surprise... The poor shareholders are so underwater for so long, they're all wrinkled and sick and tired of all the fails to make a dime in 27 yrs for them as they watch the insiders get richer and richer everyday......you know....the ones like lord emu of eGipped, who were found guilty of "breach of Fiduciary Duty" AND "unjust personal enrichment" BY A JURY OF THEIR PEERS!
So that is just too much to keep swallowing...
And they keep seeing the pps dropping daily for months...
So they figure a few bucks is better than nothing and sell. Can't blame them. 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 27 years is long time to wait and watch your investment money do nothing while at the same time see the emu and wife make literally millions. Pretty simple and straightforward there. Easy to PROCESS..
It's amusing to see how as the various trials allegedly get closer, the pps keeps tanking. It shows me that all involved know stuff that the shareholders don't know.
Meanwhile, the inside, the cabal, supporters, the lawyers, certain judges, the USPTO, etc etc.....ALL CONTINUE TO GET THEIR SHARE OF YOUR MONEY.
Like it or lump it.
I don't expect to ever get my 50 cents so I've mentally written those shares off. Luckily I was able to also make bank before my self promise to never buy any more Vplm. And THAT was a real good decision as had I bought more, it would've all been lost. So I made out good and I know the 50 cent miracle ain't never gonna happen so I'm good just letting the nefarious ways of Vplm be known to those who can see and hear.
best P.O.S. ition EVER!
patience is a HURTue!
That'll be the Vplm legacy once the fiat share printing/selling machine finally burns itself out or they get shut down.
Don't forget that lord emu came from the hotbed of Canadian and otc pennystock scams, Vancouver. Sayani and Waggett also, the Howe st thugs I think they're called. As pumpers, Vplm has paid them many millions.
After running his hotel into BK and totally embarrassing himself in court, TWICE, per Cameron......emu decided he would get back.
By the way can anyone find a single word, a single mention, a single listing, any iota of evidence that there is that biotech cancer research company in Germany emu claims to have founded? What if someone wants to make a donation? It doesn't exist. It appears to steal the name of a well known American cancer research company that has nothing to do with him, but he likes to keep mentioning it everytime he puts out something like the paid "op-eds" so I searched and searched hi and low, even in German listing's.........and guess what? And how are his operas and children's books doing?
And the beat goes on.....
Hey Chick Hick….beep beep
You know what I meant by shareholders have a right to “KNOWING” DAMAGES sought by VPLM! Just as well as you that was a typo aka ATTACK! As you’re doing now.
Again Amazon wouldn’t allow us to benefit from this settlement, that’s why it’s a mystery to everyone.
As for the so called $ .20 for Emil to sell was tongue in cheek! See, it’s all about processing everything. You’re just not capable!
The run to $.45 was of course due to the previous forecast for billions that was blasted to the market. Process it, pal. Winning the IPR’s of court initiated the run DUE TO THE MARKET AND SHAREHOLDERS KNOWING THE POTENTIAL VALUE! Now, can you understand and comprehend this?
As for insider selling not bothering you! Are you kidding me, you called the company crying that you were going to sell because of all the insider selling! And you were told to go ahead and sell. Stop the BS!
The only surprise about the Amazon deal is the shareholders got shunned!!
So, keep in mind, that could very well happen again if things keep going the way you think they should.
Wow, a $.60 target. That would be caving on an acquisition. But you can’t process it. You just want any buyout just to liquidate all your shares. I guess you’re getting scared you’ll have to deposit your shares and the cost and trouble is probably more than the current PPS! LMAO
You know nothing! You’re just a little man with no confidence in himself. It appears you’re not a happy person and it shows. I’m just not going let a loser like you bully me.
IMHO
SIT TIGHT AND WAIT FOR THE TRIAL DATE!! GO VPLM!!!
Tell the market maker that owns you that he should stop paying you. You haven’t accomplished anything being his little “wife”
I don't process? LOL What I definitely DO NOT DO is want to "ATTACH anyone", whether or not they agree with me.
"SHAREHOLDERS HAVE A RIGHT TO DAMAGES SOUGHT."?????? So, if VPLM seeks $100B, we just get them? What? If you meant shareholders have a right TO KNOW damages sought, YOU ARE WRONG, 100%. I think my Series 7 score was 91% or 92%...YOU ARE WRONG. "Materiality" refers to company operations and such, NOT WHAT SOME "INVESTOR THINKS SHE NEEDS TO KNOW" to make an investment decision. SAWEE!
VPLM caved to amzn, ONE OF THE LARGEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD, because VPLM agreed to an NDA?????? REALLY? EMIL/VPLM ATTORNEYS GOT A SETTLEMENT. We do have a great group of ATTORNEYS working on our behalf! NDAS ARE USED ALL OVER THE BUSINESS WORLD!!! Again, we have attorneys on this!!!
So, it was ok FOR YOU, a few years back, to "YELL" @ Emil to sell @ $.20, but my $.20/$.30 estimate was a problem?????? My target is now $.60; you forgot to mention that. I'm hoping for much more.
The run to $.45 had NOTHING to do with "BLASTED" damage estimates, IT HAD TO DO WITH WINNING IPRs....HELLLLOOOOO. Putting 2 and 2 together, if the damage estimates were 10s of $BILLIONS back a few years, one could surmise THEY'VE GONE UP and really, with needed precision, THE ESTIMATES ARE KNOWN!!!
The stock market is a mechanism which functions on imperfect information...VPLM, due its nature, takes this imperfect information factor to another level. OUR PROCESS TAKES PLACE BETWEEN ATTORNEYS. I know and accept what I DON'T KNOW. THE INFORMATION EMIL/RICH/OUR ATTORNEYS POSSESS IS MANY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE MORE THAN US SHAREHOLDERS... A big difference between you and me is I accept this and I DO NOT TRY TO ADVISE EMIL AND TEAM!
As to the insider selling that so many want to go on about, it doesn't bother me in the least....DO REMEMBER, EMIL TURNED DOWN Gil Amelio TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT $.18/SHARE, JUST FOR EMIL'S HOLDINGS.... Glad he did!
Last thing, to those not happy with VPLM, there is a simple, simple solution. Oh, "surprises"? Was the amzn deal a surprise? Was to me. Ray Leon and the new, SIGNED ON, advisors a surprise? Was to me....
Ok, one more "last thing"....YOU CHANGED THE TERMS,,,YOU SAID THE PRICE WOULD CONTINUE TO DROP WITHOUT DAMAGE ESTIMATES...I opposed this @ $.0126. There was nothing said about a price rise qualifier due to us getting closer to trials. Sure, just change your words as we go. STILL THINK EMIL SHOULD SELL @ $.20?
BY FAR AND AWAY, I AM MORE EXCITED THAN EVER WITH OUR PROSPECTS AND IN THE VERY NEAR TERM...NO ONE ELSE HAS TO BE, BUT I KNOW SOME WHO ARE, ONE WITH OVER 200mm SHARES....
Agree on trial as this appears the only way we hear what the damages they’re seeking.
If not, shareholders may just get shunned again as they did with the Amazon case.
When someone is unhappy with themselves they have to project anger upon others. It comes from a poor self image. A cantankerous attitude is a sign of trying to prove his worth, when in fact he doesn’t feel he has any, Sad.
IMHO
Followers
|
464
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
23
|
Posts (Total)
|
133563
|
Created
|
06/16/10
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators Sheepdog GreenBackClub Russ777 Spyke37 |
11810 NE 34th Street
Bellevue, WA 98005
Estimated Market Cap $27,166,417 As of November 05, 2021
Authorized Shares 3,000,000,000 As of October 18, 2021
Outstanding Shares 1,951,330,092 As of Feburary 28, 2019
Outstanding Shares 1,731,447,863 As of October 18, 2021
(Shares outstanding dropped by 219mm++)******
Float 831,342,791 As of September 23, 2021
Revenues: $0 to date.
Voip-Pal's intellectual property value is derived from ten (10) issued USPTO patents including five parent patents, one of which is foundational and the others which build upon the former.
The five (5) core patents are:
1.) Routing, Billing & Rating ("RBR");
2.) Lawful Intercept;
3.) Enhanced E-911;
4.) Mobile Gateway; and
5.) Uninterrupted Transmission
The Voip-Pal inventions described in the ten-patent portfolio provide the means to integrate VoIP services with any of the Telco systems to create a seamless service using either legacy telephone numbers of IP addresses, and enhance the performance and value of VoIP implementations worldwide.
The Voip-Pal patented technology provides Universal numbering ubiquity; network value as defined by Metcalfe; the imperative of interconnect, termination, and recompense for delivery of calls by other networks; regulatory compliance in regulated markets; interconnection of VoIP networks to mobile and fixed networks; and maintenance of uninterrupted VoIP calls across fixed, mobile, and WiFi networks.
While there are several popular VoIP implementations, VoIP is utilized in many other lesser-known places and by practically every modern telephony system vendor, network supplier, and retail and wholesale carrier.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13148084&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13146397&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13146353&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13145009&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13144993&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13110545&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13110507&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099496&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099423&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099381&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING! COMPANY CONTINUES TO RAISE AS AND OS WITH NO REVENUES IN SIGHT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VPLM'S CASE DISMISSED BUT WILL BE APPEALED.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/VPLM/news/Voip-Palcom-Reports-Decision-in-the-Alice-101-Motion?id=222536
https://www.scribd.com/document/403267736/VOIP-PAL-Obviousness-Ruling
BELLEVUE, Wash., April 16, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) announced that at a meeting of the Board of Directors on April 15, 2019, the Directors of Voip-Pal unanimously rejected a formal offer from Dr. Gil Amelio and his associates to take over management of the Company. Part of the offer provided options to purchase only the stock owned by Voip-Pal’s CEO, Emil Malak. Fully exercised, the options would have paid Mr. Malak approximately $150 million for his shares of Voip-Pal stock.
Voip-Pal’s Board of Directors including CEO, Emil Malak, carefully considered the offer but unanimously voted to reject this proposal; however, the Company is open to further discussions with Dr Amelio. Voip-Pal is actively pursuing the sale of all of Voip-Pal’s shares, on behalf of the more than 4500 shareholders, not just the shares owned by Mr. Malak.
Dr. Amelio has held prominent positions with various technology companies, including serving as the CEO and Chairman of Apple Computer, (1996-1997), President, CEO and Chairman of National Semiconductor, and President of Rockwell Communication Systems. He has also served on the board of directors of several companies including Apple, (1994-1996), AT&T, (1995-2013) and Interdigital. He received a Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, and Ph.D. in physics from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Amelio has been awarded 16 patents and a 17th is pending.
Renowned patent and IP expert, William Sweet is one of Dr. Amelio’s associates on this proposal. According to Dr. Gil Amelio, Mr. Sweet and his team have conducted extensive research on Voip-Pal’s patent portfolio.
Emil Malak, Voip-Pal CEO, “We have great respect for Dr. Gil Amelio and his team and we are very pleased to know they see such value in our patents or they would not have tendered this offer. We are currently focused on our legal appeal to the recent Alice 101 decision as well as finalizing our strategy to move forward in Europe. In the meantime we are working diligently to add to our patent portfolio with patent continuation applications. Patience is a virtue.”
About Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB:VPLM) headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Corporate Website: www.voip-pal.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
“Courts should never be tasked with dealing with the complexities of patent validity because they lack the necessary technical expertise.”
I am Emil Malak, CEO of VoIP-Pal.com Inc., and a named inventor on two U.S. patents–Mobile Gateway: US 8,630,234& Electrostatic Desalinization and Water Purification: US 8,016,993. To date, our company owns 22 issued and or allowed patents, which we developed over the past 15 years. Against all odds, we have been 100% successful in defending eight Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs): four from Apple, three from AT&T, and one from Unified Patents. We are presently in litigation against Apple, Verizon, AT&T, Twitter and Amazon.
My experience with Voip-Pal has made it painfully clear that the deck has been stacked against companies who own IP being used without license by large tech companies. The America Invents Act (AIA), orchestrated by Silicon Valley, was designed to destroy the very ladder they climbed to ascend to their lofty perch, and make certain that they could not be challenged.
Owning a patent used to be the dream of every small inventor in America. For more than 200 years, the intellectual property rights of American inventors—both big and small—were protected by patent laws that encouraged innovation and risk-taking for the promise of reaping financial rewards for their inventions. That all changed in 2011 with the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which has since caused irreparable harm to the United States’ patent system and has stacked the deck against the little guy in favor of the Silicon Valley and other giants. Post grant reviews of issued patents existed prior to the AIA, but the AIA, through the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Inter Partes Review (IPR) created a post grant review process hostile towards patent owners. The lack of oversight, appointment of judges with apparent conflicts of interest, and allowing unlimited challenges to a single patent regardless of standing are just a few of the changes that placed a heavy hand on the scales of justice weighing in favor of Silicon Valley.
At the time, members of Congress said they were enacting legislation that would strengthen and streamline patent protection law, passing it by overwhelming majorities of 71% in the House and 95% in the Senate. However, eight years after its passage, the evidence clearly shows they have crippled the patent system.
This was never about streamlining the patent system—in fact, it has had the opposite effect. Instead of going into court to adjudicate an infringement case based upon the merits of the granted claims, the process is all about stalling, obfuscating, and forcing small companies to burn through their capital fighting a system that has been paid for by Silicon Valley. The AIA provided the legal mechanism for the Silicon Valley and others to destroy small companies and inventors, drain their limited resources and drive them out of business.
Small patent owners often engage in the futile effort of attempting to license their patents. Discussions with big tech companies are mostly fruitless and usually prove to be nothing more than a delay tactic by the infringer. The inventor is then forced to turn to the courts for enforcement and sues the unlicensed user of the technology. A lawsuit by the patent owner will usually trigger the IPR process. More often than not, the infringer will succeed in revoking all or part of the asserted patent. Even if the infringer fails in their efforts to cancel the patent, they will have succeeded in stalling as much as 18 months, costing the inventor precious capital, and knocking many out of business.
Courts should never be tasked with dealing with the complexities of patent validity because they lack the necessary technical expertise. Patent validity issues such as sections 101, 102, 103, indefiniteness, and all other technical matters should be decided prior to a patent being issued by technically qualified examiners at the USPTO, not by the court. Once issued, a patent should only be challengeable at the USPTO, and only for a predetermined period, i.e. six months. The courts should only decide matters of infringement and damages.
No aspects of patent law should ever be subjective. Congress can fix the inconsistencies between the USPTO and the courts and put them on the same page by passing laws that clearly define patent validity guidelines, i.e. what is abstract. Life in the 21st century is dependent on computers. Consequently, many software-centric patents adding new inventive steps are being developed, only to be labeled abstract by the courts and invalidated. The lack of uniformity is responsible for nullifying valuable patents and strengthening the chokehold the Silicon Valley has on the necks of small inventors. Courts should only deal with infringement and damages based solely on clearly these defined guidelines.
Director Iancu has a very tough job ahead. He inherited a broken system, heavily biased against the little guy. Since taking the reins he has made positive changes and has shown his commitment to leveling the playing field for all inventors. He recently published revised 101 guidelines for his department that he hopes will lead to changes in how the Federal Circuit views eligibility under 101. To date, the courts have refused to apply the USPTO’s guidelines.
The current rigged system is killing innovation in the United States. In this time of special prosecutors, it is appropriate for one to be appointed to investigate exactly how we got here. There are many questions that need to be answered:
After spending the last 15 years dealing with patent issues, my advice to inventors and small companies is to not waste their time and money spinning their wheels in the current patent system. It takes too many years and often millions of dollars to secure a patent, only to have it taken away by a hostile IPR process. The USPTO has the most technically competent examiners in the world. These highly qualified experts in their field work diligently to issue quality patents, only to have their work erased by the PTAB and the courts. Despite their efforts, the value of the patents they carefully issue is often worth less than toilet paper. The AIA has reduced once valuable patent ownership into a fraudulent representation of what it used to signify.
While the Silicon Valley conspires to steal intellectual property and stifle innovation, supported by the PTAB and the court system, China’s Shenzhen is emerging as a technical powerhouse; with plans to install 7,000 new 5G base stations this year alone. If the Silicon Valley continues their suppression of technological innovation, they will be displaced by Shenzhen as the hi-tech leaders of the world.
If the United States is to lead the world again in patent protection and innovation, the AIA must first be repealed and replaced with a set of laws that protect innovators and offers them the opportunity to profit from their inventions. The patent issuance process should be streamlined. It currently takes many years to issue a single patent, often followed by several years and potentially millions of dollars in post-grant defense costs. Reduce the issue time to one year and allow a six-month post-issue period for any challenges, which should all be handled by technical experts at the USPTO. The USPTO can fund these changes by increasing patent filing and issue fees. It is preferable for an inventor to spend $30,000 in fees for a patent’s issue within a reasonable amount of time than to get stuck in a process that takes years for issuance followed by more years and millions of dollars to defend.
Is Silicon Valley attempting to turn us into a corporatocracy through massive political contributions and their influence over policy making? Have they become too big and too controlling? Does the AIA rise to the level of fostering antitrust and anti-competitive practices described in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890)? Did its passage by Congress and its eventual implementation violate any antitrust or anti-competitive laws? Was the AIA a collaboration between paid politicians, the Silicon Valley and the USPTO to stifle competition? Only a special prosecutor can answer these questions.
Some have made the case that the AIA has all the ingredients of antitrust. It has undoubtedly given the upper hand to the infringers and makes it nearly impossible for the small inventor to monetize their inventions and intellectual property. One thing is certain; if the AIA had been in place 40 years ago, the world would never have known Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell or Mark Zuckerberg. The tech giants of the time, IBM and Texas Instruments, would have used the PTAB to eliminate them in the same way Apple and Google do today.
It’s time to take a serious look at breaking up monopolistic corporations like Facebook, Google and Amazon. Facebook and Google, especially, control the flow of information in the United States and worldwide. They are restricting the free flow of ideas, news and opinions, and manipulate search engine and newsfeed results for their own purposes. With some obvious exceptions like child pornography, sex trafficking, drugs and harmful scams, they should not be the arbiters that decide which information people receive. They have to cease in being a political platform. Information should flow freely without going through a corporation’s biased filters.
Recently, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and Silicon Valley investor and former mentor to Mark Zuckerberg, Roger McNamee, have publicly called for the breakup of Facebook. In addition to Facebook, McNamee is also calling for the breakup of Google and Amazon, which he says have all undermined democracy, violated user privacy and gained monopoly power. The transformation of the U.S. patent system over the past decade is evidence of the harm caused when companies like these are allowed to monopolize their industries. These powerful providers of information have become “governments in waiting.” Capitalism only thrives when the rules encourage innovation and competition.
I am not making accusations. I am only hoping that we can dig deep and get to the bottom of what happened that caused the radical transformation of American patent law and injured so many inventors and stakeholders. We need the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate these matters. Every day I wake up and work diligently to move Voip-Pal forward towards monetization. We are no stranger to the landmines which have been laid by the AIA, but we will keep battling until we succeed. As long as I am breathing, I will continue to fight for each of the more than 4,600 shareholders I represent. America will always be the greatest country for freedom and justice in the world.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Photo by iqoncept
ID: 10088061
Emil Malak is the largest single shareholder of Voip-Pal.com, Inc., a publicly traded company where he serves as a Director and Chief Executive Officer. He has spent the last 16 years overseeing the development of the company’s intellectual property comprised of more than twenty telecommunications patents in the United States and several international patents in Europe, India, Canada and Indonesia. In addition to his work as Voip-Pal’s CEO, Mr. Malak has spent the last 7 years involved with a medical research team of doctors, serving as the chairman of the board of Thorne BioMed Ltd. They are currently conducting cancer research in Germany where they are committed to pursuing a possible reduction to cancer metastasis.
For more information or to contact Emil, please visit his company profile page.
www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/05/28/1851157/0/en/Voip-Pal-com-Announces-the-Patent-Trial-and-Appeal-Board-Rejected-Apple-s-Request-for-Rehearing.html
BELLEVUE, Washington, May 28, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to provide an update on its current legal activities:
Recently, Voip-Pal CEO, Emil Malak authored an op-ed on the current status of the United States patent system. In his article, Mr. Malak calls for revamping the current patent system and praises the efforts of USPTO Director Andrei Iancu, who Mr. Malak believes is determined to correct the problems at the USPTO to better protect inventors and encourage innovation.
The op-ed was published on IPWatchdog.com. IPWatchdog.com has been recognized by their peers as “one of the leading sources for news, information, analysis and commentary in the patent and innovation industries”. The article can be viewed on IPWatchdog.com or at the Company’s website www.voip-pal.com
CEO, Emil Malak, stated, “We are very pleased with the PTAB’s decision to deny Apple’s request for a rehearing. For the second time in recent months three senior PTAB judges have sided with Voip-Pal. They have confirmed the two challenged patents on their merits and rejected Apple’s accusations and innuendo. Since we launched our first legal actions in 2016 our patents have been heavily challenged and we expect more challenges may come. We are very confident in the strength of our patents and we believe they will survive any challenges that may come our way based on their technical merits.”
“The current patent system favors the tech giants of Silicon Valley making it difficult for small companies to assert their patents against infringement. However, we are determined to see this through until the very end. The defendants, Apple, Verizon, AT&T, Twitter and Amazon are working together and will do whatever they can to drag this process out. We want everyone to know we are not going away. We will continue this fight until we reach a settlement, sell the Company or have our day in court. Eventually the defendants will have to deal with us and our patents will prevail. Patience is a virtue”
About Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Any forecast of future financial performance is a "forward looking statement" under securities laws. Such statements are included to allow potential investors the opportunity to understand management’s beliefs and opinions with respect to the future so that they may use such beliefs and opinions as one factor among many in evaluating an investment.
Corporate Website: www.voip-pal.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
THE PTAB IS FINALLY DONE!!! VPLM 8-0 VS Unified Patents, T and BIGGEST, LONGEST CHALLENGES OF ALL...aapl! aapl LOSES!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OS HAS DROPPED TO 1.75B. CEOS
BUYOUT OFFER, EMIL WAS OFFERED $150m.
Voip-Pal’s Board of Directors Has Rejected a Formal Offer from Dr. Gil Amelio and Associates to Purchase CEO Emil Malak’s Shares and Take Over Control of the Company
VPLMs data shows they are out of cash, commonsense is VERY concerned over this. The last Q alone cost $974,427 in expenses and they have $390,025 left. Sell shares machine in full effect. They made a bunch off that initial Pump and Dump cycle and burning through it since. But now, they can't get the price over $.03 really because the weight of the OS is too high, so millions more need to be dumped EVERY single month going forward.
*******WARNING ********
FALSE CLAIMS BEING MADE IN ORDER TO LOWER VPLM PPS
ALL LAWSUITS ARE MOVING FORWARD THROUGH
APPEAL OR OTHERWISE
EUROPEAN UNION IS UP NEXT, SHORTLY
VERY SIMPLE VPLM THEME:
VPLM HAS BEEN GRANTED 26 PATENTS IN THE U.S., THE E.U., INDIA, INDONESIA, BRAZIL AND CANADA!
VPLM WILL PROSECUTE THOSE PATENTS AND HAS GONE 8-0 IN PATENT CHALLENGES AT PTAB
VPLM HAS NEVER MADE A NEW LOW UNDER EMIL MALAK, ALTHOUGH VPLM HAS MADE THREE NEW HIGHS UNDER EMIL
NO QUESTION, VPLM IS VOLATILE; VPLM IS FIGHTING SOME OF THE LARGEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING
RETAIL SHAREHOLDERS INTERESTS DIMINISHING AND SHARES HITTING THE FLOAT CONSISTENTLY WITH TONS OF STOCK ISSUED OVER PAST YEARS!
DEFINITION OF TOXIC IN THIS ARENA! ITS RIGHT THERE IN THE FILING!
REMEMBER, VPLMS IP MIGHT BE WORTH BILLIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Continued chaos about the patent eligibility of non-physical technological advancements imposes devastating costs on innovators and industry.” – InvestPic counsel, Bill Abrams
On May 15, SAP America, Inc. filed a respondent’s brief with the Supreme Court in InvestPic, LLC v. SAP America Inc., a case in which InvestPic’s patent claims covering systems and methods for performing statistical analyses of investment information were invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Petitioner InvestPic is asking the nation’s highest court to determine whether the “physical realm” test for patent eligibility under Section 101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied contravenes both the Patent Act and SCOTUS precedent. SAS’ brief contends in response that the mentions of “physical realm” are scant in the case record and that the present case provides a “textbook application” of Supreme Court precedent on claims involving mathematical equations.
InvestPic’s U.S. Patent No. 6349291, Method and System for Analysis, Display and Dissemination of Financial Information Using Resampled Statistical Methods claims a method that involves selecting a sample space, including an investment data sample, generating a distribution function using a re-sampled statistical method and a bias parameter that determines a degree of randomness in a resampling process, and generating a plot of the distribution function. SAP America filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ‘291 patent in the Northern District of Texas in 2016 and, in 2017, the district court declared the challenged claims invalid under Section 101 on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The Federal Circuit’s decision on appeal was first issued in May 2018, before the opinion was modified that August. In affirming the lower court’s invalidity findings, the CAFC panel of Circuit Judges Alan Lourie, Kathleen O’Malley and Richard Taranto noted that the appellate court may assume that claimed techniques are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant” yet may still be determined to be patent-ineligible subject matter:
“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.”
The Federal Circuit’s discussion of the non-physical aspects of InvestPic’s claimed invention mainly take place in the context of discussing other cases decided by the appellate court in which physical aspects of the claimed invention led to determinations that the invention was patent-eligible. In 2016’s McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., the challenged claims were directed to the display of lip synchronization and facial expressions of animated characters, which the court determined was physical, unlike InvestPic’s invention, which claimed no improved display mechanism. Likewise, in 2017’s Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, the claimed improvement was implemented in a physical tracking system. By contrast, the Federal Circuit held that InvestPic’s improvement in the selection and mathematical analysis of information followed by display of the results wasn’t an improvement in the physical realm despite the fact that some claims required databases or processors.
InvestPic’s petition contends that the Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement ignores the primacy of preemption avoidance in Section 101 jurisprudence stemming from Supreme Court case law. In 19th Century cases such as Le Roy v. Tatham (1852) and O’Reilly v. Morse (1853), the Supreme Court struck down patent claims that were overbroad in a way that would preempt future innovation. However, in 1981’s Diamond v. Diehr, the Court upheld claims involving a mathematical equation because only a specific application of the equation was claimed. The Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement is detached from Section 101 preemption jurisprudence, InvestPic argues, despite the fact that preemption concerns are at the center of the Alice patent eligibility test in which the “physical realm” requirement was applied.
InvestPic also contends that the Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement exists in conflict with Congressional allowance of patents on novel processes that are executed by computers. Section 101 of the U.S. patent law allows for the issue of a patent for a “new and useful process” and “process” as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 100(b) includes “a new use of a known process,” such as the ‘291 patent’s use of the known process of resampling in the new application for investment portfolio analysis. Changes to U.S. patent law under the 2011 America Invents Act didn’t amend the definition of “process” in Section 100 and the patent-eligibility of inventions that didn’t exist in the physical realm led to the proliferation of calculator patents in the 1970s and digital patents in the 1990s, the latter period including the “PageRank” algorithm granted to Google.
The application of Section 101 jurisprudence has led to major patent-eligibility concerns in valuable and rapidly growing tech sectors. InvestPic cites to data published in July 2016 by IPWatchdog Founder Gene Quinn, which showed extremely low allowance rates in certain tech sectors post-Alice, including a 1.3 percent allowance rate in Art Unit 3689, which covers financial data processing patent applications. InvestPic also cites an October 2018 guest post on PatentlyO penned by Santa Clara University Law School Professor Colleen Chien which showed that art units affected by Alice saw a rise in office actions that rejected applications on Section 101 grounds, from 25% of all rejections pre-Alice up to 75% after the Alice decision.
The lack of predictability in patent-eligibility matters has led the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to release revised guidance on Section 101 eligibility this January. InvestPic cites this updated guidance as a result of the “crisis for invention posed by the lower courts’ [Section] 101 morass.” Petitioners also argue that the present case presents an ideal vehicle to restore consistency of the application of Section 101. Unlike the claims in Alice, the invention covered by the ‘291 patent claims is not a trivial coding project and the patent survived Section 102 anticipation and Section 103 obviousness challenges in reexamination proceedings at the USPTO, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and an appeal of those proceedings to the Federal Circuit, says InvestPic. Further, the ‘291 patent has been cited by more than 50 other issued patents, proving both the narrowness and non-preemptive nature of the patent claims.
In SAP America’s response brief, filed May 15, it argues that InvestPic overstates the application of the “physical realm” requirement, as the phrase only appears twice in the Federal Circuit’s decision. A “cursory look at the patent claims” defeats the physical realm argument, as they require physical elements such as databases and processors, which the Federal Circuit held to be generic computing components. SAP also argues that the decision is consistent with 80 years of Supreme Court precedent on the patent-ineligibility of mathematical expressions or formulas in cases such as Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America (1939), Gottschalk v. Benson(1972) and Parker v. Flook (1978).
Because InvestPic’s patent claims elements in the physical realm, SAP argues that the present case isn’t a suitable vehicle for deciding the issue of the Federal Circuit’s test. SAP also cites Federal Circuit decisions following InvestPic in which software patent claims have been upheld as eligible under Section 101, thus contradicting the notion that the appellate court has adopted such a test; these decisions include Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. and Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC (both 2018).
SAP further pushes back against InvestPic’s contention that an intra-circuit split on the application of Aliceexists. InvestPic had cited cases such as DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.(2014) and Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (2015) to argue that some Federal Circuit panels held that the absence of preemption conferred patent-eligibility, while others held that preemption was only relevant as a factor. “To be sure, some of these decisions discuss preemption in greater depth,” SAP argues, but none of the cases expressly held what InvestPic contended. While InvestPic’s claims survived Section 102 and Section 103 challenges in other proceedings, SAP notes that Section 101 statutory subject matter is a different matter than Section 102 novelty, noting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012) expressly refused patent-eligibility inquiries outside of Section 101.
Bill Abrams of Foster Pepper PLLC’s Intellectual Property Group and Counsel of Record for InvestPic in its appeal to the Supreme Court, sent the following comments to IPWatchdog:
“InvestPic v. SAP Americainvolves perhaps the most important issue in patent law today—what it means for an idea to be ‘abstract.’ Are software and other computer-implemented inventions ‘abstract’ and, therefore, ineligible for patenting? The answer dramatically impacts patent law and innovation across our modern, digital economy….
“Despite the Supreme Court’s preemption test to determine if an invention is an ineligible abstract idea, the Federal Circuit, in InvestPic and other cases, evaluated the physicality or tangibility of inventive ideas, rather than if the claimed invention would preempt basic fields of technology. This competing understanding of what constitutes an ‘abstract idea’ has resulted in irreconcilable decisions by different Federal Circuit panels. The ensuing uncertainty has made it nearly impossible to predict what inventions are eligible for patent protection. Such uncertainty damages the predictability of the incentive structure that is so central to the United States’ innovation landscape.
“This is why 18 amici, in seven separate briefs, have urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hear this case. The amici recognize the “physical realm” test’s potential to gut patent protection in some of the highest-growth sectors of our economy….
“Continued chaos about the patent-eligibility of non-physical technological advancements imposes devastating costs on innovators and industry. Review and intervention by the Supreme Court would bring much-needed clarity and stability to this vital question of law affecting digital innovations at the heart of our modern economy.”
In the meantime, the coming weekshould provide an indication of whether or not Congress will get to the matter first.
Steve Brachmann is a freelance journalist located in Buffalo, New York. He has worked professionally as a freelancer for more than a decade. He writes about technology and innovation. His work has been published by The Buffalo News, The Hamburg Sun, USAToday.com, Chron.com, Motley Fool and OpenLettersMonthly.com. Steve also provides website copy and documents for various business clients and is available for research projects and freelance work.
Tags:CAFC, Capitol Hill, Congress, Federal Circuit, innovation, intellectual property, InvestPic LLC, McRo v. Bandai Namco Games America, patent, patent eligibility, patent eligible, Patent Reform, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, PTAB, SAP America v. InvestPic, SCOTUS, US Supreme Court
Posted In:Capitol Hill, Courts, Federal Circuit, Government, Inventors Information, IP News, IPWatchdog Articles, Litigation, Patents, Technology & Innovation, US Supreme Court, USPTO
GOVERNMENTAL/LEGISLATIVE TIDE TURNING IN
VPLM'S FAVOR?
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |