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.
better yet I'll put the sells in at market..then everyone will surely cry......this site and stock twits is all f777ckn kids and that's it.
Hey guess what,there’s another way to suit the insider sales team and it’s based on all the crsp the usual suspects start to kiss each others ashes and extol the virtues of other “longs”.
After every new chapter of this buddy buddy ass kissing a “P&D” goes off either way the usual collapse in PPS.
Watch and confirm the usual suspects then this time suit their asses.
In our opinion
2.65 mil shares here .maybe I'll sell n collapse it on monday so I can be done with it and you nimrods...gen y and z have no use for big puss&ys, cry and complain thats it.
not one as$ hole here even calls inverters relations ...I have and tried...and no prevail.....soooo its monday lets all drink rev jim Jones kool-aid and sell !!! cmon...you on board!!??
soooo with the insider selling lets all sell on Mon day and collapse it...we may get half a cent a share ...lets go for it!!hoo-rah! everyone dump !!! lets do it!!! sell sell sell!!! we can commit suicide together....why don't all of you use your smarts and post on Verizon and t-mobi;le!!...fuc& this
It is a bit of a gut punch watching the insider sells. Even with the Huawei settlement backdrop. and the upcoming trials. That's $165k in back in ole Clifton's pockets.
I don't think the share price will impact a buyout since the patents would be what they are buying.
Let's get this straight. We are supposed to believe things are going well. Hopefully I am reading it wrong. But watching insiders continue to sell shares is pathetic.
There is a trial in Aug and we are in mid May. 3 months to the trial and we have 3 new 144s filed today. Clifton 15 million shares, Williams 3.5M shares and the old favorite Chang 3.5M shares. Only person with out a new 144 is Barb and that is because her last 144 lasts until 6/1. She filed to sell 21M shares and has only sold 8M. So she can sell as much as she would like until 6/1.
That is very frustrating watching these insiders selling massive numbers of shares on a daily basis. I was hoping the increase in the share price would continue but I think that is a no. Notice that the share price rose 35% from late 4/29 - $0.13 to 5/14 - $0.175. Since then it has fallen to $0.0156 or 10.9%. Is a coincidence that insiders were able to sell on 5/15.
Great stuff DB, as always, thank you for sharing and giving us perspective!!
Me too, Desktop! And yes, DB has limits to his daily posts. He is on very early so watch for updates then!
I also can relate to your post Drumming. I still watch VPLM like a hawk and am in this for the long haul. I appreciate what you are sharing and always what DB brings to the board. It's not an easy job to stay positive, especially in this economic climate.
Stay strong 💪 our day is coming soon!
bulls won't buy and bitch bears wont sell...well we have a couple of or a few college boys 300$ purchases..what a crew ...I'd buy lottery tickets , scratch offs with 200-500$ transactions.lets keep the theories keep on coming!!lol
Vplm........ Fake patent troll. They became an apparent patent troll when they threw all their promises and alleged goals under the bus around 10 yrs ago.
They then became what appeared to be the poster child of patent trolls. In hindsight, that was part of the scheme.....it was a front for the real Vplm, the fiat share printing/selling/insider ATM. Meanwhile, the big farce continues to play out, doing it's great job of diversion. Standby for incoming monkey wrenches. Get your helmets on...
The question has been raised that, in a buyout scenario, would a low share price negatively affect a serious buyout offer? I think that the intrinsic value of the IP would have to carry much more weight than the market value (i.e., the share price). A low market value would simply indicate that the stock is undervalued, and should not be the yardstick used to determine the intrinsic value of the stock. What is the intrinsic value of VP's IP? I do not know, but it is certainly higher than the current share price would indicate. Negotiations may be focused more on the intrinsic value of VP's IP, and less (if at all) on the market price. VP leadership may not be that concerned about the market price for this very reason. Will VP's market value ever catch up to VP's high intrinsic value? Perhaps that will happen when an acceptable buyout offer is on the table, or with a landslide court victory, whichever comes first. JMHO.
gratz !! if everyone hits other boards and stirs the pot...God knows what could happen..we all know its OTC...but let the defendants know ..and their boards!!
Expecting things to really start moving in a few weeks. It's been 2 yards and a cloud of dust! Few more yards to go.
Patent Litigation
The Company is party to patent and patent-related litigation cases as follows:
i. VoIP-Pal.com Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. Case No. 6-20-cv-00272 in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas.
In April 2020, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, against Amazon.com, Inc. and Certain related entities, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,218,606. The case is pending.
ii. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Comms., Inc. Case No. 6-21-cv-672 in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
On September 25, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, against Verizon and related entities alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,234 and 10,880,721. The case is pending.
iii. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al. Case No. 6-21-cv-668 in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas
On September 25, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, against T-Mobile and related entities alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,234 and 10,880,721. The case is pending.
iv. VoIP-Pal.com Inc v Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd. et al Case No. 6-21-cv-1247 in US District Court, Western District of Texas
On November 30, 2021, the Company filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, against Huawei and related entities alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,234 and 10,880,721. On January 18, 2023, the Western District of Texas granted Huawei’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas. The case no. is 3:23-cv-00151. The case was dismissed on May 13, 2024.
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 really appreciate your posts and up really glad DB is back!. Go VPLM!
Fine, I’ll accept that. I’ve been and still am a strong supporter of VPLM…going on 12+ years to be exact.
So if anyone on here is questioning my commitment to VPLM, you really have no idea about me and if you’re being told I’m negative on the company or Emil, you’re absolutely wrong. Do I get upset about stuff that happens, absolutely! For example, the bait & switch on
the anti-dilution clause! Do we have a right to voice our opinions about our frustrations…last I checked we still have that right as well!
Go back in history and look at my past posts & the FACTUAL stuff I have contributed to the discussions…even sharing a large number of court docs AT MY OWN EXPENSE to the group to try to keep everyone informed. It’s pretty weird though, back then there was lots of interest in the court docs and was even begged to email them to people. Back then, this was a place to get mostly factual info…now it’s become a cesspool of insults & BS that never comes to fruition, which is sad.
The fact that VPLM is still going after all these years against the bigs is a testament to Emil’s tenacity & the legal strategy. Any long is looking for a reasonable return on our investment and hopefully it comes real soon.
Unfortunately, like 30% of society now, there’s no place for alternative points of view if those views/facts differ from what you believe! Critical thinking is dead! Further, social media has made people way too comfortable with disrespecting others without the fear of getting punched in the mouth!
I think DB is throttled back to only one post per day. I don't think he was trying to mock you at all, I think he was trying to communicate to a whole bunch of folks with his one post. I don't want to speak for him, but I am pretty sure he wasn't singling you out.
YES!!!!
Wow, some really good posts today!
Thank you DB, Spyke and LBird!
You nailed it Spyke!!
Some people can't hear it from DB... hopefully they can hear it from you!
My suggestion is.... quit trying to sink your own boat by using this Board as a place to complain and second guess what our amazing lawyers are doing.
Seriously... LOOK at how far we've come!
I know it's hard to wait and it feels like it's never going to happen, but there are plenty of bits of evidence (which DB alluded to) that tell us that POSITIVE things are happening.
PRs AND PROMOTION ARE NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Like DB said... this is nothing new... and it is part of the strategy... and I wholeheartedly SUPPORT that strategy.
And not because I have my head in the sand, but because there are plenty of data points that tell me the strategy is WORKING!!!!
I hope that those of you who are discontent will reconsider bearing your soul on this Board.... think of the many people who will miss out on the amazing opportunity this offers because they read your posts.
YES!!!! They've definitely earned MY trust!! LOTS to be hopeful about. Excellent post, DB!
Bird…I totally agree with your honest assessment. Stock price will vary day to day and not the issue. As I said many times, I STILL believe in the strength of the patents and feel there will be a positive end at some point.
My reasoning for asking for thoughts or opinions on stock price was to understand if anyone, specifically DB, since he talks to Rich often, had thoughts on why we can’t seem to break .02! That’s it. Was looking for an honest opinion only to read what appears to be a mocking & belittling response in “the filings” & self assessment. Feel like high school drama class. Did I miss something?
Really? Ask serious question to get that crap back? This board is a joke lately.
Just say you don’t know or provide an honest opinion rather than a rant on code.
This isn’t high school!
It’s a good idea
Thanks SPYKE for the explanation
I may not be looking in the right place, but I don't see $93,000,000 in debt, just the deficit that the company has run since inception. Those are two different things. In my reading of this, this does get paid back, but it is going to go to the shareholders, not a creditor per se. With that said, the happiest day of my life in Grad School, was when I took my last accounting final, so I may be out to lunch. Maybe some of our CPA posters can chime in here.
🛻🛻🛻…Beep…Beep….I noticed your long post the other day, chose not to even read it. I glanced and scrolled down and it was too long winded to spend any time or energy reading it. Although I’m sure there’s enough material to copy and paste that I could make a collage of your quotes and statements from other posts, that would be more embarrassing than any clerical error I’ve ever made.
You contact shareholders to attack me. You call them yelling and screaming and even left a nasty voice message so a shareholder’s wife could hear. Your rants of anger are toxic, pretentious, lack substance, disrespectful and are all over the place. They have gotten way out of hand. It’s very disturbing, something’s just not right with you. IMHO
What’s astonishing, I would think if you did have any friends, someone would tell you to stop with your nonsense.
I was going to come back and go low, real low, on a personal level but, I decided not to.
To be truthful, I’m laughing most of the time when I’m writing my posts. The banter is all in fun and not meant any harm. It appears you’re too thin skinned to take any rebuttals. I find it hilarious because you invite the backlash. But, to be honest, it’s gotten old, real old.
In the neighborhood I grew up in, you either stand up for yourself or you get crushed. When I get disrespected, I defend myself. If you and your minions don’t like it, too freaking bad. Don’t disrespect others and you won’t be disrespected back. Better yet, don’t read my posts. I certainly don’t intend on reading any more of yours. It’s a simple concept, I’m sure most would agree.
If I didn’t know you chose to live in your car and it wasn’t out of necessity, I certainly wouldn’t have joked about it.
I understand you’re waiting for VPLM to come to fruition, before getting a place. I really hope VPLM works out for both of us. Maybe you can get a nice 38’ RV to live in or a place of your own. This certainly should help with your low self esteem.
Although I understand you may have been a successful stockbroker. But, you live in a completely different reality where court filings, media articles, and SEC filings really don’t matter. You’d rather rely on your feelings, vibes, and Rich’s tone of voice to seek comfort, encouragement and enthusiasm, for not only yourself but, for your minions. This speaks volumes.
Your opinions on how this might play out, are different than mine. I get it, shareholders with restricted shares want an acquisition prior to the trial date, for obvious reasons. aka, cost and hassle depositing shares and a stock swap without having to sell and pay taxes immediately. Understood.
I’d love to see an acquisition but, only at a fair and reasonable price. I believe after the recent favorable ex parte reexamination and Alice Motion decisions, VPLM’s value has gone up. You should at least agree with me on this.
I feel VPLM’s going to trial and there’ll be a favorable VPLM verdict. If this holds true, the PPS should appreciate much higher than any anticipated acquisition price. This way, the actual damages would be made public. If this settles prior to trial, without an acquisition, there’s no telling if the damages will be announced. Then it might be perceived, just like the others. I believe a trial verdict is needed, prior to any acquisition. IMHO
The bottom line, none of us have any control on what the outcome will be. These are just our opinions.
We all know what it means when one does the same thing, over and over again and gets the same results. Therefore, after serious consideration, I’ve decided to take the high road and be the better man. This has taken on a life of its own. We can agree to disagree on numerous topics.
I’ve made my statements, ad nauseam with rebuttals back to you and a few others. If one can’t comprehend and or process things, it’s a “you” problem, not a “me” problem. I’d just refer to my previous posts, you can be schooled there.
This board has limited information of any substance. There’s only a small group of people that pay attention to it anyway. Your minions pander to your every whim, it’s nauseating. Especially, when you know nothing, that’s not in the court filings. PERIOD
I’m not sure who appointed you VPLM’s spokesman but, they did a lousy job. Most information can be found in the court documents and filings.
I don’t care to read any more of your posts, as well as a few others. There’s really nothing gained from it. You’re a pathetic excuse for a man. It’s time to distance myself from you. Who knows what you’re liable to do. IMHO
ENOUGH SAID!!!
Good luck and I wish you well.
MIC DROP
🛻🛻🛻…Beep…Beep..Bye-bye
LMAO
VPLM's company song is "Sell, sell, sell............lovely sales!" (to the tune of Monty Python's Spam):
http://insiderbuyingselling.com/?t=vplm&submit=
Hey Spike,have you noticed the $93,000,000.00 debt they are running well that gets paid to “0” first we believe.
And then all the inside & corporate bonuses.
Imoo
i hit yahoo finance..everyone should hit the boards, what do we have to loose...
I have never run a publicly traded company, but I think they are required to report all material facts. The idea of being paid off for an NDA is interesting, but the changes that would make in the balance sheet should make a settlement of that size easy to identify or extrapolate.
Just felt like reposting this:
Huawei’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under § 101 was denied.
VoIP-Pal CEO, Emil Malak, said “This is extremely good news. Once again, we have received another positive ruling in one of the many challenges attacking the validity of our patents. Each of those times our patents have stood on their technical merits. I am very grateful to our incredible, expert technical and legal teams that have worked so hard to help get us across the finish line. We are looking forward to having our day in court soon and hopefully bringing our long legal battles to a favorable conclusion. Patience is a virtue.”
That is something that does not require the VPLM management team to take their eye off the ball
for the ones who are truly invested here it cant hurt if each one posted on different verizon t-mobile boards about it...its better than people tearing eachother apart here and possibly gets their investors concerned...jmo
i bet there would be more interest if verizon and t mobile shareholders knew of the upcoming trials..i bet both companies arent even mentioning it or giving their shareholders updates either..hmmm maybe its time for their message boards to know? hmmm
I really don't know, I don't think that anything about VPLM is normal so it is tough to say. This is the only penny stock I have ever invested in. To me the solid value that VPLM will attain, long term (or through liquidation) will be based primarily on straight fundamentals. In my mind what is going on right now with share price is fairly immaterial and the only thing that will move the needle is a legitimate buyout offer or a favorable ruling in court where actual damages are outlined and awarded. The share price in those two scenarios will be so much higher than the current trading that I don't think a couple of cents here or there will make much difference. Of course if you are a day trader it will make a difference, but if you are a long it just kind of seems like noise. No doubt, a higher price would be nice to see, but like we all realize that price is very fragile and any kind of sell volume will knock it right back down. In my very uninformed on penny stocks opinion.
If a company wins a $100+ million dollar judgement, being a material event aren’t they obligated to file an 8k?
It's easy to get wrapped up in the stock price sometimes, especially when you've been in this as long as most of us have... For me personally, I have never used the stock price to get a read on where things stand. It’s just not a good tool for knowing where things stand. It never has been. We’ve seen this sky rocket 2000% plus percent in a couple of weeks when nobody was predicting that.
I don’t care what the stock price has said the last couple of days, in my opinion, it couldn’t be more off. Several posters have already alluded to this, but I like this guy’s post from another site. Sorry, you don’t get an Alice win and VPLM just throws in the towel the next day without having a plan. I continue to trust in the team.
Post from another
the most important thing out of hauwei is we got an Alice ruling that the patent was solid. We never got that op in CA. If you follow the filings, Hudnell immediately added this to T-Mobile And VZ trials as evidence. Whatever the settlement, they knew they lost on that, it only makes the bigger players in this instance have to deal with during trial . From what I hear, cannot appeal an Alice 101 ruling, which is why it is was bs we never got one with CA judge Lucy Koh. Amazon is not in mobile like T-Mobile and VZ are…when those trials begin, that, in my opinion, will be when the fireworks start.
let me ask you something...if the sp is moving north prior to this july /august/ oct etc etc. a buyout would give more per share if the sp was higher than it is now???/ right?
Yeah right.... Like that's gonna happen..... Like they never would've thought of it if it wasn't for you.
Vplm has never advertized themselves because it's not part of the plan. The plan does not include selling company or patents.....it includes selling fiat shares hand over fist, day after day, year after year. It works perfectly! Don't forget to donate....
Sorry, but that seems un-neccessarily harsh.
They are indeed keeping their eye on where the money is.....
....and making sure it goes straight to where they want it to go....
.....into their pockets. That won't change. That's the PLAN
My sense is that the VPLM legal team is doing everything they can to signal that they ARE NOT a patent troll. They have been doing all of the blocking and tackling that is boring, but effective in court, for securing a patent infringement judgement. While screaming this from the rooftops, especially given the victories in all of the pre trial maneuvering, is tempting, it runs the risk of cheapening the main message by opening VPLM up to accusations of simply using the patent troll play book to extort the defendants. While I am frustrated by how long this takes, I always knew that to get this into court would be a long, long slog. Getting deep into this instead of playing a game of legal chicken, in my opinion, has the best possibility of creating real lasting value for VPLM. Now that we are just about there, I think it would be unwise to change strategies. It seems that the defendants are being consistently backed deeper into an alley with no exits and no more ammunition to fight with. Again, just my opinion.
Da fuk? I asked about your thoughts & opinions on where we are on price since volume was moving up and this is the answer…or should so say non-answer?
Feels like a page from NYT!
UFB!
bs..a secretary can set up interviews for tv or publications as far recruiting deep pocket investors, maybe good ol rich can handle that...the market will give this more creed if the chart looks better! .015 aint doing it big time.
When they get a notable deal done with one of the big infringers the stock market will react positively. I doubt they have time to promote right now and should keep their eye on the ball. That's where the real money is.
Followers
|
464
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
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: |