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.
Except if both parties file a joint motion to continue (ie move the dates) judges will usually grant the motion. And, based on the filing, it appears any change would be a joint decision.
My guess is, and I’ll probably be wrong, that if the new damage estimates come in lower, there’s no change. If they’re higher both defendants with scream they need more time to figure out what other BS they can sling at the wall to see what sticks.
Like I said…I’m probably wrong but only time will tell.
lets get that "'palpable excitement """ from rich and Emil in some p.r. statements ..that would give , palpable excitement for the longs, in their minds and in their fruit of the looms. capiche?
any timeline on that delay? from the ""folks "" who talk to rich and Emil..? speculation and speculation...
Delays are their tactic. They don't mean much to me. It's just a matter of time IMHO.
I learned of "a delay" a couple weeks ago (from folks who talk to Rich & Emil), so this must be why.
Things are really cooking behind the scenes (BEHIND the facts of the filings).
There are many other facts to consider... MANY battles won (including 38 out of 38 IPRs), none lost for quite a while, an amazing team of attorneys and negotiators (as Drumming pointed out), and palpable excitement in Emil & Rich.
That's where my focus is.
(Not meant to be a put down, just another point of view to consider for those who may be new to the Board)
maybe the friendly judge will say NO!that's it..lets get this show on the road!..this has been delayed far to long..that's big techs big ego and big litigation model...stall and wear out the opponent...jmo, but the time is running out for more games.
Glad you noticed I said “possibly”. It’ll be explained more in not just one filing but there’s now a few. It’s interesting.
IMHO I don’t believe the motion (s) will be decided until the pretrial.
I have been saying this forever. The trials just keep getting delayed. They may not have a trial until 2030.
There is no excuse for this trial to be moved again.
Both Verizon & T Mobile had same issue. Thinking we’ll be ok on the dates because Hudnell is on top of his game and they are not changing the damage calculation method…only bringing in new expert and new damages model.
IMO, the defendants seem desperate and should be careful what they wish for. The new damage report just might come in higher than the original!
Please read the filing (s)…HouseFire. It’ll be explained there.
Actually there’re a few.
IMHO
the words could and possibly aren't a definitive answer...until the court says postponed /delayed then that's what we got.
This is crazy, Verizon trial could possibly be delayed until after the T-Mobile trial in November …Damage expert witness is being disputed by Verizon. Availability of new witness could be the cause.
2025?
This is why one must follow the filings!!
IMHO
What happened to vplm in the ptab that you want to prevent?
Hey, thought I'd pass on to those of you who might be interested in supporting the www.USInventors.org efforts to prevent what happened to our little stock in the PTAB from happening to others.
Join us for an Exclusive Virtual Meeting with Rep. Thomas Massie!
USI Weekly Meeting Thursday 5/23/24 at 4:30 pm ET
We are thrilled to invite you to an exclusive Zoom webinar hosted by US Inventor, featuring Representative Thomas Massie!
Rep. Massie will share his insights on pivotal legislative efforts that impact inventors and US Innovation. This is your chance to hear directly from a leading policymaker and champion for the inventor community.
📅 Date: Thursday, May 23rd, 2024
⏰ Time: 4:30 pm ET
📍 Location: Virtual
REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED.
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ymvgTVwpSoGYQ1b7jEyBAg
Wow... spooky quiet here. Must be getting close!
$.0163 Thank you all! Now volume creeps in and it's upside.
Spoke to Rich for over an hour and he is excited as ever. Yes, we speak on other things, but I get a real "comfortable vibe" overall and that is an understatement...
I think the VPLM team, including Rich, understand this has taken real patience to stick with, but it will payoff soon. The volume is talking.
Hang in there folks and let's all come in for the BIG WIN!
I like the sound of months and .70 used in one sentence! Getting ready for this to come to closure!
Thank you, DB for that excellent clarification, which does make perfect sense to me. Thus, the so-called "contingency" is the "we go to trial" scenario, which I understand you to believe will not become necessary. Now this would imply two things. One, that a settlement is how this ends, averting the necessity of a trial, and two, that this settlement comes prior to any scheduled trial date on the court docket. This would suggest that we are looking at a matter of months, not years, for a resolution to all of this infringement litigation.
And, as per your explanation, the inside selling is simply to raise the needed capital to be able to withstand the cost of a trial, just in case that becomes necessary. And you are quite correct in that those funds would need to be raised in advance of a trial. Your new target of $.70/share, which I assume is in the absence of a trial, would be seen as a most welcome improvement to anything we have seen thus far. I hope that you are correct, and I note that this new target is not based on a whim. I also recall that whenever you venture to make a prediction, it is always a conservative estimate. I make no predictions except to state that I believe that the best is yet to come for VPLM shareholders, and that we have never been in a stronger position legally and strategically. Best of luck to you and to all VPLM longs!
Doesn't get any more clear than that! Thanks DB!!
Thank you very much, C1. I love your posts and your positivity.
So, my thinking comes from a combination of factors going back years and this concerning Barbara's selling only. None of the selling concerns me at all. Not sure this is necessarily appropriate, but to simplify things I'm going to combine Emil/Barbara as a unit for their positions.
Emil has been working on behalf of VPLM shareholders for decades and a few years back he had the opportunity to sell is position to Gil Amelio at what would have worked out to $.17 to $.18/share. He didn't do it, thankfully for us shareholders.
Ok, we move forward years, with VPLM going through many ups/downs. We've had some selling down into the penny+ area....first blush, kinda strange, especially if we run with my STRONG belief than we will not go to trial and we will have a deal soon. Why the selling into the penny area after Emil turned down $.17+ for his shares. For me, the only logical reason for the selling is to build up funds just in case we do go to trial. You don't plan/take precautions for the future in the future.
Again, I STRONGLY BELIEVE we do not go to trial, but Emil/VPLM can't just plan according to my beliefs, strong or otherwise.
Thank you for the question and if this doesn't do it, please let me know.
Love your posts and please keep it up.
I think I'll take this time to UP MY PRICE TARGET TO $.70/share.... And, no, this isn't just on a whim....
DB it’s hard to understand how these supposed shareholders don’t count the fact that the stock that people buy in PP ‘s
Is held to maturity 6 months and the original proceeds of such sales go into VPLM’ bank account and out again for Lawyers etc to keep up the good fight.
In our opinions
Excellent post, DB, yet, I find myself intrigued by your statement, "The selling, in the big case, is a contingency, in my belief." How so? I would like to have a little more clarity on what you mean there. Could you please elaborate further? Thanks again, and keep up the good work!
Rich so many restricted shares, he does not need to buy any tradable shares out of his own pocket.
But I'm wondering if he also has shares personally and if so, if he is buying or selling.
No, Rich has not been selling his shares. All his shares are restricted.
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.
Does anyone know if Rich Inza has been selling his shares?
DB, I think this is one of your best posts! Thank you, thank you, for all your hard work in putting it together.
I know you well enough to know that you didn't just pound it out on the keyboard... it took a long time to write and word it in a way that would be helpful... to US.
And for those who do not understand why the selling/dilution.... I don't think I've heard DB say this so clearly before.
As always, I enjoyed your post, DB. I always look forward to updates from you, I know that you have had a conversation or have done hours and hours of research, and you have something new to share. I rely on you as I don't have the time or the energy to stay on top of it.
Feel a bit of excitement building and surely hope that we can settle out of court.
2024 is VPLMs year to settle all the nonsense with these stinkin' infringers. 😊
Let's go!
So, reading your post, that must mean that had you the money, you would immediately buy the patents, right?
I must admit, that it is often frustrating to see the share price behave in ways that seem to defy logic, yet that is often the whimsical nature of the stock market, where prices do not always reflect value. VP has nothing but wins, batting 100% with IPR victories making the patents iron clad (i.e., Alice-proof), and moving ever closer to a trial where victory is all but assured. Emil speaks optimistically and enthusiastically about VP finally having our day in court (a court, BTW, which is patent-owner friendly). Therefore, regardless of today's price, I believe that we are moving closer to that day when the market wakes up to VPLM, and the price moves dramatically closer to its intrinsic value. Besides, yet another indicator which lets me know that I am over the target, is that I get a poo poo from sunspotter. ☺️
No problem; water under the bridge and I can appreciate the frustration. I differ a bit in that I don't really mind the banter so much as the inability, for some, to put things in some reasonable context.
So, I'm not saying I know everything(I KNOW VERY LITTLE compared to Lewis/Emil/Rich/others), but let's look at a few things: Court dates/amzn settlement/huawei settlement/Alice. Quite a streak, wouldn't you agree?
Why, at this point, with all the negatives folks like to focus on, would Ray Leon and the others sign on? I suggest those who don't know Ray Leon, go look him up.
Onward. If the insider sales/dilution were such a big thing, why are we not at new lows? OK, without the sales we could be higher, sure....... PATIENCE! On the other side of the coin, if we do go to trial, which I highly doubt, who is going to foot the bill? VPLM is not flush with cash and these lawsuits would cost millions; are those going on about the sales going to come up with $millions? The selling, in the big case, is a contingency, in my belief.
This isn't about me, I accept what I don't know, but for credibility sake I will just add: This "failed broker" has been around the market, to some extent since I was 13. Accounting degree(tits on a boar), but it did open the doors to the brokerage industry. First firm I worked for, I was on the syndicate team. I was paid $175k to move to my second firm...big mistake, but I did work with a few great ones. I do have some know how in the marketing of stocks....
More specific to VPLM: I speak to Rich, first and foremost, but I speak to my boys in Vancouver and across Canada. I hear things and folks frequently listen to my BS in WA/CA/NV/AZ/TX/FL/LA/MA/ID/UT/OH and Ireland. Mostly I'm keeping those I speak to up to date, but a number of these folks have the goods/perspective. I work at this, I promise, and it's for the good of all longs, those who like me, as well as those who think I'm a chooch!
Again, there is real excitement, certain angles have gone silent(good) and look at amzn/huawei. I know the NDA troubles some(remember, Lewis and our legal team are in this too), but if on the low chance we go to court, do you think Judge Albright, in the back of his head, might think what did amzn/huawei see that vz/tmus do not? MAYBE vz/tmus MIGHT NEED A BIT OF REMINDING, Judge Albright might think/voice and reminder!
Thanks, D, for the reach out and sorry for the misunderstanding. As to the frustrations, we all have them, however remember Mr. Market does not care about our frustrations, the board, our financial issues, our family issues, nor our "feelings"; Mr. Market works on supply/demand.
I'm very excited, trust the team and I'm expecting great things soon! Hang in there and thanks again! Be well!
Much of the time, folks forget patience when it is most needed!
All good DB. I’m a little frustrated with the crap on this board lately and assumed you were taking a shot at me regarding the filings, etc. I apologize if it was an over reaction on my part.
Bottom line, we all need to appea to our higher angels and bring decorum & respect back to the board and stay on topic.
So, had to really think this out a bit and I'm back to no substance, it just isn't worth the bullshit! Allow me:
My post came first(THE ONE POST I GET/DAY); do you notice the post as one in reply to you or anyone??????? That's because it wasn't a reply to anyone specifically; your question was one of a number of the same question which has been asked over the recent past. I handled it as delicately as I could because it is a ridiculous question only a dolt like jimmy cramer would try to BS over!!! And, I've answered it before. How could anyone say with any seriousness why VPLM was not above $.02, no matter the volume? How about below $.01? With the lower volume today, 42 trades, how does anyone KNOW why someone sold, unless you know the seller? The buying, OK, they figure VPLM is going up!
All that aside, my post NOT AIMED DIRECTLY AT YOU, and you go off because I try to suggest a way to be constructive with the board, packing my one post: at least aiming for no negative???? WTF?
"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!" Isn't that just priceless irony? And, "the bait & switch"?????? Nit?
So, your stuff is "FACTUAL" cuz you say? You were "begged to email" the court docs??? Begged, really?
Lastly, the "cesspool of insults & BS that never comes to fruition"?????????? Amzn deal? Nothing? Court dates? New attorney? Addition of a board of advisory including Ray Leon? Nothing? Alice? huawei deal? Seems like quite alot to me...
LET ME BE CRYSTAL CLEAR: Folks can think/believe what they want!! Think it is all, nearly all in the rearview mirror of the court filings; think the insider selling is an issue, fine! I asked Rich about the court filings; he does not have Pacer, nor does he read other than the big ones...granted, he has access to Lewis. Why the constant calling out for more PRs? I hear something has come out(filing), I rarely read it, I just call Rich for the "nuance", or the why. FOR ME, the reading of the filing comes down to little more than shuffling papers on the desk.
CRYSTAL CLEAR #2.....Much, much more going on than anything in the filings...
I was just curious about texts between Rich and I: Looked up on my phone and it was 6,800+ texts, plus hours on the phone... Rich does a fabulous job, is working hard for us all!
Again, my first post which initiated this all was not directly aimed at you! BTW, never do I worry about a punch in the mouth, I assure you!
sue what...lol....feds can only touch a bank account....go back to sleep/?....20- 35 yr old retabgt5fv4rds...
word salad ...and orca is one dumb ___ word and that's it.
Toxic spiral financing’s except insider style,not allowing retail to take a piece which negative news is this kind of toxic financings news because they( insiders) constantly make money by destroying
PPS on the way down then roll back 200 to 1 babykinszzzzzz
everyone goes go quiet ...F777ckn good ...all word salad here anyways... retail will finish this...and March on ...
nobody needs barb and the others...this can be collapsed by retail in 10-20 mins...food for thought
no positives folks this board is gospel..we are sah-dah-mized!!! Emil doesn't have a rain coat ...we are all gonna line up and take it!!!! yes we are ...Monday is sell day!!! sellllllll!
at least on a positive note for the weekend, you are down 50%
its all over lets sell...no hope!!!! no hooooooope !! its over jerk offs .....run before the boogey man gets ya...and before Emil puts 10 inches in you!!!!
more word salad....blah blah
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.
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: |