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.
Exactly, lots of data and math. In my company when we went after companies that were illegally using our IP we had data both internal,( mainly existing contracts) and external (industry data) that we used very complicated statistical models to calculate Time Value of Money on both labor, non labor, including overhead costs as well as profit. Going back when they started using our IP, using their customer base. Alot of that data is available via publicly using their tax filings. That's how we monetized the starting point for negotiations. So depending on the company ie. If they were the naughty ones that used VPLM IP without permission. You can show them ranges of how they can make it right with a settlement. Cut a check to Emil for $$$$$$$$$$ and they now own the licensing rights. Or if you are a company that wants to own the IP, then you show them what they can possibly make by buying the license/rights. A value can be determined with all the companies that we have open court cases with. Calculate a range of potential income stream for them to sell the licenses. Then strike a deal. They could potentially go after the infringers in court. Depending how deep their pockets are and how good their lawyers are?! I only have a financial background so that's how my simple mind would approach it from building a cost model. Obviously there's a ton of contracts and legal stuff involved which is not my swimlane! Maybe there are some other schools of thought out there?
“…threats of treble damages (which are almost never awarded, no matter how willful the infringement…”
Not so long ago, I was in the camp that believed enhanced/treble damages are almost impossible to get but have since switched my belief. Enhances damages for willful infringement are very possible with a strong case in the right court. Award rates vary by both venue & industry
This article is from Sept 2023 and has good info about enhanced damage award rates.
https://www.mayerbrown.com/-/media/files/perspectives-events/publications/2023/09/enhanced-patent-damages-trends-ip-attorneys-should-know.pdf%3Frev=2f164f5b37b6492db53f4ad52a755b66
It would be awesome to get a final legal judgement, but that is the last thing the folks with deep pockets want to see. Admitting to patent infringement is what gets executives fired and board members recalled. All of the damage claims and threats of treble damages (which are almost never awarded, no matter how willful the infringement), are what help shape the size of settlement. It is kind of an expected value and time value of money calculation. It does matter, but in practice it generally turns into a gigantic negotiation around a complicated math problem.
I would love to see the proof of your assertions regarding Rich Inza. Which "handles" does he use? How do you know. It strikes me that the absence of you being able to definitively prove that is tantamount to libel. Please put it out there for us.
"Without a trial, how exactly is infringement confirmed or potential treble damages applied? Or doesn’t that matter to anyone?"
_____________________________________
Duh..... Obviously, with licensing or buying, it doesn't matter. Doesn't matter with settlement either, because THAT'S what a settlement means, ie, bypass trial and settle on an agreed number..........um, unless I'm missing something... It's (settlement) same as admitting infringement but without weight of judge, jury, treble, etc.......but then again....WTFDIK?
.18 minimum I would think, up to .50
Question for whom ever cares to answer…
Since there’s alot of talk/belief/optimism
that this will “be over” soon, we can only surmise “being over” means monetizing the patents in some way (ie settling, buyout, licensing, etc.) but the one thing it’s doesn’t include is a legal finding of infringement by the defendants.
Without a trial, how exactly is infringement confirmed or potential treble damages applied? Or doesn’t that matter to anyone?
Hers a few cases to watch. You can keep track of new filings when they hit the docket for free on Court Listener but if you want to get the actual document, you need to go to Pacer. There’s a direct link from Court Listener.
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 6:21-cv-00672, (W.D. Tex.)
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., 6:21-cv-00674
(W.D. Tex.)
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 6:20-cv-00272
(W.D. Tex.)
H&S it isn’t a pink sheet anymore dude it’s OTCQ/Nasd
Thank you. Yes it is. And it says the fiscal year was 9/30/2023
don't kid yourselves market makers are in cohoots too with OTC...with Emil running 40% of the float the don't you think the phone rings everyday to the pink sheet counter..mull on that ( scratch my back and I will scratch yours) .017 to .0148 lets get real.
estimates from a previous post .18...too many shares outstanding...i stated .05...never see .70 . .25 is a blesssing but i doubt it. jmo.....05to .10
It’s possible
That’s would be great .70
How many shares do you have? I would imagine that having more than 100,000,000 would maybe get you taken seriously, but that would still only be around 3% of the outstanding shares (assuming 3,000,000,000 outstanding). If you think managing lawyers and their strategy (ies) and how they will get paid and which cases they should be focusing on happens on autopilot, I would invite you to come spend a day with me at company that has about 1/100th of the potential of VPLM. The fact that you are acting like you could do better because you know they are doing nothing is the very best evidence available that you should be nowhere near the boardroom of this company. Relax and enjoy the ride, or cash out. You truly have options and if your confidence is that far gone you really should find a better place for your time, talent and treasure.
enough is enough ..typing my complaint to the sec, and OTC exchange...way too much monkey business. they cant chill?? apparently not...lets see.. one lawsuit for 1.4 mil filed and awarded last year for insider trading...you'd figured the Egyptian would learn..I guess not!
10K is in Edgar 2023-12-22, 10K/A, 2024-02-14
Sorry....that is wrong. Fiscal year end is 9/30 for this company.
Q2 is June Qtr end. hasn't happened yet
Thanks. Weird. I just checked again and it is not listed on OTC.
Look on otc markets, and click on disclosures which is where you will find it. I just looked and don’t see it now, I remember Sunspotter making a comment about the financials.
https://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=90423&ref=318323066&type=HTML&symbol=VPLM&cdn=8cfdf2a76d0104f67e376d62d4119e91&companyName=Voip-Pal.Com+Inc&formType=10-Q&formDescription=General+form+for+quarterly+reports+under+Section+13+or+15%28d%29&dateFiled=2024-05-15
Why do we not have Q2 financial statement statements filed?
It's not just a "positive attitude", Electric... it's the FACTS.
You're just frustrated because you don't know what's going on behind the scenes.
Oh well... guess we'll never get through to those who just can't see how GOOD things really are going right now.
Soon enough, it won't matter what they think. <sigh>
insert-text-here
Same here, DB!!
Excellent post... people claiming you're "preaching" Patience is a Virtue (as if you've got your nose in the air) just don't get it.
You're not putting anyone down, you're just someone who CARES deeply about all the people you've gotten into this stock.
THANK YOU for all you do to support VPLM, and us.
Exit doors are closing for the infringers. Ready for takeoff!!!
With the way this is playing out your friends 1 yr old will be middle aged by the time this is done. I'm not here to pick a fight. But we have heard " great things are happening!!" For years. We have heard "they have worked so hard" doing what exactly? I would seriously like to be considered to be appointed to the board of directors. At least then I could figure out what they are doing that is considered working. The lawyers are the only ones I know for sure that are working. Positive attitudes are obviously not getting anything done either.
what a joke cant even hold a gain.. day traders with 100$ borrowed from mom...that's why OTC is a joke ...after this you 20 and 30 somethings can go play with Lego.. screw this
Waaaaahhhhh... so did the rest of us.... but most of us are not whining about how long this is taking or how poorly things are being run.
Wise investors making major purchases at discount prices!
People, believe him when he says this. LOL. It's why I truly trust DB's opinions. They're definitely not pie in the sky or hopeful thinking.
So strange, as I'm not the most positive guy, by any stretch, but I am toward VPLM and THE TEAM LEADING IT!
Honestly, I read your post to me and wonder where I am. Something as innocuous as "Patience is a virtue" and its aiming is an issue. I do think I've handled this, but:
The "Patience is a virtue" is meant TO BENEFIT you and all shareholders, not as as attempt to keep you from selling if you need to, although less selling is always good. I believe selling here would be a huge mistake!!!!!!
I don't bark any orders at the VPLM team...they do/know far more than me for me/us.! I can't speak for anyone. Read the files, memorize, buy/sell, flip a coin...people can do and do as they will. I ain't the enemy!
So, just lately I described my thoughts on Emil family selling....I believe it is just in case we go to trial. WHERE WILL THE $MILLIONS COME FROM? After all Emil has said/done, do you truly think this "contingency selling" is making him happy???????? Really? Well, I don't!!! Enough there.
"What the hell do they do?" Rich, as I've said, has been working morning to night... Rich has told me a few times that Emil will work straight through the night at times... Emil has put heart and sole into this...my word, where am I???!
To the longs: I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY!!!! I am a long that has taken this on and me saying, "Patience is a virtue" is to benefit us all, you, me and all longs!
Funny, I was speaking to my buddy Mike the other day saying, as he was, how funny it is folks kinda go nuts at the finish line. Both of us have seen it many times. I believe we are very close to the finish line, very, very close!
On a side-note: For those making requests of me, a "please" would be nice. I am going to go black/bold to make it easier to read. That is due to history with the person who requested the change.
I have a few key questions. If after 13 years of patience from me and I'm sure more from others, why isn't patience being preached to all the insiders selling? Many of us have waited for a return on our investment and then being told " patience is a virtue" then all of a sudden insiders sell millions of free shares or very cheap shares. I don't want to hear it's because they needed the money. So do I!!! I invested money I could have done other things with like buy a boat. But I chose to sacrifice that and invest here.
I'm also sick of how hard every one is working so hard in our best interest. What the hell do they do? Write PR statements? Accounting and book keeping? They just hired someone to do that because they obviously couldn't do it themselves. Marketing? Manage a website? Maybe shuffle the chairs around at an office in Texas? Wait maybe they are taking clients to dinner for future sales of a product they don't manufacture?
I seriously would like to be selected to be put on the board of directors. I would work very hard for this company to help bring this to a positive conclusion.
Don't talk to me about DD and research our get rich quick BS either. I would have left long ago with a huge profit. Again DB next time you chat with Rich ask how I go about me getting appointed on the board of directors. I will happily for go a salary for free shares to help do nothing.
Insiders selling because: a. They need the money (VP not paying salaries) b. To exercise .005 options for additional stock. c. To put cash back into cmpany.
What is the best way to search pacer for the filings. Do you have a case. Number or is there a better way to search?
I have done some work on this and I follow pretty close. As you said this is like watching grass grow, and not the spring rainy season.
I would be willing to wait a long time for a positive result and I still hope for that to happen. I am the type of investor that looks for the positive but will never ignore am the negatives again. I bought 2.2M shares last spring. Sold the 200,000 as the share price began to fall and am still holding the 2M shares.
Do I think it could end well? Yes I do. Do I think investors will see money in the next year. No. Let me provide my thoughts.
1) there are several patents and many infringers. The first of many trials could be Aug or Nov. But, my expectation is the defendant will find a way to delay further. Hope I am wrong. If we asked for the delay it’s a red flag. How can VPLM not have their ducks in a row at this point.
2) I know everyone wants a settlement and I think it’s possible but a settlement offer from the defendant will be just his piece and it won’t be massive. If the got $50-$100M from the 2 first defendants it would be a miracle. I think offers will be $25M total. Remember these are only a couple of the cases. Again I hope I am wrong. For this reason I think VPLM will be forced into a trial. If we lose it is over for the stock. Hello .005 for a stock price or less. If we win I expect an award that could be $100M - $250M. Maybe more but I wouldn’t count on it.
If we win there will be an appeal that will last several more years. VPLM gets nothing until the appeal is done. Hopefully it would lead to a settlement that would be decent.
3) insider sales. These could mean nothing. Especially Barbara because Emil get 50% of any settlement no matter how much dilution. So selling shares is not a concern for Emil and Babs. But there are several others selling huge numbers of shares. These people all understand the cases better than us. If good near term results are expected they would not continue to sell. Just my opinion.
4) Dilution. That is the enemy of all shareholders and the dilution is massive. It takes millions per year to run this company’s trials. Shares are increasing fast. When I bought last year the share could was maybe 3B and today it’s over 5B shares. If they draw this out I would expect at least 1B additional shares a year to be issued. 600M will raise $3M at a price of $.005. And Emil will get 370M warrants at $.001 with those share. But as the shares increase new shares will be priced lower. They could sell for .0025 by this time next year. This dilution will lower our potential outcome. As I said Emil will get 40% of the shares no matter what and the rest is split between us. That is reason I don’t want delays. Last year a settlement worth $.50 to shareholder is now worth $.30. When the share count hits 8B authorized it will be worth $.18 to shareholders. And I would expect the share count to be 10B or more before this is done. So a $.50 settlement last year would be worth $.15 to investors.
So the risk of failure remains the same and the reward continues to fall. That is why I hate the delays. That and they continue to issue more shares to execute to sell. For a company like this I believe the directors and execs should be getting $100-$200K a year in salary at the most. Normal board members would probably get $75K. Any payout above that should be tied to awards or settlements. Once the company wins cases they should have warrants or options that are waiting. These options should not be vesting and have the ability to be sold. The board and execs should only be rewarded when shareholders are rewarded.
The other thing that is a red flag is Emil having the preferred shares to maintain total control of everything regarding the company. He can do anything he wants with no opposition. I would prefer that investors have some say in what is going on. Vote on shares issued and make the board justify decisions. That set up is ripe for corruption. Hate that.
I have said before and will again I think the patents are valid and a positive outcome in the courts is likely but these companies are massive and they will all work together to end this. Going against giants is hard. I hope we can be David and slay the Goliath.
So I will hold my 2M shares and continue to watch. It is currently valued around $30,000. It was worth around $200,000 last year. That is what is frustrating. Deerballs can talk about the share price not being at all time lows but it is very close.
I have little experience with patent law but a ton in business and much more in finance. The faster this finishes the better for us and currently I don’t see and end.
One last thing. There is no visibility to what is truly happening. I would like a CC with Emil and the lawyers once or twice a year so investors could get an update on the case progression and Emil’s long term strategy.
1 other item is the longer this takes the longer they are infringing so you would expect damages to be increased. But like everything else I really don’t know what the company has calculated for damages. Can anyone tell us what a positive outcome in the Aug and Nov trials would bring in a damage award? What is the award and what would treble damages bring? If I knew the award would be $250-$509 million and treble damages would be up to $1.5B possible it would make me feel a lot better. But I don’t have any idea what the awards could be.
When a company performs poorly they don't fire the workers or other employees. They fire the CEO. If my memory serves me correctly Emil fired the last CEO and became the new one. That was a long time ago. I assume that happened because he wasn't performing well so Malak took over.
may 22nd .long way till July..this will be stuck at .015 and that's it..till pre-trial and trial...too bad none can get a seat in the gallery..being in the NYC metro area too far of a road trip for me...and more` than likely the case will be in a closed door atmosphere..jmo
Agreed
For the Verizon trial to remain in August, Albright needs to deny the pending motion to exclude Salk, VPLM’s expert damages witness. If this holds true, the other pending witness motions are a moot point.
Hudnell was smart he went into a dissertation on what’s entailed with bringing in a new witness, aka, timeline, discovery and Daubert challenges, as well as continuance in the T-Mobile trial, as VPLM is also seeking to substitute Salk, for a new witness in that case.
When all is considered, more likely Albright denies the pending motion to exclude VPLM’s current expert testimony of Salk and the trial remains as planned. IMHO
This is why the filings are very important.
IMHO
LOL!!!! Notice the background...
You get a clown emoji and no response when that poster knows you are right... Debating... not sure they understand what that word means.
I love using this as a comparison. Lets debate Michael Jordan as the best athlete ever. The Caped one would only talk about his baseball career and not ONCE bring up basketball..
I'm willing to take the risk on those FACTS at .015 That's what the general market is priced at.
I have a few key questions. If after 13 years of patience from me and I'm sure more from others, why isn't patience being preached to all the insiders selling? Many of us have waited for a return on our investment and then being told " patience is a virtue" then all of a sudden insiders sell millions of free shares or very cheap shares. I don't want to hear it's because they needed the money. So do I!!! I invested money I could have done other things with like buy a boat. But I chose to sacrifice that and invest here.
I'm also sick of how hard every one is working so hard in our best interest. What the hell do they do? Write PR statements? Accounting and book keeping? They just hired someone to do that because they obviously couldn't do it themselves. Marketing? Manage a website? Maybe shuffle the chairs around at an office in Texas? Wait maybe they are taking clients to dinner for future sales of a product they don't manufacture?
I seriously would like to be selected to be put on the board of directors. I would work very hard for this company to help bring this to a positive conclusion.
Don't talk to me about DD and research our get rich quick BS either. I would have left long ago with a huge profit. Again DB next time you chat with Rich ask how I go about me getting appointed on the board of directors. I will happily for go a salary for free shares to help do nothing.
Sent from my motorola edge 5G UW (2021) using Tapatalk
Honest answer here. The truth is the truth and hard to accept for some. The company has received not ONE SINGLE DIME in any financial judgements and the price per share can't hold even .02!! These are the FACTS!!
Honest question here...
If one is truly here to just get to the truth. Does anyone find it weird that you would debate.... oh wait, can't even use the word debate, there is no debating... it's just bashing... for 12 years and not once bring up the most important aspect of the company... you got CAPED one...
THE PATENTS!!!!!! Ding, ding, ding....
How could you take anyone serious who doesn't even bring up the main topic for 12 years....
The fact one can't see this is beyond me...
Not only is it not brought up.. tries to ridicule you for bring them up....
Use more green (and light blue) as it's very hard to read.
Don't use green as it is very hard to read
For starters, watching patent cases/trials progress are bit like watching grass grow or paint dry. They’re not exactly like the excitement we see in a courtroom scene in an episode of “Law & Order” and most definitely aren’t for the weak hearted. Infringement cases are typically very slow & methodical. Lots of motions, delays, & long time lines are the norm…Albright’s “Rocket Docket” court has been the exception a few years ago but even his court seems to have been slowed up in recent years. IMO, he’s still one of the most knowledgeable judges when it comes to patent cases. Patience & long timeframes are your friend with patent plays (pp’s).
Next, doing your own due diligence & having realistic expectations (entry/exit strategy, reasons for investing in VPLM, etc) are important in any investment but especially critical in pp’s. Wouldn’t invest money you can’t afford to lose as pp’s are NOT “get rich quick” type investments…hell many go bust before they ever realize monetization on their IP. The fact that VPLM is still standing & fighting like hell after a decade+ is an amazing accomplishment not to mention being undefeated at the PTAB.
Lastly, we all have our own reason to love, hate, support, & criticize what’s happening with VPLM. We can only assume you took the time to do your own research before investing and decided to invest because you thought it was a good place to put your money and get a reasonable return. If so, let the court process play out and the returns will come if VPLM wins. Of course settlements or buyouts are always on the table but those typically aren’t public until they’re done. If you didn’t put in the “work” to fill in any gaps in knowledge and thought it would be a quick hit with a big return, that’s a huge miscalculation and do better next time. I don’t know which camp you fall into however many people on here try to help where we can but we absolutely can’t help those who aren’t willing to do the work.
$.0157 Finally I get it and I'll never discount the filings again. No more talking to Rich like I did today and like yesterday when I spoke to him for over an hour; I'm going with the filings.
Just think, I can take a filing and then run around yelling, "there's got to probably be a wolf around here somewhere"! "The sky is falling"; nope, just rain in seattle! Damn, I'll get one..."damage estimates" something?
Folks, please, just cool out and have a bit more patience, which shouldn't be hard for the folks who have been around for awhile! For the new folks, it's good practice!
Using my imagination a bit, think Rich was about as concerned about the filing as he would be that he won't see the Sun again, while looking at a beautiful sunset(Rich lives in Florida). He was about as concerned as when a ladybug lands on his nose...he could go cross-eyed, after all!
To close, the business about the filings and swapping out Rich...just a wind up! RICH IS WORKING HIS BACKSIDE OFF FOR US ALL!
CHILL, IT WILL ALL BE FINE! So strange, as I'm not the most positive guy, by any stretch, but I am toward VPLM and THE TEAM LEADING IT!
A year and very little experience.
WBW - serious questions and mean no disrespect or ill intent. Just trying to understand the background on which some concerns are coming from.
1…How long have you been a shareholder in VPLM?
2…What is your experience/knowledge/ familiarity with the legal process for patent cases?
Yep.
But, if an acquisition is imminent, then this is all a moot point. lol
Followers
|
464
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
14
|
Posts (Total)
|
133577
|
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: |