Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I guess since one just needs to talk to IR, there’s no need to follow the court filings.
Hmm, how ironic, since there were numerous times that IR, wasn’t aware of such court filings and asked me to forward them to him!
LMAO
Shhh…..no one’s supposed to know. Apparently, VPLM sign an NDA not to disclose any damages!
One must ask why would VPLM agree to this? I believe there’s no such NDA, regarding damages. They’re just not making them public. We’ll just have to wait for the financials.
Clocks ticking on depositing restricted shares., if there’s no acquisition prior to the August trial.
I’ll get back to Chick Hicks when I have more time. Beep beep
IMHO
IMHO
As I noted, I only stated the deposit amounts and commission from what I have been told by others who have experienced it. I would imagine it could be different for others.
I’m glad it’s not as costly for you, as I was told it is for others. Good for you.
IMHO
Good point Spyke, it costs the same whether I convert 1mm or a 5mm block of shares (and discounted even more when the price was over .05c) - it’s not a “per million” rate.
I agree with many of V’s arguments but I still believe a decent buyout is “a bird in the hand” versus “two in the bush” in this outrageously biased patent legal system.
Great news!!
***NEWS RELEASE***
VoIP-Pal Receives a Favorable Ruling in the Northern District of Texas
Huawei’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under § 101 was denied.
May 02, 2024 08:00 ET
WACO, Texas, May 02, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to announce that the Northern District of Texas has denied Huawei’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in VoIP-Pal.com Inc v. Huawei Technologies Co LTD, 3:23-cv-00151-X (N.D. Tex.). The motion asserted that VoIP-Pal’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,234 and 10,880,721, known as the Mobile Gateway patents, claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In determining eligibility under § 101, a court applies a two-part test, commonly known as the Alice test. The Court arrived at its decision at step one, finding that VoIP-Pal’s Mobile Gateway patents are not directed to an abstract idea.
This ruling in VoIP-Pal’s favor is timely as the Company prepares for its upcoming trials scheduled for August 19, 2024, against Verizon and November 4, 2024, against T-Mobile, involving the same Mobile Gateway patents. A pre-trial hearing in those cases is scheduled for July 9, 2024 and July 15, 2024.
VoIP-Pal CEO, Emil Malak, said “This is extremely good news. Once again, we have received another positive ruling in one of the many challenges attacking the validity of our patents. Each of those times our patents have stood on their technical merits. I am very grateful to our incredible, expert technical and legal teams that have worked so hard to help get us across the finish line. We are looking forward to having our day in court soon and hopefully bringing our long legal battles to a favorable conclusion. Patience is a virtue.”
About VoIP-Pal.com Inc.
VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Waco, TX. 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. While the Company believes in the circumstances that legal action is needed to monetize its patents, patent litigation involves various risks and uncertainties that could affect its ability to monetize the patents. We recognize that it is impossible to predict the specific outcomes of litigation.
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/05/02/2874175/0/en/VoIP-Pal-Receives-a-Favorable-Ruling-in-the-Northern-District-of-Texas.html
“ I'm relatively new & relatively unknowledgable about this stuff. If you have a buyer, must then be a seller & vice-versa, right? So when u say buyers, no selling, what does that mean.. buy or sell from MM's?”
What an idiot
No worries, I figured it was some kind of minor faux pas. Now that you explain it, I love the sentiment. I think I am gun shy, It is tough to say anything without causing offense and getting blasted. Tough crowd:)
We will never understand each other, your interpretation of what I am writing never seems to be what I am trying to communicate.
As far as the first part, I am relaying nothing I have lived this. I just got around 20,000,000 shares registered and what I paid is what I just told you. Furthermore; that cost is relatively meaningless compared to the liquidity it creates for me. For some reason it seems that you think I just make shit up as I go. The 3% commission thing is outlandish the people who counseled you needed to ask around a bit more. The price for my registrations was not quoted on a per million share basis, I think it was more based on the number of certs that added up to the total, but it was simply based on the legal work that was required to dot and cross the I's and t's. Granted it did require accumulating a lot of specific info and showing documentation from several years back on my part. I take this back if your friends had dozens and dozens of certificates. I think I had six.
The cost of the registration is not the reason some folks would like to see a quick and final end game. A lot of people are worn out and justifiably have concerns over what kinds of outcomes could await vis a vis a trial or many trials and the amount of time those can take to button up.
All that said, I have no idea if an acquisition is even on the table, all I have said, all along is that I can see why a valid offer (even one representing a significant discount compared to some of the damage claims being thrown around) would be attractive if it meant immediate liquidity at a significant multiplier. One could always reinvest in the company that acquired the rights if they still thought this had legs.
Why would a company want to acquire even though we have gone through the wringer? Because, they would be in a much stronger position to go scorched earth to defend their patents while not getting chronically second guessed by share holders who wring their hands over a $1500 legal fee for getting their stock position squared away. Sometimes you need to hand things over to the big dogs. VPLM has done a great job of punching above its weight, and they still may prevail in court, but I would imagine that some of the defendants would stand a much better chance if they were to own and be at liberty to exploit these patents and that is likely where the negotiations would center. In my opinion. Just an opinion and one of several potential outcomes. Don't keep coming back at me or I will reinstate the offer of a wager :) I understand your points and I would love to see things unfold the way you are hoping that they unfold, but in case that doesn't seem to be in the cards, I am happy to see a smaller more certain outcome that comes much faster.
Infringement?? Lol... There IS NO INFRINGEMENT!
......until a judge rules there is. No infringements exist.
Tell peeps the same bs over and over enough times then they believe.....
Toooooo phony........ I mean funny
Spyke37....I apoligize....I hit the wrong button...not aimed at you personally....if you have followed this board, you know I end my posts with...Keep Selling....the Buyers Thank You!!!
Does anyone know how big the infringement is with HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC v. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD
Well, I appreciate your response but, I’m only relaying the costs aka, $ 1,500-2,000 PER MILLION shares and up 3% commission on selling them, from an attorney and another shareholder who’s gone through the process. From what I’ve heard, it’s not a simple process. Not to mention the total cost to registering their shares and selling them if there is no acquisition, could possibly raise the $.005 cost per share to over what the current PPS is now. Thus, the urgency to get an acquisition done, at a discounted price.
Therefore, selling all of the patents, including the remaining ‘815/‘005 claims, plus the Asia patents for just what one case is worth, is unacceptable. And pretty selfish, if you ask me. This is a concern by not only me but, a few other shareholders I know.
Emil has a few billion shares if he exercises all his options. How in the world is he going to liquidate all his shares unless there’s an acquisition? Possibly he’ll have to accept that he’ll have to do it over time, as he monetizes VPLM’s patents.
I’m still confused on where one thinks it’ll be years by the time there’s a final outcome. We all would love to wake up one morning and hear VPLM has been acquired. But, if a shareholder is looking to invest in a company, for the sole purpose of waiting for an acquisition, they might be greatly disappointed. A trial verdict would enhance the value of the company and any future acquisition price. IMHO
As I’ve said before, ParkerVision,Virnetx and Netlist, amongst others, have won cases against the biggest companies in the world. If they can do it, so can VPLM. And BTW, no one seems to be interested in acquiring them, as far as I know. One must ask themselves this, why would any one of these infringers want to acquire VPLM’s patents, if they have to go through the hassle like VPLM, has been going through for years.
IMHO
No offense, but where do you get the idea that I am selling? I have done nothing but accumulate shares since 2017 I have not sold a single share. Did you mix me up with another poster?
$.0162. Nah, I probably got nutt'n out of a 36 minute conversation with Rich today; he has zero nuance to add to VPLM goings on! Just need to follow the filings. Rich still at a true "fourteen"(a rating system we have).
What does amaze me is how some do not trust Emil/VPLM, yet are still invested in VPLM. Emil's this/that, VPLM agrees("caves") to NDAs. VPLM hides the damage estimates, hides material info...the insider selling. I could go on, but if these were issues for me, I JUST WOULDN'T INVEST HERE, simple!
Yes, it was a great conversation with Rich, he is well and Emil isn't looking for advice from the peanut gallery, SAWEE!
PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE! Tons going on; far, far more than what is showing in the filings,
but folks can suit themselves!
VPLM has moved up a bit...were damage estimates released? Huh, were they, huh? How preposterous!
Watch NITE....when they get off the offer...we run....they are still blocking...just my opinion
NYTWIT is about to get pickpocketed...LMAO!!!
Keep Selling.....the Buyers Thank You!!!
I read your prediction and you could have knocked me over with a feather. Shocked, I say, I am shocked to hear that is your opinion. :)
The cost to register shares is basically about a $1000 to $1500 one time fee and there are no commissions to bring the shares in .5 to 1% on sale. This is not a good reason to want only an acquisition, and most people in that position will gladly get their shares registered, simply to keep their options open. You and I have argued ad nauseam over the pros and cons of an acquisition, but avoiding a $1500 of legal work and 1/2% to 1% on a sale doesn't factor into the mix. Certainty of an acceptable outcome is my reason for being willing to take a discounted price on a settlement compared to rolling the dice on a verdict and the inevitable appeals as we put another decade between the final outcome and possible liquidity.
The operative word in all of this is "reasonable"....that is going to be a definition with very wide bookends depending on each individual shareholder. I am just eager to see what happens, while hoping for a lucrative end game......and I don't care how it comes to pass.
Hey, did you get a call, text or was it an email to attack me. Listen, I won’t be bullied by a loser. I stand up for myself and won’t be disrespected by any losers. If one can’t take it, then don’t dish it out.
Very simple concept, when the disrespecting stops, so will I.
I haven’t seen you contribute anything of substance, ether. Have you?
Beep, beep…..
IMHO
Agree! I try to only watch the court dockets and block out all the periphery noise.
Yep, that’s why I keep saying, keep an eye on the court filings and don’t listen to hyperbole, hearsay nonsense.
If VPLM were smart enough, they would PR this. But, nay they don’t seem to care about the PPS.
IMHO
🏆️ Post~Of~The~Month!
Once you complete ten 1000 word posts, your employer will add another 50 cents to your check. But not before then.
Sounds like bend over time again...for retails... Tsk, tsk, tsk
Yep…read the court filing right when it hit the docket.
If the patents are worth as claimed by the CEO this easily would be a $50+ per share stock at minimum and likely much, much more. Until it gets there this is a one big sham.
I win until you/someone prove me to be wrong and NO ONE has been able to do that! LOL!!
My prediction is that it won't be anything to get excited about. 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.
Agreed for the most part. Trial verdict is probably the best for the PPS. Although a reasonable acquisition would be nice, if the price is right.
Now keep in mind, there’re a number of restricted shareholders that are in a quandary over depositing their shares.
From what I was told, there’re only a few brokers that will take these shares prior to an acquisition. There’re a few loops to jump through, attorney letter, $ 1,500-2,000 per million shares to deposit. Not to mention commission (I’ve heard as much as 3%), on selling shares, if there’s no acquisition. All of this can be avoided if an acquisition occurs.
This is the reason all restricted shareholders want desperately for there to be an acquisition. Hence, the talk of sweet deals and taking a ridiculously low acquisition price.
For their sake, I hope there’s an acquisition at a reasonable price!
The clock is ticking, to deposit those shares or get stuck holding them. Thus, missing out on a trial victory or pretrial cash settlement, that would more than likely cause the PPS to skyrocket.
IMHO
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC v. HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD
30-DAY DISMISSAL ORDER
The Court has been advised that the parties in the captioned matter have
reached a settlement agreement. (Doc. 118). Therefore, the Court stays all pending
deadlines, and after thirty (30) days have elapsed from the issuance of this order, the
Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all claims by all parties subject to the
parties’ right to reopen the litigation within those 30 days if the settlement is not
consummated. Upon dismissal of this case, each party will bear its own attorney fees
and costs.
No, you don’t want things posted about substance. What you want is just to have something nasty going on because you have this little pathetic life and without your connection to these posts, you have nothing in your life.
Carnac keeps saying May Day Hay Day with a big smile. We shall see.
Biased much, I see the poo poo and clown faces. Childish if you ask me, to respond this way to my posts.
Looks like a few have met their bully match, huh? Losers
Still waiting for some posts with some substance, instead of hearing things are going well, etc.
IMHO
Or even Apple and or AT&T.
jmo..may and june there is gone to be boat loading!! sitting tight on my 2.65 mil shares and waiting it out...single digits now on its way to .50 or better!!.
It's like you're being robbed at gunpoint, smiling and saying thankyou... Lololol
Anyone seen my 50 cents?
Uh-oh......incoming monkey wrench.....here comes another awesome settle...er, I mean DISMISSAL! What a country...what a company!
At this stage of the game and with the limited number of defendants on the hook, im hoping the words "sweetheart deal" aren't anywhere in the VP vocabulary in these negotiations. It seems like amazon may have gotten one with their MG settlement, but who knows.
Calling poo poo/clown face, party of 1!
And AS USUAL......after the pump and spike, it ALWAYS proceeds to come right back down..........WHERE IT BELONGS! It NEVER and I mean NEVER......stays up. That's the true nature of this stock. And as to all the recent posts that agree things are about to change very soon.......if they looked over the history, they would find that both the posters and the mouths of Vplm have in fact been saying EXACTLY THE SAME for every year going back about 13 yrs if you want to stick with the patent pageant. And not just every year but pretty much every day within those years. So sit back and watch as the trial dates turn into MORE MONKEY WRENCHES... No one except the retails want anything to change because the big, mean, green, fiat share printing and selling machine/insider ATM simply works too well and benefits enough of the inside and it's cabal like support. It's fun to listen to the blind faithers never quit slinging the story of how all the MASSIVE NON STOP INSIDER SELLING is ok, no biggie, a good thing, a natural thing, a necessary thing for paying bills, etc, a perfectly normal event, somehow for us in some convoluted way. It's really something to hear its everyday feeding to the shrooms...
Smart investors would wonder........damn, with all those IPRs and all those Alice 101s, and alleged looming trials, how in the world is it.......that not a single alleged infringers makes a move to avert the inevitable incoming ICBM missiles, with their names painted boldly on them, EVEN THO THEY ARE ALL VERY AWARE THAT THE DAMAGES AND/OR BUYOUT figures go up and up and up. And they show no sign of realizing it and their Fiduciary responsibilities and their obliteration coming at them. I know someone above in the last day or 2 attempts to explain that with the same old tired and worn out fallacious arguments (which I still have to get to) but those explanations are as full of holes as a country stop sign. No explanation can trump the indelible fact that IF INDEED THEY ARE AN INFRINGER, THEY OF COURSE KNOW IT AND CANNOT ESCAPE THAT IN TRIAL THEY WILL BE FOUND LIABLE AND GET HIT WITH TRIPLE DAMAGES.......OR, IF CHOOSING TO SETTLE, THE LONGER THEY WEIGHT THE HIGHER THE AMOUNT. Inescapable facts. And that doesn't even count in the fact that they would lose the income from the infringing products AND lose any competitive edge they have over their fellow service providers. Annnnnnd.......they lose the untold huge fortune they would inherit if they bought and owned the patents. I mean it's just soooooo bad no matter how you look at it, it's truly unbelievable and totally against human nature that they would just leave the mountain of gold sitting in plain sight for the taking nor protect themselves from the incoming bombs.
So keep on BELIEBING... Pay no mind... They simply all think and act exactly alike.... They are borg!
Butters do you think it’s possible these might be sweetheart deals where the defendant agrees to halt litigation and adopt the court’s ruling in exchange for better terms ie: no treble damages or reduced damages? Union shops do it all the time so they can avoid striking. It’s not apples to apples comparison but a hybrid deal?
I was thinking same thing. Would be something if Amazon is still their back pocket.
Hey, wouldn’t it be something if they’re now in a bidding war, behind the scenes?
Wishful thinking or a good possibility.
IMHO
Verizon in August and then T-Mobile in November
Agreed, some are forgetting about licensing agreements going forward. It’s just not damages from the past, it licensing going forward.
IMHO
You got that right! If you remember the Hanes commercial, “it ain’t Hanes until I say it’s Hanes.”
Followers
|
454
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
41
|
Posts (Total)
|
132516
|
Created
|
06/16/10
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators sunspotter 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: |