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.
Closer then ever before to a real monetization of these assets. Of course we are excited.
How ironic that the patents are bogus and worthless. That will, in the end, be revealed. There is not a single case in human history where something valued by the seller at many billions of dollars (not just via conjecture or arbitrarily, but via a very coherent set of metrics which I recently posted and while out of date, should be much higher like everything else is with the various inflationary causes that we all know too well, but could actually, all things consideded beside the fact the patents are trash, might have dropped by 99%, lol) has sat in the middle of the road, untouched, unbought, unsettled, unlicensed, unknown to the rest of the world for............drumroll please........approx 13 years. That is common sense. That is critical thinking. That is so obvious that I know at least some of you know it... All the dots connect for the big, mean green, monster fiat share printing and selling machine/insiders personal ATM.
I DON'T LIKE IT EITHER BUT I BELIEVE IT. I already know I'll be using my unsold shares for wallpaper... I should have learned my lesson with TIV, a 50 year old fraud that all but a couple who knew better, refused to listen to. They were advised for years by a former insider and not just any insider, but one who knew intimately, exactly what was going on because he has been the chief of operations of an all important aspect of the company. And the ceo was beloved by many more, as I recall, than the emu worshippers here. Near 50 yrs company and on the market platform and on every msg board especially the classic 5 year long or longer raging bull board. That was the only board ever that could top the ihub Vplm board.
Anyways.....keep your helmets on.......more nasty monkey wrenches to be launched into vpreality
Read post # 129789, as well as the following posts.
Apologies accepted
I’m not a betting man on something I have zero control over. You seem like you’re too unstable for me to ever meet in public. Seems you’re way too sensitive, thin skinned and can’t take constructive criticism. I like to stay away from people like you. But, hey I know you’re sticking up for your buddy and you felt the need to attack me.
I don’t have to restate what you said in your previous posts, just go back and read them. Who attacked whom first?
$2.5 billion is a sellout. Estimated at $.50, estimated fully diluted. That would be under the value of just one case. Why would VPLM turnover their patent portfolio for a value under what one case is worth? Especially with the recent Huawei/Alice news. Anyone with business sense should understand this.
Most can figure out why that would be acceptable to some. I’ve stated that in numerous posts. It doesn’t take much to figure that one out.
Let me point something out. I’ll be kind of careful because I know how sensitive you appear to be. If VPLM settled pretrial with Verizon at even 30% of the value of the damages, AND ANNOUNCED THEM, the PPS would skyrocket more than your measly $.50. Any substantial settlement would validate VPLM’s patent (s). Now, add the upcoming T-Mobile trial, as well as the ‘606 Amazon. Not to mention the Asia patents. And you believe a $2.5 billion revaluation is good? Is this what you’re telling me and the other shareholders? Really?
Now, let’s get back to your risk, reward concern, if VPLM goes to trial. As it was asked to me, why would another company acquire VPLM if they would have to go through the same trouble, as VPLM has been experiencing? Don’t you think any potential buyer, would have the same concerns?
Shareholders and the market have no knowledge of the exact damages being sought and the potential value of VPLM’s parent portfolio. Hence, the PPS.
Huawei and Verizon just settled mid trial and no details (damages) were made public. This is a big concern I have that this’ll happen if VPLM settles with Verizon.
As I’ve stated, I’d love for an acquisition at a fair and reasonable price. Not with any sweetheart deal. Maybe back last May, that would be acceptable but, not after the ex parte and Alice 101 decisions. IMHO
I feel like I have to apologize to the other ihub readers but, from where I grew up, I stand up for myself and will respond back to anyone that disrespects and belittles me.
BTW, did you ever reach out to the shareholder that was looking for assistance on depositing shares?
Thanks for serving.
I wish you luck!
IMHO
AWESOME GBC!!!
These sorts of PRs should keep the volume up over the next 30 days. hopefully we don't see as much resistance into that volume. If so, it should be a good ride here on out.
Thanks GBC for posting this!
This is exactly the type of stuff we need to see to get the PPS rising, not unfounded rumor BS based on someones feelings for the day.
Huawei can’t get patents axed
By Adam Lidgett
May 2, 2024, 9:52 PM EDT
A Northern District of Texas judge has shot down Huawei's motion that two VoIP-Pal.com patents on initiating mobile phone calls are invalid under the Alice standard for claiming only abstract ideas....
https://www.law360.com/amp/articles/1832888
Bloomberg News
Case: Patents/Eligibility (N.D. Tex.)
A federal district court in Texas denied Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Huawei Technologies USA Inc., Huawei Device Co. Ltd., Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd., and Huawei Device USA Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings in VoIP-Pal.com Inc.'s action for infringement of patents for mobile gateways. The court said that Huawei didn’t show that a patent claim is purely abstract and doesn’t capture an asserted improvement in the art.
Source:
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/case-patents-eligibility-n-d-tex-2-3
texting someone and calling them stupid and criticizing the work they do is the very definition of stupid.
Like we agreed on, no one F'ing cares about the non-sense verbal vomit here on ihub, i certainly don't.
You can take little VP playground ball and go home (i mean where ever), it won't miss it.
And, welcome to my ignore list!
You can't be serious? You need to go back and read the posts.
There was no bragging about how many shares the person owned.
I know you beat to your own drum but taking a week off from this board might not be a bad idea.
I very seldom post because I think most people here don't want to keep hearing the same opinions but updates.
GLTAL
Had a long reply refuting your BS, however it wouldn't post! So, here I go with far less detail:
Where did I ever suggest/said to disregarding filings? WHERE????? I SAID THEY ARE OF LITTLE USE, IN MY MIND! I get far more out of Rich, excitement levels and such! PUBLIC FILINGS ARE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE, WHERE IS THERE ANY ADVANTAGE THERE???????????
No longer 14 for Rich....Up/down, I'll never tell!
If the filings are SO important, why does Rich not have them all. Mensa claims she sends them to him, but I know that is BS.
The market does what it does. You didn't mention insider sales in the "surprise" comment, but you've made many negative comments on VPLM lately, including the insider sales. So, if so negative, why the surprise with only the 25% rise on the 50mm shares? Doesn't seem consistent?
Ray Leon and the other advisors are here for Emil to step down????????????? Yes, you claimed this, not long ago, and it is total BS!
I NEVER SUGGEST MY MARKET "SURPRISES" HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU CLAIM. My belief is the "surprise" was the amzn settlement, but who knows. THE MARKET DIDN'T RUN TO $.11 ON NOTHING....
The lack of news has been going on for years, yet you act as though it's something new. I HAVE COVERED THIS MANY TIMES>>>>>>IT IS LEWIS' DECISION AND THE CORRECT ONE. in my belief!
Folks not pleased with VPLM>>>>>>>VERY SIMPLE SOLUTION. Emil needs no help from the peanut gallery; I am certain of this!
The wheels of justice grind exceedly slowly, but they do grind finely in the end.
Wow, the HYPOCRISY!!!! When Pro VPLMers bring up this exact same thing, it gets thrown back at us.
Remind us again the Negatives you have pointed out over the 12 years about the patents themselves? Oh, that's right, you've never said ONE thing about the patents...
Says it all, doesn't it....
Only in crazy world do you get made fun of for bringing up patents in a patent play
Trust me I got it twelve years ago when some clown said he was bringing this scam down. Cough cough. That was 12 years ago
Tells us again how all positive posters are Rich. The IR guy.
Well, I guess you were contacted as well to attack me. Text, email? Are you going to threaten me as well.
Coming from you and your reputation it’s laughable!
What the hell have you ever contributed on this site. I won’t even waste my time responded to you.
IMHO
Exactly sun.
Everyone should be listening to this guy. He has FBI informants and he’s never wrong
He’s our very own caped crusader
It’s such an honor to be on the same board
Yes, and for people to accept the truth that VPLM is just one big turd!! The truth will set you free!
The truth never fails and is hard to accept for many! Get back to me when I can be proven wrong. No one has been able to do so.
It takes a lot of time to sift through all the BS angry arguing. Can't we just make this a constructive helpful site?
Rich and Emil are both crooks, and you know that better than anyone.
Hey VVVVVV. For once it would be impressive if you answered without the constant cliche’ and common words of a teenager trying to be cool…you really don’t come off as a sophisticated investor or anyone to take financial advise from.
Fools never learn.
In our opinion.
"Surprised VPLM on up 1/3 of a cent(THAT IS 25%) on 50mm volume."
You must be referring to my recent post. I don't see anywhere in that post did I mention insiders. To explain, many of us not just me, are surprised on that large amount of volume last week and little pps movement. I have stated many times in the past that I always thought there were external powers (maybe defendants, hired MMs, whoever..) that were trying to keep the pps down because a strong VP pps, would mean a stronger VPLM (common sense, right?) and that would be bad for the defendants. I don't (and others too) think that's stupid. I think we've all actually seen proof of that. I would although be greatly surprised if that resistance was coming from the inside. To me, that would be stupid, especially at this time. But like you said, "get the weak holders out!"
In the past you've equated the IPR wins, mandamus wins, the exparte exam win as what could've been what your "surprises" preluded to, but those "filings" are the only things that have happened and yet you tell folks don't pay attention to the filings. So much I can go on about the hypocrisy there, but I just don't care enough about the little meaningless crap hereon iHub to be moved, to post something more than this and what, maybe 20 people in the whole world will see. You're right about one thing though, "WHO CARES"!?
I am glad you feel Rich is at level 14, that's great. I've also been hearing the same through some of my channels as well, with actual great pps targets too by August, but that's just rumor nonsense stuff. It's not tangible, like an actual damages filing, which IMO would have WAAAYY more impact on the PPS than any rumor, maybe we'll see that after pre-trial. And, if it wasn't for the successful court filings that Hudnell and his team have filed, we wouldn't be anywhere close to finish line like we are. So, that's another place you and I differ.
Pay attention to the court and uspto filings folks!
I really hope the best for you and every other VP shareholder, I hope your life changing event comes from VP sometime in the near future, I really do. I think we all could use multi-million dollar payday
You are truly out of your mind. Don Quixote comes to mind.
Maybe you ought to go back and read my previous post. Never did I mention I was concerned about the cost to deposit restricted shares and the commission rate to sell them. I was referring to what concerns others have with their restricted shares. I don’t have restricted shares, therefore the cost doesn’t concern me!
You snap back at me and brag about owning 20 million shares and your deposit cost is low and your commission on selling is only .5-1% rate.
How ironic that a day or so later, a shareholder with restricted shares, reached out to you for assistance on where to deposit his shares, as his rate was 3.5%.
You may want to look in the mirror, because you have egg on your face.
BTW, were you respectful enough to reach out to this shareholder or are you too selfish to do so? Thus far, I haven’t seen your response.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess, the more shares one deposits, the lower their cost/rate will be.
It’s obvious that a lot of shareholders are looking for an acquisition at a “sweetheart” deal just to be able to deposit their restricted shares and avoid the extra costs, as well as risking going to trial. You stated, “end up being worthless is virtuous “.
Kinda funny you say this, after I questioned why anyone would want to acquire VPLM, if they will have go through the same trouble they are experiencing.
I’d love to have a company acquire VPLM. But, only at a reasonable cost. Which certainly isn’t at the same price as one of the pending trials. Can you comprehend my point?
So stop your bragging and disrespecting others, that aren’t fortunate enough to own as many shares as you.
Why don’t you shut up, grow up, man up and grow a pair.
I’m not going to sit back and let someone like you disrespect me, without saying anything. That’s for sure.
IMHO
Absolutely, what do you think being a cheerleader and disrespecting others is contributing?
“Oh, there’re working hard, a lot going on behind the scenes, there’s a surprise coming, I expect something real soon, etc”! This is contributing? Get serious!
Everyone already knows there’s a lot happening. And as we get closer to the trial the PPS should appreciate higher. But, just imagine how much higher, if the investment community knew the potential value of VPLM’s patent (s). Most investors comprehend this, PERIOD!!
I know IR is working hard. That’s why I forward any court filings he hasn’t had a chance to research.
Why don’t you two, stop your bitching and crying when you don’t like constructive criticism. You’re both like little children. What are you now sharing the back seat with him? MAN UP, you two are grown old men.
LMAO (BTW, I’m not referring to any stock/market.).
If my constructive criticism bothers the company, please have them call me. They probably couldn’t care less what criticism they’re receiving.
I’m not helpful, what are you two? Get over yourselves for once!!!!
IMHO
I feel it's worth repeating..... you've been saying the same nonsense for 12 years... saying this when the stock was at .008... Called it a SCAM at that time, yet didn't sell all out at .35... after it hit .35, just continued the daily whimpering.... 2 years later, didn't sell all out at .45.
honestly, what normal person does this... You could have been all out with 1000% to 3000% gains... instead just hung out and continued with the daily crying...
When called out on it, you must have felt embarrassed, b/c it just sounds so idiotic. You attempt to change history and say you weren't around during that time, yet I've posted proof that you were posting during that time...
Who's lying?
Not a basher though... I love that
Lord Emu of eGipped tried TWICE to swindle $100 million from a famous and well respected screenwriter, Cameron. He was basically embarrassed out of court BOTH TIMES on the 1st day after publicly stating he would see the case thru to the end. Cameron had this to say about Malak:
"In court on Wednesday, lawyers for James Cameron and 20th Century Fox called Malak "deluded" and the suit, a "cash grab."
It was shortly after losing this $100 million cash grab that the emu began putting together the cash grab that has netted him, wifey, BOD, and rest of the cabal, many millions for the past 12 or 13 years, and it was JUST BEFORE the Cameron cash grab that he ran the Granville Hotel into the ground and BK. After those 2 major strikes, he was determined to not get strike 3 and has won.......unfortunately, at the expense of those that supported him in this.
This grand farce will never fly. I don't care if he gets 3000 ipr "wins". They are meaningless except to those who need their OWN personal validation... Vplm shareholder have been and will continue to get shafted while the inside will clean up. All the signs are there but the blinded will never see not even after it's over will they see. They will have every excuse imaginable in a fashion very similar to the way countless investigations and trials found ABSOLUTELY NO shenanigans in the 2020 election but THAT fact had/has zero effect on the believers. Their excuses are empty and void in both cases but they will never concede.
I truly WISH I was wrong. I've mentally written of all my remaining shares and 50 cents or more would be great but I've seen way too many signpost and connected way too many dots to believe I'll ever see that money. I already made out very good with the trading I did of Vplm shares after I got "deprogrammed" from the self styled elite super true longs about never letting go of your shares, which was major hypocrisy anyway since many of them also sold many of their shares. I'd rather use for wallpaper than sell my shares for less than 50 cents but I also know I'll never see it so no sweat whatsoever.
Come July, I wouldn't be surprised to see lots of more long faces and 1 or 2 more dumb dismissals with NOTHING for the pps or shareholders will be the last straw for many more shareholders who still hang on. I am not and will never be happy about all of this but I've got to hand it to the emu for setting up a scheme as good as Madoff... Genius! I believe he found out the truth about the patents from the results of the nodal testing, results never released to the public or shareholders. The shareholders swallowed it all. They were like Mikey "let get Mikey, he'll try anything"
Are you serious???
Mandrake is saying the same as Carnac. He is also letting it be be known that the bashers will soon be unveiled and it won’t be pretty.
It’s quoted…” I used to love sharing what I would dig up….no more “.
Are you freaking kidding me, right now? What in the world have you ever contributed, besides disrespecting and bashing every shareholder that doesn’t agree with your opinion (s). You call and harass them, disrespect them on the board and encourage them to attack me. You’ve burned more bridges with shareholders, than I can shake a stick at.
You like to think you know information others don’t. I’m told you know nothing. I understand you’ve encouraged a number of investors to buy VPLM’s stock. This is probably the only reason why anyone with VPLM, would take the time to speak with you.
Just curious, I wonder how these shareholders feel when they hear you say, they’re not entitled to know the potential value of their investment, aka VPLM’s patents and the potential damages being sought! This just baffles not only me and others.
Hey, before I go, how’s the PPS performing after about 50 million shares traded over the last few days? Hmmm, do you think just maybe if the investment community knew the damages being sought, it might go even a little higher? You think.
BTW, I call bullshit on any NDA on not reporting damages being sought. If this were true, what concessions were made to VPLM, for agreeing to do so? I believe this is by choice, for various reasons.
IMHO
To be continued…
IMHO
$.01675 So, the throwing stuff and hoping it sticks continues...Ego is a funny thing. 30 daz? WHY?
Just got off the phone with a holder of more than 200mm shares of VPLM and we were talking in amazement of how folks, supposedly holding VPLM, will continually bash Emil/VPLM. Surprised VPLM on up 1/3 of a cent(THAT IS 25%) on 50mm volume. Backhanded dig at insiders, beyond just a stupid comment. Sure, under certain circumstances(little selling) 50mm volume could push VPLM to $5/share, but without selling, who cares, nobody would have gotten out. The churning volume IS GETTING WEAK HOLDERS OUT!!!! VPLM IS UP! Oh, and no damage estimates....
Just want to concentrate on filings? Suit yourself, but you are missing 99% of what is going on and there is alot going on!!!!!!
I stay in touch with many, but I have cut off a fair number. Why? Well, when I see all the bashing of Emil/VPLM, IT PISSES ME OFF! I really don't believe Emil reads the board, but I'm sure he hears about it and with all the digs/whining about insider sales, not putting out info, not sharing info, WHY SHOULD EMIL WANT TO GO THE EXTRA MILE??????? Emil gave shares back, GAVE $400k back AND TURNED DOWN $.17 PER SHARE TO WALK AWAY.......Anyone else out there done that much...DONE ANYTHING, other than but stock?? THANK YOU, EMIL/BARBARA!!!!!!!!
Now to Rich: RICH DOES A FABULOUS JOB. I have spoken to him, literally, hundreds of hours over 8 years. He is very careful NOT to give out anything insider info and he knows what is and isn't. But, there is lots to talk about not in the filings, yet not "insider", believe me.
EMIL/RICH have been working day and night lately....sure, it's probably to design a logo for VPLM!
So, in the end, my apologies to the good folks on the board, but I have basically cut off sharing due to all the attacks/whining and bitching. I'm not helping those who keeping dogging the team. The whining stops and I might share more.
We get very little info due to the nature of VPLM and iHub is one of the only ways to get things out. I have done alot of work here, learned more here than in 50 years around the markets/accounting degree/14 years as a broker. I'd love to share more, but...
PATIENCE IS A VIRTUE... SUPPORT THE STOCK FOR YOUR OWN BEST INTERESTS!
Carnac just stopped by and said BIGGER than BIG within 30 days. We shall see.
Agreed, let’s give it the 30 days and hopefully it’ll start to appreciate, as we’d expect it to. Keep an eye on the court filing, as you know.
Apparently, from what we’ve heard, Huawei isn’t big infringer. Not sure exactly what that means. Even a small settlement, not to mention licensing going forward, could keep further dilution down some. Not knowing the details, certainly won’t help the PPS.
What’s interesting, is I don’t recall any trial date set for them in the near future. So, hearing they’re trying to resolve this case, is extremely encouraging, especially right after the Alice 101 decision.
Something else that’s encouraging, I heard that any further settlements in Waco, the damages will be made public. Unlike what happened with Amazon. We’ll see if this holds true, as things change like the weather with VPLM.
IMHO
As I understand, here is a broker that will covert your shares AND deposit them in a brokerage account so you can trade them. EST. $2500
Where to convert restricted shares to tradable common shares
[Name] Randy Carlson
[Direct] (801) 415-0514
[Other] RCarlson@wdco.com
[Work] Wilson Davis
236 S Main Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Middle, have you asked if the commission % is reduced when the stock is above .05? I think you’ll find that the fees are reduced at higher pps levels.
Yeah, you're right. And even if they did, the original broker charges the same 3.5% whether it's a sale or a transfer. But I appreciate the idea!
It is what it is: that one third of a cent represents about a twenty five percent increase in our market cap.
Interesting…would have thought with that volume it would have at least hit a full penny.
We have heard many times that volume precedes price so let’s see what next week brings.
Probably won’t work. Most brokerage firms will not accept Penny stocks.
Maybe it’s possible that you can register the shares with that broker , place them in that account, then transfer them to your online trading account with a minimal transfer fee
Almost 50 mm shares traded in the last few days and we're only up 3/10 of penny. Hmmm
poo poo clown face, party of 1?
Spyke, can you share the name of a broker who only charges 1% on the sale? So far, I've only found one broker who will take the shares, and they charge 3 1/2% on the sale (and the same $1500 or so to register them). I'd love to find someone else. Thanks.
So, being willing to accept what, you feel, is a smaller amount is selfish, while what you want, which could be much more but also end up being worthless is virtuous. Got it. That reminds me of the dog with a bone who sees his reflection in the pond and loses his bone as he barks at his reflection.
Also, I DON"T negotiate for the shareholders I am just stating an opinion regarding what I would be satisfied with, not that I wouldn't be happy with something more. I guess I am glad the negotiations are not in your hands either, neither of us has fuck all idea what is really going on.
My desire is not to liquidate all of my shares, it is to have a solid valuation on which it will be relatively predictable when one desires to sell a significant number of shares without tanking the price.
You really think that paying $1500 to unlock the ability to nimbly sell millions of dollars of stock is reason people would prefer an acquisition as opposed to some kind of licensing agreement?
Your desire to insult people overrides your ability to think clearly and process information. Chill out. You are being unnecessarily rude.
Manic phase maybe?
A few years back, someone was, "Emil should just sell @ $.20 already". There after, when my target was $.30, Emil would be "selling out" @ that level???? WHAT?
Little more than a week ago, without a release of damage estimates, the pps would continue to drop...UNLESS IT DIDN'T DUE TO OTHER FACTORS NOT LISTED AS A QUALIFIER @ THE TIME. So, in the end, the prediction was the price would go up or down....predict it being "flat" and all bases would be covered.
Rich wouldn't survive without being sent filings... Right, Rich knows so little.
SIDENOTE: RICH HAS BEEN WORKING IS ACE OFF FOR US ALL AND THANKS ARE DESERVED!!
I know not being able to think @ a two/three level, let alone @ a .5 level is difficult when considering the inside sales... SAWEEEEE!
Whenever(far too many times in my life) I've been in those nose to nose situations, so much of the time it was "LMAO" guy who was the nervous/unsure guy. BTW, in my life, I can only think of a couple of times I'd qualify as laughing my ace off and never was it involving stocks/the market.
I used to love sharing what I would dig up...no more...
Were those damage estimates released? We are up good in the past week... Glad Emil didn't sell out @ $.20....
NOT LMAO!
On top of being a broken record player, you have clearly lost your sense for detecting sarcasm. Get back to me when you find it.
Hearing that eyes and ears should be focussed on Apple, especially with the sudden quick turn around of Huawei this week. The world growth of cell phone usage, especially in India, has benefitted Huawei. China is strongly behind the company and is changing favor in Apple quickly. They would love to have the power of these proven and certified patents to squeeze all competitors. I believe Mr. Leon’s past dealings with Apple are being brought back for good reason.
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: |