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.
It probably makes sense at any market share price over the option price and by doing it now they start the clock on long vs short term capital gains. It is still a way to triple your shares as a hedge, and maybe they are doing that to simply triple the cash they might need for spending right now. There could be several reasons that have no nefarious or underhanded intentions at all.
As noted many times..... Alleged nodal test results have never been revealed afaik. You can add to that something I've been claiming for years regards efficacy, which I've pointed out that patent "validity" does not include efficacy. I've pointed that out due to the apparent belief by so many that patent validity means it does what it claims, ie, is "all that". Sorry kids, but it doesn't. Here's a couple of key sentences regards this critical thing...
"Does a patent application have to prove its efficacy?
No, an inventor doesn't need to prove that an invention works to get a patent. Instead, they only need to show that they had the idea. However, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may request a working model if the invention is novel, non-obvious, or defies expectations. A working model can strengthen a patent claim and increase the chances of making money.
_____________
People also ask
Do you have to prove something works to patent it?
An inventor need only show that he or she had the idea; the discovery that an invention is reduced to practice (i.e., actually works) is not required to prove the date or content of the invention.
Therefore, the entire question of whether or not a patent of this type can actually do what it claims to be able to do......would be IF the USPTO requested a working model. I've asked before and no one seems to know.....is if the USPTO did indeed ask Vplm for such a working model? My understanding is that they usually do not ask for. Thus, if they did not ask for, then you can now see and understand how patents can be obtained that make unsubstantiated claims, which in turn, allows A STORY to be SOLD!
I anticipate at that juncture, some would claim such claims lacking efficacy, would've been proven or disproven one way or the other in the IPR trials. To that I say ok...were any working models that could've demonstrated workability required/requested in this IPR trials? Debates between lawyers before the court, that dealt only with the patent verbiage, such as or similar to what happens in a markman hearing, would, in my opinion, not prove anything in terms of proof of workability, but rather, would simply bear out the meanings of this, that or the other verbiage used......and that......STILL.....proves nothing and only establishes the court accepted definitions of various terms. I see it as, in the end..........a major loophole, waiting for someone like lord emu of eGipped, to come along and exploit, or attempt to, just like he did in his BS Avatar claim. He learned some important lessons in that debacle, ie, that he was almost immediately shot down with proof by Cameron, thus he learned to present something big that was impossible to prove to be bogus.....unless the USPTO had the sense to require from vplm, a working model, which in turn, would require many working models since there are many different patents. So what it comes down to is if he was able to get over on the USPTO procecutions, by... how's that saying go? "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, you can baffle them with bullshit".......or something like that.
Sold stock at market price to exercise options at .005!
Both sold to exercise options for more .005 stock. I am sure any wise person would do same.
Hi nwmtgirl. I'm guessing that you can't tell us the name of your company, but can you tell us how your lawsuit ended up?
Last Amazon court filing was February 8th. Hmmmmm….Still no trial date.
IMHO
FABULOUS post, NWMT! I love seeing relevant experience in infringement wars! Thankfully we have a ton of experience on the VPLM Team!
More confirmation yesterday of a real nice meal cooking in the VPLM kitchen and I look forward to finding out the spread!
Always love the drip, drip, drip of the spot... So irrelevant, but she tries hard! Samepost is great too! Sawee to both, but I think I'll run with Ray Leon and his confidence building move to join the Emil rocket team!
Remember when we were told last fall that some big settlement with AMZN was a "done deal"? Still waiting for the big announcement that was going to rocket the price per share and make it go through the roof. LOL!!
Because they know just what a complete farce this is. So much for those upcoming court dates huh?
VPLM is the only company in the entire world with Microsoft type infringements/revenues at stake and with a share price below .02 LMAO!!
Yeah, sure it is. LOL!! 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.
Directors Williams and Chang have demonstrated their confidence in VPLM's future by starting to dump their very cheap options within days of receiving them:
http://insiderbuyingselling.com/?t=vplm&submit=
Patience is a virtue (if you're one of Emil and Rich's marks, but if you're an insider it's okay to dump as much as you can as soon as you can. LOL.)
Exactly! Companies NEVER admit nor concede infringement when settling cases. I get the TVM calc for settlements. It’s similar to a TVM calc you’d need to do when deciding to accept an early pension buyout from an employer.
The question becomes how much in potential long-term gains will be given up and are acceptable by settling early?
In the case of VPLM, there are so many unknowns and variables, I don’t believe we shareholders have any way to answer that question with any degree of accuracy. There are many complex financial models that are used to do this and that work is best left to the experts.
No other party is a part of that settlement negotiation, nor are they bound to it. Patent law is specific. Only a judge can rule on a patent infringement action. Any "patent" received from the USPTO is only a ticket for admission into court by the claimed infringed party. Even the PTAB cannot determine whether an infringement has occurred.
Correct when they come to settle they make the receiving company sign an affidavit that they are not admitting to any infringement by paying VPLM x amount of money. Very tricky. So yes only in a trial is infringement confirmed.
Thanks for that. I actually spent some time searching for an article that would tell me the percentage of time that treble damages were awarded and I couldn't find one, but I found a couple that said the new "enhanced" damages rules would further reduce the concept of adding damages for willful infringement. I am happy to hear that this didn't turn out to be true. With that said, I still believe in the preponderance of the cases it is just another factor to calculate into the negotiation, but it sure can't hurt to increase the potential settlement.
Interesting and makes absolute sense from the financial side.
Did your company ever get an admission of infringement from the company they settled with or confirmed infringement in any other way?
Exactly, lots of data and math. In my company when we went after companies that were illegally using our IP we had data both internal,( mainly existing contracts) and external (industry data) that we used very complicated statistical models to calculate Time Value of Money on both labor, non labor, including overhead costs as well as profit. Going back when they started using our IP, using their customer base. Alot of that data is available via publicly using their tax filings. That's how we monetized the starting point for negotiations. So depending on the company ie. If they were the naughty ones that used VPLM IP without permission. You can show them ranges of how they can make it right with a settlement. Cut a check to Emil for $$$$$$$$$$ and they now own the licensing rights. Or if you are a company that wants to own the IP, then you show them what they can possibly make by buying the license/rights. A value can be determined with all the companies that we have open court cases with. Calculate a range of potential income stream for them to sell the licenses. Then strike a deal. They could potentially go after the infringers in court. Depending how deep their pockets are and how good their lawyers are?! I only have a financial background so that's how my simple mind would approach it from building a cost model. Obviously there's a ton of contracts and legal stuff involved which is not my swimlane! Maybe there are some other schools of thought out there?
“…threats of treble damages (which are almost never awarded, no matter how willful the infringement…”
Not so long ago, I was in the camp that believed enhanced/treble damages are almost impossible to get but have since switched my belief. Enhances damages for willful infringement are very possible with a strong case in the right court. Award rates vary by both venue & industry
This article is from Sept 2023 and has good info about enhanced damage award rates.
https://www.mayerbrown.com/-/media/files/perspectives-events/publications/2023/09/enhanced-patent-damages-trends-ip-attorneys-should-know.pdf%3Frev=2f164f5b37b6492db53f4ad52a755b66
It would be awesome to get a final legal judgement, but that is the last thing the folks with deep pockets want to see. Admitting to patent infringement is what gets executives fired and board members recalled. All of the damage claims and threats of treble damages (which are almost never awarded, no matter how willful the infringement), are what help shape the size of settlement. It is kind of an expected value and time value of money calculation. It does matter, but in practice it generally turns into a gigantic negotiation around a complicated math problem.
I would love to see the proof of your assertions regarding Rich Inza. Which "handles" does he use? How do you know. It strikes me that the absence of you being able to definitively prove that is tantamount to libel. Please put it out there for us.
"Without a trial, how exactly is infringement confirmed or potential treble damages applied? Or doesn’t that matter to anyone?"
_____________________________________
Duh..... Obviously, with licensing or buying, it doesn't matter. Doesn't matter with settlement either, because THAT'S what a settlement means, ie, bypass trial and settle on an agreed number..........um, unless I'm missing something... It's (settlement) same as admitting infringement but without weight of judge, jury, treble, etc.......but then again....WTFDIK?
.18 minimum I would think, up to .50
Question for whom ever cares to answer…
Since there’s alot of talk/belief/optimism
that this will “be over” soon, we can only surmise “being over” means monetizing the patents in some way (ie settling, buyout, licensing, etc.) but the one thing it’s doesn’t include is a legal finding of infringement by the defendants.
Without a trial, how exactly is infringement confirmed or potential treble damages applied? Or doesn’t that matter to anyone?
Hers a few cases to watch. You can keep track of new filings when they hit the docket for free on Court Listener but if you want to get the actual document, you need to go to Pacer. There’s a direct link from Court Listener.
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Verizon Communications, Inc., 6:21-cv-00672, (W.D. Tex.)
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., 6:21-cv-00674
(W.D. Tex.)
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 6:20-cv-00272
(W.D. Tex.)
H&S it isn’t a pink sheet anymore dude it’s OTCQ/Nasd
Thank you. Yes it is. And it says the fiscal year was 9/30/2023
don't kid yourselves market makers are in cohoots too with OTC...with Emil running 40% of the float the don't you think the phone rings everyday to the pink sheet counter..mull on that ( scratch my back and I will scratch yours) .017 to .0148 lets get real.
estimates from a previous post .18...too many shares outstanding...i stated .05...never see .70 . .25 is a blesssing but i doubt it. jmo.....05to .10
It’s possible
That’s would be great .70
How many shares do you have? I would imagine that having more than 100,000,000 would maybe get you taken seriously, but that would still only be around 3% of the outstanding shares (assuming 3,000,000,000 outstanding). If you think managing lawyers and their strategy (ies) and how they will get paid and which cases they should be focusing on happens on autopilot, I would invite you to come spend a day with me at company that has about 1/100th of the potential of VPLM. The fact that you are acting like you could do better because you know they are doing nothing is the very best evidence available that you should be nowhere near the boardroom of this company. Relax and enjoy the ride, or cash out. You truly have options and if your confidence is that far gone you really should find a better place for your time, talent and treasure.
enough is enough ..typing my complaint to the sec, and OTC exchange...way too much monkey business. they cant chill?? apparently not...lets see.. one lawsuit for 1.4 mil filed and awarded last year for insider trading...you'd figured the Egyptian would learn..I guess not!
10K is in Edgar 2023-12-22, 10K/A, 2024-02-14
Sorry....that is wrong. Fiscal year end is 9/30 for this company.
Q2 is June Qtr end. hasn't happened yet
Thanks. Weird. I just checked again and it is not listed on OTC.
Look on otc markets, and click on disclosures which is where you will find it. I just looked and don’t see it now, I remember Sunspotter making a comment about the financials.
https://app.quotemedia.com/data/downloadFiling?webmasterId=90423&ref=318323066&type=HTML&symbol=VPLM&cdn=8cfdf2a76d0104f67e376d62d4119e91&companyName=Voip-Pal.Com+Inc&formType=10-Q&formDescription=General+form+for+quarterly+reports+under+Section+13+or+15%28d%29&dateFiled=2024-05-15
Why do we not have Q2 financial statement statements filed?
It's not just a "positive attitude", Electric... it's the FACTS.
You're just frustrated because you don't know what's going on behind the scenes.
Oh well... guess we'll never get through to those who just can't see how GOOD things really are going right now.
Soon enough, it won't matter what they think. <sigh>
insert-text-here
Same here, DB!!
Excellent post... people claiming you're "preaching" Patience is a Virtue (as if you've got your nose in the air) just don't get it.
You're not putting anyone down, you're just someone who CARES deeply about all the people you've gotten into this stock.
THANK YOU for all you do to support VPLM, and us.
Exit doors are closing for the infringers. Ready for takeoff!!!
With the way this is playing out your friends 1 yr old will be middle aged by the time this is done. I'm not here to pick a fight. But we have heard " great things are happening!!" For years. We have heard "they have worked so hard" doing what exactly? I would seriously like to be considered to be appointed to the board of directors. At least then I could figure out what they are doing that is considered working. The lawyers are the only ones I know for sure that are working. Positive attitudes are obviously not getting anything done either.
what a joke cant even hold a gain.. day traders with 100$ borrowed from mom...that's why OTC is a joke ...after this you 20 and 30 somethings can go play with Lego.. screw this
Waaaaahhhhh... so did the rest of us.... but most of us are not whining about how long this is taking or how poorly things are being run.
Wise investors making major purchases at discount prices!
Followers
|
464
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
9
|
Posts (Total)
|
133571
|
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: |