Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I know 2 brokers that told me years back that VPLM would hit it big. They both did the math and said .7 was realistic. Verizon's lawsuit could bring it to that number on their own. Granted that there are more shares now, but there are also more years of infringement. But .4 should be a safe target for this year.
Which are worth close to nothing. LOL!
Stef07 copy that , great post.
No need, I got my Vplm shares, let’s rock
.70 would be a fantasy. Go buy a lotto ticket because you have a better chance with one of these.
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al
Texas Western District Court
Judge: Alan D Albright
Case #: 6:21-cv-00672
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: Jun 25, 2021
Docket
Parties (5)
Opinions (2)
Docket last updated: 5 hours ago
Tuesday, May 28, 2024
175 respm Memorandum in Opposition to Motion Tue 05/28 6:15 PM
Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., Verizon Services Corp., re171 Opposed MOTION to Substitute DAMAGES EXPERT filed by Plaintiff VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.(Woodworth, Megan)
Att: 1 Exhibit Email,
Att: 2 Exhibit Email,
Att: 3 Proposed Order
Thursday, May 23, 2024
174 misc Sealed Document - Patent Cases only Thu 05/23 10:15 PM
Sealed Document: ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS of173 MOTION in Limine by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. (Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Exhibit 002,
Att: 2 Exhibit 003
173 motion In Limine Thu 05/23 10:13 PM
MOTION in Limine by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC..(Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Proposed Order,
Att: 2 Exhibit 001,
Att: 3 Exhibit 004
172 motion In Limine Thu 05/23 6:31 PM
Opposed MOTION in Limine by Cellco Partnership, Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., Verizon Services Corp..(Hector, William)
Att: 1 Exhibit A,
Att: 2 Exhibit B,
Att: 3 Exhibit C,
Att: 4 Exhibit D,
Att: 5 Exhibit E,
Att: 6 Exhibit F,
Att: 7 Proposed Order
—
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al
Texas Western District Court
Judge: Alan D Albright
Case #: 6:21-cv-00674
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: Jun 25, 2021
Docket
Parties (6)
Opinions (2)
Docket last updated: 5 hours ago
Tuesday, May 28, 2024
249 notice Notice Tue 05/28 7:45 PM
NOTICE of Additional Attachments by T-Mobile USA, Inc. re248 Sealed Document,(Smith, Melissa)
Att: 1 Declaration of Amanda Tessar,
Att: 2 Exhibit B,
Att: 3 Exhibit C
248 misc Sealed Document - Patent Cases only Tue 05/28 7:41 PM
Sealed Document: Opposition to Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.'s Request to Substitute Expert of243 Opposed MOTION to Substitute SUBSTITUTE DAMAGES EXPERT by T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Smith, Melissa)
Att: 1 Exhibit A,
Att: 2 Proposed Order
Thursday, May 23, 2024
247 misc Sealed Document - Patent Cases only Thu 05/23 10:50 PM
Sealed Document: ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS of246 MOTION in Limine by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. (Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Exhibit 2,
Att: 2 Exhibit 3,
Att: 3 Exhibit 4,
Att: 4 Exhibit 5,
Att: 5 Exhibit 6,
Att: 6 Exhibit 7,
Att: 7 Exhibit 8
246 motion In Limine Thu 05/23 10:48 PM
MOTION in Limine by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC..(Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Proposed Order,
Att: 2 Exhibit 001,
Att: 3 Exhibit 009
245 misc Sealed Document - Patent Cases only Thu 05/23 8:27 PM
Sealed Document: NOTICE OF SEALED ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS of244 MOTION in Limine by T-Mobile USA, Inc. (Smith, Melissa)
Att: 1 Exhibit 3,
Att: 2 Exhibit 6,
Att: 3 Exhibit 7
244 motion In Limine Thu 05/23 8:24 PM
MOTION in Limine by T-Mobile USA, Inc..(Smith, Melissa)
Att: 1 Exhibit 1,
Att: 2 Exhibit 2,
Att: 3 Exhibit 4,
Att: 4 Exhibit 5,
Att: 5 Exhibit 8,
Att: 6 Exhibit 9,
Att: 7 Proposed Order
——
Thanks, #One. Couple more positive clues over the weekend and today!
I don't believe it will be long! Be well!
That's all cheap talk and means nothing. 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.
Let’s go .70 would be amazing!
Wow, never heard that one before about Vplm. Better go get the yacht dealer on speeddial...
Interesting!
The Company is also announcing that since the November 1, 2023 announcement of the two new RBR continuation patent grants in India, Patent No.: 450851 and Patent No.: 450865 VoIP-Pal has been approached by representatives of potentially interested parties. They have scheduled to begin exploratory discussions.
So do we still have pretrials and trials in July and Aug?
I agree!
I was referring to “us” shareholders.
Thanks Solar. What’s your opinion of VPLM? What’s your price target and timeframe?
She couldn't sell her shares for cash as she is an insider. So she took the opportunity to exchange them on an approx 3 for 1 basis. She is likely putting a 10b5-1 selling plan in place like the others have done so she can keep the cash.
The good thing for shareholders is that it probably means her 144 exempt (free trading) shares were used to get nonexempt, nonregistered (restricted) shares.
Totally agree and by that very logic, one would surmise the opposite is true of the big inside sellers......ie, they obviously do not think the price is going up. Who woulda thunk?
It seems to me that her buying shares means she believes the pps will go up. Otherwise, she would have sold and kept the money.
I can understand shareholders getting frustrated from time to time but the idea of shareholders actually "suffering" would really need to be classified as a self-inflicted state (in my opinion).
I missed the targeted link for the 63 cfos. This is no way assumes or implies anything about the current Vplm cfo, but is only an answer to the question of "would a top cfo risk their career, blah, blah, blah?" It's such a ridiculous straw man considering that history shows that any official of any capacity has indeed bargained and bedded with the devil. And isn't that special? No religious connotation implied, just a figure of speech...
https://www.cfo.com/news/count-em-63-cfos-convicted-in-past-five-years/674208/#:~:text=The%20Department%20of%20Justice%2C%20which,guilty%20or%20were%20found%20guilty.
When it comes to things of such import, that the knowledge of, can affect the balance of power, so to speak....that is when the phrase "on a need to know basis", comes into play.. Being an important person within an organization, even an officer, does not automatically give carte Blanche knowledge of all aspects of what an organization or a company's innermost or in some cases, secret purposes might be, especially when and if such purposes contain some nefarious doings. I believe history shows that to be true many times, when things unravel. A CFOs is responsible to handle and know about the financial end of a company and not to be able to decipher the extremely complex nature of voip telephony patents. That seems pretty simple to me. Happy to consider any reasons why that would not be the case.
On the other hand, I'd venture to guess that within 5 min of search, it wouldn't be very hard to find CFOs who did indeed risk their reps by having knowledge of scammy goings on and rolled with it because they, like so many other millions of peeps of all kinds, and prolly stupidly, determined the risk to reward ratio was worth the risk. Therefore, the question of "would this, that or the other insider in any group or organization, risk their professional reps, for personal gain.........lolololol......OF COURSE THEY WOULD!......in some cases. It human nature. And it's kind of a straw man to posit they would not. Mind you, I have not said one way or the other, what this cfo may or may not know, in terms of what may turn out in the end to be bogus patents. I don't know the answer to that. However, with my comments above, let me add that every single director and officer of this company, over the years, has stepped down, often with for no good given or obvious reason, with the only exception, afaik, being that major lying part of this company, Chang, who sold the early shareholders and potentials, a super bogus bill of goods, many of which I have posted here over time. It proves nothing but does give wonder to why all the employees, helpers, directors, officers, etc, all got out. It would be that at least in some cases, the reason was they came to realize something wasn't right or something was scammy looking... Afaik, it was him and the emu, who are responsible for the whole setup that became what vplm is. And they are the only ones of many who were part of the company, who still remain. In the end, the patents will be shown to be "all that" and infringement proven...........or not. In my opinion, the patents will not be shown to be all that. I hope I'm wrong and get my $.50 or more. Definitely not counting on that, as I've previously spelled out. That, via connecting many dots, small, medium and large.
____________________________
"https://www.cfo.com › news › cou...
CFO Magazine
Count 'Em: 63 CFOs Convicted in Past Five Years
Aug 3, 2007 — Fastow's and Sullivan's cases, for example, were handled by the fraud team of the U.S. Attorney's office, which is why they were not ..."
_____________
" Former top NJ law firm CFO pleads guilty to $1.5M embezzlement
John Dunlea’s lawyer called it a difficult day for “a highly successful professional and caring family man, who made a terrible decision that he regrets and for which he will pay for the rest of his life.”
I got no problem if she cashed her check (they don’t get paid in cash) and bought more stock with her pay. Actually I’m glad to see she reinvested in VPLM, that shows confidence in the company, she is the CFO.
As is the case with many of the insider sells, especially with many options for such expiring.
is that PR bullshit?
She sold shares at .0157 to "buy shares" at .005. No cash was used in the transaction and she ended up with 2,436,350 shares more than she started with.
I am rooting for the success of VPLM. But it appears "management" is benefiting enormously from their "decisions" while the shareholders suffer.
.
"Jin Kuang, VOIP PAL.com, Inc.'s CFO, recently acquired 2,386,350 shares of the company. The buys took place at prices ranging from $0.01 to $0.02 per share, on May 20, 2024. Kuang now owns 2,436,350 shares of the company."
“He is a she”…and we ain’t talking about the Lou Reed Walk on the Wild Side kind of “He is a she”. lol!
All good points Rapz.
And for anyone who feels VPLM a scam company, do you really think any person skilled in the finance field with auditing experience from a well-known global consulting firm would risk their reputation & future career to be the CFO of a “scam” company?
CFO knows about money!
OMG! He is a she? That changes everything! (sarcasm)
SHE sold shares to get 3X as many shares.
Current CFO is a WOMAN, a recent hire!!!!
Peter Lynch said: "... many reasons for insider sells, but only one main reason for insider buys..." Details, details! On one side folks get "hot under the collar" for insider sales and the stock price drop, on the other hand they do not know who the CFO is. SHE PURCHASED the stock! From VPLM web site:
MANAGEMENT & DIRECTORS
JIN KUANG - Chief Financial Officer
Jin Kuang has over 15 years of extensive professional expertise in various financial domains gained across the USA and Canada, including IFRS, US GAAP, financial reporting, financial planning, merger and acquisition, financial analysis, and tax. She has also spent over a decade in progressively responsible financial leadership roles within publicly traded companies. Over the years, Jin has served as CFO for multiple publicly listed companies, in addition to her years of auditing experience with KPMG LLP Chartered Accounts. Jin holds a BA in Accounting and an MBA from the University of Northeastern China, along with a US-CPA and CGA designation.
Please tell me what date exactly, should I come here and alert you that the trial date has been moved back again (or dismissed like the other cash grabs for lord emu of eGipped? I'll be sure to give you a notification, to help you see, even more, what gives...
VPLM
If your excited DB, put me in the same camp!.
tlo.
Rapz, please tell me this has little chance of being moved to November. Personally, I am tired of having this trial moved once again. We were all told that judge Albright was a hardliner when it comes to keeping his schedule. If this gets moved to November, it’ll be a year and a half beyond the first trial date.
Haha…I’ve been drumming longer than both investing and “steeling!”
Stay in your lane bro… you’re a steel guy and a penny stock investor. (haha!)
Blink 182 has one of the best drummers around in Travis Barker! Here’s hoping VPLM can hit higher highs than Barker’s crash cymbals! 👍
Really speaks volumes, DB, that you are still trying to help those who may be frustrated about getting into VPLM at the peak.
Some of whom may even have been bashers on this Board.
I've bought shares over the years at various prices, even last time it went up, I bought more at .07.
Not my most brilliant decision, but hey, you never know which time is the "big one", and as DB has pointed out, there is still time to "repair", and bring your average pps down. That's what matters in the end, right?
Sure hope everyone has all the shares they want at these low prices!
I remember being at a Blink 182 concert chaperoning my teenage nieces. Everyone started standing up and moving into the aisle and my nieces did the same, even tho I was telling them not to. I ended up going with them to try to keep them safe. I'll never forget the pulsing movement pushing us toward the stage. Then suddenly, the crowd in front of us broke thru the poor security guard line and down we all ran toward the stage, forming a "mosh pit". It was quite the experience.
Feels like that same pulsing movement with this stock. Get ready to rush the line!!
(IMHO)
$.01635 A challenge and a warning:
Get back to me when there is any indication of a failing VPLM! A NEW LOW would be an indication of potential failure, however with an increasing share count, insider sales, VPLM is no where near a new low.... ODD, don't you think?! Daily volume has picked up, yet there are folks on the buy side ready/anxious to gobble, gobble up the shares being sold! My point is we are holding up just fine. That leads to the warning....
There are many motivating factors going in to negative sentiments folks have regarding VPLM. I would GUESS the prime motivating factor would probably be buying VPLM at a higher price, say $.14, and being pissed about it.** Cool! I have explained many times how one might "repair" one's position. Say you top ticked VPLM @ $.45 with a $1000 purchase: you now buy another $1000 worth @ $.017. $2000 in, VPLM goes to $.034 and you have your money back, plus a little!
THE WARNING: It is my strong belief time is short to pull off the "repair" at these levels. I have guesses as to what is going on, but just guesses, and the excitement level took a huge jump last Friday, HUGE! I'll put it this way, if the excitement level were the same level, just excitement due to concern/worry, we'd be headed for the bomb shelter/the basement or bunker!
Take it for what it is worth; do as you will, but remember, **Mr. Market doesn't care about your sentiments, concerns, or at what level you bought!
Target: $.70, but I'll take more, or whatever level the VPLM Team comes to terms.... Gonna get exciting!
He exercised options in a CASHLESS transaction. He acquired 3,500,000 shares at .005 and paid for them by giving back 1,113,650 shares at the market price of .0157.
In other words, he got 2,386,350 shares for free.
Purchased at market price on 5/20.
When you say picked up 2 million plus, did he purchase or was he awarded them?
VOIP PAL.com, Inc.'s CFO just picked up 2,386,350 shares
I am glad that the intent seems to be to enforce these sanctions, however the term “justice delayed is justice denied” comes to mind. That statement was made in 2016 and here we still are 8 years later trying to get to trial and being exposed to delays as our expert (identified a year ago) has now been called into question. It seems like the practical result of the treble damages is that the deep pockets use the cost of the legal system even more to their benefit. I have no doubt that if you can last long enough and jump through enough hoops, you will get your treble damages, but I think most people give up along the way. Hopefully they survive long enough to cut a deal. Somehow the system needs to be streamlined. Great research and here’s to more real progress in these matters that benefit the inventors.
Thanks rapz for that excellent expose on treble damages. So, this award is not so much to compensate the patent owner as it is to punish the infringer. Thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, it is now much easier for the plaintiff to establish willfulness in a District Court. This is another reason why I believe that VP would fare much better with a court victory under Judge Albright than with an out of court settlement, where the terms are often undisclosed, and where the compensation to the abused patent owner most often favors the infringer, and where infringement itself is NOT proven in a court of law, thereby adversely affecting the other pending cases. Of course a buyout would be another great option for VPLM shareholders, and no one (myself included) would object to a fair and reasonable settlement. But, as shareholders, we are in the back seat of the VPLM bus. We are not the driver and, as such, we are are not privy to the driver's view of the road ahead, nor do we hold the roadmap. However, we are getting closer to our destination, and I truly believe that whichever route this bus takes will be a win win for all VPLM shareholders.
Nah, there’s more to it than that. Look closer, you should understand what’s going on.
IMHO
$. 01635 The obvious answer is no, but I will explain! This is to you and anyone else without access to the filings, the inclination to read the filings(like me most of the time), nor the legal training to make a judgement.
The Hudnell filing was excellent because he is an excellent attorney; that's what he does! Guess what, the filings from the other side will be excellent as well, but the only judgement which matters is that of Judge Albright! VPLM is in great hands! Knowing every little detail of the farm that produces the wheat which goes into the bread is not necessary.
I would bet fewer than 5% of VPLM shareholders read all the files, or many. Not a big deal! I speak to many folks who, collectively, own 500mm+ shares at least. None that I'm aware of read the filings!
That being said, there are much, much bigger things going on and the excitement level has never been anywhere near this high! Stay tuned, I know you will!
Last note: did those damage estimates come out, cuz we've been working higher! Just kidding, we know the "damage estimates" aren't a huge thing for PPS!
Thanks rapz!!
So nice having all this helpful info posted!!
Followers
|
464
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
11
|
Posts (Total)
|
133593
|
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: |