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.
Also, if we do have a party, I will be sure to invite you, and will be happy for any gains you may have made, or for the fact that this success may chip away a bit at your cynicism.
Hey! Haven't you heard...this is a happy place. No room for your negativity. It will not be tolerated. This is a sacred place of positivity. Didn't you ever have Pollyanna day at school? In any event, you could at least make sense...ie, Vplm has never made a dime so telling someone they were never told about the parties that never happened makes zero sense. Plus you seem to think that person would want to attend... Such foolishness... Your head must've become crossthreaded upon screwing on. No wonder you believe in the Vplm hype...crossthreaded thinking.
By the way, have you yet answered the question: "had you the money, would you purchase the patent suite"?
I am eager to see how this plays out. I find cautious optimism to be much more healthy than toxic pessimism.
Maybe Babs, Dennis or Bill could spring for some bacon wrapped shrimp for you long suffering shareholders while you're waiting for the "settlements" and the verdicts.
They certainly aren't hanging around for any actual results before dumping their ultra-cheap options:
PS Someone should remind Babs and Bill to file their Form 4s on schedule.
Falling foul of Securities Law isn't a good look, especially if you're an insider on a sketchy penny stock like VPLM.
I am thinking bacon wrapped Filet Mignon medallions, but shrimp is fine as well. Let's just get this over the finish line!
Spyke, I only took away Bacon wrapped Shrimp from all that non helpful feedback!! 😂
Cheers 🎉🥂
As long as there is a pool and AC, we are golden!!
until more new retails jump in, like i said this stays put in the 015-.017 till august...i cant figure out why other newbies havent yet, its only 2 months away..youd figured people would load the boat prior??unless the headlines are being evaporated by verizon and t-mobile and its unknown in the public circles?/
You are just not aware of these celebrations because no one would want to invite you. Just one more thing you are not aware of. We will send you pictures after it after the party is in the books. By then I am sure you will have found another evil management team to persecute. Thanks for the vigilance.
I feel it's worth repeating..... you've been saying the same nonsense for 12 years... saying this when the stock was at .008... Called it a SCAM at that time, yet didn't sell all out at .35... after it hit .35, just continued the daily whimpering.... 2 years later, didn't sell all out at .45.
honestly, what normal person does this... You could have been all out with 1000% to 3000% gains... instead just hung out and continued with the daily crying...
When called out on it, you must have felt embarrassed, b/c it just sounds so idiotic. You attempt to change history and say you weren't around during that time, yet I've posted proof that you were posting during that time...
Who's lying?
Not a basher though... I love that
I wonder if she knows the number of times, right here, such parties have been planned in the last 10 to 12 yrs? Hint: many.
Probably for the best that they never happen and never will considering the lunacy level of a few and how unhinged they are in real life...
Regardless, it's all just pipedreams, in fact that's what I'm christening the otc forthwith....."the Home of Pipedreams"
I hope there's a miracle but honestly cannot truly fathom it happening here. If there were truly riches here, any number of smart and savvy ceos or investors would've snatched it up long ago, many times over. Moreover, this close allegedly, to trials, and no licenses sold or serious settlements made, shows me the reality. Anyway, enjoy you dreams while your inside the dream as that's as close as you'll get, most likely.
However, that said, I would really appreciate it, if yall could come up with enough super whoppers to drive the pps to 50 cent, that would be very kewl of you. If not, wallpaper it is. No biggie. I already made out good years ago here and have things to show for it as I spent wisely. So, being locked into the black, in perpetuity (as long as I keep my pledge to never buy vplm again, which I have done so for years now), it's que sera, sera on the remaining shares.
Thanks GBC. The last part is interesting with respect to the ex-parte reexamination..
VoIP-Pal.com Sues T-Mobile and Verizon over Previously Unasserted Claims from Previously Asserted Patents
June 1, 2024
VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (VPLM) has sued Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile) (6:24-cv-00299) and Verizon (Verizon Wireless) (6:24-cv-00298)—repeat defendants in this long-running campaign—over several familiar patents. The cases have been filed in the Western District of Texas, VPLM’s preferred venue, where a prior case against each defendant, as well as a suit against Amazon, remains active. For this pair of new complaints, VPLM turns to claims from two of the three familiar patents-in-suit, claims not asserted in prior litigation and therefore not invalidated under Alice in that litigation; as to the third asserted patent, in suit against only T-Mobile, VPLM points to three claims the patentability of which was confirmed in a recent ex parte reexamination (EPR).
https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/81249-voip-pal-com-sues-t-mobile-and-verizon-over-previously-unasserted-claims-from-previously-asserted-patents
WACO, Texas, June 03, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) has filed new patent infringement lawsuits in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division against Verizon (Civil Action No. 6:24-cv-298) and T-Mobile (Civil Action No. 6:24-cv-299). Both allege infringement of two of VoIP-Pal’s “Routing, Billing, and Rating” patents, United States Patent Nos. 8,542,815 and U.S. Patent 9,179,005. Additionally, the complaint against T-Mobile also alleges infringement of another one VoIP-Pal’s continuation patents, U.S. Patent No. 10,218,606 (“the ’606 patent”).
VoIP-Pal considers these patents to be a landmark achievement in the world of modern telecommunications. The RBR patents claim the technology required to classify and route “call sessions” over a complex multiple node structure, whether private to private, public to public, or any combination thereof, all of which may include voice, messaging, and video, including legacy PSTN calls. The new complaints also assert patent claims that cover Direct Inward Dialing (DID), which were not asserted in the original lawsuits.
VoIP-Pal CEO, Emil Malak said, “This has been a long journey which first began for me in 2005 with Digifonica and has taken a long time to get where we are now. While we are prepared to go the distance if needed, we remain hopeful to resolve our legal actions prior to commencement of a trial. Patience is a virtue.”
The Company has upcoming trials in cases asserting its Mobile Gateway patents scheduled for August 19, 2024, against Verizon (Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-672-ADA) and November 4, 2024, against T-Mobile (Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-674-ADA). A final pre-trial conference in those cases is scheduled for July 9, 2024, and July 15, 2024.
About VoIP-Pal.com Inc.VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Waco, TX. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Any forecast of future financial performance is a “forward looking statement” under securities laws. Such statements are included to allow potential investors the opportunity to understand management’s beliefs and opinions with respect to the future so that they may use such beliefs and opinions as one factor among many in evaluating an investment. While the Company believes in the circumstances that legal action is needed to monetize its patents, patent litigation involves various risks and uncertainties that could affect its ability to monetize the patents. We recognize that it is impossible to predict the specific outcomes of litigation.
www.voip-pal.comIR@voip-pal.com
"Who wants to host the first VIC? (VPLM Infringement Celebration)!?!"
Vplm will succeed! Don’t listen to naysayers!
Amusing that you don't see the ridiculessness of what you're saying...
Such as......
"would be nice if... ...."
Of course you're free to post whatever you want whenever you want.......
AND........no one has ever forced you to read anything you don't want to hear. Pretty simple, that. And if you can't control yourself in that regard, then they conveniently provide you with a blocking button......
THEREFORE.......what you're saying is not only silly very but ironically, is the very WHINING you spoke of, lol.
I have shared many "updates" as well as facts and opinions, many of which were neutral, thus obviously, you choose to have "selective hearing/reading".
If you think a stock msg board is a place for cheerleaders and pollyanna, it isn't, but you are perfectly free to use it in that manner. Nothing stopping you, you just have a need to bitch about those who don't have the same outlook or sentiment as you. That happens to be a negative attribute. You don't hear me complaining about your opinions, do you? No, you don't, because I believe in tolerance and respect for all posters views. So, you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of, in principal. Why in the world would you waste your time complaining about stuff that you could easily block if your not interested in alternate opiions and ideas.
Also, I am NOT negative, as you say....i happen to be as POSITIVE about my views on this company as you are about your views.
These are self evident truths which I don't expect you to see or get. Ppl have fought and died for you and me to have the right to freedom of speech, expression and opinion. My observations about this company have been well thought out, scrutinized, dot connected and critically thought and presented here soberly. No one ever twisted your arm and forced you to read anything. Personally, I celebrate yours and everyone else's freedom and ability to express what they think and belive.
"Too bad there are folks on this Board who view it as a place for venting and opining..."
What a crummy, myopic, selfish thing to say. 1st of all, you're mistaking enthusiastic opinions for "venting". Duh. Your enthusiastic pro opinions are also venting. What you really mean is pro venting is ok but negative view venting is not. That, no doubt you can't see, happens to very hypocritical. And you also just called "opining" a bad thing as well, which is an ignorant view. What you meant to say is its too bad if anyone chooses to opine opposite of your view or simply against the company. It's NOT TOO BAD that there, are those here who happen to see this play in a negative light... Its a GOOD thing to be alive, well and expressing WHATEVER one's honest opinions happen to be. It is you, who are being negative, not I.
It would be clearly stupid for me to support that which I have delineated so many things in the perjoritive about this company's player's. And just as, dumb, would be to keep my mouth shut. I have been involved with stocks that had 50x more support than Vplm and for many yrs and also had the vast majority posting pro despite the best information to the contrary, that was served up on a daily basis. In the end, after decades, the SEC shut it down and there were fines and bans, etc. The ppl who had been giving the info about the negative aspects of the company (mostly about the well loved, long term ceo) were ridiculed and put down and hated just like you are prone to, even tho the source of the info was high level inside info (legal inside info).
"you can say what you want.... opine and whine away... but if you OWN the stock, it just doesn't make sense to bash the stock you OWN."
What doesn't make sense, is that very statement. I DO still own stock and my posted info and opinions and theories make perfect sense to me. By saying that, you seem to suggest I have some hidden agenda such as shorting or paid bashing or I don't know what... Its pretty damn simple that I post what I post because it's what I believe and that what msg boards are for, NOT for cheerleading. And any minute effect I might have (very doubtful) on the pps is certainly not hurting me. I wised up about this scheme long ago and began daytrading and made out very well and then vowed to buy never again and still have stock which I deemed I want 50 cents or nothing to sell it. None of that in any way means I shouldn't post what I believe to be wrong with this company, and which you cannot prove me wrong about anything ive said. I have provided tons of documentations.
"I suggest you find another way to get that stuff out of your system and leave the rest of us to update and encourage each other."
How utterly condescending and elitist that is. Maybe that's what you should do if you can't control your reading choices, inability to use the iggy button...
"and finally we won't have to listen to your negativity any longer."
Of course, you don't have to listen it now, previously or in the future. You simply need to be negative.
Would be nice if that's all it was... a place where fellow shareholders could come and share updates and encourage and SUPPORT each other on this LONGGGG journey.
Too bad there are folks on this Board who view it as a place fot venting and opining... and then there's you... not sure what in the heck you're doing, other than consistently being negative.
Anytime I mention being supportive and positive, people come back with "It's my RIGHT to say whatever I want here!!!"
Well of COURSE you can say what you want.... opine and whine away... but if you OWN the stock, it just doesn't make sense to bash the stock you OWN.
I suggest you find another way to get that stuff out of your system and leave the rest of us to update and encourage each other.
I hope you do still have the stock you say you bought, Nyt.
You'll soon be blessed like the rest of us... and finally we won't have to listen to your negativity any longer.
AZ, i’m already in Arizona. You and I can celebrate.
Ohhhhh...so this is a STOCK SUPPORT BOARD!!! Damn, I didn't know that... I must not have read the instructions. What a dummy I am... here I thought it was for anyone to express whatever they wanted...pro, con or otherwise. Where the hell did I get such a whacked idea? Silly me. It's a cheerleaders site!!! OF COURSE!
LOL, I would, but if it happens in June, you won't want to come to AZ!
💯 yes!!
Bravo AZ, You have my vote for the best post of the week (and DB)!
Let's keep our eyes on the prize folks!
AZ, Right back at you !! We are all going to be besties when this gets over the finish line!
Who wants to host the first VIC? (VPLM Infringement Celebration)!?!
Ditto from me!
(But I'M your #1 fan...!)
Not sure this helps, but I think there are more that are grateful for your posts vs the few that are rude and ungrateful. I know it's frustrating to be on the receiving end of those posts. It's always the lame that ruin it for the worthy.
Hopefully you can look past those dudes and dudettes 😂 and continue sharing the good news from Rich!
Signed your #1 VPLM Fan 🥳
As I've indicated previously, some insiders sell but end up with many more shares after selling by using proceeds to buy many more expiring option shares at a much lower price.
So WHY would you even bring it up???
Just STOP already....!!!
As I said before also the selling won’t impact any settlements
Sorry, I'll post a bit but I'm done helping the antis who know nothing. When someone new to VPLM about a year ago says, "Pathetic management. This looks like a fraud.", in reference to VPLM, I'm done with substance***, sorry. Right, when some of the largest corporations can't put VPLM down, VPLM must be "fraud", right? Let them guess and I say, "them" as there are more than one of these know-NOTHINGS! Just check the thumbs up.
Remember, I have trouble communicating says someone who can't figure how to PM, or post without double posting....Yeah, I've got the problem. You would think everyone would like reasonable info., but if you can't figure the insiders selling and the purpose, ALTHOUGH IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED NUMEROUS TIMES, it is tough to help.
***I know, I've never posted substance because I never get any out of the multiple conversations I have with Rich. Conversed with Rich today and he is happy his Florida Panthers are in the Stanley Cup Finals!
It's great that we have such an experienced legal team and that they have such great faith in VPLM. I know there are ppl on this board that have doubts in the outcome. But the fact that our legal team is all in really solidifies for me that our case is solid and they are pulling all the facts and data together to get us the best deal! We aren't privy to any of the details or we would all have dirt under our fingernails! Let's all continue to support them by staying active on the board and keeping positive. Great things are coming our way!
We are a large company so have many active negotiations. If we can show them facts and data, we almost always get our ask. We tend to lean on the conservative side as we continue to work with some of these vendors. When we don't have supporting data it typically doesn't end in our favor.
JB. I think so to! So many things to count our blessings for, i.e. our legal representation, Emil, Rich, the longs and most of all PATIENCE!
Thanks to all of the smart people on here that keep us informed with facts and data and positivity. For those trying to bring in negativity and info to derail the investors, it's not really serving any purpose, IMO. Let's try to stick together and bring this thing to the finish line.
Let's all pray for a great week!
Warren Buffet wantabe, what "rule" could they possibly be breaking when they were simply exercising their RIGHT to redeem their options before the expiration date? The very point of having an option is that it gives the option holder an incentive to own stock in the company at a below market price. But options have expiration dates, and if they are not exercised by those dates, they expire worthless. Also, at the time of the exercise, the current retail price, the strike price, must be ABOVE the option price, or there would be no point in exercising that right to buy. My understanding is that two VP employees held options to buy VPLM stock at $.005/share. However, those options were set to expire on 6/1/24, and if not exercised before then, they would expire worthless. So, in essence, when those employees were selling at $.015, they were actually buying back the same number of shares at $.005. It is a perfectly normal and customary business practice to give employees an incentive to own shares in the company at a reduced price, through the granting of options. For the benefit of all readers, could you please cite the specific rule violation that you are alluding to?
"Trust me, it would serve you to shut the hell up! There are things going on... Unbelievable!"
You think sending that to a person is helping? I find that funny. I hope things are happening and hope the result is good for you and me but your communication skills are lacking. Like I said if you put that a different way and provided a little context on what might be happening it would help.
I would not believe that is the reason. If it is they are breaking the rules. As part of the buying it says you can’t be selling your shares to buy new shares.
Why not just put them on ignore?
It's all good, we are on the home stretch!
We’re all waiting for when that happens. We’ve been hearing that for over a year now!
We’ll see, if the trial date remains. Hopefully, it will.
IMHO
Warren Buffet wantabe, you made the following statement to Deerballs, "But I would appreciate a post or PM telling me why they are selling. If you want to quiet me that is the best way to do it."
With all due respect, two independent contributors to this board have offered what I consider to be plausible explanations as to the reasons for insider selling. Deerballs has suggested that certain insiders were selling to raise the necessary capital to defray the enormous expenses associated with a trial, in the unlikely event that these cases make it to trial. Also, according to Deerballs, it is a little late to start raising capital AFTER you find yourself in a trial.
Indyterp has posited another plausible explanation which is that two insiders were selling prior to a June 1st, 2024 expiration date on options to buy shares at $.005/share. Thus, those sells were followed by buying back in at a cheaper price point.
I would point out that neither of these plausible explanations amounts to a negative reason for selling.
I would also hope that this satisfactorily answers your question.
And trial will probably never happen as there will be a settlement or buyout beforehand.
Don’t make your reservations, just yet. There’s no guarantee it won’t be delayed once again. Albright still has to rule on the motion to deny VPLM’s witness.
IMHO
"Trust me, it would serve you to shut the hell up! There are things going on... Unbelievable!"
The above gets turned into crap about whatever... Time for me to keep to myself again. Sick of trying to help the few who are beyond help, do not trust the VPLM Team or figure out the simplest concepts. Kinda like giving the homeless person food and him coming back, "Where is the f'ng catsup?".
Not a big deal, VPLM is fine!
As I have said several times.
I post the insider sales because it shows no confidence and the worst part is in a tiny stock like this it causes an imbalance in buys and sells. If they were not selling millions of shares every week the share price would be much higher.
As I said before also the selling won’t impact any settlements but I am waiting to see the outcome.
5 billion divided by 3 billion shares equals a share price of $1.60.....do we get there?
Keep selling...the buyers thank you!!
V- good point. If trial does happen 8/19…I might be in position to attend and will be happy to report.
I think we are very close here to breakthrough
WBW, nothing wrong with posting the insider selling, it is what it is! IMO, the 3 insiders have more shares backing up their sales (i.e. they’re not selling everything they have), and it’s not like ALL the insiders are selling, so it may not be as bad as projected in your posts. Many reasons to sell..
Things are ramping up!
Deerballs. I am not able to send you a PM so I will do it publicly. I will be happy to stop posting about insider sells. Just send me a reason why insiders continue to sell. If there were delays in the trial I would have no issues but I have seen insiders sell and it normally doesn’t end well.
Trust me no one wants this to work out more than I do. But until they stop selling or I get a good reason for the insider sales I will have a negative view. But if the Amazon settlement is positive and the outcome of the trial is positive I will turn very bullish. But I would appreciate a post or PM telling me why they are selling. If you want to quiet me that is the best way to do it.
Deerballs. I am not able to send you a PM so I will do it publicly. I will be happy to stop posting about insider sells. Just send me a reason why insiders continue to sell. If there were delays in the trial I would have no issues but I have seen insiders sell and it normally doesn’t end well.
Trust me no one wants this to work out more than I do. But until they stop selling or I get a good reason for the insider sales I will have a negative view. But if the Amazon settlement is positive and the outcome of the trial is positive I will turn very bullish. But I would appreciate a post or PM telling me why they are selling. If you want to quiet me that is the best way to do it.
Let's bump it a nickel...Target: $.75
Followers
|
457
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
132129
|
Created
|
06/16/10
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators sunspotter Sheepdog GreenBackClub Russ777 Spyke37 |
11810 NE 34th Street
Bellevue, WA 98005
Estimated Market Cap $27,166,417 As of November 05, 2021
Authorized Shares 3,000,000,000 As of October 18, 2021
Outstanding Shares 1,951,330,092 As of Feburary 28, 2019
Outstanding Shares 1,731,447,863 As of October 18, 2021
(Shares outstanding dropped by 219mm++)******
Float 831,342,791 As of September 23, 2021
Revenues: $0 to date.
Voip-Pal's intellectual property value is derived from ten (10) issued USPTO patents including five parent patents, one of which is foundational and the others which build upon the former.
The five (5) core patents are:
1.) Routing, Billing & Rating ("RBR");
2.) Lawful Intercept;
3.) Enhanced E-911;
4.) Mobile Gateway; and
5.) Uninterrupted Transmission
The Voip-Pal inventions described in the ten-patent portfolio provide the means to integrate VoIP services with any of the Telco systems to create a seamless service using either legacy telephone numbers of IP addresses, and enhance the performance and value of VoIP implementations worldwide.
The Voip-Pal patented technology provides Universal numbering ubiquity; network value as defined by Metcalfe; the imperative of interconnect, termination, and recompense for delivery of calls by other networks; regulatory compliance in regulated markets; interconnection of VoIP networks to mobile and fixed networks; and maintenance of uninterrupted VoIP calls across fixed, mobile, and WiFi networks.
While there are several popular VoIP implementations, VoIP is utilized in many other lesser-known places and by practically every modern telephony system vendor, network supplier, and retail and wholesale carrier.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13148084&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13146397&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13146353&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13145009&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13144993&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13110545&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13110507&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099496&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099423&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099381&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING! COMPANY CONTINUES TO RAISE AS AND OS WITH NO REVENUES IN SIGHT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VPLM'S CASE DISMISSED BUT WILL BE APPEALED.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/VPLM/news/Voip-Palcom-Reports-Decision-in-the-Alice-101-Motion?id=222536
https://www.scribd.com/document/403267736/VOIP-PAL-Obviousness-Ruling
BELLEVUE, Wash., April 16, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) announced that at a meeting of the Board of Directors on April 15, 2019, the Directors of Voip-Pal unanimously rejected a formal offer from Dr. Gil Amelio and his associates to take over management of the Company. Part of the offer provided options to purchase only the stock owned by Voip-Pal’s CEO, Emil Malak. Fully exercised, the options would have paid Mr. Malak approximately $150 million for his shares of Voip-Pal stock.
Voip-Pal’s Board of Directors including CEO, Emil Malak, carefully considered the offer but unanimously voted to reject this proposal; however, the Company is open to further discussions with Dr Amelio. Voip-Pal is actively pursuing the sale of all of Voip-Pal’s shares, on behalf of the more than 4500 shareholders, not just the shares owned by Mr. Malak.
Dr. Amelio has held prominent positions with various technology companies, including serving as the CEO and Chairman of Apple Computer, (1996-1997), President, CEO and Chairman of National Semiconductor, and President of Rockwell Communication Systems. He has also served on the board of directors of several companies including Apple, (1994-1996), AT&T, (1995-2013) and Interdigital. He received a Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, and Ph.D. in physics from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Amelio has been awarded 16 patents and a 17th is pending.
Renowned patent and IP expert, William Sweet is one of Dr. Amelio’s associates on this proposal. According to Dr. Gil Amelio, Mr. Sweet and his team have conducted extensive research on Voip-Pal’s patent portfolio.
Emil Malak, Voip-Pal CEO, “We have great respect for Dr. Gil Amelio and his team and we are very pleased to know they see such value in our patents or they would not have tendered this offer. We are currently focused on our legal appeal to the recent Alice 101 decision as well as finalizing our strategy to move forward in Europe. In the meantime we are working diligently to add to our patent portfolio with patent continuation applications. Patience is a virtue.”
About Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB:VPLM) headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Corporate Website: www.voip-pal.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
“Courts should never be tasked with dealing with the complexities of patent validity because they lack the necessary technical expertise.”
I am Emil Malak, CEO of VoIP-Pal.com Inc., and a named inventor on two U.S. patents–Mobile Gateway: US 8,630,234& Electrostatic Desalinization and Water Purification: US 8,016,993. To date, our company owns 22 issued and or allowed patents, which we developed over the past 15 years. Against all odds, we have been 100% successful in defending eight Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs): four from Apple, three from AT&T, and one from Unified Patents. We are presently in litigation against Apple, Verizon, AT&T, Twitter and Amazon.
My experience with Voip-Pal has made it painfully clear that the deck has been stacked against companies who own IP being used without license by large tech companies. The America Invents Act (AIA), orchestrated by Silicon Valley, was designed to destroy the very ladder they climbed to ascend to their lofty perch, and make certain that they could not be challenged.
Owning a patent used to be the dream of every small inventor in America. For more than 200 years, the intellectual property rights of American inventors—both big and small—were protected by patent laws that encouraged innovation and risk-taking for the promise of reaping financial rewards for their inventions. That all changed in 2011 with the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which has since caused irreparable harm to the United States’ patent system and has stacked the deck against the little guy in favor of the Silicon Valley and other giants. Post grant reviews of issued patents existed prior to the AIA, but the AIA, through the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Inter Partes Review (IPR) created a post grant review process hostile towards patent owners. The lack of oversight, appointment of judges with apparent conflicts of interest, and allowing unlimited challenges to a single patent regardless of standing are just a few of the changes that placed a heavy hand on the scales of justice weighing in favor of Silicon Valley.
At the time, members of Congress said they were enacting legislation that would strengthen and streamline patent protection law, passing it by overwhelming majorities of 71% in the House and 95% in the Senate. However, eight years after its passage, the evidence clearly shows they have crippled the patent system.
This was never about streamlining the patent system—in fact, it has had the opposite effect. Instead of going into court to adjudicate an infringement case based upon the merits of the granted claims, the process is all about stalling, obfuscating, and forcing small companies to burn through their capital fighting a system that has been paid for by Silicon Valley. The AIA provided the legal mechanism for the Silicon Valley and others to destroy small companies and inventors, drain their limited resources and drive them out of business.
Small patent owners often engage in the futile effort of attempting to license their patents. Discussions with big tech companies are mostly fruitless and usually prove to be nothing more than a delay tactic by the infringer. The inventor is then forced to turn to the courts for enforcement and sues the unlicensed user of the technology. A lawsuit by the patent owner will usually trigger the IPR process. More often than not, the infringer will succeed in revoking all or part of the asserted patent. Even if the infringer fails in their efforts to cancel the patent, they will have succeeded in stalling as much as 18 months, costing the inventor precious capital, and knocking many out of business.
Courts should never be tasked with dealing with the complexities of patent validity because they lack the necessary technical expertise. Patent validity issues such as sections 101, 102, 103, indefiniteness, and all other technical matters should be decided prior to a patent being issued by technically qualified examiners at the USPTO, not by the court. Once issued, a patent should only be challengeable at the USPTO, and only for a predetermined period, i.e. six months. The courts should only decide matters of infringement and damages.
No aspects of patent law should ever be subjective. Congress can fix the inconsistencies between the USPTO and the courts and put them on the same page by passing laws that clearly define patent validity guidelines, i.e. what is abstract. Life in the 21st century is dependent on computers. Consequently, many software-centric patents adding new inventive steps are being developed, only to be labeled abstract by the courts and invalidated. The lack of uniformity is responsible for nullifying valuable patents and strengthening the chokehold the Silicon Valley has on the necks of small inventors. Courts should only deal with infringement and damages based solely on clearly these defined guidelines.
Director Iancu has a very tough job ahead. He inherited a broken system, heavily biased against the little guy. Since taking the reins he has made positive changes and has shown his commitment to leveling the playing field for all inventors. He recently published revised 101 guidelines for his department that he hopes will lead to changes in how the Federal Circuit views eligibility under 101. To date, the courts have refused to apply the USPTO’s guidelines.
The current rigged system is killing innovation in the United States. In this time of special prosecutors, it is appropriate for one to be appointed to investigate exactly how we got here. There are many questions that need to be answered:
After spending the last 15 years dealing with patent issues, my advice to inventors and small companies is to not waste their time and money spinning their wheels in the current patent system. It takes too many years and often millions of dollars to secure a patent, only to have it taken away by a hostile IPR process. The USPTO has the most technically competent examiners in the world. These highly qualified experts in their field work diligently to issue quality patents, only to have their work erased by the PTAB and the courts. Despite their efforts, the value of the patents they carefully issue is often worth less than toilet paper. The AIA has reduced once valuable patent ownership into a fraudulent representation of what it used to signify.
While the Silicon Valley conspires to steal intellectual property and stifle innovation, supported by the PTAB and the court system, China’s Shenzhen is emerging as a technical powerhouse; with plans to install 7,000 new 5G base stations this year alone. If the Silicon Valley continues their suppression of technological innovation, they will be displaced by Shenzhen as the hi-tech leaders of the world.
If the United States is to lead the world again in patent protection and innovation, the AIA must first be repealed and replaced with a set of laws that protect innovators and offers them the opportunity to profit from their inventions. The patent issuance process should be streamlined. It currently takes many years to issue a single patent, often followed by several years and potentially millions of dollars in post-grant defense costs. Reduce the issue time to one year and allow a six-month post-issue period for any challenges, which should all be handled by technical experts at the USPTO. The USPTO can fund these changes by increasing patent filing and issue fees. It is preferable for an inventor to spend $30,000 in fees for a patent’s issue within a reasonable amount of time than to get stuck in a process that takes years for issuance followed by more years and millions of dollars to defend.
Is Silicon Valley attempting to turn us into a corporatocracy through massive political contributions and their influence over policy making? Have they become too big and too controlling? Does the AIA rise to the level of fostering antitrust and anti-competitive practices described in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890)? Did its passage by Congress and its eventual implementation violate any antitrust or anti-competitive laws? Was the AIA a collaboration between paid politicians, the Silicon Valley and the USPTO to stifle competition? Only a special prosecutor can answer these questions.
Some have made the case that the AIA has all the ingredients of antitrust. It has undoubtedly given the upper hand to the infringers and makes it nearly impossible for the small inventor to monetize their inventions and intellectual property. One thing is certain; if the AIA had been in place 40 years ago, the world would never have known Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell or Mark Zuckerberg. The tech giants of the time, IBM and Texas Instruments, would have used the PTAB to eliminate them in the same way Apple and Google do today.
It’s time to take a serious look at breaking up monopolistic corporations like Facebook, Google and Amazon. Facebook and Google, especially, control the flow of information in the United States and worldwide. They are restricting the free flow of ideas, news and opinions, and manipulate search engine and newsfeed results for their own purposes. With some obvious exceptions like child pornography, sex trafficking, drugs and harmful scams, they should not be the arbiters that decide which information people receive. They have to cease in being a political platform. Information should flow freely without going through a corporation’s biased filters.
Recently, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and Silicon Valley investor and former mentor to Mark Zuckerberg, Roger McNamee, have publicly called for the breakup of Facebook. In addition to Facebook, McNamee is also calling for the breakup of Google and Amazon, which he says have all undermined democracy, violated user privacy and gained monopoly power. The transformation of the U.S. patent system over the past decade is evidence of the harm caused when companies like these are allowed to monopolize their industries. These powerful providers of information have become “governments in waiting.” Capitalism only thrives when the rules encourage innovation and competition.
I am not making accusations. I am only hoping that we can dig deep and get to the bottom of what happened that caused the radical transformation of American patent law and injured so many inventors and stakeholders. We need the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate these matters. Every day I wake up and work diligently to move Voip-Pal forward towards monetization. We are no stranger to the landmines which have been laid by the AIA, but we will keep battling until we succeed. As long as I am breathing, I will continue to fight for each of the more than 4,600 shareholders I represent. America will always be the greatest country for freedom and justice in the world.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Photo by iqoncept
ID: 10088061
Emil Malak is the largest single shareholder of Voip-Pal.com, Inc., a publicly traded company where he serves as a Director and Chief Executive Officer. He has spent the last 16 years overseeing the development of the company’s intellectual property comprised of more than twenty telecommunications patents in the United States and several international patents in Europe, India, Canada and Indonesia. In addition to his work as Voip-Pal’s CEO, Mr. Malak has spent the last 7 years involved with a medical research team of doctors, serving as the chairman of the board of Thorne BioMed Ltd. They are currently conducting cancer research in Germany where they are committed to pursuing a possible reduction to cancer metastasis.
For more information or to contact Emil, please visit his company profile page.
www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/05/28/1851157/0/en/Voip-Pal-com-Announces-the-Patent-Trial-and-Appeal-Board-Rejected-Apple-s-Request-for-Rehearing.html
BELLEVUE, Washington, May 28, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to provide an update on its current legal activities:
Recently, Voip-Pal CEO, Emil Malak authored an op-ed on the current status of the United States patent system. In his article, Mr. Malak calls for revamping the current patent system and praises the efforts of USPTO Director Andrei Iancu, who Mr. Malak believes is determined to correct the problems at the USPTO to better protect inventors and encourage innovation.
The op-ed was published on IPWatchdog.com. IPWatchdog.com has been recognized by their peers as “one of the leading sources for news, information, analysis and commentary in the patent and innovation industries”. The article can be viewed on IPWatchdog.com or at the Company’s website www.voip-pal.com
CEO, Emil Malak, stated, “We are very pleased with the PTAB’s decision to deny Apple’s request for a rehearing. For the second time in recent months three senior PTAB judges have sided with Voip-Pal. They have confirmed the two challenged patents on their merits and rejected Apple’s accusations and innuendo. Since we launched our first legal actions in 2016 our patents have been heavily challenged and we expect more challenges may come. We are very confident in the strength of our patents and we believe they will survive any challenges that may come our way based on their technical merits.”
“The current patent system favors the tech giants of Silicon Valley making it difficult for small companies to assert their patents against infringement. However, we are determined to see this through until the very end. The defendants, Apple, Verizon, AT&T, Twitter and Amazon are working together and will do whatever they can to drag this process out. We want everyone to know we are not going away. We will continue this fight until we reach a settlement, sell the Company or have our day in court. Eventually the defendants will have to deal with us and our patents will prevail. Patience is a virtue”
About Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Any forecast of future financial performance is a "forward looking statement" under securities laws. Such statements are included to allow potential investors the opportunity to understand management’s beliefs and opinions with respect to the future so that they may use such beliefs and opinions as one factor among many in evaluating an investment.
Corporate Website: www.voip-pal.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
THE PTAB IS FINALLY DONE!!! VPLM 8-0 VS Unified Patents, T and BIGGEST, LONGEST CHALLENGES OF ALL...aapl! aapl LOSES!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OS HAS DROPPED TO 1.75B. CEOS
BUYOUT OFFER, EMIL WAS OFFERED $150m.
Voip-Pal’s Board of Directors Has Rejected a Formal Offer from Dr. Gil Amelio and Associates to Purchase CEO Emil Malak’s Shares and Take Over Control of the Company
VPLMs data shows they are out of cash, commonsense is VERY concerned over this. The last Q alone cost $974,427 in expenses and they have $390,025 left. Sell shares machine in full effect. They made a bunch off that initial Pump and Dump cycle and burning through it since. But now, they can't get the price over $.03 really because the weight of the OS is too high, so millions more need to be dumped EVERY single month going forward.
*******WARNING ********
FALSE CLAIMS BEING MADE IN ORDER TO LOWER VPLM PPS
ALL LAWSUITS ARE MOVING FORWARD THROUGH
APPEAL OR OTHERWISE
EUROPEAN UNION IS UP NEXT, SHORTLY
VERY SIMPLE VPLM THEME:
VPLM HAS BEEN GRANTED 26 PATENTS IN THE U.S., THE E.U., INDIA, INDONESIA, BRAZIL AND CANADA!
VPLM WILL PROSECUTE THOSE PATENTS AND HAS GONE 8-0 IN PATENT CHALLENGES AT PTAB
VPLM HAS NEVER MADE A NEW LOW UNDER EMIL MALAK, ALTHOUGH VPLM HAS MADE THREE NEW HIGHS UNDER EMIL
NO QUESTION, VPLM IS VOLATILE; VPLM IS FIGHTING SOME OF THE LARGEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING
RETAIL SHAREHOLDERS INTERESTS DIMINISHING AND SHARES HITTING THE FLOAT CONSISTENTLY WITH TONS OF STOCK ISSUED OVER PAST YEARS!
DEFINITION OF TOXIC IN THIS ARENA! ITS RIGHT THERE IN THE FILING!
REMEMBER, VPLMS IP MIGHT BE WORTH BILLIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Continued chaos about the patent eligibility of non-physical technological advancements imposes devastating costs on innovators and industry.” – InvestPic counsel, Bill Abrams
On May 15, SAP America, Inc. filed a respondent’s brief with the Supreme Court in InvestPic, LLC v. SAP America Inc., a case in which InvestPic’s patent claims covering systems and methods for performing statistical analyses of investment information were invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Petitioner InvestPic is asking the nation’s highest court to determine whether the “physical realm” test for patent eligibility under Section 101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied contravenes both the Patent Act and SCOTUS precedent. SAS’ brief contends in response that the mentions of “physical realm” are scant in the case record and that the present case provides a “textbook application” of Supreme Court precedent on claims involving mathematical equations.
InvestPic’s U.S. Patent No. 6349291, Method and System for Analysis, Display and Dissemination of Financial Information Using Resampled Statistical Methods claims a method that involves selecting a sample space, including an investment data sample, generating a distribution function using a re-sampled statistical method and a bias parameter that determines a degree of randomness in a resampling process, and generating a plot of the distribution function. SAP America filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ‘291 patent in the Northern District of Texas in 2016 and, in 2017, the district court declared the challenged claims invalid under Section 101 on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The Federal Circuit’s decision on appeal was first issued in May 2018, before the opinion was modified that August. In affirming the lower court’s invalidity findings, the CAFC panel of Circuit Judges Alan Lourie, Kathleen O’Malley and Richard Taranto noted that the appellate court may assume that claimed techniques are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant” yet may still be determined to be patent-ineligible subject matter:
“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.”
The Federal Circuit’s discussion of the non-physical aspects of InvestPic’s claimed invention mainly take place in the context of discussing other cases decided by the appellate court in which physical aspects of the claimed invention led to determinations that the invention was patent-eligible. In 2016’s McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., the challenged claims were directed to the display of lip synchronization and facial expressions of animated characters, which the court determined was physical, unlike InvestPic’s invention, which claimed no improved display mechanism. Likewise, in 2017’s Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, the claimed improvement was implemented in a physical tracking system. By contrast, the Federal Circuit held that InvestPic’s improvement in the selection and mathematical analysis of information followed by display of the results wasn’t an improvement in the physical realm despite the fact that some claims required databases or processors.
InvestPic’s petition contends that the Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement ignores the primacy of preemption avoidance in Section 101 jurisprudence stemming from Supreme Court case law. In 19th Century cases such as Le Roy v. Tatham (1852) and O’Reilly v. Morse (1853), the Supreme Court struck down patent claims that were overbroad in a way that would preempt future innovation. However, in 1981’s Diamond v. Diehr, the Court upheld claims involving a mathematical equation because only a specific application of the equation was claimed. The Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement is detached from Section 101 preemption jurisprudence, InvestPic argues, despite the fact that preemption concerns are at the center of the Alice patent eligibility test in which the “physical realm” requirement was applied.
InvestPic also contends that the Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement exists in conflict with Congressional allowance of patents on novel processes that are executed by computers. Section 101 of the U.S. patent law allows for the issue of a patent for a “new and useful process” and “process” as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 100(b) includes “a new use of a known process,” such as the ‘291 patent’s use of the known process of resampling in the new application for investment portfolio analysis. Changes to U.S. patent law under the 2011 America Invents Act didn’t amend the definition of “process” in Section 100 and the patent-eligibility of inventions that didn’t exist in the physical realm led to the proliferation of calculator patents in the 1970s and digital patents in the 1990s, the latter period including the “PageRank” algorithm granted to Google.
The application of Section 101 jurisprudence has led to major patent-eligibility concerns in valuable and rapidly growing tech sectors. InvestPic cites to data published in July 2016 by IPWatchdog Founder Gene Quinn, which showed extremely low allowance rates in certain tech sectors post-Alice, including a 1.3 percent allowance rate in Art Unit 3689, which covers financial data processing patent applications. InvestPic also cites an October 2018 guest post on PatentlyO penned by Santa Clara University Law School Professor Colleen Chien which showed that art units affected by Alice saw a rise in office actions that rejected applications on Section 101 grounds, from 25% of all rejections pre-Alice up to 75% after the Alice decision.
The lack of predictability in patent-eligibility matters has led the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to release revised guidance on Section 101 eligibility this January. InvestPic cites this updated guidance as a result of the “crisis for invention posed by the lower courts’ [Section] 101 morass.” Petitioners also argue that the present case presents an ideal vehicle to restore consistency of the application of Section 101. Unlike the claims in Alice, the invention covered by the ‘291 patent claims is not a trivial coding project and the patent survived Section 102 anticipation and Section 103 obviousness challenges in reexamination proceedings at the USPTO, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and an appeal of those proceedings to the Federal Circuit, says InvestPic. Further, the ‘291 patent has been cited by more than 50 other issued patents, proving both the narrowness and non-preemptive nature of the patent claims.
In SAP America’s response brief, filed May 15, it argues that InvestPic overstates the application of the “physical realm” requirement, as the phrase only appears twice in the Federal Circuit’s decision. A “cursory look at the patent claims” defeats the physical realm argument, as they require physical elements such as databases and processors, which the Federal Circuit held to be generic computing components. SAP also argues that the decision is consistent with 80 years of Supreme Court precedent on the patent-ineligibility of mathematical expressions or formulas in cases such as Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America (1939), Gottschalk v. Benson(1972) and Parker v. Flook (1978).
Because InvestPic’s patent claims elements in the physical realm, SAP argues that the present case isn’t a suitable vehicle for deciding the issue of the Federal Circuit’s test. SAP also cites Federal Circuit decisions following InvestPic in which software patent claims have been upheld as eligible under Section 101, thus contradicting the notion that the appellate court has adopted such a test; these decisions include Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. and Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC (both 2018).
SAP further pushes back against InvestPic’s contention that an intra-circuit split on the application of Aliceexists. InvestPic had cited cases such as DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.(2014) and Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (2015) to argue that some Federal Circuit panels held that the absence of preemption conferred patent-eligibility, while others held that preemption was only relevant as a factor. “To be sure, some of these decisions discuss preemption in greater depth,” SAP argues, but none of the cases expressly held what InvestPic contended. While InvestPic’s claims survived Section 102 and Section 103 challenges in other proceedings, SAP notes that Section 101 statutory subject matter is a different matter than Section 102 novelty, noting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012) expressly refused patent-eligibility inquiries outside of Section 101.
Bill Abrams of Foster Pepper PLLC’s Intellectual Property Group and Counsel of Record for InvestPic in its appeal to the Supreme Court, sent the following comments to IPWatchdog:
“InvestPic v. SAP Americainvolves perhaps the most important issue in patent law today—what it means for an idea to be ‘abstract.’ Are software and other computer-implemented inventions ‘abstract’ and, therefore, ineligible for patenting? The answer dramatically impacts patent law and innovation across our modern, digital economy….
“Despite the Supreme Court’s preemption test to determine if an invention is an ineligible abstract idea, the Federal Circuit, in InvestPic and other cases, evaluated the physicality or tangibility of inventive ideas, rather than if the claimed invention would preempt basic fields of technology. This competing understanding of what constitutes an ‘abstract idea’ has resulted in irreconcilable decisions by different Federal Circuit panels. The ensuing uncertainty has made it nearly impossible to predict what inventions are eligible for patent protection. Such uncertainty damages the predictability of the incentive structure that is so central to the United States’ innovation landscape.
“This is why 18 amici, in seven separate briefs, have urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hear this case. The amici recognize the “physical realm” test’s potential to gut patent protection in some of the highest-growth sectors of our economy….
“Continued chaos about the patent-eligibility of non-physical technological advancements imposes devastating costs on innovators and industry. Review and intervention by the Supreme Court would bring much-needed clarity and stability to this vital question of law affecting digital innovations at the heart of our modern economy.”
In the meantime, the coming weekshould provide an indication of whether or not Congress will get to the matter first.
Steve Brachmann is a freelance journalist located in Buffalo, New York. He has worked professionally as a freelancer for more than a decade. He writes about technology and innovation. His work has been published by The Buffalo News, The Hamburg Sun, USAToday.com, Chron.com, Motley Fool and OpenLettersMonthly.com. Steve also provides website copy and documents for various business clients and is available for research projects and freelance work.
Tags:CAFC, Capitol Hill, Congress, Federal Circuit, innovation, intellectual property, InvestPic LLC, McRo v. Bandai Namco Games America, patent, patent eligibility, patent eligible, Patent Reform, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, PTAB, SAP America v. InvestPic, SCOTUS, US Supreme Court
Posted In:Capitol Hill, Courts, Federal Circuit, Government, Inventors Information, IP News, IPWatchdog Articles, Litigation, Patents, Technology & Innovation, US Supreme Court, USPTO
GOVERNMENTAL/LEGISLATIVE TIDE TURNING IN
VPLM'S FAVOR?
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |