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.
Right on right on right on!!!
<<<<This should have been settled a long time ago. AMZN felt they could push the little guy around.>>>>AMAZON THOUGHT WRONG.THEY THOUGHT VPLM,HAS NO MONEY TO FIGHT AND THEY WILL GIVE UP.BUT VPLM,GOT A TON OF BUYERS SUPPORTING THE STOCK MORE THAN EVER.SO VPLM SELLS SHARES,AND PAYING THE LAWYERS.COST THE COMPANY NOTHING.
THEY ARE LUCKY I AM NOT THE JUDGE.THE MORE THEY DELAY,THE MORE THE AMOUNT OF REWARD FOR VPLM.
I read up on settlement conferences last night
A settlement conference doesn't mean a lot. It is obviously nice to make the 2 parties sit down and hopefully the the judge handling the conference help push the parties to agreement. Having everyone in the room for the day is useful if they come ready to negotiate. But something tells me META will bring a team of lawyers to refute everything and at the end of the day nothing will be decided. I hope the heck i am wrong. Best thing that could happen is someone to settle.
Is there a settlement conference with judge Albright prior to the trial? You would think this would be a perfect time to hold a settlement conference. Have Judge Albright in attendance for a lest part of it so he could offer his thoughts and basically threaten both sides saying if we go to trial and AMZN is found guilty he will award treble damages at the highest amount. This should have been settled a long time ago. AMZN felt they could push the little guy around.
LOOKS LIKE .04S NEXT.AND WITHOUT ANY NEWS,.03S.THIS IS WHY YOU TRADE THESE PENNY STOCKS.BUT GREED KILLS.THE STOCK WAS AT OVER .11 AND THERE ARE PEOPLE HERE THAT DID NOT SELL ONE SHARE.
UNREAL.
BigR you’ve got that right
Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi's setting a Settlement Conference for 4/27/2023 at 09:30 AM in San Jose, while Judge Donato is waiting for replies from parties - Meta, GOOG, VoIP - by 3/27/23 looks "premature" or it could be a court procedure that Judge Donato follows viz. schedule a settlement conference before Markman, etc. Like cart before the horse?
Reviewing Magistrate Judge Virginia DeMarchi's standing order for Settlement Conferences and her Settlement Conference Statement, parties will not have complete answers.
Parties had not enough time to confer with each other while addressing issues for replies to Donato by 3/27/23.
Meta and GOOG fought for venue transfer to NDCal since local rules of NDCal "encourages" the use of Alice law to weed out patent cases. One would conjecture that the clueless woman exploited the Alice law to rule against VoIP.
The Settlement Conference could be a formality in Donato's court. Interesting to watch how Donato's court handles patent cases.
Also keep in mind i mean the US is on a near financial crisis, last night congress had emergency meeting to keep certain banks open.... so low trading is normal right now.
A cooling cpi will pause the fed here equities will tear to the up side. Think cool cpi! would be a double deflationary affect coupling with the deflationary banking issues that just slapped the fed in the face. A cool cpi would mean buy stocks nasdaq will fly on a cool cpi. Nice rhyme
I have no doubt the stock revisits .10 there's no volume downstairs
Starting to form a triangle pattern. This typically lasts a few weeks, then the stock will spike. The question is, will it spike up or down?
Anyone who cares needs to be very alert for it breaking the line between higher high or lower low.
STRANGE TRADING.MAYBE PEOPLE RUN OUT OF MONEY,AND THEY TAKE HER TO .04 AND .03S.I WOULD NOT MIND.LOAD UP THERE.
I really wish i had some more free cash to load up this morning.... with the trades being so quiet.
I mean there's a settlement conference scheduled with META/google.... VPLM Asked the judge to expedite a decision in the T-Mobile Case (no knows why or what) .... Amazon doesn't seem to be putting up much of a fight as a jury trial is eminent.
There is a settlement conference scheduled, so why TF would anyone want to sell....
NO NO JUST HIT THE BID HHAAAAAAA
No it's not halted. Nothing is happening stocks taking a breather. It will have its trade up at some point.
No trades for an hour?????? What's happening????? An agreement????
Is trading halted???? No trades for the last 45 minutes........seems very strange!!!!
TIME TO LOAD UP BIGLY.
Magistrate Judge DeMarchi's Standing Order for Settlement Conferences
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/judges/demarchi-vkd/Standing-order-re-settlement-conferences-February-2022.pdf
***Parties should expect to spend a full day at the settlement conference.
***the relief sought by the party;
a summary of settlement discussions, mediations, or evaluations to date, if any;
the party’s present demand or offer of settlement (if the party has not made a demand or offer, the party must make one in advance of the date the party’s statement is due and include the demand or offer in the statement);
***a realistic settlement amount and/or non-monetary terms that, given all the circumstances, the party submitting the letter would consider seriously;
Fdic doing the job markets will open nicely tomorrow and seeing the the most important thing to the fed above all else is bank solvency and perception 50 basis points is off the table and even a hot cpi report has them at 25. But a cool cpi and I can see the scenario for a significant run to the upside in the markets even a hot one is ok now. But a cool one looks squeezable would love to squeeze the shorts and they're all corralled right here and right now. Tuesday morning we'll see that cpi. I'm rooting for the perfect bull storm.
$.051 Probably not too much, but who knows. Maybe someone comes to their senses, however the opposing attorneys do not have the right incentives to do what is right for all. Waco is where the action is.
Yes, I'm still expecting a "surprise" and if we can gain traction while the broader market skid, we could see fireworks! This week should be interesting, very interesting!
Also AMZN is taking Ad market share from Meta so that could be an interesting rival too.
Totally agree. Recent scenarios should play out nicely for vplm over the next 30 days.
Another thing that stirs the control of the patents pot is what apple would think about meta making a move on the patents. I just like it.
And as far as settlement conferences are concerned parties involved in decision making for companies involved are present.
I like to see a settlement conference with meta is happening meta has made me alot of money and is going to make more so I obviously would like it to be meta . As far as meta stock is concerned it's setting up for further gains and a flat base pattern is taking hold I love it company is getting leaner long and strong on this one looking forward to meta earning for the next 2 quarters. Meta is a cash cow and can easily pick up the vplm patents for what is very little to meta and good settlement value for vplm could be a catalyst meta is well position to scoop up the patents
What happens at the settlement conference in april? Is that a final ruling on something? Thank you
$.051 The Markman with amzn went in VPLM's favor, other than one of the claims which went for amzn. Judge Albright was split on the claim, but ruled for amzn. VPLM is just asking for a reconsideration on the one claim, hoping to have him reverse his ruling. Judge Albright works quickly and we should have an answer shortly. Not anything of a deal breaker, as the Markman went our way!
Nice to see a settlement conference scheduled in meta et al proceedings.
Hope that helps!
Expecting to see this:
"Friday, March 10, 2023
89 motion Reconsideration Fri 03/10 11:58 PM
Opposed MOTION for Reconsideration re87 Claim Construction Order by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC..(Hudnell, Lewis)"
Seeing the disappointed look on Mr. Hudnell during the last Markman hearing (Zoom call) when the Judge took a long time to deny VPLM's argument for retaining one of three elements viz. "time-to-live".
Inventors like to keep their claims as broad as possible to catch more infringement violations. Hope the judge is now convinced VPLM's argument and rules in VPLM's favor. It is not a big deal if he doesn't . VPLM got most of their claim.
Yes , I am too. Also, the new N. Ca. Judge ? Does anyone have a feeling feeling for her patent knowledge or is she another Apple Brained Judge Lucy?
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al
CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. A Settlement Conference is set for 4/27/2023 at 09:30 AM in San Jose
I have trouble interpreting these. What does this mean for VPLM?
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et al
California Northern District Court
Judge: James Donato
Case #: 3:22-cv-04279
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: Jul 25, 2022
Case in other court: Texas Western, 6:20-cv-00267
Docket
Parties (4)
Docket last updated: 9 hours ago
Friday, March 10, 2023
134 oth_evt Clerk's Notice ~Util - Set Motion and Deadlines/Hearings Fri 03/10 10:14 AM
CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. A Settlement Conference is set for 4/27/2023 at 09:30 AM in San Jose - Videoconference Only via Zoom before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. Pre-call re settlement conference with counsel only is set for 4/24/2023 at 09:30 AM in San Jose - Telephonic Only before Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi. The parties shall comply with Judge DeMarchis Standing Order re Settlement Conference Procedures at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/vkdorders, which includes instructions and deadlines for the submission of Settlement Conference Statements and Confidential Settlement Letters in advance of the conference. Video and Conference Call information will be emailed to counsel. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (amk, COURT STAFF)
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al
Texas Western District Court
Judge: Alan D Albright
Case #: 6:20-cv-00272
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: Apr 06, 2020
Docket
Parties (9)
Opinions (1)
Docket last updated: 8 hours ago
Friday, March 10, 2023
89 motion Reconsideration Fri 03/10 11:58 PM
Opposed MOTION for Reconsideration re87 Claim Construction Order by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC..(Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Affidavit Declaration of Lewis E. Hudnell, III,
Att: 2 Exhibit 1 to Hudnell Declaration,
Att: 3 Exhibit 2 to Hudnell Declaration,
Att: 4 Exhibit 3 to Hudnell Declaration,
Att: 5 Exhibit 4 to Hudnell Declaration,
Att: 6 Exhibit 5 to Hudnell Declaration,
Att: 7 Exhibit 6 to Hudnell Declaration,
Att: 8 Proposed Order
BULLSHIT: There isn't enough info with your "screenshot" to say ANYTHING! Where is the size of the trades? What was this size of the inside market???????
I WASN'T DEALING ON "BIG BOARDS"; why would you assume that? Wrong there!
AND, WHERE IS THERE "25%" BETWEEN BACK TO BACK TRADES?????
Everyone is free to believe whatever they wish! WOW!
IF THE MMs ARE SHOWING SOMEONE'S OFFER/BID(facilitating a trade), WHAT RISK ARE THEY TAKING????? NONE, and that is what they primarily do.
Respectfully disagree with you. MMs take on more risk in the OTC arena than your past experience as a broker with MMs on the big boards. Given the extra risk of volatility, they take advantage of bigger spreads and have more flexibility to manipulate price.
I will give you an example (I took a screenshot of this BS). On Monday, 3/6/23 around 10amPST, four trades went thru as follows:
Buy .0054
Sell .0052
Buy .0063
Buy .0056
The bid/ask was .0052 by .00565 during these trades. You can try to explain the 25% difference between back to back trades (clearing the books, blah blah blah)...but you cannot. And don’t try...
As far as the trading is concerned and albright news in vplms favor it gonna gap up the stock. I do expect Emil to lock achieve a settlement but I don't expect that as imminent but I have the "life changer" position for the long game. But the more small wins the better.
They went 20 and 0 and they had the newsy trends article and some networking word out on it. 20 and 0 with the biggest tech and communications companies in existance worthy of yhe article and the interest generatedWhat is there to get a handle on people should simply hope the next material announcement makes it 21.
$.051 VPLM has many moving parts right now and I'm trying to get a handle on it all, but have been busy on some other fronts. I'm still expecting something more pushing the recent trading; yes, MY "SURPRISE"! We will see.
Looking forward to next week, like I am on most Fridays!
Three year chart and I don't believe the recent trading "just happened"....
$.051 The MMs on VPLM or any other stock are just the folks who facilitate the trades, that's it. The constant, "the MM did this", "the MM did that" is garbage. They can trade for their own book, but most are just filling trades sent to them from Fidelity, TD and other brokers. Nothing mysterious nor evil with the MMs.
So many in the market want to blame someone when things don't go their way, ie the MMs, the shorts, the "naked shorts", manipulation and so on. All BS! It comes down to the buyers/sellers, that's it.
In the years I was a broker, I was up around the trading desks many, many times. Back in the nineties there was still "juice" in the spreads and MMs would make bank on it, or split it with the broker. Little of that now, as the spreads are much thinner.
(BTW, the Level II is just showing where, bid/ask, the individual MMs are at a given time. Level III shows executed trades and at what price level they were executed.)
Hope that helps and VPLM is doing fine and there would be no trading in VPLM without the MMs. Much more to all this, but I hope this give you a start.
I think the patents and the courts will hold it all up…..
I’m just trying to understand what the influence to the long term stockholders that the level II and level III day traders (MMs) have on the value , now or in the future…..
Right now ( and I know nothing) I feel like there is a ghost in the closet and can’t tell tell if it’s Casper or Freddy Kruger?
So help me out here….you are saying that the definition at the url I posted is inaccurate or that it’s it’s accurate but not a bad thing ….thereby an upside for all long term investors that don’t play the daily trader game? I am not that smart and I am all for folks making money, BUT ARE YOU SAYING IF NOT FOR MM s that this would not Hold up even as the court cases progress without them…?
THEY MAKE THE OFFER BIGGER AND BIGGER,LMAO,ALL YOU WILL DO STUPID F IS THAT THEY WILL FILL MY BIDS,LMAOOO
<<<<All the business of MMs manipulating markets is more nonsense. >>>>LEARN THE GAME.THAT IS WHAT THEY DO ALL FREAKEN DAY EVERY DAY.MANIPULATING THE STOCK MARKET.I CAUGHT THEM FRONT RUN MY ORDERS 15 TIMES IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS ALONE.THEY ARE FREAKEN CRIMINALS.GO READ JNSH,I JUST CAUGHT THEM AGAIN.STUPID SCAMBAG MFs,THEY ARE TRYING NOW HERE TO SHAKE OUT TRADERS.STUPID MFs,
HAAAAA SOMEBODY CUT YOU OFF ON THE ASK
YOU FROZE MFs???DO NOT KNOW WHAT DIRECTION TO GO???STUPID MFs,
Pretty scary some of the things you need to explain.
Not sure how one can wrap their head around these complex patents?
The $.50 prediction is where the price lands when this is over.
Currently we are higher than $. 02 which was the original goalpost.
Followers
|
448
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
3
|
Posts (Total)
|
129864
|
Created
|
06/16/10
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators ORCA sunspotter Sheepdog GreenBackClub Russ777 |
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: |