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.
Thank you Hay an Butters 🫡 finally some folks escaping the VPLM mental house.
Haha an Auth share increase of that magnitude right here right now is the best tell yet the only rationale that i see is that they are gearing up for pre-trial conferences and an expansive game plan. Looking forward to what our REAL STEEL team is made up of in light of this new developement.
I imagine we will know soon enough
Hello Butters. Very wild. Just before you presented your excellent theory, Carnac had approached me with a similar thought. Really tough to comprehend the need for an additional 3 billion shares when vplm has almost 2 more still available. He also questioned why the need for a 20 day wait period once a notification letter goes out to all shareholders when they did not approach the same wait period when they last added 2 billion shares. Carnac has long stated to me that something would happen by the end of this quarter. We shall see.
WATCH TO SEE WHERE SHE WILL BE DROPPING SOON.
BUYOUT????LMAOOOOOOO.
VPLM
Very plausible. If they use the existing OS of 3B as their final figure for "the deal" (?)
then I think we are underestimating the price for a buyout. $1 minimum with a possible
++++ attached to that. IMO.
tlo.
I WILL SELL A COUPLE MILLION VERY SOON,AND TAKE A LOSS.THIS THING IS DONE.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.THERE IS NO DEAL.THE ONLY DEAL THERE IS=INSIDERS SELLING.ALL THE WAY DOWN TO .005??
IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME.A SHARE SELLING SCAM..ALL WE SEE DAILY.NO NEWS.NOTHING.JUST INSIDERS SELLING.
Probably correct for deal coming soon!
Or ride it out to .25-.30 coming soon!
Do we know this share increase isn't part of a possible deal, I think there have been rumors to that being heard?
I don't see the company increasing the OS just for the need to fight it out longer, they don't need to increase the OS to stay in the fight. They have plenty of money ($2mm) to fight and plenty of shares to pay out (almost 2bill left) if needed under the existing 5 Bill OS.
I think it's part of a deal, it has to be.
AND TO THINK THAT 70% OF THE LONGS HERE BOUGHT IN THE PRIVATE PLACEMENTS AT .005 100s OF MILLIONS OF SHARES.RODE IT TO .114S TWICE AND SOLD NO SHARES.BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO .50 AND $3.00 PPS.LOL
NOW THEY ARE STILL SITTING ON 200% PROFIT AT THESE LEVELS,AND STILL DOING NOTHING.MAYBE THEY WILL RIDE IT TO .003s OR THE R/S.WHILE INSIDERS MAKING MILLIONS OF $$.
Ok, thank you, so you would not buy the patents...
Next vote please.....
yea or nay..
It's all such a farce. The smart people know it because it only takes a half a brain to see that nothing adds up. Hudnell has been a complete bust!! I agree with your question. The patent suite is obviously not as valuable as Emu has stated considering the company hasn't received a single dime in financial judgements. Also, we need to ask all of them about what happened to that one with AMZN that we heard about early last fall that was a "sure thing"?
Dedicated to Hudnell, Allbright and the great emu of eGipped..
A very interesting juxtaposition would be to read all that was said about Hudnell superiority and results when he 1st came on board and the rocket docket judge when he 1st came into play after move from Cali to Texas and read ALL of the commentary and then draw up a comparison chart depicting what had been said and promised and expected......compared to the actual results for shareholders. Exactly the same results can be found for ea and every individual endeavor 1st brought up by Vplm and where those efforts led to today.
Again I ask the question.....the big question in my opinion that says it all...
WOULD ANY OF YOU, ASSUMING YOU HAD THE MONEY, BUY THE PATENT SUITE?
HELLOOOO? I can't hear you.....??
He hasn't been on there in days. People are getting smart to his antics, well some at least. I need to hear Deerballs tell me Best Position Ever!! I need the pump.
Ya know, you all should be thanking me for getting deerballs out of here. He was the one who had been giving you all fake news and fake hope for so many years. Now, he's on another board just lying and lying.....and you all don't need to read that junk.
Glad to see some of you have removed your rose colored glasses, and are starting to understand this company is a share selling company for insiders.
You're welcome.
Hey, the gullible followers have waited this long so what's another 10 years of zero results? Don't worry the rainmaker Hudnell's on the case though. LMAO!!
POS is an accurate description!!
Da plane! Da plane! Welcome to fantasy island. 8 bil authorized and nonstop multiple insiders selling.........by default (for critical thinkers)......shows it to be a share printing share selling insider ATM........and.......that.....does not equate to patents that are priceless and fraught with power. The 2 things are pretty much mutually exclusive......except here on Fantasy Island. As well, if it isn't obvious that the greatly celebrated "rocket docket" (as promulgated here by the know it alls) has PROVEN itself to be A ROCK ON THE END OF THE DOCK ("sittin' on the dock of the bay, wastin' time). 27 years of nothing and peeps still believe, lol.
{{{{{These are my opinions alone and I continue to hold around 2 million shares.}}}}}IF I WAS YOU AND SITTING AT A PROFIT I WOULD SELL THIS POS TODAY.NOW.AND MOVE ON.IF THIS EVER SEES .034 AGAIN IT WILL BE A LOTTO.RUN.LOL
I WILL START SELLING AT A LOSS SOON.AND NOT WAIT FOR .0225.TO BREAK EVEN.ONCE THE SELLING MM SEE ME SELL AT A LOSS,THE PPS WILL GO DOWN IN A HURRY.THEN FLIP IT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO ZERO.
All I want out of this is the company to issue a press release providing an update and trial dates to get anticipation of a trial growing. Plus I want the insiders to stop selling even if they only stop for a few months. Reality is they all have inside info on the upcoming trials. They should not be allowed to trade. It seems to me they are trading on inside information. You are not allowed to trade if you know anything regarding upcoming material events. They have a trial set for July and Aug if I am not mistaken. How are the directors, and Emil and Barbara allowed to sell shares when they are receiving updates from the legal team regarding the proceedings. They should be shut out of trading in the months prior to a trials.
If they put out a PR and stop selling I guarantee the share price begins to rise and likely hits $.03-.05 a share by June. Then if this trials are pushed they can again sell. I think the rule should be that when a trial is within 6 months no selling will be allowed. If I was the board that is the policy I would put in place.
Personally I think they are all setting themselves up for a major lawsuit in years to come. If the outcome is positive they will be fine but if the company doesn't settle and ends with a loss in court and all the insiders have made millions selling their shares prior to the trials there will be a lot of questions. I am sure the SEC will be getting a lot of complaints regarding the company.
Hahahahahahahaha. Oh man I couldn't get through that I just started laughing. You should have changed corners once in awhile. crumble cake. Hahaha no yachts for you hahahaha. The way I see it whatever happens comes in somewhere between a chicken trio and a yacht. And you people pay to post. Lol
Hahahahaha. Perfect lol
I posted about this not long ago. Current shares o/s including the warrants to Emil is 5 million. They have probably $1.5-$1.7M in the bank and are eating through cash pretty fast. Emil doesn't give a crap. Share count continues to rise fast and the agreement gives him 40% of any settlement off the top. Basically the dilution to common shareholders is much worse than you can see. If they issue a million shares the share count actually increases 1,667,000 shares because they grant more warrants to Emil for $.001 a share.
I find it funny that they reinstated the 40$ rule last fall without getting a vote from shareholders. This is because the company set up a process that Emil basically has the shares through preferred shares to control the company and do anything he would like.
People call him and all he says is hold your shares. I want to see the shareholders make money.
The only way this ends well for current shareholders is if the company settles some of these claims this year. Every year that passes the share count increases. The problem is it is increasing fast. They continue to issue shares at $.005 a share. As the count increases the price per share will drop and the common stock price will continue to fall with the dilution.
When I got here last year everyone was talking settlement or awards of $10B or more. I never hear that now. I think the company would be thrilled with a settlement of $500M. I would not be shocked to see something like that amount in a settlement within the next couple years. Who knows what the lawyers would get. I am betting $100M or 20% would go to the lawyers. Then Emil would get $160M or 40$ of the remaining amount. The additional $240M would be split by investors. Today that is 3M shares. so the settlement would be $.08 per share. That is if everything went perfectly. Plus I would not be shocked if the settlement was more like $250-300M and not $500M. If it was $300M the split would be lawyers - $60M, Emil - $96M and shareholders today would get $144M or $.048 cents a share. plus the company would likely have other expense that would be $10s of millions and I am betting prior to a settlement they will issue warrants or options to insiders giving them a much bigger chunk.
If the settlement happens in 2025 or 2026 the amount that Emil and the lawyers get will be the same the only difference is the shares count for common shareholders will be 5 billion rather than 3 billion today lowering the payout for $300M to $.0288 or $500M to $.048 a share. If the settlements totaled $1B which I believe is a huge stretch the amount shareholders would receive would be $16 with the share count at 3B shares today, $.096 with 5B shares.
If the settlement comes in 2 or 3 years the share count will likely be something closer to 7B or 8B shares diluting shareholders further. At 7B shares the settlement would be $.0205 a share for $300M, $.0342 for $500M, and $.068 for a $1B settlement.
Plus there is always the 50% chance that the courts find in the favor of the big companies. Never underestimate those companies ability to sway the courts and jury. Not saying this will happen but I have little faith in the court system in America. I used to have faith but wit this type of money on the line all it would take is a donation to a couple jurors and the trial would be hung or swing in the favor of the big companies. Anyone thinking that is not possible is crazy. This is why I would like a settlement with T-Mobile prior to a trial. Even if the T-Mobile case was settled for $50-$100M it would end all dilution and allow the company to focus on the others with no worries about low long it takes.
I also would like the board to change the rules and stop providing warrants to Emil. He needs to be diluted along with all other shareholders. As it goes today he is selling shares through his wife making huge amounts of money if the case goes poorly. If it wins he does great.
they should eliminate the ability of Barbara to sell or never issue her additional shares. They should also put the exercise date on the directors options way in the future to end the selling. Non of that will happen. But the company needs more incentive to get things done faster. As the agreements sit today there is no incentive to move fast. If they allow the case to be pushed the directors get more options to sell at huge profits. These directors get paid better than most directors in real companies. And Emil and Barbara continue to sell shares making millions and Emil is never diluted.
This is a perfect scam for Emil and the directors of the company. Why try to settle anything. The longer they can play this the more they make.
I think everyone needs to call Rich and put pressure on the company to end the 40% agreement with Emil. That is the best incentive to get something done soon. If that is not changed I predict this gets pushed to 2025, 2026 and maybe well after that. If they can push this to 2027-2030 current shareholders will be diluted to a point that any settlement would be $.05 or less.
This company may have legit patents but without going to trial or getting a settlement it doesn't mean squat. I have said this many times. this feels like Madoff to me. I might believe a little more if the lawyers, Emil and some other experts would hold a conference call and provide an update on the trials and where we sit today. If they tell us where they are in the process, why the trial dates are sliding and if there were any way to move the July and Aug trial dates. Tell us about what has happened behind the scenes, tell us about the settlements from last year. Give us the strategy and the timelines for all the cases.
I would like details of the gateway patents and how each company has infringed on the patents, Tell us about the 606 patents and how they have been infringed. Tell us about the potential damages and how many companies can be sued and the total damages being asked for by VPLM in each case.
A real update would be huge and then take questions from shareholders that want to know more. When the entire process is very secretive and the only thing we get is court filings posted by Greenback and others we are left with only hope, and hope is not a great investment strategy. Thank you very much greenback for what you do. I know many here are tired of the wait. Let's get at a minimum a press release providing an update telling us what you can regarding each patent and the status of the trials. Until something like that comes out there is really no reason to believe in a positive outcome in 2024 or beyond.
These are my opinions alone and I continue to hold around 2 million shares. I am hoping for a positive development in 2024 but we have been in the dark since I arrived in early 2023. I look at Albrights calendar every day and currently it goes out to late May. Not one thing related to Voip has been on his calendar since mid 2023. I sent the court an email long ago with no response. All I want is some sort of information from the company to provide a little hope for a good 2024.
One last thing. A settlement of Barbara giving back 50 million shares is nothing. She still has 98M shares and is selling these at a pace of 1.2M shares a week. If it ends well Emil's share count is around 2B shares. Giving back 50M shares is a drop in the bucket. What I want to know is did the company buy these shares back or were they truly surrendered for $0. If they bought them back was it for $.001 they were issued at or $50,000 or did the company buy them for $.005 or $250,000. I am assuming they surrendered these with no additional compensation for the shares. If not it wasn't a punishment at all. If the company bought them it was probably a gift to Emil and Barbara. By the time she would be selling those 50M shares in a couple years the share price would likely be under $.005 a share due to dilution.
Sorry for the rant. Frustrated with this entire situation. My hope that the share price would rise as the trials grew near doesn't look to be happening. A trial scheduled in Aug and we are nearing March. The share price continues to sit around $.016 a share and the insiders continue to sell. In 23 the share price started moving higher anticipating a July trial in in Jan and continued higher until May. That would mean this year we should see a run starting in Feb. No run is happening. Rich had said the company would put out a press release on the trials dates once they were on the judges docket. No press release has happened yet. Either the Aug date is not solid or they have some reason for not informing investors. Either way having an Aug trial seems unlikely when the company won't even announce the trial. Hopefully that all changes soon.
TIME TO PUT A FORK IN THIS POS.BIG TIME.PISSED I AM NOT IN A PROFIT THIS TIME AROUND TO SELL THE CRAP OUT OF IT.IF I GET LUCKY AND CROSSES THE .0225 AVERAGE AREA I AM OUT IN A HURRY.IF NOT.I WILL RIDE IT TO ZERO.
Frustrating! Would be nice to have an management update, but seeing these filings about says it all. Only bright side is offsetting some gains this year.
{{{{{I understand he’s raised his PPS projection to $ .45 per share. Hmmmm, wonder why he’s increased his prediction. What’s he heard?}}}}}
MAYBE HE HEARD ABOUT THE 8 BILLION A/S SHARE INCREASE.LMAOOOOOOOOO.
ALL THREE INSIDERS WITH NEW FILINGS SELLING.UNREAL.ONE OF THEM RECEIVES AT .005 THE SAME DAY AND SELLS AT .0185.
EASY MONEY.THE STOCK SHOULD BE TRADING IN THE TRIPLE ZEROS IMO.IF I WAS AT PROFIT IW OULD HAVE SOLD THE CRAP OUT OF IT.
Baggio Barbara
COMMON 2/20/2024 S 200,000 D $0.0195 98,035,805 D
COMMON 2/20/2024 S 250,000 D $0.0184 97,785,805 D
COMMON 2/21/2024 S 250,000 D $0.017 97,535,805 D
COMMON 2/22/2024 S 100,000 D $0.0174 97,435,805 D
COMMON 2/22/2024 S 150,000 D $0.0168 97,285,805 D
COMMON 2/23/2024 S 100,000 D $0.0162 97,185,805 D
COMMON 2/23/2024 S 250,000 D $0.0165 96,935,805 D
CHANG DENNIS
COMMON 2/20/2024 S 250,000 D $0.018 5,100,030 D
COMMON 2/22/2024 S 199,965 D $0.018 4,900,065 D
COMMON 2/22/2024 S 150,000 D $0.017 4,750,065 D
COMMON 2/23/2024 S 200,000 D $0.0168 4,550,065
WILLIAMS KEVIN BRYAN
COMMON 2/21/2024 M 5,000,000 A $0.005 (1) 5,000,000 D
COMMON 2/21/2024 F(1) 1,351,351 D $0.0185 (1) 3,648,649
ALL I CAN SAY IS WOW TO THESE SCAMBAGS.LIKE I ALWAYS SAID:A SHARE SELLING SCAM.NEW FILING GOES TO 8 BILLION SRSTHE END OF THIS TICKET IS VERY NEAR NOW IMO,
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=17309150&guid=Hcd-k6NQcN5eJth
February 26, 2024
Dear Stockholder:
We are furnishing the enclosed information statement to you in connection with a proposal to increase our authorized capital from 5,000,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001, to 8,000,000,000 shares of common stock, par value $0.001 (the “Authorized Capital Increase”).
The problem is that you and the other believers can't accept the truth.
Guessing translation is you disagree with all... Oh well, at least you listened. May you be right just enough for me to score my 50 cents...
Glty
All your comments to me read/understood. TY
Yikes, kinda that kinda hit me like you're all over the road. Too many things to focus on... Let me at least try. Incidentally, not sure specifically to your reference? but I use tons of humor in my commentary in general.
I would be surprised if you truly understood why exactly I say that patent validity means basically nothing, as I've explained it a zillion x but aside from a couple peeps, no one has ever agreed or in most cases, even so much as acknowledged even though I have provided a plethora of common sense, logic and facts to support it. So I hope you do indeed get it. In case not, the basic idea is that it's the fully recognized top experts, ie, the USPTO examiners who validate or not, the patent applications. Long ago, when these issues came to fore, I did research the criteria that the USPTO has for issuing a patent. I posted those criteria here a few times. Pretty basic criteria, only around 4 things. None of them give any semblance of assurance as to value, need, efficacy, current compatability, etc. As mentioned, MANY or I dare say MOST patents never garner a dime even if they are totally good in every way shape and form and are provable. So that said, after a positive IPR ruling, NOTHING is gained nothing is lost. It's a wash. You successfully defended and so the patents hold the exact same validity as they had the moment they were born in the USPTO offices. Nothing! It's not a negative but it's also not a positive either EXCEPT in the sense that it can be viewed as a win because the alternative WOULD BE an actual LOSS! So yes, far better than a loss but the fact remains that you have nothing positive for any judge to consider outside of the fact that the patent challenges were unsuccessful and the patents have the exact same level of validity as the moment they were born.
So after years of everyone disagreeing with it or ignoring the point (aside from 1 poster who stated that it gained estoppel, which I've yet to see any benefit from to this day, but it may be a plus at some point) I decided that instead of conceding the IPR issue, I would simply research the actualities of the issue, legally speaking. It wasn't easy to find any legal opinions or commentary about it but I did find 1 or 2. I think I may have it saved in my notes, I'll look for it, but basically it said that up to that point in time, (a couple yrs ago I think), the courts were UNDECIDED on that very issue and or that no judge had yet to use the outcomes of patent case IPR in determining a ruling. I was not surprised at to read that because I use critical thinking and common sense.
Therefore the "icing on the cake" comment seems irrelevant to me. I think ppl, maybe even judges, can "attribute" more to positive ipr outcomes that they deserve, but if there is no actual legal delineated gain above and beyond the original validity that comes by default with a patent issuance, then it's kind of a paper tiger point. As far as it ever becoming "the vehicle that spurs a reversal", I highly doubt it.. Then you kind of sequed into the judges favoring silicon valley companies. You made that a sweeping statement but I believe that there have been many judges involved with decisions on Vplm and I find it hard to believe they all are fully biased, or corrupted in favor of silicon valley. In fact, let's take the most famously celebrated judge bandied about here on this board, in that very regard, judge koh. I just want to note 2 basic points about her. I'm no fan of hers but I did try to defend her against what I thought were very short sighted, biased, unfair, and disrespectful comments made here on a wholesale level. Almost everyone was calling her an idiot with no clue. I pointed out that she had 100% support from congress in her orig appointment and that she had also the support of president's, governors, etc..... AND......was a Harvard Law School graduate and had previously worked on patent cases. All that was enough for me to see that saying she was dumb and Han no clue was not fair to say the least. I'm a proponent of fair and balanced everything. Don't get me wrong, maybe she was wrong or biased unfairly for silicon valley but keep in mind that one of her most famous cases she publicly and famously admonished the Apple lawyer, asking if he was smoking crack or something along those lines, when she disagreed with the lawyer about the time it would take to do something. Plus, many of her cases, correct me if I'm wrong involve both sides being silicon valley companies. I also have recently seen articles that said she indeed ruled properly on Vplm. I simply thought she was a very highly accomplished woman who deserved more respect.
In any event, regards all the talk about draining Vplms resources has proven to be 100% not the case from the git, yes/no? They seem to have had no problem whatsoever in raising all the funds and assistance it has ever needed and with a current 2 mil banked to boot. That argument has been used so many times but falsely as it turns out.
Emil letters? Patent cases will be taken out of the courts... That's doubtful. It's how our system of jurisprudence works, but even if that we're to occur, I assume you mean that the decision making would then fall upon the USPTO and PTAB. The PTAB was founf to be corrupt from the top down and theyhsooen to be an arm of the USPTO. I have long considered them to be the 1-2 punch of the whole complaint about how many patents are denied or reversed etc.
Regardless of all above, 13 years of study of this play leaves me long concluding it's an insider share printing share selling insider self enrichment carnival put together in a very sophisticated way.
No need to be sorry of course.. and no harm or disrespect received. 🙂 will/would like to reply/expound in brief later..
.
Sorry, but I didn't get your "not favoring some pennystock" comment in quotes. Not sure what you mean by that....but CLEARLY you stated that is was CLEAR that the hand of God is upon Vplm....and I find that ridiculous. You follow by saying the fight is on principal. That seems crazy to me as well. The "fight" (at least what you THINK is a fight.....but is actually a front) would be for monetary gain, not principal. Battles are historically for power and place.....better put, MONEY!, or sometimes for freedom, not for some principal. Do you disagree? Aside from all that, how can you say it is clear that God has a hand on Vplm? I'm guessing your answer will say because it's the PRINCIPLE involved but thats crazy. It's money not principle and even if it was principle which it isn't, it would be human principles not God principles.
Maybe one of the numbers ppl here can say roughly how much money the insiders have made on the selling and then we can see how that stacks up against lawyers fees.......except......dont you think a fair amount of lawyer fees have been paid with shares?? I hope you will give your opinions on these questions. No harm or real disrespect intended in my comments.
I agree "valid patents" doesn't equate to eventual wins, I do get that point and already knew, but, it will become the visible icing on the cake, and may be the vehicle that spurns a reversal of these (laws etc etc al) and judges favoring the offspring of the Silicon Valley their over-confidence & ability to sue, go to court dragging out and making small businesses jump thru irrelevant hoops and draining their source of funds to render them helpless. Articles around 2008. Also see letters written from Emil Malik.The patent cases need and will be taken back out of the courts, and related "fights". Additionally... I read and hear all your points and refreshers, and detected your humor even if not intended, it was in there. However, there is a trump card coming. No pun intended regarding our 45th. View the articles on Harry's.com (private co.) vs. the Big "Gillette" company. They thought Harrys small company would roll over and die. Harry.com won their battle.
"not favoring some Penny stock".. the reason behind the fight. The principal.
Oh, there's a way.....and it'll be more than just a year......as I've been correctly predicting for the past 5. When peeps think that "valid patents" equates to eventual wins and/or that IPR "wins" also supports eventual success and a group of goofy mental cases whose claim to fame is name calling alongside their Vplm opinions, that also does zip to provide a realistic view of this long standing, share printing, share selling, personal insider ATM. All dots connect. This building wave of recently new optimism and cocksure predictions of imminent or near term successes on the way, have been repeated practically verbatim over and over and over, throughout the years and is nothing more than persuasiveness, hubris, wishful thinking, going where the weather suits your clothes, pumping, wise guy-ism, know it all is, trying to impress ism, married to a dead horse ism, etc. The patents have proven themselves since conception, to be useless, valueless, unproven, unsubstantiated fluff. All the IPRs and "validity", contain no proof of anything more than the patents met the basic criteria that the uspto sets forth. That does not incluse, need, value, efficacy, infringement or anything other than they are valid patents. The vast majority of so called valid patents never make a dime and according to my research, courts have yet to consider IPR "wins" as anything of legal weight. Maybe that has changed since I did the research but as far as I know and in total contrast to all those who insist the ipr wins are the piece de resistance, end all be all saving grace that insurers the Vplm ship is coming in, I'm afraid they are in for a long long wait on top of the long long wait already in the bag
As I've correctly explained many times, the quite simple fact o matter is that if the patents were worth even a fraction of what Vplm led peeps to believe...and we're so fundamental and necessary to the operation of voip, there are many common sense deep pocket ceos who would've grabbed the suite long ago.
All the arguments such as they all stole the patents (with their borg hive mentality) and they all think it makes more sense to steal the tech and infringe rather than reap the untold fortunes of owning the patents, have long been dispelled. They don't make sense. They don't add up. They don't hold water. Or the most popular held belief found here for more than a decade, that the dig dogs take this route because they know they can wear down and deplete the Vplm coiffers.......as Vplm has for at least a dozen years shown and proven that they handily had the ways and means (print and sell shares endlessly) to come up with all the cash necessary to keep the carnival operating. This is obvious. It's old news. It is the forest thru the trees but you ignore it as though its not there.
Vplm made wild claims initially but never provided the proofs, such as published results of the worldwide nodal tests.
When shareholders here have been asked repeatedly, would they, had the money, buy the patents, the crickets got loud. Easy to see why.
A farce
An eminence front
A share printing/selling, self enrichment scheme, of the 3rd kind, same as the emu and crew were found guilty of by a jury of their peers.
Disappointment and future regret on tap here
So then, your claim is, the insiders are using their personal accounts to pay the lawyers for their corporate work??
I wonder how you label that in your filings?? Gifts to lawyers?
You don't think, as a public company there would be an issue with an individual paying the legal fees for the company? Is this under "Goodwill"?
I swear...just when I think I've read every cockamamie ridiculous story, someone comes out with something even more outlandish.
I'm curious why the CEO wouldn't use his own funds, but instead use the funds of his wife's?
NO PROBLEM FOR ME BRO.I CALL THE CARDS A SURE THING.I CARELESS IF I AM DOWN ON THE BIGGER ACCOUNT IN THIS POS.
MEANS NOTHING TO ME.WE CAN STAY DOWN AND GO LOWER FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS.AT THAT TIME BARBARA WILL BE 93 YEARS OLD.AND DB WILL BE 95.
Hahaha you should have taken this DB guy up on the pitch for .005s you could have had a choice in your diet. Lol 2018 I hadn't realized how seared you are. Stick around haha
YEA BRO.LET;S WAIT FOR .013.BARBARA WILL MAKE THIS POSSIBLE:))) 3K IN VOLUMES SO FAR???LMAOOOOO.THE BELIEVERS BUYING THE F OUT OF IT.LOL.
Hahahaha. Too funny that smarts lol
I DO NOT SEE ANY NEWS COMING IN THE NEXT 3 MONTHS.THIS THING CAN NOT HOLD ITS GAINS ONE DAY LET ALONE 3 MONTHS
THAT DIRT BAG THAT PUT THE FILING OUT,WHEN THE STOCK WAS IN THE .02 DESTROYED THE RUN UP.NOW WE HAVE THE INSIDERS WILL BE SELLING DAILY,WITH THE LEADER SELLER BARBARA.AS SHE STARTED ALREADY LAST WEEK DAILY.
I AM NOT BUYING ANY SHARES UNLESS IT DEEPS.MUCH LOWER.AND WILL BUY THEM TO ONLY FLIP THEM.NOW THAT I SEE INSIDERS SELLING AGAIN,I GOTTA SELL BEFORE THEM.
Doubt it speed dancer, spidey sense says we got news soon. Blast off is coming soon imo
Followers
|
463
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
133034
|
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: |