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.
VPLM News--- WACO, Texas, March 18, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to announce three new advisory appointments. Clay Perreault, Austin McDonald, and Ray Leon have been appointed as special advisors to the Board of Directors. Mr. Perreault will serve as Technical Consultant, Mr. McDonald as Business Advisor, and Mr. Leon as Mediation and Settlement Advisor. Each of them have very successful track records in their specific areas of expertise and long histories of collaborating with VoIP-Pal.
Clay Perreault is the founder and Ex-President of Digifonica (International) Limited of Gibraltar and the founder and Chairman of SinoCan Telecommunications Technology Co Ltd, China. He has an extensive background in telecommunications, software development, wireless infrastructure, and web-based technologies. He is also the first named inventor on many of VoIP-Pal’s patents including the RBR ‘815, RBR Messaging ‘005 and the RBR continuation ‘606 patents which have been asserted in previous patent infringement lawsuits. Mr. Perreault will be the chief advisor to the Company on all technical and patent related matters.
Austin McDonald has more than 36 years of international business experience throughout the EU, USA, and Asia. His expertise spans all facets of business expansion including development, management, and oversight. He is also a named inventor on several issued and pending U.S. and international patents. Austin is a past Adjunct Professor at Stevens Institute of Technology, NJ. While his career has been dedicated to working in the pharmaceutical industry, Mr. McDonald brings to VoIP-Pal his decades of overall management experience and business acumen.
Ray Leon has an MBA from Harvard Business School and an engineering degree from Villanova University. He is a former engineer for GE and IBM, has founded and or cofounded multiple successful startup companies, and has extensive business mediation and arbitration experience. Mr. Leon has been certified as a Circuit Civil mediator with the Florida Supreme Court, a staff mediator for the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) in Washington, DC, and a certified arbitrator for FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority). Mr. Leon will be assuming an important role for VoIP-Pal in its discussions and negotiations with potential buyers of its technology as an advisor to the Board of Directors on such matters.
VoIP-Pal CEO, Emil Malak said, “We are very pleased to have Clay Perreault, Austin McDonald, and Ray Leon join our team at this important time in the Company’s history. I have known them for a long time and have great admiration and respect for them all. We look forward to working closely with them as we march down what we hope is the final stretch towards monetization of our technology. Patience is a virtue.”
About VoIP-Pal.com Inc.VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Waco, TX. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Any forecast of future financial performance is a “forward looking statement” under securities laws. Such statements are included to allow potential investors the opportunity to understand management’s beliefs and opinions with respect to the future so that they may use such beliefs and opinions as one factor among many in evaluating an investment. While the Company believes in the circumstances that legal action is needed to monetize its patents, patent litigation involves various risks and uncertainties that could affect its ability to monetize the patents. We recognize that it is impossible to predict the specific outcomes of litigation.
www.voip-pal.comIR@voip-pal.com
Corporate Website: IR inquiries: IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
THERE IS NO EXCITEMENT.THUS IT IS DOWN 87% FROM ITS HIGHS.A YEAR AGO.I SEE A LOT OF BAILOLOGY.INSIDERS BAILING WHILE THEY STILL CAN.
If it looks like a lost cause and quacks like a lost cause....and keeps on doing so for a dozen yrs or so, well.....you finger it out...or guess.
$.01575 This week? Sure LOTS of excitement out there; lots and lots AND LOTS... Wonder what it might be? Luck a the Irish to us!
Keep Selling....the Buyers Thank You!!!
THE STOCK HAS NO REASON TO MOVE ANYTIME SOON.OTHER THAN MOVING LOWER.INSIDER SELLING CONTINUES.DAILY.
BUYERS GET TRAPPED FOR THE NEXT 10 MORE YEARS???LOOKS THAT WAY.IMO.
Hay Day I like the positive vibe you show on this chat board for VPLM.I do believe as several of us do here in this group that there is an old friend to the company & Emil onboard again so expect some accumulation.
In our opinion.
Have fun making money!
Eludes? Lol...excellent Freudian slip, as that's exactly what vplm and the emu from eGipped has always done and will continue to do. Perfect word choice!
Too funny
Been waiting over 10 years for Emil and vplm to “Get em”. Your short statement eludes to the possibility that finally some real action is taking place that may create the positive outcome we have long been waiting for. Hoping for the best with a timeline that allows me a few more years to enjoy it.
If some can’t take reality, I’d suggest selling if you don’t have the guts to wait this out! Hopefully, this’ll be over by 2024! IMHO
ANOTHER 10 YEARS OF NOTHING OTHER THAN INSIDERS SELLING.PUT A FORK IN THIS POS
Apparently, 04/04/24, was a typo by clerk. T-Mobile set for November 4th!! Hopefully, it won’t matter! INHO
Apparently, T-Mobile is in November.
So says the voice of doom lol the prophet
And your reasoning is…..?
Look for 2025, IMHO
Agreed, too early for a pretrial for it to be in April.
Mistake or not, something is afoot. Hold on to your hats.
Must be a mistake, I would go with the November date.
What’s this, now I’m seeing T-Mobile now reset for April 4th???
It says, Set Hearings 03/15/24 5:43 pm…..ORDER RESETTING JURY TRIAL for 04/04/24 9:00 AM. ….Which date is correct? April 4th or November 4th?
Possibly a typo?
IMHO
Gee, is it possible that the rumors of the Amazon 606 trial being announced soon was now being secured in the date opened up by this T-Mobile schedule change? We shall see.
VPLM VWAP=$.0158 VOLUME=636k Bid-side 9x
3/14 VWAP=$.0159 VOLUME=831k Bid-side 6x
3/13. VPLM VWAP=$.016+ VOLUME=1.3-mm Bid-side 2x minus
All smiles for me.... :) :) :) :) :) INDEED!
New trial date set for T-Mobile, November 4th 9:00 am. So much for both needing to be held simultaneously.
Apparently, the Vplm company peeps do not believe in any way shape or form, in utter contrast to what the fug dwelling pumpers keep saying.
I don't know how one cannot conclude that the Vplm company guys, who eagerly and gladly sell like going outta style, shares for little more than one and a half cents. They swear they don't know anything.......but I find that as disingenuous as it gets. Not only is the womb of Vplm become barren to shareholders, who no longer even have any kind of spread to work with, but as such, what can they get anymore at their blue light special sales? What....a quarter cent maybe at best, if that?
soggy toast
HERE IS THE BIG NEWS
LMAOOOO.BOLD.
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 144
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SALE OF SECURITIES
PURSUANT TO RULE 144 UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933
FORM 144
144: Filer Information
Filer CIK
0001934737
Filer CCC
XXXXXXXX
Is this a LIVE or TEST Filing? LIVE TEST
Submission Contact Information
Name
Phone
E-Mail Address
144: Issuer Information
Name of Issuer
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc.
SEC File Number
000-55613
Address of Issuer
7215 Bosque Blvd, Ste 102
Waco
TEXAS
76710
Phone
9544954600
Name of Person for Whose Account the Securities are To Be Sold
WILLIAMS KEVIN BRYAN
See the definition of "person" in paragraph (a) of Rule 144. Information is to be given not only as to the person for whose account the securities are to be sold but also as to all other persons included in that definition. In addition, information shall be given as to sales by all persons whose sales are required by paragraph (e) of Rule 144 to be aggregated with sales for the account of the person filing this notice.
Relationship to Issuer
Director
144: Securities Information
Title of the Class of Securities To Be Sold Name and Address of the Broker Number of Shares or Other Units To Be Sold Aggregate Market Value Number of Shares or Other Units Outstanding Approximate Date of Sale Name the Securities Exchange
Common
Wilson-Davis & Co
236 So. Main Street
Salt Lake City UT 84101
3648649 60202.00 698692 03/04/2024
otcqb
Furnish the following information with respect to the acquisition of the securities to be sold and with respect to the payment of all or any part of the purchase price or other consideration therefor:
144: Securities To Be Sold
Title of the Class Date you Acquired Nature of Acquisition Transaction Name of Person from Whom Acquired Is this a Gift? Date Donor Acquired Amount of Securities Acquired Date of Payment Nature of Payment *
Common 04/23/2021 options for prfessional service issuer voip-pal.com,inc. 3648649 04/23/2021 cashless
* If the securities were purchased and full payment therefor was not made in cash at the time of purchase, explain in the table or in a note thereto the nature of the consideration given. If the consideration consisted of any note or other obligation, or if payment was made in installments describe the arrangement and state when the note or other obligation was discharged in full or the last installment paid.
Furnish the following information as to all securities of the issuer sold during the past 3 months by the person for whose account the securities are to be sold.
144: Securities Sold During The Past 3 Months
Name and Address of Seller Title of Securities Sold Date of Sale Amount of Securities Sold Gross Proceeds
Kevin Bryan Williams
3933 Clayton Rd. W
Fort Worth TX 76116 Common 01/09/2024 1127281 20767.62
144: Remarks and Signature
Remarks
Date of Notice
03/15/2024
ATTENTION:
The person for whose account the securities to which this notice relates are to be sold hereby represents by signing this notice that he does not know any material adverse information in regard to the current and prospective operations of the Issuer of the securities to be sold which has not been publicly disclosed. If such person has adopted a written trading plan or given trading instructions to satisfy Rule 10b5-1 under the Exchange Act, by signing the form and indicating the date that the plan was adopted or the instruction given, that person makes such representation as of the plan adoption or instruction date.
Where's all the big news that we keep being promised? LMAO!!
Welcome. You've reached the daily waste of time...
Yall come back now...
LOL!!! How embarrassing for her!!! $16-24 BAHAHAHAHA!!! Here's the funny part, THAT WAS 7 years ago!!!
Looks like the stock is going to move up they keep giving me more than I ask for lol mm signal on this one looks like they're expecting it ticdoc ticdoc. I love this stock
LOL! I do believe this is true....well maybe not for you, but for some of you.
We will hang in there with them to the end!
InvestorinAZ
Re: None
Monday, December 04, 2017 4:02:32 PM
Post#
44345
of 128718
Hey guys... I don't think I've ever posted, but I'm the sister of Positive NRG.
I think it might be time again to post our lottery guesses for patent sale price per share like we did 4 years ago.
Don't know if you remember, but I think my sister posted her guess at $25/share. She told me she was just "putting it out into the Universe."
At the time, the Board was talking $1/share minimum and everyone thought $25 was ridiculous.
But now... it's actually not unreasonable. I've heard that a common sale price for streaming income technology is 2-3 years worth of licensing fees. If the infringement lawsuit is saying Apple owes VP $5 BILLION per year (and that could very well be adjusted upwards), and that's JUST for Apple and doesn't include the other 59 companies on the infringement list, then a reasonable price COULD be, say, $8 billion per year for a sale price of $16-$24/share.
What do you think?
I hope Emil really gets a great price after all he's been thru!
Thank you DB for your faithful posts (and encouragement)!
It's so hard to wait, but hey, it's been 10 years, I guess I can wait a few more months (days??).
I'm sure Emil and team are as ready as we are for this to be over.
We will hang in there with them to the end!
VPLM VWAP=$.0159 VOLUME=831k Bid-side 6x
3/13. VPLM VWAP=$.016+ VOLUME=1.3-mm Bid-side 2x minus
VPLM VWAP=$.016+ VOLUME=1.3-mm Bid-side 2x minus
Thanks for the explanation.
Happy birthday!
Go VPLM!!
YES THE BEST RESTAURANT.CLEAN AND YOU SEE THE COOKS COOKING THE FOOD IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES.FRESH INCREDIENTS.ETC.SO QUALITY FOOD.QUANTITY,LOW PRICE AND GOOD SERVICE.I ATE AT CARABAS FOR 22 YEARS,
I NEVER GOT SICK FROM EATING AT CARABAS.THUS I GO THERE TWO TO THREE TIMES A WEEK.THE CHICKEN TRIO IS AROUND $29.00 THAT COMES WITH SALAD OR SOUP.NOW YOU TAKE ANOTHER ONE HOME FOR THE NEXT DAY,FOR ONLY 10$.
AND YOU CAN GO ON THE REWARD PROGRAM AND SAVE ANOTHER 5$ ABOUT EVERY SECOND VISIT.
THE TASTE OF CHICKEN TRIO IS BEYOND BELIEF.MELTS IN YOUR MOUTH.
SO THIS IS WHY I DO NOT COOK AT HOME FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS.AT WHOLE FOODS 1 LB . OF ORGANIC CHICKEN IT COSTS AROUND 11$ PER LB.THEN YOU HAVE TOO COOK IT,PAY ELECTRIC,WASH DISHES,ETC.SO IF YOU EAT 2 LBs OF CHICKEN PER DAY FROM WHOLE FOODS,WITH OTHER SIDE FOOD THROUGH OUT THE DAY YOU SPENT AROUND 30$ TO 40$.
SO I GO TO CARABAS.I PAY 29$ FOR CHICKEN TRIO.AND I TAKE ONE HOME.FOR ANOTHER 10$ TO EAT IT NEXT DAY.
SO THE BILL COMES AROUND 41$ AND WITH THE TIP 50$.NEXT TIME I PAY 45$ BECAUSE OF THE REWARD PROGRAM 5$ OFF.
SO IF I MAKE 100$ FLIPPING VPLM=4 CHICKEN TRIOS.I ATE 4 DAYS COURMET DINNERS:))SO VPLM IS BUYING ME CHICKEN TRIOS.NOW LAST YEAR VPLM PAID FOR ALL MY EXPENSES FOR ABOUT 18 MONTHS:))FOOD,RENT,CAR PAYMENT,ENTERTAINMENT.ETC.:))))) CARABAS HAS 212 LOCATIONS,IN 29 STATES.AND IS IN 193 CITIES.
Is that at a national chain? That looks pretty good.
When all is said and DONE with this madoff class farce and all hope has been dashed for most peeps......the elite, self appointed "true longs", refusing to give up on their savior, lord emu of eGipped......this will be their official theme song:
People get ready, there's more monkey wrenches coming,
You don't have to worry, you just stay on board...
No clown at this point I've originally put in $80,000 In 2023 took out $150,000 to date and have 2,860,000 shares do the math moron how much has the 2,860,000 shares cost me. The stocks been going sideways for 6 months you df doesn't your chart work lol oh ya how's that scary shareholders lawsuit that your dimwitted brain wasted so much time thinking and posting about. Fool Hahahaha
Geez you are very odd.....you constantly post "hahahahaha" like a madman. It's as if you sit there giggling while typing. I picture the Joker posting.
But even you have run out of excuses and brags of how much money you are making....this stock just keeps falling and falling....I'm almost curious enough to waste another post on you to go back and look at the share price when you first bragged to me about your profits. Seems you've given them alllll back now. hahahhaha.
VPLM VWAP=$.016 VOLUME=1.8mm
I can help with this. VPLM going nowhere!!
No more spread to work with...
Time for whopper promos...
Time for multiple monkey wrenches to surface...
Time for Richie, inYA pockets, Rich, your royal hiny, the emu from eGipped and others connected to and supportive of, the inside, to get they're crayolas out and start some new (but same) whopper, bs, fictional PRs, designed to keep the weak, hynotically, loyal to the death, pseudo-intellectual, mental patience - is a virtue, chicken trio ignorant, on board and holding tight or buying a little more here and there....... Mustn't let the native get too restless...lol
So many different results ….Please enlighten us oh wise one … and keep it under 1000 words
A bunch of ppl who profess to know and understand so much about the ins and outs of Vplm, in most cases, pro vplm, and yet not one of them has it occur to them to simply Google what is a chicken trio......
duh
I WISH THAT SCAMBAG WITH THE 5 MILLION DOES A FIRE SALE.AND IT COMES DOWN TO .006S.NITE COME DOWN IMMEDIATELY
Hey isn't it about time for that 5million .0164s to pop back up on the ask? Hahahahaha. If not ohohohohooo look out for that crop report hahahahaha
I am embarrassed to admit it but, just like a stock suffering a 400% loss, I simply don't know what is meant by Chicken Trio dinners. Someone please enlighten me.
Followers
|
457
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
8
|
Posts (Total)
|
132123
|
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: |