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.
Looks like VPLM and Huawei came to an agreement. Joint motion to dismiss was filed!
IMHO
It makes sense that you two would collaborate
I kind of wondered about that claim myself but couldn't care less so didn't bother to fact check cuz it doesn't and won't mean anything anyway regardless of the numbers. It didn't sound right tho. They must be tiny compared to Samsung and Apple, no?
I just find you funny... Don't bring up the patents....
The posts you like make me laugh, but not as much as this one....
Tuesday, December 30, 2014 1:07:11 PM
I'm not trying to save anyone, least of all a sadsack like yourself. Most idiots who fall for obvious scams like VPLM are beyind help, anyway.
I just enjoy studying scams and occasionally helping the Feds bring the criminals behind them to justice. 2014 was a particularly good year for me in that respect.
With a fan club.....so infatuated and preoccupied with me it's no wonder that vplm has so many shareholders who don't have a clue and are so far underwater. Vplm breeds them and has ever since the beginning of the lies they have told. Instead of focusing Vplm, they focus on my every word. A captive audience, lol. I'll keep posting about the company Vplm and they will keep posting about me... Too funny!
Vplm msg board is a reflection of the farce Vplm is. Vplm patents are worthless and their shares are almost as worthless at a little over a penny. Just like little kids believe in Santa Claus, so too are many of the subjects of cult leader lord emu of eGipped and his trusty share selling sidekicks. He could come right out an admit the fakery and they would still pay homage.
All the promises and predictions have been wrong for 27 yrs. I haven't been wrong about them yet but I wish I was. I hope my wish comes true but not holding my breath on that one. Meanwhile someone needs to sell the peanut gallery some new material.
Where's my 50 cents? No, I'm not going to lower it, even tho cost was far below that and then became 0 cost. Anyway, can't wait till July when the monkey wrenches will be flying like the Leonid meteor shower...
You seem tetchy.
Sorry if pointing out your chum's numbers were wrong by a factor of 60 upset you.
Are years of being dead wrong beginning to frustrate you, or are you just irascible by nature?
I know your response already:
you making a comment on liking posts... that's hysterical...
You like posts from NYT, that's all anyone has to say...
Too easy....
Tell us again how 12 years isn't long enough to bring down a blatant penny scam... Yet fighting the biggest companies in the world should have been settled already...
Don't bring up the patents though... How dare you.... Clown
I blocked him many years ago, his style of posting and the content was so out of whack. I didn’t want to even look at it anymore. Have blocked a half a dozen others too just to keep some kind of sanity
I blocked him a long time ago and it felt so good!
The "Ignore" button is liberating - felt good.
It is adorable that he thinks anyone believes him or listens to him.
His only argument is that it won’t happen because it hasn’t happened yet.
No sane, truthful person would own a stock and spend 12 years and 12,000 posts berating it.
Maybe same reasons you do...
I don't claim to be a shareholder. I am a shareholder but it doesn't matter in the tiniest whether anyone believes it or not. Why would I care about that? The only reason I've stated it is some accuse me of not being one. Bottom line is it doesn't matter if someone here is a shareholdero or not when you come right down to it becsuse it's not a requirement to be here. So just for the s&g's, let's say I'm not a shareholder or any other poster isn't.. So what? What would that prove? I'll tell you what it proves... It proves that you mistakenly think that the veracity of a posters beliefs, ideas, opinions, conclusions, could only be valid if they were a shareholder but if they aren't, there's no possible reason for them to be here unless they are a paid trasher or a shorter or who knows what other fantasies brew in your mind? The FACT of the matter is wrong or right ideas are not predicated upon shares ownership, just like bought and paid for politicians quotes and deeds are worth only what and how much they were paid. I have supported everything I've said here with logic, facts, common sense, balance and fairness.
No one forces you to read......except you.
By the way, I almost forgot... Welcome to my fan club! You have 13 total posts and 10 of them are about me and the others about someone else. Zero about the company which is what this board is for. Would you like to buy some autographed 8x10s?
That's very INTELLIGENT of YOU to use this board to insult someone's intelligence. I guess it's the best you've got...
I think it was you or someone who recently said the same thing about my reason for being con on Vplm, by wrongly assigning YOURS, NOT MINE.....assumption that my opinions/conclusions are based on the idea that things are gonna happen cuz they haven't happened yet. I've never posited such a lazy, silly idea, to stand on its own. My conclusions are well documented to connect many different dots. If you read them, you wouldn't make such lazy and false accusations. That said, 27 yrs of nothing certainly does say something by itself......and it's been saying the same rhetorical propaganda for the entire time, ie, "IT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN".... "IT'S IMMINENT"......S&P 500 AND OTHERS ARE FALLING OVER THEMSELVES TO GET OR LICENSE OUR PATENTS!......"VPLM IS FOLDING THE TECHNOLOGY INTO ITS OWN VOIP SERVICE PROVIDER PLATFORM"....... "VPLM WILL IMMEDIATELY Begin COLLECTING UP TO $200 MILLION PER YEAR IN ROYALTIES!".........etc etc etc.
Maybe you didn't know these things said by Vplm? Or maybe you did know but you so easily forget, that they need to be repeated and repeated and repeated over and over. There's much more but you're already to overloaded with facts to remember. That's ok, you can just stick with "go Vplm".....that's pretty intelligent......oh shit, wait, someone else has that one. How bout "I think we can! I think we can! I think we can!
That's just the beginning... for those who have been here for 10 plus years, we have heard it all from this clown..
I'm relatively new & relatively unknowledgable about this stuff. If you have a buyer, must then be a seller & vice-versa, right? So when u say buyers, no selling, what does that mean.. buy or sell from MM's?
His very first post is above... 4 years after that post, he claimed to have 10 years experience trading... it's lies like that you catch over the years...
Patents will never get approved, VPLM will never go after the bigs, VPLM didn't send out any infringement letters, VPLM will never win the IPRs...He questions every step of the way and once he has been proven wrong on a subject, never acknowledges, just moves on to some other end of days negative he has come up with...
called scam at .008, didn't sell all out at .35, 2 years later at .45.... that says it all
Why would anyone listen to NYT when he claims to be a shareholder, yet has spent 12 years and over 12,000 posts berating it?
No, it's a simple matter of delegating.. The shares are currently (not for long) worth .017. The patents are worth nothing. No one will buy them ever since they were created (except of course digi-phony-ca and Vplm). Not even license.. That is the true and undeniable test of value, ie, whether or not a product on the market, in this case, for many years...can sell OR NOT. VPLM is a definite OR NOT! The fact o matter is Vplm sells shares not patents. They couldn't sell a patent to a shoe leather company... Vplm is in the shares business and always has been. The patents, incl 573 ipr wins are nothing more than a story, a front to bounce off. Do you want to buy any Vplm patents?? Shareholders own shares not patents.
He lacks the intelligence to come up with something new. His tired argument is it won’t happen because it hasn’t happened yet.
Yes, I'll be happy to "Get back to you when they get financial judgements that are in-line with the "billions and billions of ongoing" infringements that the CEO has spoken about. If I don't get back to you, then it's a complete failure and confirmation that the patents aren't worth near as claimed".
You can stop cutting and pasting same ole line.
The other not so clear point in the continuing concern with Huawei is how the U.S. government would react if they were the company wanting to purchase rights to VPLM patents.
Would or could the FTC or Commerce Dept disallow? Don’t know the answer, just thinking out loud.
So that means you had a 25 minute conversation with 85% of the people on this board, including yourself...
Boy that caped crusader figured it all out..
Yeah, patents worth .017 That's really something to get excited about isn't it. Are you really that desperate? Get back to me when they get financial judgements that are in-line with the "billions and billions of ongoing" infringements that the CEO has spoken about. If not then it's a complete failure and confirmation that the patents aren't worth near as claimed.
VOIP-PAL.COM INC v. Huawei Technologies Co LTD et al
Texas Northern District Court
Judge: Brantley Starr
Case #: 3:23-cv-00151
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: Jan 20, 2023
Case in other court: Texas Western, 6:21-cv-01247
Docket
Parties (6)
Docket last updated: 7 hours ago
Thursday, May 09, 2024
122 motion Dismiss Thu 05/09 1:20 PM
Joint MOTION to Dismiss All Claims filed by Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co Ltd, Huawei Device Co Ltd, Huawei Device USA Inc, Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, Huawei Technologies USA Inc (Cornelia, Matthew)
Att: 1 Proposed Order
Tuesday, May 07, 2024
121 1 pgs order Order Tue 05/07 10:49 AM
ORDER: The parties are hereby ORDERED to pay Daniel Denton three-thousand, seven-hundred and forty-five dollars ($3,745.00) within 14 calendar days of the date this order is entered. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 5/7/2024) (agc)
Thursday, May 02, 2024
120 notice Notice (Other) Thu 05/02 1:27 PM
NOTICE of Special Master's Certification of Hours and Costs filed by Special Master (Denton, Daniel)
119 2 pgs order Order of Dismissal or Administrative Closure Thu 05/02 9:50 AM
30-DAY DISMISSAL ORDER: The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all claims by all parties subject to the parties right to reopen the litigation within those 30 days if the settlement is not consummated. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 5/2/2024) (kaf)
Glad to see he is sooooo busy, huh? 25 minutes with a failed stockbroker, hmmmm. Hope you gave him tons of your expert advice. LMAO!!! 🤡
25 minute conversation with Rich today. He is well!
Ah! I didn't hear about the news regarding Huawei laptops; do you have a link to it?
Great stuff!!
Butters, you must think of the Chinese mindset. I believe the fast turnaround was to secure a negotiating timeline that provides Huawei with four weeks of vplm focus. The question is …. are they dealing directly on infringement/licensing or a total buyout. Based on today’s news of US concerns/actions again with Huawei concerning their new line of laptops with imbedded AI, I can definitely see Huawei wanting a leg up on world wide voip usage.
Also, and if you care to focus on the filings, there's not been a peep on the Amazon front in almost 5 months (other than lawyer shuffling, which also could be indicative in and of itself), but who knows. That's on the heels of the exparte re-exam win and an amazon motion to dismiss based on the pleadings which is a good one.
I'm thinking discovery should've been finished there by now, but not sure. The crickets there is curious to me!
What if VP were to say to Huawei "well, we can't license/settle at this time, cause we're in buyout talks with one of your current competitors and they may want to reopen the case against Huawei". I bet that'd be a good dig of the spur.
On top of Str8t's reminder I'd just like to point out that it appeared that (based on the rapid succession of the 101 motion denial and then joint motion stay/dismissal) Huawei was VERY eager to get this case stayed/dismissed. Literally the day after the 101 motion denial, the stay request was filed.
Tuesday, April 30, 2024:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying79 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 4/30/2024) (agc)
Wednesday, May 01, 2024:
Joint MOTION to Stay and Vacate Deadlines filed by Huawei Device
Great reminder! VP definitely has the upper hand here in negotiations. Hopefully we hear how much so when the deal is done.
Just a reminder:
May 02, 2024
Huawei Can't Get VoIP-Pal Patents Axed Under Alice
A Northern District of Texas judge has shot down Huawei's motion that two VoIP-Pal.com patents on initiating mobile phone calls are invalid under the Alice standard for claiming only abstract ideas.
But you are ignoring the fact that it hasn't happened for thousands of years. That makes a given that it will never happen. And tomorrow I plan to invest in a new stock.....but that is impossible because I have never done it before. (all sarcasm)
Until the COURT says this is or isn't infringement, we are left with a bunch of opinions. Because the law says an infringement is determined by a court.....not some message board.
Exactly my original point.
Why would anyone listen to someone that claims to own a stock, and yet spends 12 years and writes over 12,000 posts berating it?
The only argument the bears have is it is not going to happen because it hasn't happened yet.
Just wait and watch the fireworks. Go VPLM!!
The shares are worth what they buy and sell for but the patents themselves are worthless. They have proven that by never having made a dime since they were created. The only thing that's made money IS THE BULLSHIT STORY that you believe in.
Vplm creates shares out of thin air. It's called fiat shares. They are backed by zippo. Then they tell the shareholders and/or potential shareholders, big whopper stories to get them believing and buying. They also have taken many shares for themselves and sell them at great profits. That's known as the insider personal ATM.
The patents have no value whatsoever and that's why no one has ever bought them or licensed or settled in the near 20 yrs since they were allegedly created at a cost of 17 or 18 million dollars. The only entities who ever saw any value in them was digi-phony-ca and Vplm, who got rid of them as soon as they got them, realizing what a hot potato they were except Vplm hasn't been able to off them because that's not their true goal anyway. Their goal is to keep working the story and selling shares. They have done amazingly well at that.
It's both amazing and uncanny, how many if you lie, twist and mislead about what I've said. I've never said I used to be a shareholder, I've always said I am a shareholder. Obviously, you either don't comprehend too well or you don't even read and just rely on what others tell you.. Or, you simply choose to lie. I think you're guilty of all of them whenever your lips are moving, so to speak. I also never said I made huge profits. 1st I recouped my on paper losses, then made a good profit and I also used the money for things I can show for it, so I did good and had plenty left over. Your above statements are as bogus as Vplm is. Then, you go on to say that after I made my profits, I stuck around to troll others who want to do the same. Lololol.....omg, where is the logic in that? That's truly ludicrous thinking. You don't know how to think straight thus you come up with utterly ridiculous scenarios like that. What would I have to gain to turn my losses around and make good, which I most certainly did do....and then decide the thing to do next is to hang around for years and try to stop others from doing the same! Wow...! How backwards can thinking be? Apparently, you're expanding the envelope. I get alot of entertainment here. It's one of my reasons to be here, but that kind of thinking sounds like drain bamage... And then, as if that's not crazy enough, you top it off with the mommy recognition thing... Its a good thing that ppl like you step up and show the world what you're about. The dumbing down of America (as well as other places) is very very real.
And will you apologize for totally misquoting me and misleading others? Of course not cuz that's the kinda guy you are... But considering who the cult leader is, ie, lord emu of eGipped and the lies and misdirection he and other bod have promulagated, and how good he's been about it, it's not surprising the type of following he's garnered, so there's that.
VPLM IS A MIRAGE... THE CLOSER YOU GET, THE MORE IT WILL FADE AWAY...
VPLM PROVES THE FACT THAT NOTHING IS REALLY SOLID...SOLID IS JUST AN ILLUSION.
It's simple math equation .017 > 0.0 How can you say the patents are worth Nothing! The patents are currently worth .017/share.
Right, all I'm saying is the trials are not about validation, they are solely about infringement. And strangely enough, I think it's possible to show infringement even if the patent is a dud and can't do what it claims. If it can be shown, regardless of that possibility, that the defendant is indeed using the patented technology, then he still could be found to be infringement. That's my opinion, my guess because it's logical. But I'm not a lawyer or judge. It's an interesting concept. The trials are to show infringement. So what if infringement can be shown and later, it can also be shown that the patent doesn't actually accomplish its stated abilities? Would that automatically invalidate the patent and reverse the infringement ruling? I doubt it. And what if an infringement ruling is made "with predudice"?? Whatever the case may be, it should be interesting. But hey, it looks more and more every day that ea case will have a settlement similar to the Amazon case, ie, another JOKE ON THE SHAREHOLDERS WHO WILL BE PISSED ON.
First, you saying "as you claim".... Implies you don't believe what I say, so no point in answering your questions, now is there? Duh.
2nd, "cutting nose off to spite face" is dumb assumption. Easy to show why.. I am a long shareholder and I'm far from stupid, so why would I share my sentiments. You figure it out. I already know why and like I said, no point in explaining anything to those who don't believe you. That would be dumb. I'll say this though... Anyone who believes that what peeps say, in general, on this msg board.....greatly affects the pps, well..... I think that's dumb....in general, unless the person who speaks his mind here has very good points and info that is factual and believable and important. In that case, then yes, there's gonna possibly be some effect. But by the same token, if it's pro sentiments posted and they are convincing enough, then same applies to pro or con posts. And......there are far more pro posts than my negative ones so the net effect would be to drive price up. BOOM! And you don't hear me whining daily about THEM, now do you? No, you don't. So that leaves you deep in the dust where you don't know why I post my sentiments AND I am not doing a thing to the price which is easy to see. That said, if I ever cause someone to not buy into this ripoff debacle, then I did good. But that has never been my purpose. That thought has never crossed my mind. I have no desire to cause anyone to buy or sell any stock, especially not this one. I've stated that numerous times. It's against my better judgment to give ANY buy/sell advice. Afaic, that's wholly the decision of the potential buyer/seller, period.
So as you can see (well, you can't see because you're blinded by your disbelief in what I say, so for the sake of truth in spite of you...), you're batting 1,000. Minus 1,000, that is. And don't look now but it does indeed make sense, just not to you. I can only wonder, if to you, it doesn't make sense, then you must have SOME kind of conclusion... Hmmm... what could it be? Must be that overused, worn out and lowbrow idea that I'm a paid shill or something along those lines. Sorry, not the case. But what if I was? So what? Would that change my right to be here and say what I will? Of course it wouldn't because this board is not your pollyanna playground. It's not expressly for cheerleaders. It's not even for shareholders only. It's for anyone who for any reason wants to come here and express themselves or share what they believe to be useful info or to be pro or con.......as long as IT'S ABOUT THE COMPANY. And I post about the company. You are posting about me. I have backed up everything I've had to say about Vplm with whatever proofs, beliefs, connected dots, opinions, that I have, rather than just throwing them out there. And I've also said many times that 8 could be wrong and hope I am WAY more than right, since I'm long. In fact I have zero hope that I'm right, I simply call it the way I see it. And I see very straight.
Lastly, I have previously on many occasions, posted ALL the reasons I here and post here. Not my fault if you don't believe. I'm not here to make anyone believe anything. I'm here merely to express my thoughts. Don't like it? Don't read it. Pretty simple.
Ta-tah
You are correct, it is about the value (or lack thereof) of the patents and the infringements on them which seems to equate to a whole lot of nothing.
This trial with Verizon will not validate anything. Wager .02? You obviously didn't read my comment abut the claims by the CEO and the revenues associated with what he has said. My challenge stands. Get back to me when they get financial judgements that are in-line with the "billions and billions of ongoing" infringements that the CEO has spoken about. If not then it's a complete failure and confirmation that the patents aren't worth near as claimed.
Followers
|
464
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
23
|
Posts (Total)
|
133563
|
Created
|
06/16/10
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators Sheepdog GreenBackClub Russ777 Spyke37 |
11810 NE 34th Street
Bellevue, WA 98005
Estimated Market Cap $27,166,417 As of November 05, 2021
Authorized Shares 3,000,000,000 As of October 18, 2021
Outstanding Shares 1,951,330,092 As of Feburary 28, 2019
Outstanding Shares 1,731,447,863 As of October 18, 2021
(Shares outstanding dropped by 219mm++)******
Float 831,342,791 As of September 23, 2021
Revenues: $0 to date.
Voip-Pal's intellectual property value is derived from ten (10) issued USPTO patents including five parent patents, one of which is foundational and the others which build upon the former.
The five (5) core patents are:
1.) Routing, Billing & Rating ("RBR");
2.) Lawful Intercept;
3.) Enhanced E-911;
4.) Mobile Gateway; and
5.) Uninterrupted Transmission
The Voip-Pal inventions described in the ten-patent portfolio provide the means to integrate VoIP services with any of the Telco systems to create a seamless service using either legacy telephone numbers of IP addresses, and enhance the performance and value of VoIP implementations worldwide.
The Voip-Pal patented technology provides Universal numbering ubiquity; network value as defined by Metcalfe; the imperative of interconnect, termination, and recompense for delivery of calls by other networks; regulatory compliance in regulated markets; interconnection of VoIP networks to mobile and fixed networks; and maintenance of uninterrupted VoIP calls across fixed, mobile, and WiFi networks.
While there are several popular VoIP implementations, VoIP is utilized in many other lesser-known places and by practically every modern telephony system vendor, network supplier, and retail and wholesale carrier.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13148084&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13146397&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13146353&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13145009&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13144993&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13110545&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13110507&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099496&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099423&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099381&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING! COMPANY CONTINUES TO RAISE AS AND OS WITH NO REVENUES IN SIGHT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VPLM'S CASE DISMISSED BUT WILL BE APPEALED.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/VPLM/news/Voip-Palcom-Reports-Decision-in-the-Alice-101-Motion?id=222536
https://www.scribd.com/document/403267736/VOIP-PAL-Obviousness-Ruling
BELLEVUE, Wash., April 16, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) announced that at a meeting of the Board of Directors on April 15, 2019, the Directors of Voip-Pal unanimously rejected a formal offer from Dr. Gil Amelio and his associates to take over management of the Company. Part of the offer provided options to purchase only the stock owned by Voip-Pal’s CEO, Emil Malak. Fully exercised, the options would have paid Mr. Malak approximately $150 million for his shares of Voip-Pal stock.
Voip-Pal’s Board of Directors including CEO, Emil Malak, carefully considered the offer but unanimously voted to reject this proposal; however, the Company is open to further discussions with Dr Amelio. Voip-Pal is actively pursuing the sale of all of Voip-Pal’s shares, on behalf of the more than 4500 shareholders, not just the shares owned by Mr. Malak.
Dr. Amelio has held prominent positions with various technology companies, including serving as the CEO and Chairman of Apple Computer, (1996-1997), President, CEO and Chairman of National Semiconductor, and President of Rockwell Communication Systems. He has also served on the board of directors of several companies including Apple, (1994-1996), AT&T, (1995-2013) and Interdigital. He received a Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, and Ph.D. in physics from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Amelio has been awarded 16 patents and a 17th is pending.
Renowned patent and IP expert, William Sweet is one of Dr. Amelio’s associates on this proposal. According to Dr. Gil Amelio, Mr. Sweet and his team have conducted extensive research on Voip-Pal’s patent portfolio.
Emil Malak, Voip-Pal CEO, “We have great respect for Dr. Gil Amelio and his team and we are very pleased to know they see such value in our patents or they would not have tendered this offer. We are currently focused on our legal appeal to the recent Alice 101 decision as well as finalizing our strategy to move forward in Europe. In the meantime we are working diligently to add to our patent portfolio with patent continuation applications. Patience is a virtue.”
About Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB:VPLM) headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Corporate Website: www.voip-pal.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
“Courts should never be tasked with dealing with the complexities of patent validity because they lack the necessary technical expertise.”
I am Emil Malak, CEO of VoIP-Pal.com Inc., and a named inventor on two U.S. patents–Mobile Gateway: US 8,630,234& Electrostatic Desalinization and Water Purification: US 8,016,993. To date, our company owns 22 issued and or allowed patents, which we developed over the past 15 years. Against all odds, we have been 100% successful in defending eight Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs): four from Apple, three from AT&T, and one from Unified Patents. We are presently in litigation against Apple, Verizon, AT&T, Twitter and Amazon.
My experience with Voip-Pal has made it painfully clear that the deck has been stacked against companies who own IP being used without license by large tech companies. The America Invents Act (AIA), orchestrated by Silicon Valley, was designed to destroy the very ladder they climbed to ascend to their lofty perch, and make certain that they could not be challenged.
Owning a patent used to be the dream of every small inventor in America. For more than 200 years, the intellectual property rights of American inventors—both big and small—were protected by patent laws that encouraged innovation and risk-taking for the promise of reaping financial rewards for their inventions. That all changed in 2011 with the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which has since caused irreparable harm to the United States’ patent system and has stacked the deck against the little guy in favor of the Silicon Valley and other giants. Post grant reviews of issued patents existed prior to the AIA, but the AIA, through the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Inter Partes Review (IPR) created a post grant review process hostile towards patent owners. The lack of oversight, appointment of judges with apparent conflicts of interest, and allowing unlimited challenges to a single patent regardless of standing are just a few of the changes that placed a heavy hand on the scales of justice weighing in favor of Silicon Valley.
At the time, members of Congress said they were enacting legislation that would strengthen and streamline patent protection law, passing it by overwhelming majorities of 71% in the House and 95% in the Senate. However, eight years after its passage, the evidence clearly shows they have crippled the patent system.
This was never about streamlining the patent system—in fact, it has had the opposite effect. Instead of going into court to adjudicate an infringement case based upon the merits of the granted claims, the process is all about stalling, obfuscating, and forcing small companies to burn through their capital fighting a system that has been paid for by Silicon Valley. The AIA provided the legal mechanism for the Silicon Valley and others to destroy small companies and inventors, drain their limited resources and drive them out of business.
Small patent owners often engage in the futile effort of attempting to license their patents. Discussions with big tech companies are mostly fruitless and usually prove to be nothing more than a delay tactic by the infringer. The inventor is then forced to turn to the courts for enforcement and sues the unlicensed user of the technology. A lawsuit by the patent owner will usually trigger the IPR process. More often than not, the infringer will succeed in revoking all or part of the asserted patent. Even if the infringer fails in their efforts to cancel the patent, they will have succeeded in stalling as much as 18 months, costing the inventor precious capital, and knocking many out of business.
Courts should never be tasked with dealing with the complexities of patent validity because they lack the necessary technical expertise. Patent validity issues such as sections 101, 102, 103, indefiniteness, and all other technical matters should be decided prior to a patent being issued by technically qualified examiners at the USPTO, not by the court. Once issued, a patent should only be challengeable at the USPTO, and only for a predetermined period, i.e. six months. The courts should only decide matters of infringement and damages.
No aspects of patent law should ever be subjective. Congress can fix the inconsistencies between the USPTO and the courts and put them on the same page by passing laws that clearly define patent validity guidelines, i.e. what is abstract. Life in the 21st century is dependent on computers. Consequently, many software-centric patents adding new inventive steps are being developed, only to be labeled abstract by the courts and invalidated. The lack of uniformity is responsible for nullifying valuable patents and strengthening the chokehold the Silicon Valley has on the necks of small inventors. Courts should only deal with infringement and damages based solely on clearly these defined guidelines.
Director Iancu has a very tough job ahead. He inherited a broken system, heavily biased against the little guy. Since taking the reins he has made positive changes and has shown his commitment to leveling the playing field for all inventors. He recently published revised 101 guidelines for his department that he hopes will lead to changes in how the Federal Circuit views eligibility under 101. To date, the courts have refused to apply the USPTO’s guidelines.
The current rigged system is killing innovation in the United States. In this time of special prosecutors, it is appropriate for one to be appointed to investigate exactly how we got here. There are many questions that need to be answered:
After spending the last 15 years dealing with patent issues, my advice to inventors and small companies is to not waste their time and money spinning their wheels in the current patent system. It takes too many years and often millions of dollars to secure a patent, only to have it taken away by a hostile IPR process. The USPTO has the most technically competent examiners in the world. These highly qualified experts in their field work diligently to issue quality patents, only to have their work erased by the PTAB and the courts. Despite their efforts, the value of the patents they carefully issue is often worth less than toilet paper. The AIA has reduced once valuable patent ownership into a fraudulent representation of what it used to signify.
While the Silicon Valley conspires to steal intellectual property and stifle innovation, supported by the PTAB and the court system, China’s Shenzhen is emerging as a technical powerhouse; with plans to install 7,000 new 5G base stations this year alone. If the Silicon Valley continues their suppression of technological innovation, they will be displaced by Shenzhen as the hi-tech leaders of the world.
If the United States is to lead the world again in patent protection and innovation, the AIA must first be repealed and replaced with a set of laws that protect innovators and offers them the opportunity to profit from their inventions. The patent issuance process should be streamlined. It currently takes many years to issue a single patent, often followed by several years and potentially millions of dollars in post-grant defense costs. Reduce the issue time to one year and allow a six-month post-issue period for any challenges, which should all be handled by technical experts at the USPTO. The USPTO can fund these changes by increasing patent filing and issue fees. It is preferable for an inventor to spend $30,000 in fees for a patent’s issue within a reasonable amount of time than to get stuck in a process that takes years for issuance followed by more years and millions of dollars to defend.
Is Silicon Valley attempting to turn us into a corporatocracy through massive political contributions and their influence over policy making? Have they become too big and too controlling? Does the AIA rise to the level of fostering antitrust and anti-competitive practices described in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890)? Did its passage by Congress and its eventual implementation violate any antitrust or anti-competitive laws? Was the AIA a collaboration between paid politicians, the Silicon Valley and the USPTO to stifle competition? Only a special prosecutor can answer these questions.
Some have made the case that the AIA has all the ingredients of antitrust. It has undoubtedly given the upper hand to the infringers and makes it nearly impossible for the small inventor to monetize their inventions and intellectual property. One thing is certain; if the AIA had been in place 40 years ago, the world would never have known Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell or Mark Zuckerberg. The tech giants of the time, IBM and Texas Instruments, would have used the PTAB to eliminate them in the same way Apple and Google do today.
It’s time to take a serious look at breaking up monopolistic corporations like Facebook, Google and Amazon. Facebook and Google, especially, control the flow of information in the United States and worldwide. They are restricting the free flow of ideas, news and opinions, and manipulate search engine and newsfeed results for their own purposes. With some obvious exceptions like child pornography, sex trafficking, drugs and harmful scams, they should not be the arbiters that decide which information people receive. They have to cease in being a political platform. Information should flow freely without going through a corporation’s biased filters.
Recently, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and Silicon Valley investor and former mentor to Mark Zuckerberg, Roger McNamee, have publicly called for the breakup of Facebook. In addition to Facebook, McNamee is also calling for the breakup of Google and Amazon, which he says have all undermined democracy, violated user privacy and gained monopoly power. The transformation of the U.S. patent system over the past decade is evidence of the harm caused when companies like these are allowed to monopolize their industries. These powerful providers of information have become “governments in waiting.” Capitalism only thrives when the rules encourage innovation and competition.
I am not making accusations. I am only hoping that we can dig deep and get to the bottom of what happened that caused the radical transformation of American patent law and injured so many inventors and stakeholders. We need the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate these matters. Every day I wake up and work diligently to move Voip-Pal forward towards monetization. We are no stranger to the landmines which have been laid by the AIA, but we will keep battling until we succeed. As long as I am breathing, I will continue to fight for each of the more than 4,600 shareholders I represent. America will always be the greatest country for freedom and justice in the world.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Photo by iqoncept
ID: 10088061
Emil Malak is the largest single shareholder of Voip-Pal.com, Inc., a publicly traded company where he serves as a Director and Chief Executive Officer. He has spent the last 16 years overseeing the development of the company’s intellectual property comprised of more than twenty telecommunications patents in the United States and several international patents in Europe, India, Canada and Indonesia. In addition to his work as Voip-Pal’s CEO, Mr. Malak has spent the last 7 years involved with a medical research team of doctors, serving as the chairman of the board of Thorne BioMed Ltd. They are currently conducting cancer research in Germany where they are committed to pursuing a possible reduction to cancer metastasis.
For more information or to contact Emil, please visit his company profile page.
www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/05/28/1851157/0/en/Voip-Pal-com-Announces-the-Patent-Trial-and-Appeal-Board-Rejected-Apple-s-Request-for-Rehearing.html
BELLEVUE, Washington, May 28, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to provide an update on its current legal activities:
Recently, Voip-Pal CEO, Emil Malak authored an op-ed on the current status of the United States patent system. In his article, Mr. Malak calls for revamping the current patent system and praises the efforts of USPTO Director Andrei Iancu, who Mr. Malak believes is determined to correct the problems at the USPTO to better protect inventors and encourage innovation.
The op-ed was published on IPWatchdog.com. IPWatchdog.com has been recognized by their peers as “one of the leading sources for news, information, analysis and commentary in the patent and innovation industries”. The article can be viewed on IPWatchdog.com or at the Company’s website www.voip-pal.com
CEO, Emil Malak, stated, “We are very pleased with the PTAB’s decision to deny Apple’s request for a rehearing. For the second time in recent months three senior PTAB judges have sided with Voip-Pal. They have confirmed the two challenged patents on their merits and rejected Apple’s accusations and innuendo. Since we launched our first legal actions in 2016 our patents have been heavily challenged and we expect more challenges may come. We are very confident in the strength of our patents and we believe they will survive any challenges that may come our way based on their technical merits.”
“The current patent system favors the tech giants of Silicon Valley making it difficult for small companies to assert their patents against infringement. However, we are determined to see this through until the very end. The defendants, Apple, Verizon, AT&T, Twitter and Amazon are working together and will do whatever they can to drag this process out. We want everyone to know we are not going away. We will continue this fight until we reach a settlement, sell the Company or have our day in court. Eventually the defendants will have to deal with us and our patents will prevail. Patience is a virtue”
About Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Any forecast of future financial performance is a "forward looking statement" under securities laws. Such statements are included to allow potential investors the opportunity to understand management’s beliefs and opinions with respect to the future so that they may use such beliefs and opinions as one factor among many in evaluating an investment.
Corporate Website: www.voip-pal.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
THE PTAB IS FINALLY DONE!!! VPLM 8-0 VS Unified Patents, T and BIGGEST, LONGEST CHALLENGES OF ALL...aapl! aapl LOSES!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OS HAS DROPPED TO 1.75B. CEOS
BUYOUT OFFER, EMIL WAS OFFERED $150m.
Voip-Pal’s Board of Directors Has Rejected a Formal Offer from Dr. Gil Amelio and Associates to Purchase CEO Emil Malak’s Shares and Take Over Control of the Company
VPLMs data shows they are out of cash, commonsense is VERY concerned over this. The last Q alone cost $974,427 in expenses and they have $390,025 left. Sell shares machine in full effect. They made a bunch off that initial Pump and Dump cycle and burning through it since. But now, they can't get the price over $.03 really because the weight of the OS is too high, so millions more need to be dumped EVERY single month going forward.
*******WARNING ********
FALSE CLAIMS BEING MADE IN ORDER TO LOWER VPLM PPS
ALL LAWSUITS ARE MOVING FORWARD THROUGH
APPEAL OR OTHERWISE
EUROPEAN UNION IS UP NEXT, SHORTLY
VERY SIMPLE VPLM THEME:
VPLM HAS BEEN GRANTED 26 PATENTS IN THE U.S., THE E.U., INDIA, INDONESIA, BRAZIL AND CANADA!
VPLM WILL PROSECUTE THOSE PATENTS AND HAS GONE 8-0 IN PATENT CHALLENGES AT PTAB
VPLM HAS NEVER MADE A NEW LOW UNDER EMIL MALAK, ALTHOUGH VPLM HAS MADE THREE NEW HIGHS UNDER EMIL
NO QUESTION, VPLM IS VOLATILE; VPLM IS FIGHTING SOME OF THE LARGEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING
RETAIL SHAREHOLDERS INTERESTS DIMINISHING AND SHARES HITTING THE FLOAT CONSISTENTLY WITH TONS OF STOCK ISSUED OVER PAST YEARS!
DEFINITION OF TOXIC IN THIS ARENA! ITS RIGHT THERE IN THE FILING!
REMEMBER, VPLMS IP MIGHT BE WORTH BILLIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Continued chaos about the patent eligibility of non-physical technological advancements imposes devastating costs on innovators and industry.” – InvestPic counsel, Bill Abrams
On May 15, SAP America, Inc. filed a respondent’s brief with the Supreme Court in InvestPic, LLC v. SAP America Inc., a case in which InvestPic’s patent claims covering systems and methods for performing statistical analyses of investment information were invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Petitioner InvestPic is asking the nation’s highest court to determine whether the “physical realm” test for patent eligibility under Section 101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied contravenes both the Patent Act and SCOTUS precedent. SAS’ brief contends in response that the mentions of “physical realm” are scant in the case record and that the present case provides a “textbook application” of Supreme Court precedent on claims involving mathematical equations.
InvestPic’s U.S. Patent No. 6349291, Method and System for Analysis, Display and Dissemination of Financial Information Using Resampled Statistical Methods claims a method that involves selecting a sample space, including an investment data sample, generating a distribution function using a re-sampled statistical method and a bias parameter that determines a degree of randomness in a resampling process, and generating a plot of the distribution function. SAP America filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ‘291 patent in the Northern District of Texas in 2016 and, in 2017, the district court declared the challenged claims invalid under Section 101 on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The Federal Circuit’s decision on appeal was first issued in May 2018, before the opinion was modified that August. In affirming the lower court’s invalidity findings, the CAFC panel of Circuit Judges Alan Lourie, Kathleen O’Malley and Richard Taranto noted that the appellate court may assume that claimed techniques are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant” yet may still be determined to be patent-ineligible subject matter:
“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.”
The Federal Circuit’s discussion of the non-physical aspects of InvestPic’s claimed invention mainly take place in the context of discussing other cases decided by the appellate court in which physical aspects of the claimed invention led to determinations that the invention was patent-eligible. In 2016’s McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., the challenged claims were directed to the display of lip synchronization and facial expressions of animated characters, which the court determined was physical, unlike InvestPic’s invention, which claimed no improved display mechanism. Likewise, in 2017’s Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, the claimed improvement was implemented in a physical tracking system. By contrast, the Federal Circuit held that InvestPic’s improvement in the selection and mathematical analysis of information followed by display of the results wasn’t an improvement in the physical realm despite the fact that some claims required databases or processors.
InvestPic’s petition contends that the Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement ignores the primacy of preemption avoidance in Section 101 jurisprudence stemming from Supreme Court case law. In 19th Century cases such as Le Roy v. Tatham (1852) and O’Reilly v. Morse (1853), the Supreme Court struck down patent claims that were overbroad in a way that would preempt future innovation. However, in 1981’s Diamond v. Diehr, the Court upheld claims involving a mathematical equation because only a specific application of the equation was claimed. The Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement is detached from Section 101 preemption jurisprudence, InvestPic argues, despite the fact that preemption concerns are at the center of the Alice patent eligibility test in which the “physical realm” requirement was applied.
InvestPic also contends that the Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement exists in conflict with Congressional allowance of patents on novel processes that are executed by computers. Section 101 of the U.S. patent law allows for the issue of a patent for a “new and useful process” and “process” as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 100(b) includes “a new use of a known process,” such as the ‘291 patent’s use of the known process of resampling in the new application for investment portfolio analysis. Changes to U.S. patent law under the 2011 America Invents Act didn’t amend the definition of “process” in Section 100 and the patent-eligibility of inventions that didn’t exist in the physical realm led to the proliferation of calculator patents in the 1970s and digital patents in the 1990s, the latter period including the “PageRank” algorithm granted to Google.
The application of Section 101 jurisprudence has led to major patent-eligibility concerns in valuable and rapidly growing tech sectors. InvestPic cites to data published in July 2016 by IPWatchdog Founder Gene Quinn, which showed extremely low allowance rates in certain tech sectors post-Alice, including a 1.3 percent allowance rate in Art Unit 3689, which covers financial data processing patent applications. InvestPic also cites an October 2018 guest post on PatentlyO penned by Santa Clara University Law School Professor Colleen Chien which showed that art units affected by Alice saw a rise in office actions that rejected applications on Section 101 grounds, from 25% of all rejections pre-Alice up to 75% after the Alice decision.
The lack of predictability in patent-eligibility matters has led the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to release revised guidance on Section 101 eligibility this January. InvestPic cites this updated guidance as a result of the “crisis for invention posed by the lower courts’ [Section] 101 morass.” Petitioners also argue that the present case presents an ideal vehicle to restore consistency of the application of Section 101. Unlike the claims in Alice, the invention covered by the ‘291 patent claims is not a trivial coding project and the patent survived Section 102 anticipation and Section 103 obviousness challenges in reexamination proceedings at the USPTO, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and an appeal of those proceedings to the Federal Circuit, says InvestPic. Further, the ‘291 patent has been cited by more than 50 other issued patents, proving both the narrowness and non-preemptive nature of the patent claims.
In SAP America’s response brief, filed May 15, it argues that InvestPic overstates the application of the “physical realm” requirement, as the phrase only appears twice in the Federal Circuit’s decision. A “cursory look at the patent claims” defeats the physical realm argument, as they require physical elements such as databases and processors, which the Federal Circuit held to be generic computing components. SAP also argues that the decision is consistent with 80 years of Supreme Court precedent on the patent-ineligibility of mathematical expressions or formulas in cases such as Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America (1939), Gottschalk v. Benson(1972) and Parker v. Flook (1978).
Because InvestPic’s patent claims elements in the physical realm, SAP argues that the present case isn’t a suitable vehicle for deciding the issue of the Federal Circuit’s test. SAP also cites Federal Circuit decisions following InvestPic in which software patent claims have been upheld as eligible under Section 101, thus contradicting the notion that the appellate court has adopted such a test; these decisions include Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. and Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC (both 2018).
SAP further pushes back against InvestPic’s contention that an intra-circuit split on the application of Aliceexists. InvestPic had cited cases such as DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.(2014) and Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (2015) to argue that some Federal Circuit panels held that the absence of preemption conferred patent-eligibility, while others held that preemption was only relevant as a factor. “To be sure, some of these decisions discuss preemption in greater depth,” SAP argues, but none of the cases expressly held what InvestPic contended. While InvestPic’s claims survived Section 102 and Section 103 challenges in other proceedings, SAP notes that Section 101 statutory subject matter is a different matter than Section 102 novelty, noting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012) expressly refused patent-eligibility inquiries outside of Section 101.
Bill Abrams of Foster Pepper PLLC’s Intellectual Property Group and Counsel of Record for InvestPic in its appeal to the Supreme Court, sent the following comments to IPWatchdog:
“InvestPic v. SAP Americainvolves perhaps the most important issue in patent law today—what it means for an idea to be ‘abstract.’ Are software and other computer-implemented inventions ‘abstract’ and, therefore, ineligible for patenting? The answer dramatically impacts patent law and innovation across our modern, digital economy….
“Despite the Supreme Court’s preemption test to determine if an invention is an ineligible abstract idea, the Federal Circuit, in InvestPic and other cases, evaluated the physicality or tangibility of inventive ideas, rather than if the claimed invention would preempt basic fields of technology. This competing understanding of what constitutes an ‘abstract idea’ has resulted in irreconcilable decisions by different Federal Circuit panels. The ensuing uncertainty has made it nearly impossible to predict what inventions are eligible for patent protection. Such uncertainty damages the predictability of the incentive structure that is so central to the United States’ innovation landscape.
“This is why 18 amici, in seven separate briefs, have urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hear this case. The amici recognize the “physical realm” test’s potential to gut patent protection in some of the highest-growth sectors of our economy….
“Continued chaos about the patent-eligibility of non-physical technological advancements imposes devastating costs on innovators and industry. Review and intervention by the Supreme Court would bring much-needed clarity and stability to this vital question of law affecting digital innovations at the heart of our modern economy.”
In the meantime, the coming weekshould provide an indication of whether or not Congress will get to the matter first.
Steve Brachmann is a freelance journalist located in Buffalo, New York. He has worked professionally as a freelancer for more than a decade. He writes about technology and innovation. His work has been published by The Buffalo News, The Hamburg Sun, USAToday.com, Chron.com, Motley Fool and OpenLettersMonthly.com. Steve also provides website copy and documents for various business clients and is available for research projects and freelance work.
Tags:CAFC, Capitol Hill, Congress, Federal Circuit, innovation, intellectual property, InvestPic LLC, McRo v. Bandai Namco Games America, patent, patent eligibility, patent eligible, Patent Reform, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, PTAB, SAP America v. InvestPic, SCOTUS, US Supreme Court
Posted In:Capitol Hill, Courts, Federal Circuit, Government, Inventors Information, IP News, IPWatchdog Articles, Litigation, Patents, Technology & Innovation, US Supreme Court, USPTO
GOVERNMENTAL/LEGISLATIVE TIDE TURNING IN
VPLM'S FAVOR?
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |