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.
Anyone plans on being at the Trial?
$.017 Spoke briefly with Rich and he is as excited as ever. The team has been working day and night on something which seems to be quite close, but exactly when/what would just be a guess!
The new claims are not the big thing, but helpful in hopefully pushing VPLM to a climax we will all be happy with.
Always great speaking with Rich and we normally go on longer, but he is beat. The whole team is working for all our benefit!
Let's bump it a nickel...Target: $.75..
$5 BILLION DAMAGES vs. Verizon, per Law360????
IMHO
2 1/2 months til 8/19. Let's freaking GO
Thanks GBC!
It could also mean that we will be hearing soon on settlement agreements involving both the MG and RBR patents. Any completed agreements with current defendants will likely have the others lining up.
Are these part of the August 2024 trials, or are these seperate cases to be tried after this year?
This is called “piling it on” knowing these two defendants are stuck in Waco. Would this be considered Check Mate?
I wonder how many years this lawsuit will take. Hoping for a nice pps increase soon!
NEW CASE FILED BY VPLM AGAINST VERIZON 5/30/2024
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al
Texas Western District Court
Case #: 6:24-cv-00299
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:100 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: May 30, 2024
Docket
Parties (5)
Docket last updated: 11 hours ago
Thursday, May 30, 2024
2 misc JS44 (Civil Cover Sheet) Submitted Thu 05/30 5:20 PM
JS44 (Civil Cover Sheet) submitted by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.. (Hudnell, Lewis)
1 41 pgs cmp Complaint Thu 05/30 5:19 PM
COMPLAINT ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ATXWDC-18825355). No Summons requested at this time, filed by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC..(Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Exhibit 1 to Complaint,
Att: 2 Exhibit 2 to Complaint,
Att: 3 Exhibit 3 to Complaint,
Att: 4 Exhibit 4 to Complaint,
Att: 5 Exhibit 5 to Complaint
That's SOu812 for sharing this with all of us!
https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/15707821
NEW CASE FILED BY VPLM AGAINST T-MOBILE 5/30/2024
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. TMobile USA, Inc.
Texas Western District Court
Case #: 6:24-cv-00298
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:100 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: May 30, 2024
Docket
Parties (2)
Docket last updated: 10 hours ago
Thursday, May 30, 2024
2 misc JS44 (Civil Cover Sheet) Submitted Thu 05/30 5:11 PM
JS44 (Civil Cover Sheet) submitted by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.. (Hudnell, Lewis)
1 54 pgs cmp Complaint Thu 05/30 5:09 PM
COMPLAINT ( Filing fee $ 405 receipt number ATXWDC-18825265). No Summons requested at this time, filed by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC..(Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Exhibit 1,
Att: 2 Exhibit 2,
Att: 3 Exhibit 3,
Att: 4 Exhibit 4,
Att: 5 Exhibit 5,
Att: 6 Exhibit 6,
Att: 7 Exhibit 7
Details please!
Here we go……more lawsuits with the RBR!
IMHO
Appreciate the updates DB. I have FOMO…bought more today!
$.01526 Folks, FOMO is not a basis for investing. Think VPLM is hinky...sell; a simple solution! It's like someone betting on a team they hate, in a sport they have zero clue of and whining about it. Difference here, the bookie is Mr. Market who is willing to refund some/all of the wager!
After a few contacts today, I AM AS CONFIDENT AS EVER! Too bad there are those bitching/moaning/whining who will get a payout too!
..........has, instead of gone up, as it should and would, if the patents were really all that, gone waaaay down from over $17 million to $5 million...
Do me a favor and google, the key to a debate... Just trying to teach those that don't seem to have a clue.... LOL!!!! coming after a company for 12 years and not ONCE address the patents... you can't make this stupidity up... honestly..
1 Clarity and relevance
This means that the debaters should present their arguments in a clear, logical, and coherent way, using appropriate language and evidence. They should also address the topic and the motion of the debate, and avoid irrelevant or tangential points.
Excuse my French but who in the hell is Turbo Buccaneer 10? With a name like that I'm thinking it's someone who's putting his boxers on backwards. Surely it's not the name that I post under. What a trip....
.
Are we having fun yet? Sorry to say that nothing changes getting beat up on the playground when you were little......
They sell to exercise their options to buy many more shares at .005. We all, including you, would do so with the same opportunity. I did so a year ago with such.
Wow, I got a 5 emoji rating from Sunspotter.
Must be doing something right.
"And Williams and Chang BUYING way up!"
And Williams and Chang BUYING way up!
You make a good point AZ...Alice is out of the equation. Alice will be a non-factor in a jury case.
Seriously???... good things already HAVE been coming!!!
Including 38/38 IPR battles WON and the removal of ALICE from the equation.
You must not understand how HUGE those wins are... the PTAB and Alice are the biggest threats to patents these days.
Not the "Big One" yet, but lots and lots of smaller ones... and NO bad ones IMO.
And on top of that.... if you had a supportive relationship with Rich and Emil, you might also know how excited they are about whatever is happening behind the scenes right now WHICH THEY CANNOT TALK ABOUT.
But you don't have that type of relationship with them, apparently, so you will have to trust those of us who do.
How can anyone argue that good things are coming.
Cool!....so the 2017 revision made by Vplm, shown below:
"The newly revised potential maximum total award to Voip-Pal to over one hundred two billion dollars ($102,570,231,360) .
Applying the updated damage award calculation method to Verizon and AT&T, the current damages sought from Verizon of more
than two billion dollars ($2,382,872,100) would in////crease to over seventeen billion dollars ($17,262,042,011) .
The current damages sought from AT&T would increase from more than one billion dollars ($1,804,795,745) to over thirteen billion
dollars ($13,540,863,431). "
..........has, instead of gone up, as it should and would, if the patents were really all that, gone waaaay down from over $17 million to $5 million....
Yup, that will get them lots of added respect from anyone following these "adjustments"...
I expect them to stuff emus wallet, like last time with nothing for shareholders.. It's the eGipption way!
Hey, isn't about time for another Dr Gil offer? Let's go...whoppers wanted. Inquire within...
I know it’s from a while back,
“ 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?”
What a moron
I know it's from last year but I just came across it...
You score double points on your comment "in my opinion (worth absolutely nothing)". Not only a worthless opinion (your words) but your prediction of a big payday was another big bust. So you get double points because even though you were as wrong as it gets (surprise!) but you were also right about being wrong! (when you said up front about your opinion being worthless). At 1st I thought you were saying Vplm was worthless, which would've made you triple right but you weren't saying that. But it's really cool how you hedge your predictions by prefacing your prediction with an auto-cancel, in case you turn out to be wrong, a tactic you have often used. Wow, what genius! Some of you guys are so friggin smart...
By the way, I predicted long ago that none of these bold positive predictions would come true......and guess what?......I've been proven right, over and over and over.....Anyway, no doubt you'd like to shift your wrong prediction fwd to this time, a year later. So I'll just shift it over for you. It's the least I can do for all the education I get from you way smart ppl. So you dont have to do a thing. You're pre registered for this years big payout days prediction. 😎
vplm seeking 5 bil ..and want a jury trial..vz is fighting judge albright on this, and is stalling.
Apparently there’s an Law360 article leaking the damages being sought against Verizon by VPLM.
Not sure how accurate this article is.
IMHO
if we were trading 3-5 cents, i think most would be out...seems to be alot of Folks averages...its smelling like s&&T...praying for a long shot its not.
Looks like nothing positive is happening. We are getting closer to the trial and both Williams and Chang have increased their selling. Babs selling was only 400,000 which is down but William's selling was way up and Chang continues selling every share he receives as fast as possible.
How can anyone argue that good things are coming. We are entering June now and the pretrial is on 7/9 with the trial on 8/19. I am trying to figure out how it is legal that they are selling this close to the actual trial. I was hoping for a run before the trial. I don't see that coming. Any buying is offset by insider selling. Insiders selling around 3 million share in a week will not move a stock higher.
Pathetic management. This looks like a fraud.
find me a current otc stock or even a past one that wall st. talks about...all you hear about is blue chips, tech, and crypto...its a selective and biased club .imo.
Famous last words. I think that we have heard this same cheap talk about a gazillion times with zero results. Kind of like the big "Amazon settlement" that was supposed to happen last fall. LMAO!!
Correct. And this is the only company that I have ever known with so much good news and with a price per share struggling to get to and hold above .02
The numbers just don't jive. The CEO claims that the patents and associated infringements are worth billions and billions "ongoing". These are Microsoft/Google/Meta level revenues. A share price of .70 only validates that the patents aren't worth anywhere remotely near as claimed. Easy math tells you that this is the case. If this were true this would be a $50+ per share stock and much much more when you look at what it is for the other companies that I referenced. Also, if the claims were true someone/anyone on wall street would be following and talking about the company and the fact that no one is tells you all that you need to know about whether they believe that these patents are viable or not.
de·bate
/d?'bat/
noun
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
"Patience is not easy, but a virtue."
$.0156 Everything I'm hearing is extremely positive and moving forward. What "it" is is only a guess and not worth sharing as there is enough of that here. I do believe the time line is not long and the team is working very hard!
I know it has been a long, long journey, but that is not unusual for a patent play as large as VPLM. We have lost shareholders, others have many different challenges, so I am hoping for a resolution soon!
Be well... Patience is not easy, but a virtue. Much of the time, patience is forgotten when it is most needed! Hang in there!
Target: $.70/share...
and looking back there were people pumping this that it will be a 2-3$ a stock also..and up to last year this was still continuing on other message boards..i believe nobody knows whats gonna happen, except emil and crew and they dont feed us jack..im not stating they will screw all the common share holders...but the possibilty is there with a float thats bigger than mt. rushmore.. 90% of otc stocks get no respect due to so many robbing their shareholders.
I feel it's worth repeating..... you've been saying the same nonsense for 12 years... saying this when the stock was at .008... Called it a SCAM at that time, yet didn't sell all out at .35... after it hit .35, just continued the daily whimpering.... 2 years later, didn't sell all out at .45.
honestly, what normal person does this... You could have been all out with 1000% to 3000% gains... instead just hung out and continued with the daily crying...
When called out on it, you must have felt embarrassed, b/c it just sounds so idiotic. You attempt to change history and say you weren't around during that time, yet I've posted proof that you were posting during that time...
Who's lying?
Not a basher though... I love that
DB only gets 1 post a day.
Thought it might be helpful to repost one of his recent ones.
He is usually pretty conservative. If his target is $0.70, then that is a number he feels very comfortable with. He works hard not to set up false expectations.
I suggest you heed his warning.
$.01635 A challenge and a warning:
Get back to me when there is any indication of a failing VPLM! A NEW LOW would be an indication of potential failure, however with an increasing share count, insider sales, VPLM is no where near a new low.... ODD, don't you think?! Daily volume has picked up, yet there are folks on the buy side ready/anxious to gobble, gobble up the shares being sold! My point is we are holding up just fine. That leads to the warning....
There are many motivating factors going in to negative sentiments folks have regarding VPLM. I would GUESS the prime motivating factor would probably be buying VPLM at a higher price, say $.14, and being pissed about it.** Cool! I have explained many times how one might "repair" one's position. Say you top ticked VPLM @ $.45 with a $1000 purchase: you now buy another $1000 worth @ $.017. $2000 in, VPLM goes to $.034 and you have your money back, plus a little!
THE WARNING: It is my strong belief time is short to pull off the "repair" at these levels. I have guesses as to what is going on, but just guesses, and the excitement level took a huge jump last Friday, HUGE! I'll put it this way, if the excitement level were the same level, just excitement due to concern/worry, we'd be headed for the bomb shelter/the basement or bunker!
Take it for what it is worth; do as you will, but remember, **Mr. Market doesn't care about your sentiments, concerns, or at what level you bought!
Target: $.70, but I'll take more, or whatever level the VPLM Team comes to terms.... Gonna get exciting
It was $.11825, $.45 & $.35.... and the spikes lasted for what, a few moments, before the inevitable heading straight back down as always?
There actually was something bigger than upcoming trial dates, ie, there were actual trials held in courts and resulted in so called "wins" for Vplm. I think it was around 8 of em at the time. They weren't real true wins but just successful defenses of patent challenges and that, along with some heavy duty paid and unpaid pumping drove the short lived spike up. Vppm, unfortunately, has never been able to maintain a price spike, ever.
You would however think, that with these current impending trial dates, apparently straight ahead (if it weren't for them pesky monkey wrenches on the way) along with all the other alleged prior "wins" and the well blindly accepted "best position ever"mantra, that those things would be steadily and surely driving the price up......???........but as J. Belushi used to say:
most have seen it..its 7 yrs old thou>>how about new one emili!!..bring the wife also into it..it may give us a reason to drool.
It went to .11 in 2023, .40 in 2017 and .32 in 2014. And there was nothing close to the news that we are expecting now. We now have court dates!
Great video with Emil. https://www.voip-pal.com/voip-pal-potential-financial-winner
its reality fella...nothing happens till july and august...stock is frozen till then...better yet maybe you and your college buddies can buy some and move the needle..
its like an aution house in here..do i here .70!! .40! .50! do i here a safe .4433??!!!...this dosnt move outside of .015-.017 till further notice...take a vacation and come back in mid july....count your blessings down the road if we see a good ol quarter...
Followers
|
457
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
132129
|
Created
|
06/16/10
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators sunspotter Sheepdog GreenBackClub Russ777 Spyke37 |
11810 NE 34th Street
Bellevue, WA 98005
Estimated Market Cap $27,166,417 As of November 05, 2021
Authorized Shares 3,000,000,000 As of October 18, 2021
Outstanding Shares 1,951,330,092 As of Feburary 28, 2019
Outstanding Shares 1,731,447,863 As of October 18, 2021
(Shares outstanding dropped by 219mm++)******
Float 831,342,791 As of September 23, 2021
Revenues: $0 to date.
Voip-Pal's intellectual property value is derived from ten (10) issued USPTO patents including five parent patents, one of which is foundational and the others which build upon the former.
The five (5) core patents are:
1.) Routing, Billing & Rating ("RBR");
2.) Lawful Intercept;
3.) Enhanced E-911;
4.) Mobile Gateway; and
5.) Uninterrupted Transmission
The Voip-Pal inventions described in the ten-patent portfolio provide the means to integrate VoIP services with any of the Telco systems to create a seamless service using either legacy telephone numbers of IP addresses, and enhance the performance and value of VoIP implementations worldwide.
The Voip-Pal patented technology provides Universal numbering ubiquity; network value as defined by Metcalfe; the imperative of interconnect, termination, and recompense for delivery of calls by other networks; regulatory compliance in regulated markets; interconnection of VoIP networks to mobile and fixed networks; and maintenance of uninterrupted VoIP calls across fixed, mobile, and WiFi networks.
While there are several popular VoIP implementations, VoIP is utilized in many other lesser-known places and by practically every modern telephony system vendor, network supplier, and retail and wholesale carrier.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13148084&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13146397&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13146353&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13145009&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13144993&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13110545&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13110507&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099496&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099423&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=13099381&guid=znetUKy8w8cHxth
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING! COMPANY CONTINUES TO RAISE AS AND OS WITH NO REVENUES IN SIGHT:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VPLM'S CASE DISMISSED BUT WILL BE APPEALED.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/VPLM/news/Voip-Palcom-Reports-Decision-in-the-Alice-101-Motion?id=222536
https://www.scribd.com/document/403267736/VOIP-PAL-Obviousness-Ruling
BELLEVUE, Wash., April 16, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) announced that at a meeting of the Board of Directors on April 15, 2019, the Directors of Voip-Pal unanimously rejected a formal offer from Dr. Gil Amelio and his associates to take over management of the Company. Part of the offer provided options to purchase only the stock owned by Voip-Pal’s CEO, Emil Malak. Fully exercised, the options would have paid Mr. Malak approximately $150 million for his shares of Voip-Pal stock.
Voip-Pal’s Board of Directors including CEO, Emil Malak, carefully considered the offer but unanimously voted to reject this proposal; however, the Company is open to further discussions with Dr Amelio. Voip-Pal is actively pursuing the sale of all of Voip-Pal’s shares, on behalf of the more than 4500 shareholders, not just the shares owned by Mr. Malak.
Dr. Amelio has held prominent positions with various technology companies, including serving as the CEO and Chairman of Apple Computer, (1996-1997), President, CEO and Chairman of National Semiconductor, and President of Rockwell Communication Systems. He has also served on the board of directors of several companies including Apple, (1994-1996), AT&T, (1995-2013) and Interdigital. He received a Bachelor’s Degree, Master’s Degree, and Ph.D. in physics from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Amelio has been awarded 16 patents and a 17th is pending.
Renowned patent and IP expert, William Sweet is one of Dr. Amelio’s associates on this proposal. According to Dr. Gil Amelio, Mr. Sweet and his team have conducted extensive research on Voip-Pal’s patent portfolio.
Emil Malak, Voip-Pal CEO, “We have great respect for Dr. Gil Amelio and his team and we are very pleased to know they see such value in our patents or they would not have tendered this offer. We are currently focused on our legal appeal to the recent Alice 101 decision as well as finalizing our strategy to move forward in Europe. In the meantime we are working diligently to add to our patent portfolio with patent continuation applications. Patience is a virtue.”
About Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB:VPLM) headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Corporate Website: www.voip-pal.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
“Courts should never be tasked with dealing with the complexities of patent validity because they lack the necessary technical expertise.”
I am Emil Malak, CEO of VoIP-Pal.com Inc., and a named inventor on two U.S. patents–Mobile Gateway: US 8,630,234& Electrostatic Desalinization and Water Purification: US 8,016,993. To date, our company owns 22 issued and or allowed patents, which we developed over the past 15 years. Against all odds, we have been 100% successful in defending eight Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs): four from Apple, three from AT&T, and one from Unified Patents. We are presently in litigation against Apple, Verizon, AT&T, Twitter and Amazon.
My experience with Voip-Pal has made it painfully clear that the deck has been stacked against companies who own IP being used without license by large tech companies. The America Invents Act (AIA), orchestrated by Silicon Valley, was designed to destroy the very ladder they climbed to ascend to their lofty perch, and make certain that they could not be challenged.
Owning a patent used to be the dream of every small inventor in America. For more than 200 years, the intellectual property rights of American inventors—both big and small—were protected by patent laws that encouraged innovation and risk-taking for the promise of reaping financial rewards for their inventions. That all changed in 2011 with the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which has since caused irreparable harm to the United States’ patent system and has stacked the deck against the little guy in favor of the Silicon Valley and other giants. Post grant reviews of issued patents existed prior to the AIA, but the AIA, through the creation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Inter Partes Review (IPR) created a post grant review process hostile towards patent owners. The lack of oversight, appointment of judges with apparent conflicts of interest, and allowing unlimited challenges to a single patent regardless of standing are just a few of the changes that placed a heavy hand on the scales of justice weighing in favor of Silicon Valley.
At the time, members of Congress said they were enacting legislation that would strengthen and streamline patent protection law, passing it by overwhelming majorities of 71% in the House and 95% in the Senate. However, eight years after its passage, the evidence clearly shows they have crippled the patent system.
This was never about streamlining the patent system—in fact, it has had the opposite effect. Instead of going into court to adjudicate an infringement case based upon the merits of the granted claims, the process is all about stalling, obfuscating, and forcing small companies to burn through their capital fighting a system that has been paid for by Silicon Valley. The AIA provided the legal mechanism for the Silicon Valley and others to destroy small companies and inventors, drain their limited resources and drive them out of business.
Small patent owners often engage in the futile effort of attempting to license their patents. Discussions with big tech companies are mostly fruitless and usually prove to be nothing more than a delay tactic by the infringer. The inventor is then forced to turn to the courts for enforcement and sues the unlicensed user of the technology. A lawsuit by the patent owner will usually trigger the IPR process. More often than not, the infringer will succeed in revoking all or part of the asserted patent. Even if the infringer fails in their efforts to cancel the patent, they will have succeeded in stalling as much as 18 months, costing the inventor precious capital, and knocking many out of business.
Courts should never be tasked with dealing with the complexities of patent validity because they lack the necessary technical expertise. Patent validity issues such as sections 101, 102, 103, indefiniteness, and all other technical matters should be decided prior to a patent being issued by technically qualified examiners at the USPTO, not by the court. Once issued, a patent should only be challengeable at the USPTO, and only for a predetermined period, i.e. six months. The courts should only decide matters of infringement and damages.
No aspects of patent law should ever be subjective. Congress can fix the inconsistencies between the USPTO and the courts and put them on the same page by passing laws that clearly define patent validity guidelines, i.e. what is abstract. Life in the 21st century is dependent on computers. Consequently, many software-centric patents adding new inventive steps are being developed, only to be labeled abstract by the courts and invalidated. The lack of uniformity is responsible for nullifying valuable patents and strengthening the chokehold the Silicon Valley has on the necks of small inventors. Courts should only deal with infringement and damages based solely on clearly these defined guidelines.
Director Iancu has a very tough job ahead. He inherited a broken system, heavily biased against the little guy. Since taking the reins he has made positive changes and has shown his commitment to leveling the playing field for all inventors. He recently published revised 101 guidelines for his department that he hopes will lead to changes in how the Federal Circuit views eligibility under 101. To date, the courts have refused to apply the USPTO’s guidelines.
The current rigged system is killing innovation in the United States. In this time of special prosecutors, it is appropriate for one to be appointed to investigate exactly how we got here. There are many questions that need to be answered:
After spending the last 15 years dealing with patent issues, my advice to inventors and small companies is to not waste their time and money spinning their wheels in the current patent system. It takes too many years and often millions of dollars to secure a patent, only to have it taken away by a hostile IPR process. The USPTO has the most technically competent examiners in the world. These highly qualified experts in their field work diligently to issue quality patents, only to have their work erased by the PTAB and the courts. Despite their efforts, the value of the patents they carefully issue is often worth less than toilet paper. The AIA has reduced once valuable patent ownership into a fraudulent representation of what it used to signify.
While the Silicon Valley conspires to steal intellectual property and stifle innovation, supported by the PTAB and the court system, China’s Shenzhen is emerging as a technical powerhouse; with plans to install 7,000 new 5G base stations this year alone. If the Silicon Valley continues their suppression of technological innovation, they will be displaced by Shenzhen as the hi-tech leaders of the world.
If the United States is to lead the world again in patent protection and innovation, the AIA must first be repealed and replaced with a set of laws that protect innovators and offers them the opportunity to profit from their inventions. The patent issuance process should be streamlined. It currently takes many years to issue a single patent, often followed by several years and potentially millions of dollars in post-grant defense costs. Reduce the issue time to one year and allow a six-month post-issue period for any challenges, which should all be handled by technical experts at the USPTO. The USPTO can fund these changes by increasing patent filing and issue fees. It is preferable for an inventor to spend $30,000 in fees for a patent’s issue within a reasonable amount of time than to get stuck in a process that takes years for issuance followed by more years and millions of dollars to defend.
Is Silicon Valley attempting to turn us into a corporatocracy through massive political contributions and their influence over policy making? Have they become too big and too controlling? Does the AIA rise to the level of fostering antitrust and anti-competitive practices described in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890)? Did its passage by Congress and its eventual implementation violate any antitrust or anti-competitive laws? Was the AIA a collaboration between paid politicians, the Silicon Valley and the USPTO to stifle competition? Only a special prosecutor can answer these questions.
Some have made the case that the AIA has all the ingredients of antitrust. It has undoubtedly given the upper hand to the infringers and makes it nearly impossible for the small inventor to monetize their inventions and intellectual property. One thing is certain; if the AIA had been in place 40 years ago, the world would never have known Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell or Mark Zuckerberg. The tech giants of the time, IBM and Texas Instruments, would have used the PTAB to eliminate them in the same way Apple and Google do today.
It’s time to take a serious look at breaking up monopolistic corporations like Facebook, Google and Amazon. Facebook and Google, especially, control the flow of information in the United States and worldwide. They are restricting the free flow of ideas, news and opinions, and manipulate search engine and newsfeed results for their own purposes. With some obvious exceptions like child pornography, sex trafficking, drugs and harmful scams, they should not be the arbiters that decide which information people receive. They have to cease in being a political platform. Information should flow freely without going through a corporation’s biased filters.
Recently, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and Silicon Valley investor and former mentor to Mark Zuckerberg, Roger McNamee, have publicly called for the breakup of Facebook. In addition to Facebook, McNamee is also calling for the breakup of Google and Amazon, which he says have all undermined democracy, violated user privacy and gained monopoly power. The transformation of the U.S. patent system over the past decade is evidence of the harm caused when companies like these are allowed to monopolize their industries. These powerful providers of information have become “governments in waiting.” Capitalism only thrives when the rules encourage innovation and competition.
I am not making accusations. I am only hoping that we can dig deep and get to the bottom of what happened that caused the radical transformation of American patent law and injured so many inventors and stakeholders. We need the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate these matters. Every day I wake up and work diligently to move Voip-Pal forward towards monetization. We are no stranger to the landmines which have been laid by the AIA, but we will keep battling until we succeed. As long as I am breathing, I will continue to fight for each of the more than 4,600 shareholders I represent. America will always be the greatest country for freedom and justice in the world.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Photo by iqoncept
ID: 10088061
Emil Malak is the largest single shareholder of Voip-Pal.com, Inc., a publicly traded company where he serves as a Director and Chief Executive Officer. He has spent the last 16 years overseeing the development of the company’s intellectual property comprised of more than twenty telecommunications patents in the United States and several international patents in Europe, India, Canada and Indonesia. In addition to his work as Voip-Pal’s CEO, Mr. Malak has spent the last 7 years involved with a medical research team of doctors, serving as the chairman of the board of Thorne BioMed Ltd. They are currently conducting cancer research in Germany where they are committed to pursuing a possible reduction to cancer metastasis.
For more information or to contact Emil, please visit his company profile page.
www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/05/28/1851157/0/en/Voip-Pal-com-Announces-the-Patent-Trial-and-Appeal-Board-Rejected-Apple-s-Request-for-Rehearing.html
BELLEVUE, Washington, May 28, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to provide an update on its current legal activities:
Recently, Voip-Pal CEO, Emil Malak authored an op-ed on the current status of the United States patent system. In his article, Mr. Malak calls for revamping the current patent system and praises the efforts of USPTO Director Andrei Iancu, who Mr. Malak believes is determined to correct the problems at the USPTO to better protect inventors and encourage innovation.
The op-ed was published on IPWatchdog.com. IPWatchdog.com has been recognized by their peers as “one of the leading sources for news, information, analysis and commentary in the patent and innovation industries”. The article can be viewed on IPWatchdog.com or at the Company’s website www.voip-pal.com
CEO, Emil Malak, stated, “We are very pleased with the PTAB’s decision to deny Apple’s request for a rehearing. For the second time in recent months three senior PTAB judges have sided with Voip-Pal. They have confirmed the two challenged patents on their merits and rejected Apple’s accusations and innuendo. Since we launched our first legal actions in 2016 our patents have been heavily challenged and we expect more challenges may come. We are very confident in the strength of our patents and we believe they will survive any challenges that may come our way based on their technical merits.”
“The current patent system favors the tech giants of Silicon Valley making it difficult for small companies to assert their patents against infringement. However, we are determined to see this through until the very end. The defendants, Apple, Verizon, AT&T, Twitter and Amazon are working together and will do whatever they can to drag this process out. We want everyone to know we are not going away. We will continue this fight until we reach a settlement, sell the Company or have our day in court. Eventually the defendants will have to deal with us and our patents will prevail. Patience is a virtue”
About Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Any forecast of future financial performance is a "forward looking statement" under securities laws. Such statements are included to allow potential investors the opportunity to understand management’s beliefs and opinions with respect to the future so that they may use such beliefs and opinions as one factor among many in evaluating an investment.
Corporate Website: www.voip-pal.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
IR Contact: Rich Inza (954) 495-4600
THE PTAB IS FINALLY DONE!!! VPLM 8-0 VS Unified Patents, T and BIGGEST, LONGEST CHALLENGES OF ALL...aapl! aapl LOSES!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OS HAS DROPPED TO 1.75B. CEOS
BUYOUT OFFER, EMIL WAS OFFERED $150m.
Voip-Pal’s Board of Directors Has Rejected a Formal Offer from Dr. Gil Amelio and Associates to Purchase CEO Emil Malak’s Shares and Take Over Control of the Company
VPLMs data shows they are out of cash, commonsense is VERY concerned over this. The last Q alone cost $974,427 in expenses and they have $390,025 left. Sell shares machine in full effect. They made a bunch off that initial Pump and Dump cycle and burning through it since. But now, they can't get the price over $.03 really because the weight of the OS is too high, so millions more need to be dumped EVERY single month going forward.
*******WARNING ********
FALSE CLAIMS BEING MADE IN ORDER TO LOWER VPLM PPS
ALL LAWSUITS ARE MOVING FORWARD THROUGH
APPEAL OR OTHERWISE
EUROPEAN UNION IS UP NEXT, SHORTLY
VERY SIMPLE VPLM THEME:
VPLM HAS BEEN GRANTED 26 PATENTS IN THE U.S., THE E.U., INDIA, INDONESIA, BRAZIL AND CANADA!
VPLM WILL PROSECUTE THOSE PATENTS AND HAS GONE 8-0 IN PATENT CHALLENGES AT PTAB
VPLM HAS NEVER MADE A NEW LOW UNDER EMIL MALAK, ALTHOUGH VPLM HAS MADE THREE NEW HIGHS UNDER EMIL
NO QUESTION, VPLM IS VOLATILE; VPLM IS FIGHTING SOME OF THE LARGEST COMPANIES IN THE WORLD
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING
RETAIL SHAREHOLDERS INTERESTS DIMINISHING AND SHARES HITTING THE FLOAT CONSISTENTLY WITH TONS OF STOCK ISSUED OVER PAST YEARS!
DEFINITION OF TOXIC IN THIS ARENA! ITS RIGHT THERE IN THE FILING!
REMEMBER, VPLMS IP MIGHT BE WORTH BILLIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Continued chaos about the patent eligibility of non-physical technological advancements imposes devastating costs on innovators and industry.” – InvestPic counsel, Bill Abrams
On May 15, SAP America, Inc. filed a respondent’s brief with the Supreme Court in InvestPic, LLC v. SAP America Inc., a case in which InvestPic’s patent claims covering systems and methods for performing statistical analyses of investment information were invalidated under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Petitioner InvestPic is asking the nation’s highest court to determine whether the “physical realm” test for patent eligibility under Section 101 that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit applied contravenes both the Patent Act and SCOTUS precedent. SAS’ brief contends in response that the mentions of “physical realm” are scant in the case record and that the present case provides a “textbook application” of Supreme Court precedent on claims involving mathematical equations.
InvestPic’s U.S. Patent No. 6349291, Method and System for Analysis, Display and Dissemination of Financial Information Using Resampled Statistical Methods claims a method that involves selecting a sample space, including an investment data sample, generating a distribution function using a re-sampled statistical method and a bias parameter that determines a degree of randomness in a resampling process, and generating a plot of the distribution function. SAP America filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ‘291 patent in the Northern District of Texas in 2016 and, in 2017, the district court declared the challenged claims invalid under Section 101 on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The Federal Circuit’s decision on appeal was first issued in May 2018, before the opinion was modified that August. In affirming the lower court’s invalidity findings, the CAFC panel of Circuit Judges Alan Lourie, Kathleen O’Malley and Richard Taranto noted that the appellate court may assume that claimed techniques are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant” yet may still be determined to be patent-ineligible subject matter:
“No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.”
The Federal Circuit’s discussion of the non-physical aspects of InvestPic’s claimed invention mainly take place in the context of discussing other cases decided by the appellate court in which physical aspects of the claimed invention led to determinations that the invention was patent-eligible. In 2016’s McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., the challenged claims were directed to the display of lip synchronization and facial expressions of animated characters, which the court determined was physical, unlike InvestPic’s invention, which claimed no improved display mechanism. Likewise, in 2017’s Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, the claimed improvement was implemented in a physical tracking system. By contrast, the Federal Circuit held that InvestPic’s improvement in the selection and mathematical analysis of information followed by display of the results wasn’t an improvement in the physical realm despite the fact that some claims required databases or processors.
InvestPic’s petition contends that the Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement ignores the primacy of preemption avoidance in Section 101 jurisprudence stemming from Supreme Court case law. In 19th Century cases such as Le Roy v. Tatham (1852) and O’Reilly v. Morse (1853), the Supreme Court struck down patent claims that were overbroad in a way that would preempt future innovation. However, in 1981’s Diamond v. Diehr, the Court upheld claims involving a mathematical equation because only a specific application of the equation was claimed. The Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement is detached from Section 101 preemption jurisprudence, InvestPic argues, despite the fact that preemption concerns are at the center of the Alice patent eligibility test in which the “physical realm” requirement was applied.
InvestPic also contends that the Federal Circuit’s “physical realm” requirement exists in conflict with Congressional allowance of patents on novel processes that are executed by computers. Section 101 of the U.S. patent law allows for the issue of a patent for a “new and useful process” and “process” as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 100(b) includes “a new use of a known process,” such as the ‘291 patent’s use of the known process of resampling in the new application for investment portfolio analysis. Changes to U.S. patent law under the 2011 America Invents Act didn’t amend the definition of “process” in Section 100 and the patent-eligibility of inventions that didn’t exist in the physical realm led to the proliferation of calculator patents in the 1970s and digital patents in the 1990s, the latter period including the “PageRank” algorithm granted to Google.
The application of Section 101 jurisprudence has led to major patent-eligibility concerns in valuable and rapidly growing tech sectors. InvestPic cites to data published in July 2016 by IPWatchdog Founder Gene Quinn, which showed extremely low allowance rates in certain tech sectors post-Alice, including a 1.3 percent allowance rate in Art Unit 3689, which covers financial data processing patent applications. InvestPic also cites an October 2018 guest post on PatentlyO penned by Santa Clara University Law School Professor Colleen Chien which showed that art units affected by Alice saw a rise in office actions that rejected applications on Section 101 grounds, from 25% of all rejections pre-Alice up to 75% after the Alice decision.
The lack of predictability in patent-eligibility matters has led the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to release revised guidance on Section 101 eligibility this January. InvestPic cites this updated guidance as a result of the “crisis for invention posed by the lower courts’ [Section] 101 morass.” Petitioners also argue that the present case presents an ideal vehicle to restore consistency of the application of Section 101. Unlike the claims in Alice, the invention covered by the ‘291 patent claims is not a trivial coding project and the patent survived Section 102 anticipation and Section 103 obviousness challenges in reexamination proceedings at the USPTO, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and an appeal of those proceedings to the Federal Circuit, says InvestPic. Further, the ‘291 patent has been cited by more than 50 other issued patents, proving both the narrowness and non-preemptive nature of the patent claims.
In SAP America’s response brief, filed May 15, it argues that InvestPic overstates the application of the “physical realm” requirement, as the phrase only appears twice in the Federal Circuit’s decision. A “cursory look at the patent claims” defeats the physical realm argument, as they require physical elements such as databases and processors, which the Federal Circuit held to be generic computing components. SAP also argues that the decision is consistent with 80 years of Supreme Court precedent on the patent-ineligibility of mathematical expressions or formulas in cases such as Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America (1939), Gottschalk v. Benson(1972) and Parker v. Flook (1978).
Because InvestPic’s patent claims elements in the physical realm, SAP argues that the present case isn’t a suitable vehicle for deciding the issue of the Federal Circuit’s test. SAP also cites Federal Circuit decisions following InvestPic in which software patent claims have been upheld as eligible under Section 101, thus contradicting the notion that the appellate court has adopted such a test; these decisions include Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc. and Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC (both 2018).
SAP further pushes back against InvestPic’s contention that an intra-circuit split on the application of Aliceexists. InvestPic had cited cases such as DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.(2014) and Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. (2015) to argue that some Federal Circuit panels held that the absence of preemption conferred patent-eligibility, while others held that preemption was only relevant as a factor. “To be sure, some of these decisions discuss preemption in greater depth,” SAP argues, but none of the cases expressly held what InvestPic contended. While InvestPic’s claims survived Section 102 and Section 103 challenges in other proceedings, SAP notes that Section 101 statutory subject matter is a different matter than Section 102 novelty, noting that the Supreme Court’s decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012) expressly refused patent-eligibility inquiries outside of Section 101.
Bill Abrams of Foster Pepper PLLC’s Intellectual Property Group and Counsel of Record for InvestPic in its appeal to the Supreme Court, sent the following comments to IPWatchdog:
“InvestPic v. SAP Americainvolves perhaps the most important issue in patent law today—what it means for an idea to be ‘abstract.’ Are software and other computer-implemented inventions ‘abstract’ and, therefore, ineligible for patenting? The answer dramatically impacts patent law and innovation across our modern, digital economy….
“Despite the Supreme Court’s preemption test to determine if an invention is an ineligible abstract idea, the Federal Circuit, in InvestPic and other cases, evaluated the physicality or tangibility of inventive ideas, rather than if the claimed invention would preempt basic fields of technology. This competing understanding of what constitutes an ‘abstract idea’ has resulted in irreconcilable decisions by different Federal Circuit panels. The ensuing uncertainty has made it nearly impossible to predict what inventions are eligible for patent protection. Such uncertainty damages the predictability of the incentive structure that is so central to the United States’ innovation landscape.
“This is why 18 amici, in seven separate briefs, have urged the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and hear this case. The amici recognize the “physical realm” test’s potential to gut patent protection in some of the highest-growth sectors of our economy….
“Continued chaos about the patent-eligibility of non-physical technological advancements imposes devastating costs on innovators and industry. Review and intervention by the Supreme Court would bring much-needed clarity and stability to this vital question of law affecting digital innovations at the heart of our modern economy.”
In the meantime, the coming weekshould provide an indication of whether or not Congress will get to the matter first.
Steve Brachmann is a freelance journalist located in Buffalo, New York. He has worked professionally as a freelancer for more than a decade. He writes about technology and innovation. His work has been published by The Buffalo News, The Hamburg Sun, USAToday.com, Chron.com, Motley Fool and OpenLettersMonthly.com. Steve also provides website copy and documents for various business clients and is available for research projects and freelance work.
Tags:CAFC, Capitol Hill, Congress, Federal Circuit, innovation, intellectual property, InvestPic LLC, McRo v. Bandai Namco Games America, patent, patent eligibility, patent eligible, Patent Reform, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, PTAB, SAP America v. InvestPic, SCOTUS, US Supreme Court
Posted In:Capitol Hill, Courts, Federal Circuit, Government, Inventors Information, IP News, IPWatchdog Articles, Litigation, Patents, Technology & Innovation, US Supreme Court, USPTO
GOVERNMENTAL/LEGISLATIVE TIDE TURNING IN
VPLM'S FAVOR?
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |