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.
Are the cases linked on Stocktwits the new cases of the gateway cases?
Vplm creates positive looking scenarios in order to hide behind them and uses them to distract you whilst picking your pocket. The know it alls will never admit anything that even looks slightly nefarious and when enough time passes where yall have accepted the lack of anything as normal, then the goalposts get moved so many times, over time, that whereas the promises and the expectations were for boucoup billions, now most would accept like a dime and be happy and many more would be thankful for 15 or 20 cents. Meanwhile, with all this alleged great and positive news, and looming trials and alleged threat of damages coming down hard on heads, still........pps stays close to the embarrassing penny and a half range and no settlements, licenses, buyouts or anything happening. No one is interested in any part of this waste of time.......except the vaunted inside who continue to rake it in for years.
Don't count on it. Look instead, for something more like the previous "settlements"..........you know, like the ones Richy Rich "inYA pockets" Inza said were something the shareholders would like.......and then turned out to be what.....?..... you tell me.
Maybe if you have zero imagination....
It's quite simple and nothing special about it at all. It just takes recognition of the manifold scaminess and the desire to tell the story. As it should be...
That barely took a half oz of imagination. Too funny
That is very good news.
Shows that the trial is still on schedule. Not sure what the pretrial exhibits will be but it shows Albright is pushing this forward. I assume that the info to be provided by Verizon is not something that will take more than a month to assess.
But this does look good. If the insiders would stop selling it might actually bode well for the share price. Personally I think Barbara, Chang, Williams and Clifton are holding the price lower. If this is all based on agreement to sell so many shares and they have no choice but to sell I can understand a little but I don't think that is the situation. I would love to see no additional form 4s but that is just a wish that will never happen.
But if the pre trial on July 9th actually happens it looks like the trial on 8/19 is likely to take place. Finally there would be a real outcome from one of the patent lawsuits that would result in something material. If the trial is won by VPLM it would result in a much higher share price in the near term. The trial would be appealed but it would show everyone the patents are defendable and these companies will be paying an award. I would hope it would lead to a settlement in the Verizon, T-Mobile and other gateway cases. If not these companies would be seen as owing even more money down the road and have much higher legal costs. I would expect Verizon to settle for a smaller amount to avoid the need to appeal.
Thank you Greenback.
It takes a very special person to claim to own a stock and then spend 12 years and over 12,000 posts bashing it.
I don't know what it means exactly, but I appears that things are moving forward and in VPLM's favor!
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al
Texas Western District Court
Judge: Alan D Albright
Case #: 6:21-cv-00672
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: Jun 25, 2021
Docket
Parties (5)
Opinions (2)
Docket last updated: 20 minutes ago
Friday, June 07, 2024
179 Pretrial Disclosures [PROPOSED] JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER by VOIP-PAL.COM, INC..(Hudnell, Lewis)
Att: 1 Exhibit A-1,
Att: 2 Exhibit A-2,
Att: 3 Exhibit B-1,
Att: 4 Exhibit B-2,
Att: 5 Exhibit C-1,
Att: 6 Exhibit C-2,
Att: 7 Exhibit D-1,
Att: 8 Exhibit E,
Att: 9 Exhibit F-1,
Att: 10 Exhibit F-2
——-
What are pretrial disclosures?
At the end of the discovery period and at least 30 days before trial the parties are required to exchange information about evidence and witnesses they will be offering at trial.
jmo ..to many sissy's and dont want to step up to the plate...but!!!! they keep rambling with their knowledge! that's why its OTC ..talk with no backbone!!
Ham, I like it! Time to play a little Add On before things start rolling! Let's Go VPLM
It takes a very special person to advise, in fact, beg ppl to go buy this piece of junk....
cut open the mattresses, vacume that spare change from the car and couch, blow off the rent, beg from mommie and daddy and do some buying! screw the jibber jabber! make it rain!
Music to my ears!
next week gonna grab a bit more..2.65 mil shares already...im balls deep, might as well :)
Me too!
Figured it's better to pay off a huge tax bill with returns that only cost me 1/75th (or LESS!) of the tax amount.
(If I use Deerball's target price)
Yes! .. and I hope I and many others also have a million $ capitol gain tax bill .. 🙂
I hope you have a million dollar tax bill..!
In the realm of Vplm commentary, those that equate pessimism with toxicity, are mistaken. Name calling, disrespect, hate, are what's truly toxic and mainly to the perpetrators. The overall condition of Vplm seems to help breed it in those who are prone. Pessimism, on the other hand, especially when built upon or partnered with circumstances, apparent or factual, happens to be a healthy way of dealing with things that present as questionable.
Explained by experts in the field:
"9 surprising benefits of pessimism in a world obsessed with positivity
Graeme Richards by Graeme Richards |
March 24, 2024, 8:30 am
Positivity is all the rage these days. But what if I told you there’s something to be said for a dose of good old-fashioned pessimism?
You might be surprised, but pessimism isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, it can sometimes be the smarter approach to life.
Pessimism can offer a unique set of benefits that are often overlooked in our quest for constant happiness and positivity.
In this article, I’ll unveil 9 surprising benefits of pessimism in a world that’s obsessed with positivity. Let’s dive into the less explored side of the emotional spectrum, shall we?
1) Reality check
In a world filled with relentless optimism, pessimism can be a refreshing reality check.
Here’s the thing. Positivity is great, but it can sometimes blind us to the harsh realities of life. We may ignore the potential pitfalls in our plans, overlook risks, or even deny the existence of problems.
On the other hand, pessimists have a knack for seeing things as they are – warts and all. They’re not afraid to acknowledge the potential downsides and prepare for them accordingly.
So while optimism can sometimes lead us astray, pessimism keeps us grounded in reality. It’s like a built-in risk management system that helps us navigate life more wisely.
And let’s be honest – isn’t it healthier to acknowledge the bad along with the good? Too much sugarcoating isn’t good for anyone.
2) Better preparedness
I’ll be the first to admit that I tend to lean towards the pessimistic side. And you know what? It’s made me a lot more prepared in life.
For instance, I was once heading for a camping trip. My sunny-side-up friends packed light, bringing only the bare necessities, while I, the ‘party pooper’, packed for every possible scenario – from a sudden downpour to an unexpected cold snap.
As Murphy’s Law would have it, we were hit by a freak storm on the second day. My friends were caught off guard, struggling with their soaked clothes and shivering in the cold. But me? I was ready. I had my waterproofs and warm layers to hand.
Pessimism, in this case, simply meant being better prepared for potential problems. And when things did go south, I was able to respond effectively instead of panicking.
So being a pessimist isn’t always a downer. It can make you the one who has everything under control when things don’t go as planned.
3) Enhanced critical thinking
Pessimism has been linked to improved critical thinking. It turns out, expecting the worst can actually stimulate our brains to question, analyze, and solve problems more effectively.
A study published in the journal “Psychological Science” found that negative moods like sadness can improve the accuracy of our judgments and reduce errors in decision making.
This means that pessimists might be better at assessing situations, spotting potential issues, and finding solutions. They’re less likely to take things at face value and more likely to dig deeper.
So, while optimism might keep us cheerful, pessimism could keep us sharp.
4) Fosters resilience
Life isn’t always a bed of roses. We all face setbacks, disappointments, and failures. And being overly positive in the face of such adversities can sometimes make it harder to bounce back.
Pessimists, on the other hand, are no strangers to adversity. They expect it. They’re prepared for it. And when it happens, they’re not taken by surprise.
This frequent acquaintance with the darker side of life fosters resilience. It equips pessimists with the mental toughness to withstand hardship and come out stronger on the other side.
So, while optimism might promise a smoother ride, pessimism can create a stronger sailor.
5) Appreciation of small wins
Pessimists, due to their tendency to expect the worst, often find themselves pleasantly surprised by positive outcomes – no matter how small.
Related Stories from Global English Editing
People who crave solitude as they get older usually display these 7 behaviors
7 habits of unsuccessful people who are always playing catch up in life
If a man is truly committed to you, he’ll usually display these 8 subtle behaviors
Instead of taking good things for granted, they appreciate them for the rarities they are. Every little win, every positive outcome, is a pleasant surprise, bringing joy and satisfaction.
This ability to celebrate and appreciate small victories can lead to a more fulfilling life. It’s like finding unexpected treasure in the most unlikely places.
So, while optimism might keep us chasing big dreams, pessimism can help us find happiness in the here and now.
6) Empathy booster
Pessimism, with its intimate understanding of life’s trials, can make us more empathetic.
When you’re used to expecting and dealing with hardships, you develop a greater sense of compassion for others going through tough times. You understand their pain because you’ve been there. Your heart aches with theirs because you know what it’s like.
This deep empathy can bring us closer to the people around us. It allows us to connect on a more profound level, and to offer comfort and support that’s rooted in shared experiences.
So, while optimism might make us happier individuals, pessimism can make us better friends, partners, and community members.
7) Encourages gratitude
There was a time in my life when everything seemed to be going wrong. I was in the midst of a career transition, feeling lost and uncertain about the future. As a pessimist, I expected the worst – that I might never find a job that I love or that I’m good at.
But in those moments of darkness, something beautiful happened. I started to notice and appreciate the small, often overlooked blessings in my life. The support of my family, the comfort of a good book, the joy of a home-cooked meal.
This wasn’t just about finding silver linings. It was about acknowledging that even in the worst of times, there are things to be grateful for.
Pessimism, in its own unique way, had taught me to practice gratitude. And it’s a lesson I carry with me to this day.
8) Greater satisfaction
In a world consumed by the pursuit of bigger, better, and more, pessimism can offer a refreshing perspective.
Pessimists, by nature, don’t expect everything to be perfect. They’re comfortable with the idea that life is full of ups and downs. And this acceptance can lead to a greater sense of satisfaction.
Instead of constantly chasing more, they’re able to find contentment in what they have. They’re not disillusioned by unmet expectations or unfulfilled desires. They take life as it comes, appreciating the good and dealing with the bad.
So, while optimism may fuel ambition, pessimism can bring contentment – and there’s something incredibly satisfying about that.
9) Acts as a protective shield
Perhaps the most significant advantage of pessimism is its protective nature. Expecting the worst can guard us against the harsh blows of disappointment, failure, and loss.
It’s like having an emotional cushion that softens the impact of life’s adversities. When things don’t go our way – which inevitably happens at times – pessimists are already mentally prepared for it. The blow is less brutal, the fall less painful.
This protective shield doesn’t make life any less challenging. But it does make us more resilient in facing those challenges head-on.
Final thoughts: A balance in perspective
The complexities of human emotions and their influence on our lives are fascinating to explore.
One such complexity is the potential benefits of pessimism, an often-overlooked perspective in our positivity-driven world.
These benefits, ranging from enhanced critical thinking to greater resilience, show us that pessimism isn’t necessarily the gloomy outlook it’s made out to be. Instead, it can serve as a pragmatic lens through which we view and navigate life.
It’s important to remember that this isn’t an argument against optimism. Positivity has its own set of undeniable benefits. However, embracing the potential merits of pessimism simply provides a more balanced, comprehensive approach to life.
As the saying goes, “Life is not about waiting for the storm to pass but learning to dance in the rain.” Perhaps, it’s time we appreciate the showers of pessimism for the growth and resilience they nourish within us.
_____________________________
You could now consider yourself schooled.........or not. It depends on whether or not you look at the preceeding as a pessimist or an optimist or toxic. I'm sensing more on the side of toxic.
Outside of my conclusions about vplm, which ought to be respected by non toxics, I lean on the side of fair and balanced, not to optimism or pessimism. But I am a proud skeptic and I think that's a good attribute to have. Optimism and pessimism are merely states of mind and have no bearing on stock trading.
Just bought a bunch more myself.
Too bad I probably won't be able to get long term capital gains on those shares.
Bought them mostly to pay the damn taxes on the rest of my shares.
I guess everyone in this already is tapped and cant buy anymore.or afraid to...they should ask mom for more lunch money.
Should be 10 cents at least,that would still only be a $350 million cap which is way toooooo cheap for this kind of patent portfolio.
Imo
the only volume we are getting is babs designated sells..the f&&&cking buying needs to step up,post on all Verizon and t-mobile instead of here ...maybe more interest will be fast n furious n will be given a look at..cant hurt..this should be way over .05 , just on the upcoming trials. wtf
Excellent response Rapz. As always, your perspective and knowledge about the workings of the USPTO and patent litigation are appreciated!
wheres some new meat to do some buying??
Means nothing. Results matter. 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.
Excellent post rapz let’s hope the right eyes see it.
Drumming,
>> ... Did I miss a favorable 101 ruling by Albright in W TX on RBR?...<<
You did not miss a RBR/Alice ruling in WDTX Albright's court. Judge Albright did not even consider Alice so far. AMZN RBR trial has not started. Like the rest of dumb attorneys, they will regurgitate the old Alice issue when the trial begins.
By the way, Cellco partnership (DBA) VZ's reexamination of our MG patents talks again about Alice issue, pulled from NDCal Mantra since 2017-20. They could have saved time and $, by filing an IPR, instead of a reexamination request. The guilty tries all sorts of moves to escape but the exit door is closing fast.
Look to pay hefty damages, and heftier damage with willful ruling by the jury. Recall Justice Roberts words on "Punishment" besides reasonable royalties plus expenses, interest, allowed by law.
Ex parte Reexam of RBR patents examined among other things the rejection of certain claims due to Alice in 606 patent at the outset. The examiner agreed with our negative view of Alice, viz. the subject matter underlying our claims is not Abstract. Patents are valid. Our response was a beautiful expose.
Judge Brantley Starr in EDTX arrived at a similar conclusion; No Alice for MG patent. The smart attorneys at VZ and AMZN should get a lesson from Judge Starr and stop making the same mistakes. Between Judges Starr and Albright, Texas District Courts will help VPLM reap the rewards soon.
Filing 2 RBR lawsuits against VZ and TMUS so closely is the best strategy. "Strike while the iron is hot!" It conserves trial preparations, claim construction, discovery, etc. about 3 months per trial in Albright's court.
In NDCal the clueless one did not even conduct Claim Construction!!! Clueless and Arrogant. She used the DJ rule and eagerly pulled out our cases from WDTX. Wasted 3-4 years in NDCal.
Aside - a jury trial is much preferred rather than a settlement. No matter how much we wish, a buyout does not look feasible. Are there businesses with appropriate business model like QCOM to buy VPLM and integrate into their business? No matter how much some wish to know the damages. The company is not likely to reveal the amount. A wild guessing game: say VPLM's estimate is $10. The defendant's estimate could be 10 cents. The judge would arrive at a figure in accordance with the law: REASONABLE ROYALTIES WITH ATTORNEY EXPENSES AND INTEREST (word for word from the law.). Until that happens, investors need patience. jmo.
Man I like the way you talking homie, when you start talking like that I know it’s almost time!
“ 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?”
Lmao Idiot
Post wasn’t directed at anyone…I’ve seen many posts on various boards saying 101 is not an issue. I believe that’s true on the MG cases but not on the RBR since the new claims being litigated have not been tested in court yet.
The way the cases have gone so far, we can count on the defendants throwing everything plus the kitchen sink at VPLM to delay, obstruct, & try to get out of any accountability for infringement.
Guess that was me. Not sure about it now... you're probably right.
FYI, if "she" in your post is referring to "me" ? I can read all board posts under "Public Reply".
If you want to not burst my VIC party bubble regarding all the non parties that I haven't seen come to fruition in the past 10-12 years, I suggest trying to use the "Private Reply" button.
Signed, VIC Party Girl
-------
I wonder if she knows the number of times, right here, such parties have been planned in the last 10 to 12 yrs? Hint: many.
Spyke, Oh my goodness, I love that.
So much toxicity in the world today. Let's error on the side of optimism! It's really not that hard, peeps.
Carry on Longs, it's time for a few new notches in our belts!!
The new lawsuits are for the new and/or previously untested claims on the RBR patent.
The recent Alice 101 decision in Huawei was in the case for the MG patents.
The 2 cases stand in their own. The original RBR cases were dismissed on 101 by an ignorant N CA judge & upheld as obvious by the Appellate court. The new RBR cases are in W TX.
The RBR has been successfully defended in IPR’s and came out of ex-parte re-exam stronger than it went in & added new claims.
Why do we think Alice 101 is off the table for the new RBR lawsuits when it was the MG patent that received the favorable 101 ruling in E TX? Did I miss a favorable 101 ruling by Albright in W TX on RBR?
I believe we come out of all the cases fine but something doesn’t make sense with some Alice comments.
Had to get to the end of your post to finally find something I agree with.
Hey but let's ignore that. GO VPLM.
I don't know if it's the best position ever, but I dang sure do like the position VPLM is sitting right now. Move's make by Hudnell and team have been very strategic and execution thus far have been very very promising.
DEFINITELY!!!
I find cautious optimism to be much more healthy than toxic pessimism.
Yes, she does
I wonder if she knows the number of times, right here, such parties have been planned in the last 10 to 12 yrs? Hint: many.
Thanks TK & GBC!!
Now that Alice is out of the equation, they're going in for the kill shot
Ahhhh.... one last LONGGGG diatribe?
I truly do hope you own this stock, NYT.
I was told I am whiny by doing this but the company is within 2 months of a trial. Emil knows everything regarding the case. How can Barbara file to sell an additional 23 million shares over the next 3 months.
For the person that questioned why I would think it is illegal it's because Emil/Barbara have inside knowledge that normal investors do not have. If they are selling these shares based on that information it is illegal to sell. There are a lot of rules on selling. This is why Barbara stops selling 2 weeks prior to the 10Q and 10K. I would argue Emil's knowledge about the case it more important than stopping sales 2 weeks prior to a 10Q.
I have said before that the selling has no impact on the eventual outcome of a trial. That is true. However, If they are selling these shares to take several million prior to bad news being released it is a major conflict.
As I said. This gives investors the appearance that they have no confidence. DB can say what he wants but he is full of crap.
This is a terrible look for execs of the company and it is the reason the share price is sitting at $.0168. If Barbara and Chang had not been selling I think the share price would to $.03 - $.05 today. When all these shares are being sold it take a lot of purchases to offset the sales.
Someone stated they would be buying shares at $.005 to fund the company. If true I think that is also an issue. The questionnaire the company provides the potential investors asks if you are selling shares to purchase the new shares.
All this doesn't matter. I am still hoping there is positive news prior to the Aug trial that move the share price to $.03+. That would be a nice profit. The company does have patents that are valid. Without a good size settlement this could take years to play out.
Oh, and for the person saying they were selling to buy more shares to fund the company. That doesn't sound right. If they were adding shares to fund the company those shares would be filed on a form 4 as well. This is directors and the COEs wile selling millions of shares for millions of dollars.
Hey but let's ignore that. GO VPLM.
I agree. Is the timing used for leverage in negotiations and or to enhance the value of any acquisition?….probably both.
The three new claims, with the favorable ‘606 ex parte reexamination validated the RBR patent. Along with the recent 101 Alice, which also added tremendous value to the upcoming Mobile Gateway trials.
A lot of positives going into pretrial. Let’s get to August 19th.
IMHO
Hahaha.....so this means you are not able to limit the amount of words you read.... Lololol......that is truly the funniest thing I've heard yet today. If I send you say, a 500,000 word post, will that put you in the hospital? How many words to get you put on a ventilator......i want to make sure not to injure you...
I hope this stuff isn't contagious...
Agreed, good point. Trying to put all the pieces together is real challenging. This is like one big riddle.
Pretrial will be very telling! IMHO
Wait a minute... 1st you post:
"You are just not aware of these celebrations because no one would want to invite you. Just one more thing you are not aware of. We will send you pictures after it after the party is in the books. By then I am sure you will have found another evil management team to persecute. Thanks for the vigilance"
Then about 20 min later you post:
"Also, if we do have a party, I will be sure to invite you, and will be happy for any gains you may have made, or for the fact that this success may chip away a bit at your cynicism."
Are you the same person or are there 2 of you? The 2 posts are diametrically opposed. If you had taken my advice, then it would make sense, but it's beyond doubtful you would take any advice from me, besides, you would've mentioned the fact, if so. All I can say is if you went off your meds, I recommend a restart. If you didn't go off your meds, I advise starting on some...
In any case, I wanted to add that calling cynicism isn't fair. If a person believes something to be true, even if that something is negative, that is not cynicism, it's belief in something, which is a positive thing if they are correct. Cynical, I believe, is not believing in something regardless of the facts. Or thinking that ppl are motivated only by self interest.
Over the years, in PAYING ATTENTION.....I saw that sunspotter always had some kind of underlying facts to support his Vplm sentiments, as I also have. That, friend, is not cynicism. That is at least your 3rd or 4th mischaractization in just 2 posts. Suggests you may be mischaracterizing Vplm as well??
By the way, if by some twilight zone happening, Vplm wins a huge damages award, I STILL would tend to not believe in the patents for my stated reasons. Court could get it wrong. Look at O.J.
When it finally comes to the VPLM post mortem - sorry, party - I don’t think it will be me you will be using as a piñata.
Followers
|
457
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
12
|
Posts (Total)
|
132126
|
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: |