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.
If the insiders were not selling the share price would be rising.
Very frustrating watching another 1.1M shares sold by Barbara. We are less than a month to the pretrial and about 2 months from the trial and there has been very little movement in the share price. If this was going to be successful you would think the share price would move higher as the trial got closer. Instead it sits at $.017. That is pathetic. Make these idiots stop selling. Let the share price rise.
No, you're the clown... every party needs one...
Look forward to meeting...
Thank you! Good luck to us. 🤞🤞
I agree, it should have zero bearing on any future cases.
"I'll be at the VPLM party when they get financial judgements that are in-line with the "billions and billions of ongoing" infringements that the CEO has spoken about."
I'll be at the VPLM party when they get financial judgements that are in-line with the "billions and billions of ongoing" infringements that the CEO has spoken about.
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.
Another interesting reference in the pretrial filing by T-Mobile, was bring up Emil’s rants about the bias in the NDCA. Why would they quote him on his attitude towards what occurred in Koh’s court. These jurors don’t know how bias the court system is in NDCA. Why bring up what is happening to the small inventors? I don’t comprehend the logic on this. I can only imagine if Emil is ever questioned on this during a trial. He’s pretty good at expressing the frustration all small patent holders have been going through.
IMHO
Wasn’t this Hotspot issue already addressed within all the IPR’s. If not, how did it slip by the USPTO and all of the 36 IPR’s? Not to mention, the ex parte reexamination? I believe Hudnell’s response to this, was very strong.
I’d be shocked if these two cases didn’t go to trial, or at least the first one. This would be the best for shareholders. A verdict with a $ 3 billion judgement, would be incredible. Then three months later, the T-Mobile trial.
It’s going to get very exciting. I hope the trial dates remain as is.
IMHO
Yert another late filing from Babs where she dumps another million or so shares, and VPLM's new CFO dumps nearly a million of her very recently granted ultra cheap options (at least she filed on time - if she's not careful Emil will kick her out for actually following Securities law and making the rest of them look bad):
I know the truth upsets "all" the VPLM longs (both of them) but it's so obvious that none of the insiders have the slightest confidence that the patents will prevail that you'd have to have the IQ of a decayed banana to believe otherwise.
Verizon pre-trial conference set for 7/9/2024, jury selection set for 8/19/2024, Trial set for 8/19/2024
Go $VPLM!! Good things coming soon!
Pre-Trial filing highlights: Case 6:21-cv-00674-ADA Document 255 Filed 06/07/24
VPLM - VoIP-Pal accuses T-Mobile of infringing claims 32, 38, 51, and 62 of the ’234 patent (Basic claim 30); claims 77, 130, 133, and 138 of the ’721 patent.
(Comment: The preceding Claim 30 is basic; it defines the network elements and the communication setup, etc. Claim 32 shows a method to use those elements: asking for an access code, getting it, etc. )
seeks monetary damages in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
VoIP-Pal also claims that T-Mobile’s alleged infringement has been willful since June 25, 2021, but agrees that any infringement before that date was not willful.
(Comment: An important and impactful sentence, not to be ignored. VPLM brings "willful" infringement issue since June 25, 2021.but allows room to include non-willful infringement prior to June 25, 2021. VPLM has to convince the jury.)
TMUS - alleges the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid and should not have been issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("Same as old complaints" Who TMobile is to tell USPTO? Funny!) T-Mobile contends that it does not owe VoIP-Pal any damages. (Let the jury tell the court!)
VPLM asks for:
a) A judgement that T-Mobile has infringed the ’234 patent;
b) A judgment that T-Mobile has infringed the ’721 patent;
c) A judgment and order requiring T-Mobile to pay VoIP-Pal damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
d) A judgment and order awarding enhanced damages to VoIP-Pal under 35 U.S.C. § 284; (US Patent law code 35)
e) A judgment and order declaring this case to be exceptional based on VoIPPal’s infringement and/or litigation conduct; and
f) An assessment of costs, including awarding VoIP-Pal its attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
TMUS denies:
T-Mobile does not concede that all of these issues are appropriate for trial. In particular, T-Mobile does not waive any of its pending or future filed motions which, if granted, may render some or all of these issues moot. (makes no sense!)
1. T-Mobile denies each of VoIP-Pal’s contentions.
T-Mobile denies that T-Mobile’s communication platform including an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), generally known as WiFi Calling, Voice Over WiFi, or VoWiFi, infringes or has infringed any
T-Mobile contends that each of the asserted claims is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103, (Alice issue again! Don't they read Judge Brantley Starr's ruling? EDTX) at least based on the T-Mobile prior art system, T-Mobile Hotspot@Home.
5. T-Mobile contends that T-Mobile Hotspot@Home is prior art because it was known and used by others in this country before the date of the invention and it was in public use in this country more than one year before July 28, 2008.
T-Mobile contends that the ’234 and ’721 patents are invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice issue again!) unenforceable due to VoIPPal’s inequitable conduct during prosecution.
VoIP-Pal’s damages calculations are inflated and inaccurate even assuming that any asserted claim is determined to be valid,
enforceable, and infringed. T-Mobile contends in particular, as detailed in TMobile’s motions to exclude the expert testimony of Jacob H. Salk, Dkt. 131, and John B. Minor, Dkt. 129, and as tacitly acknowledged by VoIP-Pal in its Motion to Substitute Damages Expert (Dkt. 243), that VoIP-Pal’s damages theory is legally deficient and methodologically unsound and thus should be excluded from trial. T-Mobile contends that damages, if any, are limited to a reasonable royalty, should any asserted claim be determined to be valid and infringed, calculated using the methodology set forth in the expert reports of Mr. Boushie.
7. Whether an injunction should be granted for T-Mobile’s infringement of the patents-in-suit;
8. Whether, if the jury finds willful infringement, any damages award for infringement after June 25, 2021 should be enhanced; etc. etc.
T Mobile's arguments seem weak!
Anyone would buy the patents if the price were right and there was a chance to make many times their investment. That possibility has always been unclear due to risks from a corrupt legal system (see Koh) that looked to prevent the patents' day in court. Those tides are changing....
Again with the tired old argument that it won't happen because it hasn't happened yet. Not anything about why you think the companies are not infringing, just that it hasn't happened yet. Honestly the weakest argument I have read on a message board.
do better.
More blabber from an unintelligent loser. Only someone that has lost money would waste this many nonsensical words.
That's right, you can claim anything you want. I think I already said that. And of course you are free to believe anything you want. So what? Thanks for all the time you give me. I'd release you from my grip, but it's too fun. I'll include an extra autograph for you.
Back at the front, Vplm that is, which is what you don't know how to comment on, due to you undying infatuation with me, the monkey wrenches are by no means exhausted. Many more to come. July and August will be an egg faced festival. Then of course, the goalposts will be moved per the usual tactics. Accept it.....there's at least 4 to 5 more yrs of your time and money to be wasted here. And then, could be even more. No one wants, needs or gives an alleged infringement rats ass about these patents. Trial very doubtful but if it goes there....it'll be as dumb as lord emu of eGipped avatar trials and about as successful as his Granville hotel venture. Stay right here and hold your breath for it.
Back to the ward. Time for my afternoon thorazine.
by the way, good job at developing your name calling skills. You know what they say about name callers, don't you?.....no?..... then just cruise back thru the posts til you find it.
Failed backpedal. Nonsurprising. The fact that you find my take on something worthy of being in a mental institution, is itself insane. I know, I know, now you'll claim you were just kidding about that as well. Or...perhaps you'll stick with it. Either way, is nice of you to reveal how you think. Oh, and thanks for being another fan club member who cannot help but waste your time on a mental patient. Pretty funny so thanks for the laffs. That's big reason for being here. I have the likes of you wrapped around my finger. I'll send along an autograph for you.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the musical judges, hearings, rulings, etc, continue their monkey wrench jobs of muddling and delaying, frustrating and confusing the avg shareholder, of which there are many less now than there were. Kazillion dollar technology can't even muster 2 cents pps, nor a sale, license, lucrative settlement, partnership, or even another "offer", lol, from good ol doc Gil. BUT.......the big mean green fiat share printing/selling machine and personal insider ATM, continues to churn out riches to its beneficiaries, and zippity for shareholders.
Well, gotta run.....back to the ward for my meds...
itistruethatthisstockgeneratesbonafideclinicalheadcases
Anyone can claim anything anonymously on the internet, but actions speak louder than words.
No sane, truthful person owns a stock and wastes 12 years and 12,00 posts bashing it. Anyone with any logical reasoning can see that you are a scorned loser intent on spending your useless existence here being a liar and a fraud.
Except I didn't lose money. I made money with vplm. Of course, you have no way of knowing such things, thus your ignorance shows. I bought in at 2 cents long ago. The price began to rise and I kept buying and buying until my cost basis was close to around 8 cents. Then, as usual for Vplm, the pps slowly but surely plummeted and I wound up deep underwater on paper. I then wised up and began day trading it. Recouped all the paper losses then kept going and and made a very good profit. I still had shares and vowed to never buy this junk again and to not sell unless at 50 cents or more. End of story. It's not supposed to convince you of it's truth, just to show how dumb your conclusion is. I post because I like to post. And because I believe my thoughts on vplm are true and worth knowing or considering. Not here to convince anyone of anything nor to advise on buying or selling, which I think is wrong to do. Also have no need for anyone to believe or not. That's their choice.
Mic drop........on your head. Boom
...and as far as wasting time.......I'm not wasting my time and have many accomplishments and run 2 businesses. You, on the other hand are infatuated with me and look how much time you waste on me. I call that very foolish. You're like my fan club. Want my autograph? Lolol. Only reason you're not yet on iggy, is for the laffs you provide me with. Keep up the good work!
Only someone that has lost money and is butt-hurt about it would waste 12 years and 12,000 posts bashing it.
mic drop
What a moron, If you bought the stock then you own a piece of the patents. DUH
Obviously not a single person here would, had they the funds, buy the patents... Says it all...
mic drop
Oh, and in case there is some lone wolf out there who would indeed buy the patents if he/she had the cash, would you wait for years and allow someone else to grab it out from under you?
Hahaha.......all rhetorical, as it's obvious that no one here, nor any of the alleged infringers, have the slightest need, desire or intention to ever buy out Vplm. The questions are thought experiments designed to show the reality of the farce called Vplm.
It's funny and enlightening how for a long time, no one will even answer the question of whether they would buy the patents or not. Very revealing, answers or not.
Ignore the fung!
Derf
Urban Dictionary
https://www.urbandictionary.com › define › term=Derf
Someone who is an idiot, annoying person, jerk, etc
url]fung_derf
Member Level
Re: nyt post# 129094
Thursday, April 04, 2024 2:53:03 PM
Post# of 130061 Go
Newbies? I have seen no newbies.
There have only been those making excuses and those pointing out how silly the excuses are....well, and there's you....if you got paid by the word, you'd have made a fortune already.
You may be one of the only posters I've ever seen on IHUB that annoy both basher and pumper alike.
Run your posts through an AI reader and it will be condensed for you. Probably come out as....
"Duhhh".
I read everything and yet, can't make it down to the bottom of one of your posts
[/url][tag]insert-text-here[/tag]
This clown bashes Judge Albright cause he runs his court based on the constitution , property is property. Based on his posts Sunspots calls VP’s management criminals even though they have no criminal record that I can find. This clown should have no rights since he doesn’t allow other American citizens theirs. After 12 years it shows he’s as useful as a poop flavored lollipop. Great job Inspector Clouseau! LMAO
Did anyone notice how NYTWIT chimes in with a book reply even though the fool is not mentioned in your post, NYTWIT hits himself with his own Monkey wrenches.
“ 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
1. If you new exactly what a sunspot was, you might see the possible connection. I'm glad that the individuals here choose their own handles and not you. I find it a bit rude for you to tell someone their chosen handle is problematic in some way.
2. Face it, you are attempting to impune the integrity of someone and theirs right and/or motives for being here, while doubketalking your way behind trying to say at the same time, that you aren't. And who are you to be the judge or to question the motives of attendance here? "ALLTRUISTIC?? . Are you kidding me. This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the self appointed, self aggrandised, "true long" elite. Reminds me perfectly of scam artist emu of eGipped, who says he wrote avatar and then walks out on 2 seperate trials he initiated against Cameron, both on the 1st day, after publicly stating he would see it thru to the end. And how he hired his known pimp brother to run his night club and how he then ran that into the ground and BK, and how he has been for years telling everybody how he confounded a cancer research company in Germany that nobody can find any existence of and took the exact same name as an American cancer research company that does exist and he is is not part of it (Thorne biomedical), and how he utterly hijacked the claim of creating Vplm, and getting every newspaper out there to accept and reprint his claim of being the Vplm founder, which he certainly is not and how he is quick to point out allegedly positive Vplm developments but never says a word about the negative developments. How about his awesomely anti shareholder sweetheart deal he carved out for himself and called it the "anti dilution clause" which gave him 40% of everything that came in and then when shareholders were up in arm's about him, so he makes a big shmeal about how he rescinded the anti dilution clause except shortly thereafter when no one was paying attention, he re-instituted the same clause for himself while the lack of any kind of deals and sliding or stagnant pps was the soup du joir.
Your also wrong about patent trolls. Your the only one I ever saw who does not attach a negative connotation to it. Of course it's not illegal but it stifles innovation. Besides, Vplm is not a patent troll anyway. For years I argued that they were until it dawned on me that THAT is only part of their front....what they want ppl to think.. They are not a patent troll because they know their patents are both useless as well as proven to be valueless. The patents are simply the story the scheme was built upon. Anyone with half their brain tied back knows that if they were truly foundational to the operation of voip and worth the hundreds of billions of dollars that vplm actually published they were. Don't bother trying to 2nd guess me on that as I have already posted that documentation before.
No one needs your blessing or permission or to fit any of your prerequisite attributes to be welcome, as welcome as anyone else, to post whatever they please here regardless of your attempts to impune their integrity. If you don't like or agree with what ppl post, sure, you can ask those questions but no one owes you any explanations and it's noneya...
Furthermore, there are more scams than not on otc and if someone has the smarts and the experience to make nefarious accusations known, that's as noble a cause as any of the dumb pollyannish reasons the pro side slings around. I suggest you worry about yourself and if your so annoyed by the points you brought up, how bout not reading or using iggy?
Don't bother telling me why I don't belong here. Don't waste your time.
Specially referring to CDMA technology
Exactly…see Qualcomm for an example.
Sunspotter, just because a patent owner does not produce any products (properly referred to as an NPE or non-producing entity), does NOT in and of itself make them a "patent troll," when DEFENDING their exclusive rights to ownership in a court of law, as you seem to suggest. Furthermore, the term, patent troll, carries a negative connotation, as if the patent owner is somehow the villain when defending his/her intellectual property rights against unlawful infringement. The law does not require the patent owner to produce a product as a condition of ownership.
And yes, the fact that you are here is none of my business, however, I have every right to question your motives for being here. Since, by your own admission, you are not, nor have you ever been, a VPLM shareholder, I have to wonder what purpose your presence here serves? Is your motive altruistic? That is, are you trying to save VPLM investors from themselves? If so, how is it that your due diligence and judgement are superior to all other VPLM investors? Do you have inside knowledge about the company? If so, it would be illegal for you to share it with us.
So yes, you have every right to be here, however, your motives are suspect. By the way, based upon your own statements, I think that your moniker could be improved slightly. How does "scamspotter" sound? It's just a friendly suggestion. 🙂
I was responding to Sunspotter, not Ham n Slam. Apology accepted in advance 😎
thanx for clarifying..appreciated
What exactly are you talking about? This other judge is regarding the new RBR lawsuits. It has nothing to do with the current upcoming Mobile Gateway trials.
BTW, no summons requested at this time, by VPLM. regarding these new RBR lawsuits. They have 90 days to do so. Most shareholders can clearly see the motivation behind them.
IMHO
It’s like watching politicians debate and a certain topic comes up. The one politician never addresses the topic and throws everything he can to move the topic.
I just laugh at the tv. Does this clown really thinks he’s tricking someone by side stepping the question
It’s like that
Well, since I made pretty good money on this stock, that would seen to point to your 1) narrow minded view, 2) your inability to understand the duh simple explanation I've given, 3) total lack of imagination (ok, I guess that could be included with #1) 4) completely wrong in every single post. 5) conclusions that a 5th grader could see are lacking. Well, at least you're consistent with your silliness.... By the way, have you ever considered that I'm not here to convince you of anything. I have no need and I'm smart enough to know you can't really prove anything to anyone he here. So feel free to believe whatever you want. Makes no never mind to me. Why would it? If you're underwater like so many others are, that's too bad. I made my considerable money here long ago when I realized how dumb it was to hold on to shares and began daytrading. After that I stopped buying Vplm for good. And if I can't get 50 cents for my remaining shares, then the hell with them, I'll use as wallpaper.
If you can't discern what's true and what isn't, no wonder you keep getting things wrong.
aficianado
lol.
Should I repost working with the feds 12 years ago. About to bring this scam down
Real aficianado here folks
But but but everyone is Rich
You really are an aficianado on these patents
the statement is simple...albright is out...look at the name of the new assigned judge..im not making conspiracy theories or made up anything...all im interested in is what kind of judge is mr counts???patent friendly, or not...thats it..take your mark twain and choke on it ..;)
I posted all about the admonitions being levied against Allbright, as he was working diligently to funnel as many "patent troll" type cases into his lap, about a year or 2 ago. Action was already being taken against him then, to put a stop to it. Of course I was ignored because pro side sees only thru their myopic tunnel vision glasses that have dollar signs painted on, as well as the base need to "be right" about their chosen investment.
So voila! Enter more monkey wrenches......(as I predicted so many times now. It's like shooting ducks in a row).
It's all a front for a well thought out scheme designed to benefit the emu of eGipped, wife and certain, not all, members of the supporting cabal, made up of some bod and possible certain lawyers, judges, investors, etc. There are so many connecting dots, for so many yrs, I find them overwhelming. Proof? No, but all the indicators have allowed me to successfully predict all the many yrs delays, monkey wrenches, musical lawyers, musical judges, endless hearings and legal maneuvering, phantom settlements, curious dismissals, etc etc etc. I also called for another 10 yrs of this BS about 6 yrs ago. It could conceivably go longer.
Has anyone seen my 50 cents?
Absolutely no one would waste this much time and energy, like 12 years and 12,000 posts unless they were a butt-hurt loser.
" I would also assume that, if you truly believe what you say, you have already sold all of your VPLM stock. But if that is true, why are you still here?"
"Senators slam Albright over 'extreme concentration' of patent cases
(Reuters) - A bipartisan pair of U.S. senators have accused U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of misusing his power to make his Waco, Texas court a hotbed for patent litigation, in a letter to U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts.
Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont in their Tuesday letter, opens new tab criticized the "extreme concentration of patent litigation" in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas and the "unseemly and inappropriate conduct that has accompanied this phenomenon."
Leahy and Tillis are the chair and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. The senators didn't mention Albright by name in the body of the letter, but refer to him in several footnotes.
Albright didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Critics say Albright's policies attract alleged "patent trolls," as individuals and companies that generate revenue by suing over patents instead of actually making products have been called, to his court."
Promised you more monkey wrenches......
......and once again delivering. I've delivered EVERY TIME!! (well, not really me delivering, it's Vplm doing the delivering.......AND THE COLLECTING!
GO LORD EMU of eGipped!!! They have no intention of selling, licensing, partnering, or winning any ingringement trials. Their ONLY interest is in waking up, going to the mean, green, fiat patent printing/selling machine, then over to their go fund me page, then off to buy as much as they can for cheaper than dirt.....
A random news story from 3 years ago backed by two legislators (who are never in the pocket of big business) and this is supposed to be some smoking gun? Please tell me that this is not supposed to be a strong argument. Again, butt-hurt losers that cannot let go of their bad decisions. This is not comical, it is just sad. He lacks the intelligence to be comical.
Your statement is so diametrically opposed to what the quote from Mark Twain says at the bottom of each of your posts, that it is laughable. What you are saying can be categorized as nothing but opinion while you present it as if it is complete fact. Your intellectual dishonesty is appalling. You would be wise, and much more believable, if you qualified your bold statements as opinion.
Looks like pretrial filing v T-Mobile for willful infringement only goes back to June 2021.
IMHO
Sunspotter, have you ever considered becoming a standup comedian? I think that you would make a pretty good one. I have long admired your "tongue in cheek" sense of humor, especially when it comes to stocks. Keep up the good work! We could all use a good laugh from time to time. Please forgive me if your last post was meant to be serious, as I mistook it for a joke. I would also assume that, if you truly believe what you say, you have already sold all of your VPLM stock. But if that is true, why are you still here?
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
"albright out?? anyone got the speel on judge counts?"
"Critics say Albright's policies attract alleged "patent trolls," as individuals and companies that generate revenue by suing over patents instead of actually making products have been called, to his court."
Followers
|
457
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
8
|
Posts (Total)
|
132124
|
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: |