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.
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.
Don't use green as it is very hard to read
M/S hired most of Digies engineers when Digi died OWING A MILLION DOLLARS. M/S attempted to get a patent that was basically 75% the same as Digies but they dropped out when challenged by vplm. The M/S group attempting to get the patent for M/S were all paid off and disbanded with thanks, letters, cash.......I exited vplm after the april fools day sale fiasco and went into Treaty creek play with amk, tud, tuo, to make a few million bucks but i parked about 4 or so million shares of vplm to see what would occur. I felt it would take about a decade OR MORE to sort out the vplm mess....... And it has.... It will be interesting to see the final outcome and what we get for our shares....I Am hoping to receive shares from every company found infringing to create a fantastic INDIVIDUAL small shares portfolio of many companies. I am not really interested in cash as I now hold many millions of shares in the 3 treaty creek companies which i believe will eventually become the largest gold mining properties in history..
VPLM SHOULD WIN EVERY LAWSUIT IT GETS INVOLVED IN ALL OVER THE WORLD.... IT SHOULD BE WORTH AN UNBELIEVABLE FORTUNE.................
..... EVENTUALLY.......
In January 2013 there was supposedly a sale that was supposed to close on April 1 2013. I realized that the hype was an April fools scam and sold my received 19 million shares down to my current number around 4 million.I am owed many millions of shares for supposedly funding the company by paying by check the vancouver lawyers retaining fee and other supposed debts.
9''30. .. anyone know how many items are in dispute?
10 years ago M/S hired many of digi's laid off engineers and tried to scoop a patent. They were not successful... I would not be surprised to see them in the market for the Patents.. THEY KNOW THE UNBELIEVABLE VALUE OF EVERY INTERNET USER CONTRIBUTING TO THEIR COFFERS. THEY HAVE THE BUCKS!!!!!!
I Like the idea of every use of our Patents from everyone using the internet and generating income to me. Triple damages would be a great bonus with no need to pay the gov't capital gains taxes on a sale..... I can not think of any other better option.... ....
.how about 63 cents plus or minus 13 cents........,
Will you copy, paste them for us to read? Or at least a link so one can try to find what has Been said?
Could vplm be tentatively sold and they are cleaning up messy lawsuits ?????? Weird........
will it all be sorted out by june / july 2021?
WELL , WELL, DO YOU ALSO HAVE POSSIBLE PREDICTIONS AS TO WHO THAT MIGHT BE??????????
TOP 1 OR 2 WOULD SUFFICE.
WILL KOH IGNORE THIS???
Further, the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over VoIP- Pal in all three cases, and venue is improper as to VoIP-Pal in all three cases. Moreover, this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over U.S. Patent No. 9,935,872 (“the ’872 patent”) in Case No. 5:20- CV-02460-LHK. Accordingly, all three cases should be dismissed.
voip-pal’s suite of patents offers a major change in the way communication traffic is managed across the intetelephone networks. voip-pal’s intellectual property covers the classification and routing of all voice, messaging, and data traffic across telephone networks and the internet.
TRENDING
Reverse is Good for TOMI Environmental Solutions Inc (OTCMKTS: TOMZD)
?
NAVIGATE
CAFC Ruling Sparks Voip-Pal.Com Inc (OTCMKTS: VPLM)
0
BY BOE RIMES ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2020MEDIA & TECHNOLOGY, MICRO CAP INSIDER, SMALL CAPS
Post Views: 239
Voip-Pal.Com Inc (OTCMKTS: VPLM) is making a powerful move up the charts in recent days from well under a penny to recent highs over $0.04. The stock has a long history of big moves running over $0.40 in 2018 and over $0.70 years ago.
VPLM has been on the move since the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has ruled in favor of Voip-Pal in its long legal battle against Apple. In a decision announced on September 25, 2020, the Court upheld the December 21, 2018 ruling by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denying Apple’s request for sanctions. The CAFC also affirmed the PTAB’s ruling that Voip-Pal’s ’815 and ’005 patents are non-obvious. Moreover, the Court rejected Apple’s bid to invalidate certain claims that had not been declared ineligible in a parallel district court case.
Voip-Pal.Com Inc (OTCMKTS: VPLM) is a publicly traded corporation headquartered in Bellevue, Washington and the owner of a valuable portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize. The biggest names in technology utilize Telco pioneer Voip-Pal’s patent portfolio. All of these companies seek to grow their businesses by offering increasingly integrated Internet communications services, including simple-to-use telecom and mobile payments. Only Voip-Pal can make this possible. Voip-Pal’s suite of patents offers a major change in the way communication traffic is managed across the Internet and telephone networks. Voip-Pal’s intellectual property covers the classification and routing of all voice, messaging and data traffic across telephone networks and the Internet. Voip-Pal creates virtual bridges that span global communications. Today, “callers” connect via private-to-private messages with people who use the same walled-off application such as Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Twitter and others. A maze of nodes, networks and proprietary software create major challenges for consumers who just want a simple way to reach others around the world. Tomorrow, “callers” will connect using their single phone number – messaging any user, anywhere, on any network and any social messaging application – across phone networks, Wi-Fi and the Internet – all enabled by the technology integration capabilities provided by Voip-Pal.
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.
Earlier this year VPLM filed four patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division against Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple. The four complaints allege infringement by the defendants of Voip-Pal’s United States Patent No. 10,218,606, entitled “Producing Routing Messages For Voice Over IP Communications.” These actions concern the defendants’ use of Voip-Pal’s proprietary technology to provide user-customizable access to route calls in a distributed private network using public phone numbers to identify users.
The Company also announced they are currently assessing their options and planning their next moves following the March 16, 2020 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, affirming the Northern District of California’s dismissal of VoIP-Pal’s Case Nos. 18-CV-06177-LHK, 18-cv-06217-LHK, C, 18-cv-04523-LHK, and 18-cv-06054-LHK under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Federal Circuit invoked Rule 36 and provided no comment or explanation for why it declined to address various District Court errors as alleged by Voip-Pal.
To Find out the inside Scoop on VPLM Subscribe to Microcapdaily.com Right Now by entering your Email in the box below
?
On September 29 VPLM announced the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has ruled in favor of Voip-Pal in its long legal battle against Apple. In a decision announced on September 25, 2020, the Court upheld the December 21, 2018 ruling by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denying Apple’s request for sanctions. The CAFC also affirmed the PTAB’s ruling that Voip-Pal’s ’815 and ’005 patents are non-obvious. Moreover, the Court rejected Apple’s bid to invalidate certain claims that had not been declared ineligible in a parallel district court case.
Voip-Pal is currently the plaintiff in multiple patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division. The defendants are some of the largest companies in the world and have a combined market cap of 5.73 trillion dollars. Facebook Inc. and WhatsApp Inc.; Civil Action No. 20-cv-267. Google LLC; Civil Action No. 20-cv-269. Amazon.com Inc. et al.; Civil Action No. 20-cv-272. Apple Inc.; Civil Action No. 20-cv-275. Verizon Communications, Inc. et al.; Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00327. AT&T, Inc. et al., ; Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00325 Additionally, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C. has scheduled oral argument for November 3, 2020 in Voip-Pal’s cases against Apple and Amazon, Case Nos. 20-1241, 20-1244.
Emil Malak, CEO of Voip-Pal, stated, “We are very pleased with this outcome and the court’s decision to once again uphold our intellectual property. Our patents have been challenged with IPR’s 12 times and each time we have prevailed. This latest decision affirming the PTAB’s ruling is vindication of the validity of our patents. We will never stop fighting for our shareholders and we are looking forward to proceeding with our pending cases in the Western District of Texas.”
We have a Monster Pick Coming. Subscribe Right Now
Currently running up the charts VPLM is an exciting story developing in small caps looking to monetize its valuable portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology. VPLM has been on the move since the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has ruled in favor of Voip-Pal in its long legal battle against Apple. In a decision announced on September 25, 2020, the Court upheld the December 21, 2018 ruling by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) denying Apple’s request for sanctions. The CAFC also affirmed the PTAB’s ruling that Voip-Pal’s ’815 and ’005 patents are non-obvious. Moreover, the Court rejected Apple’s bid to invalidate certain claims that had not been declared ineligible in a parallel district court case. VPLM has a history of big moves running over $0.40 in 2018 and over $0.70 years ago. We will be updating on VPLM when more details emerge so make sure you are subscribed to Microcapdaily so you know what’s going on with VPLM.
Sign Up now for our 100% FREE Penny Stock Newsletter
Submit
Disclosure: we hold no position in VPLM either long or short and we have not been compensated for this article.
SHARE.Twitter Facebook Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
RELATED POSTS
?
SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 0
Reverse is Good for TOMI Environmental Solutions Inc (OTCMKTS: TOMZD)
?
SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 0
UV-C & UV Germicidal Non-Toxic Sanitization; the Rise of Optec International Inc (OTCMKTS: OPTI)
?
SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 0
Rotmans, RxAir, The Rise of Vystar Corp. (OTC: VYST)
LEAVE A REPLY
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
LATEST ARTICLES
MOST POPULAR
?
SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 0Reverse is Good for TOMI Environmental Solutions Inc (OTCMKTS: TOMZD)
?
SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 0CAFC Ruling Sparks Voip-Pal.Com Inc (OTCMKTS: VPLM)
?
SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 0UV-C & UV Germicidal Non-Toxic Sanitization; the Rise of Optec International Inc (OTCMKTS: OPTI)
?
SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 0Rotmans, RxAir, The Rise of Vystar Corp. (OTC: VYST)
LIVE INDICES
MICRO CAP INSIDER
?
SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 0Reverse is Good for TOMI Environmental Solutions Inc (OTCMKTS: TOMZD)GP
?
SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 0CAFC Ruling Sparks Voip-Pal.Com Inc (OTCMKTS: VPLM)
?
SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 0UV-C & UV Germicidal Non-Toxic Sanitization; the Rise of Optec International Inc (OTCMKTS: OPTI)
.
?
SEPTEMBER 22, 2020 0Rotmans, RxAir, The Rise of Vystar Corp. (OTC: VYST)
?
SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 0RoadKill Super (RK) The Rise of Fernhill Beverage, Inc.(OTCMKTS: FHBC)
MARKET SNAPSHOT
Sign up now for our 100% FREE Penny Stock Newsletter
SUBSCRIBE NOW!
I was going to post all current thoughts on the patents but this little snippet
pretty well covers the story.
VOIP-Pal’s suite of patents offers a major change in the way communication traffic is managed across the Internet and telephone networks. VOIP-Pal’s intellectual property covers the classification and routing of all voice, messaging, and data traffic across telephone networks and the Internet.
jury trial ,if necessary, is over 72 months away......
the total damages, if we win, will be histories highest amount.....
$25 per share is peanuts...chump change....
wasn't the attempts to to move the cases to CA already turned down by the Texas judge?
https://www.pacermonitor.com/court/181/Texas_Western
enter voip-pal in the search box and the latest info will be shown from the second entry onwards for all the Texas lawsuits
Voip-Pal offers reopening plan for airlines
https://financial-news.co.uk/voip-pal-offers-reopening-plan-for-airlines-20200601065/
Voip-Pal (OTCQB:VPLM) has announced a reopening plan amid the COVID-19 crisis that allows airlines to test passengers no longer than 48 hours before boarding the plane, the company said.
In some instances, passengers can offer the test at the airport. Only passengers with a negative test result would be permitted to board the plane. A passenger would take the test prior to their outbound flight and again before their return flight. Requiring each passenger to show a current negative test result before boarding will restore confidence in the safety of air travel.
Voip-Pal (OTCQB: VPLM) is a Bellevue, Washington-based company, inventers and pioneers of the switching technology now being used by many telecommunication and social networking companies, without which they could not connect Landline phone calls to Internet phone calls.
>>>>>>>>>???????????????????????????>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is what that article is based on...
https://www.ceocfointerviews.com/voippaloped7052620.html ]
Voip-Pal´s CEO said patients do not always show any clinical symptoms, have normal chest imaging, but yield a positive nucleic acid test. They become silent, invisible, and lethal vectors of COVID-19, being just as likely to spread the virus as a symptomatic patient. Children are more likely to be asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19 than adults. It is believed that between 10% to 15% or more of carriers are asymptomatic. It only takes one to infect dozens, hundreds or even thousands of people in an enclosed environment.”
Every country would need a marshal plan in order to get back their economies. The Coronavirus Marshal Plan begins with executing the right testing strategy. Mobile testing vans need to be deployed and visible in every community. Once a person is tested, their current test results would be displayed on their smartphone. As long a person tests negative, they could move about freely. Anyone who tests positive can receive early treatment and isolate themselves to avoid spreading the virus to their family and friends, and avoid mass spreading within the community.
BY Staff Writer - June 1, 2020]]
HMMM
Search results for ""VoIP-Pal.com,Inc.""
CURRENT SEARCH
"VoIP-Pal.com,Inc."
ALL
Entities (2)View All
Litigations (39)View All
Patents (27)View All
News (1)View All
2 Entity Results in 1 Ultimate Parent
NAME
RELATED ENTITIES
PLAINTIFFS
DEFENDANTS
ASSERTED
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
1 Related Entity 19 as Plaintiff 0 as Defendant 8 Patents Asserted
2 Search Results
NAME
PARENT
MARKET SECTOR
# OF LITIGATIONS
VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. Consumer Electronics and PCs,E-commerce and Software,Media Content and Distribution,Mobile Communications and Devices,Networking 19
Digifonica (International) Limited VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. 0
View As Search Results
19 Litigations 12 PTAB Petitions 0 ITC Investigations 8 Federal Circuit Appeals 0 PRB Reexaminations
Group Results:
FILED DATE
CASE NAME
CASE #
JURISDICTION
STATUS
04/26/2019 Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. 19-1814 Federal Circuit Closed
04/26/2019 Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. 19-1813 Federal Circuit Closed
04/03/2020 VOIP-PAL.COM, INC. v. Google LLC 6:20-cv-00269 Western District of Texas Open
12/11/2019 Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. 20-1244 Federal Circuit Open
01/23/2018 Apple Inc. v. Voip-Pal.com, Inc. 18-1457 Federal Circuit Open
View As Search Results
27 Patent Results in 5 Patent Families
TITLE
EST. PRIORITY DATE
US PATENTS
US APPLICATIONS
12/513,147 US8542815B2 (11 US PATENTS) CAFC
11/02/2006 11 US Patents in Family 13 US Applications in Family13 Search Results
EST. PRIORITY DATE
PATENT #
TITLE
CURRENT ASSIGNEE
11/02/2006 US 20160006882A1 DETERMINING A TIME TO PERMIT A COMMUNICATI... VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
11/02/2006 US 9,998,363 B2 Allocating charges for communications serv... VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
11/02/2006 US 20190199621A1 Producing Routing Messages for Voice Over ... VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
11/02/2006 US 9,137,385 B2 Determining a time to permit a communicati... VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
11/02/2006 US 9,935,872 B2 Producing routing messages for voice over ... VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
11/02/2006 US 8,774,378 B2 Allocating charges for communications serv... VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
11/02/2006 US 9,537,762 B2 Producing routing messages for voice over ... VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
11/02/2006 US 9,826,002 B2 Producing routing messages for voice over ... VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
11/02/2006 US 9,948,549 B2 Producing routing messages for voice over ... VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
11/02/2006 US 10,218,606 B2 Producing routing messages for voice over ... VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
11/02/2006 US 9,813,330 B2 Producing routing messages for voice over ... VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
11/02/2006 US 9,179,005 B2 Producing routing messages for voice over ... VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
11/02/2006 US 8,542,815 B2 Producing routing messages for voice over ... VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.
12/532,989 US8537805B2 (2 US PATENTS)
03/26/2007 2 US Patents in Family 3 US Applications in Family3 Search Results
12/517,026 US8422507B2 (4 US PATENTS)
11/29/2006 4 US Patents in Family 5 US Applications in Family5 Search Results
13/496,864 US8675566B2 (3 US PATENTS)
09/17/2009 3 US Patents in Family 4 US Applications in Family4 Search Results
13/056,277 US8630234B2 (1 US PATENT)
07/28/2008 1 US Patent in Family 2 US Applications in Family2 Search Results
View As Search Results
1 News Result (Last 6 Months)
In Response to VoIP-Pal’s Turn to Texas, Prior Defendants Seek to Subject Newly Asserted Patent to California Headwinds
April 12, 2020 PDT
Mobile Communications and Devices, New NPE Litigation
https://insight.rpxcorp.com/advanced_search/search_litigations#grouped=true&searchq=name%3A%22VoIP-Pal.com,+Inc.%22&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Link: https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/04/29/patent-filings-roundup-something-water-sharp-spike-district-court-filings/id=121156/
[bNOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit ______________________
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
TWITTER, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2019-1808
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 5:18-cv-04523-LHK,
United States District Judge Lucy H. Koh.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, DBA VERIZON
WIRELESS SERVICES LLC,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2019-1812
______________________
Case: 19-1808 Document: 88 Page: 1 Filed: 03/16/2020
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 5:18-cv-06054-LHK,
United States District Judge Lucy H. Koh.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
AT&T CORP.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2019-1813
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 5:18-cv-06177-LHK,
United States District Judge Lucy H. Koh.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
APPLE, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2019-1814
______________________
Case: 19-1808 Document: 88 Page: 2 Filed: 03/16/2020
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in No. 5:18-cv-06217-LHK,
United States District Judge Lucy H. Koh.
______________________
JUDGMENT
______________________
LEWIS EMERY HUDNELL, III, Hudnell Law Group PC,
Mountain View, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant.
MARK ANDREW PERRY, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Washington, DC, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendant-appellee Apple, Inc. also represented by ANDREW
WILHELM; RYAN IWAHASHI, Palo Alto, CA; JOHN M.
DESMARAIS, AMEET MODI, Desmarais LLP, New York, NY;
PETER CURTIS MAGIC, San Francisco, CA.
GENE WHAN LEE, Perkins Coie LLP, New York, NY, for
defendant-appellee Twitter, Inc. Also represented by
NATHAN K. KELLEY, Washington, DC.
FRANK C. CIMINO, JR., Venable LLP, Washington, DC,
for defendant-appellee Cellco Partnership. Also represented by MEGAN S. WOODWORTH; WILLIAM HECTOR, San
Francisco, CA.
MICHAEL HAWES, Baker Botts, LLP, Houston, TX, for
defendant-appellee AT&T Corp. Also represented by
LAUREN J. DREYER, Washington, DC.
LEWIS EMERY HUDNELL, III, Hudnell Law Group PC,
Mountain View, CA, for amici curiae Raymond A. Mercado,
RPost Holdings, Incorporated, RPost Communications
Limited, RMail Limited.
______________________
THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is
Case: 19-1808 Document: 88 Page: 3 Filed: 03/16/2020
ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
PER CURIAM (NEWMAN, LOURIE, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges).
AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
March 16, 2020
Date
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court]
[b• French antitrust regulator fines Apple $1.2 billion
France's competition watchdog fined iPhone maker Apple $ 1.23 billion, saying it was guilty of anti-competitive behaviour towards its
distribution and retail network]
Someone just SOLD over 700,000
pin high Member Profile pin high Tuesday, March 10, 2020 2:12:59 PM
Re: pin high post# 90248 Post #
90249
of 90249
Who is buying today? Someone just bought over 700,000
[bVOLUME
5,038,106]
Canadas
Tsx market overwhelmed
by sell orders..corona virus fears? Stopped trading!!!!!! Hmmmmmmm
Double, double, toil and trouble;
Fire burn and caldron bubble.
Fillet of a fenny snake,
In the caldron boil and bake;
Eye of newt and toe of frog,
Wool of bat and tongue of dog,
Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting,
Lizard's leg and howlet's wing,
For a charm of powerful trouble,
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble.
William Shakespeare, MacBeth
A Plea for Clarity and a New Approach on Section 101 in 2020
By Emil Malak
January 4, 2020
8Print Article
TwitterFacebook26LinkedInReddit1EmailMore7
“The analysis of courts under Section 101 lacks a key safeguard built into other areas of patent law, namely, consideration of the viewpoint of the person of ordinary skill in the art.”
Section 101 chaos - https://depositphotos.com/18534607/stock-photo-emerging-leadership.htmlThe lack of clarity by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark patent case of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208; 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) and the subsequent failure of the Federal Circuit to achieve consistency and predictability in Section 101 jurisprudence, has resulted in the destruction of thousands of patents, especially in the fields of information technology, software and life sciences. Was it really the Supreme Court’s intention in Alice to invalidate so many good patents based on so-called judicial exceptions to Section101 such as the “abstract idea” test, which no court has been able to adequately define?
How can the U.S. patent system be trusted when criteria for patent eligibility can no longer be clearly defined and courts can invalidate patents based on judicial discretion, without affording the patent owner due process such as presenting scientific and technical evidence from the viewpoint of a person of skill in the art? Due to the Section 101 problems created by the courts, owning a U.S. patent in the today is no longer an asset but a liability. Inventors are increasingly looking to other countries like China to provide protections they can no longer find in the United States—or are avoiding the patent system altogether. Where will the United States be in 10 years if innovation continues to be stifled and innovators increasingly resort to trade secrets?
[[Advertisement]]
Factual Analysis under Section 101 Ignores the Person Skilled in the Art
With all due respect to the judges who handle patent cases, many lack the necessary technical training and/or experience to judge complex patents. The problem is magnified by the fact that judges often attempt to evaluate a patent at a preliminary stage of litigation—before scientific, technical or expert evidence has been presented to the court. Unfortunately, when unqualified judges (not skilled in the art) are put in a position to hear such cases, they sometimes make decisions without accurate factual foundations and may inadvertently redefine inventions based on their own misunderstandings.
For example, the Federal Circuit recently struck down a patent owned by American Axle & Manufacturing based on Alice. American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, No. 18-1763 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The patent was directed to a mechanical device: a propshaft for vehicles that used a vibration-reducing liner. The majority judges said the claims lacked an eligible “inventive concept” despite evidence the patent owner was first to use tuned liners to attenuate bending mode vibrations in propshafts. The majority judges rejected the patent owner’s assertions. Based on their own independent technical findings of fact: they alleged an unrelated prior art patent disclosed the same inventive concept as the patent owner’s patent—even though neither party made this argument and even though the court did not have the benefit of expert evidence as to how a skilled person would have understood the technology disclosed in the unrelated patent. Id. at 8. The majority judges also criticized the claims for not stating how a liner would be tuned to reduce vibrations. In a scathing dissent, Judge Moore explained that the issue of whether a patent teaches how to use an invention belongs to Section 112, not to Section 101, and needs to take into account what a person of skill in the art would understand from the specification. Id. at 10-14. The majority judges’ repeated failure to consider the viewpoint of a skilled person illustrates the concern of law professors Timothy R. Holbrook and Mark D. Janis, who have pointed out that “the hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art, has been accorded no place in the Supreme Court’s modern eligibility cases.” Janis, Mark D. and Holbrook, Timothy R., “Patent-Eligible Processes: An Audience Perspective” (2015); articles by Maurer Faculty (Paper 2109); published in Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 17, 349 (2015); see page 363. Indeed, eligibility analysis under Section 101 “entitles a court to kick the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art to the curb in favor of a discretionary analysis that need not be constrained by… two hundred years of American jurisprudence on patentability…” ] Id. at page 382.
Put differently, the analysis of courts under Section 101 lacks a key safeguard built into other areas of patent law, namely, consideration of the viewpoint of the person of ordinary skill in the art. It is well-settled that the claims should be construed through the eyes of a person of skill in the art in light of the specification. Obviousness analysis under Section 103 asks whether the invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Analysis under Section 112 asks whether a patent’s written description would convey to the skilled person that the inventor had possession of the invention at the time of filing, whether the claims would enable that skilled person to make and use the invention without undue experimentation, and whether the claims inform the skilled person about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. However, Section 101 analysis omits the perspective of the skilled person and substitutes the perspective of judges unskilled in the field of the invention, who often feel empowered by Alice to decide scientific and technical questions without expert evidence of record (e.g., under Rule 12(b)(6)).
Patents are awarded based on a patent examiner’s interpretation of how a person skilled in the art would understand the patent and the invention it describes. It is not up to the judge (who lacks skill in the art) to decide eligibility based on whether the judge knows how to make or use the invention. The measure is whether a person skilled in the art knows how to do it. However, in current Section101 cases, we are seeing judges arbitrarily deciding technical facts and rewriting patent law based on their subjective opinions and, in the process, becoming “inventor judges.”
Even Judges Admit the Law Under Section 101 is Confusing, Unpredictable or Incoherent
If the Courts are playing fast and loose with scientific and technical facts under Section 101, the state of the law is likewise depressingly unsettled. Although SCOTUS cautioned in Alice that Section 101 should not be allowed to “swallow all of patent law,” this is precisely what is happening. The scope of the judicial exceptions under Section 101 keeps expanding to the point where Section 101 has become a judicial “shortcut” to doing analysis under the well-settled patent law of other statutory sections such as Sections 102, 103 and 112. In the above-mentioned American Axle & Manufacturing case, Judge Moore pointed out in her dissent that the majority judges had applied the “enablement test” of Section 112 under Section 101, but without following a proper Section 112 analysis. With respect to the law of Section 101, Judge Moore warned, “[t]he hydra has grown another head.” American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, No. 18-1763 (Fed. Cir. 2019) at 13.
Numerous legal commentators and judges have stated that case law under Section 101 is a confusing mess. For example, in Interval Licensing, LLC v. AOL, Inc., No. 16-2502 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Judge Plager’s dissent frankly summarizes the courts’ Alice jurisprudence as “useless”, “an abstract (and indefinable) doctrine,” “unworkable,” an “intellectual morass,” and “incoherent,” among other things. Interval Licensing, LLC v. AOL, Inc., No. 16-2502 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In his critique, Judge Plager cited other leading judges who had spoken out about the Section 101 mess, including Judge Lourie, who had elsewhere stated “the law needs clarification by higher authority, perhaps by Congress, to work its way out of what so many in the innovation field consider are § 101 problems.” Id. at 11.
More recently, retired Judge Michel, who sat for 22 years on the Federal Circuit, made a stunning statement in testimony to Congress about the urgent need for Section 101 reform:
In my view, recent cases are unclear, inconsistent with one another and confusing. I myself cannot reconcile the cases. That applies equally to Supreme Court and Federal Circuit cases. Nor can I predict outcomes in individual cases with any confidence since the law keeps changing year after year. If I, as a judge with 22 years of experience deciding patent cases on the Federal Circuit’s bench, cannot predict outcomes based on case law, how can we expect patent examiners, trial judges, inventors and investors to do so? Testimony of Hon. Paul R. Michel, The State of Patent Eligibility in America, Part I: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. 2 (June 4, 2019)
Indeed, when very experienced judges can’t figure out Section 101 jurisprudence, what hope do ordinary people have, including those who wish to invest in technological innovations?
Is Congress or the Supreme Court Willing to Fix the 101 Mess?
As Alice destroys hundreds of good patents and spreads its chilling effects to the future of the patent system, is Congress or the SCOTUS willing to resolve the uncertain scope of Section 101, the ad hoc discretionary analysis of courts under Section 101, and the contradictory lines of cases as to the proper interpretation of Alice Section101 jurisprudence? We support the efforts of USPTO Director Andrei Iancu to reform a currently dysfunctional patent system but the USPTO cannot singlehandedly fix the Section 101 morass without intervention from a higher authority.
In the absence of any solution from the Supreme Court or Federal Circuit, or a clear and consistent process for applying Section 101 (without which it is impossible to achieve predictable outcomes under Section 101), Congress should change Section 101 to expressly overrule the Alice/Mayo jurisprudence and instead divide the responsibilities for patentability/eligibility and enforcement as follows:
The USPTO/Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) should deal with all the technical aspects of patents, including patent eligibility, using clearly defined guidelines based on well-settled law.
The courts should deal primarily with patent enforcement, namely, issues of infringement and damages.
Congress should legislate that issues of eligibility (§101), novelty (§102), obviousness (§103), enablement and indefiniteness (§112) be handled by the PTAB in a single hearing, using clearly defined guidelines, within a predetermined length of time, maximum two years. Currently, these issues are often heard separately, taking years to get through multiple forums, causing financial hardship to patent owners. The USPTO hearings should allow patent owners to present relevant technical and scientific evidence, including expert testimony, as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand regarding each issue. Administrative Patent Judges at the USPTO have the relevant scientific or technical training and experience in patent practice. Such decision-makers are better placed to understand the complexities of patents and would better appreciate the viewpoint of a skilled person in the relevant scientific and technical field.
America is the land of freedom and justice, yet I feel helpless as I look to the courts for a change in direction based on facts, not one person’s subjective opinions, and based on a workable, predictable and understandable legal scheme. The Supreme Court has passed up opportunities to clarify the law and to frankly acknowledge that its Section 101 jurisprudence is confusing. Unless SCOTUS acts, our only hope is for congressional intervention. Under today’s patent law, there are no patent owner rights for small inventors, only invalidation and infringement rights for wealthy corporations.
As Voip-Pal’s CEO and an inventor myself with two U.S. patents, our company’s story is instructive. Voip-Pal started its patent process in 2006. After spending millions of dollars in R&D, Voip-Pal created and patented a working IP-based telecommunications system with supernodes on multiple continents. After asserting our patents against Apple, Amazon, AT&T, Verizon and Twitter, we faced 12 inter partes review (IPR) challenges to our patents by two defendants (Apple and AT&T) and a third party, Unified Patents, acting on behalf of Silicon Valley companies. We successfully defeated all 12 IPRs—only to have our patents knocked down by two Alice Section 101 motions to dismiss, brought before a district court, which deemed Voip-Pal’s patented technologies to be an ineligible “abstract idea”, prior to claim construction and prior to our presenting expert evidence to the court. Those decisions are being vigorously appealed.
Unfortunately, anti-patent decisions made by some courts consider many new technologies to be abstract and unpatentable. Those decisions are taking us backwards and have made owning a patent no longer an asset for a small inventor or entity, but rather, a liability.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID: 18534607
Copyright: lightsource
TwitterFacebook26LinkedInReddit1EmailMore7
THE AUTHOREmil Malak
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.
"It's not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true."
Henry Kissinger
A Plea for Clarity and a New Approach on Section 101 in 2020
By Emil Malak
January 4, 2020
8Print Article
TwitterFacebook26LinkedInReddit1EmailMore7
“The analysis of courts under Section 101 lacks a key safeguard built into other areas of patent law, namely, consideration of the viewpoint of the person of ordinary skill in the art.”
Section 101 chaos - https://depositphotos.com/18534607/stock-photo-emerging-leadership.htmlThe lack of clarity by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark patent case of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208; 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) and the subsequent failure of the Federal Circuit to achieve consistency and predictability in Section 101 jurisprudence, has resulted in the destruction of thousands of patents, especially in the fields of information technology, software and life sciences. Was it really the Supreme Court’s intention in Alice to invalidate so many good patents based on so-called judicial exceptions to Section101 such as the “abstract idea” test, which no court has been able to adequately define?
How can the U.S. patent system be trusted when criteria for patent eligibility can no longer be clearly defined and courts can invalidate patents based on judicial discretion, without affording the patent owner due process such as presenting scientific and technical evidence from the viewpoint of a person of skill in the art? Due to the Section 101 problems created by the courts, owning a U.S. patent in the today is no longer an asset but a liability. Inventors are increasingly looking to other countries like China to provide protections they can no longer find in the United States—or are avoiding the patent system altogether. Where will the United States be in 10 years if innovation continues to be stifled and innovators increasingly resort to trade secrets?
[[Advertisement]]
Factual Analysis under Section 101 Ignores the Person Skilled in the Art
With all due respect to the judges who handle patent cases, many lack the necessary technical training and/or experience to judge complex patents. The problem is magnified by the fact that judges often attempt to evaluate a patent at a preliminary stage of litigation—before scientific, technical or expert evidence has been presented to the court. Unfortunately, when unqualified judges (not skilled in the art) are put in a position to hear such cases, they sometimes make decisions without accurate factual foundations and may inadvertently redefine inventions based on their own misunderstandings.
For example, the Federal Circuit recently struck down a patent owned by American Axle & Manufacturing based on Alice. American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, No. 18-1763 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The patent was directed to a mechanical device: a propshaft for vehicles that used a vibration-reducing liner. The majority judges said the claims lacked an eligible “inventive concept” despite evidence the patent owner was first to use tuned liners to attenuate bending mode vibrations in propshafts. The majority judges rejected the patent owner’s assertions. Based on their own independent technical findings of fact: they alleged an unrelated prior art patent disclosed the same inventive concept as the patent owner’s patent—even though neither party made this argument and even though the court did not have the benefit of expert evidence as to how a skilled person would have understood the technology disclosed in the unrelated patent. Id. at 8. The majority judges also criticized the claims for not stating how a liner would be tuned to reduce vibrations. In a scathing dissent, Judge Moore explained that the issue of whether a patent teaches how to use an invention belongs to Section 112, not to Section 101, and needs to take into account what a person of skill in the art would understand from the specification. Id. at 10-14. The majority judges’ repeated failure to consider the viewpoint of a skilled person illustrates the concern of law professors Timothy R. Holbrook and Mark D. Janis, who have pointed out that “the hypothetical person having ordinary skill in the art, has been accorded no place in the Supreme Court’s modern eligibility cases.” Janis, Mark D. and Holbrook, Timothy R., “Patent-Eligible Processes: An Audience Perspective” (2015); articles by Maurer Faculty (Paper 2109); published in Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 17, 349 (2015); see page 363. Indeed, eligibility analysis under Section 101 “entitles a court to kick the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art to the curb in favor of a discretionary analysis that need not be constrained by… two hundred years of American jurisprudence on patentability…” ] Id. at page 382.
Put differently, the analysis of courts under Section 101 lacks a key safeguard built into other areas of patent law, namely, consideration of the viewpoint of the person of ordinary skill in the art. It is well-settled that the claims should be construed through the eyes of a person of skill in the art in light of the specification. Obviousness analysis under Section 103 asks whether the invention would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Analysis under Section 112 asks whether a patent’s written description would convey to the skilled person that the inventor had possession of the invention at the time of filing, whether the claims would enable that skilled person to make and use the invention without undue experimentation, and whether the claims inform the skilled person about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. However, Section 101 analysis omits the perspective of the skilled person and substitutes the perspective of judges unskilled in the field of the invention, who often feel empowered by Alice to decide scientific and technical questions without expert evidence of record (e.g., under Rule 12(b)(6)).
Patents are awarded based on a patent examiner’s interpretation of how a person skilled in the art would understand the patent and the invention it describes. It is not up to the judge (who lacks skill in the art) to decide eligibility based on whether the judge knows how to make or use the invention. The measure is whether a person skilled in the art knows how to do it. However, in current Section101 cases, we are seeing judges arbitrarily deciding technical facts and rewriting patent law based on their subjective opinions and, in the process, becoming “inventor judges.”
Even Judges Admit the Law Under Section 101 is Confusing, Unpredictable or Incoherent
If the Courts are playing fast and loose with scientific and technical facts under Section 101, the state of the law is likewise depressingly unsettled. Although SCOTUS cautioned in Alice that Section 101 should not be allowed to “swallow all of patent law,” this is precisely what is happening. The scope of the judicial exceptions under Section 101 keeps expanding to the point where Section 101 has become a judicial “shortcut” to doing analysis under the well-settled patent law of other statutory sections such as Sections 102, 103 and 112. In the above-mentioned American Axle & Manufacturing case, Judge Moore pointed out in her dissent that the majority judges had applied the “enablement test” of Section 112 under Section 101, but without following a proper Section 112 analysis. With respect to the law of Section 101, Judge Moore warned, “[t]he hydra has grown another head.” American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, No. 18-1763 (Fed. Cir. 2019) at 13.
Numerous legal commentators and judges have stated that case law under Section 101 is a confusing mess. For example, in Interval Licensing, LLC v. AOL, Inc., No. 16-2502 (Fed. Cir. 2018), Judge Plager’s dissent frankly summarizes the courts’ Alice jurisprudence as “useless”, “an abstract (and indefinable) doctrine,” “unworkable,” an “intellectual morass,” and “incoherent,” among other things. Interval Licensing, LLC v. AOL, Inc., No. 16-2502 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In his critique, Judge Plager cited other leading judges who had spoken out about the Section 101 mess, including Judge Lourie, who had elsewhere stated “the law needs clarification by higher authority, perhaps by Congress, to work its way out of what so many in the innovation field consider are § 101 problems.” Id. at 11.
More recently, retired Judge Michel, who sat for 22 years on the Federal Circuit, made a stunning statement in testimony to Congress about the urgent need for Section 101 reform:
In my view, recent cases are unclear, inconsistent with one another and confusing. I myself cannot reconcile the cases. That applies equally to Supreme Court and Federal Circuit cases. Nor can I predict outcomes in individual cases with any confidence since the law keeps changing year after year. If I, as a judge with 22 years of experience deciding patent cases on the Federal Circuit’s bench, cannot predict outcomes based on case law, how can we expect patent examiners, trial judges, inventors and investors to do so? Testimony of Hon. Paul R. Michel, The State of Patent Eligibility in America, Part I: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property of the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. 2 (June 4, 2019)
Indeed, when very experienced judges can’t figure out Section 101 jurisprudence, what hope do ordinary people have, including those who wish to invest in technological innovations?
Is Congress or the Supreme Court Willing to Fix the 101 Mess?
As Alice destroys hundreds of good patents and spreads its chilling effects to the future of the patent system, is Congress or the SCOTUS willing to resolve the uncertain scope of Section 101, the ad hoc discretionary analysis of courts under Section 101, and the contradictory lines of cases as to the proper interpretation of Alice Section101 jurisprudence? We support the efforts of USPTO Director Andrei Iancu to reform a currently dysfunctional patent system but the USPTO cannot singlehandedly fix the Section 101 morass without intervention from a higher authority.
In the absence of any solution from the Supreme Court or Federal Circuit, or a clear and consistent process for applying Section 101 (without which it is impossible to achieve predictable outcomes under Section 101), Congress should change Section 101 to expressly overrule the Alice/Mayo jurisprudence and instead divide the responsibilities for patentability/eligibility and enforcement as follows:
The USPTO/Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) should deal with all the technical aspects of patents, including patent eligibility, using clearly defined guidelines based on well-settled law.
The courts should deal primarily with patent enforcement, namely, issues of infringement and damages.
Congress should legislate that issues of eligibility (§101), novelty (§102), obviousness (§103), enablement and indefiniteness (§112) be handled by the PTAB in a single hearing, using clearly defined guidelines, within a predetermined length of time, maximum two years. Currently, these issues are often heard separately, taking years to get through multiple forums, causing financial hardship to patent owners. The USPTO hearings should allow patent owners to present relevant technical and scientific evidence, including expert testimony, as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand regarding each issue. Administrative Patent Judges at the USPTO have the relevant scientific or technical training and experience in patent practice. Such decision-makers are better placed to understand the complexities of patents and would better appreciate the viewpoint of a skilled person in the relevant scientific and technical field.
America is the land of freedom and justice, yet I feel helpless as I look to the courts for a change in direction based on facts, not one person’s subjective opinions, and based on a workable, predictable and understandable legal scheme. The Supreme Court has passed up opportunities to clarify the law and to frankly acknowledge that its Section 101 jurisprudence is confusing. Unless SCOTUS acts, our only hope is for congressional intervention. Under today’s patent law, there are no patent owner rights for small inventors, only invalidation and infringement rights for wealthy corporations.
As Voip-Pal’s CEO and an inventor myself with two U.S. patents, our company’s story is instructive. Voip-Pal started its patent process in 2006. After spending millions of dollars in R&D, Voip-Pal created and patented a working IP-based telecommunications system with supernodes on multiple continents. After asserting our patents against Apple, Amazon, AT&T, Verizon and Twitter, we faced 12 inter partes review (IPR) challenges to our patents by two defendants (Apple and AT&T) and a third party, Unified Patents, acting on behalf of Silicon Valley companies. We successfully defeated all 12 IPRs—only to have our patents knocked down by two Alice Section 101 motions to dismiss, brought before a district court, which deemed Voip-Pal’s patented technologies to be an ineligible “abstract idea”, prior to claim construction and prior to our presenting expert evidence to the court. Those decisions are being vigorously appealed.
Unfortunately, anti-patent decisions made by some courts consider many new technologies to be abstract and unpatentable. Those decisions are taking us backwards and have made owning a patent no longer an asset for a small inventor or entity, but rather, a liability.
Image Source: Deposit Photos
Image ID: 18534607
Copyright: lightsource
TwitterFacebook26LinkedInReddit1EmailMore7
THE AUTHOREmil Malak
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.
If you're paying for a landline, your bill may very well skyrocket soon. There is a solution–it's replacing landlines and much more reliable than cell phones.
Here's what's happening: The cell phone debuted in 1983 and is phasing out landlines everywhere. Now, landlines still exist, but its infrastructure can hardly be supported and is often failing. With the current landline exodus, even today's outrageous pricing is unsustainable. Even though smartphones dominate telecommunications, there’s now a smarter, more efficient solution that carriers don’t want you to know about.
It’s called VoIP and it’s changing the way we use phone services in our own homes and businesses.
How big is this change? Millions of homes and businesses have already switched over to this new phone service. Also, in more than 200 international airports, air traffic control is relying on VoIP.1 Even the federal government gave up 80,000 traditional landlines in favour of VoIP.5
The move to VoIP, or Voice over Internet Protocol, is on the rise because not only is the phone quality is far better, but the benefits are astounding. Never pay a landline bill again – VoIP is a fraction of the cost. International calling is cheaper. Get your voicemails automatically texted or email to you. When you're out, forward your home phone to your cell phone.
If you're an entrepreneur and have calls go to your cell phone at all hours of the night, control when calls come through. To sound more professional, you can have a Phone Tree with departments, extensions, and even holding music!
The Setup is Simple & Works With Your Current Phone
In these quick steps, setting up VoIP is easy because it connects to your high-speed internet. Better yet, when you cancel your landline, you may even keep your current phone number!
The minimum bandwidth requirement is 100 Kbps up and down. Although dial up would be too slow, DSL and cable speeds exceed this requirement.
Here's Why Landlines and Cell Phones are Losing Trust
Old lines have left consumers in some cities without phone service. A resident in St. Charles complained that dialing 911 frequently didn't even work.3 His phone company still forced him, and other customers to rely on outdated copper wires.
Even business owners complained about their financial loss when they cannot charge credit card or debit cards, as the machines rely on landlines.
If you rely on cell phone service as your primary mode of making phone calls the problem could be even worse. The worst rated mobile company in Canada recorded 16 problems per 100 connections in the survey of more than 13,000 wireless customers.4
Fortunately, VoIP has given consumers a less expensive, more reliable option for making calls.
is that why we.were.wiped out by koh?
does this save us legal costs getting to the final court decision?
IF WE WERE TO END UP WINNING, how many court decisions are possibly left to be made before thIS ALL ends?
REAL-TIME LEVEL 2 QUOTE
MPID BID PRICE SIZE TIME
GTSM 0.0279 30,000 11/26
NITE 0.0279 10,000 11/26
CSTI 0.0262 45,000 11/26
ETRF 0.026 54,500 11/26
CFGN 0.0205 10,000 11/26
CDEL 0.02 230,000 11/26
OTCX 0.016 60,000 11/26
MAXM 0.0001 10,000 11/26
MPID ASK PRICE SIZE TIME
CDEL 0.0289 40,000 11/26
NITE 0.0294 37,799 11/26
CFGN 0.0294 10,000 11/26
GTSM 0.0294 10,000 11/26
CSTI 0.0295 10,000 11/26
ETRF 0.03 12,600 11/26
OTCX 0.05 60,000 11/26
MAXM 200.00 1 11/26
the gap will fill
we will not give up until we win.
REAL-TIME LEVEL 2 QUOTE
MPID BID PRICE SIZE TIME
GTSM 0.0241 10,000 11/20
ETRF 0.024 722,000 11/20
CSTI 0.02 125,000 11/20
NITE 0.02 10,000 11/20
CDEL 0.018 250,000 11/20
OTCX 0.016 60,000 11/20
CFGN 0.0125 10,000 10/28
MAXM 0.0001 10,000 11/20
MPID ASK PRICE SIZE TIME
GTSM 0.0255 10,000 11/20
CSTI 0.0255 10,000 11/20
CDEL 0.026 250,000 11/20
CFGN 0.029 10,000 10/17
NITE 0.03 30,000 11/20
OTCX 0.05 60,000 11/20
ETRF 0.095 20,000 11/20
MAXM 200.00 1 11/20
REAL-TIME LEVEL 2 QUOTE
BID
ASK
MPID
BID PRICE
Sent
SIZE
TIME
GTSM0.02272,00014:32
CDEL0.02220,00015:29
NITE0.017200,00015:29
CSTI0.01710,00010:56
OTCX0.01660,00011:05
MORE
a very good winning lawsuit
record against appple
REAL-TIME LEVEL 2 QUOTE 11-15
MPID BID PRICE SIZE TIME
CDEL 0.0225 195,664 15:25
ETRF 0.022 20,000 15:25
GTSM 0.022 10,000 13:22
NITE 0.0185 10,000 11/14
CFGN 0.0125 10,000 10/28
OTCX 0.0122 15,000 08:00
CSTI 0.0092 10,000 12:53
MAXM 0.0001 10,000 07:35
MPID ASK PRICE SIZE TIME
GTSM 0.023 10,000 13:22
ETRF 0.024 30,000 12:53
NITE 0.025 70,000 14:55
CSTI 0.028 12,600 12:53
CFGN 0.029 10,000 10/17
OTCX 0.03 60,000 08:00
CDEL 0.03 104,000 15:25
MAXM 200.00 1 07:35
HMMMM.
HMMMMMMM!
REAL-TIME LEVEL 2 QUOTE
MPID BID PRICE SIZE TIME
ETRF 0.02 114,300 12:19
GTSM 0.02 100,550 12:19
CSTI 0.0185 10,000 08:30
NITE 0.0185 10,000 11:44
CDEL 0.0184 70,000 12:19
CFGN 0.0125 10,000 10/28
OTCX 0.0122 15,000 08:00
MAXM 0.0001 10,000 07:35
MPID ASK PRICE SIZE TIME
GTSM 0.023 259,810 12:25
G1 Execution Services, LLC
ETRF 0.024 30,000 12:19
CSTI 0.026 10,000 09:05
CDEL 0.028 12,600 12:19
NITE 0.029 70,000 12:18
CFGN 0.029 10,000 10/17
OTCX 0.03 60,000 08:00
MAXM 200.00 1 07:35