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.
A friend sent me this...Enough said. Convertible loans are DEATH to small companies, unless they make $ and pay them back FAST. Clearly, this did not happen here.....now it will be cellar boxed.....
In January 2021, the Company issued a total of 9,775,136 shares of common stock related to a convertible note conversions.
In February 2021, the Company issued a total of 16,464,637 shares of common stock related to a convertible note conversions.
In March 2021, the Company issued a total of 19,758,900 shares of common stock related to a convertible note conversions.
In April 2021, the Company issued a total of 14,216,850 shares of common stock related to convertible notes.
In May 2021, the Company issued a total of 9,404,717 shares of common stock related to convertible notes.
In June 2021, the Company issued a total of 24,611,656 shares of common stock related to convertible notes.
In July 2021, the Company issued a total of 25,599,299 shares of common stock related to convertible notes.
In August 2021, the Company issued a total of 27,291,759 shares of common stock related to convertible notes.
In September 2021, the Company issued a total of 1,720,213 shares of common stock related to convertible notes.
In December 2021, the Company issued a total of 15,310,308 shares of common stock related to convertible notes.
So in your opinion, Judge Koh has dealt with Voip Pal fairly, not allowing claims construction, regardless of the careful examination of the patents by the PTAB and its EXPERTS...
And on what do you base this assessment of FAIRNESS?
I don't understand your post.
Hudnell is an excellent lawyer very sharp
Voip Pal SHOULD be given the opportunity to get into claim construction in District Court, ESPECIALLY given the UNANIMOUS wins at PTAB.
Koh's ruling clearly shows why Voip Pal sought a venue that would provide a fair and objective review of their patents. Koh's reference to continuation patents as a "cancer" is reason enough for her to recuse herself. This comment shows BIAS.
Voip Pal's patents have been reviewed by many patent EXPERTS at the PTAB, and found to be valid, and yet Judge Koh will not allow claim construction. The PTAB and Federal Circuit rulings provide ample reason to move to claim construction, before making any rulings on the claims as they pertain to Apple, Verizon , et al.
Voip Pal deserves to see its cases move forward so that the court can review the patent claims as they pertain to the technologies being used by the defendants.
It's just as simple as that........
I'm checking.
I'd like to speak to the reporter.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/11/03/voip-pal-wins-federal-appeal-in-ongoing-patent-battle-with-apple
VoIP-Pal wins federal appeal in ongoing patent battle with Apple
author image [color=red][/color]
By Mike Peterson | 17 hours ago
VoIP-Pal on Tuesday won an appeal in the Federal Circuit in its ongoing patent litigation against Apple, meaning that the case will return to the lower courts.
The patent holder initially filed several lawsuits against Apple dating back to 2018 alleging that several of the tech giant's platforms, such as FaceTime and iMessage, violated its intellectual property. In this specific case, which was dismissed by a California District Court in late 2019, VoIP-Pal alleged infringement of four patents related to voice over IP protocols.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed VoIP-Pal's appeal of the 2019 ruling. Although oral arguments in that case were scheduled for Nov. 3, they were canceled.
In its appeal, VoIP-Pal argued that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California erroneously determined that its patent claims were ineligible and dismissed its patent lawsuit in error. The court had decided that "none of the elements of the claim ... amounts to an inventive concept."
"Because VoIP-Pal made specific, plausible, and unrefuted factual allegations about why aspects recited in the asserted claims were unconventional, the district court erred in finding the asserted claims ineligible," the appeal from June reads.
Back in September, the Federal Circuit handed VoIP-Pal another win when it upheld a 2018 ruling by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that denied Apple's request for sanctions. The PTAB initially upheld 15 claims of VoIP-Pal's voice over IP communications patents.
As a result of the Federal Circuit's decision, the case will now be remanded back to the district court for additional proceedings.
If they were so confident in their case they wouldn't being crying about changing the venue to NorCal. They are concerned - they have reason to be
Just as a perspective. Apple is up 2% today, or 40BB in share value. Much of it relies on OUR patents.
oh you mean the drug store called the Federal Circuit?
Yeah, that one....
The real scam is when big companies use patents without licensing them
$VPLM US Court of Appeals Upholds PTAB Decisions in Favor of Voip-Pal’s (VOIP) Patents Against Apple $AAPLhttps://t.co/HhFFPmryye$AAPL $MSFT $AMZN $GOOG $FB $TWTR $INTC $NVDA $BABA $BIDU $MU $AMD#HotStocks #StockMarket #Daytrade #Profit #EmergingGrowth
— EmergingGrowth.com (@EmergingGrowth1) September 29, 2020
EXACTLY
not irrelevant. The patents are quite specific about the routing
A GREAT PRECEDENT FOR VOIP PAL
Uniloc Patent Claims Vindicated Under Alice at Federal Circuit
By Eileen McDermott (Editor in Chief, IP Watchdog)
May 1, 2020
“Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” – CAFC
Federal Circuit - https://depositphotos.com/10042948/stock-illustration-red-boxing-glove-conceptual-vector.htmlYesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Moore, reversed and remanded a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which had found that certain claims of Uniloc’s U.S. Patent No. 6,993,049 were ineligible under Section 101 as being directed to an abstract idea. The Federal Circuit disagreed, holding that the claims at issue were directed to a “patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality.”
Uniloc sued LG for infringement of the ‘049 patent, which covers an invention that enables “‘a rapid response time without the need for a permanently active communication link’” between a parked secondary station and the primary station.”
Representative Claim 2 of the ’049 patent recites:
A primary station for use in a communications system comprising at least one secondary station, wherein means are provided for broadcasting a series of inquiry messages, each in the form of a plurality of predetermined data fields arranged according to a first communications protocol, and for adding to each inquiry message prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one secondary station.
LG moved to dismiss, and the district court granted the motion, finding that the asserted claims were directed to the abstract idea of “additional polling in a wireless communication system.” The court cited Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) to support its holding, likening Uniloc’s claims to the asserted data manipulation claims held ineligible in those cases. The court also said that the claims failed to recite an “inventive concept sufficient to save the claim[s].”
In reviewing the district court’s analysis, the Federal Circuit at Step 1 of the Alice test for determining patent eligibility pointed to recent cases in which it held claims patent eligible, including DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P; Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.; Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.; Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. HTC America, Inc.; Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google; and Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., to support their view that “the claims at issue are directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, namely the reduction of latency experienced by parked secondary stations in communication systems.” The Court continued:
Like the claims in DDR, the claimed invention changes the normal operation of the communication system itself to “overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” In doing so, the claimed invention, like the improvement in computer memory we held patent eligible in Visual Memory, enables the communication system to accommodate additional devices, such as battery-operated secondary stations, without compromising performance.
The Court distinguished the present claims from the cases relied upon by the district court to prove ineligibility, characterizing such reliance as “misplaced.” Because Uniloc’s claims are directed to “adding to each inquiry message prior to transmission an additional data field for polling at least one secondary station,” resulting in “reduced response time by peripheral devices which are part of the claimed system,” they ultimately are directed to “a specific asserted improvement to the functionality of the communication system itself,” and not the “abstract idea of performing additional polling in wireless communication systems or performing additional polling using inquiry messages” articulated by the district court. The Court concluded:
The claimed invention’s compatibility with conventional communication systems does not render it abstract. Nor does the fact that the improvement is not defined by reference to “physical” components. “To hold otherwise risks resurrecting a bright-line machine-or-transformation test, or creating a categorical ban on software patents.” Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself. – citations omitted
Because the Court held the claims eligible under Alice step one, it did not proceed to step two, and therefore reversed and remanded the case.
Last week, there was a very important (and favorable) ruling in the Uniloc case concerning 101/Obviousness. The following is a letter from our lead attorney, Lewis E. Hudnell III, regarding that case, and its relationship to the ruling(s) on 101 and Voip Pal...This is a promising development, as it pertains directly to the Voip-Pal case(s).
May 1, 2020
By CM/ECF
The Honorable Peter R. Marksteiner
Circuit Executive and Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20439
Re: VoIP-Pal.com v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2019-1808 (Lead Case)
Dear Colonel Marksteiner,
VoIP-Pal submits this FRAP 28(j) letter to advise the Court of Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. LG Electronics USA Inc. et al., No. 2019-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020)
(“Uniloc”) (Ex. A) as supplemental authority, which was decided after VoIP-Pal filed its Combined Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc.
As noted in VoIP-Pal’s Petition, Uniloc arose from the same district court judge as this case. Petition at 8. In Uniloc, the Court reversed the district court’s ruling at the Rule 12 stage that the appealed claims were ineligible under §101. Uniloc, Slip Op. at 2. Uniloc found that LG erred by arguing that “the claims themselves must expressly mention” the alleged benefit achieved by the claimed invention. Id. at 9-10.
Instead, the Court confirmed that “[c]laims need not articulate the advantages of the claimed combinations to be eligible.” Id. As argued in the Petition, the panel overlooked that the same district court committed the same error as LG in this case. Petition at 14-15. This error directly
resulted from Appellees’ repeated arguments to the district court that the asserted claims do not recite the benefits of user-specific calling and transparent routing. See Appx001607, Appx001611, Appx001617-001618; see also Response Br. at 12, 48.
Consequently, based on a perfunctory facial review of the asserted claims, the district court concluded that the claims do not mention the benefits achieved by the invention, stating “[t]he ’815 Patent’s claim language contains no mention of these alleged benefits of user-specific calling . . . .” and “[l]ike with user-specific calling, the concepts embodied by transparent routing appear nowhere in the claims.”
Case: 19-1808 Document: 97-1 Page: 1 Filed: 05/01/2020 (1 of 13)
Honorable Peter R. Marksteiner
May 1, 2020
Page 2 0f 2
Appx 000047-000048 (emphasis added). In reaching this conclusion, the district court disregarded claim language that VoIP-Pal plausibly alleged captured the inventive concepts of user-specific calling and transparent routing because these benefits are not expressly mentioned in the asserted claims. Petition at 15-16. The panel’s affirmance of the district court’s erroneous conclusion conflicts with the precedent set by Uniloc. For this reason and those stated in the Petition, the Court should grant the Petition and rehear this case.
Respectfully submitted,
Lewis E. Hudnell, III
Enclosure
cc: Counsel of Record (via ECF)
Case: 19-1808 Document: 97-1 Page: 2 Filed: 05/01/2020 (2 of 13)
FILED APRIL 24,2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.;
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP dba VERIZON WIRELESS;
VERIZON SERVICES, CORP.; and
VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC.;
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-cv-327
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”), for its Complaint against Defendants Verizon Communications, Inc; Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless; Verizon Services, Inc.; and Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. (collectively, “Verizon Defendants”), alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business located at 10900 NE 4th Street, Suite 2300, Bellevue, Washington 98004.
2. On information and belief, Defendant Verizon Communications, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 140 West Street, New York, New York 10013. Verizon Communications, Inc. may be served with process through its registered agent, the Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801. Case 6:20-cv-00327
FILED APRIL 24,2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T, INC.;
AT&T CORPORATION;
AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF TEXAS, LLC.; and
AT&T SERVICES, INC.;
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-cv-325
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”), for its Complaint against Defendants AT&T, Inc.; AT&T Corporation; AT&T Communications of Texas, LLC; and AT&T Services, Inc. (collectively, “AT&T Defendants”), alleges as follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business located at 10900 NE 4th Street, Suite 2300, Bellevue, Washington 98004.
2. On information and belief, Defendant AT&T, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 175 E Houston Street, San Antonio, Texas 78205. AT&T, Inc. may be served with process through its registered agent, the CT Corp System, at 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900 Dallas, Texas 75201-3136. AT&T, Inc. is registered to do business in the State of Texas and has been since at least October 2, 1992. Case 6:20-cv-00325
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/04/22/voip-pal-implores-full-cafc-review-whether-rule-12-motion-based-section-101-can-decided-claim-construction/id=120855/
Above is the link to a story published by IP Watchdog on the filing by Voip-Pal for En Banc hearing.
It's a good read.
VoIP-Pal Implores Full CAFC to Review Whether a Rule 12 Motion Based on Section 101 Can Be Decided Before Claim Construction
April 22, 2020
“VoIP-Pal explained that district courts across the country still erroneously look to Bancorp to ‘circumvent formal claim construction in deciding Rule 12 eligibility motions” without regard for MyMail’s holding.’”
Last week, VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) asking for review of a Rule 36 judgment in VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc. That judgment affirmed a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that resolved a claim construction dispute in the context of a motion to dismiss under Section 101 as per Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prior to claim construction. In the petition, VoIP-Pal asserted that the Rule 36 judgment conflicted with CAFC precedent and “the time has come for this court to reconsider whether a Rule 12 motion based on §101 should be decided before claim construction.”
VoIP-Pal outlined three reasons why the CAFC should rehear the case: 1) the CAFC’s affirmance of the district court’s decision conflicts with the Court’s precedent in MyMail Ltd. v. Oovoo, LLC; 2) the CAFC erroneously placed the burden on the non-moving party to propose terms for claim construction in opposing a Rule 12 motion to dismiss under 35 U.S.C.§101; and 3) the district court erroneously refuted a non-moving party’s plausible factual allegations that the claims recite an inventive concept based merely on a facial review of the asserted claims at the pleadings stage.
The Court’s Decision Conflicts with MyMail
With respect to the question of whether the CAFC’s affirmance of the district court’s decision conflicts with the Court’s precedent in MyMail, VoIP-Pal noted that the Court in MyMail stated, “if the parties raise a claim construction dispute at the [Rule 12] stage, the district court must either [1] adopt the non-moving party’s constructions or [2] resolve the dispute to whatever extent is needed to conduct the §101 analysis.” According to VoIP-Pal, the district court did not follow the guidance of MyMail, but rather “conducted a perfunctory facial review of the asserted claims” without consideration of the patents-in-suit’s specification, the prosecution history, or extrinsic evidence. On this point, the brief quoted IPWatchdog’s article, “Is the Federal Circuit Closer to Requiring a Real Claim Construction for Patent Eligibility?”, by Gene Quinn, in which Quinn explained that, “Sadly, a perfunctory facial review of claims has become the norm on motions to dismiss filed challenging claims as invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101.”
VoIP-Pal also noted that the district judge in MyMail was the same as the judge in the present case, with the district court’s decision in MyMail issuing five months prior to the present case. VoIP-Pal noted that in both cases the district court relied on the outdated law of Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, which was decided two years prior to Alice v. CLS Bank, for the proposition that “claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101.”
However, contrary to the present case, the CAFC in MyMail found that the district judge erred by failing to address the claim construction dispute prior to holding the patents-in-suit ineligible. VoIP-Pal also explained that district courts across the country still erroneously look to Bancorp to “circumvent formal claim construction in deciding Rule 12 eligibility motions” without regard for MyMail’s holding. Thus, VoIP-Pal urged that, without clear guidance from the CAFC, such inconsistent and erroneous district court practices would continue.
Burden to Raise Claim Construction Dispute
Regarding the second point, that the CAFC erroneously placed the burden on VoIP-Pal to propose terms for claim construction, VoIP-Pal noted that Apple made the “plainly untenable” argument that it was VoIP-Pal’s “obligation to put forward . . . a disputed limitation and explain why it matters for the 101 structure.” VoIP-Pal argued that the approach suggested by Apple improperly shifted the burden of proving ineligibility to VoIP-Pal where the “Appellees plainly had the burden to show that there was no plausible reading of the patents-in-suit under which the asserted claims satisfied the eligibility requirement.” VoIP-Pal also explained that it specifically argued that certain claims required construction under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6), but the district court did not construe any of the claims noted by VoIP-Pal in its eligibility analysis. Thus, according to VoIP-Pal, guidance is needed to explain to litigants what needs to be done to raise a claim construction dispute under a Rule 12 eligibility challenge.
Plausible Factual Allegations
Lastly, VoIP-Pal asked the CAFC to rehear this case in order to address the question of whether a patentee’s plausible factual allegations that the asserted claims recite an inventive concept can be refuted at the Rule 12 stage solely by a facial review of the claims. Citing Cellspin Soft, VoIP-Pal noted that “allegations in the complaint are sufficient to overcome a Rule 12 eligibility challenge as long as what makes the claims inventive is recited by the claims.” The district court rejected VoIP-Pal allegations that the claims of the patent-in-suit contained an inventive concept because specific language, such as the words “user-specific calling”, did not appear in the claims. According to VoIP-Pal, the “district court unfairly held VoIP-Pal to an impossible standard— requiring that the claims contain the alleged inventive concept yet refusing to construe the claims to determine if they do.” Explaining that it demonstrated a need for claim construction, VoIP-Pal concluded that the CAFC should rehear the case “to hold that VoIP-Pal’s plausible allegations cannot be trumped by a facial review of the asserted claims.”
Voip Pal NEVER stops fighting for its shareholders. The company's lead counsel believes that the Federal Circuit Court missed crucial precedents in its recent decision, and he has filed to present the case - in other words,
Voip-Pal has filed a petition for en En Banc Rehearing of its case before the Federal Appeals Court.
A copy of the petition will be available on the Voip-Pal website sometime on Thursday.
#nevergiveup.
incorrect
VPLM needs only ONE win to go to Claim Construction and damages, which should have happened already.
just ONE......
The case is not closed.
VPLM only needs to get past Alice 101 ONCE on one patent.
I like the odds
simply not accurate
No- the Senate needs to address the Alice 101 issue and draft better legislation to protect IP in the United States.
China has just passed the US in new IP, not good for the USA
From Voip Pal IR
"Dear Voip-Pal shareholders,
On Monday April 6, 2020, Voip-Pal filed a lawsuit against Amazon,com Inc., in the Western District of Texas. This is the third lawsuit filed by Voip-Pal in the past week. "
A copy of the complaint has been posted on the Voip-Pal website
www.voip-pal.com
On Friday April 3, 2020, Voip-Pal filed a lawsuit against Google, LLC in the Western District of Texas.
This is the second lawsuit filed by Voip-Pal this week.
Also, here is a link to an article about filing patent cases in Waco, Texas.
https://bakerbotts.com/insights/publications/2019/june/patent-filings-surge-in-the-waco-division-of-the-western-district-of-texas
Please visit the Voip Pal website to read the complaint.
Dear Voip-Pal Shareholders,
This afternoon Voip-Pal filed a patent infringement lawsuit versus Facebook and WhatsApp in the Western District of Texas. Facebook and its subsidiary WhatsApp have corporate offices in Austin, Texas, which is part of the Western District of Texas.
I have included a link to an article from last year, published in IPWatchdog discussing the patent litigation process in the Western District of Texas.
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/18/newest-patent-rocket-docket-waco-texas/id=106453/
From Voip Pal IR
Dear Voip-Pal Shareholders,
The purpose of this email is to clarify a misconception some have had regarding a recent filing by the company.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/filing/html?id=14035874&guid=XEVWU6FNp6CNNyh
Last week, Voip-Pal CEO, Emil Malak filed a Form 4 with the Securities and Exchange Commision informing of a transfer of a small percentage of his personally held restricted 144 shares. That transfer was a personal decision Mr. Malak made after consulting with his attorney during a routine updating of his will. Mr. Malak was advised that it was in his best interests to divest himself of a small percentage of his holdings and transfer some of his personally held shares to his wife and children. Those shares are currently restricted and will remain restricted after transfer. Mr. Malak has often stated that he has never sold a single share of his Voip-Pal stock and he stands behind those words today.
The ENTIRE MARKET was halted for 15 min. per the circuit breaker rules.
VPLM is HIGHER TDAY
Now it comes down to what is in the record and the briefs.
The hearing and the hmmm are a distant memory
go VPLM
I just love these posts that start "no one thinks", or "no one believes"
when it is obvious that there are people on BOTH sides of VPLM.
nonsense...
Not to mention nothing but PTAB WINS
It's just you....
Seriously....EVERYONE?
what is a "past horizon"
Ummm -let's see -maybe it's because the Judges have not ruled on the appeal...
DUH