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.
Yes they would when the patent system FORCES the patent holder to go through what Voip Pal is going through.....and that is why the wins at the PTAB matter
There is nothing" flimsy" about being unable to get your case before a jury, due to all of the machinations required to get to court (PTAB, IPR, AIA). Regarding the "proclamations" - you don't sue people for infringement unless you believe it is true, based on the assessment of your engineers that the alleged infringer is using your "stuff"...That is the basis of every infringement case. It is alleged and the proven in court. The fact that we are getting closer to court is a testament to the quality of the patents. Those who believe that the Alice decision won't stand, have good reasons to be patient.
Clearly you think different - it's a free country - thanks to the sacrifices of the brave men and women who have given their lives for us....Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to spend some time thinking about them.....
NO INFRINGEMENTS PROVEN IN THE LEAST
In order to PROVE infringement, you must be permitted to get into COURT, and that
is exactly what Voip-Pal has been doing
___________________________
To me, that's merely a flimsy excuse....BECAUSE.....of the daily PROCLAMATIONS here.....that all these companies are infringing. In fact all the arguments hinge on whether or not they are infringing.......therefore.......its OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE to keep saying and keep reminding that THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT (until a court says so) thus its incorrect & inappropriate to keep saying that vplm will win because they are being infringed. I have also pointed out that no one I've seen here is adequately equipped to determine if infringement has or has not occurred, because it took ALLEGEDLY 20-25 (they keep changing the numbers) HIGH LEVEL IP ENGINEERS & approx $17mm TO CREATE THE SOFTWARE IN THE 1ST PLACE, THEREFORE IN MY JUDGEMENT, IT WOULD TAKE THE EQUIVILAENT KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE TO HAVE WHAT IT TSKES TO DETERMINE FROM THE PATENT LANGUAGE, INFRINGEMENT or not.
______________________________
My comments are in bold
NO SALES
VPLM is a tech development company, they have always been interested in licensing
NO LICENSES PURCHASED
Without patent enforcement (which VPLM is making every effort to do), how can the company successfully negotiate with alleged infringers? The AIA changed everything
NO SETTLEMENTS (from those allegedly behind the 8 ball of multi billion dollar infringement lawsuits, ie, 'yawn')
Same answer as above. Why should apple, Amazon et all settle, when they know the system is against patent owners?
NO INFRINGEMENTS PROVEN IN THE LEAST
In order to PROVE infringement, you must be permitted to get into COURT, and that is exactly what Voip-Pal has been doing
NO PROFF OF EFFECTIVENESS, NECESSITY OR VALUE OF ANY OF THE PATENTS.
Apple's responses to the cases demonstrate otherwise
NO COURT WINS WHATSOEVER (staving off patents challenges in ptab is not a court win, it's simply keeping what they already had. No gain)
In this era of the AIA, you MUST win at the PTAB to get INTO court, and win we have, each and every single time THIS IS HOW YOU GET INTO COURT.
The stock price reflects the hardship endured by a public company enforcing its patents in a system that delays and delays to protect infringers.
where did you hear this?
Where did Voip-Pal ever claim to have invented Voip?
Please provide a link
on the internet, everyone is everywhere....
Europe is a level playing field compared with the US
The fat lady hasn't sung yet....The Alice appeal being won will be HUGE, and Europe awaits
That is EXACTLY what Apple is doing.
NOTE the term "efficient infringement"
exactly right....the Google revolving door in the Obama White House, followed by the appointment of Michelle Lee, former Deputy General Counsel to be the head of the USPTO overseeing the PTAB?
Give me a break.....
The AIA problem is serious, but don't take my word for it.
Go too www.IPWatchdog.com and read hundreds of articles by the most knowledgable people in patent law, that believe that the PTAB/IPR system is a sham and needs to be repealed.
Are they all wrong? Do you know more than they do?
Gene Quinn is a very smart man, and he understands how big this problem is, and bless him for standing up for inventors..
I do have it right
nope - patent trolls are no doubt an issue to be discussed, but painting all NPE's as evil is even worse
Then why was Microsoft trying to get a patent for Skype that was kicked by the USPTO due to "prior art"
kinda hard to prove infringement when the legal system is DESIGNED to prevent you from getting into court without waiting YEARS...
and that is exactly the point of Emil Malak's op-ed
the Federal Circuit may see it differently
it is iNOT the same thing. Post Grant Reivews and IPRs are totally different with regard to standing issues and other matters. Unified patents, for example, has no legal standing as an alleged infringer in many cases, but they submit IPRs ALL THE TIME
already has, you simply don't acknowledge them
The integration of legacy (cellular and PSTN networks) with modern (internet based) is hardly "obvious nor is it abstract.
Koh ruled, now it will be appealed.
oh please supply the patent citation for your "claim"
That's why it's called an "op-ed", and IP Watchdog published it. They are VERY knowledgable about the AIA mess....You think Gene Quinn doesn't agree with Emil?
wrong.
Once Voip Pal won at the PTAB 8-0, the case should have proceeded to court to determine infringement and damages.
The AIA is a circus
Infringement is alleged until proven in court
the word is still appropriate to use
All Emil is doing in this piece is shedding light on how a company can go through years of getting technology patents, be subjected to a BARRAGE of IPRs, win them all, and still not get into court. The system is broken, courtesy of the AIA, and needs to be fixed.
This is EXACTLY what Director Iancu is fighting for, patent rights and innovation...
and yet there are those who would try to paint this as something negative....
a CEO fighting for the shareholders, and gets thrashed for it...
Sad
IMPORTANT READ FOR ALL VPLM SHAREHOLDERS
President Donald Trump Should Investigate the Corrupt Patent System and Passage of the AIA
By Emil Malak
May 17, 2019
“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.
Tipping the Scales of Justice
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.
Leave Patents to the USPTO
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:
What role did political contributions by Silicon Valley play in the passage of the AIA?
How did Google get unprecedented influence over policymaking during Barack Obama’s administration? Why did Google and its affiliates, led by former Executive Eric Schmidt, log 437 official White House visits during the first 7 years of Barack Obama’s presidency?
Did Google’s unfettered access to the Obama White House play a role in the subsequent dismissal of pending Antitrust litigation by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Google?M
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.
Silicon Valley’s Lack of Vision
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.
Overhauling the Current System
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.
The Important Question of Antitrust
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.
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/05/17/president-donald-trump-investigate-corrupt-patent-system-passage-aia/id=109312/
They will NEVER throw out a settlement offer, as long as they believe the system is captured by Silicon Valley
Really- it was obvious and abstract to engineer the integration of legacy and modern networks?
Give me a break.
This ain't over by a long shot
Apple wouldn't be throwing their best legal at it if they weren't concerned....
This is FAR from over
It's interesting how small companies like VPLM are "vilified" as they struggle to protect their intellectual property rights -when the real culprits are the largest lobbying entities from Silicon Valley that pushed through the AIA and created the current PTAB/IRP/101 debacle.
Voip-Pal isn't to blame that the system is so set against small companies- the largest companies in the world are to blame for using their power to crush competition.
How the America Invents Act Harmed Inventors
By Paul Morinville
September 10, 2016
“The America Invents Act (AIA) was the single worst disaster in the 226 year history of the U.S. patent system. The AIA did very real damage – enough to put many inventors out of business and discourage many others.”
For inventors, those who create most of America’s new jobs, the America Invents Act (AIA) was the single worst disaster in the 226 year history of the U.S. patent system. The AIA did very real damage – enough to put many inventors out of business and discourage many others. Of course, it was a great new law for the large multinational corporations who pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into Washington D.C. in the form of political contributions and funding for a massive public relations campaign centered on a patent troll villain. This fictional patent troll was based on a couple of bad actors. Indeed, the New York Attorney General investigated MPHJ, who was accused of being a bad actor. In that investigation, the NY AG conducted a nationwide search for nefarious demand letters that would lead them to more patent trolls. After several months of investigation, the NY AG found six examples of nefarious demand letters in a multi-month nationwide search. That’s right – six – only six. Yet the patent troll remained the narrative driving the passage of the AIA and is still the narrative of the infringer lobby in their effort to pass the Innovation Act. That is because it is really just a smokescreen, a red herring based on slivers of truth and dressed out with unsubstantiated false allegations that is intended to mystify the true nature of patent reform. This smokescreen provided cover for lawmakers to pass the AIA and effectively transfer the property rights of small inventors to the large multinational corporations led by Google, the same multinationals who paid for it in Washington.
During the run up to passage of the AIA, the infringer lobby pushed “first to file” to the front of the debate and made it appear as the main issue of contention among inventors. However, first to file was a false flag. It was pushed out to obfuscate the most damaging part of the AIA. The real damage was hidden in the AIA’s creation of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) and three new procedures to invalidate issued patents – Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR) and Covered Business Method Review (CBM). Pushing first to file to the forefront of the debate effectively hid PTAB procedures from honest and open debate.
Indeed, first to file was an issue that could be understood by most inventors. Many rightfully objected that it would force patenting before the invention was fully baked thus increasing costs and risk of theft. That objection and others are proving to be true as illustrated in this article about the Young Inventor’s Showcase in Houston. However, litigation experience was required to understand the damage of the PTABs and since less than 2.3% of patents are ever litigated, only a very small subset of inventors have ever been forced by infringers to defend their patent rights. Of those, an even smaller subset knew about the provisions in the AIA, could project the damage those provisions would cause, and were bold enough to say something. Ron Katznelson comes to mind, but there were a handful of others. Inventors were just not organized nor were they educated educated, and those who were did not have the right Washington connections. Inventors who did stand up were sidelined and disparaged by the infringer lobby. Effectively, inventors were silenced by Congress, with independent inventors not even given a seat at the table or called as witnesses at any hearing.
From the perspective of some independent inventor working in their garage or basement to create their next consumer product, phone app, electronic device or something else, why should they keep up with Washington politics anyway? After all, we have a Constitution. In addition, black letter law and over 200 years of precedent had well established that an issued patent is a presumed valid private property right, which could only be invalidated in an Article III court. We all learned about patents in grade school. For the entire history of America, patents had enabled inventors to get a return on their hard work because a patent could be leveraged for investment to commercialize the invention or to license it so others could. Why would any lawmaker want to change that?
But, if you do not pay attention to politics, it eventually pays attention to you. The AIA turned the patent system on its head, and today inventors can scarcely do anything with their patents. I’ve been to dozens of inventor clubs in the last six months talking about patent reform. Inventors are walking away from the patent system en mass, which is exactly what the large multinational corporations that supported the demise of the American patent system wanted. These independent inventors can’t license their inventions, which means they can’t fund their companies to continue to research, develop and commercialize their inventions. This was the goal of the large multinational corporations. Each and every one of them obtained substantial benefit from the patent system, which is how they rose to where they are today. Even Google, the most vociferous of the anti-patent corporations filed two patent applications on their search algorithm before they even acquired the URL Google.com.
If inventors can’t make money by inventing, they stop… and that is what is happening all across America. Some inventor support companies have laid off as much as 70% of their staff. The canary is not only unconscious, it is burning in flames threatening to ignite the entire coalmine. Congress and regulators must take note. The market has collapsed for inventors. This is a serious national issue that will negatively affect a generation of job growth. Unfortunately the results are slow burning and hidden, but the long-term damage will become clear nonetheless.
Entrepreneurial inventors and the start-ups that rely on the innovation generate most of America’s new jobs and the collapse of the patent system is a major reason why America’s real job market (as opposed to the fiction delivered monthly by the Department of Labor) is stagnant and our economy is not growing. Those familiar with the innovation crisis in America, which has been caused by a demise of the U.S. patent system, easily understand why GDP is growing at an abysmal 1% to 2%. Given the ingenuity found in America it is embarrassing that we suffer in this lackluster economy.
Prior to the AIA, a patent was a highly valuable asset capable of attracting capital to startup new technology companies. The deck was rearranged by the AIA to radically favor infringers to the point that today, a patent is a liability. Both inventors and investors now associate a patent with high cost and high risk of even higher cost. It provides no barrier to entry because since eBay v. MercExchange it is no longer an exclusive right. Instead the public good must be proven, an impossible task in most cases. A single patent can scarcely be defended at all because most contingency attorneys and investors have left the patent business. Most patents cannot be sold unless they are part of a large portfolio often measured in hundreds or thousands. Even those few patents that can still be sold or defended are worth pennies on the dollar.
The AIA is a certified disaster, and PTAB procedures are the core reason why.
https://www.finra.org/sites/default/files/NAC_2014041724601_Scottsdale_072018_0.pdf
This has NOTHING to do with the current management and operations of Voip Pal.
Alpine was trying to sell UNREGISTERED SECURITIES on belief of a former employee.
ZERO to do with today.
Do your homework before smearing a company
How ironic is it that we are in the middle of fighting a trade war with a country as we push innovation into their welcoming arms by having a broken patent system that punishes patent owners.
it makes NO SENSE
keeping shareholders informed is not pumping.
What's funny about a company fighting to protect their Intellectual Property against a system that is designed to protect the apples, googles, Amazons of the world?
You want Anti-Trust? We' are living it....
you'll have a chance to read the appeal once filed
patience, grasshopper....
so far.....
The claims are not abstract and vague. I have every confidence that the Alice decision will be overturned on appeal.
Nothing like the AIA has taken place before, that has such a powerful and damaging effect on patent holders, and everyone knows it.
It was done with the encouragement of Google and the appointment of their Deputy Counsel as head of the USPTO....
Oh wait, Google doesn't care about infringing on patents, does it?
Alice Five Years Later: Hope Wanes as 101 Legislative Discussions Dominated by Big Tech
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/05/05/alice-five-years-later-gearing-up-to-commemorate-the-death-of-101/id=108926/
By Gene Quinn
May 5, 2019
“I asked to participate in the 101 Roundtable and was denied access based of the fact that I am ‘media.’ Yet, the tech giants that are rejecting reform are allowed to participate and still engage in a carefully coordinated public relations campaign.”
So keep pushing that narrative that Silicon Valley isn't constantly imposing its will in patent law....keep drinking that kool-aid, while they crush competition.
right - Silicon Valley is a just a bunch of innocents that had a revolving door with the Obama White House....Sure...just co-incidence...
https://googletransparencyproject.org/articles/googles-revolving-door-us