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.
VPLM doesn't stop fighting for the shareholders
Rubbish.
oh no, I have MUCH more.....
it is EXACTLY how it works.
Once the patent's validity is REAFFIRMED (8-0), then the case moves to FEDERAL COURT, where VPLM will assert infringement of its VALIDATED patent. The courses will then rule on the infringement and damages.
CLEARLY, Voip Pal's engineers believe there is infringement, and it now needs to be proven in COURT.
The problem for the infringer is that the damages become potentially greater as time goes by.
If only it were an excellent question....
They should try an antacid.....
The validation of the patents is a VITAL step to the determination of infringement and damages.
After you get a favorable ruling on validity, you move to federal Court to determine the rest.
So far, we are doing well.
your posts reflect that.....
And we all can rely on the solid unbiased DD of members of the DRUS board.... thank you
I love it when posters say "as called".....you have called a lot of things that have not come to pass with respect to price.
That fact = ZERO credibility, "as called"
Spoken like a true shareholder
Excellent post. Thank you
Because the company would tell us all if they were, right?
Quite a statement........of course, it is false. VPLM has made hundreds of statements that are proven factually to be true, regarding granting of patents, court cases, PTAB wins etc...
Such a global statement, which of course is inaccurate
20 patents = not a failure
PTAB wins -not a failure
attempts to discredit VPLM = failure
So Apple filed a motion for Sanctions more than 6 months ago.
And...
The end game is license or acquisition. They are debt free.
Next
PROVIDE FACTS OF DEBT.
there was nothing illegal about that but at .08, but then again looking at the posts today....The sky is yellow and the sun is blue....
Great post
Chart looks horrible
Fortunately for Voip Pal, the litigation process is well under way in other cases ... yes the legal system seems to benefit infringers but they will ultimately have to account for it
so call this week
Exactly
thanks gt
#discovery
It's important to note that while we wait for the PTAB to rule on the apple motion for sanctions, that there is a bill before Congress to repeal the AIA and the PTAB, in part due to all of the pressure from patent holders regarding the bias.
It's also important to note that there are other cases moving to discovery.
Should be an interesting second half of 2018
it's a conspiracy
All you have to do is look at the court case filings. The rest will be outed in Discovery
I think the company should be REQUIRED to prove that they are in talks by providing cocktail napkins with specific points of discussion.
Actually it does. This stock is a speculative play. However, if and when VPLM wins in court, the payout will be enormous.
you win in court, before you get paid....and so far Voip Pal is doing just fine.
VPLM will get paid - the patents are strong and Apple knows it
you debunked NADA
oh - I don't believe that Voip Pal's team of engineers and patent experts are at all confused about the difference between patents and the infringement of those patents....That's why VPLM won the IPRs.
It's called expert testimony
and who, pray tell, is that?....
A BILL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO REPEAL THE PTAB AND THE AIA
FROM IP WATCHDOG JULY 17,2018
On June 28th, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced a bill into the House of Representatives known as the Restoring American Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018 (H.R. 6264). The bill, which is co-sponsored by Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) and Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), would go a long way in rectifying the tremendous damage which has been wrecking the U.S. patent system in the years since the passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011.
There are 13 sections to Massie’s bill, many of which are geared towards the abolition of various statutes of the AIA. Perhaps the most salient portion of the proposed bill are sections regarding the abolishment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as well as the elimination of both inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) proceedings currently conducted by the PTAB. As the bill states, both IPR and PGR proceedings “have harmed the progress of science and the useful arts by subjecting inventors to serial challenges to patents.” The bill also recognizes that those proceedings have been invalidating patents at an unreasonably high rate and that patent rights should adjudicated in a judicial proceeding and not in the unfair adjudication proceedings which occur within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Ex parte reexamination proceedings would be preserved by this bill as well.
The section of the bill that would abolish the PTAB would re-establish the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), the agency which had existed within the USPTO prior to passage of the AIA. The BPAI would be directed to hear appeals from patent applicants as well as hold interference proceedings to determine priority and patentability of inventions which are claimed in U.S. patent applications. With the removal of IPR and PGR proceedings, the bill notes that the PTAB is no longer needed to conduct those proceedings. Outside of the context of ex parte reexamination proceedings, the BPAI wouldn’t be used to invalidate a patent which has issued.
Another aspect of the AIA that would be repealed through passage of the Restoring American Leadership in Innovation Act is the first-to-file provision, returning the U.S. patent system to a first-to-invent system. The bill would also restore the one-year grace period that an inventor had prior to the AIA, allowing the inventor a full year before being compelled to file a patent application to cover his or her invention. This grace period enables an inventor more time to attract investment, conduct research and development and perfect the invention to improve the quality of the patent application that is eventually filed. The bill would also roll back the AIA’s best mode requirement which required an inventor to describe the “preferred embodiment” of an invention, which only served to limit what an inventor could claim as his or her invention.
This bill would also clear up the legal morass surrounding the patentability of certain types of inventions which has been created in recent years by U.S. Supreme Court decisions in cases like Alice and Mayo. It would amend 35 U.S.C. § 101, the statute governing the basic threshold for the patentability of inventions, such that any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter is patentable with the exception of any invention that “exists in nature independently of and prior to any human activity, or exists solely in the human mind.” The emphasis on human activity is critical for the patentability of important medical advances which have been damaged by the Supreme Court’s Mayo decision in which a diagnostic method for measuring drug metabolites to adjust the dosage of a drug was declared patent-ineligible. The language about inventions that “exist[] solely in the human mind” is clearly a reaction to Alice, where the Supreme Court declared that a computer system for completing financial transactions with the use of a third-party intermediary was patent-ineligible. This amendment to Section 101 would go a long way to restoring patentability in the personalized medicine and software fields, both of which are going to be incredibly valuable market sectors in the years to come.
Of course, Alice and Mayo are not the only places where the Supreme Court went awry and the Restoring American Leadership in Innovation Act would repeal SCOTUS’ decision in 2006’s eBay v. MercExchange, restoring injunctive relief to patent owners. Upon a finding of patent infringement, a court would presume that further infringement would cause a patent owner irreparable harm. An infringing party can overcome that presumption by presenting clear and convincing evidence that further infringement wouldn’t cause irreparable harm, but a patent owner would not be required to make or sell a product covered by the patent to show irreparable harm.
Further, Massie’s proposed bill would also undo SCOTUS’ 2017 decision in Impression Products v. Lexmark International, a case which restricted the rights of patent owners to sue for patent infringement. As the bill states, this decision has resulted in an inability of patent owners to exclude unlicensed customers from their supply chains. This particular statute is found in a section titled Restoring Patents as a Property Right and although Oil States isn’t directly referenced, this section would provide much needed relief to the court’s pronouncement of patents as public franchises. The bill would change U.S. patent code to say that “patents shall be recognized as private property rights” and further recognizes that patents are freely transferable as property through either assignment or licensing.
The bill, if passed, would also accomplish other goals for which supporters of the U.S. patent system have been asking for some time. Fee diversion at the USPTO would be eliminated by establishing a revolving fund for the agency at the U.S. Treasury. 35 U.S.C. § 102, which governs conditions of patentability based on novelty, would be amended so that information disclosed to the USPTO through patent applications aren’t considered prior art that could preclude the issuance of a patent. The automatic publishing of patent applications by the USPTO would be abolished, preventing the release of any information until a patent issues. The presumption of validity of a patent issued by the USPTO would also be restored and the bill would provide the presumption of validity for each individual claim of a patent independent of other claims, even if the claim is dependent upon another claim which has been declared invalid.
This bill, as written, is currently America’s best hope to restore sanity and prosperity to the U.S. patent system. It directly addresses issues with patentability of inventions and the patent opposition system which have been key weaknesses contributing to the demise of the nation’s system in international rankings and cited by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in its recent 12th-place ranking for the United States’ patent system. No doubt this bill will be besieged by the usual cadre of well-financed Silicon Valley allies who worked so hard to get the AIA passed in the first place. Anyone who cares about the future of American innovation should get on the phone as soon as possible and call upon their Representative to support H.R. 6264 and stand up to the efficient infringer cabal which has turned the U.S. patent system into a shipwreck.
Steve Brachmann is a writer located in Buffalo, New York. He has worked professionally as a freelancer for more than a decade. He has become a regular contributor to IPWatchdog.com, writing about technology, innovation and is the primary author of the Companies We Follow series. His work has been published by The Buffalo News, The Hamburg Sun, USAToday.com, Chron.com, Motley Fool and OpenLettersMonthly.com. Steve also provides website copy and documents for various business clients.
Tags:35 USC 101, 35 USC 102, Alice v. CLS Bank, America Invents Act, Congressman Massie, Congressman Rohrabacher, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur, Ebay v. Mercexchange, first to invent, House of Representatives, Impression Products v. Lexmark International, Injunctions, intellectual property, inter partes review, IPR Proceedings, Leahy-Smith AIA, Mayo v. Prometheus, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patentability, PGR, post grant review, property rights, PTAB Trials, Restoring American Leadership in Innovation Act, US Supreme Court
Posted In:Capitol Hill, Government, IP News, IPWatchdog Articles, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Legislation, Patent Reform, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Patents, US Supreme Court, USPTO
Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.
DISCUSS THIS
There are currently 8 Comments comments. Join the discussion.
Valuationguy July 17, 2018 8:47 am
Steve,
Like you and Gene, I applaud most of the proposed changes but don’t you think that the failure to point out that this bill has ZERO chance of getting through the necessary subcommittees and Committee in the House of Reps (as currently constituted in Congress) leads your readers to EXPECT more change than is possible? Neither Issa (who controls the subcommittee) nor Goodlatte (who controls the Committee) is going to allow this bill to even come up for a vote.
Rep. Massie MIGHT have better luck after January (since both Issa and Goodlatte are retiring this year)….which is when he will need to reintroduce his bill anyway since its a new Congress. An article analyzing who are the most probable NEXT subcommittee and Committee chairman might be in order (but of course subject to error due to the upcoming election potentially changing the mix).
Ternary July 17, 2018 9:53 am
Don’t just sit there. Do something! Write your District Representative to Congress to ask him/her if he/she is aware of HR 6264, Restoring American Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018, to undo the damage done by AIA to the US Patent System, formerly the best Patent System in the world, envy of allies and foes alike.
Make a point of your involvement with US innovation and patents and request that your Representative supports getting HR 6264 to the floor and to support this Bill. Tell him/her that you will follow the progress of this bill through the House and that you consider to vote for a candidate that is in favor of HR 6264.
B July 17, 2018 3:21 pm
Christmas comes early
Poesito July 17, 2018 5:03 pm
I’ve been trying to contact Rep. Rohrabacher’s field office to find out what they believe will happen with the bill in this Congress. So far no calls returned.
Ironically, Rohrabacher’s 48th district is adjacent to Issa’s soon to be ex-49th district. Are they friendly neighbors?
Poesito July 17, 2018 5:10 pm
I’ve gotten exactly one comment to.post in the last week or so. Four or five have disappeared into the aether[net]. Could there be a problem posting from a mobile device?
Paul Morinville July 17, 2018 6:41 pm
Poesita, Rohrbacher is a strong supporter. One of the strongest in Congress. Issa will not be there after December. We ran him out.
Valuationguy, It would be great if it passed, however the chances are slim to none. What this does is grease the skids for next year and something will likely pass next year. It also places more pressure on eliminating the PTAB altogether. The Stronger Act preserves it and I view this as a fatal flaw. This is needed to push those on the fence over to our side to kill the PTAB. It also points discussion to what a patent is – a private property right – which is where discussion needs to be. The rest of the bill just makes it a private property right.
for this bill to have any real effect, there must be people talking about on the Hill. That only comes with phone calls from constituents. If there is no fire back home this will go nowhere. Inventors are a very small constituency so all voices are needed and multiple calls are needed from each inventor or interested party.
George Washington earned a surrender attacking a much larger force by having his troops pace back and forth on top of the hills surrounding the encampment to look like a larger force. This made his foe think he had a much larger force. We need to do the same by having everyone call multiple times and ask their friends and family to call too.
Michael Zall July 18, 2018 7:29 am
We need to get the AIPLA, IPO, etc. involved sooner rather than later. I am definitely for most of this, although provisional applications are very useful for independent inventors/entrpeneurs for various reasons well known by those who practice. Hopefully we can get reasonable discussions about all the provisions.
Gene Dolgoff July 18, 2018 12:33 pm
There are two additional issues that should be added into the discussion. First, all of the PTAB decisions that resulted in canceled (invalidated) claims should be reversed, reinstating the claims. Second, the criteria for obviousness of a proposed new claim needs to be redefined in a better way. Currently, petitioners can gather up an unlimited amount of prior art and claim that putting them all together makes a proposed new claim obvious and patent ineligible. In actuality, all new inventions are based on inventions that have come before, potentially making any new invention “obvious,” which is absurd. The petitioner should be required to show that the prior art combination they propose as evidence for obviousness would be feasible and would function to achieve the goal of the proposed new claim in a practical and cost-effective way. But, most importantly, if a market need for a product or service can be shown, for instance, by sales or published articles discussing the need or desirability for the product or service, which would utilize the idea contained in the proposed new claim, and an extended period of time, such as a year or more, has passed since such sales or published article, and no one has proposed or demonstrated use of the concept in the proposed new claim, then the claim should be accepted as non-obvious. In other words, if there was a need or desire for a product or service at least a year before a proposed new claim that would fill that need was submitted for patent, and if no one has thought to combine existing prior art to come up with the invention of the proposed new claim, those facts should be the best evidence that the combination is not obvious, regardless of the fact that cited prior art existed that might be combinable, resulting in the idea expressed in the proposed new claim.
halfway through the month.....not following your script....
Whether you know him or I do is totally irrelevant.
Any MEANINGFUL negotiation between Voip Pal and another party(ies)should not be publicized by either side. It would be seen as unprofessional and could result in people walking away from the table.
I prefer quiet