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.
Actually, when many share holders look at the current price, and read the brief filed by our counsel, they see opportunity.
Voip Pal's future will be decided by Senate Action on 101, the Federal Circuit granting our appeal and overturning the District Court, European patents etc...
It won't be decided here....
September 4, 2019
Federal Court Relies on PTAB Findings in Denying Section 101 Summary Judgment Motion
Despite the prohibition on patenting “abstract ideas” and the tendency of computer software claims to fall into that category, claims directed at improving faulty software systems may still be patentable if they encompass an inventive concept. Applied Capital, Inc. v. The ADT Corp., No. 1:16-cv-00815, ECF No. 145 (D.N.M. Aug. 7, 2019). In Applied Capital, Inc., the court refused to grant summary judgment of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for a patent covering a method of interpreting and disseminating security system information. The court analyzed the patent claims under the two-part framework established in Alice Corp. Pty v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014), finding first, “that the claims at issue [were] not directed to an abstract idea,” and second, that “even if the asserted claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea,” the evidence presented “was sufficient to transform the claims into a patent eligible application.”
The court found that ADT’s “characterization of the invention as ‘collecting, analyzing, and dispatching of information’ describe[d] the invention at too high a level of abstraction.” Rather, the court held the claims at issue, like those in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016), were “directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts” and were not “general-purpose computer components . . . added post-hoc to a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation.”
Notably, the Common Specification section of the Applied Capital patent laid “out the deficiencies found in conventional graphical presentation approaches and provide[d] for dispatching the information in a more timely manner.” The court found that the combination of features represented “a new way of interacting with the information conveyed by an alarm system” and, therefore, were “more than the mere collection and analysis of information.” In this way, the claims were “directed toward an improvement to computer functionality [rather than] being directed to an abstract idea.”
The court could have ended the inquiry there, but chose to continue to the second part of the Alice framework, which allows for the patent eligibility of claims directed toward an abstract idea if the claims, either individually or as an ordered combination are enough to “‘transform’ the nature of the claim into patent-eligible subject matter.” This inventive concept must “ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.” Accordingly the court found that even if Applied Capital’s claims were directed toward an underlying abstract idea, “using a dynamically-rendered, event-specific, graphical floor plan in a security system was a novel, inventive concept sufficient to transform the claims into a patent eligible application.”
Of interest to PTAB enthusiasts, the court expressly relied on the PTAB’s denial of IPR petitions regarding the patents-in-suit. Specifically, the court pointed to “[t]he PTO findings concerning novelty and non-obviousness of the specific combination of features at issue” and the “PTAB’s rejection of inter partes review.” These two decisions, the court noted, “would lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that the claims of the ACI Patents include an inventive concept that was not well-known or conventional in the art.”
Takeaway: This decision is an example of how an IPR denial can influence a district court in co-pending litigation. In denying the accused infringer’s motion for summary judgment of Section 101 invalidity, the court relied, in part, on the PTAB’s findings regarding patentability of the challenged claims. This decision provides another interesting data point on the interplay between PTAB proceedings and district court patent litigation.
If the system DEMANDS that you go through IPR, it is VERY IMPORTANT to WIN.
The nay sayers will be proven wrong. It will just take time.
All they have done is develop Intellectual property in the field of internet telephony.
All they have done is win EVERYTHING at the PTAB
Next up, Federal Circuit rules on Alice appeal
Senate to introduce bill shifting Alice 101 rulings
Exactly..the information is there for EVERYONE to see.
Calling the T/A is a waste of everyone's time
So you called the T/A and asked them exactly what? Or did you not call...
and what info do you ask them to provide you with?
what, no answer to my question about whether or not you actually called the T/A? It's a simple enough question...
did you actually take the time to CALL the TA for Voip Pal?
Agree with you 100%.
This is ACCURATE INFORMATION from otcmarkets.com
VPLM
VOIP PAL.com, Inc.
Common Stock
0.01
-0.0005
-4.76%
0.01 / 0.0115 (926556 x 100000)
Real-Time Best Bid & Ask: 05:00pm 09/06/2019
BEST BID
0.01 x 926556
BEST ASK
0.0115 x 100000
MARKET CAP Market Cap
20,541,965
SHARES OUT
1,956,377,592
I dispute your post.
That's not the real market bid.
At the close of trading three market makers were bidding .01 for over 1M shares.
Judge Koh keeps her own schedule -
https://www.facebook.com/VoipPalOfficial/
Link works just fine. No issues
most recent post was August 25th, 2019 re: bill to address 101
so true, DB. Good post
There are differences in how our legal team responded to this motion. (lessons learned from the first rodeo)
However, It may not matter to this Judge, and regardless of the decision, it will be appealed.
Well Written? Hardly - read our appeal.
Not a single person has posted a rebuttal? I'll let our lawyers do the talking.
Judge Koh has a long history in the patent field... Time does not = good judgement
exactly.....This is why Judicial Exception must be addressed
and the subsequent appeal that will be filed to the Federal Circuit.
The case was ALWAYS going to end up in Federal Circuit Court, one way or the other.
If Voip Pal won the District Court 101 ruling, Apple would have appealed to Federal Circuit.
Apple won the District Court 101, and Voip Pal has already filed an appeal.
Either way, this ends up being decided by either
FEDERAL CIRCUIT
or
REPEAL of 101
Federal Circuit Is Hesitant to Construe Patent Claims in the First Instance on Appeal
By Valerie Mock & Majda Muhic & Dustin Weeks
September 3, 2019
“If the construction of a claim term is in dispute and the dispute is not addressed by the district court, the Federal Circuit may remand the case for further proceedings even if the challenged claims point strongly in the direction of ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Judge Jimmie Reyna
The Federal Circuit recently vacated and remanded a decision by the Northern District of California granting a motion on the pleadings that claims related to “toolbars” on computers were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court, holding that the district court failed to address a claim construction dispute, was “hesitant to construe patent claims in the first instance on appeal” and remanded for further proceedings. Judge Lourie authored a dissent, finding the claims to be “clearly abstract, regardless of claim construction,” and opined that he would have affirmed the district court’s holding. See MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, Nos. 2018-1758, 2018-1759, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24430 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2019) (Before Lourie, O’Malley, and Reyna, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the Court, Reyna, Circuit Judge) (Dissenting opinion, Lourie, Circuit Judge).
MyMail, Ltd. (“MyMail”) is the assignee of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,275,863 (“the ’863 patent”) and 9,021,070 (“the ’070 patent”), which are both directed to toolbars that are displayed on computers. Claim 1 of the ’863 patent, which is representative of the claims for both patents, recites in part:
1. A method of modifying a toolbar, comprising the steps of:
a user Internet device displaying a toolbar comprising one or more buttons, the toolbar defined by toolbar data stored in one or more toolbar-defining databases, the toolbar data comprising a plurality of attributes, each attribute associated with a button of the toolbar, wherein for each button of the toolbar, at least one of the plurality of attributes identifying a function to be performed when the button is actuated by the user Internet device;
…
the user Internet device updating, by the operation, the toolbar data in accordance with the toolbar update data, thereby producing updated toolbar data, the updating comprising at least one of the following steps (a) and (b), each respectively comprising:
(a) writing at least one new attribute to the original toolbar data, wherein the writing at least one new attribute to the toolbar data comprises changing the one or more buttons of the toolbar by adding a button; and (b) updating at least one attribute of the toolbar data; and the user Internet device displaying the toolbar as defined by the updated toolbar data.
Claim 1 of the ’070 patent recites similar features. In 2016, MyMail filed suit against ooVoo, LLC (“ooVoo”) and IAC Search & Media, Inc. (“IAC”) in the Eastern District of Texas for infringing the two patents. After the Supreme Court decided TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), both cases were transferred to the Northern District of California. There, both defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the claims of both patents were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. MyMail argued that the court should adopt a claim construction for the term “toolbar” from a previous case in the Eastern District of Texas regarding the ’070 patent. The district court, however, did not adopt the claim construction nor did it construe the term at all.
Abstract Under Alice
Instead, the district court held that the claims for both patents were patent ineligible using the two-part framework in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). At step 1, the district court found the claims to be “directed to a process for updating toolbar software over a network without user intervention,” which it considered to “fall within the category of gathering and processing information” that is directed to an abstract idea. At step 2, the district court held the claims did not provide an inventive concept as the “Internet-connected computers and servers” recited in the claims were “already in widespread use” and are routine and conventional. To that end, the district court held the claims were ineligible under Section 101, and MyMail appealed.
The Court first described the Ninth Circuit standard for a Rule 12(c) motion, stating that “[p]atent eligibility may be determined on a Rule 12(c) motion, but only when there are no factual allegations that, if taken as true, prevent resolving the eligibility question as a matter of law.” (Quoting Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2018).) Because “eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter,” “if the parties raise a claim construction dispute at the Rule 12(c) stage, the district court must either adopt the non-moving party’s constructions or resolve the dispute to whatever extent is needed to conduct the § 101 analysis.”
Error Under Aatrix
In the previous Eastern District of Texas case, the district court construed “toolbar” to describe a “button bar that can be dynamically changed or updated via a pinger process or a MOT script.” MyMail argued that this construction “confirms that the claims of the ’070 patent are directed to a particular technological process for improving an exclusively computer-oriented device.” The Northern District of California, however, did not adopt the construction of “toolbar” nor did it decide on any other construction of the term. On appeal, the defendants argued that this error could be dismissed because the remainder of the elements clearly show that the claims were ineligible.
The Court disagreed and held that the Northern District of California’s “failure to address the parties’ claim construction dispute is error under Aatrix.” See id. at 1125. Because the Court is “generally hesitant to construe patent claims in the first instance on appeal,” the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Lourie Weighs In
In his dissent, Judge Lourie took the position that “the claims at issue are clearly abstract, regardless of claim construction,” and opined that the Court should affirm. Citing Elec. Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Judge Lourie described how “analysis, transmission, and display of information are, in themselves, abstract ideas.” Because the computers in MyMail’s patents were “off-the-shelf” computers that gathered, sent, and displayed information, the claims are ineligible. He also noted that no “inventive programming” was disclosed in the patents.
As for the “pinger process” and “MOT script” in the Eastern District of Texas’s construction, Judge Lourie stated that these features could not provide the inventive concept necessary to save the claims. MyMail’s appeal brief disclosed how the pinger process consists of programming an off-the-shelf computer to send data. Judge Lourie concluded by asserting that he would not have remanded the case.
I take issue with most of your post.
As a VPLM shareholder,I was very pleased by the results of the Locksmith Kipping case
VPLM's record:
Patents granted
Continuations granted
European patents granted
PTAB TOTAL WIN
PTAB appeal WIN
Locksmith WIN
Appeal to Federal Circuit - ruling coming
Alice repeal coming
"Collusion" with Gil Amelio....
that MUST be it....
EXACTLY RIGHT!
to suggest that the IPR sweep is not a win for VPLM is not based in fact.
Winning is better than LOSING
Another step towards court
Getting Alice repealed or winning our appeal and it's "game on"
until it isn't.....
VPLM will rise like a Phoenix....
post did not read correctly....
In the coming months, I believe VPLM will reverse the negative trend....
watch.....
it's cheap, until it isn't......
Call Gil Amelio....
the "so called big news" is just "good news". Less dilution, no further distraction.
An appeal reversal would give more than a "little kick start"...
vplm's long standing record is as follows:
All Patents granted
All Continuations granted
European patents granted
PTAB WIN
PTAB appeal WIN
Locksmith WIN
Appeal TBD
Alice repeal coming
I agree - with the current tide in DC turning in favor of Alice reform, things are looking better
the company just got back a TON of shares - that's hardly dilution
great news. Now on to the Alice appeal and/or getting Alice repealed.....
little by little we climb the mountain
what is "the joke"?