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.
HMMMM NICE GROUP OF APPLE BACKGROUND PEOPLE....
ARE THEY COMING BACK WITH ANOTHER OFFER?
http://www.alteoncapital.com/
Alteon brings extensive experience in Silicon Valley, Wall Street and the Board Rooms of leading technology companies to our Clients. Our backgrounds range from R&D and operating management to finance and investment banking
George Lauro – Founding Partner & CEO
Former Managing Director and Partner at Wasserstein Perella, a leading Wall Street VC and Leveraged Buyout firm. Led and syndicated 34 VC financings. Member of the board of directors of 7 public and 26 private companies. Raised $250M VC equity financing for portfolio companies and completed M&A transactions exceeding $2B in value. Was Managing Director of Technology Commercialization at IBM Headquarters and ran a group that spun new businesses from IBM Watson Research lab.
Board positions have included Peregrine (Nasdaq:PSMI), Westinghouse Solar (Nasdaq WES), Triscend (XLNX), Sandcraft (NETL), SMaL Camera (CY), Hotrail (SWKS), Qusion (EMKR), Sensera (ASE:SE1), among 25 others. Served on Audit, Comp Committees, Board Chairman and Interim CEO.
READ FULL BIO
Gil Amelio – Founding Partner
Former Chairman and CEO of Apple Computer, President of Rockwell International, Chairman, President & CEO of National Semiconductor Corporation, Senior Board Member of ATT and Chairman and CEO of Jazz Technologies. Has been Chairman & Board member of several private tech companies. Under Gil’s leadership, these companies underwent successful transformations that resulted in over $9 billion USD increase in investor value.
READ FULL BIO
Federico Arcelli – Advisor
Former VP worldwide sales & marketing at VeriSilicon, Inc, VP sales & marketing at CEVA Inc. (NASDAQ: CEVA), and CEO of Accent, a private fabless semiconductor company. Held several executive positions at both public and private technology companies in Europe. Has served on the Board of Directors of 3 companies and has raised significant VC/private equity from Europe funds for portfolio companies.
READ FULL BIO
Rich Page – Operating Partner – Silicon Valley
Co-Founded NeXT Computer with Steve Jobs and was one of the first 4 Apple Fellows. Was VP of Hardware Engineering at NeXT and developed early prototypes of Lisa and the Mac at Apple. Was the second Fellow at Rambus. Founded, funded and/or been a director of several Silicon Valley technology companies in the communications, infrastructure software and robotics sectors.
As Operating Partner, Rich helps Alteon clients around the world to establish strategic operations in Silicon Valley.
READ FULL BIO
Allan Aaron – Advisor- Alteon Capital Australia
Allan is one of Australia’s leading Venture Capitalists and co-founded Sydney-based Technology Venture Partners. TVP is among Australia’s largest tech VC funds. Allan has been a General partner at TVP for over 20-years, built and managed TVP’s Silicon Valley office and invested over $240million in more than 25 start-up and early-expansion tech companies based in Australia, the USA, Europe and Asia. He helped these companies raise over $620M in equity and $30M in grant funds and had a central role in their exits via international M&A and IPO. Allan also co-founded Simons Green Energy, a fast-growing energy leader in embedded generation technologies.
Allan is based is based in Australia. As Senior Advisor, Allan is involved with Alteon’s deal generation and execution initiatives in Australia.
READ FULL BIO
I hope that the docket corrections might make a difference...... I'm not holding my breath, however........
buy gold...breakout from 1350 has occurred....now at 1400 area
Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al
California Northern District Court
Judge: Lucy H Koh
Referred: Virginia K Demarchi
Case #: 5:18-cv-07020
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 28:1338 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: Nov 19, 2018
Docket
Parties (4)
Docket last updated: 06/21/2019 11:59 PM PDT
Thursday, June 20, 2019
69 respm Opposition/Response to Motion Thu 5:34 AM
OPPOSITION/[color=red]RESPONSE Related [+] CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 68 [/color]filed byVoip-Pal.com, Inc..(Malek, Kevin)
Att: 1 Declaration Malek Declaration,
Att: 2 Exhibit 1,
Att: 3 Exhibit 2,
Att: 4 Exhibit 3,
Att: 5 Exhibit 4,
Att: 6 Declaration Mangione-Smith Declaration
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
68 respm Opposition/Response to MotionWed 11:37 PM
OPPOSITION/RESPONSE Related [+] filed byVoip-Pal.com, Inc..(Malek, Kevin)
Att: 1 Declaration Malek Declaration,
Att: 2 Exhibit 1,
Att: 3 Exhibit 2,
Att: 4 Exhibit 3,
Att: 5 Exhibit 4,
Att: 6 Declaration Mangione-Smith Declaration
I was told back then that a settlement was made along with a very strict non-disclosure agreement ....hmmmmmm
TRADE DATA
DATE TIMESTAMP PRICE VOLUME TICK DIRECTION CHANGE
06/19/2019 14:52:12 0.0181 3,600 -0.00
06/19/2019 14:03:20 0.019 200,000 0.00
06/19/2019 13:21:32 0.018 6,000 -0.00
06/19/2019 13:19:50 0.0189 100,000 0.00
06/19/2019 12:29:56 0.0176 683,275 -0.00
06/19/2019 12:29:55 0.0177 20,000 0.00
06/19/2019 12:29:52 0.0177 10,000 -0.00
06/19/2019 12:29:45 0.018 152,800 0.00
06/19/2019 12:29:38 0.018 2,800 0.00
06/19/2019 12:29:38 0.018 20,000 0.00
Technology
Hot Stock Under Consideration ::Voip-Pal.com, (OTC US:VPLM)
NNU Team 6 hours ago 0 1 2 minutes read
The Trading trend “Loss” on Tuesday, June, 18, 2019, of the Voip-Pal.com, VPLM of exchange OTC US.
Notable Market Analyst:
The trading session of the company Voip-Pal.com (OTC US : VPLM) started the business at $0.02 and ended at $0.019 with the variation of $-0.001 & -5 percent (Loss).
Current & Previous Volume:
It is a very significant characteristic of the Company which may help out for an shareholder to recognize the momentum in a stock and confirm a trend.
If security is continuing higher in an uptrend, the volume of the security should also boost and vice versa.
The Company’s up to date volume recorded on 2282800 with the percent of 79.56 percent. Earlier day’s volume of the company traced as 1556000.
Twelve Months Return & Five(5.00) Years Revenue:
The percentage of 01-Year Return of OTC US, VPLM waited at -83.76 percent, while the revenue growth percentage over 05.00-years is -93.54 percent.
Most Important Moving Average (5.00Days / 20.00 Days / 50.00 Days):
A Moving Average (MA) indicator based on the average of past periods prices. Moving Average (MA) is a technical indicator for investors:
05.00-( five)Days Moving Average (MA): 0.0198 percent
Twenty-(20.00)-Days Moving Average (MA): 0.0199 percent
Fifty-(50.00) Days Moving Average (MA): 0.0222 percent
Why Is It Necessary to Review High & Low Average Last 5.00( five) Days?
It is a technical indicator for shareholders, based on the highest and lowest price of previous 05.00-days at which a stock has traded. The shareholders may view the previous week-high or low flow of price, which is an important aspect in determining a stock’s current-value and predicting future price movement.
The company Voip-Pal.com, VPLM highest price of past 05-days remained at $0.0223 and the lowest price of past 05 days remained at $0.017. Similarly, high percentage of -14.8 percent & low percentage of 11.76 percent recorded in last 05-days.
Current & Last Prices (Buy / Sell / Hold):
The Current Price Signals & Last Month Prices Signals:
Present Price Signals “Sell”
Previous Month Price Signals “Sell”
Buy Signals indicates an event or condition that alerts investors to place a purchase order for an investment.
Hold Signals indicates an analyst’s recommendation to neither buy nor sell a security.
Sell Signals indicates a measurable level at which an investor alerted to sell a specified investment.
Most Active Trend Analysis of the Voip-Pal.com:
A wave-theory, market momentum and volatility in an attempt to find a general trend. Trend Strength of the signal compared to its past performance, where the maximum is the strongest and minimum is the weakest.
Trend Direction signifying whether the Buy or Sell signal is strengthening or weakening or whether a Hold signal is heading towards a buy or sell signal.
The General Trend of the Company Sell and Trend Strength remained Weak with the Trend Direction of Weakening.
Difference-Up(Gap-Up) & Difference-Down(Gap-Down):
The VPLM, Voip-Pal.com, OTC US current high trading price remained at $0.0215 & current low trading price remained at $0.0177.
It is important for investors to know the trading comparison of current & last day sessions. The Gap-Up $-0.0023 is the difference between the current session’s open and the previous session’s High and Gap-up percentage became -10.31 percent. Similarly, the Gap-Down $0.0024 is the difference between the current session’s open and the previous session’s Low and Gap-down percentage became 13.64 percent.
Weighted Alpha( WEIGHTED ALPHAA Measure Of How Much The Price Has Risen Or Fallen Over A Year):
Weighted Alpha aware that stock has boosted or reduced over a one-year period with a higher weighting for recent price activity. Sign of Positive weighted alpha indicates that the stock has boosted and Sign of Negative weighted alpha indicates that the stock has diminished The company’s Voip-Pal.com, VPLM has a Weighted Aplha -73.53.
09-Days Stochastic %(K):
The percentage value of 09-Days Stochastic (K) of the Company Voip-Pal.com recorded at 61.82%. This is a momentum indicator, comparing a particular closing price of a security to a range of its prices over a certain period of time. This sign shows (on a range of 0.00% – 100.00%) where the price closed in-relation-to its price range over the last 09-Days with a 02-periods exponential moving average applied.
REAL-TIME LEVEL 2 QUOTE
MPID BID PRICE SIZE TIME
CDEL 0.0181 96,400 15:32
ETRF 0.018 69,000 13:21
NITE 0.0176 126,400 09:30
CSTI 0.0175 300,000 09:30
GTSM 0.0173 10,000 14:02
VNDM 0.016 10,000 06/18
ALPS 0.001 10,000 06/10
MAXM 0.0001 10,000 07:35
OTCX U 0 08:15
MPID ASK PRICE SIZE TIME
CDEL 0.0188 50,000 15:32
NITE 0.0199 10,000 10:12
VNDM 0.02 75,000 10:12
GTSM 0.0205 40,000 14:02
ETRF 0.0212 100,000 13:26
CSTI 0.0265 50,000 15:32
ALPS 0.30 2,500 06/10
MAXM 200.00 1 07:35
OTCX U 0 08:15
REAL-TIME LEVEL 2 QUOTE
MPID BID PRICE SIZE TIME
CDEL 0.0181 40,000 15:56
NITE 0.0181 10,000 15:54
ETRF 0.0173 20,000 15:55
CSTI 0.0165 10,000 14:45
VNDM 0.016 10,000 06/11
GTSM 0.01 152,000 15:20
ALPS 0.001 10,000 06/10
MAXM 0.0001 10,000 07:35
OTCX U 0 08:14
MPID ASK PRICE SIZE TIME
CDEL 0.02 48,801 15:56
GTSM 0.0208 10,000 06/11
CSTI 0.021 60,000 10:34
VNDM 0.0219 10,000 15:54
ETRF 0.0219 40,000 15:54
NITE 0.025 235,000 11:52
ALPS 0.30 2,500 06/10
MAXM 200.00 1 07:35
OTCX U 0 08:14
REAL-TIME LEVEL 2 QUOTE
MPID BID PRICE SIZE TIME
NITE 0.019 217,686 12:35
GTSM 0.019 100,000 13:03
ETRF 0.019 70,000 13:25
CDEL 0.019 18,555 15:06
VNDM 0.018 10,000 06/07
ALPS 0.001 10,000 10:30
MAXM 0.0001 10,000 07:35
CSTI 0.0001 10,000 13:25
OTCX U 0 08:15
MPID ASK PRICE SIZE TIME
VNDM 0.02 200,000 14:53
CDEL 0.021 90,000 15:06
GTSM 0.0212 20,000 14:12
ETRF 0.0215 100,000 15:54
NITE 0.0219 40,000 14:23
CSTI 0.0265 50,000 09:30
ALPS 0.30 2,500 10:30
MAXM 200.00 1 07:35
OTCX U 0 08:15
In an interview with CEOCFO Magazine, VOIP-PAL CEO and Director Emil Malak discusses his Battles with the Large Communications Companies to Protect His Patented Technology that Enables Switching between the Internet and Landlines when Placing Phone Calls WASHINGTON, DC / ACCESSWIRE / June 4, 2019 / CEOCFO Magazine, an independent investment publication that highlights important technologies and companies, today announced an interview ( https://www.ceocfointerviews.com/interviews/VOIP-PAL19.htm) with Emil Malak, founder of Voip-Pal (OTCQB: VPLM), a Vancouver, B.C.-based company inventers and pioneers of the switching technology now being used by many of the world's largest telecommunication and social networking companies, without which they could not connect Landline phone calls to Internet phone calls.
As Malak explained in the interview, Voip-Pal's technology (then Digifonica) was conceived, and design work begun, in 2004. "Internet would be the future for making telephone calls… internet telephony was going to become very popular," Malak said.
As Malak told CEOCFO's Bud Wayne, companies like Apple, Verizon, AT&T and many others are using the Voip-Pal technology without having first obtaining the licensing to do so. According to Mr. Malak, "they just integrated our technology into their own product, because that was the cheapest way of differentiating between a private node and public node, in how to route a call.
Mr. Malak explains how 'the AIA was called by many experts and honest judges a "killing field" for patents'. In speaking with CEOCFO Magazine, Mr. Malak discussed how difficult it is to have two separate entities like the USPTO/ PTAB and the federal district/appellate courts arriving at opposing decisions on the same issues, using different sets of standards.
Mr. Malak discusses how future legislation by Congress could fix this mess simply by clarifying who does what and streamlining this confusing decision making process. The USPTO/PTAB should be the only ones dealing with technical matters covering all patent validity issues as they have the qualified experts. These matters include Alice 101/abstract, 102, 103, novelty, prior art, obviousness and indefiniteness etc. "Nothing should ever be subjective. The federal courts should only be asked to make decisions on infringement and damages. They lack the complex technical expertise to make patent validity decisions. Also, the process is too long. The time it takes should be cut in half. The Silicon Valley has exploited the weaknesses in current patent law and they are comfortably acting is if they are above the law." Emil Malak is fighting a very important battle for all inventors everywhere and for the future of business, technology and the economic health of the world.
In a recent op-ed, Mr. Malak wrote, "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."
Larger companies with deep pockets are able.to.tie.patent.challenges up in the U.S. court system for years, driving the smaller inventors into bankruptcy, leaving Mr. Malak to suggest "Keep it a trade secret. Do not patent with the current US patent system. If you need to patent, I suggest you start with Europe, India or China who are improving their patent protection laws and surpassing the United States in protecting inventions".
Mr. Malak is one person, so the appeal is for all media, Congress, the Senate and the current Donald Trump Presidential Administration to join the fight for the future of the global economy and all inventions be they technology, healthcare or consumer products. "I do believe the new USPTO Director Andrei Iancu is doing his best to address each of these issues and bring back the credibility and integrity of the Agency. In my opinion he will only succeed if the AIA is repealed and replaced."
Contact: Bud Wayne
Editorial Executive CEOCFO Magazine 570-851-1745
budwayne@ceocfomagazine.com SOURCE: CEOCFO Magazine
REAL-TIME LEVEL 2 QUOTE
MPID BID PRICE SIZE TIME
CSTI 0.019 110,000 10:39
CDEL 0.019 90,426 15:57
VNDM 0.0189 10,000 06/05
GTSM 0.0189 10,000 12:02
NITE 0.0186 27,700 09:30
ETRF 0.0186 10,000 15:55
ALPS 0.005 10,000 04/16
MAXM 0.0001 10,000 07:35
OTCX U 0 08:15
MPID ASK PRICE SIZE TIME
CDEL 0.0195 212,054 15:57
VNDM 0.02 100,000 15:57
ETRF 0.02 932,187 09:30
NITE 0.025 235,000 09:30
GTSM 0.025 10,000 06/04
CSTI 0.025 10,000 08:30
ALPS 0.10 5,000 05/09
MAXM 200.00 1 07:35
OTCX U 0 08:15
REAL-TIME LEVEL 2 QUOTE
MPID BID PRICE SIZE TIME
NITE 0.0191 35,000 15:44
GTSM 0.019 138,197 10:53
CSTI 0.019 100,000 12:11
CDEL 0.019 50,000 15:41
VNDM 0.0189 10,000 06/04
ETRF 0.0189 65,000 09:30
ALPS 0.005 10,000 04/16
MAXM 0.0001 10,000 07:35
OTCX U 0 08:15
MPID ASK PRICE SIZE TIME
VNDM 0.02 100,000 09:37
ETRF 0.02 932,187 11:28
CDEL 0.02 458,730 15:41
NITE 0.025 235,000 09:30
GTSM 0.025 10,000 06/04
CSTI 0.025 10,000 10:52
ALPS 0.10 5,000 05/09
MAXM 200.00 1 07:35
OTCX U 0 08:15
REAL-TIME LEVEL 2 QUOTE
MPID BID PRICE SIZE TIME
NITE 0.0191 20,000 13:16
GTSM 0.019 138,197 10:53
CSTI 0.019 100,000 12:11
CDEL 0.019 50,000 12:56
VNDM 0.0189 10,000 06/04
ETRF 0.0189 65,000 09:30
ALPS 0.005 10,000 04/16
MAXM 0.0001 10,000 07:35
OTCX U 0 08:15
MPID ASK PRICE SIZE TIME
VNDM 0.02 100,000 09:37
ETRF 0.02 932,187 11:28
CDEL 0.02 465,537 12:56
NITE 0.025 235,000 09:30
GTSM 0.025 10,000 06/04
CSTI 0.025 10,000 10:52
ALPS 0.10 5,000 05/09
MAXM 200.00 1 07:35
OTCX U 0 08:15
I would love to exchange my vplm.shares.for.amazon.SHARES!!!!!!
@!!
Amazon has been exploring new ventures. The company has entered many areas to generate revenues and profits. Amazon has expanded in sports programming, health care, investing in original content for making TV shows, and smart home services.
Amazon has also gained experience in offering phone calls through its Echo Connect product. Amazon allows Alexa-enabled voice offering to make phone calls. Purchasing Boost Mobile would allow Amazon to use T-Mobile’s wireless service for at least six years. According to Reuters, Amazon might buy Sprint and T-Mobile’s wireless spectrum if they divest it.
TESLA INVENTED THE AC POWER GENERATOR.. EDISON STOLE IT. PATENTED IT, AND DIDNT PAY TESLA HIS I THINK 50 GRAND HE WAS PROMISED.
toobigtojail Member Profile toobigtojail Member Level Monday, June 3, 2019 4:02:08 PM
Re: None Post #
80860
of 80879
Good interview with the CEO of Voip Pal
VOIP-PAL CEO and Director Emil Malak discusses his Battles with the Large Communications Companies to Protect His Patented Technology that Enables Switching between the Internet and Landlines when Placing Phone Calls
Emil Malak, CEO & Director
VOIP-PAL (OTCQB: VPLM)
http://www.voip-pal.com/
Interview conducted by:
Bud Wayne, Editorial Executive, CEOCFO Magazine, Published June 3, 2019
CEOCFO: Mr. Malak, Would you give us a brief description of your technology that has revolutionized communication?
Mr. Malak: A team of Russian, Danish, New Zealand and Canadian software and hardware engineers came into my restaurant, the Bellaggio Café, in 2004. They said that internet would be the future for making telephone calls. They explained that internet telephony was going to become very popular. What has to happen is they will have to differentiate when a call is issued. If I called you today it would go to the hub of AT&T; if I am with AT&T the system will ask two questions. Are you Bud Wayne on the internet, and do you have an internet package? If you do, then will just send it; the first five seconds it connects to the internet and it is free. If you are not on the internet, it will go through the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network) and they are going to charge you in terms of the minutes.
Most of the telecommunications entities use this system. We believe this means every single click has to apply this differentiating question: whether or not you are on the internet, if so, then it is mostly free, and if not, it will route through your legacy system via PSTN and charge the time per your minutes package. We believe every click and message done this way goes through public or private since 2010. What our patented technology does is allow phone calls routed over the Internet to be seamlessly transferred between traditional landlines, cell phone networks and the internet. Without our technology this would be practically impossible and costly today, and the big players have broken our patent and are using our technology without licensing it. Each one should be paying a fee to use our technology.
CEOCFO: Your company put up nodes and established the pathways, is that correct?
Mr. Malak: We installed nodes in Vancouver, London and Denmark to internally test if the system worked. We knew it worked when we started testing in 2006, and we filed for the patents, which took us until well into 2013 to get them issued. Now we are in 2019 and we are nowhere near monetizing our patents. IPR petition after IPR petition and lawsuit after lawsuit and we are still nowhere near monetizing our patents. The Silicon Valley infringers are using the broken and biased patent system to keep us in court for years to come.
CEOCFO: Your technology is being used all over the place by many different companies. Would you tell us some of the companies that are using it right now?
Mr. Malak: Every company that is currently in telecommunications, whether internet or legacy (PSTN), such as AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, Apple, and Facebook, and also companies like Amazon because of Alexa, and Google etc., have been and are still using our Voip-Pal system. We consider their subscribers to be our indirect subscribers.
CEOCFO: Did they take your technology and then integrate your technology and build their own from it?
Mr. Malak: Yes, they just integrated our technology into their own product, because that was the cheapest way of differentiating between a private node and public node, in how to route a call.
CEOCFO: What was the response when you approached the bigger companies?
Mr. Malak: They said “Go to hell, you will never win. We are big boys.” That is happening all the time and it is nothing new. Unfortunately the patent system supports the big infringers and makes it almost impossible for a small patent owner or inventor to monetize their now worthless issued patents.
CEOCFO: How long does it take to get a patent issued?
Mr. Malak: It can take six or more years to have a patent issued. Add another two to three years to get through any IPR challenges. Then you must survive another three to five years of court proceedings for the hope of being awarded damages. Then another few years to collect the damages. Very few small companies and inventors can even survive the process. So who wins? The deep pocketed Silicon Valley and big pharmaceutical companies etc. The inventor loses. If we want to encourage innovation, the process needs to be shortened. It should not take more than four years from start to finish to actually monetize a patent.
CEOCFO: How is the Alice 101 motion destroying innovation?
Mr. Malak: In 1876, Alexander Graham Bell was credited with inventing and patenting the first practical telephone. Around the same time Thomas Edison was rolling out literally hundreds of inventions and patents for things like the power generator, the light bulb, sound and motion picture recording apparatus. These great inventors must be turning in their graves now watching so many great inventions being invalidated because of a complete lack of understanding coming from the PTAB and the courts as a result of the AIA.
Today our lives are run by computers, so the courts have now decided that any computer data improvements are abstract. This is madness! As an inventor, let me point out that all ideas begin as an abstract dream that is then developed to the point it becomes an actual invention. For more than two hundred years of patent laws abstract was never meant to apply to patents. Now suddenly the courts are subjectively invalidating quality patents for being “abstract.”
CEOCFO: Did the America Invents Act passed in Congress in 2011, help or hurt you?
Mr. Malak: Michelle Lee, former USPTO Director and one time high ranking Google IP attorney made sure that the AIA would make it very difficult for patent owners to monetize their inventions. The AIA was called by many experts and honest judges a “killing field” for patents. The anti-patent policies of the Obama administration have created a very hostile environment for patent owners on all levels, including IPR/PTAB, federal district court, appellate courts and the confusing message from the Supreme Court on abstract in the now famous Alice Corp. vs. CLS Bank International. All of these have caused the cancellation very good patents by the thousands. It seems to me the financial contributions by the Silicon Valley to elected politicians were mostly responsible for the passage of the AIA.
CEOCFO: Do you want the USPTO to make these decisions?
Mr. Malak: First, the AIA must be repealed and replaced. It is a cancer that cannot be repaired. The USPTO has over 8000 of the world’s best technical experts who have the title of Examiners. They also have about 600 of the best attorneys that can analyze the legal interpretations of patents. We should use them. Patents should be examined at the USPTO on all technical levels such as 101 (Alice motion), 102, 103, prior art, obviousness, novelty and indefiniteness before the examiner issues the patent. Whenever a patent is challenged, decisions of validity should be made by PTAB judges at the USPTO based on clear cut guidelines. Nothing should ever be subjective. The federal courts should only be asked to make decisions on infringement and damages. They lack the complex technical expertise to make patent validity decisions. Also, the process is too long. The time it takes should be cut in half.
The Silicon Valley has exploited the weaknesses in current patent law and they are comfortably acting is if they are above the law. I do believe the new USPTO Director Andrei Iancu is doing his best to address each of these issues and bring back the credibility and integrity of the Agency. In my opinion he will only succeed if the AIA is repealed and replaced.
CEOCFO: Are you saying lobbying must stop?
Mr. Malak: I am saying lobbying with any financial contributions and donations to support elected officials and their reelection campaigns leads to corruption. The typical example is the corrupt America Invents Act. Let’s not think the public is naïve. Why would the Silicon Valley give millions of dollars to politicians? They do it to get back favors in return for their contributions. The United States still today is the best country for freedom of speech and justice. The world looks up to the Unites States and we need to constructively correct the mistake of the AIA that is more fitting of a banana republic.
Private Reply | Keep | Public Reply | No Replies | Mark as Last Re
THE DECISION WAS ISSUED BY THE NEW CHIEF OF THE PTAB WHICH FURTHER STRENGTHENS THE VPLM POSITION HERE.
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2 10 a technical deficiency in Chu ’684 to show obviousness.
Petitioner, however, asserted the secondary references would have improved Chu ’684. See, e.g., Pet. 16 (“One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have appreciated that these improvements to Chu ’684 could be achieved . . . .”). Based on the panel’s conclusion regarding Chu ’684, it rejected Petitioner’s view that adding teachings of Chu ’366 would have made Chu ’684’s interface more intuitive and user friendly.
FWD 18–19. Thus, by concluding that Petitioner had not shown a “deficiency” in Chu ’684, the panel rejected any benefit that would have come from the combination.
Id. at 19. Stated otherwise, an alleged deficiency in Chu ’684 and an alleged benefit of adding teachings from a secondary reference are two sides of the same coin.
The panel recognized that Petitioner bore the burden to establish unpatentability and concluded Petitioner had fallen short of carrying that burden.
Id. at 20–21. In light of the panel’s factual determination regarding Chu ’684, we conclude that the panel did not misapprehend Petitioner’s arguments regarding reasons to combine.
D. Antedated Prior Art Finally, Patent Owner argues in its opposition to the Motion that it antedated the asserted prior art and should prevail on that independent basis. Reh’g Opp’n 20. We do not reach that issue because we conclude that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing fails to demonstrate that the Final Written Decision misapprehended or overlooked any matter.
III. CONCLUSION
We deny Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing because we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that in the Final Written Decision, the panel misapprehended or overlooked any matter.
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2 11
IV. ORDER It is, therefore, ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc. (0:19-cvpri-01808)
Courts > Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Filed: Apr 26, 2019
Nature of Suit: Property Rights - Patent
Parties Matched: Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Twitter, Inc.
Friday, April 26, 2019
1 Appeal docketed. Received: 04/25/2019. [603219] Entry of Appearance due 05/10/2019. Certificate of Interest is due on 05/10/2019. Docketing Statement due 05/10/2019. Appellant's brief is due 06/25/2019. [MMA] [Entered: 04/26/2019 12:14 PM]
Att: 1 1 pgs Notice of Docketing
Att: 2 70 pgs Civil case docketed
Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership (0:19-cvpri-01812)
Courts > Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Filed: Apr 26, 2019
Nature of Suit: Property Rights - Patent
Parties Matched: Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership
Friday, April 26, 2019
1 Appeal docketed. Received: 04/25/2019. [603376] Entry of Appearance due 05/10/2019. Certificate of Interest is due on 05/10/2019. Docketing Statement due 05/10/2019. Appellant's brief is due 06/25/2019. [MMA] [Entered: 04/26/2019 03:45 PM]
Att: 1 1 pgs Notice of Docketing
Att: 2 78 pgs Civil case docketed
Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (0:19-cvpri-01814)
Courts > Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Filed: Apr 26, 2019
Nature of Suit: Property Rights - Patent
Parties Matched: Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
Friday, April 26, 2019
1 Appeal docketed. Received: 04/25/2019. [603401] Entry of Appearance due 05/10/2019. Certificate of Interest is due on 05/10/2019. Docketing Statement due 05/10/2019. Appellant's brief is due 06/25/2019. [MMA] [Entered: 04/26/2019 04:58 PM]
Att: 1 1 pgs Notice of Docketing
Att: 2 72 pgs Civil case docketed
Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. AT&T Corp. (0:19-cvpri-01813)
Courts > Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Filed: Apr 26, 2019
Nature of Suit: Property Rights - Patent
Parties Matched: Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. AT&T Corp.
Friday, April 26, 2019
1 Appeal docketed. Received: 04/25/2019. [603389] Entry of Appearance due 05/10/2019. Certificate of Interest is due on 05/10/2019. Docketing Statement due 05/10/2019. Appellant's brief is due 06/25/2019. [MMA] [Entered: 04/26/2019 03:57 PM]
Att: 1 1 pgs Notice of Docketing
Att: 2 70 pgs Civil case docketed
LONG AGO....WHAT WILL THE BARR INVESTIGATION BRING.TO.THE.FRONT???
Spec_Investor Monday, 01/28/13 08:34:43 AM
Re: None 0
Post #
3162
of 80291
NEWS IS OUT!!
Voip-Pal.Com Inc.'s Lawful Intercept Patent Application Receives the Allowance for Issuance as a Patent
BELLEVUE, Wash., Jan. 28, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Voip-Pal.Com Inc. ("Voip-Pal") (OTC Pink:
VPLM) is pleased to announce that on January 18, 2013, US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has mailed the Notice of Allowance to Voip-Pal's wholly owned subsidiary Digifonica (International) Limited ("Digifonica") on its patent application "INTERCEPTING VOICE OVER IP COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHER DATA COMMUNICATIONS".
Initially it was filed in November 29, 2007 as a PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) application, succeeded in the International phase, then entered the National phase in many countries, including the U.S.A. This notice of allowance means that prosecution is closed for the Lawful patent application and it is allowed for issuance as a patent.
The Lawful or Legal Intercept patent application discloses the technology on how the Law Enforcement Agencies can monitor VoIP calls of persons of interest. Existing legacy technologies rely on recording functionality of telephony switches and/or taps installed in major Internet hubs. With the expansion of Internet and multitude of Internet access methods, it becomes problematic to follow the paths of Internet calls. Digifonica's invention describes how to monitor VoIP calls right on the VoIP provider's equipment, independent of access methods (WiFi, DSL, Cable, Wimax etc). This technology has no administrative, political or geographical boundaries. Any call originated from across the world, as long as it has an account with a VoIP provider, can be monitored. Caller or callee can change their internet access from one Wifi hot spot to another one, and still be subjected to Legal Intercept. Even if the intercept target is using DID (Direct Inward Dial legacy PSTN number) for his VoIP phone, his calls can still be monitored.
The distinguishing feature of Digifonica's Lawful Intercept solution is its absolute stealth mode, opposite to other following patent applications. Lawful Intercept technology these days is expected to be legislated by many governments for all VoIP providers. So far VoIP has been the preferred way of communication for many illegal activities, including well-known terrorist attacks and drug trafficking. The early days of VoIP are over, and running commercial VoIP without Lawful Intercept will be considered by governments as illegal too.
About Voip-Pal's wholly owned subsidiary, Digifonica (International) Limited
Digifonica (International) Limited ("Digifonica") was originally incorporated as Digifonica International Inc. in 2004 and listed on the TSX stock exchange (DIL-H). The company raised more than $15M of investments into research and development of the most advanced VoIP technologies. It employed approximately 20 developers, some of them being well-known in VoIP industry, who built an integrated white-labelled VoIP system, which can be deployed for new Internet Telephony providers in matter of minutes. The goal was two-fold:
Provide scalable and the most cost-effective solution for partners, when prices for Internet calls go down to zero
Comply with government regulations of Internet communications against illegal activities
Soon after the first production-grade system was released for partners, it became clear that architectural solutions developed and operated by Digifonica, were highly advanced in the industry and required protection. Digifonica decided to dedicate sufficient resources, both human and financial, to work with the top Canadian firm practising in intellectual property - Smart & Biggar. That cooperation produced the results: Digifonica filed overall 5 patent applications, starting from 2007 (see "About Voip-Pal/Digifonica Patent Applicatons" below). The Patent Applications were all filed initially as PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) applications, came through International phase, then entered National phases in many countries around the world, first of all in US Canada and Europe. They all are in different stages of prosecution.
About Voip-Pal/Digifonica Patent Applications
1. Lawful Intercept ("Intercepting VoIP communications and other data communications") US Patent Publication No. 20100150138, (Link to Digifonica Lawful Intercept USPTO filing): Lawful Intercept is a revolutionary technology that addresses the national and international demands by governments to enable law agencies the ability to perform scheduled and live intercepts on Digital Voice telephone conversations. Network Service providers such as Skype may soon want to be in compliance with government regulations regarding Lawful Intercept.
2. Routing, Billing and Rating engine (RBR): ("Producing routing messages for VoIP communications") US Patent Publication No. 20100150328 (Link to RBR USPTO filing): RBR allows new Licensees to perform subscriber management from their own existing subscriber management and billing platforms. This series of patented technologies allow Licensees to setup and deploy Digital Voice solutions virtually anywhere in the world in a matter of days, without fear of infringing on mainstream VoIP patents. (see Verizon/Vonage litigation[1]).
3. Mobile Gateway, US Patent Publication No. 20110122827, (Link to Digifonica Mobile Gateway USPTO filing): This patent is designed to allow a single subscriber device to connect automatically to WiFi/WiMax and other wireless data connections.
4. Enhanced 911 ("Emergency Assistance calling for VoIP communications") International Application No. PCT/CA2008/000545: This is a patented technology which allows for Short Code/Emergency Dialing; in other words, the ability to enable true Emergency Calling solutions to Digital Voice subscribers.
5. Advanced Interoperability Solutions ("Uninterrupted Transmission of Internet Protocol Transmissions during Endpoint Changes") International Application No. PCT/CA2009/001317: This patent allows the transfer of in-session digital voice calls between disparate wireless technologies, enabling subscribers to roam seamlessly between different WiFi, WiMAX, 3G and 4G antenna technologies without losing a call.
About Voip-Pal.Com Inc.
Voip-Pal.Com Inc. is a broadband VoIP telecom company offering local and long distance VoIP services to residential and business customers. The company also provides VoIP communication and reseller solutions for its partners. Voip-Pal.Com Inc. is the enabler of international calls using VoIP technology on the internet, smartphones and PC Tablets. Voip-Pal's goal is to provide a quality, high-speed and cost-effective telephone solution for the casual and business international traveler who must rely on their smartphones, laptops or tablets in order to communicate. Voip-Pal.Com, through its wholly owned subsidiary "Digifonica (International) Limited Gibraltar", is a technical leader in the VoIP services market which had revenues of $58 Billion in 2011 and is experiencing double digit year-over-year growth[2]. The addition of Digifonica Gibraltar's patent portfolio greatly enhances shareholder value and will contribute to significant revenue growth for Voip-Pal.Com.
Retail Website: www.platinumphone.com.
Corporate Website: www.voip-pal.com
Company Contact: info@voip-pal.com and chanelle@voip-pal.com
IR inquiries: IR@voip-pal.com
US Telephone IR Contact: (954) 495-4600
PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1z2mG)
DOES THIS FINDING BECOME A SLAM DUNK WIN AT A REAL TRIAL.... NOT A KOH LOOKSEE?
nomorerollbacks Member Level Friday, 05/24/19 08:25:02 PM
Re: None 0
Post #
80279
of 80283
III. CONCLUSION We deny Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing because we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that in the Final Written Decision, the panel misapprehended or overlooked any matter.
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2
11 IV. ORDER It is, therefore, ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
III. CONCLUSION We deny Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing because we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that in the Final Written Decision, the panel misapprehended or overlooked any matter.
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2
11 IV. ORDER It is, therefore, ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge. BOALICK, Chief Administrative Patent Judge.
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 75 571-272-7822 Entered: May 24, 2019 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ APPLE INC., Petitioner, v. VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., Patent Owner ____________ Cases IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2 ____________
Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, JACQUELINE WRIGHT BONILLA, Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge, and MICHAEL P. TIERNEY, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge. BOALICK, Chief Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION Denying Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)1
1 This decision pertains to both Cases IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201, as Petitioner’s Requests for Rehearing are substantively the same in each case. Citations are to the paper numbers in Case IPR2016-01198.
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2 2 I. BACKGROUND On December 21, 2018, an Order was entered granting-in-part a motion for sanctions filed by Petitioner Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”). Paper 70 (“Order”). The Order authorized Petitioner to file a request for rehearing of the Final Written Decision entered on November 20, 2017 (Paper 53, “Final Written Decision” or “FWD”). Order 13–16. The Order also authorized Patent Owner Voip-Pal.com, Inc. (“Patent Owner”) to file a response to Petitioner’s request for rehearing, and Petitioner to file a reply. Id. In accordance with the Order, Petitioner filed a Request for Rehearing. Paper 71 (“Reh’g Req.”). In response, Patent Owner filed an Opposition to the Request for Rehearing. Paper 73 (“Reh’g Opp’n”). Petitioner also filed a Reply in support of its Request for Rehearing. Paper 74 (“Reh’g Reply”). At the outset, we note that in a request for rehearing we do not review the merits of the Final Written Decision de novo. Instead, we consider whether Petitioner has met its burden of showing that a matter has been misapprehended or overlooked in the Final Written Decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d) (“The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.”). We conclude that Petitioner has not met this burden in its Request for Rehearing.
II. ANALYSIS In the Final Written Decision issued in each of the above-captioned cases, the panel determined that Petitioner had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims (i.e., claims 1, 24–26, 49, 50, 73–79, 83, 84,
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2 3 88, 89, 92, 94–96, 98, and 99 of U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005 B2, and claims 1, 7, 27, 28, 34, 54, 72–74, 92, 93, and 111 of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815 B2, respectively) would have been obvious over (1) Chu ’6842 and Chu ’366,3 or (2) Chu ’684 and Chen.4, 5
In its Request for Rehearing, Petitioner asserts that, in the Final Written Decision in both cases,6 the panel misunderstood the nature of the proposed combinations of prior art references (Reh’g Req. 7–9), as well as the proposed combination’s application to the step ordering required by the challenged claims (id. at 9–13), and that the panel did not adequately consider the asserted reasons to combine the references (id. at 14–17).
2 U.S. Patent No. 7,486,684 B2 to Chu et al. issued Feb. 3, 2009 (Ex. 1006) (“Chu ’684”). 3 U.S. Patent No. 8,036,366 B2 to Chu issued Oct. 11, 2011 (Ex. 1007) (“Chu ’366”). 4 U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0064919 A1 to Chen et al. published Mar. 22, 2007 (Ex. 1008) (“Chen”). 5 On March 25, 2019, in a district court case involving Patent Owner and Petitioner (among other defendants), the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss, finding that “asserted multi-network claims (claims 1, 7, 12, 27, 28, 72, 73, 92, and 111 of the ’815 Patent and claims 49 and 73 of the ’005 Patent) and the asserted single-network claims (claims 74, 75, 77, 78, 83, 84, 94, 96, and 99 of the ’005 Patent) are directed to unpatentable subject matter and are thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 18-CV-06217-LHK, 2019 WL 1332762, at *25 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2019), appeal docketed, No. 19-1808 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2019). 6 As noted above, arguments presented in the Request for Rehearing papers in both cases are substantively the same. Thus, we refer to the Final Written Decision and Request for Rehearing papers in the singular, citing papers in Case IPR2016-01198, as also noted above.
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2 4
A. Nature of the Proposed Combinations Petitioner contends that the panel failed to properly consider how the asserted combinations would function because the panel misunderstood the combinations and did not expressly discuss certain of Petitioner’s arguments, particularly those set forth in Petitioner’s Reply to Patent Owner’s Response (Paper 34, “Reply”). Reh’g Req. 7–9. Petitioner asserts the panel showed it misunderstood the nature of the combinations by criticizing Petitioner for failing to explain why Chu ’684’s assessment of dialed digits would apply to a reformatted number. Id. at 8 (citing FWD 22–23). Petitioner states that, in the asserted combinations, “the Chu ’684 system could continue to receive and process long form E.164 compatible numbers as per its normal disclosed operation.” Id. According to Petitioner, it need not explain how Chu ’684 would process numbers converted to E.164 format because Chu ’684 already used such numbers. Id. at 9. Petitioner’s argument for error asserts that “Chu ’684 contemplates receiving long form E.164 compatible numbers.” Reh’g Req. 9; accord id. (“the same E.164 compatible format that Chu ’684 expressly contemplates using”); Reh’g Reply 1 (“[I]n the Proposed Combinations, Chu ’684 receives the very E.164-compliant numbers that it processes.”). Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s factual assertion, pointing to record evidence that, in Chu ’684, users would dial according to the dialing conventions of their geographic area. Reh’g Opp’n 8 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 66). Patent Owner’s expert witness, Dr. Mangione-Smith, testified that “in Chu ’684, the users would dial PSTN ‘public numbers’ based on the location of the customer premises.” Ex. 2016 ¶ 66 (citing Ex. 1006, Fig. 2). Figure 2 of Chu ’684 supports Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony, in that Figure 2 of Chu ’684 illustrates customer premises 105 (which includes IP phones) as connected to a service provider central office 205. See Ex. 1006, Fig. 2; Reh’g Opp’n 9 (contrasting Petitioner’s assertion
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2 5 that “IP phones . . . are not tied to any specific physical location and thus do not inherently provide the user an option to dial short form numbers” with Figure 2 of Chu ’684 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Paper 44, 8)). Patent Owner also points out that, when Chu ’684 discusses E.164 numbers, it is in the context of assigning such numbers to IP-based phones, not in in the context of placing calls by such phones to other such phones. Reh’g Opp’n 7 n.2 (citing Ex. 1006, 13:1–11; Ex. 2016 ¶ 66; Reply 21–23 (relying on disclosure in Chu ’684)). Patent Owner also identifies that Chu ’684’s “public E.164 telephone numbers” are not compliant with the “long-form E.164 format, which would require a ‘+’ sign and country code.” Id. (citing Ex. 1006, 13:4) (explaining that an example of a “public E.164 telephone number” provided in Chu ’684 is “732-949-xxxx,” which does not include the “+” sign and country code of a fully formatted E.164 number, and is instead the local dialing format used in area code 732).
These two distinctions reinforce the view of Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Mangione-Smith. And, as Patent Owner points out, the panel relied on the same evidence—testimony by Dr. Mangione-Smith—when rejecting Petitioner’s view of the prior art and reason for the combination. See FWD 19 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶¶ 65–67); Reh’g Opp’n 6. Thus, when the panel concluded that Petitioner had not shown that Chu ’684’s method would apply to a number reformatted by the secondary references (see FWD 22–23), it relied on record evidence supporting its conclusion. We determine that the panel did not misapprehend the nature of the proposed combination; rather, based on the record, it resolved a factual dispute and concluded that Petitioner failed to show the proposed combination would operate as asserted.
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2 6
Even if we were to accept Petitioner’s view of Chu ’684, however, we would not reach a different conclusion. The panel stated that, “when determining the public or private network affiliation of a call,” Chu ’684 discloses a method using “the dialed digits”—i.e., a method that routes calls based on characteristics of how they were dialed—and that Petitioner had not shown reformatted numbers would function in the same way. FWD 22. Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing, meanwhile, takes the position that no explanation is required for why or how reformatted numbers would be processed differently than typical numbers used in Chu ’684. Reh’g Req. 9; see also id. at 8 (stating that in the proposed combination, “the Chu ’684 system could continue to receive and process long form E.164 compatible numbers as per its normal disclosed operation”).
The panel ultimately concluded that Petitioner failed to show the caller’s attributes form a basis for routing messages. FWD 24 (discussing the “requirement that calling attributes associated with a caller form the basis, in-part, for ultimately assessing whether private network or public network classification criteria have been met and routing of messages based on that assessment”). In reaching this conclusion, the panel relied on Chu ’684 and Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony. Id. at 22 (citing Ex. 1006, 8:56–9:1; Ex. 2016 ¶ 71 (opining that in Chu ’684, “the analysis of the dialed digits does not require knowledge of the attributes of a caller”)). Thus, even if Chu ’684 could accept “long form E.164” numbers, the panel relied on record evidence that Petitioner failed to show Chu ’684’s routing would function the same for reformatted local numbers as for dialed local numbers.
Accordingly, we conclude the panel did not misapprehend or overlook any matter in concluding that Petitioner failed to explain adequately how Chu ’684 or the proposed combination teaches or suggests making a determination regarding where to route messages based in part on calling attributes associated with the caller.
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2 7
We also do not find the panel’s lack of Reply citations to indicate the panel misapprehended or overlooked the nature of Petitioner’s proposed combination. See, e.g., Reh’g Req. 8. Petitioner summarizes its proposed combinations as “rel[ying] on Chu ’684 for its infrastructure, call classifying, and call routing teachings” and the secondary references for their “caller profile and dialed digit reformatting teachings.” Id. at 3. As Patent Owner points out, the Final Written Decision expressly recognizes that Petitioner relies on the secondary references for their teachings as to “calling attributes” (which form part of the “caller dialing profile”) and “reformatting.” Reh’g Opp’n 14 (citing FWD 21–22). Although Petitioner asserts that it explained the proposed combination in a “step-wise fashion” in the Reply, the Reply does not change the nature of the proposed combination. Reh’g Req. 7 (citing Reply 15–16).
B. Step-Ordering Petitioner also argues that the panel misunderstood how the proposed combination applies to the claims and therefore reached an erroneous conclusion that the combination did not fit with the required sequence of steps. Reh’g Req. 9–13 (quoting FWD 24). According to Petitioner, the panel should not have addressed a step-ordering argument that was made by Patent Owner only in the Preliminary Response and rejected in the Institution Decision. Id. at 10–11. Thus, in Petitioner’s view, the panel reached a conclusion based on a mapping inconsistent with the asserted combination. Id. at 12. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner’s current position represents a shift to account for citing Chu ’684’s steps in a sequence inconsistent with the steps of the challenged claims. Reh’g Opp’n 18–19. In Patent Owner’s view, the panel’s discussion of step ordering accounted for multiple possibilities permitted by Petitioner’s ambiguous assertions. Id.
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2 8 The panel stated that using Chu ’684’s “step 610” to help locate a caller dialing profile and then using Chu ’684’s “step 608” to route private versus public messages, as cited in the Petition (see Pet. 17–20), would not comply with the claim-step ordering. FWD 23–24. Petitioner contends that the panel misunderstood the asserted mapping and argues that “the Proposed Combinations do not rely on step 610 of Chu ’684 alone for the caller profile limitation.” Reh’g Req. 11. As
Patent Owner points out, however, the panel reasonably addressed a possible mapping raised in the Petition and discussed by Petitioner’s declarant. Reh’g Opp’n 18–19; see also Ex. 1009 ¶ 45 (opinion by Petitioner’s expert that “Chu ’684 discloses using a caller identifier to locate a caller dialing profile”); PO Resp. 61–65 (disputing the possible mapping as inconsistent with claim-step ordering). The panel rejected that mapping as inconsistent with the claim-step ordering.
The panel’s statement simply recognized that a combination preserving the routing of private-network calls—where such calls are analyzed based on the dialed digits first, before possible reformatting—would require jumping back and forth between teachings in the art in order to follow the claim sequence.
Because the Petition provided insufficient explanation to support such an approach, we determine that the panel did not err. C. Reasons To Combine Petitioner further argues that the panel overlooked the full extent of the reasons why ordinary skilled artisans would have combined one of the secondary references with Chu ’684. Reh’g Req. 14–17. According to Petitioner, based on the totality of arguments, the panel should have appreciated that the proposed combination introduces support for “short form dialing (e.g., 555-1234)” and thus is an “‘intuitive’ and ‘user-friendly’ modification of Chu ’684.” Id. at 16–17. Because the panel quoted two paragraphs of the Petition discussing the
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2 9 combination’s benefits, Petitioner asserts that the panel overlooked additional explanation. Id. at 14 (citing FWD 18–21). According to Petitioner, the panel did not apprehend “that Chu ’684 did not contemplate allowing short form dialing and that the combination of Secondary References was necessary to supply that benefit.” Id. at 17. As discussed above (see supra at 4?5), Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s view of Chu ’684. See Reh’g Opp’n 7–10 (relying on its declarant to argue that Chu ’684 does not operate as asserted by Petitioner, undermining Petitioner’s justification for the combination); PO Resp. 70 (citing Ex. 2016 ¶ 66). Petitioner contends that Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony did not address the asserted combination and therefore provided no need for a reply declaration. Reh’g Reply 7–8.
We do not agree with Petitioner’s position, for the reasons stated above. Petitioner does not raise any basis on which we should discount the panel’s reliance on Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony regarding the reason to combine.7 We conclude that the panel did not misapprehend Chu ’684’s operation when it concluded that the Petition failed to show Chu ’684 is deficient and ripe for improvement. Instead, it resolved a factual dispute in Patent Owner’s favor based on record evidence. Petitioner argues also that it need not show a technical deficiency in Chu ’684 in order to rely on a secondary reference for a particular teaching.
Reh’g Reply 5. We agree with Petitioner that Petitioner is not required to identify 7 Petitioner argues that Dr. Mangione-Smith’s testimony was irrelevant “because he is not a telephony expert” (Reh’g Reply 7–8), but Petitioner did not seek to exclude the testimony. Rather, Petitioner argued for reduced weight (Reply 19–21), and does not argue that the panel overlooked the argument (see generally Reh’g Req.). On the contrary, the panel found Dr. Mangione-Smith to be sufficiently qualified. FWD 11–13.
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2 10 a technical deficiency in Chu ’684 to show obviousness. Petitioner, however, asserted the secondary references would have improved Chu ’684. See, e.g., Pet. 16 (“One of ordinary skill in the art would thus have appreciated that these improvements to Chu ’684 could be achieved . . . .”). Based on the panel’s conclusion regarding Chu ’684, it rejected Petitioner’s view that adding teachings of Chu ’366 would have made Chu ’684’s interface more intuitive and user friendly. FWD 18–19.
Thus, by concluding that Petitioner had not shown a “deficiency” in Chu ’684, the panel rejected any benefit that would have come from the combination. Id. at 19. Stated otherwise, an alleged deficiency in Chu ’684 and an alleged benefit of adding teachings from a secondary reference are two sides of the same coin.
The panel recognized that Petitioner bore the burden to establish unpatentability and concluded Petitioner had fallen short of carrying that burden. Id. at 20–21. In light of the panel’s factual determination regarding Chu ’684, we conclude that the panel did not misapprehend Petitioner’s arguments regarding reasons to combine. D. Antedated Prior Art Finally, Patent Owner argues in its opposition to the Motion that it antedated the asserted prior art and should prevail on that independent basis. Reh’g Opp’n 20. We do not reach that issue because we conclude that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing fails to demonstrate that the Final Written Decision misapprehended or overlooked any matter.
III. CONCLUSION We deny Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing because we determine that Petitioner has not met its burden to show that in the Final Written Decision, the panel misapprehended or overlooked any matter.
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2
11 IV. ORDER It is, therefore, ORDERED that Petitioner’s Request for Rehearing is denied.
IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201 Patents 9,179,005 B2 and 8,542,815 B2
12 PETITIONER: Adam P. Seitz Eric A. Buresh Paul R. Hart ERISE IP, P.A. adam.seitz@eriseip.com Eric.Buresh@eriseip.com Paul.Hart@eriseip.com PATENT OWNER: Kevin N. Malek MALEK MOSS PLLC kevin.malek@malekmoss.com Kerry Taylor John M. Carson KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP 2KST@knobbe.com 2jmc@knobbe.com
Apple and Amazon lawsuits
KOH new order issued.. A small vplm win.... Against consolidation apple etc. Hhhhhmmmmmm
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20549 FORM 8-K
CURRENT REPORT
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of report (Date of earliest event reported) May 21, 2019
VoIP-PAL.COM INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)
Nevada
000-55613
980184110
(State or Other Jurisdiction
of Incorporation) (Commission File
Number)
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)
10900 NE 4th Street, Suite 2300, Bellevue, WA,
98004
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code)
1-888-605-7780
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Not Applicable
(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)
Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:
?
Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
?
Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
?
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
?
Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.405) or Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.12b-2).
Emerging growth company ?
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ?
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: None
Item 5.02
Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.
On May 15, 2019, Dr. Ryan Thomas, who has served the company as its President and is a member of the Board of Directors of the company, has resigned his position as President, effective immediately. Dr. Thomas will maintain his role as general counsel to the company, as well as serving on the Board.
On May 15, 2019, Mr. Emil Malak, who currently serves the company as its Chief Executive Office and is a member of the Board of Directors of the company, has assumed the role of President, effective immediately. Mr. Malak will also maintain his roles as CEO and as a member of the Board.
Information required by 17 CFR 229.401 for both Dr. Thomas and Mr. Malak is available in the company’s most recent 10K report.
SIGNATURES
In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
DATED: May 21, 2019 By: /s/ Emil Malak
Emil Malak
Chief Executive Officer
DATED: May 21, 2019 By: /s/ D. Barry Lee
D. Barry Lee
Chief Financial Officer
VOIP,VPLM.SHORT.HISTORY...Landlines.Get.Replaced.(But.Not.With.Cell. Phones)
A New Low-Cost Phone System is Turning Carriers Upside Down
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 have already switched over to this new phone service. Also, in more than 200 international airports, air traffic control is relying on VoIP.1 79% of businesses rely on this technology.2
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.3 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 senior citizen in New York complained he had no phone service for months.4 His phone company still forced him, and other customers to rely on outdated copper wires. What this meant is he wasn’t able to call out for medical emergencies or even to order a pizza.
If you rely on cell phone service as your primary mode of making phone calls the problem could be even worse. Last year, Time Magazine reported that cell phone bills were spiking upwards across the board. In some cases, companies like Verizon were charging customers ridiculous rates on their data plans even while they slept.5
Fortunately, VoIP has given consumers a less expensive, more reliable option for making calls.
If you’re interested in this revolutionary new phone system, and would love to save tons of money in the process, the key is to compare available VoIP providers.
Is.this.UPDATE.for.a .possible.reversal.of.her.prior.terminated.order?
ARE WE POSSIBLY COMING ALIVE ONCE MORE?
IS THERE AN ERROR ON THE FILING? VOIP PAL VS VOIP PAL?
HAS ANYBODY ACCESS OR ANY IDEA WHAT WAS FILED
?
Voip-Pal.com, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al
California Northern District Court
Judge: Lucy H Koh
Referred: Virginia K Demarchi
Case #: 5:18-cv-07020
Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 28:1338 Patent Infringement
Case Filed: Nov 19, 2018
Docket
Parties (4)
Docket last updated: 05/17/2019 11:59 PM PDT
Friday, May 17, 2019
62 misc Claim Construction Statement Fri 4:37 PM
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT filed by Voip-Pal.com, Inc..(Malek, Kevin)
Att: 1 Exhibit A and B
61 cmp Amended Complaint Fri 2:11 PM
AMENDED COMPLAINT First against Amazon.com Inc, Amazon Technologies, Inc.. Filed byVoip-Pal.com, Inc.. (Malek, Kevin)
60 cmp Amended Complaint Fri 2:08 PM
AMENDED COMPLAINT First against Voip-Pal.com, Inc.. Filed byVoip-Pal.com, Inc.. (Malek, Kevin)
Thursday, May 16, 2019
59 3 pgs order Order on Motion to Amend/CorrectThu 5:56 PM
Order by Judge Lucy H. Koh Granting 48 Motion to Amend.(lhklc2S, COURT STAFF)
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
58 misc Joint Case Management StatementWed 8:36 PM
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Voip-Pal.com, Inc.. (Malek, Kevin)
Friday, May 10, 2019
57 oth_evt Clerk's Notice 1 - Terminate Hearings Fri 8:23 AM
**CLERK'S NOTICE** VACATING May 16, 2019 Hearing for48 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint. Matter to be determined on the papers. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (kedS, COURT STAFF)
INFRINGING.COMPANIES.FILING.IPR'S.SHOULD.PAY.PATENT.OWNERS.ESTIMATED.RETAINER.FEES,FILING.AND.LEGAL.COSTS.UPFRONT
In sum, Apple is engaging in a practice now called “efficient infringement,” which is increasingly common today, especially among high-tech giants like Apple and Google. This occurs when a company chooses to infringe another’s patents given its calculation that it will pay less money in a court-ordered judgment than in a properly negotiated license agreement—after years of fighting the patent owner in court and before regulatory tribunals at the Patent Office and after forcing the patent owner to pay millions in legal fees. Too often, companies like Apple really think they can just get away with infringing others’ patent rights because they have the resources to outlast patent owners in these legal challenges.
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/03/19/apple-pays-patent-infringement-important-legal-cases-continue/id=107425/
SHARE CAPITAL (Details Narrative) - USD ($) 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019 Dec. 31, 2018 Mar. 31, 2018 Dec. 31, 2017
Common stock, authorized shares 3,000,000,000
Common stock, issued shares 1,952,267,592
Common stock, par value (in dollars per share) $ 0.001
Preferred stock, authorized shares 1,000,000
Preferred stock, par value (in dollars per share) $ 0.01
Warrant exercise price (in dollars per share)
Common shares issued for services, value $ 96,500 $ 307,500 $ 2,808,460 $ 2,370
Number of shares issued, value $ 129,000 $ 90,000 $ 1,005,967 $ 1,930,093
Proceeds from private placement
Number of shares issued upon exercised 6,306,000
Proceeds from shares issued upon exercised
Private Placement #2 [Member]
Share price (in dollars per share) $ 0.04
Number of shares issued
Proceeds from private placement
Private Placement #3 [Member]
Share price (in dollars per share) $ 0.04
Number of shares issued
Proceeds from private placement
Number of warrant exercised 6,306,000
Private Placement [Member]
Warrant exercise price (in dollars per share)
Number of shares issued
Proceeds from private placement
Maximum [Member] | Private Placement #2 [Member]
Share price (in dollars per share) $ 0.03
Maximum [Member] | Private Placement #3 [Member]
Share price (in dollars per share) $ 0.025
Warrant exercise price (in dollars per share)
Warrant - common share purchase (shares) 1
Issued for services, price per share
Maximum [Member] | Private Placement [Member]
Share price (in dollars per share) $ 0.03
Minimum [Member] | Private Placement #2 [Member]
Share price (in dollars per share) 0.02
Minimum [Member] | Private Placement #3 [Member]
Share price (in dollars per share) 0.02
Warrant exercise price (in dollars per share)
Issued for services, price per share
Minimum [Member] | Private Placement [Member]
Share price (in dollars per share) 0.02
Common Stock Par Value [Member]
Share price (in dollars per share)
Common Stock Par Value [Member]
Share price (in dollars per share)
Common shares issued for services, shares
Common shares issued for services, value
Common shares issued for management compensation, shares
Common shares issued for management compensation, value
Number of shares issued upon anti-dilution clause
Value of shares issued upon anti-dilution clause
Common shares were returned to treasury
Common shares were returned to treasury, value
Common Stock Par Value [Member] | Maximum [Member]
Debt conversion, price per share 0.03
Share price (in dollars per share)
Issued for services, price per share 0.04
Anti-dilution clause share price (in dollars per share) 0.04
Common Stock Par Value [Member] | Minimum [Member]
Debt conversion, price per share 0.025
Share price (in dollars per share)
Issued for services, price per share 0.02
STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION (Details Narrative) - USD ($) 3 Months Ended 6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018 Mar. 31, 2019 Sep. 30, 2018 Mar. 31, 2018
Share purchase options granted $ 2,651,050 $ (98,242)
Incentive Stock Option Plan [Member]
Share based compensation authorization percentage 10.00%
Pricing Method used Black-Scholes
Risk-free rate 1.62% 1.62%
Expected life 5 years 5 years
Expected volatility 138.80% 138.80%
Dividend rate 0.00% 0.00%
Weighted-average grant date fair value $ 0.07 $ 0.14
Intrinsic value of options exercisable $ 0 $ 1,538,525
Share purchase options granted $ 0 $ 2,651,050
NATURE AND CONTINUANCE OF OPERATIONS (Details Narrative) - USD ($) Mar. 31, 2019 Sep. 30, 2018
Nature And Continuance Of Operations
Accumulated deficit $ (49,271,761) $ (42,648,364)
STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION (Tables) 6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Disclosure of Compensation Related Costs, Share-based Payments [Abstract]
Schedule of stock option transactions The following table summarizes the Company’s stock
option transactions:
Number of options
Weighted average exercise price
Balance September 30, 2017 39,850,000 $ 0.058
Granted 18,500,000 0.18
Cancelled (18,500,000 ) (0.18 )
Balance September 30, 2018 39,850,000 $ 0.058
Granted 10,000,000 0.065
Cancelled — —
Balance March 31, 2019 49,850,000 $ 0.060
Schedule of stock options outstanding The following table summarizes the stock options outstanding
at March 31, 2019:
Options Exercise Remaining Number of Options
14,000,000 $ 0.060 2.23 14,000,000
14,000,000 0.060 2.43 14,000,000
3,450,000 0.060 2.57 3,450,000
8,400,000 0.050 3.05 8,400,000
10,000,000 0.065 4.73 —
49,850,000 $ 0.058 3.0 39,850,000
FIXED ASSETS (Tables) 6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Property, Plant and Equipment [Abstract]
Schedule of fixed assets A summary of the Company’s fixed
assets as of March 31, 2019 and September 30, 2018 is as follows:
March 31, 2019 September 30,
Office furniture & computers $ 11,917 $ —
Accumulated depreciation (376 ) —
Net book value $ 11,541 $ —
SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES (Policies) 6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Accounting Policies [Abstract]
Principles of Consolidation Principles of Consolidation These consolidated financial statements
have been prepared on a consolidated basis and include the accounts of the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary Digifonica.
All intercompany transactions and balances have been eliminated. As at March 31, 2019, Digifonica had no activities.
Use of Estimates Use of Estimates The preparation of these consolidated
financial statements required management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities
at the date of the financial statements and the reported amount of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results
could differ from these estimates. Where estimates have been used financial results as determined by actual events could differ
from those estimates.
Cash Cash Cash consists of cash on hand and monies
held in checking and savings accounts. The Company had $2,501,436 and $3,175,523 in cash on March 31, 2019 and September 30, 2018,
respectively.
Fixed Assets Fixed Assets Fixed assets are stated at cost less
accumulated depreciation, and depreciated using the straight-line method over their useful lives; Furniture and equipment –
7 years; and Computers and Software – 3 years.
Intangible Assets Intangible
Assets Intangible
assets, consisting of VoIP communication patent intellectual properties (IP) are recorded at cost and amortized over the assets
estimated life on a straight-line basis. Management considers factors such as remaining life of the patents, technological usefulness
and other factors in estimating the life of the assets. The
carrying value of intangible assets are reviewed for impairment by management of the Company at least annually or upon the occurrence
of an event which may indicate that the carrying amount may be less than its fair value. If impaired, the Company will write-down
such impairment. In addition, the useful life of the intangible assets will be evaluated by management at least annually or upon
the occurrence of an event which may indicate that the useful life may have changed.
Fair Value of Financial Instruments Fair Value of Financial Instruments
FASB ASC 820, Fair Value Measurement,
defines fair value as the price that would be received upon sale of an asset or paid upon transfer of a liability in an orderly
transaction between market participants at the measurement date and in the principal or most advantageous market for that asset
or liability. The fair value should be calculated based on assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset
or liability, not on assumptions specific to the entity. The Company classifies financial assets
and liabilities as held-for-trading, available-for-sale, held-to-maturity, loans and receivables or other financial liabilities
depending on their nature. Financial assets and financial liabilities are recognized at fair value on their initial recognition,
except for those arising from certain related party transactions which are accounted for at the transferor’s carrying amount
or exchange amount. Financial assets and liabilities classified
as held-for-trading are measured at fair value, with gains and losses recognized in net income. Financial assets classified as
held-to-maturity, loans and receivables, and financial liabilities other than those classified as held-for-trading are measured
at amortized cost, using the effective interest method of amortization. Financial assets classified as available-for-sale are measured
at fair value, with unrealized gains and losses being recognized as other comprehensive income until realized, or if an unrealized
loss is considered other than temporary, the unrealized loss is recorded in income. U.S. GAAP establishes a framework for
measuring fair value under generally accepted accounting principles and enhances disclosures about fair value measurements. Fair
value is defined as the amount that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (i.e., an exit price) in the
principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants on the measurement
date. Valuation techniques used to measure fair value maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable
inputs. The standard describes the following fair value hierarchy based on three levels of inputs, of which the first two are considered
observable and the last unobservable, that may be used to measure fair value: Level 1: Quoted prices in active markets
for identical assets and liabilities. Level 2: Inputs other than Level 1 that
are observable, either directly or indirectly, such as quoted prices for similar assets or liabilities; quoted prices in markets
that are not active; or other inputs that are observable or can be corroborated by observable market data for substantially the
full term of the assets or liabilities. Level 3: Unobservable inputs supported
by little or no market activity and that are significant to the fair value of the assets or liabilities. The fair value of cash is classified
as Level 1 at March 31, 2019 and September 30, 2018. The Company classifies its financial
instruments as follows: Cash is classified as held for trading and is measured at fair value. Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
are classified as other financial liabilities, and have a fair value approximating their carrying value, due to their short-term
nature.
Income Taxes Income Taxes Deferred income taxes have been provided
for temporary differences between financial statement and income tax reporting under the asset and liability method, using expected
tax rates and laws that are expected to be in effect when the differences are expected to reverse. A valuation allowance is provided
when realization is not considered more likely than not. The Company’s policy is to classify
income tax assessments, if any, for interest expense and for penalties in general and administrative expenses. The Company’s
income tax returns are subject to examination by the IRS and corresponding states, generally for three years after they are filed.
Loss per Common Share Loss per Common Share Basic loss per share is calculated using
the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during each period. Diluted income per share includes potentially dilutive
securities such as outstanding options and warrants outstanding during each period. To calculate diluted loss per share the Company
uses the treasury stock method and the If-converted method. For the six-month period ended March
31, 2019 and the year ended September 30, 2018 there were no potentially dilutive securities included in the calculation of weighted-average
common shares outstanding.
Derivatives Derivatives We account for derivatives pursuant
to ASC 815, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities
Stock-based compensation Stock-based compensation The Company recognizes compensation
expense for all stock-based payments made to employees, directors and others based on the estimated fair values of its common stock
on the date of issuance. The Company determines the fair value
of the share-based compensation payments granted as either the fair value of the consideration received or the fair value of the
equity instruments issued, whichever is more reliably measurable. If the fair value of the equity instruments issued is used, it
is measured using the stock price and other measurement assumptions as of the earlier of either the date at which a commitment
for performance to earn the equity instrument is reached or the date the performance is complete. The Company recognizes compensation
expense for stock awards with service conditions on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period, which is included
in operations. Stock option expense is recognized over the option’s vesting period.
Concentrations of Credit Risk Concentrations of Credit Risk The Company maintains cash at financial
institutions, which at times, may be in excess of insured limits. The Company has not experienced any losses to date as a result
of this policy and, in assessing its risk, the Company’s policy is to maintain cash only with reputable financial institutions.
As of March 31, 2019, the Company’s bank operating account balances exceeded the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Insurance
Limit of $250,000 by $2,251,436.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements Recent Accounting Pronouncements In January 2016, FASB issued an ASU,
Subtopic 825-10, to amend certain aspects of recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure of financial instruments. Most
prominent among the amendments is the requirement for changes in fair value of equity investments, with certain exceptions, to
be recognized through profit or loss rather than other comprehensive income. The Company adopted the standard October 1, 2018.
There was no impact on the Company’s financial statements from the adoption of this amendment. In January 2016, FASB issued ASU 2016-01
to amend certain aspects of recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure of financial instruments. Most prominent among
the amendments is the requirement for changes in fair value of equity investments, with certain exceptions, to be recognized through
profit or loss rather than other comprehensive income. The new standard was effective for the Company beginning October 1, 2018.
The standard did not have any impact on the Company’s financial statements. In February 2016 FASB issued ASU No.
2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) which supersedes FASB ASC Topic 840, Leases (Topic 840) and provides principles for the recognition,
measurement, presentation, and disclosure of leases for both lessees and the lessors. The new standard requires the lessees to
apply a dual approach, classifying leases as either finance or operating leases based on the principle of whether or not the lease
is effectively a financed purchase by the lessee. The classification will determine whether lease expense is recognized based on
an effective interest method or on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease, respectively. A lessee is also required to
record a right-of-use asset and a lease liability for all leases with a term of greater than twelve months regardless of classification.
Leases with a term of twelve months or less will be accounted for similar to existing guidance for operating leases. The standard
is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018, with early adoption permitted upon issuance. When adopted, the
Company does not expect this guidance to have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements. In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13
to replace the incurred loss impairment methodology in current U.S. GAAP with a methodology that reflects expected credit losses
and requires consideration of a broader range of reasonable and supportable information to inform credit loss credit loss estimates.
For trade and other receivables, loans and other financial instruments, the Company will be required to use a forward-looking expected
loss model rather than the incurred loss model for recognizing credit losses which reflects losses that are probable. Credit losses
relating to available for sale debt securities will also be recorded through an allowance for credit losses rather than as a reduction
in the amortized cost basis of the securities. The new standard will be effective for the Company beginning October 1, 2020, with
early adoption permitted. Application of the amendments is through a cumulative-effect adjustment to deficit as of the effective
date. The Company is currently assessing the impact of the standard on its consolidated financial statements.
CONTINGENT LIABILITIES 6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
CONTINGENT LIABILITIES NOTE 11. CONTINGENT LIABILITIES Litigation The Company is party to pending litigation cases as follows:
i) Locksmith Financial Corporation, Inc. et al. v Voip-Pal.com Inc. (Case No A-15-717491-C) filed in Clark County District Court (the “State Case”) On March 24, 2014, the Company
resolved to freeze 95,832,000 common shares that were issued to a company controlled by a former director (the “defendant”)
in fiscal 2013 and accounted for at a cost of $1,443,000. The Company resolved to freeze the common shares as the Company believes
that the shares were issued as settlement of a line of credit that the Company believes to have been legally unsupported. The defendant
alleges that the freeze and the Company’s actions constituted fraud and a breach of securities laws. The Company denies any
wrongdoing. Currently the State Case is entering the discovery phase of litigation and the outcome is undeterminable.
ii) Voip-Pal.com Inc. v. Richard Kipping, et al. (Case No. 2:15-cv-01258-JAD-VCF) filed in United States District Court (the “Federal Case”) On July 2, 2015, the Company
filed a case against a former director, a shareholder and the company controlled by a former director. The Company alleges that
the common shares issued in the State Case and an additional 7,200,000 common shares were fraudulently obtained and that the shares
have been unlawfully transferred to other entities. The proceedings in the Federal Case have been stayed pending a final determination
of the issues in the State Case. The outcome of this case is undeterminable.
iii) Voip-Pal.com Inc. v. Apple, Inc. (Case No. 2:16-CV-00260) & Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, Verizon Communications Inc., AT&T Corp. (Case No. 2:16- VC-00271) in the United States District Court, District of Nevada In February 2016 the Company
filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court, District of Nevada against Apple, Inc, (Case No. 2:16-CV-00260),
Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, Verizon Communications Inc., and AT&T Corp. (Case No. 2:16- VC-00271). These cases are seeking
a combined $7,024,377,876 in damages. On May 9, 2016, the lawsuits were officially served to these companies (collectively, the
“Defendants”). The proceedings in these cases were temporarily stayed, by agreement with the parties thereto, pending
the outcome of two Inter Partes In August, 2018, the cases
were consolidated under one lawsuit, and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where
they were renamed as Case Nos. 18-cv-06177-LHK, 18-cv-06217-LHK, 18-cv-04523-LHK and 18-cv-06054-LHK. The Defendants filed a Motion
to Dismiss the cases, asserting an “Alice 101” motion that Voip-Pal’s ‘005 and ‘815 patents do not
claim patentable subject matter. On March 25, 2019, the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Defendants’ “Alice 101” Motion to Dismiss
in all of the cases. The Company has stated it will appeal this Court decision.
iv) Voip-Pal.com Inc. v. Twitter, Inc. (Case No. 2:16-CV-02338) in the United States District Court, District of Nevada During the year ended September
30, 2017, on October 6, 2016, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of Nevada against Twitter,
Inc, (Case No. 2:16- CV-02338) in which Voip-Pal.com alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,542,815 and its continuation patent,
U.S. Patent No. 9,179,005, This case is seeking $3,200,000,000 in damages. On December 28, 2016, the lawsuit was officially served
to Twitter, Inc. On February 28, 2018, Twitter filed a motion to transfer its case based on improper venue and the case was subsequently
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where it remains pending. The outcome of this case
is undeterminable.
v) Voip-Pal.com Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:18-CV-01076) in the United States District Court, District of Nevada During the period ended March 31, 2019, in June
2018, the Company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, District of Nevada, against Amazon.com, Inc. and certain
related entities, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,537,762, 9,813,330, 9,826,002 and 9,948,549. In November 2018, the
case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where it remains pending. The outcome
of this case is undeterminable. Inter Partes In additional legal actions related
to Item iii above, two of the Company’s patents have been subject to challenge in several Inter Partes More particularly, a total of eight
IPRs, filed against Patent No. 8,542,815 and No. 9,179,005, were either in process before the PTAB or had been resolved, as follows:
– Unified Patents Inc. (Petitioner) vs. Voip-Pal.com Inc. (Patent Owner), IPR2016-01082, filed May 24, 2016, requesting inter partes
– Apple, Inc. (Petitioner) vs. Voip-Pal.com Inc. (Patent Owner), IPR2016-01198, reviewing Patent No. 9,179,005 and Voip-Pal.com Inc. (Patent Owner), IPR2016-01201, reviewing Patent No. 8,542,815, both instituted for IPR on November 21, 2016;
– AT&T Inc. (Petitioner) filed IPR2017-01382 against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 8,542,815, IPR2017-01383 against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 9,179,005, and IPR2017-01384 against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 9,179,005 on May 8, 2017, each of which was subsequently denied institution; and
– Apple Inc. (Petitioner) filed IPR2017-01399 against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 8,542,815, and IPR2017-01398 against Voip-Pal’s Patent No. 9,179,005 on May 9, 2017, each of which was subsequently denied institution. During the year ended September 30,
2018, the PTAB considered the aforesaid IPRs, and on November 20, 2017, the PTAB issued its findings on the seven active IPRs being
adjudicated, denying institution of the IPRs with respect to all claims challenged by the Petitioners (Apple Inc, and AT&T
Inc.). Subsequent to that ruling, in December 2017, Apple filed a post-judgment motion in IPR2016-01198 and IPR2016-01201, seeking
invalidation of the challenged claims as sanctions against the Company. On December 21, 2018, a new panel of
the PTAB ruled on Apple’s sanctions motion, declining to grant Apple’s request to invalidate the challenged claims
and declining to grant Apple’s request for entirely new proceedings to replace the existing panel of judges with a new panel
or with judges that would consider any request for rehearing by Apple as a sanction against VoIP-Pal. Performance Bonus Payable In 2016, the board of directors authorized
the Company to provide a performance bonus (the “Performance Bonus”) of up to 3% of the capital stock of the Company
by way of the issuance of Common shares from its treasury to an as yet undetermined group of related and non-related parties upon
the occurrence of a bonusable event, defined as the successful completion of a sale of the Company or substantially all its assets,
or a major licensing transaction. In order to provide maximum flexibility to the Company with respect to determining the level
of Performance Bonus payable, and who may qualify to receive a pro-rata share of such a Performance Bonus, the Company authorized
full discretion to the Board in making such determinations. During the period ended September 30,
2018, the board of directors authorized the increase of the Performance Bonus to up to 10% of the capital stock of the Company. During the six-month period ended March
31, 2019, the board of directors resolved to reduce the Performance Bonus from 10% to 3.33% of the issued and outstanding capital
stock of the Company. Concurrently, the board of directors authorized the payment of Common shares (“Bonus Shares”)
in an equivalent percentage to the 6.67% reduction to the Performance Bonus to a group of related and non-related parties, which
included members of management, a director and several consultants, who received an aggregate 127,000,000 Bonus Shares (Note 9).
The Bonus Shares are restricted from trading under Rule 144 and are also subject to voluntary lock-up agreements, pursuant to which
they cannot be traded, pledged, hypothecated, transferred or sold by the holders until such time as the Company has met the requirements
of the bonusable event as described above. As at March 31, 2019, no bonusable event
had occurred and there was no Performance Bonus payable.
Disclosure of Compensation Related Costs, Share-based Payments [Abstract]
STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION NOTE 10. STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION Stock Option Plan In order to provide incentive to directors,
officers, management, employees, consultants and others who provide services to the Company or any subsidiary (the “Service
Providers”) to act in the best interests of the Company, and to retain such Service Providers, the Company has in place an
incentive Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) whereby the Company is authorized to issue up to 10% of its issued and outstanding
share capital in options to purchase common shares of the Company. The maximum term of options granted under the Plan cannot exceed
ten years, with vesting terms determined at the discretion of the Board of Directors. The following table summarizes the Company’s stock
option transactions:
Number of options
Weighted average exercise price
Balance September 30, 2017 39,850,000 $ 0.058
Granted 18,500,000 0.18
Cancelled (18,500,000 ) (0.18 )
Balance September 30, 2018 39,850,000 $ 0.058
Granted 10,000,000 0.065
Cancelled — —
Balance March 31, 2019 49,850,000 $ 0.060 The following table summarizes the stock options outstanding
at March 31, 2019:
Options Exercise Remaining Number of Options
14,000,000 $ 0.060 2.23 14,000,000
14,000,000 0.060 2.43 14,000,000
3,450,000 0.060 2.57 3,450,000
8,400,000 0.050 3.05 8,400,000
10,000,000 0.065 4.73 —
49,850,000 $ 0.058 3.0 39,850,000 The following assumptions were used
for the Black-Scholes valuation of stock options granted during the six-month period ended March 31, 2019: risk-free rate of 1.62%
(2018 – 1.62%), expected life of 5 years (2018 – 5 years), annualized historical volatility of 138.8% (2018 –
138.8%) and a dividend rate of 0% (2018 – 0%). Expected volatilities are based on historical volatility of the Company’s
stock and other factors. The compensation cost that has been charged against income from options vested under the Plan was $nil
for the six-month period ended March 31, 2019 (March 31, 2018 – $2,651,050) as none of the options granted were currently
vested. The weighted-average grant-date fair
value of options granted during the six-month period ended March 31, 2019 was $0.07 (2018 - $0.14). The total intrinsic value of
options exercised during the period ended March 31, 2019 was $nil (2018 - $1,538,525).
SHARE CAPITAL 6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Equity [Abstract]
SHARE CAPITAL NOTE 9. SHARE CAPITAL Capital Stock Authorized and Issued:
– 3,000,000,000 (September 30, 2018 – 2,000,000,000) common voting shares authorized with a par value of $0.001 each, of which 1,952,267,592 (September 30, 2018 – 1,575,001,801) shares are issued.
– 1,000,000 convertible preferred shares authorized with a par value of $0.01 each, of which nil (2018 – nil) shares are issued. During the six-month period ended March
31, 2019, the board of directors of the Company authorized the increase of the Company’s capital stock to up to 3,000,000,000
common voting shares with a par value of $0.001 per share. Issues during the six-month period
ended March 31, 2019 During the six-month period ended March
31, 2019, the Company issued:
– 5,475,000 common shares priced at $0.04 per common share for cash proceeds of $219,000 from a private placement of common shares;
– 6,306,000 common shares priced at $0.04 per common share for cash proceeds of $252,240 from the exercise of 6,306,000 common share purchase warrants;
– 13,300,000 common shares priced between $0.02 and $0.04 per common share for services with an aggregate value of $332,000 (September 30, 2018 - $477,320), and accrued 1,800,000 shares to be issued valued at $72,000 for services received;
– 127,000,000 common shares issued as bonus compensation, recorded as an expense to the Company of $5,080,000 (Note 11); and
– 225,184,791 common shares priced between $0.003 and $0.04 per common share pursuant to the Anti-Dilution Clause for a value of $5,124,641 (Note 4 and 6). Issues during the year ended September
30, 2018 During the year ended September 30,
2018, the Company issued:
– 113,453,749 common shares for cash proceeds of $3,402,060 from private placements, as follows;
? 107,147,749 common shares priced between $0.015 and $0.06 per common share for cash proceeds of $3,303,940 from a private placement of common shares; and
? 6,306,000 units at between $0.013 and $0.02 per unit for cash proceeds of $98,120. Each unit consists of one common share and one common share purchase warrant. Each common share purchase warrant allows the holder to purchase one common share for $0.04 for a period of twelve months from the date of issuance;
– 50,125,000 common shares at $0.04 per common share for cash proceeds of $2,005,000 on the exercise of 50,125,000 common share purchase warrants;
– 104,313,833 common shares priced at between $0.02 and $0.06 per common share for services with an aggregate value of $4,467,917, of which $585,721 (September 30, 2017 - $Nil) was in settlement of Shares to be issued; and
– 174,983,685 common shares priced at $0.038 per common share pursuant to the Anti-Dilution Clause for a value of $6,649,380 (Note 4 and 6). During the year ended September 30,
2018, 10,000,000 common shares were returned to the treasury at $0.003 per share with an aggregate value of $31,542 (Note 7). Subsequent Issues Subsequent to the six-month period ended
March 31, 2019, the Company issued nil common shares. Shares to be Issued As at March 31, 2019, there are 15,067,523
(September 30, 2018 – 12,817,523) common shares to be issued that are accrued for services provided to the Company valued
at $549,320 (September 30, 2018– $477,320), of which 13,090,000 (September 30, 2018– 10,840,000) valued at $506,000
(September 30, 2018 - $416,000) are accrued to management and related parties (see Note 7). As at March 31, 2019, there are 2,858,333
(September 30, 2018 – 126,655,791) common shares to be issued that are accrued to the seller of Digifonica pursuant to the
Anti-Dilution Clause (see Notes 4 and 7), valued at $114,333 (September 30, 2018 - $4,812,920). Warrants During the six-month period ended March
31, 2019, the Company issued no new warrants. During the six-month period ended March
31, 2019, 6,306,000 common share purchase warrants were exercised to purchase 6,306,000 common shares in the capital stock of the
Company at a price of $0.04 per common share. As of March 31, 2019, there were no
outstanding warrants to be exercised. The following table summarizes
the Company’s share purchase warrant transactions:
Number of warrants Weighted average
Balance September 31, 2017 61,500,500 $ 0.04
Issued 6,306,000 0.04
Exercised (50,125,000 ) 0.04
Expired (11,375,500 ) 0.04
Balance September 31, 2018 6,306,000 $ 0.04
Issued Nil N/A
Exercised (6,306,000 ) 0.04
Expired Nil N/A
Balance March 31, 2019 Nil N/A
SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW INFORMATION 6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Supplemental Cash Flow Elements [Abstract]
SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW INFORMATION NOTE 8. SUPPLEMENTAL CASH FLOW INFORMATION During the six-month period ended March
31, 2019, the Company paid $nil (March 31, 2018 - $nil) in interest or income taxes. There were no non-cash investing or
financing transactions during the period ended March 31, 2019. During the period ended March 31, 2018, the Company re-classified
$1,063,041 from shares to be issued into Additional paid-in capital upon the issuance of shares.
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS AND KEY MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION 6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Related Party Transactions [Abstract]
RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS AND KEY MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION NOTE 7. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS AND KEY MANAGEMENT COMPENSATION The Company compensates certain of its
key management personnel to operate its business in the normal course. Key management includes the Company’s executive officers
and members of its Board of Directors. Compensation paid or accrued to key
management for services during the six-month period ended March 31, 2019 includes:
March 31, 2019 March 31,
Management fees paid or accrued to the CEO $ 72,000 $ 45,000
Management fees paid or accrued to the CFO 43,200 43,200
Management fees paid or accrued to the President 30,000 18,000
Fees paid or accrued to Directors 36,000 36,000
$ 181,200 $ 142,200 During the six-month period ended March
31, 2019 the Company issued 1,650,000 (2018 – 825,000) common shares for a value of $96,000 (2018 - $48,000), accrued 1,800,000
(2018 – 900,000) common shares to be issued valued at $72,000 (2018 – $36,000) and paid cash of $13,200 (2018 - $13,200)
for key management compensation as shown in the above table. The Company also issued 90,000,000 (2018 – nil) common shares
as bonus compensation to three directors which were recorded as an expense to the Company of $3,600,000 (2018 – Nil) (Notes
9 and 11), and 10,000,000 (2018 – Nil) common shares at a value of $200,000 to the CEO as additional compensation. As at March 31, 2019, included in shares
to be issued is $434,000 (September 30, 2018 - $416,000) for unpaid Director fees. As at March 31, 2019, 2,858,333 (September 30,
2018 – 126,655,791) common shares are accrued to the Seller of Digifonica for the Anti-Dilution Clause. 225,184,791 common
shares were issued during the six-month period ended March 31, 2019 (March 31, 2018 – Nil) to the Seller of Digifonica pursuant
to the Anti-Dilution Clause (Notes 4 and 9). During the year ended September 30,
2018, 10,000,000 common shares were returned to the treasury from an officer of the Company at a per share price of $0.003 ($31,542)
on the unwinding of a loan conversion transaction and the associated forgiveness of a loan to the Company provided by the officer
dating from 2014.
INTANGIBLE ASSETS 6 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Goodwill and Intangible Assets Disclosure [Abstract]
INTANGIBLE ASSETS NOTE 6. INTANGIBLE ASSETS The Company acquired certain patents
and technology from Digifonica in December 2013 (see Note 4). These assets have been recorded in the financial statements as intangible
assets. These assets are being amortized over twelve (12) years on a straight-line basis. A summary of intangible assets as of
March 31, 2019 and September 30, 2018 is as follows:
March 31, 2019 September 30,
VoIP Intellectual property and patents $ 1,552,416 $ 1,552,416
Accumulated amortization (703,966 ) (634,866 )
Net book value $ 848,450 $ 917,550 There were no disposals of any intangible assets in the periods
presented.