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.
I agree. the Alice landscape is changing - and in our favor
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/07/03/cellspin-resurrected-electric-power-group/id=110927/
Excellent article about how the recent Cellspin case may open an important door into a re-examination of "Alice"....
Cautiously optimistic
This is a promising Federal Circuit Ruling
Federal Circuit Cellspin Ruling Provides Important Clarifications on Aatrix and Berkheimer
By John M. Rogitz on Jul 01, 2019 02:15 pm
On June 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc. (2018-1817, 2018-1819 to 1826), reversing a district court’s grant of various Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss complaints that alleged patent infringement based on U.S. Pat. No. 8,738,794 (the ’794 patent), U.S. Pat. No. 8,892,752 (the ’752 patent), U.S. Pat. No. 9,258,698 (the ’698 patent), and U.S. Pat. No. 9,749,847 (the ’847 patent). The Federal Circuit did so because the district court misconstrued precedent from both Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal Circuit panel consisted of Judges Lourie, O’Malley, and Taranto. Judge O’Malley authored the panel’s opinion. he Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the claims were directed to an abstract idea but reversed anyway on the basis of the district court failing to conduct a proper Alice step two. This was because the district court ignored Cellspin’s factual allegations that, when properly accepted as true, precluded the grant of a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
Congress Poised to Align Courts with USPTO on 101 Reform
By Scott McKeown on April 17, 2019
Senate/House Outline Follows USPTO’s Top-Down Approach
The USPTO released Revised Guidance on Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 back in January. The Guidelines simplified the case law by presenting a top-down approach to distill the morass of case law on abstract ideas into a list of exempted categories.
Under its new Guidleines, if a patented claim was not directed to an exempt category, the the claims passed muster. If the claim is directed to an enumerated category, a practical application analysis is then performed, and if satisfied, the claims still pass 101 scrutiny. The result is a more patent friendly, and manageable analysis….at least at the USPTO.
Since introduction of the Guidelines, however, the Courts have declined to show them deference. Yet, Congress appears poised to enact legislation to forcibly align the Courts with the agency 101 Guidelines.
Today, both Houses of Congress released identical draft outlines (here) for Section 101 Reform that essentially track the USPTO Guidlines.
The Draft Outline presents the following framework for future legislation:
• Keep existing statutory categories of process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any useful improvement thereof.
• Eliminate, within the eligibility requirement, that any invention or discovery be both “new and useful.” Instead, simply require that the invention meet existing statutory utility requirements.
• Define, in a closed list, exclusive categories of statutory subject matter which alone should not be eligible for patent protection. The sole list of exclusions might include the following categories, for example:
Fundamental scientific principles;
Products that exist solely and exclusively in nature;
Pure mathematical formulas;
Economic or commercial principles;
Mental activities.
• Create a “practical application” test to ensure that the statutorily ineligible subject matter is construed narrowly.
• Ensure that simply reciting generic technical language or generic functional language does not salvage an otherwise ineligible claim.
• Statutorily abrogate judicially created exceptions to patent eligible subject matter in favor of exclusive statutory categories of ineligible subject matter.
• Make clear that eligibility is determined by considering each and every element of the claim as a whole and without regard to considerations properly addressed by 102, 103 and 112.
As can be appreicated,defining a closed list, just like the Guidelines, will go a long way to simplifying 101 analysis. Likewise, the practical application test also follows the lead of the agency. Other changes include the spearation of concerns about whether technology is “known or conventional, ” which the agency has done its best to filter out of its primary analysis.
While this proposal is likely music to the ears of those in medical diagnostics and Bio/Pharma fields, for Big Tech, the focus be on the specifics of the practical application test.
One thing is clear, Congress is has placed 101 Reform on the fast track and we can expect to see a draft bill emerging sooner rather than later.
https://www.patentspostgrant.com/congress-poised-to-follow-uspto-lead-on-101-reform/
https://www.voip-pal.com/patents-detail
a VERY impressive portfolio of granted patents
No revenues -true
No monetizable IP - jury out
Nothing but toxic death and insider enrichment -hardly - fighting the legal battle takes $
next......
exactly
The share price is here temporarily because of Koh's ruling in District Court.
Let's see what the Federal Circuit has to say....they are not afraid to over rule
and what does this have to do with Voip Pal's patents?
boom....!
https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/07/01/federal-circuit-cellspin-ruling-provides-important-clarifications-aatrix-berkheimer/id=110882/?fbclid=IwAR3Ds9yuH6-aSFHk_XPglcOQE1WOXJ2I8JVBqD2AwZzY6y6k9nH6QeTWEDA
Sometimes the Federal Circuit has a different opinion about the District Court's Alice rulings......
Yes, that is generally true of OTCBB. Everyone should recognize the speculative nature of these investments and only committed a % of their portfolio.
Apple's request for rehearing at PTAB TURNED DOWN.....VPLM wins at PTAB =100%.
And now suddenly we have legal experts on Ihub evaluating the patents and the appeal on Alice....The Federal Circuit will have the final say.
Great brief written by VPLM's legal team.
We'll see how they rule.
You just posted that you're not an expert.....
The key issue as it has been and will always be, is that VPLM's patents articulate how to integrate legacy (cellular and PSTN) with modern internet based networks....
As someone recently said...
"boom"
Well stated
There is nothing wrong with VPLM's lawyers' proofreading skills...
There is something seriously wrong with the patent system in the United States
WORTH A REPOST
toobigtojail Member Level Friday, 06/28/19 02:50:44 PM
Re: nyt post# 81612 0
Post # of 81672
is that why they won EVERY SINGLE IPR at the PTAB?
Apple tried their best to deny the validity of these patents and FAILED. They have won a temporary Alice motion.
OBVIOUSLY Apple is concerned or they would not be putting up such a battle.
Here is the PTAB REJECTING Apple's request for rehearing. Our legal team did a GREAT job
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/768c4e_a6fc1fa31e644cbda46a60151bc40fdb.pdf
Here's the Alice appeal...shareholders should read it
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/768c4e_da732275d4e440808928f88dcd7f36d2.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1Kt3COsuPnnFUY7E9W1Xn5fcFPo5Q9lWkGy8Nekjztmb--Lnsd5aPeWuE
VPLM wins 100% at the PTAB
Fabulous "Alice" appeal filed by our legal team
Optimistic.....
Really? Tell that to Director Iancu....
That’s true of EVERY patent infringement case until it gets through trial. It has nothing to do with the veracity of vplms patent claims nor the strength of their case. Every plaintiff alleges infringement until it is PROVEN in court which exactly what Voip Pal is doing.
Having read the patents numerous times and reviewed the alleged infringements by Apple and the other defendants along with the filings by our legal team, I believe we have a STRONG case
Gastric - a company alleges infringement, and then goes to court to PROVE it. That's how this whole thing works. You can't PROVE anything outside of a court of law - but Apple is "concerned"
Infringing on a valid patent results in financial awards to the patent owner. Whether they "decided" to steal it is irrelevant to the issue of infringement. Willfull infringement is "you know and do it anyway"...but regardless infringement once determined by the courts, results in damages to the patents owner....
Well, so much for that "prediction"
Ask Apple about VirnetX and relays...
Enough said -our legal team has this....
great post
is that why they won EVERY SINGLE IPR at the PTAB?
Apple tried their best to deny the validity of these patents and FAILED. They have won a temporary Alice motion.
OBVIOUSLY Apple is concerned or they would not be putting up such a battle.
That is simply not the case -caller and callee attributes are CLEARLY defined in the patent claims
anyone who reads these 2 briefs KNOWS that VPLM is deadly serious about protecting the shareholders' interests
comparing the two is quite ridiculous
ALL VPLM shareholders should take some time to read the briefs prepared by our legal team. This is where VPLM is putting its capital - in defending the IP.
VOIP-PAL’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE”S AND AMAZON’S CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/768c4e_18f73a344aba4f6a9316961dcdc35802.pdf
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
– v. – TWITTER, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
(For Continuation of Caption See Inside Cover)
On Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California in Nos. 5:18-cv-04523-LHK, 5:18-cv-06054-LHK, 5:18-cv-06177-LHK and 5:18-cv-06217-LHK
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/768c4e_da732275d4e440808928f88dcd7f36d2.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1Kt3COsuPnnFUY7E9W1Xn5fcFPo5Q9lWkGy8Nekjztmb--Lnsd5aPeWuE
One more filing by our legal team
VOIP-PAL’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE”S AND AMAZON’S CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT: MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/768c4e_18f73a344aba4f6a9316961dcdc35802.pdf
Clearly -you have not read the brief.
So be it
Here is a link to the fabulous brief prepared by VPLM's legal team, in response to Judge Koh's 101 ruling. This has been filed in the Federal Circuit, as of June 25th, 2019. I am proud of our legal team.
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/768c4e_da732275d4e440808928f88dcd7f36d2.pdf
Great legal team
Total PTAB wins
Alice appeal in progress
Go VPLM
8-0 PTAB wins
Huge portfolio of patents
Terrific legal team to challenge 101
Far from it..Appeal filed, 100% wins at PTAB. This is FAR from over
Full wins at the PTAB
GREAT Alice appeal submitted by our legal team.
Share price is disappointing, but better times await when we win 101