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.
He is impressive -thank you for pointing that out.
agree 100%.
Apple is paying a GREAT DEAL of attention to this case because they KNOW what the patents are about.
wonder why the stock has formed a new HIGHER base....must be all that bad news
what happens when VPLM gets to court for claim construction and damages?
what happens when Apple and others run out of stalling tactics?
what happens when fairness is restored to the patent system?
what happens when the Stranger patents act is passed and companies suffering infringement have the ability to ask for injunctive relief?
we can all play the "what happens" game....
EXACTLY - there are many PTAB judges assigned to cases where they have massive conflicts of interest.
This should be exposed, and stopped
100,000 bid @ .0127 - hardly a "haircut"....
How long have you been predicting "trips"....how's that working out?
Patent Eligibility Under Section 101: Has the United States ‘TRIPPED’ Up?
By Paul Cole on Sep 24, 2019 01:30 pm
The present U.S. eligibility jurisprudence, and especially that of the Federal Circuit, not only creates serious issues of U.S. domestic law but also arguably places the U.S. in violation of its obligations under the TRIPS treaty with respect to inventions at both ends of the subject-matter spectrum. Acts of Congress, including Section 101, where fairly possible, ought to be construed so as not to conflict with international law or with an international agreement with the United States, particularly where, as with TRIPS, the United States was the moving spirit behind the treaty. See Murray v. The Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804). Although there may have been room for doubt prior to the en banc refusal in Athena and the Australian decision in Ariosa, it is submitted following Judge Moore's dissent that the situation has become a virtual certainty.
Are you saying that you have proof of the lockup NOT being honored?
Show it
IP Watchdog is not "a joke"....it is a very serious publication that is tackling the issues of current patent law. It has many brilliant patent lawyers and educators contributing, and is regularly read by members of Congress who are taking up the issues of patent law, and needed reform.
Your comment is inaccurate, to say the least
look at the 3 month chart...has formed a very nice base
So you are saying that a letter from a previous board member can influence the outcome of an IPR?
wow...that is a stretch. No wonder the PTAB slapped Apple down
LMAO
Another great article by Gene Quinn at IP Watchdog
Blame for the Weakened U.S. Patent System Cannot Be Pinned on the PTAB Alone
By Gene Quinn
September 24, 2019
“When Congress enacted the America Invents Act it was so singularly focused on killing patent rights that it set up a two-tiered system for challenging patents…. Patents are presumed valid in federal district court, while patents are not presumed valid at the PTAB.”
It is time to recognize the elephant in the room. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is broken. And, if we want to be perfectly fair and reasonable in our assessment of the reasons that the PTAB is failing, the blame must trace all the way back to Congress. The creation of three new ways to invalidate patent rights was at best ill-conceived. The manner in which it was done clearly put the finger of infringers on the scale of justice. The creation of an open-ended second window for patents to endlessly be challenged without title ever quieting and ownership ever settling is making a mockery of patent ownership.
Not Faster or Cheaper, Just Unfair
When Congress created inter partes review (IPR), post grant review (PGR) and covered business method (CBM) review, the purpose was to provide yet another opportunity for challengers to invalidate patent claims. These processes were pitched as leading to a faster and cheaper resolution, which has simply not turned out to be the case.
“Some 85% of patents contested at the PTAB are involved in parallel litigation,” USPTO Director Iancu explained during his keynote presentation at the AIPLA annual meeting in October 2018.
On top of the 85% of patents at the PTAB that are involved in parallel proceedings, we know that patent owners with strong patents are required to run a gauntlet at the PTAB, challenged over and over again. Witness Finjan, Inc. They have defended the same nine patents successfully in 80 IPRs, with dozens more pending on those same nine patents, all of which have been thoroughly and successfully adjudicated as being valid in federal court on numerous occasions.
This presents two problems. First, at what point in time will the PTAB ever say enough is enough?
How many times are they willing to accept challenges on the same claims in the same patents in an effort to find a different result? Second, how did a group of executive branch employees become superior to Article III district court judges?
With respect to the first point, the answer, we know, is that there is no limit, which is truly astonishing given that when the Federal Circuit determines claims unpatentable as the result of an IPR appeal, that decision has “an immediate issue-preclusive effect on any pending or co-pending actions involving the patent[s].” XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, 890 F.3d 1282, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The same cannot be said, however, when the patent owner prevails. If the patent owner prevails against Mega Giant, Inc. and there is a decision from the Federal Circuit confirming patentability of all patent claims, that decision has absolutely no preclusive effect or force for a subsequent challenge on the same patent claims in the same patent when brought by Giant Mega Corporation. In other words, challengers need to win once, while the patent owner needs to win every time.
With respect to the second issue, these Administrative Patent Judges have become the most important, influential and all-powerful judicial body in the patent world. The system of constitutional checks and balances that have been in place since Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) has required an independent federal judiciary made up of independent constitutional officers with life tenure to exercise independent review over the functions, laws and regulations of the legislative and executive branches of government.
It is antithetical to our constitutional form of government for executive branch employees to effectively treat the decisions of Article III federal judges as merely advisory in nature. Constitutional law 101 mandates that the federal judiciary does not issue decisions that are advisory in nature, yet that is in effect what happens. A validity trial in federal court is merely a dress rehearsal.
All the evidence one needs of an agency grown too big and powerful is on display every day at the PTAB. It is well past time for Congress to fix its mess and bring sanity, and constitutional rationality back to the system for challenging the validity of patents.
Time to Correct the America Invents Act
How did this happen? This question leads us back to the root cause – Congress. When Congress enacted the America Invents Act (AIA) it was so singularly focused on killing patent rights that it set up a two-tiered system for challenging patents. The evidence required to challenge a patent successfully and find the claims invalid in district court is much higher than the evidence required to successfully challenge and prevail at the PTAB. Patents are presumed valid in federal district court, while patents are not presumed valid at the PTAB.
The Senate IP Subcommittee is now considering the STRONGER Patents Act, which among other things would bring much needed balance – and sanity – back to patent challenges. The STRONGER Patents Act of 2019, now in its third incarnation, would harmonize the burden of proof required to invalid patent claims between federal district courts and the PTAB. It would also eliminate the repetitive, harassing proceedings patent owners face, and it would separate the decision to institute from decisions on the merits, which is important because PTAB judges are compensated in part based on clearing cases and have a perverse incentive to institute once they have put in the time and effort to consider a petition.
It is long past time to fix the system. District courts should not be inferior to executive branch employees. That is not how the constitution envisions the role of the judiciary, at least not since Marbury v. Madison. And, the repeated decisions where patents are upheld as valid in federal court only to fall at the PTAB must come to an end if the U.S. is going to maintain a functioning patent system. Constitutional judicial officers must have the final say, not executive branch employees.
Point by point:
So basically Apple is just pointing out VPLM was doing illegal things long before the PTAB
Apple may be VERY concerned that VPLM will win the Alice motion appeal, and is trying everything to avoid going to court.
Since VPLM is such a piece of shit troll play, there are plenty of avenues to crush them as they should be. It’s a waste of time and money and taxpayer dollars
Really? A waste of time to litigate a patent case against a company that routinely steals IP without paying for it?
Since the entire premise of the company is bogus there is no applicable infringements on their worthless patents
The premise of the company is the IP.Courts will decide
The entire company was built to dupe shareholders who don’t understand anyone can file bullshit claims and clog up the courts
Bullshit claims? oh let's find out in court, shall we?
They did not make it court for claim construction and damages. But they will return.....
for the UMPTEENTH time
A patent owner PROVES infringement in COURT.
A patent owner alleges infringement and files an infringement lawsuit. Then, after beating IPRs back with a stick, the company SHOULD get into court for claim construction and damages.
This is how it works. The company cannot PROVE the infringement until they get into court.
Got it?
And why didn't they license or buy?
Because until they are FORCED to, by the courts, they simply infringe....
Let's get to court and see how smug they are
Really???? -your "involvement & observations and research done for the last 11 years?"
Let me refresh your memory...
Proposed changes to 35 USC §101
A second strategy to strengthen patents was introduced on May 22, 2019 by several members of Congress, with proposed changes to 35 USC §101. The proposals to address the attacks on patents under §101 first proposed to include a further definition under 35 USC §100, which states: “(k) The term ‘useful’ means any invention or discovery that provides specific and practical utility in any field of technology through human intervention.”
35 USC§ 101 currently states: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
Under the proposed changes to §101 the statute would be revised to further recite: “(b) Eligibility under this section shall be determined only while considering the claimed invention as a whole, without discounting or disregarding any claim limitation.”
Of significant importance are the Additional Legislative Provisions associated with the proposed legislation, which instruct that: “The provisions of section 101 shall be construed in favor of eligibility. No implicit or other judicially created exceptions to subject matter eligibility, including ‘abstract ideas’, ‘laws of nature’, or ‘natural phenomena’, shall be used to determine patent eligibility under section 101, and all cases establishing or interpreting those exceptions to eligibility are hereby abrogated.
“The eligibility of a claimed invention under section 101 shall be determined without regard to: the manner in which the claimed invention was made; whether individual limitations of a claim are well known, conventional or routine; the state of the art at the time of the invention; or any other considerations relating to sections 102, 103, or 112 of this title.”
Thus, the proposed changes to §101 explicitly overturn the court decisions regarding §101 and the various “tests” applied to determine patent eligibility. Congressional hearings were held in June to discuss the proposed changes as debate on these proposed changes continue.
If either of the proposed legislations passes, even in some modified form, it would likely have a significant impact on the scope of patent protection in the US.
bid .0126 offer at .013
Firm bids with size below
your post is inaccurate
Fake news
Bid is .0124....large size just below.
Bid is firm.
101 reform is coming
I’m expecting current levels
To hold and firm as 101 reform approaches.
noooooo.....someone is offering to buy that much....
your post is false.
The large block is on the BID
165,000 shares is hardly a DUMP...
Nice to see the stock hit .014 yesterday
totally misleading post..a "campaign of fake news..."
PROVE IT
REAL-TIME LEVEL 2 QUOTE
MPID BID PRICE SIZE TIME
CDEL 0.012 250,000 12:43
NITE 0.012 190,000 11:27
GTSM 0.012 33,325 11:36
MPID ASK PRICE SIZE TIME
CDEL 0.0126 13,600 12:43
GTSM 0.0127 275,000 09:30
ETRF 0.018 207,379 11:36
NITE 0.022 30,000 09:30
CSTI 0.032 25,000 09:30
Look, it's really simple.
Whomever won at the Federal District level was going to have an appeal at the Federal Circuit level.
If Apple lost, they would have appealed
VPLM lost @ District, and is now appealing to the Federal Circuit.
Our legal team, led by Kevin Malek, wrote an outstanding brief, and I believe that Judge Koh's ruling will be overturned by the Federal Circuit.
Add to this the movement in Washington to repeal or amend 101 to be more favorable to patent owners.
Either way, it's in the courts, and no amount of posting is going to change a thing...
We simply have to wait.
No, but they are dragging it out and it is frustrating...but ultimately I believe Voip Pal prevails and Apple and others will pay
they refused because they could....Apple plays by its own rules.....
gastric, no one FORCES people to assume risk....
Shareholders understand that the courts will decide this. Many of us are optimistic. The ones that aren't have sold or will sell.
That's what makes a market
And if and when the case(s) get to court and discovery, we will find out who is infringing and what the damages are.
Avatar was a copyright case
As I have stated many times, VPLM's story will be largely decided by
Alice reform/repeal by a Senate Bill to be introduced in the Fall
Successful appeal to the Federal Circuit, overturning the District Court's ruling on 101
Litigation outside the US
TBD
Our team has written an EXCELLENT brief - we will see.
Kevin Malek is one FINE patent attorney. This is a very well thought out brief.
not true.
If this case gets to court, and Voip Pal wins, the shareholders win big
That's why they call it "discovery"
you might want to consult with a patent attorney about the proper procedure for notifying a potential infringer. It matters GREATLY how those letters are worded by the patent holder.
Don't make assumptions
I'm sure that if you review some of the older PR's and news stories, prior to the lawsuits being filed you will find that Voip Pal expressed that efforts had been made, and that the defendants refused to engage in substantive license discussions.
https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/voip-pal-hits-apple-att-verizon-with-7b-patent-lawsuit
VoIP-Pal sues Apple over iMessage, WiFi calling patent infringement
According to VoIP-Pal's filing the system Apple uses to determine whether conversations in the Messages app should use iMessage or standard SMS, and the system for deciding when to use WiFi calling are covered by patents it owns. The company said Apple, AT&T, and Verizon all declined to negotiate licensing terms for the technology.[/b
VoIP-Pal is asking the court for about $2.8 billion from Apple, $1.8 billion from AT&T, and $2.3 billion from Verizon. The company claims all three had prior knowledge of the patents because of their involvement in the communications industry.
Voip-Pal.com, Inc. Serves Defendants Apple, Verizon and AT&T in its $7 Billion Patent Infringement Lawsuits; Company Schedules Shareholder Conference Call with its Board of Directors
May 10, 2016 05:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
BELLEVUE, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip–Pal”, “Company”) (OTC Pink: VPLM) announced they have completed legal service on Apple, Verizon, and AT&T (“Defendants”) in the Company’s combined $7 billion patent infringement lawsuits filed in February 2016 in the United States District Court, District of Nevada. On May 9, 2016 the Company officially served Apple, Inc. in Case No. 2:16-CV-00260 and Verizon Wireless Services, LLC, Verizon Communications Inc., AT&T, Inc., and AT&T Corp in Case No. 2:16-CV-00271.
Voip-Pal serves Apple, Verizon & AT&T in its $7 billion patent infringement lawsuit
Voip-Pal initially delayed service of the actions pending discussions with the Defendants regarding an amicable resolution. Over the past several weeks discussions have been initiated between the Defendants and Voip-Pal’s advisor and mediator, Ray Leon. Mr. Leon has either personally met with or spoken via teleconference with representatives of each of the Defendants. He continues to engage in ongoing discussions with the Defendants as well as other parties interested in Voip-Pal’s patent suite.[/b
Infringement is proven in court
Let's get to court and see what a jury thinks....
I would agree with you. I think there are many that are VERY disappointed that the legal process has put Voip Pal through the wringer. You go through SIX years of applying for and getting patents, trying to get infringers to properly license, then you file suit, then you have to deal with IPRs, and WIN ALL OF THEM, and then deal with Alice 101.
The system is designed to reward patent infringement. It needs to change. Washington is beginning to address it.
Stay tuned