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.
LOL! "Hidden" info - SECRET profits - PTAB rulings that mean NOTHING! Such a rich storyline for a dark tale of conspiracy... Now for some truth:
Here, in the real world, we operate on economic principles. For example, Top attorneys who are keynote speakers on subject matter, delivering the latest information to the TOP attorneys and firms in their field don't usually gamble with their reputation (the only thing they have from which to generate income) for a company who has worthless intellectual property and fake financial statements.
Or...is, possibly this new attorney, who formed his current Silicon Valley firm spring-boarding from the success of his partnership in the pre-eminent firm of it's kind in NYC, actually, secretly, a dark agent of doom who is really here to undermine the economy? Hmmm - stay tuned. Only time will tell!!
Thanks DB - So nice to see accurate information instead of fear based and misleading misinformation. Investors need to make good decisions based on facts not hype. You do us all a good service!
Thank you Rapz -
I will absolutely take the opportunity to file a complaint - and so should we all.
Ms. Koh's resume, on the surface, appears exemplary and impressive. However a closer look reveals precisely what I believe is happening here -
She was groomed, and placed, on purpose, in her current position, not for her Jurisprudence - but rather, to act as an agent of policy - that same policy which we have seen very strongly, and clearly from the former administration which favors the Silicon Valley set, and provides gigantic legal loopholes for them to exploit at the expense of the average American.
Profits for a few, insider elites, over Jurisprudence has been the song of the day for far too long. It is long past time that these dirty little back-room deals are shown for what they are, and put a stop to.
If "Swamp-Cleaning" truly is a thing - then, I do believe, we've found ourselves a worthy bucket of slime to address here.
My 2 cents.
I agree, patent trolls are a huge problem in this country.
I don't see how that applies to this stock, however. A history lesson might be in order:
You see the word Patent Troll is really fun to say. It evokes all manners of imagery - just consider the word "Troll" and we instantly see a hunched over, unsavory bottom feeder that pounces out at an unsuspecting traveler from the dark recesses under a bridge. Good stuff there -
However Voip-Pal is no such thing. In fact, Voip-Pal was formed legitimately, and lawfully, from having acquired Digifonica - Digifonica was formed by the top former executives of Orange PLC - one of Europe's strongest and most successful Teleco companies in existence. These professionals and development team were at the cutting edge of Voice over Internet Protocol when the concept of VOIP was mere science-fiction. They envisioned, crafted, and invented real life solutions to the current problems that they predicted with VOIP applications and taking the concept of VOIP to the marketplace, and making it actually marry, properly, and function so that it could be monetized, tying it together with Legacy Teleco systems.
And to Apple & Co's chagrin, they were, indeed, first to the table, and first to patent those solutions.
So "Troll" is both a strong, and dramatically misapplied word.
Fun to say though - sort of just rolls off the tongue - doesn't it?
Wow - Nostradamus really? From where I sit, it's trending well over .02 and more to come. But thanks for your input - always good to see a fresh opinion!
CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE:
It was announced today that HR 3666 Stronger Patents Bill Co-Sponsors have been updated.
Formerly, this legislation, which enjoyed bi-partisan support had 15 co-sponsors. Today additional co-sponsors were announced, bringing the total to 21 Co-Sponsors on this bill which continues to gain momentum in Congress
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3666/cosponsors?pageSort=lastToFirst&loclr=cga-bill
WRONG - Her job is to hear the facts, and to rule justly upon those facts - and under our Constitution, all parties to a matter have the right to their full hearing. How can one decide what she has not heard? Someone needs to remind her, she's a Judge not an Empress.
So, you may be right, The Hon. Koh may not be a FOOL - But it certainly is looking like she's either Lazy as Hell - or Deep in Somebody's pocket. Either way - She'll get corrected eventually. Apple knows this, and knows that what they are accomplishing is a mere game delay.
This is HUGE!!!
Please understand: The PTAB process does, in fact examine patents against the rules of obviousness and patentability
The PTAB took an UNPRECEDENTED move to back Voip-Pal against Apple's frivolous attempt to set aside the PTAB findings
NOW THE PTAB has, again, reiterated their position and the VALIDITY of these patents by AGAIN refusing to institute ADDITIONAL bad-faith attempts of Apple for filing more IPRS.
THESE NEW Refusals to Institute IPRS Come on the heels of the BRAND NEW OFFICIAL GUIDANCE published by Director Iancu following the Supreme Court Opinions earlier this year, which updated the training and guidelines to patent examiners.
THIS IS HUUUUUGGGE
Wrong. I'm not going to waste any time stating the obvious.
The point is this: Voip-Pal is NOT Mymail, and their patents are very different - unlike what appears to be the potential for a claim construction hearing to fail in Mymail's case - Voip-Pal is exceptionally likely to have it's patents upheld with a proper hearing, as evidenced by both the fact that the PTAB conducted and awarded wins to Voip-Pal, not once, but 8 times - wins which did, in fact, already examine, weigh and measure the evidence that Koh refuses to hear. And the fact that the PTAB has opted to step in, in Voip-Pals case, in an unusual move, to intercede.
Secondly, the POINT of this comparison is taken from the application of LAW at the Federal Court level which concludes that EVERY litigant has the RIGHT to a proper hearing of evidence. Judge Koh, as is the pattern clearly, of various District Court Justices, overstepping her position and attempting to legislate from the bench.
It is shameful, rotten, and exceptionally dishonorable for her to do so.
This is Far from over. The possibility even exists that Karma might dictate that she trips over her robe, and breaks her crown. One never knows.
This is correct, and an unfortunate, costly and unjust part of the process in regard to patent prosecution in the US. Judge Koh did what most District Judges are doing currently. And, just as her compatriot in the SAME District just did - she WILL have this overturned in the Federal Court.
What a waste of time and money for all involved. The very foundation of our legal system demands that all parties to a matter have their proper day in court to fully support and bring witnesses/evidence/expert testimony in defense of their claims.
For Koh, or any District Judge to deny that opportunity to a litigant is baseless and flies in the face of our Constitution. Koh has expressed direct exasperation since day one of this case, and has treated it as burdensome and has actually stated, in open court, that she would prefer that some other Judge caught this case:
Transcript from Nov 14 2018:
Koh: "Okay. So why don't -- I mean, BELIEVE ME. I would be so happy to transfer these cases to one of my colleagues!."
She did her best to try and punt this complex case to others. She's tried from day one to be rid of it. Newsflash Judge Koh: If you don't enjoy complex matters in litigation, perhaps you should step down and go do something else!
Sad.
But, Alas, it is ONLY the US that has this quagmire of patent confusion. As I understand it, while this US mess is sorting itself out, the BOD of Voip-pal are actively pursuing, with promising results, enforcement outside of the US. After all, most of the subscribers in the WORLD who are using this technology are not US based....
And - although it has already been established that Voip Pal, itself, as a company did not get hit with anything near half a million... a mere $84,000 which was pennies against what had been asserted - a mere technical consolation parting gift - The voices that refuse to read continue to put forward falsehoods claiming to be fact... Sad.
Northern California District Courts are on Fire - (mentally, that is)
The "Big Business" Tech Kings of Silicon Valley are seeking to re-make our entire system of laws to their personal advantage.
After having a Northern CA District Court decision overturned in Federal Courts, between Garmin and Cellspin - the Federal Court disagreeing with the District court that the patent did not contain an inventive step...
Garmin, et al, has NOW appealed to the Supreme Court asking for Certiorari on the question of whether or not dismissal of a patent is a question for the courts to decide at the motion to dismiss level. They are literally saying, "We want the right to have the district court judge to be able to cancel patents without having to go through the process to actually hear, examine and rule on specific claims by the patent holder that there actually IS an inventive step that is unconventional". (summarized)
They are, literally, asking the Supreme Court to rule that there is no need to give the patent owner the opportunity to back up and establish the factual basis for their claims.
I would guess that it is THIS case, and recent Federal Court overturning of one of Koh's cronies in the Northern CA District Court that has caused her to step back, and agree to hear, after all, the full extent of hearings, witnesses and testimony on Voip-Pal's matters. They've been spanked for being a little too quick to use their magic wand to the detriment of the patent holder. Now - in response to that - Silicon Valley major players are going to the Supreme Court, hoping to get that tool back. Isn't going to happen.
Money may be on your side, however, the Law is not on your side. Lady Liberty is blindfolded. You may get to bring every high priced lawyer you can find to bully the inventor into bankruptcy - however, when it comes to actual matters of law, you don't get to rewrite the Constitution and the rights of all litigants to have their day in court, and a full, and equal hearing.
Nice try.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-400/116708/20190923153010855_Garmin%20Cert%20Petition%209.23%20Final.pdf
Absolutely right. This is an outstanding opportunity for Director Iancu to illustrate, perfectly, the necessity and purpose of the PTAB. Not to mention, the extreme advantage of patent examination conducted by subject matter area experts, versus ordinary, general-purpose Jurists. To do less, would be, literally, to say, "There's really no point in any of us having jobs here."
Apple is too bold. They use their power, money and influence to try and rewrite public policy. The debate in the Supreme Court and Congress over Section 101 - Alice is far from over, and leaning, heavily in the direction of invention.
Stay the course - Keep an eye on Europe, Asia and India. As Alice does not live in residence there!!!
The US will catch on eventually. Onward and Upward!
Please post the entire transcript and order - or at a minimum, give a case reference. Was this the matter where Kipping and Locksmith Financial were actually required to return all of their shares to the treasury? Is this a portion of that ruling which, in a complex case, the court found some errors made along the way, but ultimately ruled in favor of Voip-Pal overall?
Please provide complete - not partial information - so that others may verify and review.
Thank you in advance -
Agreed!
No - it's an error. And one that can't be made again. We cannot afford it to be made again. It does not matter what is in Judge Koh's mind, or what she knows and believes to be true. It matters what is before her in the proceedings and before the court. It happens all the time that judges actually believe in their hearts that something should, rightfully, go a different way - however, their hands are tied by the information and evidence that the lawyers have put on the record, and have gotten lawfully entered into consideration, of record, in the matter before them.
It is of vital importance to make sure that you are alert, and aware of every volley, so that you can counter it in a timely manner and preserve the record that is before the court. There are rules, and you have to follow them to the letter or face the consequence.
Just like Bob Ross - you can, indeed, make beautiful things out of "happy accidents" and still finish the painting - but the fact remains: you messed up. Now, put more guards at the gate, and figure out your next move, because the game is far from over.
My 2 cents - :)
Exactly. This is a single volley and a hit in a battle. This is not the entire battle, nor is it "DOA" or over - by a long shot.
I'll admit, VPLM's lawyers should have seen that and reacted sooner. And it could make a difference. Or it could amount to a hill of beans also. The case will be heard. Everything else is speculation based on poor facts.
Yes sir. I hope you got your tickets! I sure as heck got mine -
Here is the text of the joint motion that was just signed. This indicates that the case is, in fact going forward, and each step in the disposition of the case is anticipated by both sides - as opposed to the situation where the matter was presumed to be null. All parties stipulated to extend the deadlines in this case, in order to restore the proper amounts of time needed for discovery, etc. We're doing this!
Counsel listed on the signature page.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 18-cv-06216-LHK
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REQUESTING MODIFICATION
OF THE COURT’S CASE MANAGEMENT
ORDER
VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC. AND AMAZON
TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Defendants.
Case No. 18-cv-07020-LHK
Case 5:18-cv-06216-LHK Document 101 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 5
JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER TO MODIFY THE
COURT’S CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
1
Case Nos. 5:18-cv-06216-LHK, 5:18-cv-07020-LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, Plaintiff VoIP-Pal and Defendants Apple and Amazon hereby
jointly submit this request to modify the Court’s May 22, 2019 Case Management Order (18-cv-06216,
ECF No. 85; 18-cv-07020, ECF No. 65). The parties propose the modifications in view of the
continuance of the claim construction hearing, which was originally scheduled on September 5, 2019;
was first continued to September 19, 2019; and is now scheduled on October 24, 2019. (18-cv-06216,
ECF Nos. 85, 100; 18-cv-07020, ECF Nos. 65, 78). The current fact discovery deadline remains
December 6, 2019.
The parties seek to modify the schedule to restore approximately the amount of time that the
Court’s original schedule provided between the claim construction hearing and the close of fact
discovery. The parties believe that the modified schedule will allow the parties to more efficiently
conclude fact discovery—and potentially avoid burdening the Court with discovery disputes that may
become moot as a result of the Court’s claim construction order or the parties’ subsequent narrowing
of claims and prior art theories. Accordingly, the parties have agreed, subject to the Court’s
permission, to revise the current schedule as set forth below:
Scheduled Event Current Date/Deadline [Proposed] Modified
Date/Deadline
Claim Construction
Hearing
October 24, 2019 at 1:30
p.m.
October 24, 2019 at 1:30 p.m.
[No change]
Further Case Management
Conference
November 6, 2019 November 6, 2019
[No change]
Close of Fact Discovery December 6, 2019 February 7, 2020
Opening Expert Reports January 10, 2020 March 11, 2020
Rebuttal Expert Reports February 7, 2020 April 9, 2020
Close of Expert Discovery March 6, 2020 May 7, 2020
Last Day to File
Dispositive Motions and
Daubert Motions
April 3, 2020 June 4, 2020
Hearing on Dispositive
Motions and Daubert
Motions
May 21, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. At the Court’s convenience
Case 5:18-cv-06216-LHK Document 101 Filed 10/02/19 Page 2 of 5
JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER TO MODIFY THE
COURT’S CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
2
Case Nos. 5:18-cv-06216-LHK, 5:18-cv-07020-LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: October 2, 2019
MALEK MOSS PLLC
_/s/ Kevin N. Malek___________________
Kevin N. Malek (pro hac vice)
340 Madison Avenue, Floor 19
New York, New York 10173
(212) 812-1491
kevin.malek@malekmoss.com
CARLSON & MESSER LLP
David Kaminski
J. Grace Felipe
5901 W. Century Boulevard Suite 1200
Los Angeles, California 90045
Tel: (310) 242-2200
Fax: (310) 242-2222
kaminskid@cmtlaw.com
felipeg@cmtlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc.
PERKINS COIE LLP
_/s/ Daniel Shvodian_________________
Daniel T. Shvodian (SBN 184576)
James F. Valentine (SBN 149269)
Wing Liang (SBN 285521)
3150 Porter Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
Telephone: (650) 838-4300
Facsimile: (650) 838-4489
DShvodian@perkinscoie.com
JValentine@perkinscoie.com
WLiang@perkinscoie.com
Attorneys for Defendants Amazon.com, Inc.
and Amazon Technologies, Inc.
DESMARAIS LLP
_/s/ Ameet Modi_________
Ameet A. Modi (pro hac vice)
Robert C. Harrits (pro hac vice)
Michael J.X. Matulewicz-Crowley (pro hac vice)
230 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 351-3400
Facsimile: (212) 351-3401
amodi@desmaraisllp.com
rharrits@desmaraisllp.com
mmatulewicz-crowley@desmaraisllp.com
John M. Desmarais (SBN 320875)
Peter C. Magic (SBN 278917)
101 California Street, Suite 3070
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 573-1900
Facsimile: (415) 573-1901
jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
pmagic@desmaraisllp.com
Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
Case 5:18-cv-06216-LHK Document 101 Filed 10/02/19 Page 3 of 5
JOINT STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER TO MODIFY THE
COURT’S CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
3
Case Nos. 5:18-cv-06216-LHK, 5:18-cv-07020-LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED
Date: ____________________ _____________________________
Lucy H. Koh
United States District Judge
Case 5:18-cv-06216-LHK Document 101 Filed 10/02/19 Page 4
Which case number? I'm not seeing it on Pacer
You are right. 100%. This isn't a stock where daily choices of sales managers and CEOs affect sales or bottom-line profits, as one might see if one were trading the stock of a business model where manufacturing is involved, for example. This is a patent portfolio while affects an entire sector of business - VOIP - and is truly foundational in that industry.
New child patents and expansion of how these patents are evolving as the industry evolves is ongoing, and will continue to add to the long-term monetization of these patents -
Thus the value of this stock will be revealed and realized once, and only once the current legal hurdles are completed. As DB says, Patience is a Virtue. Until that time, the trading merely represents belief in futures. It is a time of gathering shares, and thank you to all of those who have given up your shares so willingly. My stores are full! Bless you.
All the bashing ad nauseum has never, nor will ever change the technicals, the facts or the value of these patents. Financing is an issue at these low levels of daily trades. Yes. However, we have never been closer to significant resolution - Just watch the Grand Ms. Koh getting overturned more and more often...just watch the tides as they change with the groundswell of efforts not just from this legal team, but from literally thousands of lawyers, companies, billions of dollars, all told, pouring in from pharmaceuticals to electronics to robotics...to virtually every industry affected by the nonsensical state of patents in the US. We are sitting on the sidelines, watching a story unfold which will change, forever, industry in the United States, and affect the world for generations to come.
Grab a seat, and have some popcorn. This is gonna be good.
There's no BS and there is no "so-called" court cases. All of those things are verifiable, and quite real. It would be a far stretch of fantasy, indeed, to paint a scenario where Judge Koh, the PTAB, Apple...Verizon - in addition to Voip-pal are simply fabricating lawsuits to annoy and frustrate the average stock investor who is "fed up"!
I appreciate that many may be weary. Patience is, however, indeed a virtue. These things DO take time - and in the grand scheme of things Voip-pal is well on track and within completely normal timeframes for an undertaking such as this with a hotly contested patent portfolio.
Best of luck to you.
Agreed agreed!
Wondering if postponing oral arguments could be a positive sign...or perhaps nothing at all. In my opinion, it would be unusual and almost bizarre to have Judge Koh backpedal and contradict her understanding in these matters without significant events to give her cause to do so.
In other words, if she were to decide the matter today, I would fully expect the same result that happened in her court last time. And while, I'm more than certain that certain voices would claim all manners of victory and "proof" that this stock is worthless... it would mean precisely NOTHING more than we already know: Judge Koh's position -a position which is NOT shared by the vast majority of the legal experts in this field currently, as TESTIMONY before legislative committees clearly demonstrates - is flawed, and very likely will eventually be reversed -
Just as another of her recent rulings was - on appeal.
So I sit - gathering...always gathering more. And contemplating my virtue through patience!
I.Love.It!
Could not have said it better myself -
100% Correct. And one can rely upon facts when trading, or one can rely upon incessantly repeated non-facts and biased opinions. And always, it is always one's choice which strategy makes the most sense!
Good days ahead for VPLM! Congratulations to the Company for putting yet one more long-awaited WIN behind them!
What can I do as an investor beyond listening to endless finger pointings and squabblings as investment cues on Voip-Pal and other Patent related stocks?
1 Get informed and involved with Patent Reform efforts at the Congressional level. America Needs Your Voice
2. Create a free account, and sign up for alerts on H.R.108; S.2082S; H.R.3666 at
https://www.congress.gov/search?q=%7B%22congress%22%3A%22116%22%2C%22source%22%3A%22legislation%22%2C%22search%22%3A%22patent%22%7D&searchResultViewType=expanded
Set Google searches regarding terms such as: "Patent Reform 2019";"European Patents"; "101 patent" - and use the "tools" tab to search specifically for updates within the past week, or 24 hours.
There - These things will give you far more insight in the progress, status, pursuit of interest at the highest levels, and recent developments of the laws and policies which will have a very direct and significant effect on the viability of this stock.
Due Diligence: It's what's for Breakfast!
Question: How Many Federal Judges does it Take to Dissent before the Supreme Court listens to Congress and properly addresses these issues?
(Hint: The answer to this question is forthcoming and may affect the PPS of THIS stock at any time, without further warning between this morning and 6 months from now)
The Proper Role of the Federal Circuit
By Kevin E. Noonan --
Federal Circuit SealThere has been much commentary, some of it incendiary, regarding whether the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is fulfilling its responsibilities under its enabling statute or failing to provide the proper pro-patent perspective in its response and implantation of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence regarding subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The problem is illustrated by the comments provided by two members of the Court, Judges Lourie and O'Malley, in their concurrence and dissent, respectively, with the Court's per curiam denial of en banc review in Athena Diagnostics Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC.
Judge Lourie voices the view, first enunciated by Judge Linn in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., that as an inferior appellate court, its hands are tied by the Supreme Court's decisions in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, and Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.:
If I could write on a clean slate, I would write as an exception to patent eligibility, as respects natural laws, only claims directed to the natural law itself, e.g., E=mc2, F=ma, Boyle's Law, Maxwell's Equations, etc. I would not exclude uses or detection of natural laws. The laws of anticipation, obviousness, indefiniteness, and written description provide other filters to determine what is patentable. . . . But we do not write here on a clean slate; we are bound by Supreme Court precedent.
This view is apparently shared by seven of the Court's twelve members. Judge O'Malley enunciates the countervailing view regarding what the Court should do to change this state of affairs, stating her opinion that the Court has gone astray in slavishly and too stringently applying the Supreme Court's precedent to unnecessarily restrict the scope of what is eligible (particularly with regard to diagnostic method claims, including the ones at issue before the Court in Athena):
I agree with all my dissenting colleagues that our precedent applies the Supreme Court's holding in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) too broadly. I write separately, however, because I believe that confusion and disagreements over patent eligibility have been engendered by the fact that the Supreme Court has ignored Congress's direction to the courts to apply 35 U.S.C. sections 101, et seq ("Patent Act") as written. Specifically, the Supreme Court has instructed federal courts to read into Section 101 an "inventive concept" requirement—a baffling standard that Congress removed when it amended the Patent Act in 1952. I encourage Congress to amend the Patent Act once more to clarify that it meant what it said in 1952.
It is clear that Congress is the ultimate (or perhaps only) solution. But if Judge O'Malley identifies the Federal Circuit's complicity in engendering the current situation, Judge Newman in dissent enumerates the Court's application of Supreme Court precedent to diagnostic method claims, all of these decisions invalidated the patents at issue:
1. In re BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation, 774 F.3d 755 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The claimed invention is a method for screening for genes linked to inherited breast and ovarian cancer, by analyzing for certain mutations in the DNA. The court held the claims ineligible under section 101 as directed to a law of nature, and also held that identifying genetic mutations is an ineligible abstract idea.
2. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The claimed invention is a method for detecting paternally-inherited fetal abnormalities by analyzing the blood or serum of a pregnant female. The court held the claims ineligible under section 101, while recognizing that "detecting cffDNA in maternal plasma or serum that before was discarded as waste material is a positive and valuable contribution to science." Id. at 1380.
3. Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claimed invention is a method for detecting a coding region of DNA based on its relationship to non-coding regions, by amplifying genomic DNA with a primer spanning a non-coding sequence in genetic linkage to an allele to be detected. The court stated that "the patent claim focuses on a newly discovered fact about human biology," id. at 1376, and that this is a law of nature and is ineligible subject matter under section 101.
4. Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The claimed invention is a method for diagnosing risk of cardiovascular disease by analyzing for the enzyme myeloperoxidase ("MPO"). The court held that even though prior methods for detecting MPO were inferior, the discovery of how to directly analyze for MPO, and discovery of the relation to the risk of cardiovascular disease, although "groundbreaking, 'even such valuable contributions can fall short of statutory patentable subject matter.'" Id. at 1363 (quoting Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1380).
5. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. CEPHEID, 905 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claimed invention is a method for detecting the pathogenic bacterium Mycobacterium tuberculosis ("MTB"), based on nucleotide content and a novel method of analysis. The court stated that the method is new, unobvious, and "both faster and more accurate than the traditional MTB detection methods," id. at 1366, but held that the method is ineligible under section 101.
6. Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics LLC, 760 F. App'x 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The claimed invention is the novel immunoassay to detect the correlation between blood MPO levels and cardiovascular disease. The court held that the claims are for a law of nature and ineligible under section 101.
(Including Athena there are seven such cases.) (Conversely, as Judge Newman notes in her dissent, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly affirmed eligibility of "method of treatment" claims, in Rapid Litigation Management Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc.; Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd.; Natural Alternatives Int'l, Inc. v. Creative Compounds, LLC; and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.)
Both Judge Moore (writing in dissent) and Judge Chen (concurring) also recognize the problematic nature of the Court's jurisprudence on patent eligibility. And each agree with Judge O'Malley that Congress alone can address the issue, Judge Moore stating that:
In the wake of Mayo, we have painted with a broad brush, suggesting that improved diagnostic techniques are not patent eligible. Mayo did not go so far, and given the import of diagnostic techniques, we should reconsider this case and clarify our precedent. Because my colleagues have declined to do so, there are no more options at this court for diagnostic patents. My colleagues' refusal deflates the Amici's hopeful suggestion that our precedent leaves the eligibility of a diagnostic claim in front of the Federal Circuit "uncertain." It is no longer uncertain. Since Mayo, every diagnostic claim to come before this court has been held ineligible. While we believe that such claims should be eligible for patent protection, the majority of this court has definitively concluded that the Supreme Court prevents us from so holding. No need to waste resources with additional en banc requests.
For those keeping score, it appears that all (or almost all) of the members of the Court believe that their patent eligibility cases have been wrongly decided. Chief Judge Prost, joined by Judges Lourie, Dyk, Reyna, Hughes, Taranto, and Chen believe the Court's hands are tied by Supreme Court precedent, while Judges Newman, Moore, O'Malley, Wallach, and Stoll believe the Federal Circuit has the basis to distinguish Supreme precedent and hold these claims (or at least claims 7-9 of Athena's claims at issue) are patent eligible.
Judge O'Malley provides an additional avenue for Congressional intervention, related to the Supreme Court's resurrection of the "inventive concept" trope many believed was relegated to the dustbin of history by Section 103 in Giles Sutherland Rich's revision resulting in the 1952 Patent Act. She provides an alternative to Senator Tillis' and Coons' proposed statutory abrogation of the judicial exceptions (which raises its own issues on Congressional authority and the Supreme Court's oversight on ultra vires legislative actions). Judge O'Malley's suggestion is direct:
Had the Supreme Court not disregarded Congress's wishes for a second time [by introducing "inventive concept" into its Section 101 calculus], perhaps the outcome in this case would be different. . . . Indeed, claims directed to uses of natural laws rather than the natural laws themselves would be eligible under § 101 as written. Because the Supreme Court judicially revived the invention requirement and continues to apply it despite express abrogation, I dissent to encourage Congress to clarify that there should be no such requirement read into § 101; to clarify that concepts of novelty and "invention" are to be assessed via application of other provisions of the Patent Act Congress designed for that purpose.
The issue for the Federal Circuit is not just that their views are so fractured, but that the dissension between the Judges regarding whether they should simply apply Supreme Court precedent (even incorrectly) until such time as the Supreme Court deign to address the issue, or whether their "special expertise" and Congressional mandate creates a responsibility to distinguish the Supreme Court's precedent when it does not properly apply, at least to provide incentive to the Supreme Court to provide (in its view) the correct interpretation of what is and what is not patent eligible. In at least the view of five of the judges (and many in the patent bar) the Federal Circuit has failed in exercising it responsibility, to the extent that many openly speculate whether we need the Federal Circuit at all.
So, here's the thing. sometimes a long term investment strategy means that an investor rides with the process. Nothing happens in a vacuum. Let's say you invested $20,000 and at the time, that bought you 100,000 shares (for round numbers). That's .20 per share. At the time, the OS was 1,000,000. The process ebbed and flowed. And so did the stock price, and associated OS -
The share price, in conjunction with and reaction to the OS during a period of uncertainty dropped down to half of what it was and that same $20,000 now buys you 200,000 shares. Or .10 per share.
But the OS only went up to $1,200,000. You, as a smart investor, have been trading the peaks and dips - and have gotten your money back a number of times already. So you've made the money to make that new investment. You invest that same $20,000 and now have 200,000 shares.
The real life potential value of the company hasn't waivered that much - it was a matter of demonstrating that the company would be worth it's potential.
So back when it was $.20 per share - the potential value was 10,000,000 dollars. At an OS of 1,000,000 that means a buy out price of: $10 per share. Which, if it had happened back then, would have gotten you, and your 100,000 shares: $1,000,000
Since you improved your position as a smart investor, and the sale happened when the OS was 1,200,000 - sales price still $10,000,000 - that would only be $8.33 per share - HOWEVER - you have 200,000 shares - so.... you made: $1,666,000.
*Round numbers - to show the math - not the actual scenario* - but the concept is the same. You see - life does not happen in a vacuum. Investing does not happen in a vacuum.
For me, and my wallet - I'm ok with a dilution - because that buys me more opportunity to load at a lower rate and average down my investment. The only time this IS a problem is when you bought a bunch of shares years ago, never looked at them again, and just spit in one hand and hoped in the other. But that's not investing. That's ...well - I don't know what it is. It's silly.
I would agree with that - and honestly, I think that sentiment is what is fueling some of the high powered testimony from top expert Judges who are testifying in Congress on behalf of the urgent need for this reform. When you have a Judge who has spent decades presiding over very specifically these cases, as a specialty who says, "I, myself, cannot predict which way a District Court ruling will go - " Then the system is flawed. Law was never meant to be some sick twisted version of Bob Barker's Let's Make a Deal and see what's behind door number three!
Yes - Indeed!
They say pigs get slaughtered... In case anyone might be interested, having almost 2 decades of experience in this stock, I have adapted my own method for investing. One never knows when a sale or major licensing agreement will come to fruition. It could be today. It could be a year from now. One thing is certain: Unless you are part of the negotiating team, you will not find out until it is a done deal, and buying in low is off the table.
So I have a position - a position which is, by now, the "House's" money - having long since gotten back my initial investment. That is a respectable size, and would be life changing, should this stock go from .01's to - say - $1..$2...or more - following a major announcement. Which, as we know, and have already seen previews of at the .45 level - is ENTIRELY possible - nay - even more likely than not.
And I have developed the discipline to look at a 2nd set of shares as trading stock - ignoring the fact that I could be "caught out" one day, mid trades. This stock is held and traded from inside a Roth IRA to protect against short term capital gain tax consequences - consult your own tax accountant - this is my strategy, not advice to you.
I continually increase my position, and offload the gains to my long term holdings, by trading along the way.
This, again, is my strategy. It works for me. Your results may vary -Get your own professional advice, as I have - I am not giving advice - I am relating my own personal outcomes - but I can assure you - There have been few opportunities as rewarding as VPLM, that have presented themselves to me, potentially, both in short and long runs. Good luck to all!
You're wrong. On so many levels. But it has already been pointed out to you before, and your views never seem to consider these facts:
Voip-Pal is not an empty shell holding patents, or a troll. Voip-Pal is an entity who has acquired a company, in normal, standard business practice methods, namely - Digifonica - who directly employed the inventors of these patents, and whose leadership includes those who were there on day one of these inventions.
You can say the word Troll all you want. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true.
Good Day to You
Memories..Not everyone has been here as long as I have. Some have - and we all know and recognize each other. Remember back when things were really getting going, then this stock went down - for some time - to this range - in the 1's and 2 cents - I believe even subpenny - although, I have to admit, I wasn't watching anymore. I assumed, as did most of us, that it was a dead issue.
I got a call one day, from the guy who had introduced us to this stock in the very early days. Something was happening. Truth be told, something had been happening all along in the background, but there was no news to be had, so all was quiet.
That call was followed by several years of profit, gains - being able to ride waves of hope, progress and good news, to the tune of 4000x my initial investment all told.
Intellectual property licensing and monetization isn't something that happens overnight. There are all manners of obstacles, and big players who are throwing major money and power at blocking the efforts of bonafide inventors. Don't believe me? Just read the news. I'm not making this stuff up - Patent reform has been a long time coming, and Voip-Pal has been one of many companies, through whose efforts, and risk-taking these changes now being worked out at the highest levels are coming to fruition.
I've read some say "VPLM" has never been in a worse position - Nonsense. VPLM has never, in fact, been in a better position - having already won the battles of validity, re-won them at PTAB, shut down Apple's appeal to re-examine the entire matter....is poised for GREATNESS in Europe and elsewhere, and is awaiting - as are all legitimate patent holders and inventors - the outcome of the great patent debate in Congress and the Supreme Court.
My Nostradamus moment: Mark my words. There will come a day, not too long from now, that you will look back to .014 and kick yourself for not loading up at these levels. Life Changing Opportunities stand before you. What will you do?
The STRONGER Patents Act of 2019
Support Technology & Research for Our Nation’s Growth and Economic Resilience
SECTION BY SECTION
Section 101 – Findings
Section 102 & 103 – Inter Partes Reviews and Post Grant Reviews
Section A: Claim Construction – This harmonizes the standard used in post-issuance proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with the standard used in district court litigation, codifying a recent U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rule change to permanently reduce gamesmanship.
Section B: Burden of Proof – This harmonizes the PTAB standard with that used in district courts, where “clear and convincing” evidence is needed to invalidate a patent. This standard gives appropriate deference to the USPTO’s initial expert examination and issuance of a patent, which is relied upon by inventors, patent owners, and investors.
Section C: Standing Requirement in PTAB Proceedings – Just like in district courts, a standing requirement in PTAB proceedings ensures that a petitioner has a business or financial reason to challenge the validity of a patent, reducing incentives for privateering or extortion of nuisance settlements. The standing requirement for inter partes reviews is the same as in the district court, while it is more relaxed for post-grant reviews, to encourage earlier, timely challenges to a patent’s validity.
Section D: Quiet Title – Patents are often the basis on which research and development investments are made. Repeated attacks on patents that have already been reconsidered by the USPTO undermine the integrity of the patent system, and consequently, this provision allows the USPTO to initiate review only once per claim of a patent.
Section E: Reviewability of Institution Decisions (new) – The decision to institute is a critical step in post-issuance proceedings, but many of these critical issues – such as whether the petitioner waited too long to file the challenge – are not reconsidered by the PTAB at the end of the proceedings. Therefore, it is crucial that the reviewing court be able to review these institution decision issues to create consistent standards that all 250+ PTAB judges will apply. This section codifies WiFi One v. Broadcom (Fed. Cir. 2019) (en banc) and further clarifies which parts of an institution decision are reviewable.
Section F: Eliminating Repetitive Proceedings at PTAB – Petitioners can only file one petition to challenge a patent, unless they are later charged with infringement of additional claims. This encourages petitioners to bring their complete case all at once.
Section F: Eliminating Redundancy with District Courts – If an inter partes review is instituted, the petitioner cannot bring validity challenges of the same type in district court. Only one forum should examine the often-complicated question of whether an invention is truly new and non-obvious based on earlier scientific publications or patents.
Section G: Real-Party-in-Interest – This establishes that any entity financially contributing to a PTAB validity challenge is a real-party-in-interest who cannot bring future challenges, ensuring that no entity can make multiple PTAB challenges as a silent financial contributor. Discovery is allowed to ensure compliance with this provision.
Section H: Priority of Federal Court Validity Determinations – This clarifies that if a district court reviews the validity of a patent before the PTAB, the post-issuance proceeding should not start, or should be paused pending appeal. This helps to prevent a duplicate review in the PTAB after a district court has made a decision.
Section 104 – Composition of PGR and IPR Panels
Establishes that PTAB judges who decide whether to permit a post-grant proceeding are distinct from those who will decide the outcome of the proceeding.
Section 105 – Re-Examination of Patents
Harmonizes treatment of re-examination proceedings with the treatment of inter partes review proceedings to provide clear guidelines for treatment of parallel post-grant proceedings.
Section 106 – Restoration of Patents as Property Rights
Restores the presumption of injunctive relief upon a finding that a patent is valid and infringed.
Section 107 – Elimination of USPTO Fee Diversion
Eliminates fee diversion through the establishment of a new USPTO revolving fund in the U.S. Treasury. Adequate, dependable funding is critical for timely, high-quality patents.
Section 108 – Institutions of Higher Education
Clarifies that universities qualify as micro-entities under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
Section 109 – Assisting Small Businesses in the U.S. Patent System
Small Business Administration Report – Requires the SBA to draft two reports examining how small businesses rely on patents and the prevalence of abusive demand letters.
Expansion of Patent Pilot Program to Aid Small Business Defendants – Aims to expedite cases for small businesses and individuals by providing more training and law clerks.
Expanded Access to Patent-Searching Databases – Provides greater access to patent-searching databases currently available only in-person at public search facilities.
Title II – Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters
Empowers the Federal Trade Commission to crack down on abusive, patent-related, demand letters. This section mirrors the bipartisan TROL (Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters) Act that was reported favorably in the 113th Congress from the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade.
Ah...memories! Remember that time when people were screaming: "It's a scam..this will never amount to anything!" Then, with one announcement, .02's shot up to .07's, then .14's ... all the way up to .45's. Yeah, good times.
Those voices - after those movements? Crickets. No, "Gee, I was off!" - just Crickets.
Then, as soon as a little hurdle comes along, it's back to, "The SKY is FALLING!!!"
Uh, huh. Nonsense.
This here, my friends, is that chance you'll be wishing you took a very short while from now, to gather shares.
China is poised, the EU is poised...India, well, just about everyone who ISN'T the US is working tirelessly to NOT be the corrupt US Patent system, and hoping, desperately, that they get innovation locked down and firmly in their court BEFORE the US wises up and fixes it's terribly broken system.
Senate hearings, bills, focus groups... Supreme Court challenges - all of these things are in the works. We're not making this up. Open a paper - it's all the IP world can talk about these days.
So, suit yourself. Buy - don't buy - But as for me and my house...we are a'gatherin!
DD shows you many things. Rarely is not never, and the entire ground beneath Judge Koh is shifting.
Thanks! You also -
Perhaps the word "repealed" is not entirely accurate - however, the mechanisms which have very incorrectly and unfairly limited innovation in this country in favor of Silicon Valley interests is, in fact, being reworked, and YES - the provisions in the ALICE ruling which have set precendent, which has been relied upon, incorrectly, for the past 5 years, is, in fact, very much looking at being removed, and replaced with correct guidelines that should have been applied in the first place.
Quite specifically, the premise that Hon. Lucy Koh relied upon in her ruling to the detriment of Voip-pal is precisely what is in the process of being revised and rewritten - not just on one front, but all fronts concerning patent litigation.
Gee, I'd like to keep share prices a little lower too for a bit, and gather some more. but the reality is, these teensy little share prices are very shortly going to be a thing of the past. The writing is already on the wall for those who know how to read it.
You don't have Federal Appeals Court Judges with 22 years experience in patent litigation weighing in, so heavily, and adamantly, on the Senate proposals, in favor of these changes, because all this talk about "alice" is nonsense - You'll see.
Looking backwards from future VoIP-Pal wins, it will be realized that this ruling will have been extremely instructional and will be used as precedent to inform those as yet to come rulings. Do not underestimate the great controversy and change underfoot regarding the cluster"f" that has resulted in the wake of Alice. Times, they are a-changing. We are well positioned to take full advantage of those forthcoming changes.