CEOCFO Magazine,
Phone: 727-480-7070

Email: info@ceocfocontact.com

Weekly Digital Publication IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS WITH Top   CORPORATE EXECUTIVES (727) 480-7070 LF@CEOCFOMAIL.COM FIND INTERVIEWS AND ARTICLES

Business Services | Solutions

Health | Medical | Biotech

Cannabis  | Psychedelics

Banking | FinTech | Capital

Government Services

Public Companies

Industrial | Resources

Clean Tech

Global | Canadian



Lynn Fosse, Senior Editor

Steve Alexander, Associate Editor

Bud Wayne, Editorial Executive

Christy Rivers - Editorial Executive

Valerie Austin - Editorial Associate

INTERview











Class Action and Antitrust Lawsuits Filed Against Major Telcos Highlights Significant Constitutional Breaches Affecting Inventors across the U.S. Patent System


Editorial by Bud Wayne:

I have read the attached Class Action and Antitrust lawsuits and done my own reach. Below is my editorial regarding the two complaints.


Class Action and Antitrust Lawsuits Filed Against Major Telcos Now Reaches a Historical $346.86 Billion

 

No agency, court, or corporate entity is above the Constitution. Protecting due process and ensuring judicial independence is essential for maintaining a fair patent system, free from endless challenges.


Defending Constitutional Integrity: A Cease and Desist Demand to the USPTO, Federal Courts, and Corporate Defendants on Redundant Patent Litigation


Our recent examination of the VoIP-Pal and Class Action antitrust cases has brought to light significant constitutional breaches affecting inventors across the U.S. patent system. Enabled by the America Invents Act (AIA), both the USPTO and federal courts have perpetuated duplicative litigation that places an extreme burden on inventors while benefiting monopolistic corporations. These redundancies violate Fifth Amendment due process and Article III's separation of judicial powers, undermining inventors' rights and threatening U.S. innovation.


The AIA, meant to streamline patent processes, has led to over 13,000 Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenges and more than 8,000 federal court cases that revisit issues already determined by the USPTO. These practices include challenges to validity, claim construction, prior art, obviousness analysis, enablement, subject matter eligibility, utility, and inequitable conduct—issues the USPTO examined in its original determination. This duplication undermines the USPTO's authority and directly infringes upon the Constitution's due process guarantees by forcing small inventors into protracted, costly defenses against deep-pocketed corporate challengers who exploit AIA provisions to reduce market competition and suppress innovation.


Under the AIA, the USPTO has allowed these repeated challenges, primarily initiated by large corporations, to continuously revisit critical aspects of granted patents. For small inventors like VoIP-Pal, defending their rights against these recurring challenges strips them of the finality and security their intellectual property deserves. The Fifth Amendment's due process protections assure that property rights cannot be subject to endless challenge, and patents—recognized as a form of property—should offer this stability. Repeated IPRs, however, deny inventors the protection the Constitution guarantees, especially for those without the financial means to continuously defend their patents.


Since the AIA, over 8,000 federal court cases have revisited USPTO-determined issues, ignoring the agency's expertise and violating Article III by overstepping judicial limitations. Federal courts revisiting decisions on validity, claim construction, prior art, obviousness analysis, enablement, subject matter eligibility, utility, and inequitable conduct contradicts the Constitution's separation of powers, denying inventors the security of finality in legal matters that due process promises. This repeated re-litigation imposes a significant burden, delays patent enforcement, and erodes confidence in the USPTO's determinations, creating a system where inventors face endless obstacles rather than a stable path to market.


Four main constitutional breaches within the AIA illustrate the need for immediate reform:

1. Multiple IPR Challenges – Denying due process by permitting endless challenges to patent validity.

2. Panel Stacking – Allowing USPTO control over PTAB judge assignments, undermining judicial impartiality.

3. Non-Harmed Entity IPRs – Violating Article III's standing requirements by allowing entities with no direct stake to file IPRs.

4. Post-Grant Reexaminations – Permitting re-litigation of patents, disregarding res judicata and due process protections.


These breaches expose the Constitution's vulnerability to exploitation within the current patent system, allowing powerful corporations to strategically wear down patent holders and limit competition. Under the guise of modernizing the patent process, the AIA's provisions have eroded the foundation of U.S. patent protections, encouraging monopolistic behavior while denying small inventors the legal protections the Constitution promises.


The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that constitutional law supersedes all practices, laws, and policies. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court established the Constitution as the supreme law, binding all government branches and requiring adherence to due process and judicial authority. Cooper v. Aaron (1958) later reaffirmed that no government entity, official, or corporation is above constitutional mandates. These rulings emphasize that the USPTO, federal courts, and corporate defendants must operate within constitutional limits to safeguard the rights and protections guaranteed to all citizens.


Both the USPTO and federal courts must immediately cease and desist from these unconstitutional redundancies. The AIA's provisions allowing multiple IPR challenges, along with federal court re-litigation of USPTO determinations, breach Fifth Amendment due process and Article III judicial standards. The 13,000+ IPRs and 8,000 federal court cases imposing redundant litigation not only violate constitutional protections but also hinder competition and stifle innovation.


Q&A with Emil Malak, CEO and Chairman of VoIP-Pal, Inc.


Q: It seems that you have opened a can of worms. Is this a legal mess?


A: The Silicon Valley giants and other powerful entities are directly responsible for this legal landscape. They've crafted a system that blatantly challenges the Constitution. Today there are laws, lawyers, but there is no Justice.


Q: What do you mean by this serious statement?


A: Are you telling me that their $900-an-hour lawyers can't see they're violating the Constitution? This isn't just careless; it's unpatriotic.


Q: You've been vocal against Silicon Valley and telco control. Why?


A: They're so powerful that they can pay hundreds of millions to lobby for "pay-to-play" laws, with zero regard for the Constitution. It's control over legislation on a whole new level.


Q: Where do you think VoIP-Pal's antitrust case will end up?


A: I believe, and hope, that the judge will apply the Antitrust laws and enforce the Constitution as per the antitrust breaches . They gave me no choice—walk away or fight. I won't quit on my shareholders, the "ma and pa" investors who've stood by us.


Q: Do you believe Silicon Valley could pressure politicians to enact counter-antitrust laws against your case in the District of Columbia?


A: Silicon Valley's goal is clear: they want to be the de facto government of the United States and the world, manipulating public opinion with biased information. Sadly, younger generations are often misled. Their control over information is overpowering, invasive, and has to stop. As I've said before, Silicon Valley is like the Antichrist—unchecked and all-consuming.


Q: You have almost 40 patents. What's next?


A: Having a USPTO-granted patent today is more of a liability than an asset for a small entity or inventor. The USPTO grants you a patent, then the same agency takes it away to protect their big-paying clients. It's a system with zero credibility.



NOTE: This content is not the view of nor endorsed by CEOCFO Magazine or its advertisers.

Altogether, the damages from these combined cases could reach an extraordinary $346.86 billion, setting a new historical record.

HOME

CURRENT ISSUE

INTERVIEW INDEX

CEOCFO SERVICES

CEOCFO MOBILE