All statements contained in this website, other than those identifying historical facts, constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Safe Harbor provisions as contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements relating to the Company's future expectations, including but not limited to revenues and earnings, technology efficacy, strategies and plans, are subject to safe harbors protection. Actual Company results and performance may be materially different from any future results, performance, strategies, plans, or achievements that may be expressed or implied by any such forward-looking statements. The Company disclaims any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements.

© 2018 VOIP-PAL.COM. All Rights Reserved.

  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
Voip-Pal Announces the USPTO Has Denied on All Grounds Institution of Unified Patents Inc.’s Petition for Inter Partes Review

November 21, 2016 -- Voip-Pal.com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal,” the “Company”) (OTCQB:VPLM) is pleased to announce that on November 18, 2016 the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) denied on all grounds a petition for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”), IPR2016-01082, filed by Unified Patents Inc. against Voip-Pal’s Routing, Billing and Rating Patent (“RBR”), Patent No. 8,542,815 (“815”)

 

The PTAB ruled, “…upon consideration of the Petition and the Preliminary Response, we conclude that the information presented does not show a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of any of claims 1, 2, 7, 27–29, 34, 54, 72–74, 92, 93, and 111 of the ’815 patent.”

 

“Accordingly, it is: ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims, and no trial is instituted.”

The PTAB’s complete decision can be viewed by clicking here.

IPR institution decisions are final and non-appealable.

Voip-Pal CEO, Emil Malak, stated, “We are very pleased with the PTAB’s decision to deny institution of the IPR. This is very significant for our company and brings us one step closer to monetizing our patent portfolio.”