January 30, 2023
The Court in the Western District of Texas Has Lifted the Stay in VoIP-Pal’s Case Against Amazon in Waco Asserting an RBR Continuation Patent
January 11, 2023
VoIP-Pal’s Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Amazon Remains in the Western District of Texas
January 9, 2023
VoIP-Pal Receives Favorable Claim Construction Ruling in its Patent Infringement Case Against Samsung
December 28, 2022
The PTAB Denies Institution of All Four IPR Petitions filed by Amazon and T-Mobile; To Date VoIP-Pal.com Has Successfully Defeated 20 IPR Challenges Against 8 of its Patents by Amazon, T-Mobile, Google, Apple, AT&T and Unified Patents
December 21, 2022
The PTAB Denies Institution of All Four IPR Petitions by Google; To Date VoIP-Pal.com Has Successfully Defeated 16 IPR Challenges Against 8 of its Patents by Google, Apple, AT&T and Unified Patents
December 1, 2022
Voip-Pal.com Inc. Announces Termination Without Prejudice of all Alice 101 Motions in the Northern District of California
Voip-Pal.Com Files Patent Owner’s Responses for Apple’s Petitions for Inter Partes Review
Voip-Pal expects its patents to be upheld
Feb. 13, 2017 -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal,” the “Company”) (OTCQB:VPLM) today announced that it filed its "Patent Owner's Responses" on Friday, February 10, 2017 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) regarding Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”) IPR2016-01201 and IPR2016-1198, filed by Apple Inc. ("Apple") against VoIP-Pal’s RBR Patents (Patent Nos. 8,542,815 and 9,179,005).
Voip-Pal's Patent Owner's Responses demonstrate, through substantial evidence from multiple independent sources, that Voip-Pal’s wholly owned subsidiary Digifonoca International Limited (DIL) indeed had a system in operation that was practicing the RBR patents at least as early as June 2005. The evidence presented includes source code, reports, emails and declarations from eight people, including independent outside consultants, previous employees, inventors and a renowned independent expert. As Apple relied on secondary references that were filed well after June 2005 in its IPR petitions, such references cannot be used as prior art against the RBR patents. Voip-Pal fully expects the PTAB to reject all grounds asserted by Apple against both of the RBR Patents at least on this basis alone.
In its Patent Owner Responses, Voip-Pal also presented expert evidence, not previously considered by the PTAB, demonstrating that Apple misunderstood key aspects of the primary reference, and thus the arguments in its IPR petitions also fail on various technical merits.
Voip-Pal CEO Emil Malak stated, “Beyond the strength of our technical arguments, as we previously noted, we have provided independent evidence of ante-dating. We remain focused on our strategy of completing the sale or licensing of our valuable 16-patent intellectual property portfolio and providing a meaningful return to our shareholders.”
Voip-Pal also filed its quarterly report on form 10-Q for its first quarter of FY 2017 ended December 31, 2016 with the Securities & Exchange Commission on February 10, 2017. Both the 10-Q and IPR responses can be viewed here on the Company’s website at www.voip-pal.com.