The Company filed a Supplemental Brief in the District Court in opposition to Defendants’ Consolidated Motion to Dismiss (Alice 101)
BELLEVUE, Wash., Aug. 28, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Voip-Pal.com Inc. (“Voip-Pal”, “Company”) (VPLM) is pleased to provide the following legal update:
- The Company filed four comprehensive papers with the U.S. Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO) to answer Apple’s latest attacks on the four patents in the second patent infringement lawsuit before the USPTO.
In May, Apple had filed petitions requesting inter partes review (IPR) in case nos. IPR2019-01003, IPR2019-01006, IPR2019-01008, and IPR2019-01009 to attack four of Voip-Pal’s continuation routing patents, namely, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,537,762, 9,813,330, 8,826,002 and 9,948,549, respectively. Voip-Pal filed its Patent Owner Preliminary Responses (POPRs) in each case on August 23, 2019.
All eight of Apple, AT&T and Unified Patents previous IPR attempts against Voip-Pal’s ‘815 and ‘005 patents asserted in the first lawsuit against the defendants, Apple, Verizon, AT&T and Twitter were unsuccessful. Judges at the PTAB unanimously ruled in Voip-Pal’s favor.
- On August 27, 2019, Voip-Pal filed an Administrative Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Brief in Further Opposition to Apple’s and Amazon’s Motion to Dismiss on the basis that Apple has taken positions in connection with its IPR Petitions that are inconsistent with positions that Apple advocated to the District Court in the patent litigations. If allowed, the Supplemental Brief would explain the inconsistencies that relate to claim scope and advocate for denial of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. A decision remains pending.
Emil Malak, CEO of Voip-Pal stated, “Apple’s latest attack, is largely made up of the same old recycled and discredited arguments that have already been rejected by two separate Panels of the PTAB in the previous IPRs. We are confident the USPTO will see through the technical deficiencies of Apple’s new IPRs.”
“We filed the Supplemental Brief because Apple needs to be held accountable for telling the Court one thing about our claims, and telling the U.S. Patent Office something very different. Apple's claim construction in the USPTO cases actually supports what Voip-Pal has been telling the District Court. Using its unlimited resources, Apple is pulling out all the stops to attack our patents, even when its arguments lack legal and technical merit. We will not let Apple go unanswered,”
Mr. Malak continued, “Additionally, we are very pleased with the recent outcome in our lawsuit vs. Richard Kipping and Terry Kwan in Clark County (Nevada) District Court, case no. A-15-717491-C. Please refer to the Clark County Court’s website for information regarding this case.”
- The Company also announced they have received a two-week extension to file its Reply in the Appeal of the District Court’s decision in the first set of lawsuits.
- Raymond Mercado, Ph.D., a patent scholar, and RPost Communications Limited, RMail Limited, and RPost Holdings, Incorporated, a group of operating companies and patent owners, filed an amicus brief in support of VoIP-Pal's appeal of a district court order invalidating two VoIP-Pal patents as ineligible subject matter. Please visit www.voip-pal.com to view the amicus brief.
About Voip-Pal.com Inc.
Voip-Pal.Com, Inc. (“Voip-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. The Company owns a portfolio of patents relating to Voice-over-Internet Protocol (“VoIP”) technology that it is currently looking to monetize.
Any forecast of future financial performance is a "forward looking statement" under securities laws. Such statements are included to allow potential investors the opportunity to understand management’s beliefs and opinions with respect to the future so that they may use such beliefs and opinions as one factor among many in evaluating an investment.