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
VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (OTCQB: VPLM) announced that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied all four IPR petitions filed by Google against its Mobile Gateway Patents. The PTAB denied IPR2022-01072, IPR2022-01073, IPR2022-01074, and IPR2022-01075 on December 19, 2022. VoIP-Pal has now successfully countered 16 IPR challenges from various companies. The company also mourns the passing of former Chairman and CEO, Dr. Thomas E. Sawyer, on December 18, 2022. CEO Emil Malak emphasized the resilience of their patents and the ongoing journey towards monetization.
- Denial of all four IPR petitions by the PTAB strengthens VoIP-Pal's patent portfolio.
- Successfully countered 16 IPR challenges demonstrates the robustness of the company's patents.
- None.
The company announces the passing of former Chairman and CEO Dr. Thomas E. Sawyer
WACO, Texas, Dec. 21, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is very pleased to announce that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has denied institution of all four petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) filed by Google against the Company's two Mobile Gateway Patents. On December 19, 2022, IPR2022-01072, and IPR2022-01073, filed against Patent No. 8,630,234; and IPR2022-01074, and IPR2022-01075, filed against Patent No. 10,880,721 were denied institution by the PTAB.
To date, VoIP-Pal has successfully defeated 16 IPR challenges filed against 8 different patents by four companies, Unified Patents, Apple, AT&T, and now Google. These most recent decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board will be posted on the Company’s website www.voip-pal.com.
CEO Emil Malak, said, “Once again our patents have stood on their technical merits. We began the litigation process in February 2016 and recognize it has been a long road. We appreciate the support of our shareholders as we continue to work hard in pursuing a fair resolution. As I have always said, Patience is a virtue.”
Additionally, it is with a heavy heart that VoIP-Pal announces the passing of its former Chairman and CEO, Dr. Thomas E. Sawyer. Dr. Sawyer passed away peacefully in his home in Utah on December 18th following a long illness.
Mr. Malak said, “Tom was my dear friend of many years. He was a patriotic American who served directly under four U.S. Presidents, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. He worked valiantly during his tenures with Digifonica and VoIP-Pal, and we will always be in his debt. God bless his family at this time and may he rest in peace.”
About VoIP-Pal.com Inc.
VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Waco, Texas. 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. While the Company believes in the circumstances that legal action is needed to monetize its patents, patent litigation involves various risks and uncertainties that could affect its ability to monetize the patents. We recognize that it is impossible to predict the specific outcomes of litigation.
| Corporate Website: | www.voip-pal.com |
| IR inquiries: | IR@voip-pal.com |
| IR Contact: Rich Inza | (954) 495-4600 |
FAQ
What recent legal decision did VoIP-Pal.com Inc. achieve regarding its patents?
How many IPR challenges has VoIP-Pal successfully countered?
When did Dr. Thomas E. Sawyer, former Chairman and CEO of VoIP-Pal, pass away?
What is the stock symbol for VoIP-Pal.com Inc.?
What patents were involved in the recent decision against Google?
