The Western District of Texas Denies Amazon’s Motions to Transfer in Both Cases Filed By VoIP-Pal

Rhea-AI Summary

VoIP-Pal.com (OTCQB: VPLM) announced that the Court has denied Amazon's transfer requests in two patent cases related to Mobile Gateway and Routing, Billing and Rating (RBR). On October 18 and 19, 2022, the Court maintained jurisdiction over both cases in the Western District of Texas, allowing VoIP-Pal to continue asserting its patents. CEO Emil Malak expressed satisfaction with the rulings, signaling confidence in the technical merits of their patents. The company aims to monetize its VoIP technology patents amid ongoing legal challenges.

Positive

• Court rulings favoring VoIP-Pal, allowing continued patent assertion.
• Retention of jurisdiction in the Western District of Texas can provide strategic advantages.

Negative

• Ongoing patent litigation poses risks and uncertainties regarding monetization.
• Involvement in multiple legal cases may divert resources and impact overall performance.

WACO, Texas, Oct. 20, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) is pleased to announce that the Court has denied Amazon’s transfer requests in both the Mobile Gateway patent case and the Routing, Billing and Rating (RBR) patent case.

On October 18, 2022, the Court denied Amazon’s renewed motion for reconsideration of an earlier decision by the Court not to transfer Case No. 6:21-cv-668-ADA (WDTX) from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. Amazon filed this motion in September after having their previous motion for reconsideration denied without prejudice in July. The Company is asserting its Mobile Gateway patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,234 (“’234 patent”) and 10,880,721 (’721 patent). This case will continue in the Western District of Texas and is currently in the discovery phase.

On October 19, 2022, the Court denied Amazon’s motion to transfer Case No. 6:20-cv-00272-ADA (WDTX) from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California. This case asserts VoIP-Pal’s RBR continuation patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,218,606 (‘606 patent).

Emil Malak, CEO of VoIP-Pal stated, “We are pleased to have two more favorable rulings, and we are very glad to be able to assert our patents in court. We are confident they will stand on their technical merits. Patience is a virtue.”

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 decisions have been made regarding VoIP-Pal (VPLM)?

The Court denied Amazon's transfer requests in two patent cases, allowing VoIP-Pal to assert its Mobile Gateway and RBR patents in Texas.

What are the implications of the Court's decisions for VoIP-Pal (VPLM)?

The rulings enable VoIP-Pal to continue its patent assertions, which could positively impact its ability to monetize its technology.

What patents are involved in VoIP-Pal's litigation against Amazon?

The patents involved are the Mobile Gateway patents U.S. Patent Nos. 8,630,234 and 10,880,721, as well as the RBR continuation patent U.S. Patent No. 10,218,606.

How do the rulings affect VoIP-Pal's litigation strategy?

The Court's decisions reinforce VoIP-Pal's litigation strategy by keeping the cases in a favorable jurisdiction and allowing them to assert their patents further.