Voip-Pal Responds To Apple's Inter Partes Review Petitions

BELLEVUE, Wash., Nov. 22, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- 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") declined to institute an Inter Partes Review ("IPR") filed by Unified Patents Inc. against Voip-Pal's Routing, Billing and Rating ("RBR") Patents, Patent No. 8,542,815 ("815") and Patent No. 9,179,005.

"We are pleased that the PTAB confirmed that the allegations made by Unified Patents are completely without merit," said Emil Malak, CEO of Voip-Pal.  The decision cannot be appealed by Unified Patents.

On November 21, 2016, the PTAB issued its decisions to institute two Inter Partes Reviews ("IPRs"), IPR2016-01201 and IPR2016-1198, filed by Apple Inc. ("Apple") against the '815 and '005 Patents.  The PTAB indicated that its decision is preliminary in nature: "At this preliminary stage, the PTAB has not made a final determination with respect to the patentability of the challenged claims or any underlying factual and legal issues."

By instituting the IPRs, the PTAB has decided that a full review process is necessary to fully vet the arguments of both parties, and to resolve certain factual and/or legal issues before reaching a final decision.  While Voip-Pal is disappointed that the PTAB considered it necessary to conduct this detailed review, it is not surprising given the complexity of certain technical and historical issues.

In its response to Apple's IPR petition, Voip-pal strongly argued that Apple has fundamentally misunderstood key aspects of the primary reference, and has mischaracterized its proposed combination of the primary reference with each of the secondary references.  Given the opportunity to now present evidence from its own experts, Voip-Pal expects to prevail in showing that Apple's fundamental errors undermine the allegations made by Apple.

Also, as Voip-Pal noted in its preliminary responses to the PTAB, both of the grounds asserted by Apple in its IPR petitions rely on secondary references that are not prior art to the RBR patents.  Voip-Pal fully expects to antedate (i.e. "swear behind") these references based on evidence that was not considered by the PTAB.