Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[rapz]

Butters,
Bravo, for quoting passages from VPLM's response to USPTO's Office action!

The following post touched on the subject, "in a tongue in cheek" fashion. A full review was avoided because it was already shared with another party.
All shareholders got a copy of VPLM's response which addressed the RBR issue, improving the precision of current claim language, addition of 8 new claims, and a personal interview with Dr. Cabric. Therefore it was not necessary to repeat it on this forum.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=172594327
...."4. Reexamination (RBR 606) - All shareholders have received VPLM's response to USPTO's Office Action and have had the time to read it. You will note:
(a) several original RBR claims have been modified in a clear language with details (giving no room for Alice or other issues) and
(b) new claims have been added, making the RBR patent much stronger.
Getting a stronger RBR patent perhaps motivated VPLM to dismiss cases? After USPTO approves the changes, they could start suing for RBR infringement? Who knows!..."

Your quote: "...Once this RBR re-examination is denied, it's my opinion that Amazon will have no choice but to settle or purchase..."
My opinions:
1) Instead of saying "RBR reexamination is denied" it'd be better to say "VPLM's claim modification and new claims are ALLOWED by USPTO, ...". IF common sense prevails the examiner should at least offer an interview to discuss and learn the technology behind claims in order to make a decision to allow. Two or three responses, back and forth, with patent examiners is common and usually they allow claims as requested with little or slight modification. The question is the time the examiners take is longer than normal.
2) If USPTO allows as per VPLM's response, the Alice 101 section on "obviousness" argument will not be an issue any longer in NDCal or other US courts. Judges that are clueless can not rely on a "blanket" argument of obviousness.
3) If USPTO allows as VPLM requested and if RBR family of patents (606, etc.) are strengthened, the immediate impact may be that AMZN will re-think about going to trial in May 2024, on the RBR 606 patent. It is too early to jump to "settlement" or "acquisition" simply because there needs to be a lot of work involving RBR infringement analysis and discussion/compromise, licensing issues, etc. This part of diligence and the time it takes applies to each and every patent (MG and RBR, two so far) and for each infringing company. Each company management has to go through their official approval process to accept the terms of the deal for payments/licensing. The larger the settlement amount the longer the time. That means more wait which many shareholders hate to hear. jmo.