Voip Pal Com Inc (VPLM)

[nyt]

Thanks for posting your ipr info however I was in no need for the ipr lesson. I already was very well versed on it because when the ipr challenges 1st began, years ago, I studied everything about it and the history. No one on this board, at the time, nor apparently on the bod, seemed to have ANY knowledge whatsoever about ptab or iprs. As far as I could see at the time, the initial iprs came as a complete surprise to most if not all here, including myself of course. But I did study up on it a great deal at the time.

I disagree with your assessment or interpretation regarding how a positive ipr ruling for a patent owner strengthens the patent. I think that's an opinion of yours that I don't believe you can back up with an legality. It is 100% true and factual that a patent is 100% valid at birth, by virtue of the rigors of the USPTO. It is also 100% true and a fact that no amount of ipr so called "wins" (which are not wins but are successful defense of. Nothing was won and you will notice that lord emu never refers to them as wins either), legally adds any attribute to the patent that it didn't already possess at birth.

That said, many ppl obviously view such positive ipr outcomes, as adding additional validity. There are clearly many on this board who wholeheartedly believe the patents are more valid than not, due to the many positive ipr outcomes. And I understand that but it's only an opinion held by those who think it. It's not actual or attached to any legal tenet. What's important is not what you or I or anyone else opines on the matter, rather what the law, courts and judges say about it.

So a couple years ago, I became tired of how no one seems to agree with me on this, so I decided to do some research on it. It's a simple question of whether there is case law or precedence shown by any judges, as to whether or not the law or judicial opinion lends any weight to positive ipr results for patent owners suing for infringement. I could find NONE! In fact the ONLY info I could uncover that related to it, was I believe a law firm take on it. I think I may have that article in my files but can't remember if the source is identified. I'd have to dig it up and look. Anyway, it basically states that no court or judges have given any opinion whatsoever on the question, one way or the other. And that, by default, would seem to imply that there is no case law about it. I tried to search for any judge in any case that used ipr positive outcomes for patent owner suing for infringement. I couldn't get any hits on it at all. It seemed to be a non issue. From that I concluded that the ONE AND ONLY purpose and action or effect of it, was in order for the defendants to win their challenge. It's a totally different ballgame when an ipr challenge is upheld because then the patent becomes invalid which is a true loss for the patent owner. But when it's a positive outcome for the patent owner, nothing is gained and nothing is lost. It's a wash and a successful defense which obviously is a good thing but does not add any weight or validity because solely of the assumption of validity that comes with patenthood and the fact that the highest authority of patents, the USPTO, has diligently already explored all the necessary avenues of scrutiny of the patent application via their deep prosecution.

So you or anyone can argue the point all you want, but unless the situ has changed since I looked into it, then I think I'm correct about it. As I already asked for.....if you can show me any opinions by judges that differs, I might have to modify my view. But for now, I think I've made a solid case for my view of the question.