VPLM
VOIP PAL.com, Inc.

BELLEVUE, Wash., Feb. 22, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- VoIP-Pal.com Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”, “Company”) (OTCQB: VPLM) reports that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has denied their petition for Writ of Mandamus with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenging the decisions of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Case Nos. 20-CV-02460-LHK, 20-CV-02995-LHK and 20-CV-03092-LHK.

Emil Malak, CEO of VoIP-Pal, said, “We are obviously disappointed with this ruling. Our case is an example of how difficult it is for a patent owner to receive justice in the current climate in the federal courts. In spite of our technology being validated by winning twelve IPR challenges at the USPTO, the Northern District of California repeatedly sides with the Silicon Valley. We do not believe a judge that has referred to our patents as “a cancer” should be allowed to preside over our case. We are not going to back down from this fight. Currently, we are assessing all of our options on the best way to proceed. I have often said that we will not quit and will continue to see this fight through to fruition. Patience is a virtue”

About VoIP-Pal.com Inc.
VoIP-Pal.Com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) is a publicly traded corporation (OTCQB: VPLM) headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. 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.