Here's Our Take On VOIP PAL COM INC COM NPV (OTCMKTS:VPLM)'s Patent Cases

The patent dispute landscape is an increasingly complex one, and the rise in popularity of companies whose sole operational function is to file patent disputes against big name tech companies has only added to this complexity. The ethical ramifications of this practice are, and likely will be for a long time, subject to intense debate – but we're not here to comment on the ethical side of the space. We're here to determine whether there's money to be made backing the plaintiff in these sorts of cases, and as has been demonstrated on numerous occasions in the recent past, there is.One company currently seeking to defend its patents against a slew of big names is VOIP PAL COM INC COM NPV (OTCMKTS:VPLM), but it's situation is becoming increasingly complex, and this is making it tough to make a judgment call as to the validity of its claims.Here's an attempt to inject some clarity into what's going on, and in turn, an attempt to come down on one side of the argument or another.The company has three current suits ongoing, targeting Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL), AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T), Verizon Communications Inc. (NYSE:VZ) (these latter two are being targeted as part of the same case) and – more recently – Twitter Inc (NYSE:TWTR). We don’t really need to go into the complexities of the cases here, but they all revolve around the same patent U.S Patent No. 8,542,815, and a follow on patent called U.S Patent No. 9,179,005. The suits describe the patents as relating to "caller attribute classification and routing product design," which essentially relates to the various direct messaging applications each of the companies offer. Direct Messaging for Twitter, iMessage for Apple, etc. Bottom line, they are big claims if upheld, and claims that the companies in question would have no choice other than to pay (and pay heavily) for their continued use of if the suits go in Voip's favor.That's a big if, however.When a company like this files for infringement, the first thing the defendant usually does is request what's called an inter partes review (IPR). An IPR is basically the company saying that the patent has no validity, and in turn, can’t be enforced. If an IPR is granted, it dramatically increases the costs to both parties, and of course, the smaller company, in this case Voip, will find it more difficult to meet these costs.For a company like Voip, the goal is to avoid IPRs.There's an entity called Unified Patents, which was founded in 2012 with basically one goal – to help big tech companies file for IPRs. Unified Patents immediately took on the Verizon and the AT&T suit, and filed for an IPR. On November 18, this filing was denied. The implications here are positive for Voip.However, a few days later, the same board (the PTAB) issued its decisions to institute two IPRs, one for each patent, in the Apple case.And herein lies the confusion.The PTAB is essentially saying that the patents are enforceable, and then three days later, saying they are not. That the cases are against different companies shouldn’t be a factor –IPRs are about the fundamental implications of enforceability. The disparity in the decisions have raised questions about conflict of interest (are there members of the decision making panel that have an interest in Apple's outcome, but not Verizon's?).We can't really speculate on that, but there's something not right about the situation.Voip now has to defend the enforceability of these patents as part of two IPRs, and that's going to be costly. The company reports that it thinks it's got a great chance, but we wouldn’t expect it to say otherwise.The Twitter case is yet to develop, but chances are we will see a request for IPR, and again, the disparity in the two cases that have matured makes the outcome of this request uncertain.So the situation now, is this: can Voip raise the capital it's going to need to fund an IPR, and fight the Unified Patents case (the Verizon, AT&T case) and the Twitter case, all at the same time. If yes, then there's a great bull case. In turn, the real question is this: are Voip shareholders willing to accept continued dilution, as the company raises to fund the litigation, in anticipation of a large payoff come end-date?We think the decline on the UP IPR application tips the scales in favor of the bull case. It's not going to be a smooth ride for a shareholder, but the reward on offer is very large, and those willing to get on board could take home a sizeable chunk in added value when the decisions finally come in.We will be updating our subscribers as soon as we know more. For the latest updates on VPLM, sign up below!Disclosure: We have no position in VPLM and have not been compensated for this article.