VoIP, Inc. lawyering up for massive Click To Call Patent infringement suits

In a statement released today, VoIP, Inc.  said Ball Law Firm would represent its Patent in a dispute involved with:

Protect(ing) innovations that enable "Pay-Per-Call" advertising and "Click to Call" technology, in addition to call connections between two parties initiated via a web browser. In the lawsuit, VoIP, Inc. seeks an injunction that would prevent these companies from further misappropriating VoIP, Inc.'s technology and infringing VoIP, Inc.'s patents.

Although specific dollar amounts for the suit are not specified at this time, the VoIP, Inc's press release quoted attorney Byron T. Ball as saying he believes the current value of this Patent could exceed #1.25 billion dollars.

The lawsuit also seeks unspecified monetary damages arising from the companies' unauthorized use of the patented technology and the continued willful infringement of VoIP, Inc.'s patents.

This from VoIP, Inc. CEO Anthony Cataldo, who is also quoted in today's statement:

"We have identified over 100 companies that have willfully infringed on our patents. We intend to stop the infringement and defend our technology and the patents behind it. These patents and the business they represent will be utilized to provide the shareholders with the value they deserve and have long awaited," stated CEO Anthony Cataldo. "Citing case studies, in reference to Click to Call, from Fortune 500 companies such as Continental Airlines, the ROI was 50x cost of service. The service showed a 35% lead conversion rate twice that of traditional leads and reduced website abandonment by over 25%."

Now let's look at the Patent, and the Abstract:

A telephone call connection architecture is disclosed which establishes a call connection between two parties. A caller at a caller location initiates a call request to an intermediate location over a first communication network requesting a call be connected to a callee at a callee location over a second communication network.

The caller location is connected to the callee location over the second communication network in response to the call request being made over the first communication network. In both a call back and call collect scenario, the caller initiates the call request to the intermediate location. However, in a call back situation, the caller is ultimately charged for the call, while in a call collect situation, the callee authorizes charges for the call.

OK, readers. What do you think? Does VoIP, Inc. have a legitimate point, or are you ready to start using the ""T" (as in troll) word?