Interview with New York's Bloomberg Radio

Alexander Poltorak was interviewed by New York's Bloomberg Radio, Sept. 5, 2007.

Play audio

Bloomberg Radio: Microsoft's success in reversing a more than a one and a half billion dollar trial loss, was the latest in a series of court victories that may undermine its chances for broad changes in US patent law this year. Bloomberg's June Grasso has more.

Opponents of changing the patent law cite the victory by the world's largest software maker and a win by Seagate Technology, the largest maker of hard disk drives, as proof the law isn't as out of whack as the computer industry claims.

Alexander Poltorak is the Chairman and CEO of General Patent Corporation, a patent licensing company.

Alexander Poltorak: As a matter of fact, recent cases all have been in the same direction of diminishing patent rights. Six decisions by the Supreme Court in the last two terms all essentially directed on minimizing the rights of patent owners.

Some of the decisions actually put the whole concept of patents in limbo.

Bloomberg Radio: Debate in the House of Representatives on a sweeping patent proposal is set for this Friday. June Grasso, Bloomberg Radio.

"Microsoft Win in Court May Cut Chances in Congress"

Alexander Poltorak was quoted in Bloomberg News, September 5, 2007, "Microsoft Win in Court May Cut Chances in Congress".


"The effort to reform the patent system has been going on for years, and many people just stopped paying attention," said Alexander Poltorak, owner of a patent licensing company and author of two books on patents. "Now they're waking up to the possibility that it might just pass and that it would be a disaster."

Full article on

"Will Congress Slam Small Inventors?"

Alexander Poltorak was quoted in "Will Congress Slam Small Inventors?", a Fortune Small Business article later republished on, June 18, 2007 (excerpt):

...The problem is that in the guise of addressing common concerns, the legislation favors corporate interests over independent inventors. It starts by replacing the uniquely American "first to invent" rule with "first to file," which is used in Europe and Japan. First to invent gives you time to fully develop a concept and still be confident of winning a patent, if you can prove you hatched the idea first. By contrast, first to file "would create a race to the courthouse that big companies with their legions of staff experts will always win," says Alexander Poltorak, CEO of General Patent (, a Suffern, N.Y., patent-enforcement firm.

Adopting the foreign model moves U.S. policy in the wrong direction, says Jere Glover, executive director of the Small Business Technology Coalition, which opposes the bill. "Our patent laws make America stand out as pro-inventor and pro-entrepreneur," he says.

Today a new patent is presumed valid if it goes unchallenged for 12 months. The bill would broaden post-grant review and allow challenges at any time through a new administrative procedure at the PTO. It's designed to cut legal bills by avoiding court but would multiply challenges and raise costs for patent owners, says Bryan Lord, general counsel of AmberWave Systems Corp. (, a Salem, N.H., semiconductor-materials startup. His legal bills would rise "substantially," he predicts.

How the courts compute damages in infringement cases would also change. Payments would be based on the economic value of the patented invention, not of the overall product-no matter how critical that part is. Had that rule been in place in February when Microsoft was assessed $1.52 billion in damages (based on total sales of computers with infringing code), the award would have been vastly reduced. The legislation also raises the bar for a patent holder to prove willful patent violation, which since 1800 has triggered treble damages-a deterrent to infringers. With shrinking penalties, there is less incentive to agree to licensing patents and more temptation to cheat. "In effect, the new rules would lower costs for big companies like Microsoft and Intel and reduce their risk of being socked with major judgments," says Poltorak.

Read full article on

IPO Conference on Patent Trolls

Alexander Poltorak, our President and CEO, spoke at the Intellectual Property Owners conference on Patent Trolls in Washington, DC in March 2005. The following article (in PDF format) is based on the talk Dr. Poltorak gave at the conference.

"Prickly Profits"

IAM (Intellectual Asset Management) Magazine, Feb./March 2004 issue - "Prickly Profits," by Bruce Berman [excerpt] - Dr. Poltorak is quoted discussing the patent system's fairness or unfairness to small inventors.

Mr. Berman's article quotes Dr. Poltorak on the rights conferred on a patent owner by the patent office.

"IP may be sold, bought, pledged and traded just like any other asset," says Dr. Alexander Poltorak, CEO of General Patent Corporation, which represents independent inventors and smaller patent owners. "In economic terms, a patent is not really a monopoly but rather a public franchise. It is the single largest incentive for innovation. The patent system is inherently unfair to the small inventors. The right to exclude, i.e. to bring a legal action for patent infringement, does not come cheaply. With the average cost of patent litigation in the US in excess of US$2 million and as high as US$5 million the right to enforce is a theoretical concept of little value to many inventors."

Contrary to popular belief, says Poltorak, patents do not give the right to practice the patented invention. Instead, he explains, they provide the right to exclude others from practicing the patented invention. "As far as the patent law is concerned, there is no difference between paper patents owned by an inventor (those that protect inventions that inventors do not practice themselves), and patents held by large corporations,” Poltorak says. "Patents are nothing more than a license to sue. Enabling small inventors to enforce their patents is the greatest incentive for all innovators. This inspires invention but also forces large companies with significant R&D commitments to pay attention to all patents and either license or design around them. Frequently, this leads to more and better innovation - the intention of the patent system in the first place."

Transcript of Paul Lerner's Interview with the Wall Street Reporter on December 8, 2000

Paul Lerner, Sr. VP and General Counsel of GPC, discusses patent enforcement, the increase in the number of patents being filed and litigated, and how GPC plans to handle the rapid growth of the IP industry.

Interviewer: Phillip Silverstein

Interviewee: Paul J. Lerner

Silverstein: From the studios of the Wall Street Reporter in New York City, this is Phillip Silverstein. Our guest today is Paul J. Lerner, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, General Patent Corporation. Paul, good morning.

Lerner: Good morning, Phil.

Silverstein: I would like to ask you a few questions today. First of all, what is the business of General Patent Corporation?

Lerner: General Patent Corporation is a full service intellectual property management company. Intellectual property is generally abbreviated "IP", and when people speak of IP they mean intellectual property, which is patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets. It is the product of the human mind that is reduced to a form in which it is protectable, and which has value to the businesses that own it and use it. General Patent does portfolio analysis, meaning that we will look through a business' portfolio of intellectual property to identify those components which have value and which do not have value. Those that are being underutilized can be utilized in other places to bring in money, generally by licensing. We do valuation of intellectual property if, for example, it is about to be sold or the business is going through a reorganization or an acquisition, or if there is gong to be an IPO. We do licensing of intellectual property, representing both the property owner and companies looking for intellectual property as a means of solving a problem or extending a product line or simply introducing a new product. Most notably, we do patent enforcement.

Silverstein: Patent enforcement. What exactly is patent enforcement?

Lerner: In common usage, patent enforcement involves a patent owner going into a court to enforce his rights under the patent. In trade usage, it has a somewhat more complex meaning, and I think that in order to explain it you really have to understand what a patent is. In simple terms, a patent is a limited monopoly. It is the government-granted right to allow the patent owner to prevent others from practicing the patented invention. If this right is violated, the patent owner has the legal right to bring a lawsuit to force the infringer to cease its infringing activities. Unfortunately, there are no patent police, meaning that the patent owner is obligated to do this enforcement on his own. The cost of litigation - the cost to prepare and go into court to enforce your rights - is now typically between $1.5 and $2.0M per case. That is an amount of money that most individuals and small businesses simply cannot afford. Also, most patent attorneys do not do litigation. They do patent prosecution, meaning they will file the papers necessary to obtain a patent, but they will not litigate one if there is infringement. Those patent attorneys that do litigation will often not do it on a contingency basis. As a result, many inventors are unable to secure the counsel that they need to enforce their rights under the patent. So, when we talk about patent enforcement in the industry, what we are referring to is the group of services that are provided by firms such as General Patent Corporation in working with a patent owner to enforce the rights that were granted by the government. And when we speak of the services, what we are really talking about is studying the patent validity and verifying that there is infringement, assessing the damages that might be involved, and developing an enforcement strategy - because, in general, if you have an infringer identified, there is more than one. Our experience is that if a patent is being infringed by a company it is really being infringed by an industry. Most companies in an industry follow relatively similar practices, and if there is one infringer there probably are more. Moreover, if other companies in an industry have not joined in they probably would like to. Therefore, they may very well be amenable to taking a license. So, a strategy needs to be developed in terms of enforcing a patent.

Silverstein: Okay, can you talk a little bit about changes in the number of patents being filed and in patent litigation?

Lerner: The number of patent applications being filed in the United States Patent Office has increased dramatically over the last several years. For example, in 1996 a little over 206,000 patent applications were filed. By 1999, which is of course the last full year for which statistics are available, over 289,000 patent applications were filed, which is about a 40% increase in only four years. Correspondingly, the amount of patent litigations has increased. In 1996, there were a little over 1,800 patent infringement lawsuits filed. In 1999, there were over 2,300 patent lawsuits filed, which is an increase of about 34%. We can see that there is a very steady and significant growth in both the number of patents and the number of patent infringement litigations. In addition, we are now seeing the first of the so-called business method patents issuing from the patent office, and these are going to be a very significant source of litigation, simply because many of the business methods that are covered by these patents are probably being infringed by other businesses innocently. But innocence or intent is not really an element of patent infringement. If I infringe a patent because I don't know it exists, I am still guilty of infringement. The question of prior knowledge and intent goes to damages, but it is not a defense to say, "I didn't know that the patent existed" or, "I didn't know that it covered what I do". So, I think that we're going to see an even greater increase in the amount of patent litigations and especially in the field of business patents, many of which are owned by very small businesses or by individuals.

Silverstein: How do you plan to handle the rapid growth in the industry?

Lerner: One of the things that we are doing is expanding our network of affiliations and strategic alliances with various experts in damages, technology analysis, market research, the various sciences and engineering disciplines. It is really impossible to have an expert in every field of technology, for every issue in the patent lawsuit, available on staff. The only way to meet the needs of the various matters that we undertake is to maintain strong relations with the best people in the various fields that we are going to require, and then to be sure that they are available to work with us when the need arises. So, that is essentially what we are doing now. We maintain a core of expertise in-house, and a network of people who are expert in the various areas that we may require.

Silverstein: That's terrific. How can our audience find out more about your company?

Lerner: You can contact us at our website - You can send us an e-mail at Or you can contact us by mail or by telephone. We will be happy to review matters that anybody cares to discuss with us.

Silverstein: Paul, thank you very much.

Lerner: You're quite welcome.

Silverstein: This is Phillip Silverstein and our guest today was Paul J. Lerner.

Transcript of Alexander Poltorak's Radio Interview with the Wall Street Reporter, March 17, 2000

In this in-depth interview, Dr. Poltorak describes the fields of patent enforcement and technology transfer in detail, and discusses what separates GPC from our competition.

Interviewer: Sam Stone

Interviewee: Alexander Poltorak

Sam Stone: "Recorded live from our studios located in the financial district of New York City, this is Sam Stone for Wall Street Reporter magazine. My guest today is Alexander Poltorak. He is Chief Executive Officer of privately held General Patent Corporation. Alex, welcome to the program."

Alex Poltorak: "Thank you Sam. Thank you for inviting me."

Sam Stone: "We are delighted to have you on the show today. Why don't you begin by giving our audience a brief history and an overview of General Patent Corporation."

Alex Poltorak: "General Patent is an intellectual property management firm. We have been in business over ten years, specializing in patent licensing and enforcement, IP portfolio management and technology transfer. Our clients include individual inventors, small R&D companies, larger corporations, research institutions, as well as overseas clients. We provide our clients with IP strategy and help them implement it in the best way."

Sam Stone: "Tell us a little bit about the business model and how the revenue streams works at GPC. If you could just define the marketing strategy a bit more specific to our audience, please."

Alex Poltorak: "It depends on what clientele we deal with. Our corporate clients, we serve as a consulting company advising them on the issues of IP strategy, IP portfolio, audit and valuation, licensing and technology transfer. In these instances we charge on an hourly basis, as all consulting companies do. With respect to patent licensing and enforcement as it relates to smaller companies and individual inventors, we employ a different model. You see, many inventors have patents that may be infringed by other companies, but they are out of luck in helping themselves in this situation because patent infringement law suits cost an average of $1.5 million dollars. Therefore, they are not able to retain a law firm to represent them in this patent infringement situation. We represent these individual inventors and small R&D companies on a contingency basis. We undertake the case in all its aspects including financing the case, managing it, negotiating licensing agreements, settlements, etc. In this arrangement we share in the revenues with our client."

Sam Stone: "What separates your business from the competition. Alex, if you had to single out perhaps one or even two areas that you truly feel separates General Patent Corporation from the rest of the pack, what would that be?"

Alex Poltorak: "I would say that this is patent enforcement and international technology transfer. In the latter area we are unique because the people who work in this company have different backgrounds - they come from different countries. We have people who not only speak different languages, but are intimately familiar with various foreign cultures, business laws, business environments, etc. We do quite a bit of international technology transfer work. In the field of patent enforcement, I think we are pretty much unique as well. We are, I would say, a premier firm in the United States, and I do not know of many such firms in the world which do what we do, representing individual inventors on a contingency basis, helping them to license and enforce their patents."

Sam Stone: "Customer service - it's obviously a poor value in any given business today. Alex, what does customer service represent to your business at General Patent Corporation? What does it mean to your business on a day-to-day level?"

Alex Poltorak: "It means staying involved with our clients on a long-term commitment basis. We don't get involved in one-shot deals. Speaking of corporate clients, we are talking about a long term relationship whereby we help the clients to develop the strategy from the very beginning and see the strategy through all phases of its implementation, which includes various steps such as IP portfolio audit, portfolio mining, identifying those patents which represent the core patents for the company which need to be vigorously guarded and enforced, identifying useless patents which need to be dropped to save the maintenance fees, identifying non-core but valuable technology that could be licensed out or used in some other form of technology transfer such as strategic alliance, joint venture, etc., which would turn around these unused assets of the company and turn them into revenue generators."

Sam Stone: "Let's talk a little bit about your management team. If you could tell us about some of the key individuals who help run General Patent Corporation a day-to-day basis, including yourself, with a brief description of your background."

Alex Poltorak: "We have here very, very good people and our staff is the key to our success. To begin, Paul Lerner is our Sr. Vice President and general counsel. He is a very experienced patent attorney who has been in private practice for many years as a patent attorney, and he also served as general counsel for some large companies including Black & Decker and others. He came recently to our company and he is a very valuable addition to our management team, bringing to us years of experience in legal and corporate management. Valeria Poltorak is heading our biotech division. She is a biophysicist by training. She worked at the Institute of Virology in Moscow and at Rockefeller University in New York. She brings a lot of experience in the field of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. I come from quite a diverse background. I am a physicist by training. I taught in a variety of colleges and universities, including Cornell University and others. I was the CEO of a public company, Rapitech Systems, in the '80s that was a computer company. I was in the venture capital business, and for the past 10 years I am running General Patent Corporation."

Sam Stone: "Let's talk a little bit about some of the challenges as we look into a new millennium, a new year. Alex, tell us about some of the challenges, opportunities and perhaps milestones that General Patent Corporation will ultimately face as we look into the coming year and beyond, a new year."

Alex Poltorak: "Well, our challenges, Sam, are of a good kind. We are experiencing tremendous growth. We have now more business than we are able to process with our current staff so we are in the process of hiring more people, and we anticipate an explosive growth in the future and therefore our biggest challenge is controlling this growth in a sensible manner. We are dealing with intellectual property and this is an exploding field. I would say that today we find ourselves in the midst of the gold rush that relates to patents and intellectual property. Even people who are far from this field are, perhaps, getting a sense of it just from the many articles on this topic in business and general media. Almost every business and even consumer publications are coming out now with stories about the importance role the patent system plays in today's business. This patent system is actually facing tremendous challenges in today's economy because the very nature of the way we do business has changed. We are moving away from the brick and mortar business into the e-commence environment where the old standards don't necessarily work very well. And the relatively recent court decisions that allowed algorithm patents, software patents, and most recently patents on methods of doing business, present tremendous challenges for business in general and e-commerce business in particular. We see how almost every e-commerce business is embroiled in patent infringement litigation. We all have heard about the Amazon v. Barnes and Noble case, and almost every other company is involved in similar patent infringement litigation. And it gets only worse with time because, under the U.S. patent system, patent applications are kept secret in the patent office and it takes usually something like three years for the patents to issue. There are thousands of patent applications related to various ways of doing business on the Internet, various types of e-commerce applications that are pending now in the patent office. They are going to be coming out in the next months and years. And what people are going to find out is that most of the e-commerce companies are going to be infringing somebody's patent, and we are all going to find ourselves in the midst of lots of patent infringement litigation. There is going to be a very challenging time for all players in this field: for the courts on how to interpret these new patents, how to judge their validity; and a very challenging time for the patent office on how to prosecute such patent applications and find their prior art. It is an extremely challenging time for the entrepreneurs and business managers: how to manage their IP portfolio; how to deal with these situations; whether to license the patents that are asserted against them or to fight them in court; and how to build their own patent portfolios. And for us, of course, as the players in this arena, it is a very challenging time because we have to advise our clients how to behave in this situation and what is the best strategy."

Sam Stone: "The bulk of our audience listening today, Alex, is made up of worldwide press, institutional investors, analysts, money managers - for the most part you are talking to a financial audience in question here. What do you see? What should our audience clearly see as the real strengths and certainly real advantages that General Patent Corporation International certainly has that distinguishes the company as a true leader in today's and tomorrow's marketplace?"

Alex Poltorak: "We help companies to identify their perhaps most important assets, the IP assets, and these assets most likely are under-reported in their financial statements. Let's not forget that the intangible, intellectual property assets are the most underreported assets. This is a real problem, particularly for public companies. We help these companies to identify these intellectual property assets, to utilize them, to maximize their value and thereby maximize their value to shareholders. We help these companies to communicate this value to the shareholders, analysts, and the financial community at large. I think that the financial community has to remember that in today's business what is important for long term success of the company is not so much how much money they have, how much land or equipment or machinery they many own, but it is important how many patents they have, how many patents they file a year, a month, and how well these patents are cited by other patent applications. Recently there was an article by Baruch Lev, Professor at New York University, published in the Financial Analyst Journal, showing how the long term stock performance of a technology related company is in direct relationship with such parameters as how many patents they file a year, how many patents they have in their portfolio, particularly how well their patents are cited by other patents applications, etc. So what I would like to underscore is the tremendous importance that intellectual property in general, and patents in particular, play today in e-commerce and business in general."

Sam Stone: "Let's have a web site address and perhaps a telephone number for contact for our audience, Alex."

Alex Poltorak: "Sure. Our web site is, and our telephone number is (845) 368-4000."

Sam Stone: "Alexander Poltorak, I want to thank you very much for your time today. Alex is Chief Executive Officer of privately held General Patent Corporation. Once again Alex, I want to truly thank you for your time today."

Alex Poltorak: "It's a pleasure to be with you."

Sam Stone: "Covering America and the world's leading business concerns, this has been Sam Stone for Wall Street Reporter Magazine."

Transcript of Alexander Poltorak's Radio Interview with Bloomberg News on May 3, 2000

Dr. Poltorak discusses e-commerce and the growth - and complexity - of the new "business method" patents

Interviewer: David Zielenziger

Interviewee: Alexander Poltorak

Bloomberg: This is David Zielenziger of Bloomberg News. Welcome to Internet Action. On the line with us from Suffern, New York is Alexander Poltorak, the Chairman and Chief Executive of General Patent Corporation. Alex, welcome to Bloomberg.

Alex: Thank you David.

Bloomberg: I guess that with intellectual property, a company like General Patent must be out working with people to manage intellectual property in the internet age, is that correct?

Alex: That's correct. As you know, intellectual property is an exploding field. The rate of patent application filings is accelerating and the importance of patents in general is becoming greater and more appreciated. General Patent Corporation is one of the leading intellectual property management firms helping companies and individual inventors to manage their intellectual property through technology transfer, patent licensing and enforcement.

Bloomberg: Alex, many customers, and we won't even talk about investors, are already using e-commerce to buy books from or, to book travel reservations at Microsoftexpedia or Travelocity, to buy things using cybercash, and so on. Is this the kind of business that General Patent is doing for some of your customers?

Alex: We don't do e-commerce business per se. We help companies that are involved in e-commerce to understand the importance of intellectual property in expanding their business, for protecting their companies from possible infringement laws suits, and for enforcing their own IP rights.

Bloomberg: Investors, Alex, have seen that the publicly traded companies such as Microsoft and Sun Microsystems, or Maremba Incorporated and Novadyne, have had celebrated disputes about intellectual property. I mean, that's the kind of things we are talking about here, isn't it?

Alex: Indeed. The patent disputes in this area are as old as e-commerce itself. In fact, the e-commerce patents relate to a new category that is known as "business method" patents, which came into existence relatively recently. Methods of doing business were not patentable until the Federal Court of Appeals reversed its long-standing position on this issue in 1998, and from then on thousands of companies rushed into the patent office to protect their methods of doing business. Now, many companies involved in e-commerce are attempting to patent their traditional methods of doing business in the "brick and mortar" economy, as these methods are being transplanted into cyberspace and reincarnated in the e-commerce embodiment. There are already problems with these patents. By definition, patents have to be based upon novel inventions. It is the job of the patent office to examine patent applications on the subject of novelty. The way they do this is by comparing the patent application to the existing database of published patents. Since the business method patent is the new kid on the block, there is literally no prior art available to the patent examiners. Since there is no known body of knowledge that is published in the form of patents, the patent office has a really difficult time discerning which of these methods are novel and which are not. Therefore, the quality of business method patents coming out of the patent office is sometimes questionable. On the other hand, many companies are already using, and will continue to use, these patents in infringement litigation. As a matter of fact, a recent survey indicated that most intellectual property attorneys expect that patent infringement litigation will literally explode within the next few years, due to the thousands of patents on e-commerce and business methods coming out of the patent office, and these patents will be asserted by one company against another.

Bloomberg: So, Alex, does that mean that if I am a promising inventor and I think that I have something really good for e-commerce, or something that I think should be patented, I would come to General Patent and use them to represent me as an agent to make sure that we can register my intellectual property and perhaps offer to sell it to a company that would pay me royalties?

Alex: We represent individual inventors as their licensing agent. If an inventor has a novel idea that is protected by a patent, we would certainly help such inventor to market the technology, and to license the patents to prospective users of this technology. A common scenario is when a patent holder finds himself or herself already owning a patent which is used by somebody else, which is described as patent infringement, in which case the inventors come to us for help in protecting and enforcing their proprietary rights under the patents. The bulk of our business is in patent enforcement.

Bloomberg: Alex, with the internet and the fact that now if I have a computer say in the United States and we have some kind of application, with one stroke someone in the Island of Madagascar will have it a second later. Does the Internet simply create far more problems in terms of protection than ever before because of the sheer speed of electronics?

Alex: Most definitely. The rate of exchange of information thanks to the internet is approaching the speed of light, and it creates a lot of problems. What is more important than the rate of information exchange is the global nature of the information being shared on the internet, which has created profound challenges in a number of legal areas. A U.S. patent gives you exclusive rights in the United States. However, the infringement may now originate in another country, an offshore jurisdiction. Therefore, the complexity of the disputes involving intellectual property will increase due to the global nature of the Internet.

Bloomberg: Well, it sounds like this a growing opportunity, Alex. Thank you very much for spending time with us today.

Alex: It was a pleasure being with you.

Bloomberg: We have been speaking with Alexander Poltorak, the Chief Executive of General Patent Corporation. This is David Zielenziger, Bloomberg News.

Allergan Settles Patent Lawsuit with Jan Marini

As of July 21, 2008, Allergan is dismissing its lawsuit against Jan Marini Skin Research, which had been one of the defendants in Allergan's patent infringement lawsuit pending in the US District Court of California.

Jan Marini acknowledged the validity of Allergan's patents covering the use of certain drug substances to promote eyelash enhancement, and agreed to halt its distribution of Jan Marini products containing those ingredients in the US and other countries in which Allergan holds related patents.

General Patent Wins Reexaminations for ACT's Patents

SUFFERN, NY, December 27, 2005 - General Patent Corporation International (GPCI) announced an important victory in its patent enforcement campaign on behalf of Advanced Card Technologies LLC (ACT). The reexamination of two of ACT's patents by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) resulted in an affirmation of validity of these two patents with approximately two hundred new claims being issued.

The reexamination proceedings at the Patent Office were initiated in response to a patent infringement law suit brought by the prior owner of ACT's patents, a pioneer in card technology, SSI Technologies. Reexamination was requested for ACT's U.S. Patent Nos. 5,720,158 ("Information Card Package") and 5,921,584 ("Card Display Package"). The patents generally relate to packages for cards that have a magnetic stripe, such as gift, phone, and other types of cards. During the reexaminations, the new claims were found to be patentable over numerous patents and publications which were brought to the attention of the Patent Office.

"We were confident from the outset of these proceedings that the inventions embodied in these patents would be found to be patentable," said Neil Cohen, GPCI's Assistant General Counsel. "The question of the validity of these patents has now been put to rest."

About Advanced Card Technologies

Advanced Card Technologies LLC, based in Suffern, NY, is an IP Holdings' portfolio company that licenses patents relating to packages for gift, phone, and other types of cards. Advanced Card Technologies currently licenses U.S. Patent Nos. 5,720,158 ("Information Card Package") and 5,921,584 ("Card Display Package") and other pending patent applications. For licensing terms, contact Neil Cohen at (845) 368-4000, x105. For more information visit