Interactive Brokers Advertisement
Home > Boards > US OTC > Internet - E-Commerce >

UnifiedOnline Inc. (UOIP)

Add UOIP Price Alert      Hide Sticky   Hide Intro
Moderator: Ultimate Warrior, abazaba375, OneBrokeMama, TKane, ~Nautical~
Search This Board: 
Last Post: 10/21/2017 7:51:12 AM - Followers: 360 - Board type: Free - Posts Today: 0

***6/14/17 UOIP/ChanBond Update Below***


UnifiedOnline, Inc.

4126 Leonard Dr. - Suite 111
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone: (816) 979-1893

UOIP CEO Robert M. Howe III

Mr. Robert M. Howe III, also Known as Rob, has been the President and Secretary at UnifiedOnline, Inc. since April 23, 2014 and has been its Chief Executive Officer since May 2014. Mr. Howe serves as the President of Montgomery Goodwin Investments LLC. He has been the Managing Partner of private investment firm, Highnote Ventures since 2011. His experience spans more than 35 years in the fields of information technology and business consulting services and has spent 35 years as an executive, founder, advisor and investor in technology related products and services firms across the globe. From September 2000 to May 2006, Mr. Howe served as a Consultant to technology firms, both independently and in collaboration with Sightline Group, in connection with go-to-market readiness. He is an active angel investor in several consulting and Internet services companies. Mr. Howe received a BBA from Southern Methodist University and an MBA from the Harvard University Graduate School of Business. He graduated with a BA in English from Birmingham-Southern College and MA from Auburn University.

UOIP OTC Markets Company Profile Link:

UOIP EDGAR Online Link:
UnifiedOnline, Inc. (the “Company”) began trading publicly in April 2002.  During the six months ended December 31, 2015 we had three wholly owned operating subsidiaries, Computers & Telecom, Inc. and KCNAP, LLC, (collectively “CTC) and IceWEB Storage Corporation (formerly known as Inline Corporation).  CTC provides wireless and fiber broadband service, co-location space and related services and operates a Network Access Point (“NAP”) where customers directly interconnect with a network ecosystem of partners and customers.  This access to Internet routes provides CTC customers improved reliability and streamlined connectivity while significantly reducing costs by reaching a critical mass of networks within a centralized physical location.  In addition, through our IceWEB Storage Corporation subsidiary we deliver on-line cloud computing application services, other managed services such as Disaster Recovery, Archive Storage, Redundant File Storage, Redundant Broadband Services and Business Continuity Services.CTC operates a wireless internet service business, providing WIMAX broadband to small and medium size businesses in the metro Kansas-City, Missouri area.  In addition, CTC offers the following solutions: (i) premium data center co-location, (ii) interconnection and (iii) exchange and outsourced IT infrastructure services. We leverage our NAP which allows our customers to increase information and application delivery performance while reducing costs.  Our platform enables scalable, reliable and cost-effective co-location, interconnection and traffic exchange thus lowering overall cost and increasing flexibility.
On October 27, 2015, the Company acquired 100% of the membership interest ChanBond, LLC (ChanBond), a portfolio of patents that disclose a technology that allows cable companies to provide high-speed data transmission over their existing hybrid-fiber coaxial networks. The Company entered into a purchase agreement with Deirdre Leane and ChanBond, LLC, pursuant to which the Company purchased Chanbond, in exchange for $5,000,000 payable on or before October 27, 2020 and a shares payment of forty-four million, seven hundred thousand (44,700,000) shares of the Company’s common stock.  William R. Carter, Jr. (a related party to the Company) was appointed as sole manager who shall have sole and exclusive authority over the business of ChanBond.   ChanBond consists of a portfolio of patents that disclose a technology that allows cable companies to provide high-speed data transmission over their existing hybrid-fiber coaxial networks. The purchase of ChanBond included the acquisition of intangibles currently valued at $5,223,500. The initial accounting for the business combination of ChanBond with the Company is not complete as the Company is working on obtaining valuation reports to support amounts. The Company may record possible contingent assets due to lawsuits to which ChanBond is a plaintiff.

ChanBond contends that virtually every cable multi-system operator (MSO) in the U.S. utilizing DOCSIS 3.0+ is infringing upon its patents, accordingly on September 21, 2015 ChanBond filed lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Delaware against the 13 largest cable MSOs in the country.

Unified Online, Inc. also owns IceWEB. IceWeb is #1 in Unified Data Storage for Cloud and Virtual Environments. IceWEB manufactures award-winning, high performance unified data storage appliances with IceWEB´s proprietary IceSTORM™ storage management software, providing enterprise storage management capabilities at a fraction of the price of traditional providers. Through thin provisioning, target deduplication and inline compression, IceWEB´s unified storage arrays enable standardization, consolidation and optimized storage utilization for virtual and cloud environments, saving up to 90% of storage costs, while reducing space, power, and cooling requirements and simplifying storage management.

***6/14/17 Article on UOIP/ChanBond Court Case: The Story of ChanBond's Fight for its Patent Infringement***


Fairfax, VA, Jun-14-2017 — /EPR Financial News/ — ChanBond is currently owned by UnifiedOnline (UOIP) and it is in a legal fight with the 13 cable service providers in the country. The important point to understand is that ChanBond has patented a system of frequency distribution, which is unique and dissimilar to the way Cisco describes its RF frequency use.

This means that the company is able to present the fact that all cable service providers that are employing the DOCSIS 3.0+ technology are infringing its patents. ChanBond took it a step further when it filed against the largest cable multi-system operators (MSOs) in the country in the District Court of Delaware.

These companies use high-speed transmission of data of fiber-coaxial hybrid networks using a technology which comes under the patents of ChanBond. Cisco has already attempted to deny their claims by filing to get the ChanBond patents invalidated.

However, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rejected all six petitions from Cisco that asked for reviewing of ChanBond’s patents. PTAB officials indicated that Cisco failed to show that these patents are invalid since the patent company was able to show that they are unique from other patents. Here are the details of the patents under review.

Patent 8,341,679

This patent describes the use of an intelligent system which can distribute digital signals using a wideband signal distribution setup.

Patent 8,894,565

This patent describes the supplementary setup details such as the insertion device and the driving unit. It also includes the rotating tubular member.

ChanBond Wins at PTAB

ChanBond has successfully won a favor delivered by PTAB when it declared that Cisco and different cable companies (RPX) have failed to show that UOIP’s relevant patents should be considered as redundant and invalid. The board clearly expressed that the patents are clearly distinct and there are no grounds to discuss their invalidation.

If we look at the history of this situation, we find that as ChanBond filed against the 13 major cable companies, they had to stop the court proceedings. They decided to challenge the actual patents with the governing body of PTAB. However, their hopes are now severely dented since the board has clearly ruled in favor of ChanBond/UOIP. They now face an uphill battle in any legal setting since this decision is admissible evidence in all courts of the United States.

It is important to understand that ChanBond now holds a key element in all their court cases. The current order provides a proposition for the involved parties to reach a settlement. A look at the official documents also reveal that the court has specifically mentioned that the evidences presented in the court about the technical details of the protocols employed by cable companies fully failed to present that these patents were invalid.

In fact, PTAB found that not only are these patents active, the current methods employed in the industry may be in violation of these patents since they employ their specifically defined methods.

The best way to go about it now is for the cable companies to find a settlement within the appeal which is going on to PTAB, rather than allowing the focus to shift on the court cases in Delaware, which are started by ChanBond/UOIP.

Technical Details of the Case

There are several important details of the petition in PTAB which was filed for 31 claims on November 20, 2015. The patent owner responded using the preliminary response method on March 10, 2016. The court initially found out that the RPX Corporate may have at least a single challenged claim, and proceeded further. ChanBond then filed its Patent Owner’s Response which is a detailed response that describes the details of the patent and how it maintains its originality. RPX in turn, responded with a reply.

The oral hearing on this important dispute occurred on January 30, 2017 and the hearing was also entered into the record. The court adjourned that it held the required jurisdiction and found that the evidence presented by RPX was not sufficient to demonstrate that claims 1-31 were unpatentable according to the laws of 35 USC 102(b) and 103(a).

The DOCSIS 1.1.4 was the main pillar of the claim presented by the cable companies. The court discovered that the concept of a digital stream comprising of multiple coded RF signals was similar in its definition in terms of ChanBond as well as the opposing RPX.

The Court also observed in cases where multiple patents and conditions are under review, it is essential to follow the market practices in order to find relevance. Explicit analysis is essential in such cases, and this too, was the basis of resolving this particular dispute.

RPX suggested that the modern cable modems followed the code already described as the national standard at the time of the application of the ChanBond patents. However, ChanBond asserted that there is no record to show that any national standard was in place at the time of the patents that describe digital stream transmission.

The court summarized that RPX as claimants had to bear the burden of proof. They failed to show that any skilled artisan would have used the same technique as explained in the patents of ChanBond/UOIP. The technological perspective presented by RPX failed to establish that there was any industry practice to use the modem configuration and the set of devices described in the patents of ChanBond in a traditional manner. The court declared that if parties want to seek a judicial review, then they would have to serve the requirements of 37 CFR 90.2.

Effect on UOIP Stocks

Although it is difficult to predict the stock prices as they keep changing over time., we find that being involved in a serious lawsuit can often send the stock prices on a downward spiral. However, there are times when this does not happen, especially if the lawsuit is not well-known or comes from quarters not considered as industry specific. Nevertheless, prior experience shows that winning lawsuits more often than not, produces a positive effect on stock prices.

UnifiedOnline (UOIP) stocks are going to do well over the next few months. They have won this major case in PTAB, and they can now aggressively push the cable companies and Cisco to enter a mutual settlement worth millions of dollars.

The volume of sales of UOIP stocks has been clearly on the rise. Although we may observe some corrections over the next few weeks, it is imperative to note that the stock prices will remain on the high, as investors actively seek to make use of this winning opportunity. This is because the resolution of lawsuits in a positive manner decrease the fear factor among market investors and allow them to be more liberal with the company stocks.

They are more eager to hold on to such stocks, which ultimately provide support to the company. As this particular lawsuit and legal position suits the general position of ChanBond/UOIP, it is natural to find that the stocks will keep rising up. As the news emerges and becomes well known in investors, UOIP will continue to perform positively and reach a better financial position in the next fiscal year.

UOIP Stocks will also soar, since there is a chance now for an expensive settlement. This will provide ChanBond/UOIP with greater monetary resources. This means that they will further expand their operations and continue to excel in the near future.


PTAB Nixes Six Cisco IPR Petitions Over Networking Patents

By Kelcee Griffis

Law360, New York (March 30, 2017, 5:59 PM EDT) -- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied six petitions for inter partes review launched by Cisco Systems Inc., shooting down the company’s bid to invalidate two high-speed networking patents held by ChanBond LLC. In declining to review the two relevant patents, the PTAB said Wednesday that Cisco failed to show that the patents are likely invalid after ChanBond asserted the patents against a group of telecom companies. ChanBond has been active in asserting the patents against major cable companies including Charter Communications Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., Comcast Corp. and others, court records show. In response, Cisco filed six separate IPR challenges with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in September 2016. Now, the PTAB says Cisco has not proved that it can be successful in invalidating the challenged claims. Both of the challenged patents cover a “system and method for distribution of digital signals onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system,” according to case documents. Andrea Pacelli, an attorney with Mishcon de Reya New York LLP who represented ChanBond, told Law360 on Thursday that the board’s decision focused on two elements: claims construction regarding the term “RF channel” and analysis of potential prior art references that Cisco had put forth. The board found that the term “RF channel” should be given the "broadest reasonable interpretation." As such, it does not include “code channels” such as data streams and only applies to frequency bands. The PTAB also said that asserted prior art references can’t be combined to reach the patents at issue. “We agree with patent owner that petitioner does not show adequately that any of the cited portions of the prior art references teach modulating digital information into at least two separate RF channels as required by each of the challenged claims,” the board said. Robert Whitman, ChanBond lead attorney, said in a Thursday statement that the company was pleased that the PTAB agreed with ChanBond "on virtually all issues." “The board’s decision confirms the strength of ChanBond’s patents,” he said. Counsel for Cisco declined to comment Thursday. The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,341,679 and 8,894,565. ChanBond is represented by Robert Whitman, Timothy Rousseau, Andrea Pacelli and John Petrsoric of Mishcon de Reya New York LLP. Cisco is represented by Wayne Stacy and Kathryn Juffa of Baker Botts LLPThe cases are Cisco Systems Inc. v. ChanBond LLC, case nos. IPR2016-01889/IPR2016-01890/IPR2016-01898/IPR2016-0189/IPR2016-01899/IPR2016-01900, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. --Editing by Sara Ziegler

Delaware District Court
Judge: Richard G Andrews
Case #: 1:15-cv-00842
  Nature of Suit 830 Property Rights - Patent
Cause 35:271 Patent Infringement
                           Case Filed:       Sep 21, 2015

The number of shares of the registrant’s Common Stock, $.001 par value:

Outstanding at February 15, 2016 was: 1,011,928,504

Insider ownership per filing: 903,325,954

Possible Settlement Amounts / Outstanding Shares:

$10 million settlement: $0.01 PPS
$50 million settlement: $0.05 PPS
$250 million settlement: $0.25 PPS
$500 million settlement: $0.50 PPS


All iHub TOS/iHub Handbook Rules apply

                                             All stock board posts are the opinion of the posters, are no substitute for your own research, and should not be relied upon for stock trading or any other purpose.
Please keep your posts on topic because your message(s) will probably be deleted when:

* Posting any content that is off-topic to the stock, which is the subject of the board;
*Posting focused on Admins, Moderators, Users, or post deletions are also off-topic;
*Posting anything that is a Violation of Privacy (no stated consent) is also off-topic;

* Posting statements that are of no value to the stock discussion for board users; or
* If you violate any other posting term(s) as stated in the iHub TOS/User Agreement.


Regarding a valid due diligence post or personal stock opinion that includes a personal attack or other iHub stock board rule violation within it:

When a post is 99% on-topic and 1% is a personal attack or another iHub rule violation, the post will be removed. Personal attacks, vulgarity, politics, religion, etc. are violations of iHub's rules (refer to iHub Handbook), disrespectful of other users, and are unwelcome. These types of gratuitous comments only create noise and dilute the quality of the board. When a user attacks another poster, others inevitably feel the need to respond, either agreeing or defending, which fuels others to respond to these…and so nauseam. With such, a board will devolve into personal attacks and discussions about other users, noise, signals, etc. There are other sites available that allow these types of posts; places for topics of conversation beyond iHub's stated rules. The goal of iHub is to have all information, be it positive, neutral or negative, discussed in a civil manner, free of violations.

Regarding the need to provide any type of proof in a post to the board to substantiate a user's post content to other users on iHub stock boards:

iHub board users do not have to provide any proof, quotations or external links when offering their stock opinions. There is no requirement by iHub for users of stock boards to substantiate any of their posts; the veracity of posts and credibility of the author are solely determined by each reader.

3 Year weekly Chart:

Interactive Brokers Advertisement
Current Price
Bid Ask Day's Range
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 2M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 2Y
  • 3Y
  • 5Y
#36909  Sticky Note Interesting post.. See Sticky ~Nautical~ 08/29/17 06:57:32 PM
#35537  Sticky Note $$$ UOIP $$$ Load & hold till settlement Public KeepItRealistic 07/07/17 10:53:30 PM
#33853  Sticky Note RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for Monte_Cristo 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM
#37813   Didn't know that. Thanks. Gotta say, the more easyme 10/21/17 07:51:11 AM
#37812   Wow! What a resume UOIP/Chanbond's lawyer has. OneBrokeMama 10/21/17 02:15:13 AM
#37810   FYI- They made a movie about the intermittent Gmc2020 10/20/17 04:35:40 PM
#37809   Definitely impressive credentials! easyme 10/20/17 03:46:55 PM
#37808   Yes sir, all too real for the detractors. easyme 10/20/17 03:45:07 PM
#37807   “Mr. Whitman represented Conner Peripherals in a multi-jurisdiction I_Am_Ram 10/20/17 03:24:51 PM
#37806 Robert whitman's profile Gmc2020 10/20/17 03:01:30 PM
#37805   Just read this. Brilliant. Nice to see the easyme 10/20/17 12:53:58 PM
#37804   Great stuff here. I know it's already been sexysamir 10/20/17 12:53:19 PM
#37803   That was easy I_Am_Ram 10/20/17 12:39:00 PM
#37802   Touché, it’s a good read to all. The LongFutureShot 10/20/17 08:47:25 AM
#37801   This is a MUST READ! I especially OneBrokeMama 10/20/17 12:04:59 AM
#37800 MMGA2017 10/19/17 11:13:11 PM
#37799   Some more docs updates MMGA2017 10/19/17 03:52:50 PM
#37798   Conclusive evidence keeps piling-up on Cisco's violations. Scruffer 10/19/17 08:53:07 AM
#37797   Wow Speak of confidence KeepItRealistic 10/18/17 06:42:35 PM
#37796   Hummm Wonder who that can be lol KeepItRealistic 10/18/17 06:41:57 PM
#37795   Nice Looking forward for Cisco to get there a$$ KeepItRealistic 10/18/17 06:41:27 PM
#37794   Yup. Somebody is selling and people are scooping I_Am_Ram 10/18/17 06:36:19 PM
#37793   Great link to read for all. Interesting note, I_Am_Ram 10/18/17 06:35:34 PM
#37792   IPR appeal oral hearing with Cisco is first I_Am_Ram 10/18/17 06:29:26 PM
#37791   All retail today KeepItRealistic 10/18/17 04:50:49 PM
#37790   Cisco has showed true colors time & time Nickelback 10/18/17 04:09:16 PM
#37789   10.6 million on bid at .0015 ahall 10/18/17 01:30:58 PM
#37788   When will an update be reported on the rockie101 10/18/17 01:21:54 PM
#37787   LoL, I know the routine, I Ivegotanace2 10/17/17 06:26:33 PM
#37786   You're not Jim sexysamir 10/17/17 06:19:19 PM
#37785   .0001 Ivegotanace2 10/17/17 04:28:00 PM
#37784   Still waiting I_Am_Ram 10/17/17 01:59:13 PM
#37783   I don’t live my life scared. And I’m I_Am_Ram 10/17/17 01:58:13 PM
#37782   It isn’t uncommon for a larger company to I_Am_Ram 10/17/17 01:56:35 PM
#37781   That’s the one I saw but I’m not I_Am_Ram 10/17/17 01:54:15 PM
#37780   If I were you, I would be buying. Scruffer 10/17/17 01:37:08 PM
#37779   If I were you I would be careful. Hi_Lo 10/17/17 01:08:28 PM
#37778   It's a stock RAM bad mouthed for months. Hi_Lo 10/17/17 12:57:35 PM
#37777   "If they in fact are using our IP" That Hi_Lo 10/17/17 12:53:37 PM
#37776   We miss ya Jim come back again today sexysamir 10/17/17 10:14:52 AM
#37775   Yep!!! jbbb 10/17/17 10:04:59 AM
#37774   With your 103M shares? Your account +160,000$. :-) Scruffer 10/17/17 08:14:10 AM
#37773   Anyone have access to pacer from tonight’s update MMGA2017 10/17/17 01:17:16 AM
#37772   One cross trade (avg) of 3.8 mil at 13:24 KeepItRealistic 10/16/17 11:02:02 PM
#37771   That would be sweet hollaatyaboy 10/16/17 08:38:25 PM
#37770   Ouch .0001 soon jimr1717 10/16/17 07:45:31 PM
#37769   This is going back to the trips. Hi_Lo 10/16/17 07:38:02 PM
#37768   Nice sell today ! KeepItRealistic 10/16/17 06:22:54 PM
#37767   No T-trade I_Am_Ram 10/16/17 04:34:45 PM
#37766   That’s not how this works but ok I_Am_Ram 10/16/17 03:56:18 PM
#37765   If our lawyers are so good, we should jbbb 10/16/17 03:51:10 PM
#37764   Definitely dilution. $0.0013 , $0.0009 right around the jbbb 10/16/17 03:48:47 PM
#37763   Dilution trade at 10:24 it looks like. About I_Am_Ram 10/16/17 02:11:29 PM