Replies to post #23779 on UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[jbbb]

Can any of you posters tell me why the R/S was changed? I have paper work telling me that there will be a 1 to 400 R/S. Instead it was 1 to 100. Can anyone tell me what happened? If there is news coming then there must be an insider leak???

[VortMax]

extra BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.law360.com/articles/907966/ptab-nixes-six-cisco-ipr-petitions-over-networking-patents


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, lead attorney for ChanBond, 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 A. Whitman, Timothy J. Rousseau, Andrea Pacelli and John Petrsoric of Mishcon de Reya New York LLP.

Cisco is represented by Wayne O. Stacy and Kathryn A. Juffa of Baker Botts LLP.

The cases are Cisco Systems Inc. v. ChanBond LLC, case numbers IPR2016-01889, IPR2016-01890, IPR2016-01891, IPR2016-01898, IPR2016-01899 and IPR2016-01900, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

--Editing by Sara Ziegler.

[VortMax]

look at this gem, trials for channel bonding began in June 2011, 1 month after chanbond got its patent

https://zatznotfunny.com/2011-06/new-details-on-comcast-upstream-channel-bonding/

[jbbb]

I have been in this company since IWEB days. I own a lot of UOIP, brought off and on 1,000,000 shares at a time for $0.0001, only $100.00 per million. IWEB and Chan have a considerable number of patents. These are just the beginning of buy outs of these. IWEB initially was concentrated on cloud computing. Rob Rowe should be able to reach a very large settlement. I would recommend that you posters buy all you can under $0.01 because when it breaks that level lookout.