UnifiedOnline, Inc. (Delisted ticker: UOIP)
Active patent case v 13 high-tech companies
FINRA ticker was revoked on July 17, 2019
UOIP is no longer trading on Gray Market
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2019/34-86389.pdf
CEO Mr. Robert "Rob" Maull Howe III
(Also Company President and Secretary)
Executive Profile: The late "Rob" Howe was
the CEO, President, and the Secretary of the
UnitedOnline, Inc. until his passing in 2018. "Rob" received a baccalaureate degree from
Birmingham Southern College and received
his master's degree from Auburn University.
(In Memoriam: 9/21/1946-5/24/2018) https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/montgomeryadvertiser/obituary.aspx?n=robert-maull-howe-iii&pid=189115514 UOIP OTC Markets Company Profile Link: https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/UOIP/profile UOIP EDGAR Online Details: http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/default.aspx?cik=1097718 UnifiedOnline, Inc. (the “Company”) began trading publicly in April 2002. During the six months ended Dec. 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 Oct. 27, 2015, the Company acquired 100% of the membership interest ChanBond, LLC (ChanBond), a portfolio of patents that disclose 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 Oct. 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 technology that allows cable companies to provide high-speed data transmission over their existing hybrid-fiber coaxial networks. The purchase of ChanBond included 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 the lawsuits to which ChanBond is currently 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, and accordingly, on Sept. 21, 2015 ChanBond filed lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Delaware against the 13 largest cable MSOs in the country.
AMENDED LITIGATION SCHEDULING ORDER(S)
ChanBond, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
A little more detail on Chanbond/Cisco appeal.
- Court started Calendar Stage with date of hearing to be scheduled by Oct 2019 and requesting scheduling conflicts.
- Both sides submitted their conflicts in March.
- Court hears argument only in 1st week of a month (except July is 2nd week)
- Court Calendar currently does not show Chanbond /Cisco in June or July schedule- that leaves Aug, Sept, & Oct.
If curious, check Court Calendar out at:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
http://cafc.uscourts.gov/argument/upcoming-oral-arguments 
The life of an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules-of-practice/notices/Life_of_an_Appeal_Narrative_and_flowchart.pdf DUE DILIGENCE LINKS FOR DOING RESEARCH Court Case: https://search.rpxcorp.com/ent/969818-chanbond-llc Court Proceedings Schedule https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=140085257 Decision for Cisco (~1/3rd of -822 patent unpatentable) / Appeal filed by UOIP: April 26, 2018: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/24339392/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Cisco_Systems,_Inc February 24, 2018: https://ptab.uspto.gov/ptabe2e/rest/petitions/1469056/documents/d29ya3NwYWNlOi8vU3BhY2VzU3RvcmUvYmM4MTRkODEtNjI0OS00YmI1LTg0NDUtNjMwNTg4MWYzMGFkOzEuMA====/anonymousDownload Willful Infringement for treble damages (3x standard) / Deposition of Comcast SVP (Intellectual Proporty Strategy): April 10, 2018: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=139940185 September 15, 2017: http://www.reexamlink.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ChanBond-Complaint-ded-1-15-cv-00848-1.pdf RPX Can't appeal: Jan 17, 2018: https://www.bna.com/patent-risk-defense-n73014474290/ PTAB Decision for UOIP: April 3, 2017: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/chanbond-avoids-institution-six-cisco-ipr-petitions March 30, 2017: https://www.law360.com/articles/907966/ptab-nixes-six-cisco-ipr-petitions-over-networking-patents Markman Hearing for UOIP: Dec 9, 2016: https://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf Pacer Court Updates (MSO's): https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426386/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Atlantic_Broadband_Group,_LLC https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426387/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Bright_House_Networks,_LLC https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426388/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Cable_One_Inc https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426389/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Cablevision_Systems_Corporation_et_al https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426390/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Cequel_Communications,_LLC_et_al https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426391/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Charter_Communications,_Inc https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426392/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Comcast_Corporation_et_al https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426393/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Cox_Communications,_Inc_et_al https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426394/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Mediacom_Communications_Corporation https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426395/ChanBond,_LLC_v_RCN_Telecom_Services,_LLC https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426396/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Time_Warner_Cable_Inc_et_al https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426397/ChanBond,_LLC_v_WaveDivision_Holdings,_LLC https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426398/ChanBond,_LLC_v_WideOpen_West_Finance,_LLC Patents: http://www.channelbondingvideo.com/Technology.html -918: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7346918B2 -822: https://patents.google.com/patent/US7941822B2 -679: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8341679 -565: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8984565B2 -774: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9015774B2 Pending: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20130266050A1 Pending: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140150038A1 Background on Billy Carter (Holds 900 million shares of UOIP): July 13, 2013: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/how-a-typical-patent-battle-took-an-unexpected-turn.html UOIP's lawyer, Robert Whitman: http://www.mishconnewyork.com/people/robert_whitman
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 LLP. The 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
| |
| Judge: | |
| Case #: | 1:15-cv-00842 |
| Nature of Suit | 830 Property Rights - Patent |
| Cause | 35:271 Patent Infringement |
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
Some Possible Settlement Amounts / Outstanding Shares:
$10 million settlement: $0.01 PPS
$50 million settlement: $0.05 PPS
$100 million settlement: $0.10 PPS
$250 million settlement: $0.25 PPS
$500 million settlement: $0.50 PPS
A $1 billion settlement: $1.00 PPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------