Home > Boards > US OTC > Delisted >

UnifiedOnline Inc. (fka UOIP)

RSS Feed
Add Price Alert      Hide Sticky   Hide Intro
Moderator: TKane, Long term, long uoip
Search This Board: 
Last Post: 5/24/2022 8:25:00 PM - Followers: 504 - Board type: Free - Posts Today: 7

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FINRA ticker was revoked on July 17, 2019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


ORDER Regarding consolidation (D.I. [442],[445], [447]). The parties should meet and confer about requests 4 and 5 (see Order), and submit

responses to all requests by no later than November 13, 2019 (see Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews 11/4/2019.


On to a full trial v 13 others or a settlement


Late CEO Robert "Rob" Maull Howe III
(Late 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.

A History: 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.


5/23/2018: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00572/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8341679/06-01-2018-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2043-62-EX2043_DI_271_2018_05_24_Amended_Scheduling_Order/

Court Schedule effective February 2019https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Ad7f03909-6e04-4a95-b750-69af8272c2d2

Counsel for Patent Owner ChanBond, LLC

Mishcon DE Reya

Robert Whitman
Andrea Pacelli

Ascenda Law Group

333 W San Carlos Street, Suite 200

San Jose, CA 95110

2018-00575: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00575/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8984565/05-16-2018-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2005-24-EX2005_DI_247_2018_04_24_Stipulation__Proposed_Order_to_Amend_Scheduling_Order/

No. 17-1686: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1686.html

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 

The life of an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


Court Case: https://search.rpxcorp.com/ent/969818-chanbond-llc

Court Proceedings Schedule

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):

-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:



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

Case #:
  Nature of Suit
830 Property Rights - Patent
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

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




10/9/2018 Certificate of Interest (Form 9) with share relationship between Chanbond and UOIP



TonyJoe1957 Member Level  Wednesday, 07/14/21 12:29:46 PM
Re: jbbb post# 89483 0.010
Post #  of 89526 
$1.50 PPS offer accepted?

PS: Sorry, folks, but I am trying to work a deal with Billy and his pal. If anyone else is willing to accept $1.50 PPS, below the estimated $1.75 to $2.25 PPS, please feel free to chime in.


#94486  Sticky Note I just want to get paid before I TonyJoe1957 05/02/22 05:25:20 PM
#93878  Sticky Note So, once recognized, UOIP shareholders, including Billy and TonyJoe1957 04/09/22 08:51:21 AM
#93694  Sticky Note Ok, folks, seems there's some confusion over this, IH Admin [Shelly] 04/04/22 12:58:47 PM
#85846  Sticky Note Long term UOIP DD library 8/29/2020 Long term 02/25/21 03:44:27 PM
#94838   How did you get reinstated? I thought VC3 05/24/22 05:03:17 PM
#94837   And shareholders as usual..are at the bottom of Yaafah 05/24/22 04:39:29 PM
#94836   Wow. So this "stock" is delisted and not doesitreallymatter 05/24/22 08:42:52 AM
#94835   Had you paid closer attention to the process AllinFun 05/24/22 08:28:05 AM
#94834  Restored Only Fantasyland Ahhh, good ole fantasyland. Kind of doesitreallymatter 05/23/22 10:23:36 PM
#94833   Refresh my memory; MK1720 05/23/22 10:22:36 PM
#94832   What criminal problems - not filing financials isn't I-Glow 05/23/22 08:56:19 PM
#94831   No cap Bentham; Legal on contingency...Smells FISHY! Scruffer 05/23/22 06:23:34 PM
#94829   I'd imagine you realize how ridiculous that sounds AllinFun 05/23/22 04:23:33 PM
#94828   Because IMO, Bentham and the lawyers wanted sure zombywolf 05/23/22 02:08:21 PM
#94826   Good points......what I truly do not understand is VC3 05/22/22 10:31:02 PM
#94825   Makes absolutely no sense to come this far justus1 05/22/22 10:20:41 PM
#94824   These are arguements. MK1720 05/22/22 09:22:13 PM
#94822   Who saw who in court is meaningless. Hearsay, MK1720 05/22/22 08:38:06 PM
#94819   Billy is a fine southern gentleman. TonyJoe1957 05/22/22 07:10:19 PM
#94818   I've never said anything that should lead anyone VC3 05/22/22 06:22:42 PM
#94817   Z & I saw and approached Cater in Long term 05/22/22 06:16:21 PM
#94815   He is a fine Southern Gentleman (I hear) VC3 05/22/22 04:44:16 PM
#94814   Billy is a fine southern gentleman. TonyJoe1957 05/22/22 03:57:53 PM
#94813   ZW...I am talking about the missed opportunity for stockfan100 05/22/22 03:17:03 PM
#94811   Nobody invited anybody for dinner. And it is zombywolf 05/22/22 02:33:08 PM
#94810   ZW...What UOIP did or didn't regarding an international stockfan100 05/22/22 02:15:03 PM
#94809   They never did that either. zombywolf 05/22/22 02:00:09 PM
#94808   The waste of money in this case has zombywolf 05/22/22 01:57:53 PM
#94807   You still have to file a patent application stockfan100 05/22/22 01:34:38 PM
#94806   Only Fantasyland can deny WIPO's purpose that has stockfan100 05/22/22 01:21:55 PM
#94805   So can you just say for the record, AllinFun 05/22/22 01:15:19 PM
#94804   No you are wrong - "So, I am I-Glow 05/22/22 11:49:09 AM
#94803   Maybe it's a good thing Finger has filed zombywolf 05/22/22 11:41:31 AM
#94802   It is time for peeps here to wake zombywolf 05/22/22 10:11:39 AM
#94801  Restored Nope, wronGGG. shajandr 05/22/22 01:45:07 AM
#94800   Example; Why did Billy and Brauerman accept a pittance MK1720 05/22/22 12:04:57 AM
#94799   It's not about getting answers. Rhetorical questions. MK1720 05/21/22 11:33:07 PM
#94796   I'm still looking for the answers to the MK1720 05/21/22 10:46:51 PM
#94795   Thanks - found it - I'm not surprised. VC3 05/21/22 10:05:43 PM
#94793   So, I am right that PCT is not stockfan100 05/21/22 05:01:47 PM
#94792   The inventors have never applied for foreign patents. zombywolf 05/21/22 04:16:19 PM
#94790   WronGGG! Look up PCT national phase. A PCT shajandr 05/21/22 03:11:52 PM
#94789   Fact: PCT is about International Patent Protection stockfan100 05/21/22 01:48:21 PM
#94788   There are no foreign (ex-US) patents owned by shajandr 05/20/22 11:24:39 PM
#94787   I never brought up Teece... MK1720 05/20/22 09:11:47 PM
#94786   Fiduciary responsibility and criminal past . Now JamieE 05/20/22 08:33:47 PM
#94785   Just asking a question , Zombywolf . JamieE 05/20/22 08:28:57 PM
#94784   Let's not go there, my friend. While there zombywolf 05/20/22 08:15:55 PM
#94783   Question Zombywolf . Did Carter not have JamieE 05/20/22 07:17:01 PM
#94782   SH'rs <> CBV (B'ing mucked-over w/ chitty contract). Scruffer 05/20/22 06:45:09 PM
#94777   When you see the settlement (if the unsealing zombywolf 05/20/22 02:51:13 PM
#94772   Very interesting stuff. Look forward to reading more AllinFun 05/20/22 09:05:19 AM
#94771   You bring a lot of very good POINTS papa p 05/19/22 10:49:16 PM
#94770   I understand that some UOIP sharehlder-victims have only shajandr 05/19/22 10:23:53 PM
Consent Preferences