Home > Boards > US OTC > Delisted >

UnifiedOnline Inc. (fka UOIP)

RSS Feed
Add Price Alert      Hide Sticky   Hide Intro
Moderator: stockfan100, shajandr, TKane, Long term, AllinFun, long uoip
Search This Board: 
Last Post: 5/13/2021 4:07:21 PM - Followers: 482 - Board type: Free - Posts Today: 2


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FINRA ticker was revoked on July 17, 2019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







THE LATEST AND GREATEST NEWS ON UOIP'S DAVID VS 13 GOLIATHS:



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.



https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2XB2ZoMDqfGTjM1aWVfcWc2STNBZlpnYThPWGRTQUpPOUdR/view





On to a full trial v 13 others or a settlement




https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2019/34-86389.pdf









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.
 

 
AMENDED LITIGATION SCHEDULING ORDER(S)  


 
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 
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



RECENT ARTICLES ON LITIGATION:

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

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/chanbond-avoids-institution-six-cisco-ipr-petitions
 
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

Judge:
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


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
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 


MOST RECENT CHART





CONFIRMATION THAT CHANBOND IS A SUBSIDIARY OF UOIP


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


https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Aece6aafa-9f19-41d3-a54f-5a9861e7c350


https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2019/34-86389.pdf










 
PostSubject
#85846  Sticky Note Long term UOIP DD library 8/29/2020 Long term 02/25/21 03:44:27 PM
#85601  Sticky Note STATE OF DELAWARE ANNUAL FRANCHISE TAX REPORT long uoip 02/02/21 06:14:06 AM
#83860  Sticky Note https://www.dropbox.com/s/9o8fdtj0rv6juax/177113683897.pdf?dl=0 pillskill 10/20/20 08:04:09 AM
#79585  Sticky Note UOIP has been Revoked by the Delaware SOS I-Glow 05/24/20 04:37:12 PM
#86477   7 DAYS TIL TRIAL long uoip 05/13/21 04:07:21 PM
#86476   Injunctive relief? Long term 05/13/21 09:36:00 AM
#86475   I think we should just file a complaint BrokeAgent 05/12/21 08:11:36 PM
#86474   Have found this on schedule. Long term 05/12/21 04:20:03 PM
#86473   Verify Courtroom 6B too please. Scruffer 05/12/21 03:56:13 PM
#86472   "public may access the hearing ".......interesting perhaps Andrews Long term 05/12/21 03:39:54 PM
#86471   If we don't get paid with a win... Scruffer 05/12/21 03:28:46 PM
#86470   Maybe just a Hawaiian shirt? We will bring justus1 05/12/21 01:28:19 PM
#86469   DOCKET FILE > ChanBond, LLC v. Atlantic Broadband long uoip 05/12/21 12:55:02 PM
#86467   It would have to be a really large Ranger185 05/12/21 11:37:17 AM
#86466   For a payout, we can endure it. Scruffer 05/12/21 11:01:29 AM
#86465   8 DAYS TIL TRIAL long uoip 05/12/21 10:30:22 AM
#86464   Unless the court thinks this will only take zombywolf 05/12/21 09:40:42 AM
#86462   No no no, no one wants to see Ranger185 05/12/21 09:37:23 AM
#86461   Updated: Of course, we'll need a_video_of_this. Scruffer 05/12/21 09:35:55 AM
#86460   I would stand under you for the view Gm1850 05/12/21 09:18:34 AM
#86459   What are you looking for in terms of jbbb 05/12/21 09:14:58 AM
#86458   I would stand naked in Times Square holding Specialneeds 05/12/21 09:11:24 AM
#86457   William R Carter is not going to screw jbbb 05/12/21 09:03:07 AM
#86456   Scheduling typo? LÜ has in 6B. Scruffer 05/12/21 09:02:38 AM
#86455   I wonder what is going on with the zombywolf 05/12/21 06:58:27 AM
#86454   Billy and Leane's shenanigans have nothing to do BrokeAgent 05/12/21 01:46:35 AM
#86453   Generally, they have jury selection before the first BrokeAgent 05/11/21 07:50:32 PM
#86452   Andrew s may no nothing about what Billy Long term 05/11/21 02:02:47 PM
#86451   Think we were both typing at the same time. Long term 05/11/21 01:46:53 PM
#86450   Zw.... think Thursday will be for jury selection Long term 05/11/21 01:37:55 PM
#86449   Trial .... it’s going from Thursday to Thursday Long term 05/11/21 01:04:02 PM
#86448   most likely long uoip 05/11/21 12:57:43 PM
#86447   Will the trial be more than one day? rockie101 05/11/21 12:50:48 PM
#86446   9 DAYS TIL TRIAL long uoip 05/11/21 10:34:04 AM
#86445   Gonna have to get up early to get zombywolf 05/11/21 08:53:10 AM
#86444   They had to do something. The Comcast guy zombywolf 05/10/21 09:59:09 PM
#86443   "Christopher Bakewell ~ Managing Director and Global Head Long term 05/10/21 12:20:23 PM
#86442   Question...is there a provision in law where the Long term 05/10/21 12:12:13 PM
#86441   We wont have anything to have rights for zombywolf 05/10/21 12:00:02 PM
#86440   Actually Billy is in play and every single Ranger185 05/10/21 09:55:12 AM
#86439   10 DAYS TIL TRIAL long uoip 05/10/21 09:46:26 AM
#86438   Imo, there will be no "global" settlement without zombywolf 05/10/21 09:17:21 AM
#86437   re: "be proactive and avoid a terrible outcome long uoip 05/09/21 06:44:22 PM
#86436   That’s what I’ve been saying. Yes we need AllinFun 05/09/21 02:59:19 PM
#86435   We have options if we win at trial. Specialneeds 05/09/21 02:33:51 PM
#86434   As far as being confident, I am only zombywolf 05/09/21 01:04:46 PM
#86433   It won't happen during this trial. At best, zombywolf 05/09/21 12:50:40 PM
#86432   not for a lack of trying long uoip 05/09/21 11:31:45 AM
#86431   How are we going to convince a law Specialneeds 05/09/21 11:31:00 AM
#86430   I love how u are so confident as Specialneeds 05/09/21 11:30:03 AM
#86429   I dont see much or anything from initial zombywolf 05/09/21 11:10:09 AM
#86428   Bingo, only reason I bought in so heavy Ranger185 05/09/21 11:08:39 AM
#86427   We were supposed to be in the same Specialneeds 05/09/21 10:57:09 AM
#86426   11 DAYS TIL TRIAL long uoip 05/09/21 10:56:33 AM
PostSubject
Consent Preferences