Home > Boards > US OTC > Delisted >

UnifiedOnline Inc. (fka UOIP)

RSS Feed
Add Price Alert      Hide Sticky   Hide Intro
Moderator: Goodbuddy4863, shajandr, TKane, Gmc2020, AllinFun, magnus_invest
Search This Board: 
Last Post: 9/21/2019 11:06:05 AM - Followers: 477 - Board type: Free - Posts Today: 9


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FINRA ticker was revoked on July 17, 2019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)  


 
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
 


What lies ahead next for Chanbond (and UOIP):


* Pre-trial Conference: TBA

* First 5-day jury trial: TBA




 
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


Registration of UOIP Securities REVOKED by SEC



https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2019/34-86389.pdf
PostSubject
#72854  Sticky Note UPDATED PACER REPORTS: Goodbuddy4863 08/30/19 08:38:39 PM
#71912  Sticky Note Some background on the UnifiedOnline Inc purchase of magnus_invest 08/12/19 11:13:33 AM
#71331  Sticky Note Scruffer's 10 stages of defendant's psychological mindset Scruffer 08/03/19 10:09:36 AM
#59560  Sticky Note Subpenny turd shajandr 12/13/18 02:51:17 PM
#46778  Sticky Note Everyone get back and stay on-topic. IH Geek [Dave] 06/06/18 11:40:10 AM
#73513   Tony....as for as I am concerned,we can play rockie101 09/21/19 11:09:59 AM
#73512   B4 08/01/20. Trial Sched Conference = 1/31/2020. Scruffer 09/21/19 11:06:05 AM
#73511   I am okay with it, because any economic TonyJoe1957 09/21/19 10:53:11 AM
#73510   Added back to "PlusOneCoin Top Posts" (above). Scruffer 09/21/19 10:42:43 AM
#73509   Dear Lady this post doesn't make me feel good...lol rockie101 09/21/19 10:31:40 AM
#73508   I just spent $125 for a SS consult, TonyJoe1957 09/21/19 09:06:00 AM
#73507   Good morning Tony, mr too I retire as rbd1 09/21/19 08:10:08 AM
#73506   I said that. TonyJoe1957 09/21/19 04:52:19 AM
#73505   I'm thinking trial by March or April 2020. BrokeAgent 09/21/19 12:02:22 AM
#73504   I think you're right Scruff; the "loose ends" BrokeAgent 09/20/19 11:54:44 PM
#73503   How do you know that this is Gm1850 09/20/19 11:43:46 PM
#73502   You may be right . But I cannot Gm1850 09/20/19 11:04:14 PM
#73501   This should hit trial next spring IMO Nicasurf 09/20/19 10:32:16 PM
#73500   Does anyone know what those impending motions are Gm1850 09/20/19 10:15:40 PM
#73499   The '679 patent came through the gauntlet unscathed. zombywolf 09/20/19 10:04:40 PM
#73498   No, that is the hearing to clean up zombywolf 09/20/19 09:54:20 PM
#73497   .15 - .25 .... would be an insult Gmc2020 09/20/19 09:43:14 PM
#73496   Totally agree with you Gmc2020 09/20/19 09:40:16 PM
#73495   .15 is near not worth waiting on but rockie101 09/20/19 08:17:24 PM
#73494   99.9% positive this wont settle for less than Gmc2020 09/20/19 07:26:07 PM
#73493   I am 50/50 on trial scheduled before aug. Gmc2020 09/20/19 07:22:57 PM
#73492   So, how many think we get to trial TonyJoe1957 09/20/19 07:06:55 PM
#73491   I thought there was a second pacer that BrokeAgent 09/20/19 06:21:39 PM
#73490   I think it's 11/25. BrokeAgent 09/20/19 05:08:54 PM
#73489   Nope I misspoke . It was other motions Gm1850 09/20/19 04:54:09 PM
#73488   I do believe date was set let me Gm1850 09/20/19 04:47:14 PM
#73487   I don't believe a date was ever set. zombywolf 09/20/19 04:05:16 PM
#73486   Don't we have Daubert in November? BrokeAgent 09/20/19 03:28:27 PM
#73484   Thinking more that June is earliest for trial, zombywolf 09/20/19 11:58:14 AM
#73483   I am not sure about that now. I zombywolf 09/20/19 11:53:53 AM
#73482   I agree with u for the most part, Specialneeds 09/20/19 10:16:31 AM
#73481   Thanks, papa, your post twinkles as if it gooferball 09/20/19 09:30:23 AM
#73480   Nothings going to happen, they're not going to Ranger185 09/20/19 09:19:50 AM
#73479   If Billy settled wouldn't that stop the delays ? rockie101 09/20/19 09:05:08 AM
#73478   Within this 100+ days, anything can happen. Keep ytse 09/20/19 09:05:07 AM
#73477   " Only Billy can stop these delays." ytse 09/20/19 08:59:46 AM
#73476   Be lucky if it's even in 2020 at Ranger185 09/20/19 08:07:21 AM
#73475   Sounds oki-fine to me. TonyJoe1957 09/20/19 06:23:47 AM
#73474   That's the date that some longs said months Targun 09/20/19 05:58:39 AM
#73473   Olstein Funds Comments on CommScope TonyJoe1957 09/20/19 04:35:08 AM
#73472   Very good post! TonyJoe1957 09/20/19 04:10:59 AM
#73471   Had to know it wasn't gonna happen until BrokeAgent 09/20/19 01:34:22 AM
#73470   Those lawyers are going to milk milk milk rockie101 09/20/19 01:30:18 AM
#73469   Its insane how they keep stretching the trial papa p 09/20/19 12:39:53 AM
#73468   New PACER ORAL ORDER: A papa p 09/20/19 12:09:38 AM
#73467   1 mill in 2016@ .0004, tried to get BUNDO 09/19/19 08:50:24 PM
#73466   Good find MjMilo Long UOIP, ~Magnus magnus_invest 09/19/19 08:27:11 PM
#73465   One of the funds that dumped Comm comments..and MjMilo 09/19/19 03:13:16 PM
#73464   I know we are in the same UOIP stockfan100 09/19/19 02:59:42 PM
#73463   I was generalizing, meaning the stock market is Ranger185 09/19/19 02:52:45 PM
PostSubject