Cannabis Report
Home > Boards > US OTC > Internet - E-Commerce >

UnifiedOnline Inc. (UOIP)

UOIP RSS Feed
Add UOIP Price Alert      Hide Sticky   Hide Intro
Moderator: Goodbuddy4863, Ultimate Warrior, VortMax, OnceBrokeMama, TKane, KeepItRealistic
Search This Board: 
Last Post: 6/20/2018 10:23:05 PM - Followers: 439 - Board type: Free - Posts Today: 0

 

 

UnifiedOnline, Inc.


4126 Leonard Dr., Suite# 111, Fairfax VA 22030

Telephone: (816) 979-1893 (Invalid Telephone#)




CEO Mr. Robert Maull Howe III (71)
UOIP CEO, President, and Secretary
(In Memoriam: 9/21/1946-5/24/2018)



https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/montgomeryadvertiser/obituary.aspx?n=robert-maull-howe-iii&pid=189115514


Mr. Robert M. Howe III (71), known as Rob, had been the President and Secretary at UnifiedOnline, Inc. since April 23, 2014, and had been Chief Executive Officer since May 2014. Mr. Howe served as the President of Montgomery Goodwin Investments LLC. He had been the Managing Partner of private investment firm, Highnote Ventures since 2011. Mr. Howe had over 35 years in the fields of information technology and business consulting, along with 35 years as an executive, founder, advisor, and an investor in technology-related products and services firms. From September 2000 to May 2006, Mr. Howe was a Consultant to technology firms independently and in collaboration with Sightline Group.  He received an MBA from the Harvard Univ. Graduate School of Business, and an MA from Auburn University.  Most recently, Mr. Howe served as Director of District Affairs for Newman International Academy.






UOIP OTC Markets Company Profile Link: https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/UOIP/profile


UOIP OTC Markets status: Skull & Crossbones/Delinquent SEC Reporting/Caveat Emptor


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 December 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 October 27, 2015, the Company acquired 100% of the membership interest ChanBond, LLC (ChanBond), a portfolio of patents that disclose a 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 October 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 a technology that allows cable companies to provide high-speed data transmission over their existing hybrid-fiber coaxial networks. The purchase of ChanBond included the 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 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, accordingly on September 21, 2015 ChanBond filed lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Delaware against the 13 largest cable MSOs in the country. Unified Online, Inc. also owns IceWEB. IceWeb is #1 in Unified Data Storage for Cloud and Virtual Environments. IceWEB manufactures award-winning, high performance unified data storage appliances with IceWEB´s proprietary IceSTORM™ storage management software, providing enterprise storage management capabilities at a fraction of the price of traditional providers. Through thin provisioning, target deduplication and inline compression, IceWEB´s unified storage arrays enable standardization, consolidation and optimized storage utilization for virtual and cloud environments, saving up to 90% of storage costs, while reducing space, power, and cooling requirements and simplifying storage management.

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



AMENDED 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/
 

* Close of facts discovery: July 6, 2018

* Expert Reports: various dates 

* Close of Expert Discovery: November 7, 2018

* SJ/Daubert Briefs: various dates

* Trial scheduling conference, w/ parties to submit a joint status report w/ proposal(s) one week in advance: December 14, 2018 at 9:00 AM

* SJ/Daubert Hearing: March 8, 2019 at 9:00 AM

* Pre-trial Conference: TBA

* First 5-day jury trial: TBA



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/


 
 


IMPORTANT LINKS FOR DOING YOUR OWN RESEARCH

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
 

LINK TO CHANBOND CASE INFORMATION ON PACERMONITOR.COM:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426386/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Atlantic_Broadband_Group,_LLC
Delaware District Court
Judge: Richard G Andrews
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

Possible Settlement Amounts / Outstanding Shares:

$5 million settlement: $0.005 PPS
$10 million settlement: $0.01 PPS
$50 million settlement: $0.05 PPS
$250 million settlement: $0.25 PPS
$500 million settlement: $0.50 PPS

 

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


All iHub TOS/iHub Handbook rules apply

It is highly recommended that all iHub users read the iHub TOS and Handbook rules regarding post composing and compliance rules. Ignorance is no excuse.

All stock board posts are the opinion of the posters, are no substitute for your own research, and should not be relied upon for stock trading or any other purpose.

 
Please keep your posts on topic because your message(s) will probably be deleted when:

* Posting any content that is off-topic to the stock, which is the subject of the board;
*Posting focused on Admins, Moderators, Users, or post deletions are also off-topic;
*Posting anything that is a Violation of Privacy (no stated consent) is also off-topic;
*Posting commentary by/for, or acting as a proxy of, users board-banned by Admin;

* Posting statements that are of no value to the stock discussion for board users; or
* If you violate any other posting term(s) as stated in the iHub TOS/User Agreement.

 

Regarding a valid due diligence post or personal stock opinion that includes a personal attack or other iHub stock board rule violation within it:

When a post is 99% on-topic and 1% is a personal attack or another iHub rule violation, the post will be removed. Personal attacks, vulgarity, politics, religion, etc. are violations of iHub's rules (refer to iHub Handbook), disrespectful of other users, and are unwelcome. These types of gratuitous comments only create noise and dilute the quality of the board. When a user attacks another poster, others inevitably feel the need to respond, either agreeing or defending, which fuels others to respond to these…and so on...ad nauseam. With such, a board will devolve into personal attacks and discussions about other users, noise, signals, etc. There are other sites available that allow these types of posts; places for topics of conversation beyond iHub's stated rules. The goal of iHub is to have all information, be it positive, neutral or negative, discussed in a civil manner, free of violations, such as personal attacks,  name-calling, etc.

Regarding the need to provide any type of proof in a post to the board to substantiate a user's post content to other users on iHub stock boards:

iHub board users do not have to provide any proof, quotations or external links when offering their stock opinions. There is no requirement by iHub for users of stock boards to substantiate any of their posts; the veracity of posts and credibility of the author are solely determined by each reader.


 


3 Year weekly Chart:



 

Cannabis Report
UOIP
Current Price
Volume:
Bid Ask Day's Range
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 2M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 2Y
  • 3Y
  • 5Y
PlusOneCoin Top Posts
#45807   RIP - Rob Howe. ice2014 05/28/18 12:58:08 AM
#46822   SEC's tighter rules, and the lack of "Fails Homebrew 06/06/18 07:32:28 PM
#47398   Isn’t it weird that Rob Howe passing had jbbb 06/15/18 09:49:25 AM
PostSubject
#47228  Sticky Note The zombywolf Report. zombywolf 06/13/18 09:01:08 PM
#47183  Sticky Note CHANBOND/UOIP response out Today! Our lawyers continue OnceBrokeMama 06/13/18 06:15:41 PM
#46974  Sticky Note Hopefully with a lot of us LOCKING-UP shares jbbb 06/11/18 02:03:23 PM
#46778  Sticky Note Everyone get back and stay on-topic. IH Geek [Dave] 06/06/18 11:40:10 AM
#46190  Sticky Note IceWEB used to trade on the Nasdaq and Evilbean 05/30/18 11:11:22 PM
#45807  Sticky Note RIP - Rob Howe. ice2014 05/28/18 12:58:08 AM
#44900  Sticky Note market cap tracker, $40M close 5/18 VortMax 05/21/18 10:36:00 AM
#47647   Speaking of the chart, I wonder if we BrokeAgent 06/20/18 10:23:05 PM
#47646   Judge Andrews, along with the attorneys for defendants BrokeAgent 06/20/18 10:20:56 PM
#47645   I work in the (local) TV news biz, NewbieDoobyDoo 06/20/18 09:48:03 PM
#47644   Methinks we have someone who came here for zombywolf 06/20/18 07:30:22 PM
#47643   About the only thing I can say is rockie101 06/20/18 07:14:45 PM
#47642   Thank You. Goodbuddy4863 06/20/18 06:25:18 PM
#47641   Trying to understand the 3 patents and their evaluator 06/20/18 06:15:28 PM
#47640   And don’t forget ... “HANG IN THERE” ! Gm1850 06/20/18 05:56:53 PM
#47639   Good post Ice2014. Just want to add to jbbb 06/20/18 03:54:45 PM
#47638   Float is getting tight and tighter every day. ice2014 06/20/18 03:30:47 PM
#47637   Fundamentally, UOIP case vs 13 cable companies is ytse 06/20/18 02:52:20 PM
#47636   This should definitely be a sticky Zackfinantial 06/20/18 02:40:02 PM
#47635   Interesting information. Thank you! evaluator 06/20/18 01:49:06 PM
#47634   Links (Updated) faqt 06/20/18 01:16:26 PM
#47633  Restored Tweets and emails to previous writers articles 00dylanplott 06/20/18 12:31:24 PM
#47632   On 3-30-2017 the PTAB Denied six petitions for Mic ll 06/20/18 11:36:41 AM
#47631   How can we get the news to cover this? doughnuthole 06/20/18 11:32:29 AM
#47630   Well..it looks like You are joining a huge Goodbuddy4863 06/20/18 11:31:33 AM
#47629   Yes swaddim 06/20/18 11:23:07 AM
#47628   WOW...Only 3% go to Trial. Goodbuddy4863 06/20/18 11:19:13 AM
#47627   You might be New to this Board..but looks Goodbuddy4863 06/20/18 11:09:31 AM
#47626   Here's to hoping it's not one of the swaddim 06/20/18 11:07:34 AM
#47625   "Also driving this decline in litigation was the Goodbuddy4863 06/20/18 10:54:15 AM
#47624   Amen Proudfoamer 06/20/18 10:30:30 AM
#47623   I wish! Just need money! My face 06/20/18 10:21:37 AM
#47622   Where we going, is there some news out Ranger185 06/20/18 10:19:28 AM
#47621   Let's go!!!!!!!! My face 06/20/18 10:16:00 AM
#47619   I can tell you that I was in zombywolf 06/20/18 09:20:10 AM
#47618   I appreciate your reply but I read the evaluator 06/20/18 09:01:52 AM
#47617   Its 5 claims, and it will be resolved zombywolf 06/20/18 01:06:39 AM
#47616   Was that what it was? I thought he BrokeAgent 06/20/18 12:08:37 AM
#47614   Amen, Proudfoamer. BrokeAgent 06/19/18 10:52:35 PM
#47612   Remember that day it rose to .03 for Proudfoamer 06/19/18 09:30:25 PM
#47611   Last time I checked we were pretty validated. 00dylanplott 06/19/18 09:20:23 PM
#47610   https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/davidpridham/2017/04/13/the-pa 00dylanplott 06/19/18 09:16:46 PM
#47609  Restored guess that just gives us late bloomers more Alexxdj1 06/19/18 09:01:22 PM
#47608   Hahahaha thx sir. My intermediate target is still psychocharttrader 06/19/18 08:59:58 PM
#47607   In an alternate universe, but this goes to PatentPlays 06/19/18 08:41:14 PM
#47606   Has anyone read the most recent pacer update 00dylanplott 06/19/18 08:39:52 PM
#47605   solid trip holder!!! congrats Alexxdj1 06/19/18 08:34:17 PM
#47604   Charts, expectations, developments. Ultimate Warrior 06/19/18 07:05:53 PM
#47603   Amen!!! This is an accumulation ticker, and should it ThirdSyte 06/19/18 06:56:53 PM
#47602   What is the effect on the lawsuit against evaluator 06/19/18 06:54:31 PM
#47601   Can you explain why you can predict that? DOLPHY 06/19/18 06:30:58 PM
#47600   I agree with you. However, the chart will psychocharttrader 06/19/18 04:59:22 PM
#47599   I just don't understand trading technicals on a 00dylanplott 06/19/18 04:16:35 PM
#47598   let's clear these low 2s and move back rstar 06/19/18 03:19:56 PM
#47596   Great post. Show us what one bases opinions easyme 06/19/18 03:04:40 PM
#47595   10-4 E/Bean. Goodbuddy4863 06/19/18 02:53:08 PM
#47594   You keep making Predictions. Goodbuddy4863 06/19/18 02:49:47 PM
PostSubject