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)
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
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
LINK TO CHANBOND CASE INFORMATION ON PACERMONITOR.COM:
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.