Blue Eagle Lithium
High Times
Home > Boards > US OTC > Internet - E-Commerce >

UnifiedOnline Inc. (UOIP)

UOIP RSS Feed
Add UOIP Price Alert      Hide Sticky   Hide Intro
Moderator: lucky,mydog, Goodbuddy4863, Ultimate Warrior, ice2014, OnceBrokeMama, TKane
Search This Board: 
Last Post: 10/23/2018 12:16:38 AM - Followers: 466 - Board type: Free - Posts Today: 1


UnifiedOnline, Inc.


Robert M. Howe III, CEO, UnifiedOnline (RIP)


CEO Mr. Robert Maull Howe III
Also its 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



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.


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



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/
 


* 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 

* 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/



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


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 composition and compliance rules. Ignorance is no excuse.

Each stock board post is the opinion of the poster, is no substitute for your own research, and should not be relied upon for stock trading or any other purposes.

 
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.


 



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
Blue Eagle Lithium
High Times
UOIP
Current Price
Volume:
Bid Ask Day's Range
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 2M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 2Y
  • 3Y
  • 5Y
PlusOneCoin Top Posts
No plusone'd posts yet. Be the first!
PostSubject
#56875  Sticky Note Very comfortable here in the grey mkt. gooferball 10/16/18 04:11:12 PM
#56180  Sticky Note https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=143955652 420man 10/07/18 07:21:01 PM
#56155  Sticky Note If I was late to to get in Gmc2020 10/07/18 11:28:35 AM
#52997  Sticky Note This is Unified Online, Inc., not Unified Online, Ultimate Warrior 09/09/18 04:17:12 PM
#52426  Sticky Note Nice to see you here Freedomdreamer! I stockfan100 08/31/18 01:26:25 PM
#49235  Sticky Note UOIP/CHANBOND HAS WON AGAINST ARRIS! OnceBrokeMama 07/27/18 02:31:57 PM
#46778  Sticky Note Everyone get back and stay on-topic. IH Geek [Dave] 06/06/18 11:40:10 AM
#57158   Who ever comes the closes to the settlement Proudfoamer 10/23/18 12:16:38 AM
#57157   Here's Ice's &. Also, patent NOT INVALIDATED. Scruffer 10/22/18 07:37:54 PM
#57156   Same here, no way after all these years Ranger185 10/22/18 07:02:17 PM
#57155   If i were carter... if confident we will Gmc2020 10/22/18 06:38:05 PM
#57154   It can happen now. It can happen any BrokeAgent 10/22/18 06:21:41 PM
#57153   Carter owns common shares, so it wouldn't be BrokeAgent 10/22/18 06:19:47 PM
#57151   this ticker is going to be revoked. any lucky,mydog 10/22/18 05:04:46 PM
#57150   I have a few questions, if settlement happens Voorhees765 10/22/18 05:01:24 PM
#57149   We appealed and are waiting for the appeal Evilbean 10/22/18 04:28:34 PM
#57148   Some updates has been taken that settlement talks rockie101 10/22/18 04:22:20 PM
#57147   Is this good or bad for us? sointrigued 10/22/18 03:59:12 PM
#57146   It is from February 24, 2018 Evilbean 10/22/18 03:43:38 PM
#57145   Thank you for clarifying. My favorite episode TonyJoe1957 10/22/18 03:36:36 PM
#57144   Claimed invention AS A WHOLE not obvious. Scruffer 10/22/18 03:29:17 PM
#57143   yep 25k on etrade at .02 MickHurst 10/22/18 03:18:03 PM
#57142   Is this a new decision? I tried VC3 10/22/18 03:12:37 PM
#57141   I did not realize that this was grounds TonyJoe1957 10/22/18 03:04:37 PM
#57140   Anytime. Will update periodically. Based on... Scruffer 10/22/18 03:01:50 PM
#57139   PTAB comment: Evilbean 10/22/18 03:00:41 PM
#57138   Mick, trying to get another 25K at .02. kid shaleen 10/22/18 02:53:21 PM
#57137   anyone buying on etrade? MickHurst 10/22/18 02:22:59 PM
#57136   Thanks, Scruff! gooferball 10/22/18 02:18:16 PM
#57135   Lol me too jrt03 10/22/18 02:13:28 PM
#57134   Haha, that’s funny. Wasn’t planning on it. jrt03 10/22/18 02:13:13 PM
#57133   Thanks Zomby, someone please wake me in the gooferball 10/22/18 02:09:42 PM
#57132   Guess update on settlement, buyout or verdict. Scruffer 10/22/18 02:08:11 PM
#57131   Don't plan on buying Christmas presents with settlement zombywolf 10/22/18 02:02:29 PM
#57130   Seems really horrible to suggest that a simple TonyJoe1957 10/22/18 01:54:13 PM
#57129   I think the statement was that anyone with zombywolf 10/22/18 01:51:33 PM
#57128   As I recall, the position was that someone TonyJoe1957 10/22/18 01:46:03 PM
#57127   IMO, yes. The 13 can't determine their defense zombywolf 10/22/18 01:34:46 PM
#57126   The Cisco case is completely separate. Though it BrokeAgent 10/22/18 01:33:15 PM
#57125   I believe I said they would've done it BrokeAgent 10/22/18 01:25:52 PM
#57124   Is it possible to start trial without a decision? Nicasurf 10/22/18 01:03:51 PM
#57123   I do not think anyone believes it is TonyJoe1957 10/22/18 12:56:49 PM
#57122   Word! Evilbean 10/22/18 12:48:47 PM
#57121   This I know, I’m just commenting about the jrt03 10/22/18 12:20:04 PM
#57120   $1.17 with possible continued royalty for private company. Keep Gm1850 10/22/18 12:19:58 PM
#57119   I would not expect a settlement prior to TonyJoe1957 10/22/18 12:17:54 PM
#57118   Scruffer, I know the settlement/buyout/court win will most stockfan100 10/22/18 12:08:41 PM
#57117   I'm confused on this Cisco thing. rockie101 10/22/18 12:00:51 PM
#57116   Well if we are waiting on a decision jrt03 10/22/18 11:58:54 AM
#57115   wolf then a settlement at any time at rockie101 10/22/18 11:55:13 AM
#57114   Well, when you put it that way I gooferball 10/22/18 11:54:14 AM
#57113   2.75=proudfoamer Proudfoamer 10/22/18 11:49:58 AM
#57112   Please understand, I am willing to accept more. TonyJoe1957 10/22/18 11:44:28 AM
#57111   Keep posting. AJ TonyJoe1957 10/22/18 11:43:30 AM
#57110   Can only estimate it. The big unknown is zombywolf 10/22/18 11:42:58 AM
#57109   Zomby when is the Cisco appeal due date? Nicasurf 10/22/18 11:31:37 AM
#57108   Guess on settlement, judgment, verdict or award. Scruffer 10/22/18 11:30:32 AM
PostSubject