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

UnifiedOnline Inc. (UOIP)

Add UOIP Price Alert      Hide Sticky   Hide Intro
Moderator: Goodbuddy4863, Ultimate Warrior, shajandr, TKane
Search This Board: 
Last Post: 12/12/2018 1:03:46 PM - Followers: 460 - Board type: Free - Posts Today: 14

UnifiedOnline, Inc.

4126 Leonard Drive

Fairfax, VA 22030

Phone 816-979-1893

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

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)


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.


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/

* Reports of Experts due: November 30, 2018 at 5:00 PM

* Trial scheduling conference: Parties to submit a joint status report w/ proposals one week in advance: TBD 

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

* Pre-trial Conference: TBA

* First 5-day jury trial: TBA


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


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

Court Proceedings Schedule

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):

-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:




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


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

Some Possible Settlement Amounts / Outstanding Shares:

   $1 million settlement: $0.001 PPS 
  $5 million settlement: $0.005 PPS
  $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



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.




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

CHM Cannabis
Current Price
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!
#59075  Sticky Note New Pacer khenry458 12/03/18 03:52:37 PM
#56875  Sticky Note Very comfortable here in the grey mkt. gooferball 10/16/18 04:11:12 PM
#52997  Sticky Note This is Unified Online, Inc., not Unified Online, Ultimate Warrior 09/09/18 04:17:12 PM
#46778  Sticky Note Everyone get back and stay on-topic. IH Geek [Dave] 06/06/18 11:40:10 AM
#59498   That day that UOIP traded for over 1 jbbb 12/12/18 01:03:46 PM
#59497   So... Is this a lot? Greys usually go BK? Scruffer 12/12/18 12:57:38 PM
#59496   I have been there, done that, got a T-Shirt?????? jbbb 12/12/18 12:53:37 PM
#59495   Where do you find those facts? justus1 12/12/18 12:51:55 PM
#59494   A little factual facts. The volume that UOIP jbbb 12/12/18 11:49:09 AM
#59493   Thanks again for the Pacer KHenry. They thunley1 12/12/18 11:33:43 AM
#59492   https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=LnOg6IyL&id=A361B19899471C TonyJoe1957 12/12/18 11:30:44 AM
#59491   New Pacer Arris: khenry458 12/12/18 10:21:09 AM
#59490   You're locked-in @ 2.75. Scruffer 12/12/18 09:42:34 AM
#59489   We must have feelings for the mentally infirmed. TonyJoe1957 12/12/18 08:51:09 AM
#59488   Morning! Enjoyed the video, so subtle. You even gooferball 12/12/18 08:46:50 AM
#59487   Good morning UOIP! jrt03 12/12/18 07:43:22 AM
#59486   Good morning UOIP longs! TonyJoe1957 12/12/18 07:14:56 AM
#59485   0.33=proudfoamer Proudfoamer 12/12/18 12:11:20 AM
#59484   Perfect! Popcorn is out, compadre. Great to be gooferball 12/11/18 11:44:26 PM
#59483   I dont believe any defense attorneys work on zombywolf 12/11/18 11:40:13 PM
#59482   Our lawyers are playing 4D chess. Their lawyers are Aftrmidnyt 12/11/18 10:42:39 PM
#59481   Ahh. So they had at least one smart BrokeAgent 12/11/18 09:36:25 PM
#59480   Yes it was the 13s Gmc2020 12/11/18 09:31:42 PM
#59479   Actually, that's probably why Carter wouldn't bother. The BrokeAgent 12/11/18 09:25:00 PM
#59478   I thought that was one of the counsel BrokeAgent 12/11/18 09:12:35 PM
#59477   Didn't we have an attorney that bailed out TonyJoe1957 12/11/18 08:17:45 PM
#59476   They may want to keep in mind, though, BrokeAgent 12/11/18 07:52:03 PM
#59475   They definitely don't seem to be working on contingency. BrokeAgent 12/11/18 07:32:16 PM
#59474   I agree about the Arris legal team collecting Ultimate Warrior 12/11/18 06:25:00 PM
#59473   Does anyone at Arris own a calendar? LOL. zombywolf 12/11/18 06:17:56 PM
#59472   I forget about missing the deadline. Wow...Arris TonyJoe1957 12/11/18 05:58:16 PM
#59471   May not do any good but Carter and rockie101 12/11/18 05:33:51 PM
#59470   It could be construed as malpractice if they BrokeAgent 12/11/18 04:49:55 PM
#59469   Lol your roast session on them is too nice. AllinFun 12/11/18 01:58:51 PM
#59468   Khenry, Once again thank you for your PACER updates ytse 12/11/18 01:55:39 PM
#59467   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFXgFTrMzOw Just for fun. AJ TonyJoe1957 12/11/18 01:53:02 PM
#59466   You're killing me today, AJ! Great to see gooferball 12/11/18 01:29:36 PM
#59465   Re: your message. Good idea! Cheers and thanks easyme 12/11/18 01:26:34 PM
#59464   Gotta love it!! gooferball 12/11/18 01:22:42 PM
#59463   Y'all a bunch of wascly wabbits...AJ TonyJoe1957 12/11/18 01:19:09 PM
#59462   17 is #8 in numerology, the number of easyme 12/11/18 01:15:27 PM
#59461   We could, also, email the law firm representing TonyJoe1957 12/11/18 01:10:29 PM
#59460   We should all email Arris IR and offer TonyJoe1957 12/11/18 01:00:09 PM
#59459   More details. So I just checked the account justus1 12/11/18 12:57:42 PM
#59458   I wonder if such instances constitute negligence and/or TonyJoe1957 12/11/18 12:54:27 PM
#59455   Could someone, please, email the instructions to the TonyJoe1957 12/11/18 12:36:26 PM
#59454   I don't think its stupidity so much as BrokeAgent 12/11/18 12:32:10 PM
#59453   The Arris legal team was absent from class TonyJoe1957 12/11/18 12:27:00 PM
#59452   Thanks Khenry! UOIP! jrt03 12/11/18 12:22:03 PM
#59451   You are soooooooooo wonderful to post these for TonyJoe1957 12/11/18 12:16:47 PM
#59450   This must explain the 11.11% increase in PPS...I TonyJoe1957 12/11/18 12:15:58 PM
#59449   Very pleased to have the legal team we Aftrmidnyt 12/11/18 12:04:11 PM
#59448   Thanks Khenry for your continued Pacer update and support. stockfan100 12/11/18 11:42:23 AM
#59447   Lol what a slap in the face. Can't AllinFun 12/11/18 11:38:14 AM