Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
PACER
59207/12/2021SO ORDER Granting [591] Joint Stipulation and Proposed Order of Dismissal With Prejudice (***Civil Case Terminated). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/12/2021.
59307/12/2021Report to the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks for Patent/Trademark Number(s) 7,941,822; 8,341,679; 8,984,565
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YuTNW822YCTNZjcVGLAb9OMa7pmtTSGP/view?usp=drivesdk
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the terms of
a separate agreement, Plaintiff ChanBond, LLC (“ChanBond”) and Defendants Atlantic
Broadband Group, LLC, Bright House Networks, LLC, Cable One, Inc., Cablevision Systems
Corporation, CSC Holdings, LLC, Cequel Communications, LLC, Cequel Communications
Holdings I, LLC d/b/a Suddenlink Communications, Charter Communications, Inc., Comcast
Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Cox Communications, Inc., Mediacom
Communications Corporation, RCN Telecom Services, LLC, Time Warner Cable Inc., Time
Warner Cable Enterprises, LLC, WaveDivision Holdings, LLC, and WideOpen West Finance,
LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) have agreed to settle, adjust and compromise all claims in the
above-captioned actions and, therefore, jointly stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, to
the dismissal of the above-captioned actions and all claims by ChanBond against Defendants and
all counterclaims by Defendants against ChanBond made therein with prejudice to the re-filing
of the same.
https://omaha.com/users/profile/paul%20hammel/
That's the author.
*I am still long and very bullish especially with the BOD addition and dots that seem to keep connecting*
LINCOLN — Six years after the drilling of exploratory holes, and a decade after leases were signed with landowners, a mine shaft still hasn’t been started at a proposed $1 billion critical minerals mine in southeast Nebraska.
More than half of the 6,000 investors in a proposed niobium mine near Elk Creek, about 64 miles southeast of Lincoln, are from Nebraska. And they’ve placed a high-risk bet that financing for the mine will materialize, bringing hundreds of high-paying jobs to a region starving for them.
But promoters of the Elk Creek Superalloy Materials Project recently moved to provide more time to raise money, after once predicting that phase would wrap up in 2018.
Mark A. Smith, the CEO and executive chairman of the mining company, NioCorp Developments Ltd., told potential investors in June that the COVID-19 pandemic had hurt the search for financing but that the project was “now on the move.”
“I can’t give more of an update on that,” he said then. “We expect some movement soon.”
But a press release in December — one of an almost weekly string of announcements from NioCorp — didn’t speak of movement forward, instead addressing the need to extend a loan and credit line from Smith for another year to give the company more time to round up major investors.
Smith, in an interview last week, said he couldn’t predict when the mine might move forward, with a company spokesman describing the search for $1 billion in financing as “complex.”
“Patience is a virtue,” Smith said. “This is a lot of money we’re tying to raise. It’s not a couple of million to keep the lights on. This is a very big project.”
A deep-rock mine in southeast Nebraska, designed to extract niobium (used to harden steel), scandium (used to make stronger and lighter aluminum) and titanium (used in paint), has been discussed since the 1970s.
But seven years ago, prospects for the mine appeared to brighten after the hiring of Smith, a former Chevron Mining executive who had led a company, Molycorp, that that explored the Elk Creek project 30 years ago. The company seeking to mine the minerals became NioCorp, dropping its former name, Quantum Rare Earth Developments Corp.
While mine backers and developers remain optimistic, a trio of national authorities expressed doubt that the mine will ever happen. That is despite recent publicity about “rare earth minerals” (including scandium) and the need for the U.S. to develop its own sources and processing capability. That is because China enjoys a near-monopoly over the minerals.
“It’s a long shot,” said David Hammond, a consultant on rare earth and critical minerals based in Highlands Ranch, Colorado, on the Nebraska project. “While I don’t completely discount Elk Creek from being an operating mine someday, this would be in the distant future at best.”
Hammond and two others with expertise about such minerals say that while the U.S. doesn’t produce any niobium, it obtains the mineral from friendly nations such as Brazil and Canada. The open-pit Brazilian mine, they say, is expanding its production, has a higher grade of niobium and can mine it much more cheaply than in Nebraska.
As for scandium, which is projected to provide the bulk of the Elk Creek project’s revenue, the demand and price for the metal right now is too low to make the Nebraska mine economically viable.
“There is currently no market for increased scandium or titanium supplies,” said Jack Lifton, an independent metals consultant in the Detroit area.
David Henderson, a New Hampshire-based investment adviser, called it a “chicken-and-the-egg” dilemma: Airlines and electric car manufacturers may eventually want to use more scandium to lower the weight of planes and vehicles, but right now, they have bigger problems to deal with and would be reluctant to invest in a mine that may or may not provide more scandium at a price that’s workable for them.
Meaningful journalism isn't free. Subscribe to The World-Herald
Meaningful journalism isn't free. Subscribe to The World-Herald
Henderson said the “best chance” for the Elk Creek mine would be if the Biden administration decided to invest in developing a domestic niobium source. But he said there’s now more than enough of the mineral coming from allies Brazil and Canada.
Smith brushes off doubts about the project, saying a worldwide push to “lightweight” transportation vehicles, like airplanes and electric cars, will inspire a boom in scandium demand. Also, he said, demand for niobium will see a big increase as the U.S. and other nations push infrastructure projects, like new roads and bridges.
An independent feasibility study completed in 2017, as well as an update in 2019, indicated “highly compelling” economics for the project, according to NioCorp spokesman Jim Sims.
010421-owh-new-nebmine-map.jpg
NioCorp officials are in constant communications with federal officials about their interest in the Elk Creek project, but Sims and Smith said last week that it doesn’t mean that it will translate into any financial support. In November, the Department of Defense awarded almost $13 million to two companies in California and one in Texas to develop rare earth minerals used in high-tech magnets, and process them, in the U.S. But Smith said the Elk Creek project is a “critical minerals” project, and not one to fill the Defense Department’s needs.
Still, Smith said he remains “passionate” and confident about the prospects of the mine. Seventy-five percent of the mine’s expected niobium production and 12% of the expected scandium output have already been spoken for, he said, demonstrating demand for the mine.
Still, consultants like Henderson question why the mine hasn’t received its required financial backing if so much of its expected output is already under contract.
One thing that isn’t in dispute is the level of support the project has received from Nebraska.
A year ago, the state qualified the project for up to $200 million in tax credits over 10 years if it eventually goes into production and creates a certain number of jobs and investments. Last year, the State Department of Environment and Energy approved a permit allowing air emissions during construction.
Several state leaders have been involved in the project as investors, promoters and consultants, including State Tax Commissioner Tony Fulton, who served on the NioCorp board of directors until he took the state job, and former Lt. Gov. Lavon Heidemann, who lives near the mine and, because he used to be a miner, has been a consultant for the project.
“I still believe in it,” said Fulton, who remains an investor.
Johnson County, where the mine is located, has also shown support, approving a zoning change for the project a year ago.
Smith said crossing the regulatory hurdles, and adopting some technical changes in mining procedures, has “derisked” the project, making it more attractive to potential financiers.
County Board member Scott Gottula of Elk Creek, who said he hasn’t invested in the project because that would create a conflict of interest, said the mine would create 400 jobs starting at $60,000 a year. That kind of salary is difficult to obtain in rural southeast Nebraska, he said.
“We’re hoping it goes forward,” he said. “We’ve tried to put everything in place so it does.”
Smith and other NioCorp officials said it all depends on whether the company can raise $1 billion to finance the construction of the mine and processing facilities.
Smith said that there are “a whole bunch of reasons” why the mine hasn’t taken off yet but that his 10-person company remains steadfast about the mine’s prospects.
“One thing you cannot predict is when financing will happen,” he said. “The capital world comes together when they’re ready.
https://omaha.com/news/state-and-regional/patience-is-a-virtue-money-still-being-raised-for-1-billion-nebraska-mine-will-it/article_c99f45ea-4471-11eb-8e18-a3b88d2b96de.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest
Would have been nice to have at least some sort of debt side of commitment for the first X amount of construction prior, then hopefully generate equity side interest through the conferences.
Fingers crossed for more news before then. Something on the Scandium front would be amazing
Unfortunately, this is probably true. Someone wake me up in 2021
Good Post.
See post 56034. You had your chance
This reminds me of a Miami Vice episode I recently watched called "Shadow in the Dark"
Crockett becomes somewhat of a mad man due to the case they are working, but regardless his seemingly crazy theory turns out to be true.
Lets wait until after tomorrow as it looks like it will be available through pacer:
Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/12/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/23/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/20/2020. (Triozzi, Heather)
ORAL ORDER: After consideration of what was said at the last hearing on Feb. 18 and review of the letters (D.I. [489], [490], [492], [493]), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that trial against Cox will start on August 18, 2020. There will be no trial on August 21, 2020. Unless the parties reach some agreement on the damages experts, neither sides damages expert shall attend the trial before August 24, 2020, and Plaintiffs damages expert will be permitted to testify on August 24 even if Plaintiff has otherwise finished its case before then. Defendant has a huge trial team from a huge international law firm. If some of them are otherwise committed to other cases, then five months lead time is enough time to make other arrangements. The parties should jointly propose a pretrial conference date to take place before July 3, 2020. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3/16/2020.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L3h9bK2UuWz1O5SY3Qrm4iNthBxQdkcv/view?usp=drivesdk
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L8g3RvUoXEk8zgzE9-d4pDdlJNzSTWQt/view?usp=drivesdk
They trying to push to October or later.
We argue this and propose Charter folks be tried together.
Our attorneys are trying. Hopefully judge sides w us
Redacted in it's entirety
If nothing else, we will see a redacted version after 3/2 it looks like.
02/03/2020SO ORDERED, re [480] MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Daniel McNeely, Saranya Raghavan and Nimalka Wickramasekeram, filed by RCN Telecom Services, LLC, Comcast Corporation, Time Warner Cable Inc., Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Cox Communications, Inc., WideOpen West Finance, LLC, WaveDivision Holdings, LLC, Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC, Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC, Cable One, Inc., Bright House Networks, LLC, Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC, Mediacom Communications Corporation, CSC Holdings, LLC, Charter Communications, Inc., Cequel Communications, LLC, Cablevision Systems Corporation. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 2/3/2020. (Text entry; no document attached.)
Interested in this case?
Since you didn't reply to a message of mine, you essentially just threw the username in a random post hoping I'd stumble over it.
Well lucky for you I am lurking here and did just that. Happy Thursday
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DzvvMC_huYoJef6mComGYGuSmEEaXBmy/view?usp=drivesdk
ORDER: The Motion to Exclude the Expert Opinions of Cathleen Thomas Quigley Regarding Written Description and Enablement, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (D.I. [367]) is GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 12/19/2019
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19ASSRqy5gTuGvIsvqTTijfVHl5cn7m-Z/view?usp=drivesdk
Omaha?
Did you miss this lol?
ORAL ORDER: Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,941,822 and 8,341,679 (D.I.358 ) and Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment of No Infringementof the ChanBond Patents (D.I.364 ) are DENIED for the reasons stated in open court on November 25, 2019. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/26/2019.
REDACTED VERSION of451 Letter by ChanBond, LLC. (Brauerman, Stephen)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16zYnYXLDVB3f4oxPXZa72M01-z1qIzr1/view?usp=drivesdk
REDACTED VERSION of452 Notice (Other) by ChanBond, LLC. (Brauerman, Stephen)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/178UYh8ChjFLBaMNGcYwuBLZy8bwzIpyl/view?usp=drivesdk
From Nov 4 regarding consolidation:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2XB2ZoMDqfGTjM1aWVfcWc2STNBZlpnYThPWGRTQUpPOUdR/view?usp=drivesdk
This is the redacted version of defendants response to those questions:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16rjkg_hb67zZzO59KuJOUa5cJ9tuBjr3/view?usp=drivesdk
Yesterday: "The records of this case do not reflect the filing of redacted versions of DI #451 and452 "
(Looks like we did not submit redacted version of our responses to those questions)
Court Transcript from the Oral Argument can't be accessed yet unless through the court but glad we had representation so we already know.
Letter to The Honorable Richard G. Andrews from Stephen B. Brauerman regarding Market Approach Cases:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16ty3_jMFnkduVQ2aNhZsO3wXDDasWX6D/view?usp=drivesdk
I really want to see our letter regarding the questions posed. You'll see the last question quotes "When should this be decided" and drops a date of Jan 31 2020 and suggests this would give time resolve the summary judgment which was denied and Daubert
Did anyone realize Arris is still trying to push this through the supreme Court?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-455.html
I believe these are the cases they brought back:
Dear Judge Andrews:
Pursuant to the Court’s November 25, 2019 Oral Order requesting case authority
supporting the use of technology investments in the assessment of damages calculations in patent
cases, Defendants respectfully submit the following cases to the Court for consideration.
? Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 WL
11072175, at *1-2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2015)
? Ristvedt-Johnson, Inc. v. Brandt, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 557, 568 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
? TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-CV-04545-HSG, 2015 WL 4148354, at *4 (N.D.
Cal. July 9, 2015)
Counsel is available should the Court have any additional questions.
Respectfully,
/s/ Jennifer Ying
Jennifer Ying (#5550)
Thanks to those who witnessed this in person. Sorry if this is a repost
ORAL ORDER: Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,941,822 and 8,341,679 (D.I.358 ) and Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment of No Infringement of the ChanBond Patents (D.I.364 ) are DENIED for the reasons stated in open court on November 25, 2019. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/26/2019.
So (358) was: MOTION for Summary Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,941,822 and 8,341,679 - filed by Bright House Networks, LLC, Charter Communications, Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc.. (Ying, Jennifer) Modified on 4/8/2019 (nms
And (364) was: MOTION for Summary Judgment of No Infringement of the ChanBond Patents - filed by Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC, Bright House Networks, LLC, CSC Holdings, LLC, Cable One, Inc., Cablevision Systems Corporation, Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC, Cequel Communications, LLC, Charter Communications, Inc., Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast Corporation, Cox Communications, Inc., Mediacom Communications Corporation, RCN Telecom Services, LLC, Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC, Time Warner Cable Inc., WaveDivision Holdings, LLC, WideOpen West Finance, LLC. (Ying, Jennifer) Modified on 4/8/2019 (nms)
Looks like this order addresses the large group and those that attempted to split off. This is good.
*See my post 69264*
Any negative Nancy's should take the opportunity to exit and move on now if you don't believe in the project.
Chances are they will stay for some reason..
Jus a small edit:
As the project developed, there was increasing interest in the small but significant deposits of Scadium, an element that, like niobium, can be used to create lightweight metal allows
ORDER Regarding consolidation (D.I. [442],[445], [447]). The parties should meet and confer about requests 4 and 5 (see Order), and submit responses to all the requests by no later than November 13, 2019 (see Order for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 11/4/2019.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2XB2ZoMDqfGTjM1aWVfcWc2STNBZlpnYThPWGRTQUpPOUdR
10/14/19
REDACTED VERSION of442 Letter by ChanBond, LLC.(Brauerman, Stephen)
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2XB2ZoMDqfGYnBMeDBwQURwdnJUd3Z3OFBibWplOFlTcVVZ
10/23/19
REDACTED VERSION of445 Letter, by Atlantic Broadband Group,
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2XB2ZoMDqfGQXNZT01pM3JMdGJVdE02dlpBcVEwRlBPb2VZ
10/31/2019
REDACTED VERSION of 447
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B2XB2ZoMDqfGMlRFVVFsUThtcWhuc05TN2tRTWsyZ05JQjdV
Well we got something finally, looks to be the result of the sealed letter.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/103ZhyYmhoR-kK3qPnqzTX08bnHgPqWsp/view?usp=drivesdk
If there was something to post I would.
Lame. Wake me up in 2020