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.
NOTICE of Third-Party Subpoena (on Russell Binns) by Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC,
Yesterday called...but there is a new third party subpoena
Way off. Crashing to support soon
You bring such value to the board trend trade. :/
*Arris actually put it in past SEC filings as early as 2016 *
Well there actually is a time frame...and ARRIS missed it so they are time barred.
Glad Zombie brought him in
Please do some real DD, Thanks!
Nibbled Myself
Let the flippers out > Longs Accumulate > Next Bull Run will be even better
Yep. I dont care when the trial is...because I don't think it will ever get there. The statistics on these cases show
Exactly. I know I am holding strong with funds ready to go for more accumulation. I wouldnt imagine people selling based on a schedule amendment or trend trade saying to do so lol. People act like its a major change. Arris IPR decision is most important thing at the current which should get denied.
Given the past amends to the scheduling order (5 times plus already), this is no surprise to see.
June 13 is still an important date with the oral argument for the motion to stay as well as the conference for the discovery disputes
Say the motion to stay is granted.. that is just until the decision on the Arris IPR happens, but what would be the time frame on that? Basically anytime between now and 90 days or so?
Id love to see it play out with IPR and motion to stay both denied right after June 13's oral argument. Then we would be well on our way with the new discovery close just 2-3 weeks after that. I think the Arris will cause a big run up in PPS
Well there it is..
SO ORDERED re270 Stipulation and Order to Amend Scheduling Order (*Reset Deadlines/Hearings: Fact Discovery completed by 7/6/2018, Dispositive Motions due by 12/1/2018, An Oral Argument is set for 3/8/2019, at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 6A before Judge Richard G. Andrews, a Trial Scheduling Conference is set for 12/14/2018, at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 6A before Judge Richard G. Andrews) (see Stipulation for further details). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/23/2018. (nms)
KJ,
First thing you have to understand is when that was posted, you notice two dates next to each item..example > close of discovery. Originally was supposed to be April 30 but was changed to June 1st. Pretty sure this was from April 24
When you look at pacer, you typically see "Proposed Order to Amend Schedule"
followed immediately or next day with
"So Ordered" basically confirming it.
Yesterday we saw another "Proposed" Ive yet to see a "So Ordered"
Depends on your intepretation of todays info that Ice has shared, which is basically a copy of what OneBrokeMama had shared recently. (See Sticky)
This is our response to the Arris IPR petition. Which if you read it all...our lawyers bring up 3 definitive reasons with supporting evidence / precedents on why it should NOT be instituted..and its GOOD. The only change today is:
-Patent Owner moves to seal Exhibits 2008 through 2023, which were
produced by Petitioner ARRIS International plc pursuant to a Stipulated Default
Protective Order agreed to by the parties and attached hereto, and designated
“CONFIDENTIAL–PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIAL” by Petitioner. These
exhibits relate to indemnification
agreements between Petitioner and its customers.
Patent Owner also moves to seal those portions of its Preliminary Response that
discuss the substance of the above-referenced exhibits.
So as for tomorrows pps? Nobody knows. Up is always good. Down makes for more buying opportunities.
UOIP
Definitely NOT instituted this was our RESPONSE with certain exhibits sealed in the public copy.
Under Item 23 Indemnification lookin ? Toward the end of that page, last paragraph starting with "in the event of an infringement allegation"
Thank you for the update Ice.
Same Here Yo. If we have no new eyes or catalysts until June 13 I can see this being walked down until then. Pissed that I slapped at .0275 yesterday because I had a feeling we would hit a lull like this. If it does ill load uop
Just some random things going back over the last 6 months to start our day:
Chanbond has had Pro Hac Vice Appearances from:
-Attorney Charles Wizenfeld
http://www.mishconnewyork.com/people/charles_wizenfeld
-Attorney Eric Berger
http://www.dbc-iplaw.com/berger.html
-Attorney Andrea Pacelli
http://newyork.citybizlist.com/article/381005/intellectual-property-counsel-andrea-pacelli-joins-mishcon-de-reya-new-yorks-litigation-practice
-Attorney Lana Milojevi
http://www.mishconnewyork.com/people/lana_milojevic
(Attorney who is licensed in the jurisdiction requests that the non-licensed attorney be admitted to practice in a particular case)
Defendants have subpoenaed the following third parties:
-Cathleen Thomas Quigley
https://www.linkedin.com/in/quigleytom
-Cable Television Laboratories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableLabs
-Intel Corporation, Texas Instruments, Inc, Arris Group, Inc, Cisco Systems, Inc
(Those are some BIG names)
-Tarek Fahmi of Ascenda Law Group
http://ascendalaw.com/
-Deirdre Lane
Someone had a post with something related to this person, I cannot find anything. Intel? Or Someone Who Knows..
-William R. Carter, Jr.
(Our Boy)
Then of course the deposition of:
-James Finnegan
https://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/leadership-overview/james-finnegan
-Great Post and Link Here: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=140400951
Sounds like some heavy info..
Then immediately following Mr Finnegan's Deposition, we get the motion to stay, and discovery disputes. A couple of sealed letters to the judge later, we have a date set 6/13/2018 where:
-@ 11:30 AM in Courtroom 6A, the motion to stay will be orally argued
-@ 2:00 PM in Courtroom 6A, Court will hold a conference to resolve the discovery issues/letters
Judge Andrews in the past has denied so hopefully this will be the case:
-EXAMPLE-Thursday, December 01, 2016
81 order Oral Order Thu 10:22 AM
ORAL ORDER: The Motion to Stay (D.I.70 ) is DENIED without prejudice to renew by letter request after March, 28, 2017. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 12/1/2016. (nms)
Arris Filed its 5 petitions on February 2, 2018
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/caselist?petitioners=Arris+International+PLC
I keep seeing posts regarding when something should show on this but Im curious to know what that is based on? (ICE) 90 days from something or?
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2018-00574%2F10
- This maps out justification for why IPR should NOT be instituted and it is spot on!
As far as CAFC goes I had posted this earlier regarding 63 days but nobody cared to comment:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://sunsteinlaw.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Website-IPR-2016-12.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjA9pupg53bAhXB21MKHWepD-4QFjAAegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw0wEoFaM8MyUeTDyNYJ3CHk
https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1216.html
And Chanbond is already appealing the Final Written Decision on the claims they lost. Going for a home run!
Love to hear any input from the old heads here that have been quiet as of late. There is a ton of past experience and expertise that really contributes a ton to this board and its greatly appreciated
LONG UOIP
Goofer you better double check that. Logically they would let you do the opposite..buy big boards immediately and not OTC/Options given the stable nature of a big board company.
3 Day Hold on ACH deposits before you can buy OTC, mind you it starts the day the $ hits TD. There are cutoff times for requesting deposits. After 4 it really isnt going in until the next nights batch. Your best bet is a wire transfer from bank (hits account in a few hours fully cleared for otc) or just to keep some cash ready to go in the account
Sorry, that was a mess. In your experience is this true regarding appeals to CAFC? 63 Days from Final Written Decision?
A party must file any notice of appeal with the Director of the USPTO within 63 days after the date of the final written decision (or a decision on a motion for rehearing of a final written decision) (35 U.S.C. § 142; 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.3(a)(1) and (b)(1) (resetting for timely rehearing request)).
The Director of the USPTO or the director’s designee may grant an extension of time to file a notice of appeal on a showing of either: ?? Good cause, if made before time has expired.
?? Excusable neglect for the failure to act, if made after time has expired.
(37 C.F.R. §§ 90.3(c)(1)(i) and (ii) and see also 37 C.F.R. § 104.2 (for rules governing filing of request)).
Yea...that has already taken place, pretty much this last year. Now it's time to Rock n Roll
Sorry that was directed to TODD regarding "any day"
What makes you say this?
Bingo. People Will read the headline of the PACER entry and not fully grasp what is actually happening. Half the time its a follow up to a previous entry. We have discussed the time frames being moved many times. ARRIS needs to get shut down and we are golden. Given the precedents that have been set, the previous wins, and straight edge judge I think we will succeed
Just slapped that ask
I could care less about the proposed scheduling order...if that causes sells its laughable. All eyes on Arris IPR denial for me.
Momma knows best
Need some fresh blood to push through the walls
Scratch That. Back in Business
Major Ask Wall from CSTI?
I've got strong hands on the sidelines as well looking for a good entry, looks like now is that time lol.