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.
that is crazy, its not even possible for this to have over 15M O/S its all naked short....
now that I think about it, if the O/S was 1.7M a week ago, and note sellers cannot own more than 10% in order to sell, the O/S can only be around 10M today. Any idea is this volume naked?
this is like SIRI but in fast motion... 1000 to .05 to 300
my guess is O/S is 150M, this company should be at $250M market cap, and over $1B into the fall if they play it right...
they just took a script from Verizon, surcharge/slow down the top users to stabilize for everyone else. This does 2 things, it allows for much lower cash burn and it also causes some of the top users to get pissed an leave, which is what you want...you want the top 10% of users to leave the service....
I need to know the O/S, but based on them definitely not BK and they are at a $1B revenue run rate by early 2019 have to give them at least a $250M market cap, and if they played it better it would be around $1B market cap.
I know I am buying probably 2 or 3 Annual memberships as Christmas gifts...these guys will sell over 1m annual this holiday
on track for $1B in revenue here as a run rate..what is the O/S?
way higher...SIRI type run 05 to 300
agreed MM's won't let this be a flipper it is either going to gradually run up, or they will gradually take it down...my bet is up..it is a viral business afterall
can make the argument as their market cap falls, UOIP should rise by that amount. $500M today alone....
Its the cable companies who pay uoip damages. Then the 13 go to arris and cisco for indemnification. We are golden as we get cash from cable and they have $100b on the balance sheet between them. I think arrs is sinking all its cash into buybacks so they dont have it to cable companies. In fact arrs disclosure says cable already told them they will be coming for them....
I'm hoping ARRS discloses a potential inability to pay the indemnification as they only have $500M cash. Then we know they are thinking over $500M. You could see them owe $500M cash and $2B of their stock as an example, plus royalties going forward.
They have to disclose seriousness ASAP to their investors or risk lawsuits from them as well for not informing of potential loss. At this point ARRS knows how much UOIP wants...
I think you will see dire warnings in footnotes tonight at ARRS including them questioning their ability to pay damages. They have $500M cash in the bank and market cap $4.5B.
I e emailed doug and hall this week
Agreed. Buying here is patent lawyers following the case. They dont care about an arris q report. But, we will definitely be in their q but no way they talk about it unless asked. Ive asked goldman to ask but whi knows
Arris has lost. Had its day in court opportunity PTAB says...
PTAB Denies Review Of Networking Patents As Time-Barred
Share us on: By Tiffany Hu
Law360 (July 27, 2018, 7:46 PM EDT) -- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied several petitions for inter partes review launched by Arris International PLC for being time-barred, shooting down the cable box maker's attempts to invalidate data distribution patents held by ChanBond LLC.
In redacted versions of the July 20 decisions made public Friday, the PTAB declined to review three ChanBond patents relating to a system of distributing digital signals, finding that Arris was in privity with major cable companies that were sued over the same patents more than a year previously, and therefore its bids for review were time-barred under 35 U.S.C. Section 315(b).
Although Arris was not named as a party to the aforementioned lawsuits, which were filed in Delaware federal court in October 2015, the cable box maker had control over the defense in those actions, according to the board.
"We find that petitioner had substantial control over the Delaware actions," the PTAB wrote in each of the five decisions. "One or more of the defendants of the Delaware actions was in privity with petitioner, and those defendants were served with a complaint, alleging infringement of the [patent] more than one year prior to the filing of the instant petition. Therefore, we determine that the instant petition is time-barred."
The patents at issue cover a "system and method for distribution of digital signals onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system," according to filings.
Arris had challenged U.S. Patent Numbers 8,984,565 B2; 8,341,679 B2; and 7,941,822 B2 in February 2018, over a year after ChanBond had accused major cable companies including Charter Communications Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc., Comcast Corp. and others of infringement.
While there has been a fair amount of litigation over what it means for two companies to be in "privity" with each other at the PTAB, the board said it has taken the approach of focusing on the relationship between the current petitioner and the prior litigant at the time of the earlier lawsuit.
The PTAB found that Arris had supplied at least one of the allegedly infringing products to at least one of the companies, thus establishing a sufficient amount of control over the previous actions. The board noted that "actual and complete control of the entire litigation" was not required to find privity.
Furthermore, under an indemnification agreement, Arris was required to defend infringement claims brought against its customer relating to the products, the board found. And in order to be indemnified, the customer was to give Arris "sole control of the defense," according to the decision.
The board rejected Arris' attempt to analogize its situation to the one in the Federal Circuit's Wi-Fi One ? ruling earlier this year — where the court found no evidence to suggest the petitioner had funded the previous inter partes reviews — pointing out that the cable box maker was specifically obligated to defend the patent claims under the indemnity agreement.
"In essence, petitioner 'has already had his day in court' as it had the opportunity to present proofs and arguments with respect to its own accused product in the Delaware actions," the PTAB wrote. "Petitioner had the same practical opportunity to control the course of the proceedings that would be available to the named party."
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Numbers 8,984,565 B2; 8,341,679 B2; and 7,941,822 B2.
Counsel for both parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.
Arris is represented by Patrick D. McPherson and Diana Sangalli of Duane Morris LLP.
ChanBond is represented by Robert Whitman and Andrea Pacelli of Mishcon de Reya New York LLP.
The cases are Arris International PLC v. ChanBond LLC, case numbers IPR2018-00570, IPR2018-00572, IPR2018-00573, IPR2018-00574 and IPR2018-00575.
jury awarded 2.4% actually judge made it .8%
looks to be the applicable revenue..so $500B to $1T and .8% of that
I will have more on this, but .8% of the profits from MSO's of their data services which is called the royalty base, seems like a case in this report. So, this would be $800M for every $100B in profit.
https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2032&context=btlj
indemnification request by MSO's to Arris
why ask if not guilty?, next Q report out tomorrow AH from ARRS
https://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=77386285
Its no landmine. 822 issued in 2012. 679 issued 2015. If no 822 the only thing that happens is 3 years less royalty. Re read everything again. 679 is upheld and the 13 are infri ging since 2015. Its a matter if how much money should be the only focus now!
The PTAB rejected Cisco’s assertion that multiple channels are multiplexed on the same frequency bands, and that code channels or CDMA channels could be an RF channel within the meaning of the ‘679 patent. The panel cited an inconsistent statement by Cisco’s expert which described a FDMA and CDMA hybrid system using Walsh codes: “[t]he mutual orthogonality of Walsh codes allows one particular coded channel to be isolated and decoded from all other coded channels, even though they are all broadcasting on the same RF channel.” (italics added by the panel). The panel reasoned that this statement referred to a particular frequency band as an “RF channel” and to divisions within the RF channel as “coded channels,” and therefore gave no weight to the expert’s testimony regarding the meaning of “RF channel.”
The PTAB concluded that the term “RF channel” as used in the ‘679 patent “does not include code channels – for example data streams created by CDMA– but instead refers only to frequency bands, such as those created by FDMA.” (Final Written Decision of IPR2016-01898, p. 13.) All six of the IPR petitions of the ‘679 and ‘565 patents were denied based on the claim construction issue and because Cisco’s grounds were based CDMA prior art.
https://slwip.com/chanbond-avoids-institution-six-cisco-ipr-petitions/
yes, awards will be much higher than you can imagine IMO. 679 is in the bag and the benefit will go to UOIP even if 822 turns out to not be upheld. the 679 is an enhanced version of 822 which stipulates modulating onto multiple separate frequency channels such as with CDMA which is understood to be more than one frequency channel.
UOIP has 679 in the bag..822 only enhances the windfall. IMO 822 enhances by 200%, or alternatively, 679 alone is about a 33% win already in the books of the overall possible damages. So if damages were going to be $1B, then they have $333M in the bag.
I disagree. The day of the June hearing the defense said 822 was critical to them lessening damages which revealed that 679 was damaging. Andrews pressed Whitman on why the appeal of 822 was so important. Its to increase the damages obviously, but the damages are already there. So, UOIP prevails, its just a matter of how much $.
On 679 alone, Whitman has stated the defense can get try to get an expert to testify how practicing 679 while simultaneously not infringing on 822 would be possible. UOIP says its not possible.
All modems use CDMA for at least part of the modulation of high speed networking since about 2012...
http://www.goamt.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CM3200-TOUCHSTONE-DOCSIS-3.0-UPGRADEABLE_CABLE-MODEM_AMT.pdf
The top 13 MSO's in the USA sell over $100B annually in internet data and/or digital TV with technology supported by Chanbond Patent 679. 679 which issued in 2015, would cover $500B in revenue from just 2015 to 2020.
I mean the 679 patent...my fault...
what was left was unsaid, the 849 Andrews and all know was upheld. CDMA, at the core of 849, is used in varying amounts in Upstream flow. Historically Upstream has been not as important as downstream, but with cloud exploding, upstream is becoming on par with downstream. the 822 only enhances the windfall here because it encompasses all upstream/downstream whereas CDMA and 849 cover part of Upstream only, but still upward of 25% of all data exchange.
What value do you have now for this? Court would award how much is what im looking for. Its $1t in sales by the 13 msos and what percentage the infringement covers.
Even .1% is $1b
Based on your reports last month andrews was showing his cards that chanbond has won in his mind when he pressed whitman on why cb needs to appeal 822 when they already have 849 upheld. Way over a billion here in your opinion?
I personally wrote Goldman Sachs today to tell them to publicly talk about their ARRS sell downgrade
to doug.clark
Doug,
Have you guys looked into the liability of ARRS for indemnification to the MSO's of high speed networking patents? The 13 largest MSO's in the country are about to go to court over it against a company called Chanbond. ARRS just lost their IPR review as they were late in filing.
Its something like $1T in data services sold by the 13 MSO's at play and how big a factor certain high speed networking within ARRS modems is infringed.
Could be well into the $billions infringed total.
Chanbond is publicly traded as UOIP. This case, which has been quite, it about to make big waves. They allege willful infringement and nearly all patents for certain high speed network have been upheld. Court time at this point.
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/ptab-filings%2FIPR2018-00573%2F23
Thanks
Mark Taylor
I am long UOIP, looking to get puts ARRS
goldman sacs is all over it...they have ARRS dropping by 30%, or $1.6B in value in a research note...so Goldman things $1.00 here IMO
I'm deploying $250k into this my guess is .25
congrats guys what is the latest?
you guys swapping your $200K?
wow someone just sold at absolute bottom
folks have to recognize virtually no dilution here, noteholders cannot own more than 10% of the company upon conversion or they will get restricted from selling. with the 100M O/S no more than 10M shares can get converted daily
Nuclear medicine at vet clinics just got established within the last 5 years using Strontium on the end of a rod to treat small cancers around they eyes and nose. These clinics are set up to deal with a radioactive material. So, the hard work has been done.
The RDGL injectable radioactive material can more rapidly be deployed now due to this.
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=YIdYW9fMF8LHzwKMmITgDw&q=strontium+vet+clinics&oq=strontium+vet+clinics&gs_l=psy-ab.3...720.3618.0.3702.23.19.0.0.0.0.198.1991.0j15.16.0..2..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..7.14.1786.0..0j0i131k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1j33i21k1.139.MA8fxT-SHBU