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.
in fact
Software usage less than $100,000,000 = Usage fee of 0.25%;
Software usage between $100,000,001 and $200,500,000 = Usage fee of 0.20%; and
Software usage greater than $200,500,001 = Usage fee of 0.15%.
and Articulate
https://www.slideshare.net/MarinaColomboHearne/articulate-letter-of-recommendation
tea leaves say Amazon is leaning on GMGI via Articulate to help deploy games developed at Gamesparks
https://backend.otcmarkets.com/otcapi/company/sec-filings/12621077/content/html
NOTE 9 – SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
On February 28, 2018, the Company entered an Asset Purchase Agreement with Luxor Capital LLC (“Luxor”), which is wholly owned by the Company’s Chief Executive Officer Anthony Goodman, pursuant to which the Company agree to purchase certain Intellectual Property and Know-how (the “GM2 Asset”). The GM2 Asset purchased is expected to lead to new clients and incremental revenues by allowing the Company to offer unique IP to Social Gaming Clientele.
On March 1 2018, the Company entered into a License Agreement with Articulate Pty Ltd. (“Articulate”), an affiliate of Mr. Goodman. Pursuant to the License Agreement, Articulate will receive a license from the Company to use the GM2 Asset technology. Articulate will pay the Company a usage fee calculated as a certain percentage of the monthly content and software usage within the GM2 Asset system.
On March 2, 2018, the Company reaffirmed its operator service agreement with Game Sparks Technologies Limited (“Gamesparks”), now a wholly owned division of Amazon.com Inc (“Amazon”). Whilst there have been certain delays in fully launching the Social Gaming Platform, GameSparks confirmed that it has long shared Amazon’s passion for helping developers create amazing gaming experiences, so it’s a natural fit. Being part of Amazon means GameSparks will continue to grow the service, as well as explore new ways to unlock the power of Amazon to help build, operate, and monetize our products.
Asia gambling of sports and non sports, $2T to see boost due to banks allowing U.S. currency swap.
This is why its starting to move IMO.
https://calvinayre.com/2017/05/24/business/melvin-byres-sports-betting-opportunities-asia-endless-video/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/muhammadcohen/2018/03/22/bet-on-u-s-supreme-court-sports-wagering-verdict-to-change-the-game-in-asia/#2a03321a8258
they are scrambling for settlement numbers this out today:
Dear Judge Andrews:
In its May 4, 2018 letter (D.I. 255), ChanBond asserts, for the first time, that “Unified
Online . . . retained CB Capital as a non-testifying expert consultant,” thereby rendering
documents provided to CB Capital immune from production under Rule 26. Id. at 1. Not only
has ChanBond failed to substantiate that position with any evidence, even assuming ChanBond is
correct, the documents are not protected by any privilege.
CB Capital is not a “non-testifying expert consultant.” ChanBond’s assertion that CB Capital
was “retained . . . as non-testifying expert consultant” is unsupported by the record evidence.
Unified Online’s majority shareholder is William Carter, who formerly worked at IP Navigation
alongside ChanBond’s founder, and sole owner, Deirdre Leane. Mr. Carter testified, as Unified
Online’s corporate representative, that CB Capital was hired because
Ex. T (Carter Tr.) at 186:6-184:2. The valuation
cover letter states that
D.I. 253, Ex. J (UNIFIED_000001-2) at 2
(emphasis added). And CB Capital’s engagement letter states that
” Ex. U (CBCAP_000129). CB
Capital’s website describes the company as a “specialized investment banking firm.” Ex. V (CB
Capital Website). ChanBond’s new assertion that CB Capital is a non-testifying expert
consultant is completely unsubstantiated.
ChanBond’s cited In re PolyMedica is inapposite. There, the financial firm PWC had
been retained “to assist in [the law firm’s] giving legal advice to [its] Client by providing the
services.” In re PolyMedica Corp. Sec. Lit., 235 F.R.D. 28, 31 (D. Mass 2006). In contrast, CB
Capital was retained to provide business advice to Unified Online’s Board of Directors, and the
engagement makes no reference to assisting in giving any legal advice in anticipation of any
litigation.
Even if CB Capital is a non-testifying expert, its documents must still be produced. Even
assuming CB Capital should be afforded non-testifying expert consultant status (which it should
not), the documents provided to CB Capital are not privileged, and must still be produced. As
ChanBond admits, CB Capital was retained by ChanBond’s owner, Unified Online, who is not a
party to this action. D.I. 255 at 3. This Court has previously explained that Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(4)(D) protection does not apply when the information sought is held by an expert retained
by a non-party to the litigation, such as the litigant’s parent. Delaware Display Group LLC v.
Lenovo Group Ltd., C.A. No. 13-2112-RGA, 2016 WL 720977, at *3-4 (D. Del. Feb. 23, 2016)
(“Neither the text nor the policy of the [non-testifying expert] Rule applies to a situation where a
party seeks protection of documents prepared by a ‘consultant’ on behalf of a non-party”). Here,
just as in Delaware Display, the entity that retained CB Capital is the Plaintiff’s non-party
parent, Unified Online. Accordingly, the documents provided to CB Capital cannot qualify for
protection under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4)(D) and should be produced.
that is about to happen easily. what we need are more eyes from the IP industry delving into all of the information here. I am compiling a list of who people here should be Tweeting and emailing, introducing them to UOIP. Literally nobody except this board knows of UOIP and that they can invest in the outcome of this case.
Really I'm away today from l2 let's roll. I have info for all later. If you are a defendant you would buy shares now to hedge.
Dear Judge Andrews:
Pursuant to D. Del. LR 7.1.3, Defendants respectfully move for leave to file the attached
short reply letter in response to Plaintiff ChanBond, LLC’s (“ChanBond”)’s letter of May 4,
2018 (D.I. 255) in connection with the parties’ discovery dispute concerning ChanBond’s
purported claims of privilege.
Defendants seek leave to allow Defendants to address ChanBond’s new assertion that CB
Capital was retained as a non-testifying expert consultant, and new legal theories based on this
“expert” status not previously disclosed to Defendants during the parties’ meet and confer
discussions. Counsel for Defendants reached out to counsel for ChanBond, but ChanBond could
not confirm whether it would consent or oppose this request.
In view of the foregoing, Defendants respectfully requests leave to file a reply letter.
My $3B or $2.00 PPS Simplified Target
If you consider Apple was just told to pay VHC $500M for infringing IP on sales of 400M iPhones who include FaceTime, with a sales value of $320B, its a royalty of .0156% per iPhone sold.
https://9to5mac.com/2018/04/10/apple-ordered-to-pay-patent-troll-virnetx-502-6m-in-ongoing-infringement-case/
Applying .0156% to the roughly $2T in internet data / digital TV sold by the 13 MSOs during the patent period, you get about $3B in awards for UOIP and with 1.6B shares out, its about $2.00.
You could easily argue though that the royalty rate here could be much higher as the Chanbond tech is a primary component of the high speed networking whereas the FaceTime IP is only 1 of many functions of an iPhone. 3x the .0156% royalty rates is approaching a half of 1% royalty rate and may be more accurate.
they have the valuations..they are looking for the methodologies used to get those valuations...
Way more then the 30m market cap at this minute
Defendants are formulating a valuation and desire to see chanbonds own valuation. Judge has allowed for this to occur on June 13.
Defendants know they cannot go to trial because if they lose judge could order the 13 to stop immediately using the tech.
So the 13 will settle before trial
In my sticky. Dispute from last week was over privileged valuation documents. Judge said yes to discovery of them for purposes of damages calculation by defendants which is in today's documents. The documents today show what the judge used to change his mind last week. The June 13 will be about valuation as it's clear that is what the defendants will request as they are allowed 10 documents to examine. This is all about coming up with a settlement number.
sellers here just must made a big whoops...the real information I just posted
zomby where can I get the documents listed?
UOL and CB Capital
produced the final valuation in response to subpoenas from Defendants, and its witnesses
testified about it. The valuation utilizes multiple methodologies, one of which yielded a
figure, based on
Ex. E (Carter Tr.), 214:5-215:8, 216:10-218:18 (discussing
at Ex. J (UNIFIED000001-174) at UNIFIED_000011). The final valuation also
contained another methodology See Ex. J
(UNIFIED000011) ; Ex. K (CBCAP_000574).
Despite producing the final valuation containing multiple figures, UOL and CB Capital
have purported to claim privilege over the documents underlying both methodologies, including
documents that ChanBond (the seller) sent to CB Capital, the financial analysis firm of UOL (the
purchaser). See e.g., Ex. L (CB Capital Privilege Log) at No. 7 (Leane of ChanBond to CB
Capital
. Those documents are undoubtedly relevant to issues of damages.
you are all wrong unfortunately, what has occurred is a valuation conference is on June 13th, nothing more nothing less. Defendants are scrambling. Defendants wish to orally argue their stay motion at that meeting, which has not been granted.
even bigger news out
Dear Judge Andrews:
ChanBond has engaged in classic misuse of privilege, applying it as both sword and
shield, to suit its convenience. Not only has ChanBond made improper assertions of privilege
that have prevented Defendants from obtaining relevant testimony, ChanBond has refused to
provide sufficient detail in its privilege log that would permit Defendants to evaluate whether the
purported claims of privilege are proper.
I. Relevant Factual Background. In 2012, the named inventors and owners of
CBV1 – Messrs. Hennenhoefer, Snyder, and Stine – marketed their patent portfolio, including the
asserted patents, for sale. In pursuit of that effort, CBV authorized its patent attorney, Patrick
Keane, to
(emphasis in original).
In October 2013,
Ex. D (CHANBOND-12194-5); Ex. E (Carter Tr.), 54:2-9, 29:10-14. In August
2014, ChanBond, LLC was formed
Ex. E (Carter Tr.), 52:25-53:6; 54:6-9.
Ex. E (Carter Tr.), 54:2-9, 29:10-14. On April 9, 2015,
Id. at Ex. F (CHANBOND-001498-51).
Shortly after this case was filed in 2015,
Ex. G (CHANBOND-11835-869).
Ex. E (Carter Tr.) at 20:18-21:2.
All of the relevant documents from CBV and Ms. Leane in her role with IP Navigation and
ChanBond have been turned over to litigation counsel for ChanBond. Further, all of the
Plaintiff-related entities – Z-Band, CBV, ChanBond, Unified Online, and those entities’
respective attorneys – are represented by ChanBond’s litigation counsel.
1 CBV was a holding company formed by the named inventors, and into which the patent
applications were transferred in 2008. Ex. I (Stine Tr.) at 218:22 – 219:14. The inventors also
had an operating company, Z-Band, which was the original patent assignee. Id.
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 259 Filed 05/10/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 10596
2
II. The Offer for Sale Through AST Is Not Privileged. There is no dispute that
Idenix Pharmas., Inc. v.
Gilead Sci., Inc., 195 F. Supp. 3d 639, 644 (D. Del. 2016) (holding communications nonprivileged
“f the primary purpose . . . is to solicit or render advice on non-legal matters”).
Accordingly, Defendants ask the Court to reopen the deposition of Mr. Keane regarding CBV’s
marketing efforts.
III. The ChanBond and UOL’s Materials Are Not Privileged. In connection with
its acquisition of the ChanBond patents in October 2015,
UOL and CB Capital
produced the final valuation in response to subpoenas from Defendants, and its witnesses
testified about it. The valuation utilizes multiple methodologies, one of which yielded a
figure, based on
Ex. E (Carter Tr.), 214:5-215:8, 216:10-218:18 (discussing
at Ex. J (UNIFIED000001-174) at UNIFIED_000011). The final valuation also
contained another methodology See Ex. J
(UNIFIED000011) ; Ex. K (CBCAP_000574).
Despite producing the final valuation containing multiple figures, UOL and CB Capital
have purported to claim privilege over the documents underlying both methodologies, including
documents that ChanBond (the seller) sent to CB Capital, the financial analysis firm of UOL (the
purchaser). See e.g., Ex. L (CB Capital Privilege Log) at No. 7 (Leane of ChanBond to CB
Capital
. Those documents are undoubtedly relevant to issues of damages.
See Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 2018 WL 798731, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 9,
2018). It cannot be that the final valuation is not privileged, but the underlying documents are—
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 259 Filed 05/10/18 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 10597
3
either all are, or none are. See Net2Phone, Inc. v. Ebay, Inc., No. CIV.A. 06-2469 KSH, 2008
WL 8183817, at *12 (D.N.J. June 26, 2008). ChanBond has never claimed privilege to these
final valuations, presumably because they help its case. As such, Defendants request an order to
produce valuation materials ChanBond provided to UOL/CB Capital, and vice-versa.
IV. ChanBond’s Deficient Privilege Log. In ChanBond’s first privilege log, served
on February 26, 2018, the “description” for each of the 1,300 entries is nothing more than a
conclusory statement that the withheld document “
or was .” Ex. M (ChanBond’s Priv. Log). The log
also failed to identify whether communications were sent to/from an attorney. Defendants
immediately identified these deficiencies and asked ChanBond to supplement to include
sufficient information so as to allow Defendants to “assess the claim,” which necessarily
included an identification of the date, author, recipient(s), and a brief description of the subject
matter of the communication or document. See Ex. N (Feb. 28, 2018 Letter) at 2 (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(ii); Affinion Net Patents, Inc., C.A. No. 04-cv-360-JJF (D. Del. Aug. 23, 2006);
Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P. v. Gatto & Reitz, LLC, C.A. No. 13-cv-542, 2017 WL
1190499, at *14 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2017)). On March 9, 2018 ChanBond served a First
Amended Privilege Log, but rather than address these deficiencies, the amended log relies on the
same conclusory descriptions as the original log. Ex. O (ChanBond’s 1st Amended Priv. Log).
Defendants renewed their request, and pointed ChanBond to the level of description found in the
privilege log of ChanBond’s affiliate Z-Band. Ex. P (Mar. 21, 2018 Brody to Raskin).
Despite these repeated requests, ChanBond has refused to supplement its log with
adequate descriptions. Ex. Q (Apr. 11, 2018 Brody to Raskin). The only substantive update
ChanBond has provided is a list of attorneys to help identify potential attorney-client
communications. Ex. R (Mar. 9, 2018 Attorney List). But even with that list, the amended log
still claims privilege/work product over entries for which no attorney is disclosed. See, e.g., Ex.
O, Entries 13, 19-21 (IP Nav to File); Ex. O, Entries 22-23 (alleged work product and common
interest documents without attorneys listed). And even this disclosure of attorneys appears
incomplete. For example, ChanBond asserts that documents
, are privileged based on . Ex. S
(Apr. 27, 2018 Whitman to Padmanabhan). But patent agent communications are only
privileged when the agent is acting under the direction of an attorney, during patent prosecution
activities, or when representing a party in a proceeding (e.g., USPTO proceeding). E.I. du Pont
de Nemours & Co. v. MacDermid, Inc., Case No. 06–3383-MLC, 2009 WL 3048421, at *4-5 (D.
NJ Sept. 17, 2009). None of those scenarios is applicable here.
It is ChanBond’s burden to show that the documents are entitled to a claim of privilege.
In re Joy Global, Inc., No. 01-039-LPS, 2008 WL 2435552, at *4–5 (D. Del. June 16, 2008).
Courts have held that where a party fails to meet that burden, production of the withheld
documents is an appropriate remedy. Schwarz Pharma, Inc. v. Teva Pharmas. USA, Inc., 2007
WL 2892744, at *2 (D.N.J.2007) (finding that the appropriate sanction for failure to provide a
legally sufficient privilege log is production of the logged documents). Should ChanBond refuse
to supplement, or fail to adequately supplement its privilege log to meet the requirements of the
Federal Rules, ChanBond should be ordered to produce the withheld documents.
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 259 Filed 05/10/18 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 10598
4
Respectfully,
/s/ Jennifer Ying
Jennifer Ying (#5550)
Counsel for Defendants
cc: Clerk of Court (by hand)
All Counsel of Record (by e-mail)
huge news...june 13 is the valuation document hearing and not a stay conference, defendants seek to talk about a stay at the same time, which has not been granted.
Briefing on Defendant’s Renewed Motion to Stay is now complete. D.I. 242, 243, 254, 261. Pursuant to D. Del. LR 7.1.4, Defendants request oral argument on their motion.
Defendants note that the parties are presently scheduled for a discovery dispute hearing before the Court on June 13, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. D.I. 263. Defendants respectfully request that oral argument on their Renewed Motion to Stay be heard at the same time, should the Court be available.
Dear Judge Andrews:
ChanBond has engaged in classic misuse of privilege, applying it as both sword and
shield, to suit its convenience. Not only has ChanBond made improper assertions of privilege
that have prevented Defendants from obtaining relevant testimony, ChanBond has refused to
provide sufficient detail in its privilege log that would permit Defendants to evaluate whether the
purported claims of privilege are proper.
I. Relevant Factual Background. In 2012, the named inventors and owners of
CBV1 – Messrs. Hennenhoefer, Snyder, and Stine – marketed their patent portfolio, including the
asserted patents, for sale. In pursuit of that effort, CBV authorized its patent attorney, Patrick
Keane, to
(emphasis in original).
In October 2013,
Ex. D (CHANBOND-12194-5); Ex. E (Carter Tr.), 54:2-9, 29:10-14. In August
2014, ChanBond, LLC was formed
Ex. E (Carter Tr.), 52:25-53:6; 54:6-9.
Ex. E (Carter Tr.), 54:2-9, 29:10-14. On April 9, 2015,
Id. at Ex. F (CHANBOND-001498-51).
Shortly after this case was filed in 2015,
Ex. G (CHANBOND-11835-869).
Ex. E (Carter Tr.) at 20:18-21:2.
All of the relevant documents from CBV and Ms. Leane in her role with IP Navigation and
ChanBond have been turned over to litigation counsel for ChanBond. Further, all of the
Plaintiff-related entities – Z-Band, CBV, ChanBond, Unified Online, and those entities’
respective attorneys – are represented by ChanBond’s litigation counsel.
1 CBV was a holding company formed by the named inventors, and into which the patent
applications were transferred in 2008. Ex. I (Stine Tr.) at 218:22 – 219:14. The inventors also
had an operating company, Z-Band, which was the original patent assignee. Id.
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 259 Filed 05/10/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 10596
2
II. The Offer for Sale Through AST Is Not Privileged. There is no dispute that
Idenix Pharmas., Inc. v.
Gilead Sci., Inc., 195 F. Supp. 3d 639, 644 (D. Del. 2016) (holding communications nonprivileged
“f the primary purpose . . . is to solicit or render advice on non-legal matters”).
Accordingly, Defendants ask the Court to reopen the deposition of Mr. Keane regarding CBV’s
marketing efforts.
III. The ChanBond and UOL’s Materials Are Not Privileged. In connection with
its acquisition of the ChanBond patents in October 2015,
UOL and CB Capital
produced the final valuation in response to subpoenas from Defendants, and its witnesses
testified about it. The valuation utilizes multiple methodologies, one of which yielded a
figure, based on
Ex. E (Carter Tr.), 214:5-215:8, 216:10-218:18 (discussing
at Ex. J (UNIFIED000001-174) at UNIFIED_000011). The final valuation also
contained another methodology See Ex. J
(UNIFIED000011) ; Ex. K (CBCAP_000574).
Despite producing the final valuation containing multiple figures, UOL and CB Capital
have purported to claim privilege over the documents underlying both methodologies, including
documents that ChanBond (the seller) sent to CB Capital, the financial analysis firm of UOL (the
purchaser). See e.g., Ex. L (CB Capital Privilege Log) at No. 7 (Leane of ChanBond to CB
Capital
. Those documents are undoubtedly relevant to issues of damages.
See Acceleration Bay LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 2018 WL 798731, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 9,
2018). It cannot be that the final valuation is not privileged, but the underlying documents are—
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 259 Filed 05/10/18 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 10597
3
either all are, or none are. See Net2Phone, Inc. v. Ebay, Inc., No. CIV.A. 06-2469 KSH, 2008
WL 8183817, at *12 (D.N.J. June 26, 2008). ChanBond has never claimed privilege to these
final valuations, presumably because they help its case. As such, Defendants request an order to
produce valuation materials ChanBond provided to UOL/CB Capital, and vice-versa.
IV. ChanBond’s Deficient Privilege Log. In ChanBond’s first privilege log, served
on February 26, 2018, the “description” for each of the 1,300 entries is nothing more than a
conclusory statement that the withheld document “
or was .” Ex. M (ChanBond’s Priv. Log). The log
also failed to identify whether communications were sent to/from an attorney. Defendants
immediately identified these deficiencies and asked ChanBond to supplement to include
sufficient information so as to allow Defendants to “assess the claim,” which necessarily
included an identification of the date, author, recipient(s), and a brief description of the subject
matter of the communication or document. See Ex. N (Feb. 28, 2018 Letter) at 2 (citing Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(ii); Affinion Net Patents, Inc., C.A. No. 04-cv-360-JJF (D. Del. Aug. 23, 2006);
Endeavor Energy Resources, L.P. v. Gatto & Reitz, LLC, C.A. No. 13-cv-542, 2017 WL
1190499, at *14 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2017)). On March 9, 2018 ChanBond served a First
Amended Privilege Log, but rather than address these deficiencies, the amended log relies on the
same conclusory descriptions as the original log. Ex. O (ChanBond’s 1st Amended Priv. Log).
Defendants renewed their request, and pointed ChanBond to the level of description found in the
privilege log of ChanBond’s affiliate Z-Band. Ex. P (Mar. 21, 2018 Brody to Raskin).
Despite these repeated requests, ChanBond has refused to supplement its log with
adequate descriptions. Ex. Q (Apr. 11, 2018 Brody to Raskin). The only substantive update
ChanBond has provided is a list of attorneys to help identify potential attorney-client
communications. Ex. R (Mar. 9, 2018 Attorney List). But even with that list, the amended log
still claims privilege/work product over entries for which no attorney is disclosed. See, e.g., Ex.
O, Entries 13, 19-21 (IP Nav to File); Ex. O, Entries 22-23 (alleged work product and common
interest documents without attorneys listed). And even this disclosure of attorneys appears
incomplete. For example, ChanBond asserts that documents
, are privileged based on . Ex. S
(Apr. 27, 2018 Whitman to Padmanabhan). But patent agent communications are only
privileged when the agent is acting under the direction of an attorney, during patent prosecution
activities, or when representing a party in a proceeding (e.g., USPTO proceeding). E.I. du Pont
de Nemours & Co. v. MacDermid, Inc., Case No. 06–3383-MLC, 2009 WL 3048421, at *4-5 (D.
NJ Sept. 17, 2009). None of those scenarios is applicable here.
It is ChanBond’s burden to show that the documents are entitled to a claim of privilege.
In re Joy Global, Inc., No. 01-039-LPS, 2008 WL 2435552, at *4–5 (D. Del. June 16, 2008).
Courts have held that where a party fails to meet that burden, production of the withheld
documents is an appropriate remedy. Schwarz Pharma, Inc. v. Teva Pharmas. USA, Inc., 2007
WL 2892744, at *2 (D.N.J.2007) (finding that the appropriate sanction for failure to provide a
legally sufficient privilege log is production of the logged documents). Should ChanBond refuse
to supplement, or fail to adequately supplement its privilege log to meet the requirements of the
Federal Rules, ChanBond should be ordered to produce the withheld documents.
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 259 Filed 05/10/18 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 10598
4
Respectfully,
/s/ Jennifer Ying
Jennifer Ying (#5550)
Counsel for Defendants
cc: Clerk of Court (by hand)
All Counsel of Record (by e-mail)
he denied, then defendants sent him a plea on Tuesday and on Wednesday he reversed course. Has to be a settlement plea. Remember his goal is to seek relief for the plaintiffs...
Our judge denies stays at this stage
Trial or settlement it will be
This tells you exactly how our judge opines about a Stay and the pros and cons.
https://www.delawareiplaw.com/2016/10/judge-andrews-denies-motion-stay-case-just-prior-expert-discovery-pending-related-federal-circuit-decision.html
my opinion, based on all evidence, is that they told the judge they cannot have an injunction ordered if it goes to trial, and that knowing the valuation details is necessary at this time so they can formulate a plan. this would supercede the previous days ruling by the judge to deny based on privilege. it must be a big please for the judge to reverse course in 24 hours
wow, well answer is possibly today then this judge moves fast....big PACER updates this weekend....
defendants have until May 17 to reply to Chanbonds reasons for no stay. he will decide very shortly after. defendants know they can't argue for a stay successfully. a stay would be tactial by the defendants and prejudice the plaintiffs with discovery done June 1st.
this is the reason why, earlier this week when the judge denied privileged valuation information to defendants, the defendants the next day sent the judge a sealed plea, and the next day which was Wednesday he said yes he will allow them to see privileged valuation information.
its counting the $ at this point....the 13 MSO's rolled out tech to increase networking speeds while willfully ignoring Chanbond's request to evaluate their patents. they thought it best to deal with it in the future. now is that time.
x,000,000,000 or xx,000,000,000 here
In your experience the defendants are scrambling? Sure seems like it. They cant allow a court injunction, the 13 mso would cease nearly all ops if so. For the judge to change his mind on privileged info pertaining to value...in. combination with the mso as of q1 2018 now including massive damage warnings whereas be fire they were not, says settlement right? Learning that way....judge Cant allow a stay it prejudices the plaintiffs
Admitting possible guilt here
Because of the large
number of patents in the networking field, the secrecy of some pending patents and the rapid rate of issuance of new patents, it is not economically practical or, in some cases, possible to determine in advance whether a product or any of its components infringes or will infringe on the patent rights of others. Asserted claims and/or initiated litigation can include claims against us or our manufacturers, suppliers, or customers, alleging infringement of their proprietary rights with respect to our existing or future products and/or services or components of those products and/or services.
Amazing! Arris only worth $5B is why they say this...they could not indemnify the MSO's....this is getting explosive.
means their counsel is telling them to add it because they have doubts about winning
this news was not on their Prior Q, its been added for their Q1 2018
that is their brand new quarterly.....
full ATM mode here
Gearing up for $
I think they are ready to work settlement numbers, if this goes up today then the patent attorneys reading this case agree and are investing. I've got NatLawReview and their 500,000 readers on this case now
prelude to a settlement possible....they told the judge something in documents that made the judge want the defendants to see privileged info...
guess is its a much bigger $ figure than anyone has been thinking so they now want some clarity
Our judge denies stays at this stage
Trial or settlement it will be
https://www.delawareiplaw.com/2016/10/judge-andrews-denies-motion-stay-case-just-prior-expert-discovery-pending-related-federal-circuit-decision.html
It'll be a very quick denial. As with the valuation request.
what we have here is constant buying pressure from Seeking Alpha thanks to Tony, buyers who don't watch L2 they just buy.
I am adding NATLAWREVIEW and their 500,000 to the target list. I highly recommend others Tweeting them for an analysis. They have had a Chanbond analysis previously, and are not aware of UOIP, until I told them last night.
natlawreview has replied I highly recommend others on this board tweeting Tim to do an analysis that NATLAWREVIEW can post..something involving UOIP as we explosively move into the reaches of stardom here.....
Any follow up? Defendants are seeking valuation of the patent portfolio as of last week.....Arris IPR 18 months late, the 13 MSO's have sold $2 Trillion worth of internet data and cable tv supported by high speed transmission since 2012. That data is 3x more than baseline 2012
https://twitter.com/timpatent
Replying to @Vortmax1 @SLW_IP
Hi Mark! Thanks for bringing this to our attention! @Timpatent might have some more info for you as he is the attorney who wrote that article for us!
getting NATLAWREVIW analysis and their 500,000 readers involved.
https://twitter.com/natlawreview?lang=en
I would tweet them some of your Seeking Alpha.
They are on the Chanbond case
#ChanBond Avoids Institution of Six Cisco #IPR Petitions https://t.co/vJyyBVK8Gn @SLW_IP #IP #Litigation #Patent
— National Law Review (@natlawreview) April 3, 2017
truly amazing timing for UOIP