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 previous remarks, Director Iancu expressed a need to “carefully balance rights-holder’s and rights challenger’s interests” in AIA trial proceedings. The proposed rule changes appear to be in response to criticism that AIA trial proceedings are biased in favor of patent challengers. The Patent Office has requested input from the public on the proposed rule changes and on how the Patent Office should implement the changes if adopted.
Its just hitting everywhere...USPTO leader deals blow to IPR challengers
https://news.google.com/news/story/dW_afVcon9S77KM7TyChyFDA4dN_M?hl=en&ned=us&gl=US
Absolutely major news out for patent owners....rule changes to let patent holders win more out..
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/05/08/pto-proposed-rulemaking-phillips-claim-construction-ptab/id=96995/
Tell the office to have fun in their cubicals micromanaging asscm The largest news from the ptab in a decade just came out 5 minutes ago. Ipr will be less successful going forward as broadest reasonable is going away, which uoip passed anyway.
https://www.worldipreview.com/news/uspto-seeks-to-ditch-bri-standard-15905
Comments from UOIP Lawyers
https://www.law360.com/articles/907966/ptab-nixes-six-cisco-ipr-petitions-over-networking-patents
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, lead attorney for ChanBond, 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 A. Whitman, Timothy J. Rousseau, Andrea Pacelli and John Petrsoric of Mishcon de Reya New York LLP.
Cisco is represented by Wayne O. Stacy and Kathryn A. Juffa of Baker Botts LLP.
The cases are Cisco Systems Inc. v. ChanBond LLC, case numbers IPR2016-01889, IPR2016-01890, IPR2016-01891, IPR2016-01898, IPR2016-01899 and IPR2016-01900, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
--Editing by Sara Ziegler.
to get an idea of what the patent portfolio was valued at by a third party...in this case CB...defendants need settlement numbers in their heads and they want to know expectations
if you want some hot and heavy start tweeting natlawreview about the latest
#ChanBond Avoids Institution of Six Cisco #IPR Petitions https://t.co/vJyyBVK8Gn @SLW_IP #IP #Litigation #Patent
— National Law Review (@natlawreview) April 3, 2017
ascm is back in his cubicle from lunch...nice
many suits settle for the $1B to $20B range
http://www.bustpatents.com/awards.html
last company they were in that I was in went 70x or 7000% as they got a squeeze
This needs to be a sti ky
hopefully people understand that many of these mergers that you see are really due to a patent infringement...and they mark it as a merger.
you can get $20B deals.....it happens
many suits settle for the $1B to $20B range
http://www.bustpatents.com/awards.html
AVERAGE INTERNET SPEED MORE THAN TRIPLED SINCE 2011, SO UOIP TECH PATENTED IS WORTH AT LEAST 3/4 OF THE $1T THE 13 CABLE COMPANIES CHARGE DURING THE 2012 TO 2020 TIMEFRAM FOR THE SERVICE. IF 1.5%, WHICH IS NORMAL, THAT IS AROUND $10b. http://bgr.com/2016/01/02/us-internet-speeds-average/
and another $81B annually in digital TV rev...for a $200B annually that the 13 sell that is supported by the UOIP patents. Without FDMA channelbonding we would be stuck with data rates that were around during 2010 or so......
https://www.statista.com/topics/3359/cable-tv/
here is just he internet data the 13 sell each year...$118B
https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-trends/market-research-reports/information/data-processing-services/internet-service-providers.html
suit is of services rendered, ie internet and tv that you and I pay for...
The accused cable systems include cable system components
such as cable modem termination systems, RF transmission hardware, network monitoring
equipment and customer premises equipment (e.g., cable modems, embedded multimedia
terminal adapters, and set-top boxes), including but not limited to components that are compliant
with the Data Over Cable System Interface Specification (“DOCSIS”) standard, version 3.0 or
higher.1 More particularly, Comcast, without authority from Plaintiff, provides, operates,
implements, sells, markets, imports and/or offers for sale cable systems and/or cable services that
perform, are capable of performing or are provided having channel bonding functionality,
including but not limited to cable systems and components that have the capability to distribute a
service flow over multiple, bonded channels and/or the capability to receive a service flow over
multiple, bonded channels (the “Accused Functionality”).
enormous read....defendants seeking valuation of UOIP via Chanbond
I love when ascm sits in their cubical and micromanages....
Sticky
It is true...that's what the tech supports. 31 without the tech they would still sell cable and internet, just much less less of it. So a portion of the 2$t at play. Maybe half....
Any service sold by the 13 that use fdma for channelbonding is willfully infringed.
Multiple separate rf channels
Its $1t in data services sold by cable companies and another $1t in digital TV service that chanbond tech supports. 1/2 of 1% is $10b.
My hope is many on ihub can make money here. Big money.
This is massive. Defendants are seeking a valuation. UOIP named as beneficary.
The ptab revolves around timestamps for everything when it comes to prior art and patents. They will hold themselves to the same standard when an ipr is 18 months late. Arris ipr is invalid.
We have first inventor to file rights for fdma for high speed networks it appears. All signs point to a major yes
So you were aware an ipr must be filed within 1 year of the infringement suit thus these iprs wont even be looked at.
Suit was sep 2015 so sep 2016 was last chance to ipr. They are 18 months too late.
https://www.upcounsel.com/inter-partes-review
haha well this is going to smash axx& returns....and cubicle micro ascm is going to have to straight up buy like they did with integrated
cool I just sent it to whitman
I'm reading up on arris' ipr's they did on 2.2.18. I did not know they did file. No way they will win. They argue that the device knows where to send the signals within a channel for bonding purposes based on a unit-location database. Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of a unit-location database, there is no way they can come to the Chanbond patent of CDMA on channel bonding, which is the tech at use today. That tech is the ability of several transmitters to send data over a single channel, and then to bond the appropriate transmission at the receiver with its representative date on another channel.
Arris basically says you transmit and a database tells the data where to go which is not CDMA technology. CDMA tech specifically is for codes attached to the transmission in order to avoid interference of multiple transmissions on a single channel.
Arris is like 50 cars on the highway that have predetermined places to go, and if another car is in the way it'll smash right through it. Chanbond is 50 cars on the same highway, but programmed to move around each other to avoid collision as they go to their destination, which is what makes the technology actually work.
You can't do what Cisco or Arris propose and get to the technology at use.
https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/caselist?petitioners=Arris+International+PLC
micromanagers in their cubicles...last time I saw them around squeeze was .10 to 7.00 on integrated...such crappy jobs to have lol
Are axx@ folks in the loop here?
its just a matter of how much of that $150B annual revenue that the new 3.0 tech is responsible for.....
In other words, if this tech did not exist, we would still have internet data speeds similar to what we had in 2010 and they could still sell that, but this tech allowed them to ramp it up.
No question in my mind that they are suing the 13 for a large piece of their $150B ISP revenue...as without this tech they would still sell ISP but for far less cost because we'd have much slower speeds still.
they are attaching that...
Upon information and belief, Comcast has been and is currently directly
infringing, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’822 Patent by
making, using, testing, offering to sell, and/or selling within the United States, and/or importing
5
into the United States, without authority, cable systems and cable services that are covered by at
least one claim of the ’822 Patent. The accused cable systems include cable system components
such as cable modem termination systems, RF transmission hardware, network monitoring
equipment and customer premises equipment (e.g., cable modems, embedded multimedia
terminal adapters, and set-top boxes), including but not limited to components that are compliant
with the Data Over Cable System Interface Specification (“DOCSIS”) standard, version 3.0 or
higher.1 More particularly, Comcast, without authority from Plaintiff, provides, operates,
implements, sells, markets, imports and/or offers for sale cable systems and/or cable services that
perform, are capable of performing or are provided having channel bonding functionality,
including but not limited to cable systems and components that have the capability to distribute a
service flow over multiple, bonded channels and/or the capability to receive a service flow over
multiple, bonded channels (the “Accused Functionality”). Comcast’s cable systems and
components that perform or are capable of performing the Accused Functionality, and/or the use
of such cable systems and components, infringe one or more claims of the ’822 Patent under 35
U.S.C. § 271.
What about a share of the ISP rev stream? 150b annual from the 13.
Still barely above book value market missing extra immediate 15 to 20 valuation
I don't think they petioned....
Nice. I am averaging up and emailing reporters daily.
all coming together. Cisco divested of its bonding tech, Comcast did not respond to patent owners after seeking legal opinion. could this be the biggest suit that nobody is talking about