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.
everyone email Karl he needs to report on UOIP karl@dslreports.com
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/107101
how important do you think those claims are? if you consider all other claims on 822, and all claims on the other 2 patents are patentable by Chanbond. From your experience is there a way to say that the technology is 65% patented for example, or is it always 100% patentable or 0% patentable?
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.
testing, but no patent, this page defines the infringement
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Comcast-Deploying-Upstream-Channel-Bonding-114687
look at this gem, trials for channel bonding began in June 2011, 1 month after chanbond got its patent
https://zatznotfunny.com/2011-06/new-details-on-comcast-upstream-channel-bonding/
extra BOOM
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.
Medicare Advantage Commission up 10% last 4 years, and Drug Plan Commission up 30% last 4 years. CMS adopted a Fair Market Value approach. CMS will announce its 2019 rates in about 30 days.
You will see Medicare Advantage pay about 3 to 6% more between 2019 to 2021 and Drug Coverage likely 3 to 6% more over 2018 rates.
2018 http://blog.ritterim.com/2017/05/31/maximum-broker-commissions-for-medicare-advantage-ma-and-medicare-part-d-pdp-for-2018/
2017 http://blog.ritterim.com/2016/06/01/cms-announces-maximum-broker-commissions-for-medicare-advantage-ma-and-medicare-part-d-pdp-for-2016-2/
2016 http://blog.ritterim.com/2016/06/01/cms-announces-maximum-broker-commissions-for-medicare-advantage-ma-and-medicare-part-d-pdp-for-2016-2/
2015 http://blog.ritterim.com/2014/05/30/cms-releases-final-2015-medicare-advantage-ma-and-part-d-pdp-broker-commissions/
CMS Releases Final 2015 Medicare
insanity here, $16.57 book value here with market only giving $2.00 in value today in forward looking business when EBITA is $25M in 2018 (likely to be more as the Medicare constraints are too high due to commission expansion in Medicare). Have to figure a minimum of $15.00 in value on $1.25 EBITA PER SHARE, so $31+ here at present, but that is even way too low as EBITA is going up at 20% CAGR.
Guess is verification is $30M EBITA 2018 and $40M 2019
Tony you get this? Was the note you asked for. Major league
I've emailed VHC IR about UOIP, and also Bloomberg Law who wrote about Chanbond a month ago when RPX lost its appeal. Folks here should email all reporters who have written on Chanbond as well. Whatever you type up, just copy and paste it to the next email to make it easier. Simply put, we can get this info out to many.
thx I thought this would be over 30 earlier this year, but now is the time IMO. Hoping for mid 20s in May....and maybe some luck to approach 30..
key here is that Comcast sought legal opinion, and then never responded to chanbond again.....Finnegan must have spilled the beans 2 weeks ago when he was deposed.
Hey Comcast, whoops
http://www.reexamlink.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ChanBond-Complaint-ded-1-15-cv-00848-1.pdf
WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’822, ’679, and ’565 PATENTS
26. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 25 herein by reference as if set forth
here in full.
27. In January 2012, Comcast announced that it had completed its rollout of DOCSIS
3.0.
28. In February 2012, a business associate of the inventors communicated with Mr.
Joseph DiTrolio, Comcast Vice President and Corporate Comptroller, regarding the patent
portfolio. On February 23, 2012, the business associate had a face-to-face meeting with Mr.
DiTrolio, wherein he provided a write-up that identified the ’822 Patent and the application that
would issue as the ’679 Patent, and that indicated other continuations were pending. The writeup
described the patents and applications and their applicability to DOCSIS 3.0 and the cable
industry’s channel bonding technology. The business associate and Mr. DiTrolio discussed the
patents, patent applications, relevant technology, and the patents’ and patent applications’
applicability to the cable industry’s channel bonding technology. By February 23, 2012, Mr.
DiTrolio, and thus Comcast, knew of the at least the ’822 Patent and the application that would
9
issue as the ’679 Patent, and knew of their relevance to the DOCSIS 3.0 channel bonding
technology used by Comcast.
29. By February 27, 2012, Mr. DiTrolio had communicated the patent portfolio and
the write-up to Mr. James Finnegan, Comcast Senior Vice President, Intellectual Property
Strategy. On information and belief, by February 27, 2012, Mr. Finnegan knew of the ’822
Patent and the applications that would issue as the ’679 and ’565 Patents, and knew of their
relevance to the DOCSIS 3.0 channel bonding technology used by Comcast.
30. On March 28, 2012, Mr. Hennenhoefer (one of the co-inventors) had a
teleconference with Mr. Finnegan during which the patents, applications and CBV were
discussed. Mr. Finnegan informed Mr. Hennenhoefer that Comcast was obtaining a legal
opinion regarding the patents. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hennenhoefer had a follow-up call with
Mr. Finnegan.
31. On February 12, 2013, the ’822 and ’679 Patents and the application that would
issue as the ’565 Patent were also brought to the attention of Mr. TonyWerner of Comcast. On
February 13, 2013, Mr. Werner communicated the patents and applications, for at least a second
time, to Mr. Finnegan. Shortly thereafter, Messrs. Hennenhoefer and Stine (another of the coinventors)
had a teleconference with Mr. Mark Dellinger, Comcast Vice President, Intellectual
Property Strategy in which the patents and applications were discussed, along with their
applicability to DOCSIS 3.0.
32. Despite Comcast’s knowledge of the Patents and the channel bonding technology
that they covered, Comcast nevertheless continued making, using and selling products that
complied with and used DOCSIS 3.0 (and higher) channel bonding, despite an objectively high
likelihood that such actions constituted infringement of the Patents. This infringement was
10
known to Comcast or was so obvious that Comcast should have known about this infringement.
Despite knowing that its actions constituted infringement of the Patents and/or despite knowing
that that there was a high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the Patents,
Comcast nevertheless continued its infringing actions, and continued to make, use and sell
infringing DOCSIS 3.0 (and higher) products.
33. Comcast’s infringement of the ’822, ’679 and ’565 Patents has thus been
deliberate and willful, at least since February 23, 2012.
Chanbond has a better case then vhc as the tech is at least partially patentable and the money involved is much bigger. Literally the 1 trillion in internet data sold in the last 6 years by they 13 cable companies is at play.
Netflix for example would never exist in terms of streaming if it was not for this tech.
The 13 charged essentially have not compensated anyone for their ability to increase their internet capacity since 2012.
Also, it's not the sales of routers that is the damage. It's the sale of internet services from the cable companies that is the damage. The reason why we have faster upload and download speeds today is because of chanbond. The money the cable companies charge for internet services is what's at play as they willfully rolled out tech knowing that before it was vetted thru chanbond. They all rolled it out to keep up with the competition and not fall behind data streaming.
There is literature somewhere talking about how chanbond met with comcast and others in 2012 and told them to stop, but they didnt.
The lawsuit is for willful infringement against the 13 cable companies and not Cisco or arris. Chanbond told the 13 that the tech in use was patented by chanbond and they ignored it so they could roll out faster internet data speeds. That's why the comcast tech vp was deposed 2 weeks ago. If the cable guys lose, they would then sue Cisco and arris. This is why those firms did ipr.
Willfully infringing is much easier to win and that is why they went for that.
I will say this, the technology at use by the 13 MSOs is somewhere between 0% and 100% patentable, and Chanbond seems to have at least 50% of the tech patented, maybe more. Technology moves fast and due process gets skipped all of the time.
So its a matter of willfull infringement, and the question is just how much? These guys created this tech for their own use and were never compensated for it.
VHC is at $200M MC right now on $500M jury demand and nothing patentable on 400M iPhone sales for FaceTime IP.
UOIP has 3 patents at issue with 2 out of 3 completely patentable and the majority of 1 patent patentable, on $1Trillion in sales in internet data transmission from 13 internet providers. $200M MC here is PPS .125. A jury here has to be in the $5B range IMO if not more.
My suggestion is to get VHC involved here as maybe they would offer VHC stock for UOIP while all running full speed now in the courts. This would increase attention as well for them and UOIP. We should email VHC, perhaps they will start buying shares here.
Contact:
Investor Relations
VirnetX Holding Corporation
775.548.1785
ir@virnetx.com
like I said, this should be at 7-10 right now. no employees needed except a few to maintain rigs. 33% profit stock buyback, 33% profit into new rigs per month, 33% profits held as BTC in cold storage. Profit here is currently about $300,000 per month with 1400 rigs and BTC 9000. As BTC/difficulty fluctuates will see profit between $100,000 and $1M per month here. If at points, profit becomes $0, you shut the rigs off for that time and you HEDGE the company with PUTS on FUTURES.
5 Year plan yields 1000BTC (and this is factoring in mining difficulty rises with just 33% profits going into storage ) on the books, 5000 rigs, and O/S 10M here.
BTC 5 years 50,000k yields PPS $50
BTC 5 years 100,000k yields PPS $100
BTC 5 Years 500,000k yields PPS $500
Takes little to no work as a company to do this....there will be no merger here...do not need it and nobody is going to approve 70M shares given for $5M in equipment.
told ya...they have $275M commission asset on the books with NO COST as of March 31 and $40M cash. They could literally close up shop and the bank account would be $315M CASH>
WHAT COULD THEY SET UP WITH $315M CASH IF THEY WANTED! SURELY SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE WORTH $1B+
records about to hit here...cms highly likely going to raise medicare commission for the 4th year in a row when then announce the 2019 fair value compensation next month. 2018 will verify closer to $15M net, with 2019 being a $30M net here, and this is with a stupid $12M per year stock based compensation cost otherwise would be $25M net and $40M net next 2 years alone...
I contacted the CEO here yesterday about my thoughts and it's in consideration
Way more than that it should be it's 7 to $10 right now all they have to do with the 1400 rigs that they have is use 1/3 of profits for a stock buyback 1/3 of profits to buy new regs each month and 1/3 of profits holding as crypto and cold storage and in 5 years from now theyll have 1000 bit coin on the books 5000 rigs and no more than 10 million shares out in a price of 50 bucks
wonder if the inventors want to talk about things to include in the article? they have 44M shares of UOIP
http://www.channelbondingvideo.com/Contact.html
Tony, nice work, VHC is at $200M MC right now on $500M jury demand and nothing patentable on 400M iPhone sales for FaceTime IP.
UOIP has 3 patents at issue with 2 out of 3 completely patentable and the majority of 1 patent patentable, on $1Trillion in sales in internet data transmission from 13 internet providers. $200M MC here is PPS .125. A jury here has to be in the $5B range IMO if not more.
the 1400 rigs they have should be able to net them 1500 BTC over the next 5 years if they do 50% profit into adding rigs and 50% profit into holding BTC. If you are a believer in BTC $100,000 that is $150M worth of BTC on the books here. 20M O/S here have to figure PPS $7.00 or so.....
They can parlay their BTC on the books into something else if it doesn't go to $100,000 per BTC.
Either way, $7.00+ here is what it should be at
been following a year here...this is the gravy...they are in their 70s now...these 3 inventors
http://www.channelbondingvideo.com/Technology.html
when this goes I think we see .10 fast or about $160m cap. Key right now in my opinion is to get others, outside of IHUB on the trail. I am compiling a list of people who should be contacted to see what we see. Starting with Tony Dutra https://www.bna.com/patent-risk-defense-n73014474290/
have you guys contacted Michon De Reya yet, or the Bloomberg reporter?
https://www.bna.com/patent-risk-defense-n73014474290/
Thus, because RPX could not demonstrate that it had suffered an injury in fact, the Court held that RPX lacked Article III standing to appeal the PTAB’s decision affirming the patentability of ChanBond’s patented claims.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/non-defendant-ipr-petitioners-appellate-34761/
I agree, no debt here no shares to sell, pristine shell lots of work in progress and money behind this ticker...
Their law firm is able to be contacted so not sure what otc even tried...
You should ask their law firm and not otc
http://www.lawbauman.com/
Source on that is tanke which is good that the wire is clarifying and leaving the other prs in tact
I think you are wrong if you look at the company history they invest in other businesses with cash. Its what they do. $0 debt here. I want to know who this Greener Environment is, if its Yulong Zhu who recently left YECO, this is going to blow sky high....
Their OTC filings are being reviewed....
have you talked to com guard on the $1M?
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CGUD/news/Com-Guardcom-Inc-Announces-1M-Purchase-Order?id=188178
Pr today states otc markets reviewing filings tnke is loaded with cash and backing whenever needed
Pr today states otc markets reviewing filings tnke is loaded with cash and backing whenever needed
because for non current companies files with OTC Markets until they vet it out, then they upload it....only for Current companies can files go instant