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.
You nailed it.
Fantasyland dropped his nugget (turd) on UOIP and immediately left.
Recently sharing his wisdom with: OWCP, BIOAQ, ABIO, BMXC, ERBB.
Would not be unusual for Cisco Appeal to be terminated by UOIP/Chanbond since they are the plaintiff.
If Daubert hearings leave Cables with weak defense after Judge rules on which experts are allowed. UOIP could cancel their Cisco appeal. This would shut the door on Delaware judge allowing a delay for results of Cisco trial. Delaware trial scheduling would then come quickly after Daubert decision.
If Carter believes he can get most of potential gain this year vs. 2- 3 years - Just sayin' a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
UOIP has real & very valuable patents that have been infringed.
UOIP only has common shares.
Preferred and super shares do not exist.
Debt is not an issue.
Settlement before Delaware trial is most likely outcome. Christmas will be good this year for good little UOIP share holders.
Yes UOIP went where it is friendly to property rights. UOIP Shareholders will be paid for the infringement by the cable companies.
BTW - average jury has a low opinion of the monopolistic cable companies and their constantly raising rates for a basic service. They will go ballistic when they see the evidence that the cable companies stole the tech and then made their customers pay more the ability to do high speed streaming. Being a willful infringement, get ready for triple damages (unless cables are smart and settle before trial).
Me - Getting ready to retire off UOIP winnings.
A Federal District court Judge in Delaware is in the final preparations for trial by jury this summer that will decide whether UOIP has been infringed and how much compensation is due.
Background information: UOIP has been successful in defending its patents before PTAB. This will be brought out at trial.
Hope this helps your education with respect to UOIP patents.
BTW - if you have a DOSCIS 3.0 or above modem then you are using UOIP technology.
Sorry IG - UOIP has real & very valuable patents that have been infringed. I have included some information that may help you realize your mistake that THE INVENTORS are real and they own common shares like the rest of us longs. Definitely not patent trolls.
Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard V. Snyder, and Robert D. Stine invented intelligent devices and a methodology that allow a single flow (e.g. large data transmission) to be split and modulated onto various channels for transmission. This transmission is then demodulated and recombined back into a single service flow (resulting in the functionality of a single virtual IP channel) for distribution to addressable devices.
Using the inventor's intelligent devices service providers are now capable of transmitting more content to their customers at higher speeds, better quality of service, and at the same time, lowering costs to the provider.
However, the service providers are doing this without compensating the inventors or the company that owns the patents. This is known as infringing. The 13 largest service providers are being sued for Patent Infringement. Daubert hearing are almost finished and the trial of service providers in Deleware is set for this summer.
The Patent Estate includes the following patents and continuances:
Patents: 7,346,918 7,941,822 8,341,679 8,984,565 9,015,774
Continuances: 13/799,749 14/167,289
The entire Patent Estate was sold to ChanBond, LLC. A wholly owned subsidiary of UOIP.
"There you go again.." In the words of Ronald Reagan (40th President of USA)
You need to digest some facts for once.
Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard V. Snyder, and Robert D. Stine invented intelligent devices and a methodology that allow a single flow (e.g. large data transmission) to be split and modulated onto various channels for transmission. This transmission is then demodulated and recombined back into a single service flow (resulting in the functionality of a single virtual IP channel) for distribution to addressable devices.
Using the inventor's intelligent devices service providers are now capable of transmitting more content to their customers at higher speeds, better quality of service, and at the same time, lowering costs to the provider.
However, the service providers are doing this without compensating the inventors or the company that owns the patents. This is known as infringing. The 13 largest service providers are being sued for Patent Infringement. Daubert hearing are almost finished and the trial of service providers in Deleware is set for this summer.
The Patent Estate includes the following patents and continuances:
Patents: 7,346,918 7,941,822 8,341,679 8,984,565 9,015,774
Continuances: 13/799,749 14/167,289
The entire Patent Estate was sold to ChanBond, LLC. A wholly owned subsidiary of UOIP.
UOIP has no preferred or super shares, only common shares and has no debt.
Sorry IG - the law has shifted to the Patent Owners. Patent inventors are UOIP common share holders.
The infringers and their shyster lawyers (billable hours from delays until Mr. Deep Pockets is broke) are in for a rude awakening. The days of endless IPR from RPI's (Real Parties of Interest) is over. Arris learned the hard way. Time barred because they knew in 2015 but waited to long to file.
Scott Mckeown: Looking forward, there will be more precedent on the patent owner side – and what I mean by that is what I've spoken about earlier; this idea of weighing equities. And now that the USPTO director, under the new standard operating procedures that were recently issued a few months back for the Board, has the power to essentially make precedent in cooperation with the chief judge, the Board will be able to make more precedent and issue it faster. And the director has indicated an interest in recalibrating or rebalancing the system in favor of patent owners. So I think going forward, it will continue to be a challenge for petitioners and patent owners alike to navigate the system, but for patent owners, there's certainly a significant light at the end of the tunnel that wasn't there in 2012.
If memory serves me - I think AJ mentioned The prisoner's dilemma about a year ago.
Just want to give credit where its due.
Broke don't forget The prisoner's dilemma . Get the weak one to cave. The rest will follow. Remember Auto negotiations back in the day : unions used to pick on Chrysler until it caved then Ford & GM took same deal.
Cops use this tactic in negotiating with multiple suspects all the time.
You can bet a smart guy like Billy Carter knows how to play one against the other to find weak sister
The prisoner's dilemma is a paradox in decision analysis in which thirteen cable companies acting in their own self-interests do not stick together in the optimal group win. The typical prisoner's dilemma is set up in such a way that all parties choose to protect themselves at the expense of the other participant.
From Clint Eastwood (Justus1's neighbor):
UOIP should "Hang em high" or "Do you feel lucky today, punk"
You are correct. So much is possible with 5g that it may be delayed but cannot be stopped. Think driverless cars (Uber, Lyft, & Google betting big), Artificial Intelligence ( data driven tech - weather forecasting, medical diagnosis), Public safety (WiFi cameras everywhere, facial recognition linked to criminal data bases & government watch lists). Not going to bore you but there a bunch more techs that will be enabled by 5G.
Stopping 5G. Good luck with that. Like back in the day - before "Social Media" - trying to stop Facebook, Twitter, & Google/YouTube.
Gonna get my UOIP winnings and become a prepper & go off grid.
Wait until you get to where our lawyers are ripping defendant's expert Quigley for using the same arguments that were rejected in claim construction. MSO's are desperate. Carter & UOIP longs are watching our lawyers march to the goal line. This will be better than Tiger's win at Masters.
Pinks will have bid ask prices change. Greys do not change since they cannot trade on any exchange - only trade within same broker.
UOIP has not changed since SEC suspended UOIP for 10 days Sept. 2018.
Bid
0.035
Ask
0.04
TD Ameritrade lists UOIP as grey market
From TD Ameritrade 10 am 4/11/19:
UnifiedOnline Inc Grey Market: UOIP
Communication Services : Diversified Telecommunication Services | Small Cap Blend Company profile
UnifiedOnline, Inc. provides wireless and fiber broadband service, co-location space and related services and operates a Network Access Point (NAP) where customers directly interconnect with a network ecosystem of partners and customers. In addition, through the Company's IceWEB Storage Corporation subsidiary, it can deliver online cloud computing application services, other managed services, such as Disaster Recovery, Archive Storage, Redundant File Storage, Redundant Broadband Services and Business Continuity Services. The Company's subsidiaries, Computers & Telecom, Inc. and KCNAP, LLC (CTC), operates a wireless Internet service business, providing Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access (WIMAX) broadband to small and medium size businesses in the metro Kansas-City, Missouri area. In addition, CTC offers various solutions, including data center co-location; interconnection, and exchange and outsourced information technology (IT) infrastructure services.
Lest we forget---The most important cash out number is the one in the head of W. Carter, owner of 56% of UOIP common shares. We are all spectators that have placed a bet on his game.
I for one hope he knows the strength of his hand and the skill of his (ours) lawyers. But "all-in" & "go-for-broke" are not usually in the repertoire of a businessman.
Scruf -- what are you doing.
My brain short circuited on that circular logic post.
It was already in a tizzy over the fact that you say a new game if it goes to trial.
Why won't anybody listen - the final payment is $.92 for each of the 1.6 billion shares (per Old Monmouth - UOIP Transfer Agent).
I have it from a highly anonymous source that trusts Ihub users not to betray his trust. BTW - I use a official Dream Catcher to capture the the Dream Weaver's work.
Feels like Mother "goosed" me.
But it is something that may be happening on this board.
Appreciate your posts as we wait for "Final Countdown" cue "Europe".
FYI - like you this is the only stinky pinky -now grey that I have ever owned. It has been exciting & educational. And like you, I believe this patent coin flip is weighted in our favor 90 to 10.
U-W, I think you're right. Somebody is wanting a "do over" for their 20k shares. They got $20 instead of $200.
"Review before submit order" This lesson cost them $180.
More Money from UOIP Phase 2 Targets - like Northland in Seattle. How much will they pay for infringing? Great question.
Except for fiber based ISP's like Verizon "FIOS" - Wonder if Cater has a phase 2.
After the 13 lose or settle, WOW, Northland and the rest should roll over and pay up without a fight.
Anybody have an idea of potential? Maybe another $300 to $500 million.
That would add another 25 cents per share.
Private Company serving non-urban northwest USA.
Per Bloomberg:
Northland Telecommunications Corporation, through its subsidiary, involves in the ownership of cable television systems in the United States. It caters to the non-urban markets. The company was founded in 1985 and is based in Seattle, Washington.
Why not have last trade @ .06.
Heck, I'd pay .06 for 1 share plus comm - just to have history show it went out at .06
Focus on pacers
- for Delaware trial of cables = the money trial
- and Cisco appeal - a win here on 822 patent means even mo' money
Back burner
- RPX in Supreme Court - last gasp of loser
- Arris Appeals Court enbanc - 1 judge already killed it rest will do same
EB case appears to be the Arris loss on appeal due to time bound on PTAB non-institute IPR.
Apparently, Arris wants "en banc" court (all judges in Fed Appeals Court) to rehear case. Delaying tactic which will produce same result - a loss. Then they still have the Supreme Court. This would be just a "Hail Mary" like RPX is doing. Waste of SC time.
Like AJ says: Lawyers will run this thing until wheels fall off!!!
EPA/AA ratio is a good idea. Not in usual lipid test for Sentara (Virginia). I asked for it to be included in next lab/visit in 6 months.
I want to be healthy with out statin & wealthy on AMRN
Thanks, I have seen the posts on fish oil supply for Vacepa being impacted by new scripts increasing the volume needed. This increase need for fish oil source for EPA after R-I is going to happen to the substitutes also. And this increase supply to sell in non-pharma usually translates into completive price reductions like we are seeing.
Just wondering if Amarin (15% of portfolio) is being careful to lock in supply source before scarce. That would be bad 2 years from now when sales do the hockey stick take off.
BTW - EPA benefit description by JL & other cardios made me wish I could take Vacepa but even the substitute has helped.
Results after 5 months 1000g 2x day with food.
Reduced processed food & increased exercise.
HDL +18%
LDL no change
TG -35%
Glucose -11%
Can't wait to see results after 1 year on EPA. Will be back within guidelines. Yeah avoid going on statins. Maybe Vacepa has label expansion by R-I birthday in Sept.
I share the insurance problem and also settled on PharmaEPA Restore as a substitute for Vacepa until Amarin gets label change and insurance companies make adjustment to allow me coverage.
On the subject of source material. Is anything happening with fish oil. The price I pay on Amazon keeps going down. Last summer was $33/60 cap of 1000mg pure EPA, October was $30.45 and last week paid $22.
Is Amarin experiencing the same thing = more profitable??
BTW - I have learned a lot from many on this board about CV health and am able to have intelligent conversation with my PC doc. Thanks
ZW, Yes both sides agreed to cap number experts. Both sides picked their best shots. Then defendants added this Ph'd from Princeton who is super expert on optical CDMA multiplexors. This breaks the rules agreed to by both parties.
Hope Judge Andrews recognizes defense is pulling a fast one. He shouldn't allow them to change rules. Don't give them 2 bites of the apple.
Also, I remember that cabel (cable haha) lawyers lost in the Markham hearings when Judge ruled that Chanbond meaning of RF channels was clear enough and did not overlap with CDMA channels.
Supreme Court affirms UOIP doing something right and will be rewarded for following the rules when the patents were challenged.
UOIP used the PTAB courts to defend and validate all 3 of it's patents. This is the administrative court system set up by Congress under the America Invents Act.
This proves UOIP has a case. Only remaining question is How much the infringers are going to pay. Stay tuned to Deleware trial of 13 cable companies this summer.
UOIP common shareholders INCLUDES the inventors and patent filers. First filed in 2000. Look it up.
UOIP holds patents that have been upheld at PTAB. The inventors that had their intellectual property stolen would disagree with you. They have been seeking justice since 2012 when Comcast told them "take us to court" (VP of IP & Exec VP)
- In 2015, they joined UOIP and sued the infringing cable companies. Since 2015, Cisco, Arris, & RPX have not been able to invalidate the 3 patents at the PTAB.
- In 2016, Judge Andrews "Markham cleared" UOIP's patent definitions as clear in meaning and ready for trial dismissing cable companies attempts change meaning. Judgement day in the Federal Court of Judge Richard G. Andrews is fast approaching.
Let’s start with a definition of a patent troll.
A troll is a firm that does two distinct things.
-First, it purchases lots of patents that it has no intention of using. That is a prerequisite for being a patent troll, but it doesn’t make a company one. Not UOIP - It HAS ONLY 3 PATENTS
- The second element is essential: They must take this patent (and the vaguer the patent, the better) and threaten lots of companies that in reality have done nothing wrong. Those companies must either pay license fees or defend themselves through the court system. The troll then offers to sell a license at a deeply discounted price, counting on companies deciding that it would be much easier and cheaper to pay than fight. NOT UOIP WHICH HAS VERY DETAILED PATENTS THAT HELD UP IN PTAB COURT AND UOIP WANTS JUST COMPENSATION FOR INVENTING A WAY TO STREAM INTERNET OVER FIBER/COPPER SYSTEMS USED BY CABLE COMPANIES
Easy to find by doing due diligence
Supreme Court. LMAO.
Sorry to nuke 'm until they "glow". Facts show a trail of defeats for all those that attack the UOIP patents.
RPX latest chapter of sore loser.
Supreme Court No. 17-1686
Title:RPX Corporation, Petitioner v. ChanBond LLC
RPX lost in PTAB. RPX lost Fed Appeal, RPX losing in Supreme Court because they can't muster the 4 votes needed for a writ of certiorari.
Result = RPX failed and was bought out causing many RPX investors to lose money.
Arris met the same fate after attacking UOIP patents.
Cisco sees the hand writing on the wall and is in settlement talks to avoid defeat.
**** Cable companies have to worry if this gets in front of jury of "angry cable customers"
Agree. It was a binary choice. Have settlement talks or agree to dismiss appeal.
UOIP/Chanbond did not choose to dismiss and Cisco could not ignore & was forced to have settlement talks. Translation = see you in court.
Or in the words of President Kennedy " a great smoke making machine."
This isn't the first time AMRN has been smoking hot.
Whatever the reason for rise, I am enjoying the updated balance in my TDA account. Hope to never see $13 AMRN again.
J. You are pretty close.
The Supreme court came up with Rule 702 to solve the problem of junk science being presented in trials to jurors that couldn't understand it.
Basically it is a pretrial to decide which experts get into the real trial.
It doesn't cost anything for each side to do SJ/Daubert challenge on the other guys experts. So the judge decides which experts get into the trial based on requirements of Rule 702.
The judge acts a "gatekeeper" to keep the "junk" out of the real trial.
The longer version:
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
Daubert, the Supreme Court focused on interpreting the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which provides that:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
TheSupreme Court determined that Rule 702 necessitates the trial judge acting as a ‘gatekeepe’r for expert evidence, ie to preliminarily assess the qualifications, reliability, and relevancy of the testimony before permitting the expert to testify in front of a jury. Thus, to the dismay of some legalcritics, the right to adjudge the reliability of expert testimony was stripped from the jury and transferred to the trial judge presiding over the case.3
To assist trial courts in performing this gatekeeping function, the Supreme Court established a listof four factors that focused primarily on the scientific validity of the methodology underlying the expert’s opinion.These factors include whether the underlying technique:
• has been tested;
• has been subjected to peer review and publication;
• has a known or knowable rate of error; and
• is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community.4
Trialcourts across the United States,armed with their new-found authority to preliminarily assess thevalidity of an expert’sopinion, took this job seriously.Opponents of expert testimony began filingwhat has become known as the ‘Daubertchallenge’,a motion, generally filed before trial, which asserts that the expert testimony in question fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 702 . Becausethe filing of this pretrial motion shifts the burden and, consequently,the majority of the cost,to the party seeking to introduce expert testimony,opponents of the expert testimony utilize the Daubert challenge as a method of strategically burdening the proponent of the testimony in the evidentiary and financial arenas. The filing of a Daubert challenge costs the opponent of experttestimony little or no attorney’sfees, and so an opponent of the expert testimony has little to lose and much to gain by filing this pretrial motion. Thus, the Daubert challenge became an integralelement of each case, leaving the expert and the attorney profferingthe testimony to fend off the challenge.5
BTW - 1 more thing that should come soon. UOIP Lawyers still waiting for top US gov't lawyer brief requested by Supreme Court.
Talk about dragging things out - RPX filed this "loser" appeal last March.
Supreme Court No. 17-1686 RPX Corporation, Petitioner v. ChanBond LLC
Oct 01 2018
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
Hey Ice - Wondering ..Do unto others as they do unto you...
Remember how we all thought that it was one of the cables that put a bug into the SEC to single out UOIP and force into the Greys when many other "non-reporting" Pinks have remained Pink for years.
Well, I wonder if we find out whether the SEC is ready to slap some wrists for publicly listed cables that don't report UOIP risk of large damages in their 10-Q's and annual reports?
Let's see if cables tell the world that they are about to be exposed as thieves and there will be a financial penalty.
Where did I see that SEC tip line contact info?
Guess we have to wait for next KHenry Pacer update in a few weeks - Cisco's response to UOIP brief.
If their lawyers are as good as RPX & Arris lawyers, then CAFC will be announcing "all parts of 822 patent are valid."
This will send shivers of fear into Cables trial since this will make the infringement worse = damages more.
I don't want to be an Oscar Meyer Wiener -- I want to be a UOIP winner!!
AMRN should focus increased sales effort - America’s heart disease capitals
IMO – AMRN should increase sales everywhere but extra effort/focus should be on markets where docs have lots of patients in the “label” category.
Over time the benefits of VascEPA will show up faster – success will breed more success & docs will spread their success by word of mouth.
Where are these fertile grounds:
America’s heart disease capitals*
1. FLINT, MICHIGAN
> Heart disease incidence: 8.7%
> Current lack of health insurance: 21.8%
> Smoking: 31.5%
> Obesity: 42.0%
> Adults who report poor physical health: 18.9%
2. DETROIT, MICHIGAN
> Heart disease incidence: 8.6%
> Current lack of health insurance: 23.6%
> Smoking: 31.4%
> Obesity: 45.1%
> Adults who report poor physical health: 18.7%
3. READING, PENNSYLVANIA
> Heart disease incidence: 8.6%
> Current lack of health insurance: 31.5%
> Smoking: 26.3%
> Obesity: 43.8%
> Adults who report poor physical health: 19.4%
4. YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO
> Heart disease incidence: 8.5%
> Current lack of health insurance: 21.0%
> Smoking: 30.6%
> Obesity: 40.6%
> Adults who report poor physical health: 18.7%
5. DAYTON, OHIO
> Heart disease incidence: 8.4%
> Current lack of health insurance: 17.1%
> Smoking: 27.5%
> Obesity: 39.7%
> Adults who report poor physical health: 17.7%
6. GARY, INDIANA
> Heart disease incidence: 8.3%
> Current lack of health insurance: 23.3%
> Smoking: 26.9%
> Obesity: 45.2%
> Adults who report poor physical health: 18.3%
7. CAMDEN, NEW JERSEY
> Heart disease incidence: 8.3%
> Current lack of health insurance: 30.3%
> Smoking: 26.8%
> Obesity: 40.9%
> Adults who report poor physical health: 19.4%
8. CLEVELAND, OHIO
> Heart disease incidence: 8.2%
> Current lack of health insurance: 19.9%
> Smoking: 28.3%
> Obesity: 40.1%
> Adults who report poor physical health: 17.9%
9. MACON, GEORGIA
> Heart disease incidence: 7.9%
> Current lack of health insurance: 25.5%
> Smoking: 25.8%
> Obesity: 41.2%
> Adults who report poor physical health: 17.9%
10. CANTON, OHIO
> Heart disease incidence: 7.7%
> Current lack of health insurance: 15.7%
> Smoking: 27.8%
> Obesity: 38.3%
> Adults who report poor physical health: 16.6%
* To identify the heart disease capitals in the United States, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the largest 500 cities in the country. The 20 cities listed are those where at least 7.5% of people over 18 years of age report having been told by a health professional that they had angina or coronary heart disease in 2015. Additional data came come from the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data, and the Census Bureau’s 2017 American Community Survey.
Paying after win in court is not difficult. There are still 2 active UOIP board members. Marc. I Abrams and Bernie Stolar were put on the board by Billy and have never left.
Billy Carter with one phone call (after winning in court) could have the 2 remaining Board member elect replacement for Robert Howe as CEO and Chairmen of the Board. At that point, he can implement a payment plan for current shareholders (only common shares exist and includes all of us longs).
Billy Carter bought control of the company and replaced the CEO and Board of Directors April 23, 2014.
Bill later converted his 400 K special shares into 900 million common shares and he had UOIP acquire Chandbond.and its patents in Oct. 2015. Chanbond was bought with 44 million shares and a $5 millon note due in 2020.
For the Record:
SEC FORM 8-K -Date of Report April 23, 2014
On April 23, 2014, the Corporation entered into a Subscription Agreement (the “Subscription Agreement”) with UnifiedOnline! LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Subscriber”), pursuant to which the Subscriber purchased four hundred thousand (400,000) shares of Series AA Preferred Stock of the Corporation (the “Shares”).
In consideration for the Shares, Subscriber (i) paid $16,753.80 in satisfaction of a contractual health insurance obligation of the Corporation, (ii) caused $99,332.87 to be paid on behalf of the Corporation to various vendors, and (iii) obtained the agreement of a certain lessor to temporarily forbear exercising non-payment default remedies.
Effective at 5:00 PM EDT on April 23, 2014, Hal Compton, Sr. tendered his resignation from his position as a member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation (the “Board of Directors”) and as Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation. His resignation was not a result of any dispute or disagreement with the management of the Corporation.
Effective at 5:00 PM EDT on April 23, 2014, the Board of Directors accepted the resignation of Hal Compton, Sr. and elected Robert M. Howe, III to replace Mr. Compton on the Board of Directors.
Effective at 5:01 PM EDT on April 23, 2014, Raymond Pirtle tendered his resignation from his position as a member of the Board of Directors. His resignation was not a result of any dispute or disagreement with the management of the Corporation.
Effective at 5:01 PM EDT on April 23, 2014, the Board of Directors accepted the resignation of Raymond Pirtle and elected Marc I. Abrams to replace Mr. Pirtle on the Board of Directors.
Effective at 5:02 PM EDT on April 23, 2014, the Board of Directors accepted the resignation of Jack Bush and elected Bernie Stolar to replace Mr. Bush on the Board of Directors. Biographical information for Mr. Stolar follows:
Effective at 5:03 PM EDT on April 23, 2014, Ed Soyster, Nick Carosi III and Mark Stavish tendered their resignations from their positions as members of the Board of Directors and the Board of Directors accepted. The Corporation did not replace Mr. Carosi, Mr. Stavish or Mr. Soyster.
Marc. I Abrams was the founder and former leader of the public company business sector of Singer Lewak LLP, a certified public accounting firm. Mr. Abrams has over forty (40) years of public accounting experience, including audits of publicly held companies, initial public offerings, private offerings, corporate reorganizations and acquisitions, evaluating business plans and litigation support. Mr. Abrams has broad practice expertise in a variety of industries, including technology, finance, life sciences, real estate, retail and franchise, hotel and casinos and manufacturing. Mr. Abrams currently serves on the Board of Directors and as head of the Audit Committee of OFS Capital Corporation, a Nasdaq listed public company.
Bernie Stolar joined Google in February of 2007 where he is responsible for building in-game advertising. Previously, Mr. Stolar spent two (2) years at Mattel Interactive, overseeing all of Mattel’s software, online and computer-enhanced toys, including all product and business development, marketing, sales and operations. During his time at Mattel, Mr. Stolar refocused the company to deliver best-of-breed educational and entertainment products until that division was sold in late 2000. Prior to Mattel, Mr. Stolar served as president and chief operating officer of Sega of America and Sega Entertainment, where he was responsible for Sega’s console and PC gaming businesses in North America. Before joining Sega, Mr. Stolar was at Sony Computer Entertainment of America when it launched the Sony PlayStation. He was responsible for planning and developing strategic direction for the company’s third-party software development efforts that played a key role in the global success of the PlayStation console. His experience in the video game business spans more than twenty (20) years, including serving as president of the Lynx Division for Atari Corporation and founding Pacific Novelty Manufacturing, which at that time was the largest video arcade manufacturer west of Chicago. Prior to entering the interactive entertainment industry, Mr. Stolar spent a number of years in the publishing business, holding positions as associate publisher at The Village Voice and at Coast Magazine. Mr. Stolar currently serves on the Board of Directors of Worlds.com and My Medical Records.
FYI - on Cisco appeal - next event date = Jan 18, 2019 Cisco reply to Chanbond's brief.
Appellee Cisco Systems, Inc. ("Cisco") respectfully moves the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b) and Federal Circuit Rule pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b) and Federal Circuit Rule 26(b) for an order extending the time for Cisco to file its response brief in this 26(b) for an order extending the time for Cisco to file its response brief in this appeal by 66 days, from November 13, 2018 to January 18, 2019. No extension appeal by 66 days, from November 13, 2018 to January 18, 2019. No extension has been previously sought by Cisco in this appeal, and this request is made more has been previously sought by Cisco in this appeal, and this request is made more than seven days before the date sought to be extended. Appellant, on the other than seven days before the date sought to be extended. Appellant, on the other hand, sought and was granted two extensions of time for its opening brief hand, sought and was granted two extensions of time for its opening brief totaling 59 days.
In September, RPX failed to get the 4 Justices needed to grant certiorari (hear the case).
Chief Justice Roberts is one of the ones who wants to hear it. So rather than let it die, he delayed by requesting the U.S. Solicitor General to get involved. The SG reply won't come before early next year. Even if they eventual get 4 justices to agree to hear it, that case won't make it to SC court docket until next court year starting in Oct 2019.
Supreme Court: Oct 01 2018
The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
FYI: Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)