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.
Breaker 1-9 for zw or sn
Any "Revelations" about this brother-in-arms?
Extremely too technical and specific for my little brain to piece together.
Hoping "Others" with the technical background can provide some insight into the MSO's argument.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147974388
After all, this could be crippling.
Still haven't found and forgot who said it but goes something like,
- "Once created, it's easy to envision an invention with (20/20) hindsight, but inventing toward the future is exceptionally difficult".
We've had a lot of time go by so hope Judge Andrews' experience can see through the very general "Obviousness" argument (without any specific link pinpointing the connection) by the defense.
Thank you and happy Saturday.
10-7, Scruffer
Latest Wild AStoniShing Guesses (WAG) 4 Buyout/Settlement
And the winning buyout/settlement figure is...
x.xx = Mr. William R. Carter, Jr, aka, "Sir Billy The Great": For the little guy(s)
0.24 = psychocharttrader
0.30 = TonyJoe1957
0.33 = Proudfoamer
0.39 = sointrigued
0.45 = Specialneeds (+ royalties)
0.46 = ice2014
0.48 = MorrisG
0.49 = SonamKapoor
0.56 = Nestegg McMuffin
0.58 = 00dylanplott
0.59 = GhostTazac
0.60 = zombywolf
0.64 = Scruffer
0.65 = I_Am_Ram (+ royalties)
0.67 = BUNDO (Rounded 0.666 to 2 decimals)
0.70 = Targun
0.71 = VC3
0.72 = Gmc2020
0.75 = justus1
0.76 = nyheat
0.77 = TechStock (+ royalties)
0.80 = Bitcoinmoon
0.83 = gooferball
0.85 = khenry458
0.87 = faqt
0.89 = Aftrmidnyt (Rounded 0.888 to 2 decimals)
0.90 = Frankp
0.91 = AllinFun
0.92 = Toanoman
0.97 = CDUB27
0.99 = rstar
1.00 = stockfan100
1.05 = Nicasurf (+ royalties)
1.09 = tsand
1.10 = BillySlong
1.11 = flyingboozeman
1.15 = WhoMadeWho
1.17 = Gm1850 (with possible royalties)
1.20 = magnus_invest
1.24 = Ultimate Warrior ($2B + royalties)
1.25 = skyway430
1.26 = maxamil
1.27 = BrokeAgent
1.38 = NewbieDoobyDoo
1.41 = Mic ll
1.50 = thunley1
1.56 = Jaredx24
1.61 = Gonfishun
1.66 = jrt03
1.68 = Katoprimate
1.73 = easyme
1.75 = MickHurst
1.76 = rockie101
1.90 = Lonzo
2.18 = Ranger185
2.32 = Evilbean
2.35 = 18 wheeler
2.41 = rbd1
2.55 = buster57
2.65 = money2013
2.81 = kid shaleen
2.99 = Goodbuddy4863
3.00 = AdamBaum
3.15 = Kevwizz3
3.23 = Engle1488
3.25 = MjMilo
3.33 = My face
3.54 = locard
4.00 = handMMJ
4.25 = bubba1234
4.69 = jbbb
4.80 = 2dollarbill
5.00 = Long term
5.01 = Philhump03
5.56 = stormcloud96
6.00 = doughnuthole
6.35 = Parker61
I/O = 1,614,601,069; Float = 663,868,192
This is for a buyout or settlement. New game if trial.
Lastly, thank you for playing.
Good luck, Scruffer.64
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147625565
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147627699
3-judge panel enters "The Judgment".
NP BA. Anytime, Scruffer
https://www.fr.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018-A-Guide-to-Patent-Litigation-in-Federal-Court.pdf
**CAFC Whitman (ChanBond) vs. Guske (Cisco)
I'm not sure if has been scheduled, but requested unavailable dates.
**This is to argue the appeal so nothing granted (won or lost).
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147546963
We still have 681 page gobbledegÖÖk.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147974388
A write DOWN matters. Agree about name.
I've only ever seen this.
It has moved-up to position #1 and NOT sorted by date.
Only found ChanBond, never UnifiedOnline, Inc. (UOIP).
Due to the nature of our business, we are subject to patent infringement claims, including current suits against us or one or more of our wholly-owned subsidiaries or one or more of our customers who may seek indemnification from us. We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the pending cases and intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits; however, we are unable currently to forecast the ultimate outcome of these or similar matters. In addition, we are a defendant in various litigation matters generally arising out of the normal course of business. Except as described below, we are not party to (nor have indemnification claims been made with respect to) any proceedings that are, or reasonably are expected to be, material to our business, results of operations or financial condition. However, since it is difficult to predict the outcome of legal proceedings, it is possible that the ultimate outcomes could materially and adversely affect our business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Accordingly, with respect to these proceedings, we are currently unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of possible loss.
ChanBond v. MSOs, C.A. 15-cv-00848, et al, District of Delaware (RGA). On September 21, 2015, ChanBond filed suit against several MSOs alleging infringement of three U.S. Patents. Certain of our customers have requested that we provide indemnification. Requests for Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) by ARRIS of the asserted patents were denied on procedural grounds. The complaint requests unspecified damages for infringement. To date, no evidence of infringement or damages has been introduced. It is premature to assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. In the event of an unfavorable outcome, ARRIS may be required to indemnify the MSOs and/or pay damages for utilizing certain technology.
Yahoo fins = SEC.gov; Will Ü re-find please?
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=ARRS&action=getcompany&owner=exclude
That could be significant and foreshadow what may be to come.
Not sure I believe you, so please PROVE me wrong.
Thank you,
Doubting-Scruffer
Please provide paragraph and link. TY.
Very interesting questions and astute observation.
My perspective is the aligning of synergies and accretion outweighs the "Long-term" risk.
"It also expects nearly $1B of cash flow from operations in the first full year, and will use free cash flow to "aggressively" pay down debt".
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3448421-commscope-closes-arris-acquisition
But yes, COMM must have concern.
Collectively, the defenses have spent millions and millions trying to nullify.
From RPX, ARRIS, CISCO and the 13.
I believe someone posted ARRIS on the hook to indemnify 30-40% of MSOs.
Moreover, ARRIS agreed to be acquired with COMM CEO staying in command.
“I believe this is a once-in-a-lifetime combination of two great companies that are poised to make a lasting impact on the communications industry and the customers we serve,” said Bruce McClelland, formerly chief executive officer of ARRIS and now chief operating officer at CommScope.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190404005426/en/
Also, we're not sure what insurance ARRIS has and what CISCO may contribute.
The way the stock traded yesterday (volume on grey), others appear to want in.
Hopefully, something is brewing.
LONG & STRONG UOIP,
Scruffer
Yes, saw that too. Trades backed-out.
Trades of 20,000 @ .015, 92,300 @ .014 and 12,700 @ .015 were backed-out.
Guess they could not fulfill order for some reason.
Between brokerages or whatever the reason.
Went back down to SP of .0125 and then .012, finishing at .011.
They were trade #'s 14 thru 16 (but this will be reset (blank) in the morning).
https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/USOTC/unifiedonline-inc-UOIP/trades
• If Gray Sheet stocks register to offer public shares, then you can only trade them through a broker that agrees to participate in that stock transaction. Such agreement is verbally expressed between the buyer and seller and is based on mutual good will.
If such agreement is broken by either participant before the transfer of shares occurs, there is little, if any, legal recourse to make the participant comply.
https://www.extraordinaryinvestor.com/grey-sheets.html
Yes, that it. Very much liked that 1.
Adding note so in my posts (so can find).
- Claims allowed of ChanBond-Cisco '822 appeal will determine amount
- What's allowed in Daubert may determine when (or somewhere along this theme)
Especially now that merger is complete.
We all hope your gut is right.
Still have:
- ChanBond-Cisco appeal
- 13 (17) DEFENDANTS’ MOTION REGARDING INVALIDITY COMBINATIONS
- Supreme Court?
- ?
Wasn't it you that wrote something like:
- ChanBond-Cisco appeal will determine "How much"
and
- Something, something about "When"
But we haven't been revoked yet so something must be going on.
I hope so, but? From Arris 10-K:
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018
Filing Date: 2019-03-01
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1645494/000114420419011641/tv513982_10k.htm#f_002
Long-term debt and financing lease obligation, net of current portion = 2,032,382,000
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001645494&owner=exclude&count=40&hidefilings=0
Yeah, not my cup of tea. Don't see it.
Can't go wrong with "The Trust".
Both bios interesting.
One just had a large position taken.
Don't know much about REITs.
With retail declining, must be in "Right space".
Didn't dive too deep in all of them.
UOIP is my only penny and probably only one.
Great sell and profit taking. Maybe you have "The Shine".
Perfectly executed on the 2M.
Thank you for the info.
One never knows what the market will do with these.
Best of luck, Scruffer
Tanks (and for your service).
http://100photos.time.com/photos/jeff-widener-tank-man
Right! Think only corruption can stop them now.
Just like lobbyist, I'm sure there are lots of influential peddlers extending or reaching into the courthouse halls.
100's of millions of dollars, if not billions, at stake.
To think otherwise is naive IMHO.
But this is truly the find of the quarter-of-a-century.
Opportunities like this just do not exist.
And if know another, I'm all iHub.
ÜÖIP, ÜÖIP, ÜÖIP,
ScÜÖIPfer
NTS, we need this win & knock-out blow.
NTS = Needless to say.
Unfortunately, don't keep up with that.
Get lost in all the changes and delays.
Many on the board know more of the schedule(s) and where we are.
My focus has been on "His Majesty King Henry CDLVIII" complimentary and courteous Pacer posts.
Absolutely ridiculous. Make lengthy so appears important?
This needs to be tossed and then pound in another nail.
681 pages of defendant's GENERAL spaghetti splotch.
Just throw everything defendants found (that's general and not specific) against the wall.
Subject to and notwithstanding the foregoing objections, ChanBond responds as follows:
Defendants bear the burden of establishing that any alleged invalidity reference is prior
art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103. Defendants’ contentions make no attempt to meet this burden.
Instead, for each reference, Defendants state only that the references are prior art “under at least”
a number of various paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102. Defendants, however, have failed to identify
or explain why any reference is prior art under any specific paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 102.
In addition, certain of the alleged prior art references identified by Defendants are
academic and commercial articles. Defendants provide no explanation concerning the manner in
which those articles enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use without undue
experimentation each claimed invention recited in the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
For their contentions regarding obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, with very limited
exception, Defendants have provided “exemplary obviousness cross-references in the alternative
to [the] anticipation contentions” with no explanation of how the “cross-references” satisfy the
limitations of any claim. As such, ChanBond’s response hereto is limited to those combinations
of references for which Defendants have elected to provide a claim chart.
With respect to the “motivations to combine” identified in Defendants’ invalidity
contentions, ChanBond notes that Defendants have not identified specific reasons to combine
any specific prior art references in the manner of the asserted claims. Instead, Defendants
conclusorily assert, without specific citation, that such motivation exist as a general manner.
Defendants fail to explain why one of skill in the art would pick and choose specific elements
from any particular reference to combine with any other particular reference in the manner of the
claimed invention. Defendants’ assertion that “the prior art references are broadly directed to
telecommunications and more specifically to providing higher bandwidth data transmission
through the use of channel aggregation or bonding” is largely unsupported and gives no insight
into how or why any identified references would be combined in the manner of the claimed invention.
LONG & STRONG UOIP, Scruffer-Splotch
We're getting down to the wire.
Same argument on all 3 patents, just repeated.
Whatever Jennifer Ying (defendants) can try to make stick.
It’s very easy to take credit for the thinking. The doing is more concrete. But somebody, it’s very easy to say “Oh, I thought of these three years ago”. But usually when you dig a little deeper, you find that the people that really did it were also the people that really worked through the hard intellectual problems as well.
-- Steve Jobs
http://wisdomquotes.com/steve-jobs-quotes/
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.
It appears that the one year window after service to file IPRs has passed, so it will be interesting to see if a request for rehearing is filed by Cisco to challenge the panel’s decision. It is not clear if the interpretations proffered by the panel will somehow pose issues for ChanBond to enforce its patents as planned, but it has at least avoided further review of the ‘679 and ‘565 patents for now.
http://www.reexamlink.com/2017/04/chanbond-avoids-institution-six-cisco-ipr-petitions/
$25k/month = $300k/year.
October 27, 2020 > 18 months from now.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815005300/uoip_10q.htm
Don't have E*Trade so asked 4 that.
Good one.
Anyway,
I'm hoping and praying buyout or settlement b4 merger.
There's always room for wishful thinking.
Scruffer
FYI...Shares available on E*Trade.
I know U & Iamwar19k are wanting some.
Don't know if know anything about "Grey Market", but no bid-ask.
It's what each brokerage has in-house to offer.
Can see "Last" fill however.
It's half luck getting filled.
If anything, call E*Trade and ask range have available 4 sale.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147849225
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147870370
Also, can track trades. Sometimes out-of-sequence (seq) & not real-time (delayed a little).
https://ih.advfn.com/stock-market/USOTC/unifiedonline-inc-UOIP/trades
Welcome and good luck,
Scruffalo
No, but yes he witnessed the signage of agreement.
Nothing about the transfer is in dispute; therefore, irrelevant.
He just happens to be the IT director for Deirdre Leane.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/joseph-ghally-4502a138
Actually, this was an OUTSTANDING find Magnus.
Finally found it on SEC.gov.
Many times when open an entire 10Q, it has all the exhibits and notes included.
Not so in this case. Maybe b/c scanned photocopy.
Unfortunately, it is unsearchable since one large print image.
Great read though.
Looks like a lot of detail about protecting common shares.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815005300/uoip_ex102.htm
Thank you again and anytime, Scruff
Awesome EB. That reaffirms blatant patent infringement.
Scruff
I'm just waiting on B-Ball having fun.
Mind-boggling how people:
- know about this stock
- it's around a penny
- all shares common
- Carter has 900M+ shares
- And don't see the ROR vs. risk.
It is absolutely crazy.
And they found this stock. They know about it.
People (CNBC and others) will be talking about this and wish had 1 million shares.
Me too, laugh that is. 1 in 10,000 stock.
This is the opportunity of a lifetime.
It amazes me how some cannot see it.
50+ bagger minimum from here.
It's your choice to miss the train.
Choo-Choo, Scruff-Steamer
U mean like Google buying Motorola patents?
I'm confused. You have stupified me.
https://bgr.com/2014/02/13/google-motorola-sale-interview-lenovo/
These inventors are the real deal and need to compensated for their infringed upon patents.
Inventors: Hennenhoefer; Earl (Carlisle, PA), Snyder; Richard (Harrisburg, PA), Stine; Robert (Mechanicsburg, PA)
Every, yes every DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem is infringing upon their inventions.
This is going to be one of the largest patent settlements or buyout EVER.
And bring on the trial, admitted WILLFUL INTENT by some cable companies and EGREGIOUS MISCONDUCT.
3x the award.
I sure am happy it's Friday night and I own LONG UOIP.
Peace-out, Scruff-Daddy
high-speed data transmission over their existing hybrid-fiber coaxial networks.
https://www.eprfinancialnews.com/2017/07/03/8172-recent-rise-in-the-stock-of-uoip-and-its-relation-to-chanbond/
all cable service providers that are employing the DOCSIS 3.0+ technology are infringing its patents
https://www.eprfinancialnews.com/2017/06/14/7833-the-story-of-chanbonds-fight-for-its-patent-infringement/
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/
RPX = Strike 3, OUT
ARRIS = Strike 2.5
CISCO = Strike 2
And a 50+ bagger for those holding shares.
LONG & STRONG ÜÖIP,
Scruff-Dilliocious
Hear, hear. U posted it best (very concise)
So, what's the answer?
Real estate?
I wasn't meaning the brokers are snaky. It can be some buyers/clients.
But it is extremely competitive and cut-throat among the agents.
Just the nature of the beast. Lots of industries like that now.
Tough, tough business to be successful in down markets.
Much like many commission based job.
Okay, when is UOIP going to be revoked, have settlement or what?
If that was your buy, congrats.
May try, .009, .01, .011 now.
This is Deirdre Leane selling to Rob Howe.
That is, ChanBond LLC to UnifiedOnline, Inc (UOIP).
They must've had a deal worked-out with Carter taking immediate control and formed umbrella with common shareholders included, since that's what everyone has.
Probably part of agreement with Deirdre, noteholders, inventors, Rob (widow), accredited investors, etc.
On the Closing Date, pursuant to the Agreement, the Seller executed an interest assignment deed which assigned, transferred and conveyed all of its membership interests in ChanBond to the Company and ChanBond appointed William R. Carter, Jr. (a related party to the Company) as sole manager (“Manager”) who shall have sole and exclusive authority over the business of ChanBond.
1st Q: Yes, this would be one of the links.
The current legal business structure of UOIP is:
- UnifiedOnline, LLC (Carter) has controlling interest in UOIP, but is removed legally from UOIP, Inc.'s daily decisions.
- UnifiedOnline, Inc (UOIP) is a subsidiary of UnifiedOnline, LLC.
- ChanBond, LLC is subsidary of UnifiedOnline, Inc. (UOIP).
It is my understanding all proceeds must flow from:
1) ChanBond, LLC. to
2) UnifiedOnline, Inc. (UOIP common) to
3) UnifiedOnline, LLC.
2nd Q: My interpretation of "2.1" is both parties have obligation to uphold agreement, to work together to enforce patents, to obtain money or settlement for patents and what they share is protected work product.
It also appears some additional legalese is there which protects the common shares, via some of the clauses by "Seller" (Deirdre Leane).
This is probably the reason, "ChanBond wins, common shareholders win".
JMEG&O (educated guess & opinion),
TGIF, Scruff
P.S. Another very good find. (Not in SEC 10Q).
Thinking revocation could occur anytime...
...I wouldn't mess around with bid-ask, but of course, that's your call.
From experience, been wanting to buy a stock lower and it took-off.
Knowing that UOIP could be revoked and not available anymore, playing the low-ball game may be a regret.
I'd put bids in @ .01, .011 and .012.
If you're on E*Trade, could pick-up that 635k @ .011.
Maybe get some or could put in AON (All or none).
sointrigued has come down from .015, to .012 to .011.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/Profile.aspx?user=94840
Looks like 999,000 of his shares have been sold.
JMO and good luck, Scruffer
P.S. The ROR vs. risk is quite an opportunity.
Have at it. Both Inc & LLC.
https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=unifiedonline&owner=exclude&action=getcompany
That 2nd one looks like the 13d (in both listings, Inc & LLC).
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815005061/uoip_ex101.htm
Already been through most everything could find.
Scruff
**Already have multiple times by board.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147625565
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147627699
**Added second link.