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.
I read that somewhere. That, and the value has to be at least in the 10s of millions of dollars before a law office will consider a case. I imagine the closer the odds are to that 50/50 the higher the value would need to be.
I think so too. I understand the PTAB rarely rules against the appeals court. I think the trial date will be set late this year or early next year.
The Cisco appeal could be getting delayed because they are negotiating. Though I doubt Chanbond will concede to a lower settlement/buyout offer until the '822 dispute is resolved. I think Commscope is still in on the negotiations. There is no other explanation I can come up with for the $7 billion purchase price for Arris, especially with those indemnification agreements hanging in the balance, and particularly since this tech provided Arris's entire revenue stream.
I'm in the 90% to 95% range.
Why 6 months, just curious? I don't see it getting pushed out that far.
Trial should be scheduled end of this year, no? The schedule for the Cisco appeal was through this fall. I wonder why we haven't seen a pacer with the schedule for that one yet, by the way.
Maybe they just haven't reached an agreement on price.
Just waiting for the buyout announcement at this point.
These are just answering Daubert briefs. Essentially, the parties will ask the judge to exclude evidence/testimony which the judge will review in prep for the Daubert hearing, at which time he judge will rule on what he has deyermined does or does not meet standards of admissibility.
And who said there were 1000 other people's docs in the docs Chanbond gave the 13 at the end of discovery? At least they met the deadline. Cable companies didn't even meet the deadline for discovery.
No, you bring up your findings in discovery, NOT LONG AFTER discovery and on the last day of "expert discovery." In discovery, you present your theories. In expert discovery, you present evidence to support those theories and refute the opposing party's theories. Defendants requested and agreed to present four theories. In discovery they presented four theories. Chanbond's expert discovery surrounded those four theories. On the last day of expert discovery, defendants introduced a new, fifth theory.
In poker, since your keen on gaming analogies, that would be akin to pulling an extra card out of your sleeve just as everyone is laying their cards on the table.
Is it chess or poker now? Judge wants to see all of the cards on the table if they're playing poker. A good law firm wouldn't need luck to shift through thousands of pages of documents. It's what they do. The thirteen, Cisco, Arris and RPX have been flooding Chanbond with thousands of pages of documents for nearly 4 years now. From the filings, it looks as though Chanbond thought they had responded to the question adequately, albeit at a later date. Chanbond agreed to play chess at defendant's request, only to discover defendants have been playing poker? All 6 patents have held up now against 19 challenges this far. This is just another delay, though we still have the Cisco appeal to get through before it can be resolved anyhow. Who knows, maybe both sides strategized for this delay.
Filing things last minute is one thing. Springing things on the opposition after the deadline is an entirely different matter. This was allowed not because Chanbond has been using the entire allotted time for filings. It's because they failed to address all of defendants' challenges to the patents up until this point. Not sure if it's simply because of the overwhelming amount of challengers coming at them and the various court cases, or if it was intentional so they could buy some time. For the last several months Chanbond has been the party requesting extensions and a stay to resolve the Cisco appeal. Anyhow, hopefully this is the last delay.
So this new theory just relates to the '679 patent, is that correct?
A buyout would be preferable. I'm still hoping Commscope and Arris are negotiating a purchase of the patents. Obviously, any negotiations there will hinge on the outcome of the en banc hearing, if it ever gets scheduled.
This little win for defendants may have emboldened them. My Hope's for a pre-trial settlement have been dashed a bit.
After inviting all of your friends to jump in and help you gang up on your opponent and watching them all drop one by one, however, you may be left with no recourse but a few dirty blows.
I'm disappointed that the judge allowed this new theory. I can see why he might, however, since the court was not in on the negotiations to limit the number of theories to begin with so there was no official record. This could very well work against the 13 at trial. If I were Chanbond's attorneys. I would play up the dirty dealings before the jury.
There was a poster awhile back who claimed to be related to one of the plaintiff's counsel claiming a $500 million offer was made. Then there was a link to an article posted on an internet news site claiming a $500 million offer. Hence the word "rumor" has been bandied about.
We do know, however, that the 13 and Cisco have been negotiating with Chanbond. It is a requirement in civil cases, and there were multiple filings and disputes over valuation and supporting documentation last May and June. Obviously, valuation docs were sealed. Finally, a filing was recently made in the Cisco appeal stating that the parties had attempted to reach a settlement and failed.
The justices typically follow the Solicitor General's recommendation. Since there were only 2 justices who agreed to hear the case before it was sent to the SG, it's difficult to believe there will be any chance this case gets heard.
A patent owner has the right to decide who produces or uses their technology. They don't have to produce or manufacture a product for the patent to remain valid.
I agree. I don't think it will hold up trial against the 13. Neither did I believe the RPX appeal to SCOTUS would hold it up. But it's nice to have it out of the way.
They could never own 650 million shares. There are only 1.614 billion shares outstanding and Carter, Leane and the patent creators own more than a billion.
At any rate, what you're suggesting, conspiring to collectively manipulate the share price, would be illegal.
We're also awaiting the Arris en banc review.
RPX lost
RPX lost
RPX lost
tehehehehe
No, we don't want the big companies that troll the USPTO for patents to steal to get preferential treatment in court. Good thing the courts agree.
That's freakin' awesome!
No. But they go through all of the same steps, beginning with oral arguments, which Chanbond and Cisco both filed motions requesting that they not be held on the same date as the Daubert hearings in June.
It's posted with the rest.
Post 67183 - Notice to Advise of scheduling conflicts. It shows the court calendar and asks the parties to notify the court of any conflicts prior to scheduling, so I guess the dates haven't been officially set yet, but the schedule is extended through October 2019.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147357481
Post 63806 on March 14 reflects responses to scheduling conflicts from both Cisco and Chanbond.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147546963
Carter and Co. already know what 8s acceptable. I think the Court of Appeals decision will encourage the 13 to get serious.
I think negotiations will get serious after appeals judges' decision, even before PTAB decision.
I'll dig up the court of appeals schedule and repost.
I think Cisco challenged the patents because they know if Chanbond wins this is just the beginning.
Khenry posted it awhile back.
Yes, their theories are arguments that the tech was prior art. Not sure why they call them theories, except that maybe it sounds better than argument.
The agreement was not made through, or recorded with, the court but apparently was an agreement made during an email exchange (i.e , the redacted exhibits on the last filings). At least not until Chanbond raised the issue at the end of expert discovery asking the judge to dismiss the last theory based on the agreement between the two parties.
Yes. The schedule should be in one of the links in Goodbuddy's posts above.
The Cisco appeal hearing is in October. The judge has agreed to hold off scheduling of pretrial hearing and trial date until after the Cisco appeal is heard.
This is relatively new info for us as well. At least it just came to my attention at the end of expert discovery when Chanbond filed their petition for summary judgment on the 5th theory. Of course, I've been known to miss things now and then. I guess way back at the beginning of this case, the two parties agreed, off the record to limit their arguments, at the request of the defendants, who agreed to present only 4 theories in exchange for Chanbond's agreement to limit evidence. Chanbond held up their end of the agreement and throughout discovery and expert discovery has been focused on disputing those 4 theories originally presented by defendants. At the end of expert discovery, defendants sprung a 5th theory on Chanbond, leaving Chanbond no opportunity to analyze the argument, depose experts and dispute the argument. The 13 offered Chanbond the opportunity to choose one of the original 4 theories to exclude from trial. Chanbond refused, since they have spent 3 years building their case around those 4 original theories. Essentially, Chanbond is at square 1 in the discovery process if the judge doesn't toss the 5th theory.
And I'm sure judge Andrews knows that since he's been around the block a few times. That's probably why defendants came right out and admitted their underhanded tactics - the judge would see right through their strategy anyhow. The judge pointed out their acknowledgement of this new theory from the outset.
I'm sure all of the supporting exhibits were cherry picked. But at the end of the day defendants admitted that they insisted on setting the rules of engagement for these proceedings at the outset, then decided not to follow them in an effort to gain an unfair advantage. Allowing Chanbond the opportunity to dismiss one of their other 4 theories is not a reasonable compromise at this point, as Chanbond would still be disadvantaged by the time and cost constraints.
Is there time? The parties didn't begin lining up expert witnesses at the beginning of expert discovery. There's a reason these cases take years. It's not a matter of calling up a few experts and setting up an appointment for deposition for the following week or the end of the month. At least one of the experts deposed had to be rescheduled, and I recall seeing a motion by another witness who was subpoenaed. A good argument will not include a single expert's testimony; rather there will be at least a few or several. The Cisco appeal hearing is just 5 months away, and Chanbond's attorneys also have deadlines to meet in that case during the same time they're starting the discovery process over in this case if the judge allows this new theory. And costs for these witnesses will need to be paid up front. Everybody gets paid up front, which is why Chanbond suggested the defendants should pay if they have to go through the process again.
The redactions were emails from what I gather. Yhe judge got the sealed copy without redactions.