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 completely agree. It’s just a desperation move by ARRIS. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the court shut this down very quickly but if it does last all the way to a decision, I can’t see using the same defense that Cisco tried working out for them anyway.
Exhibit Y lol how many people say one of their ihub posts was used as evidence?
It’s almost identical to Cisco’s. They’re claiming that the 565 patent should be invalidated based on prior art. They give examples of two patents, just like Cisco did, and claim a person with knowledge in that area could combine those two patents to create what the 565 patent does. Literally the only difference is they picked two different prior patents.
They have 6 months max to decide if they are going to institute an IPR. However, they’re clearly well past the 1 year window from the date that the original complaint was filed back in October of 2015 so I don’t see how it will even be allowed to get that far.
Yes. Cisco decision is due
It takes a lot of courage and a lack of shame to consistently be so wrong. I applaude you
If bmic stays put up there with the Cisco decision very near we could be set up for some fireworks here
Haven’t been following here but came to check in on those deals that were promised in Jan/feb. going to take a stab based on the PPS and the presence of yourself and doc that there has been nothing announced but there are some posters sending out some very vague DD trying to link sfor to some major company? Am I close?? Let me guess, “yeah big deals still coming, just wait until next quarter!!!” Right? How many quarters in a row has a major deal been due to be announced? Lol
It doesn’t really change anything at the moment. The news about the final decision on Cisco is more important in the short term.
That’s essentially what arris was saying in their quarterly as well. They MAY have to take the fall for the cable companies. It’s very interesting. I’m not exactly sure how it would all work. It would make sense to me that maybe both ARRIS and Cisco get together and kinda tag team a settlement to get this over with. Maybe Cisco brought that to them and they didn’t want to pay so they’re now trying their hand with patent office? It’s literally nothing but speculation at this point.
Interesting. I wonder if Cisco said they won’t cover for them. Regardless, the cable companies are clearly looking for someone else to bail them out
Where does it say that? I’m on page 48 of the latest financial for them and the last sentence says on the chanbond case says “In the event of an unfavorable outcome, ARRIS may be required to indemnify the MSO’s (cable co’s) and/or pay damages for utilizing certain technology”.
Regardless of what the intent of this latest petition is, it’s pretty clear that there’s A LOT of money at stake otherwise there wouldn’t be this much effort.
There’s someone on here that has posted a link where you can see all the buys and sells from the day and it’s pretty easy to differentiate the MM trades from the retail trades. I apologize for not remembering who
Probably Waller’s wife trying to sell some of those 30 million common shares they were just given
It won’t seem high eventually
When it comes to profits I don’t really think there’s a right or wrong answer. Everyone has a different idea of what they want. I’m there will be a lot of profit taking on the way up and it’ll probably cause some dips along the way just like every stock that has massive runs
Qualcomm is used for pretty much all of Cisco’s argument but I don’t really think this particular situation is that relevant to the case
Are they here again today on L2? I can’t see but typically they’ve already done some volume by now. Maybe they’re just getting a late start.
Did lavar take his company public?
Technically yes they will still have to prove it but don’t think for a second part of the argument won’t include the fact that Cisco admitted to using the tech during the IPR process.
Well said. Solid breakdown
Need buyers first
I think Cisco is my current favorite. They’re the ones selling the tech to the cable co’s and they have a ton of funds.
I’ve been saying this for a few weeks but I just don’t think the timing of the RPX dismissal and BMIC being around is a coincidence
I trust carter to figure out the numbers. I don’t think any investors will be disappointed
With the insider ownership of around 90 percent of the float it’s a clear buyout candidate...
I think this one will be higher
So have I. And we both know how quickly this thing moves with buying pressure. Should be interesting
Real curious to see the action here tomorrow
Another great call! You should write an investment book!!!!
UOIP won their IPR appeal with RPX on 01/17. Should be hearing similar results with Cisco soon as well.
RPX Corporation v. ChanBond LLC
Case Filed:Jul 26, 2017
Terminated:Jan 17, 2018
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Case #:0:17-bcaag-02346
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
39 7 pgs ORDER filed. The stay of proceedings is lifted. The motion to dismiss [30] is granted. The appeal is dismissed. Each side shall bear its own costs. ISSUED AS A MANDATE: January 17, 2018. Service: 01/17/2018 by clerk. [490198]
UOIP won their IPR appeal with RPX on 01/17. Should be hearing similar results with Cisco soon as well.
RPX Corporation v. ChanBond LLC
Case Filed:Jul 26, 2017
Terminated:Jan 17, 2018
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Case #:0:17-bcaag-02346
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
39 7 pgs ORDER filed. The stay of proceedings is lifted. The motion to dismiss [30] is granted. The appeal is dismissed. Each side shall bear its own costs. ISSUED AS A MANDATE: January 17, 2018. Service: 01/17/2018 by clerk. [490198]
UOIP won their IPR appeal with RPX on 01/17. Should be hearing similar results with Cisco soon as well.
RPX Corporation v. ChanBond LLC
Case Filed:Jul 26, 2017
Terminated:Jan 17, 2018
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Case #:0:17-bcaag-02346
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
39 7 pgs ORDER filed. The stay of proceedings is lifted. The motion to dismiss [30] is granted. The appeal is dismissed. Each side shall bear its own costs. ISSUED AS A MANDATE: January 17, 2018. Service: 01/17/2018 by clerk. [490198]
UOIP won their IPR appeal with RPX on 01/17. Should be hearing similar results with Cisco soon as well.
RPX Corporation v. ChanBond LLC
Case Filed:Jul 26, 2017
Terminated:Jan 17, 2018
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Case #:0:17-bcaag-02346
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
39 7 pgs ORDER filed. The stay of proceedings is lifted. The motion to dismiss [30] is granted. The appeal is dismissed. Each side shall bear its own costs. ISSUED AS A MANDATE: January 17, 2018. Service: 01/17/2018 by clerk. [490198]
UOIP won their IPR appeal with RPX on 01/17. Should be hearing similar results with Cisco soon as well.
RPX Corporation v. ChanBond LLC
Case Filed:Jul 26, 2017
Terminated:Jan 17, 2018
Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Case #:0:17-bcaag-02346
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
39 7 pgs ORDER filed. The stay of proceedings is lifted. The motion to dismiss [30] is granted. The appeal is dismissed. Each side shall bear its own costs. ISSUED AS A MANDATE: January 17, 2018. Service: 01/17/2018 by clerk. [490198]
Thank you for staying on top of this. I’ve been so focused on the Cisco decision that RPX was an afterthought and I had not been checking it.
Exciting times. Wow
I think you’re going to see some press on it eventually