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.
Rule 29. Filing and Service of Documents; Special Notifications; Corporate Disclosure Statement
6. Every document, except a joint appendix or amicus curiae brief, filed by or on behalf of a nongovernmental corporation shall contain a corporate disclosure statement identifying the parent corporations and listing any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the corporation’s stock. If there is no parent or publicly held company owning 10% or more of the corporation’s stock, a notation to this effect shall be included in the document. If a statement has been included in a document filed earlier in the case, reference may be made to the earlier document (except when the earlier statement appeared in a document prepared under Rule 33.2), and only amendments to the statement to make it current need be included in the document being filed. In addition, whenever there is a material change in the identity of the parent corporation or publicly held companies that own 10% or more of the corporation’s stock, counsel shall promptly inform the Clerk by letter and include, within that letter, any amendment needed to make the statement current.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_29
It's the collective efforts of ENTIRE CREW.
We're all in this together.
Plus, have some super sharp and smart puppies on this board.
As continue to write, BBE, "Best Board Ever".
UOIP is still trading on the cheap & inexpensive. Glad MMs kept down.
We should begin flying again soooooooooon.
ROR can be life changing.
JMHO, Scruff-Daddy
Me too. Purposely included w/ TOC.
For any and all doubters about being UOIP not being a corporation.
May have overlooked a little. LÖL
ii
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.6, Respondent
ChanBond, LLC states as follows:
ChanBond, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of
UnifiedOnline, Inc. (“UnifiedOnline”). UnifiedOnline is a
publicly traded company (OTCBB: UOIP).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction .................................................................. 1
Statement ...................................................................... 3
I. Statutory Framework ..................................... 3
A. Inter Partes Review Procedure .............. 3
B. IPR Estoppel, Time Bar, and the
“Real Party in Interest” Disclosure
Requirement .............................................. 4
II. Petitioner’s Business ....................................... 5
III. Procedural Background .................................. 6
A. The PTAB Upholds ChanBond’s
Patents ..................................................... 6
B. The Federal Circuit Dismisses for
Want of Injury in Fact ........................... 7
Reasons for Denying the Petition ............................. 9
I. The Question Is Not Properly Presented .... 9
A. The Question Presented Is
Premised on an Argument
Petitioner Waived Below .......................... 9
B. Additional Waivers Render This
Case a Particularly Flawed Vehicle ........ 12
II. This Case Presents the Issue in a
Narrow and Unusual Context ........................ 13
A. The Petition Has Limited Effect for
a Narrow Group of Third-Party
Patent Challengers ................................... 13
B. The Question Has Little Impact on
Conventional IPR Appeals ....................... 15
(iii)
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS—Continued
Page
III. The Federal Circuit’s Decision Is
Consistent with Precedent ............................. 18
A. The Opinion Below Is Consistent
with This Court’s Cases ......................... 18
B. The Opinion Below Is Consistent
with Other Circuits’ Decisions .............. 22
Conclusion ..................................................................... 25
v
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Altaire Pharms., Inc. v. Paragon
Bioteck, Inc., 889 F.3d 1274
(Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................ 16, 17, 23
Applications in Internet Time, LLC v.
RPX Corp., No. 2017-1698, 2018 WL
3625165 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2018) ..................... 5, 6
ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish,
490 U.S. 605 (1989) ....................................... 21, 22
Bennett v. Spear,
520 U.S. 154 (1997) ............................................. 21
Brandon v. Eckard,
569 F.2d 683 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ........................... 20
Consumer Watchdog v. Wis. Alumni
Research Found., 753 F.3d 1258
(Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................... passim
Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee,
136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016) .................................... 3, 18
DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,
547 U.S. 332 (2006) ............................................. 22
Diamond v. Charles,
476 U.S. 54 (1986) ............................................... 19
FEC v. Akins,
524 U.S. 11 (1998) ............................................... 19
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman,
455 U.S. 363 (1982) ............................................. 20
Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n,
432 U.S. 333 (1977) ............................................. 12
Hydro Inv’rs, Inc. v. FERC,
351 F.3d 1192 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ................... 23, 24
vi
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
Institut Nat’l Des Appellations D’Origine v.
Vintners Int’l Co., 958 F.2d 1574
(Fed. Cir. 1992) ................................................... 12
JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Auto. LTD.,
No. 2017-1828, 2018 WL 3673005
(Fed. Cir. Aug. 3, 2018) ........................ 16, 17, 23
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife,
504 U.S. 555 (1992) ................................ 19, 20, 22
Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v.
Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC,
138 S. Ct. 1365 (2018) .......................................... 3
Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc.,
845 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............. 17, 21, 23
Pub. Citizen v. FTC,
869 F.2d 1541 (D.C. Cir. 1989) ......................... 20
Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,
491 U.S. 440 (1989) ............................................. 19
Rushforth v. Council of Econ. Advisers,
762 F.2d 1038 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ......................... 20
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) ......................................... 20
United States v. Williams,
504 U.S. 36 (1992) .......................................... 9, 11
Wilcox Elec., Inc. v. FAA,
119 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 1997) ........................ 24, 25
Zivotofsky ex rel. Ari Z. v. Sec’y of State,
444 F.3d 614 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ........................... 20
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND STATUTES
U.S. Const. art. III ...................................... passim
35 U.S.C. § 141 ......................................... 4, 9, 10, 11
vii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
35 U.S.C. § 141(c) .................................................... 4
35 U.S.C. § 311(a) .............................................. 3, 18
35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2) .......................................... 5, 13
35 U.S.C. § 314 ......................................................... 14
35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .................................................... 3
35 U.S.C. § 315 .............................................. passim
35 U.S.C. § 315(b) .................................................... 4
35 U.S.C. § 315(e) .......................................... 4, 5, 22
35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) ................................... 8, 13, 22
35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) ........................................ 13, 22
35 U.S.C. § 318 ...................................... 2, 10, 11, 13
35 U.S.C. § 318(a) .................................................... 3
35 U.S.C. § 318(b) .................................................... 11
35 U.S.C. § 319 ............................................... passim
Administrative Procedure Act § 10,
5 U.S.C. § 702 ...................................................... 10
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act,
Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) ......... 3
LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 (2011) .................................. 4
S. Rep. No. 110-259 (2008) ............................... 3, 16
EXECUTIVE MATERIALS
37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1) .............................................. 5
Sierra Wireless Am., Inc. v. M2M Sols. LLC,
No. IPR2015-01823
(P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2017) ...................................... 15
viii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
Page(s)
Unified Patents Inc. v. Dig. Stream
IP, LLC, No. IPR2016-01749, 2018 WL
1230580 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2018) ....................... 15
Unified Patents Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures
II LLC, No. IPR2016-01404, 2018 WL
357622 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 10, 2018) ........................ 15
Unified Patents Inc. v. Textile Comput. Sys.,
Inc., No. IPR2017-00296, 2018 WL
1472565 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018) ..................... 15
OTHER AUTHORITIES
IPR: Not Just for Litigants, RPX Blog
(Feb. 21, 2017), https://www.rpxcorp.com/
2017/02/21/ipr-not-just-for-litigants/ ............... 15
Lex Machina Database,
https://lexmachina.com/ ..................................... 14
RPX Corp., Annual Report (Form 10-K)
(Mar. 5, 2018), http://ir.rpxcorp.com/
static-files/fef5d0cf-0f5e-4970-bd0e3654d767971d
...................................................... 5
Saurabh Vishnubhakat, et al., Strategic Decision
Making in Dual PTAB and District
Court Proceedings, 31 Berkeley Tech. L.J.
45 (2016) .............................................................. 16
Scruff
SCOTUS Updated With Chanbond Response.
DATE................PROCEEDINGS AND ORDERS
Jul 25 2018......Response Requested. (Due August 24, 2018)
Aug 22 2018....Brief of Chanbond LLC in opposition submitted.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/17/17-1686/60335/20180822134311834_ChanBond%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf
https://www.mishconnewyork.com/people/andrea_pacelli
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1686.html
Scruffer-COTUS (Citizen of the United States)
Little to no volume (few posters too).
By volume, it appears NO ONE is going anywhere stock-wise.
MMs could be trading among themselves too. We are at their mercy until news. All meaningless long-term!
Maybe the crew is out-of-office, vacationing, back-to-school, ill or just gone dark?
I've never seen so few posts EVER since been here (mid-June '17).
Aug 21, 2018 0.039 0.039 0.034 0.034 0.034 876,457
Aug 20, 2018 0.038 0.038 0.034 0.038 0.038 512,415
Aug 17, 2018 0.040 0.040 0.035 0.039 0.039 437,790
Aug 16, 2018 0.038 0.041 0.038 0.039 0.039 599,843
Aug 15, 2018 0.040 0.041 0.035 0.035 0.035 1,760,941
Aug 14, 2018 0.041 0.044 0.035 0.040 0.040 1,318,706
Aug 13, 2018 0.040 0.044 0.037 0.041 0.041 635,419
Aug 10, 2018 0.036 0.045 0.036 0.039 0.039 983,837
https://otcshortreport.com/company/UOIP
Somewhat odd. Usually the crew is very MB friendly.
Unfortunately, those are not applicable here.
My purpose is if there is some type of settlement (or leak), it will be easier to identity by having this watch list.
Gotta keep in mind this is a sector so stocks will tend to move together most of the time.
It's when the MSOs and Arris (and possibly Cisco) get crushed, especially the smaller caps, it may indicate something is up (or near).
PF: Just create your own. Copy link, paste in notepad, remove/add symbols and simply paste in browser.
Moreover, wherever trade, should have real-time quotes & watch lists now.
Lastly, UOIP is delayed since OTC in the provided link.
Scruff
Since so quiet today, created 7+ MSO watch list.
Of course, it's only the public companies.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quotes/UOIP,ARRS,CMCSA,T,CHTR,CABO,ATUS,CCA.TO,WOW,CSCO/view/v1?bypass=true
Then can bookmark is wish.
Hope some find this beneficial,
Scruffer
98% not heard. Cross bridge if get there.
No need to go all FUDdruckers on us now zw.
Unless want to buy MORE, MORE, MORE.
https://www.fuddruckers.com/
I'm hoping for a near-to-mid-term leak.
We'll know b/c volume will be through the roof.
Scrufferavenous (Getting hungry)
IMO, it would take the cumulative dollars...
...The combined contributions of:
>> RPX (HGGC)
>> Cisco
>> Arris
>> ?
Adding Elizabeth Long makes for interesting speculation nevertheless.
It appears, something is (about to be) in the works.
Ducks are being aligned.
Quack, quack, Scrufferallard
Most importantly, many regard it as the opposite...
...As the opposite of:
>> Lucky
>> Fortunate
>> Fortuitous
>> Profitable
>> Prosperous
>> Blessed
>> Golden
Plus, I can NOT even consider writing (or saying) their antonyms.
LONG & STRONG ÜÖIP,
Scruff-Daddy
Good. Yes, it's hard NOT to watch...
...NOT to watch daily.
I only watch, guard and monitor my flock, brood (of hens), clutch (of chicks), or peep (of chicks).
Learned from experience, NEVER..., NEVER EVER COUNT them until they hatch (sell).
JMHO, Scruffer
SCOTUS hears ~80 + rules ~50-100 of 7000+ term
The Supreme Court decides to hear a case based on at least four of the nine (Rule of Four) Justices of the Supreme Court agreeing to grant the Petition for Certiorari. If four Justices agree to grant the petition, the Supreme Court will consider the case. A Petition for Certiorari is granted in very, few selected cases—fewer than 100 a year, by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The court will typically grant the petitions of cases that are exceptionally unique and that present an issue of law that would be considered far-reaching throughout the United States.
https://law.freeadvice.com/litigation/appeals/supreme_court_case_hearing.htm
Each Term, approximately 7,000-8,000 new cases are filed in the Supreme Court.
Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is currently granted in about 80 of those cases each Term, and the Court typically disposes of about 100 or more cases without plenary review.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justicecaseload.aspx
The Supreme Court hears three types of cases:
>> 2/3 are cases appealed from lower federal courts
>> 1/3 are cases appealed from state supreme courts
>> Rarely, they hear cases that have not been previously heard by a lower court, such as between one state’s government and another.
The justices decide which cases they will hear, about 80 each year. They decide another 50 without hearing arguments. The cases they choose usually address constitutional issues or federal law.
https://civilrights.org/judiciary/federal-court-system/u-s-supreme-court/
Yes, less than 2% / term.
This is the least of my concerns about this lawsuit, Scruffer
I think this is the most relevant part.
"All DOCSIS 3.0 and prior channels are 6MHz wide, and do not contain subcarriers."
Great job & thank you, Scruffer
Possibly, but the CFO & CEO of each.............
......of each cable company would have provided a number based on their market share,
else be "In-the-loop" on the negotiations.
Moreover,
>> Where would the meetings/discussions be held?
>> How visible (noticeable) would it be for other tenants in the building to see & deduce?
>> Too many "Eyes" not to have a leak.
>> Etc.
I hope so, but do not see it (now).
It doesn't mean it isn't happening though.
Scruffer
If ANY Discussions? ...Super-Duper Tight Lid.
May be aligning pieces, but IMHO, there is absolutely NO WAY discussions have begun.
At least NOT with all 13.
Too many friends of friends of cousins-in-law.
This would leak worse than the "Deepwater Horizon".
Fantastic. The board will love this. T¥.
Still, the BBE, "Best board ever".
Everyone contributes so well together.
Summaries, history, links, pacer, articles, live hearing visits, DD galore!
Amazing.
It appears so. Loading the team.
Bringing in "A SPECIALIST?...".
Awesome. Have fun. U got the ball.
Scruffer
EB's in La Jolla, Coronado?......Pacer Update:
Tuesday, August 14, 2018
298 misc Redacted Document Tue 3:30 PM
REDACTED VERSION of 291 Appendix by Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC, Bright House Networks, LLC, CSC Holdings, LLC, Cable One, Inc., Cablevision Systems Corporation, Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC, Cequel Communications, LLC, Charter Communications, Inc., Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast Corporation, Cox Communications, Inc., Mediacom Communications Corporation, RCN Telecom Services, LLC, Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC, Time Warner Cable Inc., WaveDivision Holdings, LLC, WideOpen West Finance, LLC.(Ying, Jennifer)
Att: 1 Exhibit 1-14
297 misc Redacted Document Tue 3:26 PM
REDACTED VERSION of 290 Letter by Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC, Bright House Networks, LLC, CSC Holdings, LLC, Cable One, Inc., Cablevision Systems Corporation, Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC, Cequel Communications, LLC, Charter Communications, Inc., Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast Corporation, Cox Communications, Inc., Mediacom Communications Corporation, RCN Telecom Services, LLC, Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC, Time Warner Cable Inc., WaveDivision Holdings, LLC, WideOpen West Finance, LLC.(Ying, Jennifer)
Att: 1 Text of Proposed Order
296 motion Appear Pro Hac Vice Tue 12:31 PM
MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Elizabeth Long - filed by ChanBond, LLC.(Brauerman, Stephen)
Att: 1 Certification of Elizabeth Long
order SO ORDERED Tue 12:53 PM
SO ORDERED, re 296 MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Elizabeth Long, filed by ChanBond, LLC. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 8/14/2018. (nms)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For this turn; for this one particular occasion ("this time only"). For example, an out-of-state lawyer may be admitted to practice in a local jurisdiction for a particular case only.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Pro+Hac+Vice
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/pro_hac_vice
I'm really not sure. Confusing.
"may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction" (by anyone?)
But then...
Release of Transcript Restriction = 11/9/2018.
BTW... Evilbean usually posts these and don't want to step on his domain, but "Double-aught Dylan" made reference to transcript so looked.
Where's EB?.........Pacer Update:
This is his realm.
Saturday, August 11, 2018
295 misc - Transcript Sat 12:10 PM
Official Transcript of Discovery Dispute held on 08-09-18 before Judge Richard G. Andrews. Court Reporter/Transcriber Leonard A. Dibbs. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 9/4/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 9/11/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 11/9/2018. (lad)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426386/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Atlantic_Broadband_Group,_LLC
Then U R extremely lÜcky.
It's incredibility difficult to do.
This is a gem, diamond-in-the-rough, a unbelievably rare opportunity.
And we found it and all met here on this message board of terrific people.
Enjoy it (while it lasts).
Plus, it's always easiest when winning and happy.
BTW... The game is played this way by the MMs:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=140681693
Something to consider (longer-term).
TGIF, Scruffer
No need to estimate. Let it play out.
Can never tell. Can analyze until the cows come home.
You're so right AllinFun. Charters use...
Charters use the typical overbought or oversold method.
Would've completely missed the run on UOIP from .005 to .0266. Oops!
See for yourself.
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=uoip (Note the top, greeen--I'm colorblind btw).
Moreover, put in the one that just got removed from the DOW (giant industrial) and see oversold conditions. (On left & change period to weekly, then hit update). Good entry point and lost!
Then, put in the hottest GPU, deep learning, AI chip company. (Should remain weekly). Would've missed this as well b/c clearly overbought. Strike three.
Each to his/her own, but too many people worried about UOIP sell-off on little volume and this prediction.
Also, "Real" technical traders would not even consider penny stocks. Too many unknowns and get completely wiped-out.
Reasons in the middle of post.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=140681693
And if settlement of $1.6B announced, the stock would open around $0.97.
I doubt it would trade-up as suggest.
And what everyone is missing is...This is that stock that is the 1 in 10,000.
This is the opportunity of a lifetime and we found it.
GLTA & JMHO, Scruffer
P.S. Technical analysis does work on occasion b/c accepted methodology built into the algos, but sometimes, the hedgies, big banks and institutions shoot against what seems logical (See the never made a profit electric car company where CEO tweeted about going private).
They do this to trap the shorts and other reasons.
Lots of inside baseball for the youngsters to learn here.
Yeah, my original compilation is old.
Thank you.
Probably got many from others who posted some settlements as they hit the wire or found within the message board.
Search & found some though.
I still see $1.2B as the absolute minimum with > 90% of settling or winning.
Just so many gambits played, but that's our legal system.
To me, this is the best risk-reward out there.
Scruff
Very simple...... But first:
Investing can take a very, very strong stomach at times.
Only realized gain when sell, but if there's one OTCBB or pinky stock, this is definitely it.
Any stock for that matter. ROR is soooo extreme.
It helps me to think of them (dollars) as "Chips on the table" and I'm in the game, else can go CRAZZZZYYYYYYYYYY(IER!).
The word is not an English derivation though.
It's Russian.
Vodka [vod-kuh]
An unaged, colorless, distilled spirit, originally made in Russia.
1795–1805; < Russian vódka, equivalent to vod(á) water + -ka noun suffix
Scrufferolichnaya
$1.2B MINIMUM... MIN-I-MUM. JMÖ
Yearly Rev of the 13 > $183B. (Had forgotten Cox Communications).
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142407605
For $4B+ award, this would in all probability be a judgment/verdict from trial.
Estimating, $1.2B or 0.75 per share to $3.2B or $2 per share, most likely paid on pro-rata marketshare basis of the 13.
Could be as high as $4.8B, or even $6.4B+. Who knows?
Other notable settlements
Arista to pay $400 million to Cisco to resolve court fight
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cisco-arista-settlement/arista-to-pay-400-million-to-cisco-to-resolve-court-fight-idUSKBN1KR1PI
Merck subsidiary Idenix wins $2.54B in HCV treatment suit against Gilead in largest U.S. patent infringement verdict ever.
Gilead plans to file an appeal of the verdict.
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/01/05/merck-subsidiary-idenix-wins-largest-patent-infringement-verdict/id=76243/
DISH Network and EchoStar agreed to pay TiVo $500 million, including an initial payment of $300 million with the remaining $200 million distributed in six equal annual installments between 2012 and 2017.
https://www.engadget.com/2011/05/02/dish-network-will-pay-tivo-500-million-to-settle-dvr-lawsuit/
Marvell Technology Group Ltd will pay Carnegie Mellon University $750 million to settle a nearly seven-year-old lawsuit accusing it of infringing two hard disk drive patents held.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/marvell-will-pay-750m-to-carnegie-mellon-university-in-massive-patent-settlement/
Other similarly massive payouts in tech patent cases include Blackberry (then Research in Motion) paying $612.5 million to patent-holding company NTP in 2006 when it was facing an injunction. In December 2015, Samsung was compelled to pay $548 million as part of the blockbuster Apple v. Samsung cases, and the company ultimately could have to pay more.
Some medical and pharmaceutical patent cases have resulted in even bigger larger payouts. In 2013, Sun Pharmaceuticals and Teva agreed to pay $2.15 billion to resolve a patent lawsuit over Pfizer's Protonix acid-reflux drug. In 2014, Medtronic agreed to pay Edwards Lifesciences at least $1.1 billion in a case involving heart valves. Medtronic was the payor in another massive settlement in 2005, when the company agreed to pay $1.35 billion to a surgeon and his company who sued over spinal surgery patents.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-marvell-technlgy-carnegiemellon/marvell-technology-to-pay-carnegie-mellon-750-million-over-patents-idUSKCN0VQ2YE
Rough-Ruff, Scruffer
P.S. We're still "Alive and kicking".
Gr8 Posts Phil. No reason 2 b sorry.
Posts # 51103 and # 51108 are the facts.
Thank you for downloading and posting.
Moreover, no one can interpret this legalese.
That's what the lawyers and judges do and the reason we're here.
Sincerely, Scruffer
P.S. I thought it was a 1:400 reverse split so not sure about your numbers.
zombywolf: Haven't contributed this year (yet).
Wasn't sure if would have to back-out my 2018 contribution if get big windfall and wouldn't qualify for my Roth contribution.
I've got both Roth & savings with UOIP stock.
It would be my savings' "Realized gain" that would not allow me to qualify to participate in 2018 (at least my understanding).
Can always contribute up to end of first quarter 2019 for 2018 tax year however.
Most everyone should consider this, especially the youngsters.
Scruff-Daddy
VC3: Rollover 401k into traditional IRA?
If so, I'd investigate a Roth IRA for some or all money.
Must qualify to participate.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142434121
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142434241
Just a thought, Scruffer
No OS change; Remains 1,614,601,069; 08/01/2018
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/UOIP/security
Judgment against cable companies may be required
PP: I was kind of in your boat. Thinking a ruling of an enforceable patent may be required.
>> Contractually Indemnify
>> Go after Cisco & others
>> ?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142711888
Sure hope settlement reach SOON however.
Hopefully 0.46 SOON. Now, 0.045.
Once CDEL's 100K filled, next ASK @ 0.46
For those without L2.
One would think with meeting this week, stock would hold steady or increase.
Have your wife, mistress & girlfriend...
UP YOUR PRESCRIPTION MEDS.
Hopefully, you have some good ones.
If there's one pinkie stock, this is it!
Just make sure all 3 up your meds.
Then you'll be TREBLY covered.
Scruff-Daddy
Thank Ü zombywolf. I HOPE so.
Your positive outlook, rational logic and keen analysis keeps me on an even keel.
It becomes critically necessary when have too much cooffffeeeeeeeeeeeeeee and lose a little sanity.
Scruff
Team: Upon reflection, TRIAL required?
IMO, we may be caught b/t a rock and a hard place for awhile.
If many/most of the cable companies are indemnified by ARRIS, what are the primary reasons for the cable companies to settle?
Plus, Arris may require a judgment or verdict to honor indemnification.
Moreover, for them to go after Cisco & others from the infringement ruling.
Ideally, like zombywolf, think it's in ARRIS's best interest to buy, but they're in the same boat as us (sort of).
Risk buying soon vs. 3x settlement of judgment or verdict vs. invalidated altogether.
I hate that word, "Invalidated", but any MB insights very much appreciated & welcomed.
Thank you (to all & everything ), Scruffer
If there's ONE, this is IT mister
If there's ONE stock, especially, OTCBB or Pinkie, this is it.
Else, name me a better one?
On any exchange.
The ROR is worth the risk.
Settlement, trial (judgment or verdict = 3x) or bust.
Moreover, most of us are in it until the end-game.
In it to win it, Scruffer
Me too! Coincidence? Something may be Üp.
Stock not acting like it however, but Arris management may have secretly strategized.
Likewise, nothing disclosed until 10-Q published. We'll have an idea next week as relay plan to 10-Q preparers.
Arris doesn't want to lose business to any of its competitors.
They have some very critical customers do not want to upset (even more).
Yes, agree with AllinFun of making too big a deal about ARRIS, but they've stockpiled shareholder equity with over $3.1B+ of undistributed (shareholder) money.
The question is... Why?
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=141895614
To me, this could play out longer, although believe it's in Arris' best interest to take proactive steps to keep their customer base happy.
Then they can go after Cisco & others when have infringed upon patents.
Also, notice the tone of the conference call? Not to confident, like a bombshell is lurking.
Moreover, on slide 16, "Share Repurchases & M&A". Why have M&A included as well?
http://ir.arris.com/phoenix.zhtml?p=irol-eventDetails&c=87823&eventID=5274092
Realize cannot discuss future M&A activities, but why in slide presentation?
Just things to ponder and my wishful thinking.
Longingly "Hanging in there", Scruffer