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.
That is the problem with a tender offer. IF this situation becomes reality >> Do DD, check it out and be really sure about not accepting tender.
Carter will put a lot of thought into a tender offer price that will get him over 90% of shares.
With Carter having a majority and all the shares from a tender offer, it will be way over majority 50.1% more like 90%+. He calls a shareholder meeting and wins the go-private-vote. He is the majority owner and all untendered shares of UOIP are converted to a prorated share of new private company. They will be minority owners in new private company. UOIP will cease to exist.
As a minority owner, you will get your prorated share of what ever distribution Carter gets. But even all the minority voters voting together will not make Carter do anything he doesn't want to do. Examples: Capital & Operating Expenses, Acquisitions, even selling entire company to somebody like Cisco. You would have a right to see the books. You would have the right to get your prorated share of any distribution.
Downside: If you don't agree, you have to sue ($). If you need to sell, you have to find the buyer or take whatever company (Carter) offers. Yo cannot click on an eTrade screen.
Me: It is personal, I want north of a dollar but will take something less before get trapped into being a minority shareholder in a private company.
Delaware Division of Corporations with Veronica: Just got off the phone (#302-739-3073).
UOIP #703828 only has to file for missing years and pay fees to get back in good graces of Delaware.
I explained what you said in your post and she said you were wrong.
Deleware status of a corporation as no legal effect on share of stock. It doesn't make them not exist. She said that was wrong.
She is with the state of Delaware and what she told me is the law.
Please for your own benefit and wealth: You need to do your due diligence and the truth will set you free.
Again. UOIP #703828 still exists in the Deleware Registered Agents system
but it is in a "void" status for nonpayment of fees/taxes.
It still exists and it is easy to get full reinstatement by paying fees/taxes owed - even after 10 years or more.
Sorry, was not on computer or would have responded earlier.
Anyone can call 302-658-7581 and confirm this fact --UOIP #703828 Registered Agent : The Corporation Trust Company
Do NOT let someone claim that Delaware has cancelled your shares making them bogus.
Per Registered Agent: Deleware just wants 1) their money and 2)to certify under the "Patriot Act" that UOIP is an OK company.
She remembered talking to another UOIP stock holder. When I repeated what he had claimed stock trades being invalid and the shares were bogus and didn't exist-she said that he misunderstood her. She was very emphatic that this status had nothing to do with stock shares being valid. She could not comment on SEC regulation.
UOIP Shareholder Deidre Leanne
BTW: Technicolor sold all of their patents this year so Dierdre is out of job. I think she is back in Dallas. There was a photo of her scrubbing veteran headstones in Dallas National Cemetery as part of the group Back on My Feet Again. Remember 911 and all veterans. Hoorah!
Hey Scruff, Did you know that in 2014, Deirdre Leane, was President of IPnav? As well as the manager of Chanbond when it was sold to UOIP. Nothing like being on the inside.
"IPNav announced in May, 2014 that the firm’s President, Deirdre Leane, is set to succeed CEO Erich Spangenberg by the end of the year."
Small world. Until recently she was VP for Intellectual Property with the French company Technicolor. Wonder if she will retire after getting her share of the contract for $5,000,000 plus whatever 44,000,000 shares are worth?
Thanks ICE - did you know that UOIP is almost 50.
Per Delaware records it was incorporated Feb 25 1969. A win in Delaware Judge Allen's court room would be a "Golden" 50th Birthday gift.
UOIP Registered Agent confirmed it was one of their old ones when I called to check on UOIP.
LOL. Graduated from high school before that. That makes me older than dirt.
I agree. Board hasn't discussed this but it would be good to understand it.
Zomby, if I understand you correctly
- Carter would initiate a tender offer for say a $1
- UOIP Share holder that tendered their shares would get $1 in account
- Carter would have a shareholder meeting and agree to take company private and those that don't tender would end up having their shares cancelled and receive a minority interest in new private company prorated to their % of UOIP ownership ( their shares / UOIP shares issued )
- Private company controlled by Carter - may or may not pay dividends - minority interest holders get what ever he wants to give.
*** Most Holders of UOIP would take the $1.00 and run - IMO - I know I would.
UOIP shares are not affected by Deleware corporation standing.
This according to representative of UOIP Registered Agent.
I called and confirmed this. She said that if you called you did not understand what she told you.
UOIP #703828 Registered Agent : The Corporation Trust Company
302-658-7581
She also said even if it had been 10 years in "VOID" standing that it was easy to get righteous with Deleware = good standing. Again she said "VOID" status did not have any legal effect on status of your shares. She could not comment on US or SEC regulations.
She also said that corporation status was Delaware's way to get their money and to comply with reporting requirements of the "Patriot Act" to identify companies registered in that state and their officers.
Jbbb - You're welcome - your shares are good and will soon go to the moon. Long UOIP
I called Delaware 1-302-739-3073. Examples are not necessary. They said it happens all the time and is no big deal. It is easy to get reinstated within 3 years of non-compliance for non-payment and no-filing. Carter or Registered Agent can fix this easily.
What is UOIP Status? - They said it was $10 for UOIP current status and $20 for the details by going online. UOIP #703828.
They referred me to : Delaware law web site
Delaware: CHAPTER 1. GENERAL CORPORATION LAW
For 3 years from date of non-payment: When an entity has failed to pay their yearly taxes or maintain a Registered Agent, it may fall into a status other that good standing. To return your entity back into a good standing status, the Delaware Code requires that certain documents be filed and all back taxes and filing fees paid.
§ 311 Revocation of voluntary dissolution; restoration of expired certificate of incorporation.
“..any corporation that revives its certificate of incorporation under this chapter whose certificate of incorporation has been forfeited or void for more than 5 years shall, in lieu of the payment of the franchise taxes and penalties otherwise required by this subsection, pay a sum equal to 3 times the amount of the annual franchise tax that would be due and payable by such corporation for the year in which the revival is effected, computed at the then current rate of taxation.”
How to Reinstate a Corporation
A corporation's officers may neglect to complete some of the required administrative duties or pay fees/taxes. Fortunately, a company can reinstate its corporate status if it has not been out of compliance for too long.
Step 1. Confirm the corporation's status with the secretary of state of the state in which the articles of incorporation or certificate of formation were filed.
Step 2. Determine how long UOIP corporation was in non-compliance.
Step 3. Apply for Reinstatement. The corporation's officer or registered agent must complete and sign the application. All states allow an inactive, administratively dissolved company to reinstate as long as the lapsed period is within the state maximum. For Delaware, this is 3 years – just file correct forms and pay owed fees/taxes. After 5 years, reinstatement can be done but requires payment of triple fees owed.
Step 4. Submit the documents and payment either online or via mail. All reinstatement applications require the payment of a reinstatement fee.
UOIP is smart for the last known officer W. Carter to keep quiet after making the legal document to operate in the dark. People often mess things up when their public remarks get used against them. Things like infringement valuation need to be kept close to vest.
Remember WWII "Loose lips, Sink ships!"
On November 13, 2015, William Carter as UnifiedOnline Inc. submitted the necessary 13-D with the SEC (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815005061/uoip_sc13d.htm) that UOIP would be operating in the dark.
The sole manager of the company is William R. Carter, Jr. and he is the one who has exclusive and sole authority over all the activities and operations.
UOIP Volume has been over 15 million per day when news hits at least 8 times in 2018.
Your shares if real are safe. Do not confuse silence on UOIP’s part with sound legal recommendations.If there were a hint of scam or any wrongdoing no one would be wasting time, energy, and money to fight these patents.
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 US Patents.
Throughout all of this UnifiedOnline has remained quiet and if you search UOIP on OTCMarkets the company is listed as Caveat Emptor (buyer beware) and as Delinquent SEC reporting. On October 26, 2014, UnifiedOnline Inc. submitted the necessary 13-D with the SEC (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815005061/uoip_sc13d.htm) that they were operating in the dark. The sole manager of the company is William R. Carter, Jr. and he is the one who has exclusive and sole authority over all the activities and operations.
During this time there have been no comments from UOIP, but do not let that cloud your judgment about the validity of the company, its patents, or this case. Bear in mind that UnifedOnline retains Mishcon de Reya New York LLP which is a respected law firm, representing a diverse portfolio of clients in more than 60 countries with more than 200 litigators across New York and London. UnifiedOnline has been under the microscope of the 13 largest cable companies in the United States (billion dollar corporations) and the Federal Court System. If there were a hint of scam or any wrongdoing no one would be wasting time, energy, and money to fight these patents. Do not confuse silence on UOIP’s part with sound legal recommendations.
Remember fellow posters LOCK UP YOUR NEW SHARES, it has been obvious that the MMs have been selling into the bid and going short. To go short the MMs have to borrow stock but if the stock is locked up they have to go naked which is illegal, so LOCK THOSE SHARES UP!!!!!!!
For newbies: this means entering a "good to cancel" sell order for UOIP
- Some brokers default to 60 days-most allow date adjustment
- Set sell price very high so if bought you will be happy
- If you suddenly want to sell, just change the order price & sell/exit
- this prevents your broker from "loaning" any unlocked shares to Market Makers to cover their shorts. Don't let your share be used this way.
OMG,,,,, I set my stock price lock too low.
Are you sure??? Maybe you meant $1.00 for UOIP settlement.
Justice Thomas defended PTAB and said it did not violate Article III of constitution.
Chief Justice in dissenting opinion claimed it weakened Article III.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 16–712 _________________ OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, PETITIONER v. GREENE’S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT [April 24, 2018] JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 35 U. S. C. §100 et seq., establishes a process called “inter partes review.” Under that process, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) is authorized to reconsider and to cancel an issued patent claim in limited circumstances. In this case, we address whether inter partes review violates Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. We hold that it violates neither.
Nothing on Supreme Court web site. Aug 24 was the deadline for Chanbond to reply to RPX brief. Chanbond met that requirement with an awesome reply a couple of days ago.
Now we wait for SC to come to the same conclusion as the UOIP board - RPX case is worthless. no date given for reply - could be anytime.
Chief Justice dissented & their reply took a swipe at PTAB.
From SC web site
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________
No. 16–712 _________________ OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, PETITIONER v. GREENE’S ENERGY GROUP, LLC, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT [April 24, 2018] JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting.
UOIP Should be OK. One judge can only reject RPX. They have to get 3 more to agree to hear it (Rule of 4) before it can be accepted on 2018 docket.
Not really - No requirement for SC to decide today. Don't know which justice got it and SC only got Chanbond lawyer's response this week.
Aug 24 was the deadline for Chandbond response not the actual decision.
One can only hope that it is today to reject RPX case as the POS for what it is.
UOIP only 47,500 shares traded in 2 1/2 hours. MM CDEL is biding .034 and they are Asking .035 - doing both side in tight range and no takers.
This stock is definitely waiting for some news.
RPX case to Supreme Court is assigned to a particular justice to review.
That justice can deny the case by himself meaning the Appeal judgement stands OR he/she can have it reviewed by whole court. If four(4) justices will agree to hear it then it is placed on the docket (accepted).
Supreme Court has already picked October cases that means only Nov -May at 6-10 cases per month are still open - less than 90 spots.
If RPX case is rejected by the individual judge then decision could come at any time. No set schedule to decide. Not yet revealed which justice got it.
If the one justice wants it reviewed to see if 4 will hear it, then there will be a delay until all have had a chance to review it. We wait.
Let's hope that the justice it is assigned to agrees with Chanbond lawyers that this case is a waste of SC time and rejects it on the spot.
Apologies to George Orwell - modified for UOIP situation:
“Cable Companies, RPX, Cisco, and ARRIS are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when they are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that they were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually in a Deleware courtroom.”
I saw the light and bought UOIP...
Due Diligence on UOIP will show ChanBond appointed William R. Carter, Jr. as sole manager (“Manager”) who shall have sole and exclusive authority over the business of Chanbond.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815004760/uoip_8k.htm
UOIP named William Carter as the sole manager of Chandbond in one of their last official 8K's. Haven't seen anything to change that since.
His reputation and his 900 million shares mean Carter is going for the WIN!!
ITEM 2.01 COMPLETION OF ACQUISITION OR DISPOSITION OF ASSETS
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, in exchange for a cash payment of five million U.S. Dollars ($5,000,000) payable on or before October 27, 2020 (the “Cash Payment”) and a shares payment of forty-four million, seven hundred thousand (44,700,000) shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Shares”) par value of $0.001. The obligation to make the Cash Payment shall be evidenced by a promissory note (the “Promissory Note”).
UnifiedOnline, Inc.
Date: October 30, 2015
By: /s/ Robert M. Howe, III
Robert M. Howe, III, Chief Executive Officer
(sorry you aren't going to see the great day-RIP Rob - we are all hanging in there)
UOIP/Chanbond legal team are top lawyers with technical backgrounds and deep experience..
From web site of Mishcon de Reya LLP:
Senior Council for response to Supreme Court:
Dr. Pacelli brings considerable technical depth to his law practice. He received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering in 1998
Recently added to support the Deleware trial effort (on this board we originally thought she was special assist but she is Senior council per their web site now)
Elizabeth Long attended the University of Rochester, where she earned a B.S. in Chemical Engineering,
Agree that this is very good for UOIP.
ARRS needs to PUBICLY recognize this in their financial notes: failure at PTAB means increased risk of huge payout to indemnify cable companies for upcoming trial loss.
If you think you don't have enough UOIP shares, slap that ask. This might be last chance to accumulate under .04. Then lock them up with a "good to cancel" order to sell them at the price that will make your dreams come true. Note: you can always change it later BUT THIS WILL PREVENT YOUR BROKER FROM LOANING YOUR SHARES TO market makers who are shorting UOIP.
UOIP Board Postings- “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way."
—in short, I find UOIP board very interesting and see my self in all the impatient "I want my money and I want it now" also, I relate to the patient who admonish "Good things come to he who waits."
Go longs. When settlement talks leak - you will need to take a speed reading course to keep up with posts. LOL
BTW- I did enjoy the post with link to the true story of David vs Goliath
That is exactly what RPX hopes to accomplish. You prove my point.
Because RPX could not demonstrate that it had suffered an injury in fact, the CAFA Court held that RPX lacked Article III standing to appeal the PTAB’s decision affirming the patentability of ChanBond’s patented claims. As CAFA Court noted, RPX “was permitted to request [review] and participate once the PTO granted its request. That is all the statute requires.” No appeal in front of independent judges is required.
RPX does not agree. RPX (not me ) thinks Inter partes review under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, does violates Article III and/or Seventh Schedule of US Constitution. You may not like it but they actually have similar thinking in Chief Justice Roberts. From the dissenting opinion in Oil States vs. Greene. The dissenting Justices observed that a political appointee and his administrative agents instead of independent judges are not the competent authority to resolve a patent dispute. In fact, the Chief Justice and 2 other Justices felt that "the decision of the Majority signals a retreat from Article III’s guarantees.”
Their words not mine. Let's hope the majority wins again on Friday. Long UOIP.
No ruling is due on Friday.
However, there may be a response by Supreme court on whether to hear a petition by RPX.
You probably missed all the discussion about RPX petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of Certiorari. The earliest the SC will reply with 98% chance of rejection is this Friday. Could be later. Most think this could help UOIP SP by getting some news - in other words - get people talking about UOIP/Chandbond besides IHUB.
FYI - A judgment or decree of a federal court of appeals, or a state court can be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court by writ of certiorari. - In this case the failure RPX was handed by CAFC appeal of their PTAB IPR loss - they want SC to say CAFC broke the law by miss-interpreting Article III
BTW = 98 % rejection of petitions submitted to Supreme Court statistic was also discussed on this board. It's a fact - slightly better than buying a Lottery Ticket. LOL
Amen Brother.
I understand a vacuum of news on UOIP board is filled with questions, hopes, wishes. And many on the board genuinely try to help the less experienced understand and prepare for prudent courses of action for future events. Like settlement vs buyout, or trial win/loss.
I try to worry about only the things I can change. Education, Due Diligence, Understanding what to do with my UOIP stock for any given event -- But a man must know his limits - I sure learned mine trying to read UOIP patents and legal briefs. LOL. Am grateful for UOIP board to simplify & explain what real issues are in a patent case.
What is the price that will take my UOIP stock?? Until then it is locked @ $4.99
There be sharks in the water. Let's hope W. Carter is a Megalodon.
Zomby is right that the bullies and their connections don't always play fair. It pays to pay attention to UOIP board posts and do DD.
Going down the Rabbit Hole:
Apple IPR's failed & Apple barred from continuing attack on Virnet
Mangrove Partners shorted Virnet - stood to make a bundle on bad news
Mangrove filed IPR's against Virnet even though they were not infringing(Apple joined suit and provided $ and 10 lawyers) - Virnet lost & this probably limited how much they could get from Apple.
Mangrove bought a huge chunk of RPX which filed IPR's against UOIP. These lost. They filed appeal with CAFC- lost again. Now Supreme Court ??? ( I hope SC puts final nail in coffin and ignores " old boy connections"
Mangrove put 2 on RPX board and kicked out CEO (one of founders who wanted to go private).
Appears the ousted RPX CEO got his buddies at HGGC to buy out RPX. Then HGGC/RPX ask SC for extension because of buyout DD and then HGGC agreed to RPX filing Jun 19 to get Supremes to get rid Article III standard - which means they could stay in the fight and drag it on and on.
Billions of $ and hidden connections = recipe for shenanigans. Let's hope the SC puts RPX in 98% trash bin.
Let UOIP have their day in court after 3 years. Go UOIP
I have a DREAM - Financial New all talking after Cisco financial note discloses the risk from lawsuit against Cisco customers. Because Supreme Court rejects RPX, Cicso loses at CAFC, and Chandbond/UOIP trial date set for April 2019.
Sometimes dreams come true -long UOIP. 93923 Carmel by the Sea looks like a new good zipcode to call home. Playing "California Dreamin'" by Mamas and Papas
Rational Patent EXchange -RPX was on NASDAQ but they were bought out by HGGC for $10.50 sh = $500 M by HGGC a $4.3 B company.
RPX has 320 member clients and owns 26,000 patents. Not able to see if Cisco was a member client. Suspect it was the cables that got RPX involved after lawsuit filed in Sept 2015.
That's the way I see it. RPX is grasping at straws because CAFC rejected appeal without trial. And PTAB final decision is final - no more IPR's to starve Chandbond to death or buy patents for RPX portfolio on the cheap.
I hope UOIP (Carter) adds another $1 B on top of what they are asking in the secret settlement talks that nobody knows about.
BA, The part that you are not clear on is the question being asked of SC. Does a 3rd party which was not sued and has no proven harm have the right pursue past the final PTAB decision.
This question doesn't have anything to do directly with Chandbond or patents. Chandbond is just vehicle to get ? in front of SC.
BA, IMO -Supreme Court is being asked to look at RPX's rights. It really has nothing to do with Chanbond or valid patents. RPX thinks they have the right to CAFC trial that they were denied by the "no standing" rejection.
After PTAB final decision loss, RPX filed an appeal. It was rejected without a trial - big door slam in face - no CAFC appeal trial and never another PTAB IPR against Chandbond patents. RPX has no where else to turn. RPX thinks this is not what Congress intended with the 2010 AIA act - so they go to SC to force CAFC to give them their appeal.
RPX owns 26,000 patents which have now been acquired by Riptide LLC / HGGC for $500M. HGGC is a $4.3 B private equity company and is the owner of RPX and has filed the petition to be heard by the Supreme Court.
Hope this helps. Anyway, it will be a moot point if it is not in the 2% of 8,000 petitions that are certified by SC.
Long UOIP.
Agreement and Plan of Merger
On April 30, 2018, RPX Corporation (the “Company”), entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the “Merger Agreement”) with Riptide Parent, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Parent”), and Riptide Purchaser, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (“Purchaser”). Parent and Purchaser are beneficially owned by affiliates of HGGC, LLC (“HGGC”).
About RPX RPX (NASDAQ: RPXC) is the leading provider of patent risk and discovery management solutions. Since its founding in 2008, RPX has introduced efficiency to the patent market by providing a rational alternative to litigation. The San Francisco-based company’s pioneering approach combines principal capital, deep patent expertise, and client contributions to generate enhanced patent buying power. By acquiring patents and patent rights, RPX helps to mitigate and manage patent risk for its growing client network. As of March 31, 2018, RPX had invested over $2.4 billion to acquire more than 26,000 US and international patent assets and rights on behalf approximately 320 clients in eight key sectors: automotive, consumer electronics and PCs, E-commerce and software, financial services, media content and distribution, mobile communications and devices, networking, and semiconductors.
About HGGC HGGC is a leading middle-market private equity firm with $4.3 billion in cumulative capital commitments. Based in Palo Alto, Calif., HGGC is distinguished by its “Advantaged Investing” approach that enables the firm to source and acquire scalable businesses at attractive multiples through partnerships with management teams, founders and sponsors who reinvest alongside HGGC, creating a strong alignment of interests. Over its history, HGGC has completed over 90 platform investments, add-on acquisitions, recapitalizations and liquidity events with an aggregate transaction value of more than $17 billion. More information is available at www.hggc.com
Wow! DD is like work. RPX was bought out is now Riptide and used this acquisition as excuse to file Supreme case 2 days late & appears to be accepted by Supreme Court. Chandbond waived right to respond.
Glad UOIP lawyers are the "A" team - the other guys are con artists
RPX Corporation. Petitioner currently has no parent company, and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of any of its stock. However, in April 2018, Petitioner entered into a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which a tender offer would be made to be acquired by Riptide Parent, LLC. Petitioner will notify the Clerk as required by Rule 29.6 upon the closing of that transaction.
BTW - Askeladden LLC is one of friends of court for RPX case - another bully that wants unlimited PTAB IPR's to invalidate patents.
Justice & strong patents will prevail. Go UOIP!!
Hope Supreme Court denial adds a nickel to sp.
Careful - Check link below = Supreme Court Chief Judge Roberts granted the extension and RPX met the new deadline and 2 friends of the court briefs jumped on the case to try and get it heard.
BA look at line for July 25 on Supreme Court Web page for response date.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/17-1686.html
Correct . Aug 24 this Friday - response due from Supremes on accept or reject to hear case in year starting in Oct.
Supremes will narrowly focus on this question:
Can the Federal Circuit refuse to hear an appeal by a petitioner from an adverse final decision in a Patent Office inter partes review on the basis of lack of a patent-inflicted injury in fact when Congress has (i) statutorily created the right to have the Director of the Patent Office cancel patent claims when the petitioner has met its burden to show unpatentability of those claims, (ii) statutorily created the right for parties dissatisfied with a final decision of the Patent Office to appeal to the Federal Circuit, and(iii) statutorily created an estoppel prohibiting the petitioner from again challenging the patent claims?
Chanbond lawyers waived right to respond - they don't want it dragged out and are confident it will lose.
thanks for supreme court link Aqicxe1 - looks like "writ of certiorari" response to RPX is due Aug 24 -- we will know if SCOTUS accepts or rejects this case.