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.
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit Friday in Delaware District Court on behalf of CBV Inc. The suit, which is under seal, brings claims against ChanBond LLC in connection with a patent purchase agreement. Counsel have not yet appeared for the defendant. The case is 1:21-cv-01456, Cbv, Inc. v. ChanBond, LLC."
If its a claim in connection with a patent purchase agreement and if i understand the queen's language well enough..this refers to the inventors ORIGINAL contract with Billy and not the SALE of the contract to Cisco and others?? LONG UOIP any input please? Clearly the inventors are not happy with what they are getting paid out of all this.
Who will represent Chanbond without a BOD since Billy showed no interest of stepping for Chanbond in the shareholder lawsuit??
4 1 pgs order Order on Motion to Seal Fri 10/15 3:55 PM
ORDER granting (DI1 ) Motion to Seal complaint and exhibits. CBV shall file a public version of the Complaint, with the confidential information redacted, within seven (7) days of this motion being granted. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 10/15/2021. (twk)
3 misc Magistrate Consent Forms Fri 10/15 3:15 PM
Notice, Consent and Referral forms re: U.S. Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. (twk)
2 cmp Complaint Fri 10/15 3:08 PM
[SEALED] COMPLAINT filed against ChanBond, LLC - Magistrate Consent Notice to Pltf. ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number ADEDC-3721765.) - filed by CBV, Inc..(twk)
Att: 1 Exhibit A-E,
Att: 2 Civil Cover Sheet
1 3 pgs motion Seal Fri 10/15 3:06 PM
Plaintiff's MOTION to file complaint and exhibits under seal - filed by CBV, Inc..(twk)
Att: 1 Text of Proposed Order
service No Summons Issued Fri 10/15 3:16 PM
No Summons Issued. (twk)
utility Remark Fri 10/15 3:21 PM
Remark: Exit electronic copies to Duty Judge (LPS). (twk)
This whole thing is getting messy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Agree. Thank you.
..then how come they were shocked & surprised when uoip shareholder lawyers brought up "ultra vires ac...Dreidre stated in her lawsuit that she had a discussion with some of Billy's lawyers regarding ownership of UOIP and did sue some of them although i did not follow up how that ended. One of our shareholders sent a letter to judge Andrews about our issues at UOIP. That is public information that a lawyer who does DD would come across and investigate..clearly something is amiss done intentionally or not. But will not sit here and try and defend him or his lawyers...All in my opinion.
That is what I believe and how cost accounting would do it. Those lawyers are from one of the best companies in the world and wont work for peanuts. People are pointing out that Billy is stupid etc. He has worked with the best in that industry and has the best lawyers to advise him. If people had pacer they would see how many other lawsuits his company is involved in. In my opinion they sold the patents to cut time and costs of pursuing the lawsuit internationally.
So Billy did respond to the lawsuit for his own part but no one responded for UOIP as the corporation that is why there is a request for entry of default filed by Collins and Kamal. I think Billy is trying to distance himself from UOIP and by not stepping up to deal with the lawsuit on behalf of the UOIP part (remember both UOIP and Billy) he may be clearly saying that he has nothing to do with UOIP. So this in my view leaves room for a BOD to take over and run the affairs. Someone did say last time here that they spoke with Billy and he intended to deposit the settlement with some lawyers who would be responsible for the distribution of funds. I wish he could get his lawyers to tell us what he is thinking so that we can get paid or trade asap.....Chistmas!!! If he responded for UOIP he was going to be guilty by default...
I agree. Apparently the patents were also sold (??) as part of the settlement and that prevents UOIP from suing Cisco and others in the future. For the years that i have worked in accounting I can see that it makes sense for Carter and the lawyers to value the sold patents on the basis of the amount they intended to get in future lawsuits...and the value of the patents should consider the international modems made by Cisco and Arris and sold or used internationally. Even though Cisco and Arris were not sued they are still liable for manufacturing and distributing the modems. The US patent law says that those who distribute, sell or manufacture or use an infringing product are liable. If the alleged $600 million is only for the 13 companies, then they should be another billion or so from Cisco, Arris and the international companies which was on the table. Eg here in Canada we use modems that are made by Arris and Cisco..I would think Mexico, Brazil, Europe and Japan as well and possibly India. As I have said in the past I do not believe that Cisco can ignore or evade paying for the international modems since they are an American company violating American patents internationally....Shandahar disagrees...but that is another story. I left out China on purpose. It was agreed here that each modem use was valued at .40 cents in the lawsuit
No update yet on pacer.....and yes its supposed to be today.
Plus insurance.
I did not look at their financials. However i came across this.
https://deadline.com/2020/08/comcast-raising-4-5-billion-in-fresh-cash-to-refinance-outstanding-debt-1203010684/
Thank you Tony.
"Good stuff likely to occur with UOIP stock, I hope." Is there a possibility of relisting by any chance? Thank you in advance for your opinion.
Quite a relief!! That it is not him!! Hopefully this would put us back to "Before Oct 1 target." ....(the funds) Its been a long agonizing wait for us.
JS44 (Rev. 10/2020 NDGA) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by
local rules of court. This form is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket record. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ATTACHED)
I. (a) PLAINTIFF(S) DEFENDANT(S)
(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED
PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND
INVOLVED
(c) ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)
E-MAIL ADDRESS)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES
(PLACE AN “X” IN ONE BOX ONLY) (PLACE AN “X” IN ONE BOX FOR PLAINTIFF AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT)
(FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)
PLF DEF PLF DEF
1 U.S. GOVERNMENT 3 FEDERAL QUESTION 1 1 CITIZEN OF THIS STATE 4 4 INCORPORATED OR PRINCIPAL
PLAINTIFF (U.S. GOVERNMENT NOT A PARTY) PLACE OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE
2 U.S. GOVERNMENT 4 DIVERSITY 2 2 CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE 5 5 INCORPORATED AND PRINCIPAL
DEFENDANT (INDICATE CITIZENSHIP OF PARTIES PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE
IN ITEM III)
3 3 CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A 6 6 FOREIGN NATION
FOREIGN COUNTRY
IV. ORIGIN (PLACE AN “X “IN ONE BOX ONLY)
TRANSFERRED FROM MULTIDISTRICT APPEAL TO DISTRICT JUDGE
1 ORIGINAL 2 REMOVED FROM 3 REMANDED FROM 4 REINSTATED OR 5 ANOTHER DISTRICT 6 LITIGATION - 7 FROM MAGISTRATE JUDGE
PROCEEDING STATE COURT APPELLATE COURT REOPENED (Specify District) TRANSFER JUDGMENT
MULTIDISTRICT 8 LITIGATION -
DIRECT FILE
V. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE - DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY)
(IF COMPLEX, CHECK REASON BELOW)
1. Unusually large number of parties. 6. Problems locating or preserving evidence
2. Unusually large number of claims or defenses. 7. Pending parallel investigations or actions by government.
3. Factual issues are exceptionally complex 8. Multiple use of experts.
4. Greater than normal volume of evidence. 9. Need for discovery outside United States boundaries.
5. Extended discovery period is needed. 10. Existence of highly technical issues and proof.
CONTINUED ON REVERSE FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT $ APPLYING IFP MAG. JUDGE (IFP) ______________________
JUDGE MAG. JUDGE NATURE OF SUIT CAUSE OF ACTION______________________
(Referral)
Case 1:21-mi-00059-TWT Document 1-3 Filed 06/16/21 Page 1 of 2 TWT WEJ 850 15:0080
VI. NATURE OF SUIT (PLACE AN “X” IN ONE BOX ONLY)
CONTRACT - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK
150 RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT &
ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
152 RECOVERY OF DEFAULTED STUDENT
LOANS (Excl. Veterans)
153 RECOVERY OF OVERPAYMENT OF
VETERAN'S BENEFITS
CONTRACT - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK
110 INSURANCE
120 MARINE
130 MILLER ACT
140 NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT
151 MEDICARE ACT
160 STOCKHOLDERS' SUITS
190 OTHER CONTRACT
195 CONTRACT PRODUCT LIABILITY
196 FRANCHISE
REAL PROPERTY - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY
TRACK
210 LAND CONDEMNATION
220 FORECLOSURE
230 RENT LEASE & EJECTMENT
240 TORTS TO LAND
245 TORT PRODUCT LIABILITY
290 ALL OTHER REAL PROPERTY
TORTS - PERSONAL INJURY - "4" MONTHS
DISCOVERY TRACK
310 AIRPLANE
315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT LIABILITY
320 ASSAULT, LIBEL & SLANDER
330 FEDERAL EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
340 MARINE
345 MARINE PRODUCT LIABILITY
350 MOTOR VEHICLE
355 MOTOR VEHICLE PRODUCT LIABILITY
360 OTHER PERSONAL INJURY
362 PERSONAL INJURY - MEDICAL
MALPRACTICE
365 PERSONAL INJURY - PRODUCT LIABILITY
367 PERSONAL INJURY - HEALTH CARE/
PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCT LIABILITY
368 ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY PRODUCT
LIABILITY
TORTS - PERSONAL PROPERTY - "4" MONTHS
DISCOVERY TRACK
370 OTHER FRAUD
371 TRUTH IN LENDING
380 OTHER PERSONAL PROPERTY DAMAGE
385 PROPERTY DAMAGE PRODUCT LIABILITY
BANKRUPTCY - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK
422 APPEAL 28 USC 158
423 WITHDRAWAL 28 USC 157
CIVIL RIGHTS - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK
440 OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS
441 VOTING
442 EMPLOYMENT
443 HOUSING/ ACCOMMODATIONS
445 AMERICANS with DISABILITIES - Employment
446 AMERICANS with DISABILITIES - Other
448 EDUCATION
IMMIGRATION - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK
462 NATURALIZATION APPLICATION
465 OTHER IMMIGRATION ACTIONS
PRISONER PETITIONS - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY
TRACK
463 HABEAS CORPUS- Alien Detainee
510 MOTIONS TO VACATE SENTENCE
530 HABEAS CORPUS
535 HABEAS CORPUS DEATH PENALTY
540 MANDAMUS & OTHER
550 CIVIL RIGHTS - Filed Pro se
555 PRISON CONDITION(S) - Filed Pro se
560 CIVIL DETAINEE: CONDITIONS OF
CONFINEMENT
PRISONER PETITIONS - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY
TRACK
550 CIVIL RIGHTS - Filed by Counsel
555 PRISON CONDITION(S) - Filed by Counsel
FORFEITURE/PENALTY - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY
TRACK
625 DRUG RELATED SEIZURE OF PROPERTY
21 USC 881
690 OTHER
LABOR - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY TRACK
710 FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
720 LABOR/MGMT. RELATIONS
740 RAILWAY LABOR ACT
751 FAMILY and MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
790 OTHER LABOR LITIGATION
791 EMPL. RET. INC. SECURITY ACT
PROPERTY RIGHTS - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY
TRACK
820 COPYRIGHTS
840 TRADEMARK
PROPERTY RIGHTS - "8" MONTHS DISCOVERY
TRACK
SOCIAL SECURITY - "0" MONTHS DISCOVERY
TRACK
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 BLACK LUNG (923)
863 DIWC (405(g))
863 DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID TITLE XVI
865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY
TRACK
870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant)
871 IRS - THIRD PARTY 26 USC 7609
OTHER STATUTES - "4" MONTHS DISCOVERY
TRACK
375 FALSE CLAIMS ACT
376 Qui Tam 31 USC 3729(a)
400 STATE REAPPORTIONMENT
430 BANKS AND BANKING
450 COMMERCE/ICC RATES/ETC.
460 DEPORTATION
470 RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT
ORGANIZATIONS
480 CONSUMER CREDIT
485 TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
490 CABLE/SATELLITE TV
890 OTHER STATUTORY ACTIONS
891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS
893 ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS
895 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 899
899 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT /
REVIEW OR APPEAL OF AGENCY DECISION
950 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE STATUTES
OTHER STATUTES - "8" MONTHS DISCOVERY
TRACK
410 ANTITRUST
850 SECURITIES / COMMODITIES / EXCHANGE
OTHER STATUTES - “0" MONTHS DISCOVERY
TRACK
896 ARBITRATION
(Confirm / Vacate / Order / Modify)
* PLEASE NOTE DISCOVERY
TRACK FOR EACH CASE
TYPE. SEE LOCAL RULE 26.3
VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:
CHECK IF CLASS ACTION UNDER F.R.Civ.P. 23 DEMAND $_____________________________
JURY DEMAND YES NO (CHECK YES ONLY IF DEMANDED IN COMPLAINT)
VIII. RELATED/REFILED CASE(S) IF ANY
JUDGE_______________________________ DOCKET NO._______________________
CIVIL CASES ARE DEEMED RELATED IF THE PENDING CASE INVOLVES: (CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX)
1. PROPERTY INCLUDED IN AN EARLIER NUMBERED PENDING SUIT.
2. SAME ISSUE OF FACT OR ARISES OUT OF THE SAME EVENT OR TRANSACTION INCLUDED IN AN EARLIER NUMBERED PENDING SUIT.
3. VALIDITY OR INFRINGEMENT OF THE SAME PATENT, COPYRIGHT OR TRADEMARK INCLUDED IN AN EARLIER NUMBERED PENDING SUIT.
4. APPEALS ARISING OUT OF THE SAME BANKRUPTCY CASE AND ANY CASE RELATED THERETO WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE SAME
BANKRUPTCY JUDGE.
5. REPETITIVE CASES FILED BY PRO SE LITIGANTS.
6. COMPANION OR RELATED CASE TO CASE(S) BEING SIMULTANEOUSLY FILED (INCLUDE ABBREVIATED STYLE OF OTHER CASE(S)):
7. EITHER SAME OR ALL OF THE PARTIES AND ISSUES IN THIS CASE WERE PREVIOUSLY INVOLVED IN CASE NO. , WHICH WAS
DISMISSED. This case IS IS NOT (check one box) SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME CASE.
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD DAT
It's not our Carter.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff/Petitioner,
v.
GRANT M. CARTER,
Defendant/Respondent.
Case No.:
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL J. ROESSNER IN SUPPORT
OF REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, Michael J. Roessner, do hereby declare and
state the following:
1. I am an Assistant Chief Litigation Counsel employed by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”). I have been
assigned responsibility for representing the SEC in aid of execution proceedings in
the above-captioned action against Grant M. Carter, (“Carter”).
2. I make this Declaration in support of the Commission’s request for the
issuance of an Order to Show Cause on its Application for an Order under Section
20(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 77t(c), Section
21(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”), 15 U.S.C. §
Case 1:21-mi-00059-TWT Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 1 of 4
78u(e)(1), Section 209(d) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”),
15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(d), and Section 42(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940
(“Investment Company Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-41(d) Enforcing Compliance with
Commission Order (the “Application”).
3. The Commission brings this Application pursuant to Section 20(c) of
the Securities Act, Section 21(e) of the Exchange Act, Section 209(d) of the
Advisers Act, and Section 42(d) of the Investment Company Act to enforce a
Commission order against Carter.
4. Proceedings under Section 20(c) of the Securities Act and Section
21(e) of the Exchange Act are ordinarily commenced by an order to show cause.
See, e.g., SEC v. Taber, 1:13-mc-282 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2013). The
issuance of an order to show cause will provide for prompt service of this
Application upon Respondent, set a schedule for the submission of opposition and
reply papers, and set a date, time, and place for a hearing on this Application.
5. On September 17, 2019, the Commission issued an Order instituting
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings, on consent, pursuant to Section
8A of the Securities Act and Section 21C of the Exchange Act, Sections 203(e),
203(f) and 203(k) of the Investment Advisers Act and Section 9(b) of the
Case 1:21-mi-00059-TWT Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 2 of 4
Investment Company Act requiring Respondent Carter to pay a civil penalty of
$160,000 with additional interest pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3717 within 360 days.
6. The Commission also entered injunctive relief ordering Respondent
Carter to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations, and any
future violations of, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, and Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. A true and correct copy of the
Commission’s Order is attached as Exhibit 1.
7. To my knowledge, Carter has not made any voluntary payments
toward his disgorgement obligation as of the date of this filing.
8. On September 18, 2020, the SEC issued and served upon Carter a
demand for payment and notice of intent to offset.
9. To further the ability of the Commission to collect the amounts owed
to it, the SEC seeks to convert the Order to a District Court judgment so that
discovery may be propounded to Carter about his assets and financial condition,
and to other third parties as necessary to determine the true state of his financial
condition.
10. No prior application for this or similar relief has been made to any
court or judge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the
Case 1:21-mi-00059-TWT Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 3 of 4
best of my knowledge, information and belief.
s/MICHAEL J. ROESSNER
Dated: June 15, 2021 MICHAEL J.
ROESSNER
Washington, D.C. Attorney for Plaintiff/Applican
Great lyrics there. I "like the sea of green and full speed ahead."...HBD Tony.
Ok but please teach me or explain Iam not a lawyer...you are right? Anyway no worries. Settlement was done...just waiting to be paid. Maybe I should just think/ worry about that.
Cisco is an American Company. It made those modems and distributed them internationally...they did not get there by themselves... and they also repatriate their profits back to the USA not the Caiman Islands. If there was no accountability on this in patent laws as you put it, what would stop another USA company or individuals from for example stealing Apple patents and make products that they can only distribute in Asia, displace Apple from the Asian market and then bank their money in the USA? We all know the USA does not take kindly to such things. Iam not a lawyer but your view presents a huge loop hole that makes me think i should contract an Indian company to make cellphones for me using apple patents and sell them in Nigeria...lol Thanks for the tip.
Literally for you?...or should we all get popcorn?
NDA most likely. But should show on Chanbond's Income statements if ever they are made public. Also when they pay us they should indicate how they came up with the PPS paid to each shareholder. We may have a chance to see something...
I agree. In MHO i think Cisco on its own paid over a billion in settlements. Their share of the settlements should also include international companies eg European etc. I do not think they would have wanted to revisit this case again at international level and therefore had to agree to some international settlement with Chanbond. It does not make business sense for them to have left out the international factor in their negotiations. The fact that Cisco sold out its modem business to someone else yet they knew they were infringing would also appear as if there was a dishonesty factor in there as well. So Cisco in my view had to part with part of the proceeds of the sale of the modem business to silence Chanbond from going after that company, which would have gone after Cisco if Chanbond had sued. The Cisco Board of Directors would not have been impressed with an on going endless case. Including rentals etc Jibbs estimate could be closer. I was thinking 3B plus. JMHO.
We appreciate you sharing. Thank you.
Thank you....PPS?...wish we knew!!
Thank you
I have always trusted your DD and smartness. Anything new and exciting?
From Keith Kohl's newsletter.
Feds unleashing up to $227 billion on these tiny stocks
By Dave Roberts | Aug 30, 2021 - Baltimore, MD
The federal government has just authorized over $227 billion in urgent medical spending.
A huge portion of this money will flow into a surprisingly small number of biotech companies...
And this massive cash infusion should drive their stock prices THROUGH THE ROOF.
If you invest in those companies now, you’ll be set up for a massive payday...
And we’re just getting started!
Overall, global medical spending is on track to soar past the $7 trillion mark! Never before has the entire world jammed so much money into one small market sector.
This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and we don’t want you to miss out.
That’s why our own Keith Kohl is releasing this urgent presentation on biotech investing.
In it, you’ll learn about several stocks on the verge of BIG medical breakthroughs...
The data-driven way to predict whether the FDA will approve these breakthroughs...
And how to time an investment to capitalize PERFECTLY on those approvals.
We believe one of these stocks could turn every $2,500 into $193,800.
So if you want to make hundreds of thousands (if not millions!) from the red-hot biotech sector, don’t delay:
Thanks
Thanks Tony.I read the board daily must have missed it. Its just that it's raised all the time. Will check.
I have seen people here complaining about Financials not being kept up to date.... UOIP was not making any money and how was Billy going to pay for the fins? From his own pocket? No body knew then that this lawsuit was going to get settled..... I would not blame Billy for that. IMHO.
Okay ...I see your point. However what was the point of the discovery process in the lawsuit...referring to" past economic damages?" Can they still re open the Discovery process after the lawsuit is done with? My belief is that the discovery process was done to evaluate and clarify all this.
Those patents are expiring within months. I don't think they are buying them unless if there is a good reason to. e.g. a tax write off benefit or that the expiration date has been extended...or that they have a new role in DOCSIS 4....just MHO. DOCSIS 3.1 the current technology...which we sued for.. will soon be old and unusable for 5G.
Congratulations team...wow!!
The longer the time one takes to pay a debt the more they pay. interest and continued use of the product without paying royalties. In the negotiations were appear to have been having an upper hand. (adjourning of the lawsuit) They could have paid 3times more if they lost. A dollar in 2019 is worth less in 2021...theoretically.
It appears as if we are asking for billions in settlement.
https://www.thelayoff.com/t/XUcCE78
Settlement could cover the whole world where Cisco operated and manufactured and sold the modems. I do not see them revisiting the courts over this matter again.(prudence) Cisco and Arris should also pay an additional amount as manufacturers of the product to protect themselves from any future lawsuits. American law says "Anyone who uses, manufactures or distributes an infringing product is liable even though they were not directly sued.
LAW 360 Article
Cox Nears Settlement Resolving IP Dispute In Midst Of Trial
By Hailey Konnath
Law360 (May 27, 2021, 10:47 PM EDT) -- A Delaware federal judge paused a trial Thursday in which Cox Communications is squaring off with a patent-holding company over high-speed networking patents, granting a joint request from the companies, which said they were nearing a deal that would put to rest the yearslong dispute.
Cox Communications Inc. and ChanBond LLC told the court Wednesday that they have executed a binding term sheet and are "diligently working to effect settlement." They said they needed additional time to complete the final steps.
"In view of the foregoing, and in an effort to conserve party and judicial resources, the parties respectfully request that the presently-ongoing trial ... be adjourned and all other deadlines in the consolidated cases be stayed through July 9, 2021."
U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews granted the motion, adjourned the trial and stayed the case in a short order Thursday.
The companies have been battling it out since 2015, when ChanBond fired off a flurry of suits against 12 telecom businesses, including Cox, Atlantic Broadband Group LLC and Comcast Corp., which were consolidated for pretrial purposes in 2017.
The trial kicked off May 20, according to the case docket.
Cox Communications had tried to push back the trial, arguing in March that it was "highly unlikely" that all participants in the dispute would be vaccinated by May. But ChanBond opposed another delay, saying it believed that the trial could be conducted safely.
"ChanBond understands that the COVID-19 pandemic is not formally over and the safety of jurors, the court and its staff, the witnesses, and all trial participants including counsel is paramount," ChanBond said at the time. "However, conditions have been improving."
Judge Andrews sided with ChanBond in April. That month, the Delaware federal court officially lifted the latest order suspending federal civil and criminal jury trials.
The trial was initially slated to begin Aug. 18, but Judge Andrews postponed it in July. The case was to be the first of the related infringement suits filed by ChanBond to go to trial, but Cox said in its earlier request for a delay that "a trial conducted under the present circumstances will not provide a bellwether."
Counsel for ChanBond declined to comment, and counsel for Cox didn't immediately return requests for comment late Thursday.
ChanBond is represented by Stephen B. Brauerman and Ronald P. Golden III of Bayard Pal, and George T. Shipley of Shipley Snell Montgomery LLP.
Cox is represented by Jennifer Ying and Jack B. Blumenfeld of Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnell LLP.
The case is In re: ChanBond LLC Patent Litigation, case number 1:15-cv-00842, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
--Additional reporting by Lauren Berg, Andrew Karpan, Britain Eakin and Clark Mindock. Editing by Breda Lund.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
Thank you!!
Good to see that you are still posting here.
Nothing there since Dec 15 2020
I live in Canada and we are able to trade any American stocks at anytime, online through all our brokerages. I personally use TD. To trade European and any other stocks online without calling, TD allows one to open up A GLOBAL TRADING ACCOUNT and from there i was able to trade European and Australian stocks online....without calling in. (So ask TD for a Global trading Acct.)