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.
You are welcome Long.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
REDACTED
PLAINTIFF CHANBOND, LLC’S REPLY BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY
IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO REOPEN DISCOVERY FOR
INVESTIGATION OF STANDING ISSUES
Date: December 7, 2020
Of Counsel:
Robert A. Whitman (pro hac vice)
Mark S. Raskin (pro hac vice)
John F. Petrsoric (pro hac vice)
Michael DeVincenzo (pro hac vice)
Andrea Pacelli (pro hac vice)
KING & WOOD MALLESONS LLP
500 Fifth Avenue, 50th Floor
New York, New York 10110
212-319-4755
robert.whitman@us.kwm.com
mark.raskin@us.kwm.com
john.petrsoric@us.kwm.com
michael.devincenzo@us.kwm.com
andrea.pacelli@us.kwm.com
Stephen B. Brauerman (#4952)
Ronald P. Golden III (#6254)
BAYARD, P.A.
600 N. King Street, Suite 400
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(302) 655-5000
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
rgolden@bayardlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
ChanBond, LLC
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 547 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 33830
i
TABLE OF BRIEF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Docket
Index
Title of Brief
Open. Br. 525 Defendants’ Opening Brief in Support of Their Motion to
Reopen Fact Discovery for Limited Investigation of Standing
Issues
Opp. Br. 529 Plaintiff ChanBond, LLC’s Brief in Opposition to Defendants’
Motion to Reopen Discovery for Investigation of Standing
Issues
Rep. Br. 535 Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Their Motion to Reopen
Fact Discovery for Limited Investigation of Standing Issues
Mtn. Sur-Rep. 537 Plaintiff ChanBond, LLC’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply
in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Reopen Discovery for
Investigation of Standing Issues
Prop. Sur-Rep. Br. 537, Ex. 1 Plaintiff ChanBond, LLC’s Sur-Reply in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Reopen Discovery for Investigation of
Standing Issues
Sur-Rep. Opp. 543 Defendants’ Brief in Opposition to ChanBond’s Motion for
Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion
to Reopen Fact Discovery for Limited Investigation of Standing
Issues
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 547 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 33831
1
I. Introduction
Realizing that their original basis to reopen discovery was baseless, Defendants changed
tactics in their reply brief1
, now urging that unsubstantiated allegations regarding attorney
misconduct with respect to an Advisory Services Agreement (“ASA”) between ChanBond, LLC
(“ChanBond”) and IPNAV, LLC required the reopening of discovery. Defendants’ moving
papers did not mention either the ASA or any claims of attorney misconduct. As such,
ChanBond has requested leave to address Defendants’ new allegations that discovery should be
reopened in the light of the ASA.
Defendants now seek to preclude ChanBond from responding to their baseless
misconduct accusations and their nonsensical argument concerning the purported relevance of
the ASA. Defendants’ manufactured reasons for seeking to muzzle ChanBond do not withstand
cursory scrutiny. Defendants claim that ChanBond failed to “explain” the dispute between
Deirdre Leane and ChanBond concerning the ASA during the meet-and-confer process. Yet,
during the parties’ September 24, 2020 meet-and-confer, the only issue Defendants raised was
the interpretation of the October 2015 Interest Sale Agreement (“October 2015 Agreement”).
There were no on-going litigations regarding the October 2015 Agreement at that time. As such,
ChanBond cannot be faulted for failing to mention a litigation that did not exist. Further,
Defendants claim that they requested information generally during the meet-and-confer process
about the dispute between Ms. Leane and ChanBond. That argument is false and belied by the
parties’ communications and Defendants’ moving papers, all related to the October 2015
Agreement.
1 To avoid confusion regarding the identification of the briefs addressing Defendants’ motion to
reopen fact discovery (D.I. 524), ChanBond’s citations use the abbreviations set forth in the
Table of Brief Abbreviations.
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 547 Filed 12/14/20 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 33832
2
Further, Defendants’ sur-reply opposition injects yet another new argument in support of
their underlying motion to reopen discovery and delay trial. Defendants now argue that
discovery should be reopened because Ms. Leane could theoretically become ChanBond’s new
owner and that this could potentially lead to a change of ChanBond’s counsel. Putting aside
Defendants’ reliance on unfounded speculation, an eventual change in ownership of ChanBond
or its counsel would have no more impact on this litigation than a change in ownership or
defense counsel of a Defendant. Regardless of who owns ChanBond, ChanBond would remain
the owner of the patents-in-suit. Further, ChanBond, like Defendants, can always elect to change
its counsel—the potential for such a change does not justify reopening discovery.
Put simply, ChanBond seeks to respond to Defendants’ new allegations raised for the first
time in reply. Those allegations, while sensational (as undoubtedly intended by Ms. Leane), are
unfounded and irrelevant, and provide no basis for re-opening discovery or delaying trial. The
Court should allow ChanBond to file its proposed sur-reply responding to Defendants’ new reply
arguments, which are based on documents long known to Defendants.
II. Argument
A. ChanBond Should Be Permitted to Demonstrate that the Advisory Services
Agreement Is Not Relevant and Defendants Made No Attempt to Secure Its
Production
Defendants filed a motion to reopen discovery to investigate a single issue—whether the
October 2015 Agreement gave Ms. Leane
(See, generally, Open. Br.) After receiving ChanBond’s response, Defendants urged for
the first time that discovery needs to be reopened to investigate whether, under the ASA, Ms.
Leane granted Technicolor, her former employer and one of Defendants’ cable modem suppliers,
a license to the patents-in-suit. (Rep. Br. at 5–6, 9.) Defendants further alleged that the ASA
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 547 Filed 12/14/20 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 33833
3
was withheld during discovery as a result of litigation misconduct, which they also contend
included the production of a so-called “fake” termination of the ASA. (Id. at 11.) Defendants
now urge that the alleged misconduct excuses their demonstrable lack of reasonable diligence in
seeking the ASA’s production, despite their knowledge of it and its termination. (Sur-Rep. Opp.
at 8–9.) Rather than agree to a sur-reply to permit ChanBond to respond to their new allegations,
Defendants use their opposition as yet another opportunity to repeat the unsubstantiated smears
of ChanBond’s counsel as if doing so could excuse their delay.
Defendants’ accusations are nothing more than an attempt to distract the Court from the
indisputable fact that any additional discovery concerning the ASA has no relevance to these
cases. In their sur-reply opposition, Defendants repeat the unfounded argument, first made in
reply, that the ASA may have granted Ms. Leane the ability to license the patents-in-suit. Yet,
contrary to Defendants’ arguments, Ms. Leane was not “uniquely positioned to convey a license
to Technicolor.” (Id. at 1, 8.) As explained in ChanBond’s proposed sur-reply,
Ms. Leane authority to license the patents-in-suit.
(Prop. Sur-Rep. Br. at 2–5.) Indeed, pursuant to the ASA itself, Ms. Leane has no “decisionmaking” authority over any license as that right, along with all others, “rests solely with”
ChanBond. (Id.) Not only does Ms. Leane lack the right to grant licenses, but she testified
.
(See Ex. H, Leane 4/24/18 Tr. at
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 547 Filed 12/14/20 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 33834
4
2
Consistently, Technicolor has never come forward
and claimed Ms. Leane provided a license to the patents-in-suit.3
Defendants’ sur-reply opposition repeats their contention that the cancelled ASA was a
“key agreement” that was intentionally concealed by ChanBond’s counsel. (Sur-Rep. Opp. at 1.)
Incredibly, Defendants seek to preclude ChanBond from responding to the outlandish allegation
that its counsel created a “fake document[]” (id. at 11) “to hide Ms. Leane’s interest in the
patents” (id. at 1).4
ChanBond’s sur-reply should be granted to allow it to respond to
Defendants’ unwarranted mud-slinging. Indeed, ChanBond did not conceal Ms. Leane’s interest.
Defendants deposed Ms. Leane (twice) and were free to ask her whatever they wanted. Ms.
Leane’s interest in the outcome of these cases was fully disclosed and is reflected by a
(See Opp. Br., Ex. C, Leane 4/24/18 Tr. at 1
2
She did not become the Chief Intellectual Property Officer at
Technicolor until 2017. (See Ex. I.)
3 Defendants’ further argument related to Ms. Leane’s purported disclosure of her interest in the
patents-in-suit to Technicolor does not render the requested new discovery relevant. (See SurRep. Opp. at 4; Rep. Br., Ex. P at ¶¶74–78, Ex Q at ¶¶68–72.) Regardless of Ms. Leane’s
interest in the outcome of this litigation, a license defense would require evidence that Ms. Leane
had the power to and, did in fact, grant a license. Yet, as detailed above, the ASA did not grant
Ms. Leane the right to grant licenses and, even if it did, she testified
.
4 As Defendants’ repeated citations make clear (Sur-Rep. Opp. at 4, 10), Ms. Leane now seeks to
reinstate the ASA. Even she does not contend that the termination was “fake.”
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 547 Filed 12/14/20 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 33835
5
Unable to dispute that ChanBond should be permitted to respond to Defendants’
allegations, Defendants use their sur-reply opposition to distract from the fact that they were not
diligent in seeking production of the irrelevant and terminated ASA. Yet, Defendants cannot
dispute that Ms. Leane identified the ASA during her deposition. Despite this, Defendants’
counsel did not question Ms. Leane regarding the details of the ASA or the steps she had taken to
identify her interests in these cases, either through , to
Technicolor. Instead, after learning of the ASA, Defendants made a tepid attempt (at best) to
secure production of the ASA. (Prop. Sur-Rep. Br. at 5.)
Not content to raise new arguments in reply while seeking to muzzle ChanBond,
Defendants use their sur-reply opposition to inject brand-new and equally baseless allegations
regarding attorney misconduct. Defendants contend that the April 30, 2018 text messages
between Ms. Leane and William Carter “corroborate that ChanBond withheld that ASA for
litigation advantage.” (Sur-Rep. Opp. at 4.) To support that accusation, Defendants cite to Ms.
Leane’s allegations that ChanBond’s counsel fraudulently induced her to terminate the ASA.
(Id. at 3,4, citing to Ex. P at ¶¶48-58, Ex Q at ¶¶39-53.) However, these text messages are not
only irrelevant, they did not involve ChanBond’s counsel. There is no correspondence between
Ms. Leane and ChanBond’s counsel remotely supporting Ms. Leane’s allegations (because those
allegations are demonstrably false).
B. Defendants Misrepresent the Parties’ Meet-and-Confer
Defendants seek to preclude ChanBond from responding to Defendants’ new reply
arguments because ChanBond purportedly failed to comply with its disclosure obligations during
the parties’ meet-and-confer. That is false. Defendants state that ChanBond was asked to
explain the nature of the dispute between Ms. Leane and ChanBond (Sur-Rep. Opp. at 2, 9) and
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 547 Filed 12/14/20 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 33836
6
that “ChanBond explicitly refused to provide any information regarding the dispute” (id. at 1).
Defendants asked no such question and were provided with no such response.
As reflected in the parties’ correspondence, Defendants did not request general
information regarding all disputes between Ms. Leane and ChanBond during the parties’ meetand-confer. Instead, Defendants requested information concerning only the October 2015
Agreement and its interpretation. Akiva Cohen’s September 2, 2020 email to Defendants’
counsel indicated that Ms. Leane believed that the section of the
October 2015 Agreement gave Ms. Leane
(Open. Br., Ex G at 4). Counsel for ChanBond and Defendants exchanged emails
thereafter leading to the meet-and-confer. In those emails, ChanBond explained that the
section is unambiguous, and that Mr. Cohen’s reading was therefore
objectively inaccurate. ChanBond also explained that, even if Mr. Cohen’s interpretation were
correct, there would be no impact on standing in the case. (Id. 2–3.) Defendants’ response,
further encapsulated in their opening brief (see, generally, Open. Br.), was that the reopening of
discovery was warranted in view of Ms. Leane’s own interpretation of the October 2015
Agreement (id. at 1)—an interpretation that Defendants claim to have failed to consider during
discovery. (See Opp. Br. at 8–11.) The meet-and-confer process was limited to this issue.
Defendants’ false contention that the meet-and-confer was generally directed at a broad inquiry
into all potential dispute(s) between Ms. Leane and ChanBond is wholly unsupported by the
record.
Defendants’ allegation that ChanBond was required to disclose the existence of the New
York and Texas litigations on the parties’ September 24, 2020 meet-and-confer or in its October
22 opposition brief is meritless. The New York litigation was filed on September 22, 2020,
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 547 Filed 12/14/20 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 33837
7
contemporaneous with but not yet served at the time of the meet-and-confer. More importantly,
that litigation does not concern the interpretation of the October 2015 Agreement. The Texas
litigation, as well as the arbitration demand, were filed on September 29, 2020, after the parties’
meet-and-confer. Thus, ChanBond could not possibly have disclosed the existence of the Texas
litigation at the time of the meet and confer. However, as recognized by Defendants, the Texas
litigation was directed to the single issue of contract interpretation raised in Defendants’ opening
brief to reopen discovery, namely, whether the section of the October
2015 Agreement granted Ms. Leane . That issue has now been resolved.
Judge Boyle in the Northern District of Texas held that the section
did not provide Ms. Leane with licensing veto power, and it does not prohibit ChanBond from
licensing the patents-in-suit without Ms. Leane’s consent. (D.I. 541, Ex. A at 6–9.)
Defendants filed their opening brief on October 8, two weeks after the meet-and-confer.
In that brief, Defendants urged that reopening discovery was necessary because there was a
“possibility” under the October 2015 Agreement that ChanBond might not have standing.
ChanBond responded on October 22, 2020 showing that: (i) Defendants were not diligent in
seeking discovery regarding the October 2015 Agreement; (ii) the discovery sought was not
relevant because Mr. Cohen’s “interpretation” was based on a misreading of the October 2015
Agreement; and (iii) even if Mr. Cohen’s “interpretation” was correct, it would not impact
ChanBond’s standing. Following ChanBond’s opposition, and Judge Boyle’s decision,
Defendants’ reply abandoned their opening arguments and instead argued for the first time in
reply that additional discovery is needed to investigate a supposed, potential “implied license” to
Technicolor. Defendants could have sought to withdraw and refile a separate motion upon
learning of the recent Texas and New York actions, but instead chose to raise the new issues and
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 547 Filed 12/14/20 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 33838
8
arguments for the first time in their reply brief without so much as a meet-and-confer.
Accordingly, the Court should permit ChanBond a sur-reply to address Defendants’ new
arguments.
C. ChanBond Has Been and Will Continue to Be the Plaintiff
Defendants claim they have “every right to know who the real plaintiff is before trial.”
(Sur-Rep. Opp. at 1.) But there is no dispute ChanBond has been the legal owner of the patentsin-suit since the April 2015 Patent Purchase Agreement. No individual—including ChanBond’s
previous manager Ms. Leane or ChanBond’s current manager Mr. Carter—has owned the
patents. Since April 2015, only ChanBond has had standing to file and maintain these cases.
Moreover, any judgment in these cases will be binding against ChanBond, regardless of
who currently or ultimately owns and controls ChanBond. Defendants cite no law to the
contrary, but rather try to inject confusion by citing to cases addressing whether issue preclusion
applies to non-parties. The present circumstances do not involve non-party preclusion.
ChanBond is and has always been the only party. The Supreme Court’s holdings in Taylor v.
Sturgell are nonetheless instructive, making clear that preclusion applies when a party and nonparty are in a “substantive legal relationship” such as “preceding and succeeding owners of
property, bailee and bailor, and assignee and assignor.” 553 U.S. 880, 894 (2008).
Defendants also contend that, should Ms. Leane succeed in her efforts to regain
ownership of ChanBond and replace ChanBond’s counsel, she may contend that she did not have
a “full and fair opportunity to litigate” the case (Sur-Rep. Opp. at 12). In doing so, Defendants
cite no supporting law, nor can they because a “full and fair opportunity to litigate” does not
require the legal representation that one might have wished for in hindsight. See, e.g., Ellis v.
Ford Motor Co., 628 F. Supp. 849, 857 (D. Mass. 1986) (“[T]he Court believes that it would not
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 547 Filed 12/14/20 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 33839
9
be equitable to force the defendant to relitigate its case because [plaintiff’s] counsel was arguably
neglectful in the first action. To do so would be to permit civil litigants to attack collaterally an
earlier judgment with what can be described as the functional equivalent of a Sixth Amendment
habeas corpus motion.”); see also In re Williams, 282 B.R. 267, 277 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2002).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and the reasons set forth in its opening brief, ChanBond
respectfully requests that the Court grant it leave to file the sur-reply.
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 547 Filed 12/14/20 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 33840
10
Date: December 7, 2020 BAYARD, P.A.
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Of Counsel:
Robert A. Whitman (pro hac vice)
Mark S. Raskin (pro hac vice)
John F. Petrsoric (pro hac vice)
Michael DeVincenzo (pro hac vice)
Andrea Pacelli (pro hac vice)
KING & WOOD MALLESONS LLP
500 Fifth Avenue, 50th Floor
New York, New York 10110
212-319-4755
robert.whitman@us.kwm.com
mark.raskin@us.kwm.com
john.petrsoric@us.kwm.com
michael.devincenzo@us.kwm.com
andrea.pacelli@us.kwm.com
Stephen B. Brauerman (#4952)
Ronald P. Golden III (#6254)
600 N. King Street, Suite 400
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(302) 655-5000
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
rgolden@bayardlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
ChanBond, LLC
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 547 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1
2-RGA
PLAINTIFF CHANBOND, LLC’S NOTICE OF SUBSEQUENT AUTHORITY
Plaintiff Chanbond, LLC (“ChanBond”) respectfully submits this Notice of Supplemental
Authority regarding its Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion
to Reopen Discovery for Investigation of Standing Issues (see D.I. 537.) As noted previously,
Judge Boyle in the Northern District of Texas issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order on
November 12, 2020 denying Deirdre Leane’s Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining
Order to prevent ChanBond from licensing the patents-in-suit. (see D.I. 541, Ex. A.) In response,
Ms. Leane filed a motion to amend the order requesting that the Court delete its finding that Ms.
Leane’s interpretation of the October 2015 Interest Sale Agreement is incorrect, and Defendants
cited to that motion in their Opposition to ChanBond’s Motion for a Sur-Reply. (See D.I. 543 at
3, fn 1.) Judge Boyle denied the motion to amend via electronic order on December 14, 2020 (see
Exhibit A at 8, attached hereto).
C
When it comes to DD you are the best! Everything is at your finger tips....I have noticed. Blessing to have you on the board.
I meant this entry.Thank you
528 misc Redacted Document Thu 10/15 6:10 PM
REDACTED VERSION of525 Opening Brief in Support,,, 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 A-M
On Oct 15 there is a redacted post on pacer for the 13, where they wanted to clarify items A to M. May you please upload that EXHIBIT if its possible on your side. Please and thank you.
I have 2 000 000
Is that $1 000 000.00 or $1 000 000 000.00... not being rude just clarifying please. Thank you. Did not look at your link due to malware.
For those who did not see the original agreement.
http://irdirect.net/filings/viewer/index/1097718/000135448815005300/2
http://www.contexxia.com/a/organization/UOIP
Thursday, October 08, 2020
misc Remark Thu 10/08 8:45 AM
SUMMONS REQUESTED by plaintiffs attorney for a pleading that was NOT FILED in our Court. The Case Openings Unit will not issue summons on this case at this time as the Complaint was not filed in our Court..(gp)
Wednesday, October 07, 2020
7 notice Notice of Appearance Wed 10/07 10:01 AM
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Akiva Meir Cohen on behalf of IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane..(Cohen, Akiva)
Tuesday, October 06, 2020
6 service Request for Issuance of Summons Tue 10/06 8:41 AM
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Mark Raskin, re: Complaint. Document filed by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane..(Cohen, Akiva)
Att: 1 New York State Summons and Complaint
5 service Request for Issuance of Summons Tue 10/06 8:38 AM
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Robert Whitman, re: Complaint. Document filed by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane..(Cohen, Akiva)
Att: 1 New York State Summons and Complaint
4 service Request for Issuance of Summons Tue 10/06 8:35 AM
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to King & Wood Mallesons LLP, re: Complaint. Document filed by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane..(Cohen, Akiva)
Att: 1 New York State Summons and Complaint
3 service Request for Issuance of Summons Tue 10/06 8:32 AM
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Mishcon de Reya New York LLP, re: Complaint. Document filed by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane..(Cohen, Akiva)
Att: 1 New York State Summons and Complaint
2 service Request for Issuance of Summons Tue 10/06 8:28 AM
REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS as to Mishcon de Reya LLP, re: Complaint. Document filed by IPNAV, LLC, Deirdre Leane..(Cohen, Akiva)
Att: 1 New York State Summons and Complaint
Tuesday, September 29, 2020
1 notice Notice of Removal Thu 10/01 2:47 PM
NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Supreme Court, County of New York. Case Number: 654614/2020..Document filed by Mark Raskin..(rdz)
Att: 1 Exhibit,
Att: 2 Exhibit,
Att: 3 Exhibit
utility Case Designated ECF Thu 10/01 2:48 PM
Case Designated ECF. (rdz)
You make a lot of sense Zomby, however why did they not just walk into a lawyers office and change the terms peacefully/quietly??
I have a pacer account. Only shows the same 2fillings done by chanbond.
misc Certificate Of Interested Persons/Disclosure Statement Fri 10/09 5:39 PM
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by ChanBond, LLC, Unified Online, LLC. (Stahl, Linda)
1 notice Notice of Removal Fri 10/09 5:35 PM
NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed by Unified Online, LLC, ChanBond, LLC. (Filing fee $400; receipt number 0539-11254218) In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the[LINK:Judges Copy Requirements] and[LINK:Judge Specific Requirements] is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here:[LINK:Attorney Information - Bar Membership] . If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Stahl, Linda
I remember one of the excuses filed by the 13 was that UOIP was not an active company so it was not being hurt by the competition and there fore could wait for a 3 months while the 13 were working out things...is Leane trying to speed up things and show the judge that Chanbond has obligations to attend to??
Any reason why Ms Leane would sue/enforce the contract before the time elapses? The contract says payment is due by October 27 2020. Is the contract enforceable before time?Guess its a warning to Billy to settle. Guess she is not interested in giving him any more time over 5 yrs
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815004760/uoip_8k.htm
Docketbird may help with your question.
https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Centripetal-Networks-Inc-v-Cisco-Systems-Inc/vaed-2:2018-cv-00094
Ref entry 436 on page 3...Not Teece. But those are technical experts..maybe Teece was there for the calculation of damages??
Negotiations (settlement) have been happening since 2019. You may recall this link. They just need to agree on the dollar amount.
https://www.thelayoff.com/t/XUcCE78
Nothing new really on Cicso i listened in. ....However i said loss in the last post...it should have been less profit
Just been watching CNBC. Cisco was down $3.00 and there are forecasting a loss in the next quarter. The commentators were saying that they do not understand why they went down that much. However The CEO will be on Mad Money tonight. People may want to tune in to listen. There could be a hint on the lawsuits...maybe?? Financials were also out today ...if i remember well. Revenue was down but the analysts say that does not justify that drop in price.
Way north Yellowknife!
Very sad. May he RIP.
Thank you. Came in as an immigrant 20yrs ago and i love each and every day here. Thank you Canada!
Wow!!
.0001 here once held 13M now @2M
Thanks!! Great find.
The patent has been granted 100% and tried and tested in court...last barriers have been removed.....with an experienced team of lawyers we have i wonder if they would still be stubborn and expect to get water out of a rock??. Cox is family owned ...family worth 41Billion. Going to court will treble the 82 million dollars in damages. I wonder if they would take the risk and go to court?...Hey but who knows. I agree with you.
From our lawyers website.....i like the confidence displayed in the last paragraph.
https://www.kwm.com/en/us/knowledge/insights/us-supreme-court-denies-petition-for-certiorari-against-kwm-client-chanbond-20200504
The Supreme Court’s denial of ARRIS’s petition renders the PTAB’s decision final, and removes the last barrier to ChanBond’s enforcement of its patent rights. The case is scheduled to go to trial in August 2020, represented by KWM’s patent team based in New York.
Great post Z!
Just an ordinary example.
If chtr shares go up in value it could be 1 share paying for 20 shares UOIP. The higher the share price the less shares they use to settle vice virsa....hope i got your question correctly?? T he stronger the dollar the less u pay...the weaker the more u pay at the till/ counter
The revenue here is consistent...subscriptions unless if the virus is killing a lot of subscribers? However the share price may go down due to the virus and Billy has to be aware of this if he decides to accept shares instead of cash. However this could be a blessing for us if they are deciding to settle in shares....the lower the share price the more shares they have to offer and more dilution. Its best for them to settle now if they are considering using shares than postponing the settlement.
Why do Attorneys Withdraw from Representation?
By: John R. Coleman, Jr. & Natalie V. Teston
Coleman, Chambers & Rogers, LLP
August 2015
There are numerous reasons attorneys withdraw from representation of clients. Commonly, attorneys request the Court to allow his or her withdrawal from representation on the basis that the client has failed to abide by the obligations contained in the employment contract. The obligations found in an attorney-client employment contract can include terms of payment, promises to be honest and forthcoming, and promises to respond in a timely manner.
Many times an attorney will allow the opposing party to believe that the withdrawal is based on issues surrounding payment when in fact that is not the true reason. This can be done for the client’s own protection. Lawyers can withdraw based on the fact their client refuses to be truthful, refuses to follow the attorney’s advice, demands to pursue an unethical course of action, demands unrealistic results, desires to mislead the Court, refuses to cooperate with their counsel as well as countless other reasons. Bringing to light one of these reasons as the basis for an attorney’s desire to withdraw could have a negative impact on the client’s case. Therefore it is typically safer for the client if the attorney cites reasons involving legal fee disputes or generic non-compliance with the employment agreement.
There are certain procedures an attorney who wishes to withdraw must follow in order to safeguard the client’s interests during this transition. First, the attorney must give the client proper notice of the intended withdrawal as well as notices of upcoming hearing dates, etc. The attorney must also notify the court of the client’s contact information so that notices can be sent directly to the client following the withdrawal. The attorney must also file a motion with the court requesting permission to withdraw from representation. Typically the attorney will affirm the other procedural safeguards and notifications have been met in this motion. The attorney is not relieved of his or her duties to represent the client unless and until an order granting the withdrawal is signed by the judge and filed with the clerk of court.
Clients are also allowed to terminate the attorney-client relationship. Clients can fire their attorneys at will. No permission from the court is necessary, but the attorney must still formally withdraw by filing the notices, motion and order referenced above. If the client has hired a new attorney, this new attorney and the client can sign and submit a Substitution of Counsel, which also acts to formally remove the old attorney from the case. Some common reasons why clients decide to fire their attorneys are as follows: the client and the attorney do not agree on how best to handle the case, a lack of communication between the client and attorney and disputes over legal fees.
Typically an attorney who is being fired will request the client to sign a document stating the client understands the negative consequences that may result from proceeding forward in the litigation unrepresented and that despite these risks the client still desires to terminate the attorney-client relationship. It is important to note that neither an attorney’s withdrawal nor a client’s firing of an attorney relieves the client of the obligation to pay legal fees incurred in their representation. This obligation to pay legal fees survives the termination of the attorney-client relationship. It is therefore important to refer back to your employment agreement to address any payment issues.
As a general rule, an attorney’s withdrawal from representation of a client or a client’s firing of an attorney is a last resort. Most of the time attorneys and clients are able to work through issues and personality differences that may arise during representation. However, the withdrawal process exists to ensure no attorney and client are forced to work together.
About the authors: John R. Coleman, Jr. and Natalie V. Teston are attorneys with Coleman, Chambers & Rogers, LLP, in Gainesville, Georgia. The law firm of Coleman, Chambers & Rogers, LLP regularly handles all types of domestic relations actions. The firm has handled and can handle domestic relations cases in numerous counties, including: Hall County (Gainesville), White County (Cleveland), Lumpkin County (Dahlonega), Gwinnett County (Lawrenceville), Dawson County (Dawsonville), Habersham County (Demorest/Cornelia), and throughout all of Northeast Georgia.
Get Answers To Your Questions
Fields marked with an * are required
Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
Disclaimer: The use of the internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.
I Have Read The Disclaimer *
New Pacer
7 notice Notice re Attorney Appearance - Requesting Removal of Co-Counsel Tue 02/25 3:55 PM
NOTICE requesting Clerk to remove Jonathan E. Retsky as co-counsel.. (Ying, Jennifer
Is he abandoning ship or what?
New pacer...Dilly wondering if you have a copy please. Thanks
486 misc Redacted Document Mon 02/24 4:17 PM
REDACTED VERSION of482 Notice (Other) by ChanBond, LLC. (Brauerman, Stephen)
My apologies ..you are right. factor in Friday night...lol
we lost this one
order Oral Order Fri 02/21 3:07 PM
ORAL ORDER: For the reasons stated after the hearing on February 18, 2020, the motion to exclude testimony (D.I.361 ) is DENIED. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 2/21/2020. (nms)
New pacer....
misc - Transcript Thu 02/20 1:54 PM
Official Transcript of Expert Hearing and Scheduling Conference held on 2/18/20 before Judge Richard G. Andrews. Court Reporter/Transcriber Heather M. Triozzi,Email: Heather_Triozzi@ded.uscourts.gov. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or order/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 3/12/2020. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/23/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/20/2020. (Triozzi, Heather)
Tuesday, February 18, 2020
I really do not believe that the year matters in this situation, What we should be concerned with is the ADEQUACY of that subpoena. Was it enough to address the court's needs?.... is what matters. They will not call Billy for the same thing twice. Anyways the case is now headed to trial and if there was a need for Billy to address something/anything it would have come during the or before the DISCOVERY PERIOD. Whether Zomby went to all the hearings or not...still does not matter. What matters is that judge Andrews has something on record that addresses Billy's issues in regards to the courts needs....which would have been addressed by the subpoena regardless of where that took place.....whether in the court or lawyers offices.
196 notice Notice - Other Tue 01/23 4:00 PM
NOTICE of Third-Party Subpoena on William R. Carter, Jr. 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)
Or there is another one that you mean/ expect?
Pacer update...if we win this argument they are done!!
MEMORANDUM ORDER: The Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I.370 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 2/4/2020. (nms)
It seems like the down load icon is now available.
In short i don't see them going for Canada individually and the world country by country....maybe but who knows. though they have the ability to.