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.
They also mention that the require sole control in settlement and negotiation talks so those 3 options don’t seem to be the only possible outcomes. Read through the doc to get some more insight I didn’t reference all the info on there.
Couple of interesting things I found about arris's indemnification protocol
"ARRIS will indemnify, defend and hold Customer Indemnified Parties harmless against damages, liabilities and costs, excluding consequential and exemplary damages, finally awarded
against Customer and will, at ARRIS’ expense, defend any claim, suit or proceeding (“Claim”) brought against Customer insofar as such Claim is based on an allegation that a Product as
provided to Customer directly infringe a valid patent or copyright. ARRIS will pay Damages awarded or agreed-upon, as applicable, as the result of the Claim, provided (i) Customer promptly
notifies ARRIS of the Claim, (ii) Customer gives ARRIS all applicable evidence in Customer’s possession, custody or control, and (iii) Customer gives ARRIS reasonable assistance in and
sole control of the defense and all negotiations for its settlement or compromise."
"In the event of an infringement allegation for which ARRIS is obligated to indemnify Customer, ARRIS may at its discretion satisfy its indemnification obligation by doing one of the following :
(i) obtain a license that allows Customer to continue to use the accused Product, (ii) replace or modify the accused Product with changes that reasonably meet the ARRIS specification, so as
to be non-infringing, or (iii) if (i) and (ii) are not commercially reasonable, repurchase ARRIS’ provided Product at its depreciated value based on a three-year amortization schedule. The above
shall be Customer’s sole and exclusive remedy for infringement of any Product provided by ARRIS hereunder, whether direct or contributory, and is in lieu of all warranties, express, implied or
statutory, including without limitation, the warranty against infringement specified in the Uniform Commercial Code."
I found these on a pdf for "corporate terms and conditions of sale"
https://www.arris.com/contentassets/355f4ad3b43a416fa5c9be9f79fdd50b/tc.pdf
Something for new comers to consider. This is not an average penny stock. The value of this stock hinges on the lawsuit against MSOs. Traditional chart analysis and speculation is not as viable here as other tickers. Everyone should do their own DD all the information is here on the board to be found with links, you just have to do some digging. If you don’t want to do the DD and just ask questions that have been answered over and over, you most likely won’t get a reply, and you probably shouldn’t be investing in this stock without some knowledge of what’s going on with the lawsuit
Got more in at .032 that got filled just before this explosion. Thanks for the news!!!
The only possible way August 3rd wont go our way is if there is corruption in the PTAB. Its already been mentioned several times about time barring but i wanted to go through Arris's financials myself. Not to beat a dead horse but THEY ARE TIME BARRED, this IPR will not be instituted. Ill link the database with all of Arris's financials. If you look at their quarter 3 10-Q "For the quarter ended September 30, 2015" they mention Chandbond's lawsuit against the MSOs filed just 9 days prior on September 21st, they also mentioned how they "may be required to indemnify the MSOs and/or pay damages". Ebean posted an article explaining the time barring limitation on filling an IPR; "The PTAB cannot institute an IPR based on a petition filed more than one year after the petitioner, real party in interest or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the challenged patent (35 U.S.C. § 315(b))." Seeing as Arris waited until early 2018 to file against a complaint they received over 2 and a half years prior shows their negligence. These stall tactics from the manufactures failed. Cisco FAILED. Arris FAILED. This lawsuit is starting and i hope it send a chill down the spines of these manufactures because the MSOs are coming for them no matter what happens with this Chanbond lawsuit. They thought they could get away with selling tech they don't own, but they are mistaken.
Link to Arris financials:
http://ir.arris.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=87823&p=irol-reportsAnnual
A dividend is the only way that Billy Carter will get the money from any settlement or royalty to his pockets so of course there will be a dividend. I urge you to read prior posts and links before going on and on with the same questions that have been answered to people asking these same questions. You keep saying oh yeah I forgot about that or yes I agree but... just read the prior information already supplied on the board. It seems you have missed a lot of the information already provided including significant things such as the $5 million dollar payment for the patents not even being paid out until 2020. Or the preferred shares being converted at the sale to billy carter. These are fundamental pieces of information in the story behind this ticker and reasoning why to invest here. Your on going questions can all be answered in the prior posts on this board.
I’m curious how you get that figure, why half before capital gains tax?
I was under the impression you read all of the financials as you brought up the old preferred shares that have been converted at change of ownership. Why are you saying they would be using those $5 million to purchase shares when the stock was at triple zeros? Had you read the financials you would see they don’t receive those $5 million until 2020. The main income from their sale of the patent family will be coming from the shares in uoip anyway, the 5 million is just to protect their investment in the off chance this case is unfavorable. The 44 million shares will be worth far more than 5 million at the end of this.
Lol I’m not trying to burst anyone’s bubble I’m heavily invested here as well. I just don’t see a settlement talk likely at this hearing, although you have a very good point about previous private hearings.
I just wonder why a dispute like that would need a judicial judgement. If they offer a settlement and uoip refuses, what is the court capable of doing? They can’t force them to offer more money, the only way they would be forced to pay is if this actually goes to court. I speculate it has something to do with fact discovery
But I feel like the pps should already be making gains because the ipr decision has no bearing on the trial coming. This train is already leaving the station. If the Ipr gets accepted, the trial will be over by the time the outcome of the ipr is decided.
If arris ipr denial hits with all the shares locked up, we’ll probably see huge gains and lots of eyes will be on us, in my opinion
How does that relate to his question though? His question was if the settlement would be consolidated amongst the 13. It had nothing to do with the timeline. And how did you come up with that figure to begin with? This goes to trial next year...
This should definitely be a sticky
Why mid 2019? Where did you get that?
In my opinion the ipr decision is more important than the stay. If the stay is granted it could be in order to see if the ipr is instituted or not. The stay shouldn’t be granted though because it is unlikely the ipr will be instituted.
Somebody got their position filled, welcome aboard??
So weird that litigation against 13 of the largest cable providers in the country continues if there’s “no one left at unified”
Schematics of the patents can be found on the main page of the board when using a computer. I’m sure you can also just google the patent numbers and see the schematics that way. Sorry I took so long to reply I can’t reply to private messages. But the schematic involves a lot of technical jargon. I’m kind of an amateur when it comes to electrical engineering and signal processing so I had a hard time understanding all of it. I’m maiming just wondering if the patents involve channel bonding exclusively and if it was implemented in docsis 3.0 or docsis 3.1
Curious to know if anyone on the board is an expert on the patent technology, I’m going through docsis 3.0 and 3.1 protocol and design and it seems that orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (ofdm) block diagrams didn’t come into play until docsis 3.1 but I found an article explaining downstream channel bonding in docsis 3.0 from 2010 before the release of 3.1. I guess I’m just looking for a distinction between OFDM and channel bonding. I tried looking at the patents to see what was explained in them, whether they contain OFDM or channel bonding or both in them, but I can’t make any sense of patent schematics. Also interestingly enough I didn’t know that ChanBond bought the patents from a company called CHANNEL BONDING VIDEO (CBV inc) if the cbv website is to be believed. It also has the contact info of the patent creators, it’s pretty interesting.
I’m just curious if you’ve done the dad here, UOIP has been through iprs that were instituted and won, what iprs got institutes with virnet? Was their trial already scheduled while iprs continued to be instituted? What bearing does their case have on ours whatsoever?
First of all - You can petition as much as you want through multiple different institutions as you want. Whether or not they get accepted is a whole other thing. The PTAB will not accept multiple petitions from multiple different companies appealing the same exact decisions over and over again. This is why they denied RPX the ability to appeal the decisions made in their appeal.
Second - If it's so easy to just drag it out and appeal appeal appeal with multiple different institutions affiliated with these giant tech companies, why has Cisco taken no further action after their final IPR decision? One would think they would hire another gun like RPX or they would use their affiliated companies to chase another appeal. They know there is no use because they have already been denied appeals on decisions made.
Where are you getting a market cap of 12 million? The current market cap is closer to 45 million consider the O/S is over 1.6bil if the numbers given by the TA are correct
I put an order for 150k shares at .0176 and immediately the MMs put up 10k trades at .0177. I really hope they don’t get control of this stock again
Cisco isn’t being sued, cisco sold chanbond(uoip subsidiary)’s tech to 13 major cable companies. Uoip is going after the cable companies for using their tech. Now Cisco knows they’re on the hook for selling tech that isn’t theirs so they filed an ipr against chandbond(uoip)’s patents to get them invalidated. They were unsuccessful for the most part. All this info can be found on the board it just takes quite a bit of digging. The stickies should be updated
He’s replying to your comment that common folk can’t find this stock because they can’t make the connection between uoip and Chanbond, a quick google search of Chanbond reveals that it’s a subsidiary of uoip.
Page 9 defines the level of skill the petitioner contends as “ an engineer or physicist with at least a bachelor’s degree, or equivalent experience, in electrical engineering”. Which is interesting to me. I’m a mechanical engineering major at UCF and I know numerous electrical engineers. I can guarantee not many of them know how to make a device like this, so it’s interesting they ruled in favor Cisco. A bachelors degree seems a pretty low benchmark for this degree of technology. IMO ofcourse
Their business was stolen when the patent was infringed on. They can’t license there product out to companies that are already using it. So yes this whole company and all of its stock is hinged on the outcome of the court case, but to say it is a patent troll is a blatant disregard of the facts.
Anyone know when the documents from the most recent ipr will be available?