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 can do it if you have a GAIN. Sell it it and buy it right back. You will pay tax on gain for 2020. The stock will have a new cost basis = to your new purchase price.
Note: cannot do this to book a LOSS. If you have a loss on stock sale, you must wait 30 days before buying it back -- buy back early and you cannot take a loss. This IRS rule is called a "Wash Sale"
Late to the party but Happy B-day Rockie! Hopefully, if you're crying they are tears of joy as you open your broker's monthly statement.
Cisco will fail if it tries a Laches defense which prevents someone from ambushing another person by failing to make a legal claim in a timely fashion.
Cisco cannot prove that the Chanbond has unclean hands, i.e., acted unethically. Cisco's complaint will be dismissed. This defense is an affirmative defense that can be used by defendants; however, keep in mind that the defendant must prove the defense in order for the complaint to be dismissed..
UOIP is a small entity that cannot take on all infringers at the same time and must do it sequentially like dominoes.
Also it is not an ambush since UOIP/Chanbond have met in court already with mixed results. However, some claims survived the Cisco attack and are valid. And it only takes one claim to be infringed.
An example of need to be cautious with this poster..
Post #407685 JBBB Quote - I am sorry but you not getting my point. We have 2 companies. As per 13D UO!OP NC LLC owns 903+ shares which equate to 99% of shares. We are trading in Unified Online (UOIP) which has how many shares? UOIP owes Carter money no later than 2020 and Carter also gets 44,700,000 shares of what the 1%? Which company are we trading in and how many shares does it have?
Obviously incorrect to think Carter was getting proceeds from Chanbond purchase.
Did you forget?
Your QUOTE: I am aware of private companies have had something similar. One stockholder has 50.9% and the rest which were family had the rest divided up among them. Majority holder elected himself president and then picked who was V-P and Sec-Treas. It worked for a while then broke up.
Your prior posts show you know how a private company works.
1. Carter controls Chanbond because Rob Howe made him the sole manager of this subsidiary of UOIP. As such he directs our Lawyers in Chanbond suits.
2. William Carter with 50+ % of OS UOIP shares wins any UOIP shareholder vote.
Do you still own 74 million shares of UOIP
BA When I checked DOCSIS 3.1 modems for sale are also DOCSIS 3.0 - this is to have backwards compatibility. On Amazon and NewEgg I could not find a DOCSIS 3.1 only modem. IMO - if it has 3.0 capability - it infringes.
DK, My example: doctor wrote the script for V but he does not check box for "Dispense as written".. He did his job - no malpractice.
The Pharmacy gets the script for V. No where does it say for R-I or Marine label. They call the drug plan which based on tier pricing says substitute GL.
So my question is how is this travesty prevented from happening unless the patient or the doctor proactively pushes back. Do SileverScript & drug plans go to the trouble of verifying what indication was being prescribed for? Or is the problem with the system?
JL If a patient taking statins presents stable TG above 150 and the doc writes an off=label script for generic V, what will the patient get when pharmacy checks with patients drug plan and fills the Rx?
It would be sad if the script was filled with GL which wouldn't provide the CVD benefit of V.
Thanks
I called Deleware and they disagreed with what Glow posted.
> Delaware SOS - Division of Corporations spoke with Veronica @ #302-739-3073).
UOIP #703828 only has to file forms for missing years and pay fees to get back in good graces of Delaware. She said it happens all the time and is no big deal. It still exists and full reinstatement is possible- even after 10 years or more.
Deleware status of a corporation has no legal effect on share of stock. It doesn't make them not exist. She said that was wrong.
Do NOT let someone claim that Delaware has cancelled your shares making them bogus
Carter or Registered Agent (The Corporation Trust Company) can fix this.
UOIP #703828 still exists in the Deleware Registered Agents system
but it is in a "void" status for nonpayment of fees/taxes.
I also called Registered Agent : The Corporation Trust Company
#302-658-7581 and confirmed the above facts for UOIP #703828.
Per Registered Agent: Deleware just wants 1) their money and 2)to certify under the "Patriot Act" that UOIP is an OK company.
She was very emphatic that Delaware status had nothing to do with stock shares being valid. She could not comment on SEC regulation.
(But we know from SEC that revocation only meant UOIP stopped being a public company but would still exist as a private company.)
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.
Commscope has DOCSIS 3.0 in Arris new DOCSIS 3.1 product line.
Arris web site: SBG8300 DOCSIS® 3.1 Gigabit Cable Modem & Wi-Fi® Router
Future proof your network with DOCSIS 3.1
DOCSIS 3.1 cable modem & AC Wi-Fi router best for cable internet speed plans up to 4 Gbps.
Compatible with Cox, Spectrum, Xfinity and other major U.S. cable internet providers.
32 downstream x 8 upstream DOCSIS 3.0 channels or 2 downstream x 2 upstream OFDM DOCSIS 3.1 channels.
Dual-concurrent AC2350 Wi-Fi
Four 1-Gigabit Ethernet Ports
2 Year Limited Warranty
Many posts have said DOCSIS 3.1 does not infringe patents. I bet most DOCSIS 3.1 modems sold do infringe because they are backward compatible and have wireless.
After reading the testimony, DOCSIS 3.1 modem is only non-infringing if it is NOT backwards compatible with DOCSIS 3.0.
Per Dr Teece that would be a stupid sales idea. So checking on Amazon - the DOCSIS 3.1 modems with wifi being sold have some DOCSIS 3.0 channels. This makes them able to work with the cable companies older DOCIS 3.0 infringing CMTS (cable modem termination system) until the cable provider upgrades to non-infringing hardware.
Based on this - I don't think DOCSIS 3.1 is ruled out when Carter/lawyers are negotiating with cables. More money for UOIP
Am I wrong in what I read from Dr. Teece???
Long, When you say "Carter names his # " Will it leak out to us?
SCOTUS action taken 4/20 : Case redistributed for SCOTUS Conference on 4/24 (first conference was 1/10/2020)
Let's hope it is denied this time.
SCOTUS Link
Scotus Case #No. 19-455
ARRIS International Limited, Petitioner v. ChanBond, LLC, et al.
Docketed: Oct 7, 2019
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the Federal Circuit has appellate
jurisdiction to review a decision by the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board (“PTAB”) denying institution of an. inter
partesreview based on the time-bar of 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).
2. Whether the inability of the Petitioner to appeal
the PTAB’s finding that the Petitioner is a “privy” of
a third party, thereby affecting a substantive right of
the Petitioner, is a denial of due process because of the
substantive estoppels arising from that finding in the
context of the AIA/ IPR statutory scheme.
Cool Pics - but I predict an epidemic of births to happen about 9 months from now. No close encounters during lock down / shelter in place. Good Luck with that.
Hopefully these new citizens will learn the story of how UOIP and Billy Carter prevailed over the evil cable companies.
Method in Judge Du's madness
Zip, I had the same thought. She recognized her once in a lifetime opportunity = minimal damage to her career because its her first patent bench trial and she used POSA to her advantage backed up with case law she felt relevant. She was unknown yesterday now she's well known today. And reversal at 50% chance makes it worth it. Do I smell SCOTUS.
quote
"Judge Du in NOT incompetant...She is a smart woman...an expected decision in favor of Amarin would have gone unnoticed and forgotten... The decision in favor of the Generics will be cited in many future trials and be talked about for some time...It will make her better known in judicial circles and perhaps will be instrumental in her being elevated to a higher court at some time in the future."
Keep your eye on the prize. Be smart and follow precautions but don't focus and obsess over this virus. It is not the end of the world. Cox trial is set but it could have a short delay granted due to virus (hope not but I don't control things).
Last 7 pandemics (H1N1, Swine flue, bird flu, Zika, Ebola etc) all ended with stock market up within 12 months.
This time next year - cable stocks up and able to pay off the jury awards to Chanbond / UOIP.
Hang in there UOIP. This virus problem will pass and Delaware Court will reopen.
The prize is within spitting distance.
JL, agree and thanks for sharing items like Chloroquine. Additional insight on Spanish Flu - It was raging among soldiers in the trenches during WW1 and both sides claimed they were "OK" for propaganda purposes so as not to give aid to the enemy. Ignoring 2020 reality until to late to contain/mitigate - think China, Iran and Italy.
Interesting side note: Spain was neutral and had no reason to hide health crisis so the world knew how bad it was hurting Spain. As a result it was named the Spanish Flu. So China should suck it up - This virus is Wuhan or Chinese - forever.
How is Judge Du? Is she social distancing and working from home on her decision on Amerin vs. thieves?
BTW- Mr. Billy's 5 year bet deserves more than these guys got for 1 year bet.
What 15 hedge fund managers collectively earned in 2019.
Five of them – Chris Hohn, Jim Simons, Ken Griffin, Steve Cohen, and Chase Coleman – reaped more than $1 billion each, according to estimates by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
Amen Brother, Mr. Billy in 2015 predicted end game - by scheduling $5 million pay out for inventors in Oct 2020 (and interest payment for each additional month).
Thanks, we have public answers to what we assumed.
One big fact proves that Mr. Glow is incorrect.
The inventors never relinquished total ownership; rather they sold a stake to Chanbond/UOIP to get financial help with lawsuit against cables. That inventor ownership still exists today.
From the Deleware trial documents: "sale by CBV to ChanBond on April 9, 2015—stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ¶¶ 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation."
Good to know: Juries did not care about Practicing Entity or Non-Practicing Entity.
2015 PWC Report - Juries found in favor of PE and Non-PE at the same 77% rate.
For Bench Trials (Judge only) there was a slightly high win rate for PE 57% versus Non-PE 47%.
We have a JURY trial with a sympathetic judge. Our odds are looking even better.
Let's not even factor in how much the Deleware jury pool loves cable companies.
Jurys tend to favor Patent Holders.
I always knew we were the favored ones.
Going to trial is rare.
However, Patent holders are favored if the case makes it to trial.
Case Outcomes:2000-2016
Eastern District of Texas: Out of 10,629 Lex Machina cases E.D.TX
96 trial wins for patent holder;43 trial wins for defendants
District of Delaware: Out of 6,920 Lex Machina cases -D.DE
112 trial wins for patent holder; 50 trial wins for defendants
Phil - SG is giving same answer as he gave a year ago.
ZW is correct. If the PTAB Board dismisses a request for IPR, it is final and there is no "written decision" to appeal. Further,the US Fed Appeals Court does not have jurisdiction unless there is a written decision. Court denied the appeal request.(even did it En Banc)
Basically, Arris (CommScope) is trying to attack the reason for Time Bar dismissal, saying that the PTAB used the lawsuit against cables as the start of the clock for getting IPR. Whether that is a valid reason for dismissing IPR request is not up for review. It was dismissed.
Solicitor General put it this way (rejecting “the principle that if the agency gives a ‘reviewable’ reason for otherwise unreviewable action, the action becomes reviewable”).
Just because Arris/CommScope doesn't like the reason for the dismissal doesn't change the fact that it was dismissed and by law the courts cannot hear an appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Hope Supremes put this baby to bed. Focus needs to be on up coming trial - not this cry baby distraction.
SCOTUS to consider CommScope petition in conference 1/10/2020.
- Oct 6 UOIP/Chanbond waived right to file brief
- Dec 6 NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General filed brief recommending that CommScope petition be denied
- Dec 20 CommScope filed reply brief saying SG was wrong and petition should be granted
- Jan 10 Supreme Court will consider to grant petition to hear case OR deny the petition.
Link to Supreme Court -CommScope Case
JMO - SCOTUS will listen to SG (Government top lawyer) and deny petition.
UOIP should notch another win. Hope this poor excuse for a case stays dead this time.
Judge A. my impression: - notes only cover Orders & Opinions - Not the eventual trials.
- Judge A. knows his law and applies it evenly to both plaintiff & defendant. note the case where the plaintiff failed to claim compliance with the marking statute. The weren't required to actually do anything to meet compliance - but they were required to file that they complied with statute. Plaintiff didn't file - big mistake - ruled for defendant. UOIP laywers have dotted i's and crossed t's.
- Judge A. orders/opinions seem evenly divided and usually based on a fact not a judgement call. However, when judgement is required, he can smell a skunk and doesn't tolerate BS - example was a company that denied that they had a relationship with an exclusive licensee. Big mistake
- Judge A. does a lot of Patent lawsuits - experienced - not a newbie.
- Judge A. attempts to weed out bad cases before trial by being only concerned with the sufficiency of the plaintiff claims.
- Judge A. is careful with "willful infringement" - Comcast lawyers ma be able to find a loop hole to beat it.
My opinion - Judge A. is experienced and fair. This case has been his for over 4 years and it was not dismissed it. He has bent over backwards to not give defendants cause to appeal and he has been generous on defendant requests for delays. He is grinding through expert witness testimony to make sure only relevant material gets into trial.
Wishing & Hoping case settles before trial - but if it goes to trial - Judge Andrews appears to be a good choice to allow UOIP/Chanbond lawyers to beat the stuffing out of 13 defendant Cable companies.
Jury Says Kite Pharma Owes $752M For Infringing Patent
UOIP bashers need to Pay attention - Juries hate cheaters.
What will they do to the Cable companies in fast approaching UOIP/Chanbond jury trial.
7 million Verizon FIOS users have Fiber to home not copper. I thought board discussed that these did not infringe because the Technology was different than Chanbond patents?
Verizon stopped expanding this technology in the 2010-2013 time frame - about time Chanbond patent approved with technology that was cheaper and better than FIOS - this contributed to Verizon deciding to change focus to wireless stuff.
Dec 6 filing was from Office of the Solicitor General of the United States - Brief of respondent Andrei Iancu in opposition filed.
AT Supreme Court - US Solicitor General comes down on the side of Justus and Chanbond (Whoops Justice).
Just like RPX - Supremes will listen to SG and are certain to deny hearing Arris (CommScope).
Good god. Epiphany time. Hospital (Part A), doctors (Part B), and HMO's (Part C) will see savings from reduced CVD events due to taking V. But Rx (Part D) will pay for it = negative incentive.
Had to change my Part D insurer because monthly cost doubled and V was kept as tier 4 drug.
Judge still has to hear / rule on the briefs/motions submitted by both sides. The past deadline was for submitting stuff like trying to get the other guy's expert witness thrown out. ZW is correct - the Daubert "Hearing" is usually very close to the trial start.
GM, Thanks. We can hope - one or more defends are exploring a settlement. This would explain the cable defendants Deleware lawyer filing a motion to unconsolidated the UOIP/Chanbond trial.
Goes back to Tony's comment on "Prisoner's Dilemma" -a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones. Could be one of the cables decided to "throw in the towel."
Sure adds spice while we wait for unredacted pacers and the trial.
TD Ameritrade shows correct Quantity of shares both on line and in mailed July statement. TDA also uses last price of.015 to value the shares.
Hope this helps.
IMO, Chanbond could win Cisco appeal if they prove that:
- PTAB expressly told Chandbond that Cisco would not be allowed to use Qualcomm,
- PTAB then used Qualcomm in their decision,
- PTAB failed to explain how Qualcomm would work & cite evidence - as required to be in their decision.
Below are points 2 & 3 from Sumary of Argument in their Appeal Brief. Highlighting is mine.
2. ChanBond was not provided notice and a fair opportunity to respond
to the Board’s findings with respect to Qualcomm. In its institution decision, the
Board notified ChanBond that Qualcomm and other systems disclosing cellular
telephones as wireless modems could not be relied upon because Cisco had failed
to include such references in its alleged invalidity grounds.
Consistent with the Board’s institution decision, ChanBond had no reason to, and did not, address
Cisco’s evidence and arguments with respect to Qualcomm. Yet, after Cisco
confirmed at the hearing that it was not relying on Qualcomm as prior art, the
Board issued a final written decision in which it extensively relied on Qualcomm
as prior art to support its obviousness analysis. As ChanBond was expressly
notified in the institution decision that Qualcomm could not be relied on by Cisco
as prior art, ChanBond was denied a fair opportunity to address Cisco’s arguments
and expert testimony based on Qualcomm that the Board ultimately adopted in its
final written decision.
3. The Board found the claims obvious over “the combination of Gorsuch’s
addressable devices, modem, and protocol converter with Tiedemann’s mobile
station.” FWD at 37 (Appx0037). It is undisputed, however, that the combination
as set forth in the Petition does not perform the claimed functionality. Ultimately,
the Board brushed off the deficiencies in the proposed combination with the
sweeping statement that “an ordinarily skilled artisan would have sought to
combine” the prior art references “to arrive at the broad functionality of” the
claimed system. FWD at 42 (Appx0042). But that is not the correct methodology.
Rather, the Board was required to explain and cite evidence showing how the
proposed combination was supposed to work. The Board failed to do so.
Delaware Party started in September 2015.
Let's get this party started in the Delaware Court - where they are the leader in dismissing complaints filed by Non-practicing entities. IG
Magnus, Don't forget 3 Patent Inventors, as shareholders, are "owners" of UOIP/Chanbond - he conveniently keeps forgetting this important detail. Maybe it will even be brought up in the trial - jury will understand that the little guys had to get help to fight the big bullies that stole their technology.
That brings up another point that "Fantasyland" ignores - this a jury trial. The 13 cables are going to have trouble with jury selection. What percent of the Delaware population is sympathetic to cable companies. They will take a dim view of cables ripping them off using stolen tech.
UOIP/Chanbond Trial is an opportunity for the legal system to step up to the plate. Patent thieves have gotten away with far too much in the last century. Inventors need to be encouraged, supported, and have their rights protected. Isn't this what the American Dream in the land of opportunity is all about? Without the rule of law, what defines a country?
IG, Here is your proof - Multibillion Dollars Settlement Discussions happened between UOIP (CHANBOND) and CSCO.
Patent infringement is valued in "Muti-Billions" that means more than 2 billion - & that translates to more than $1.00 per share for this private company.
Kudos to Kato for re-locating what we discussed on UOIP board back in April 2019.
Multibillion Dollars Settlement Discussions happened between UOIP (CHANBOND) and CSCO.
Case: 18-1886 Document: 33 Page: 1 Filed: 03/01/2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
CHANBOND, LLC, Appellant, v. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2016-01744
JOINT STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH FED. CIR. R. 33(a)(2)(A)
Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 33(a)(2)(A), counsel for Appellant ChanBond, LLC and Appellee Cisco Systems, Inc. jointly certify that settlement discussions have been conducted in compliance with Fed. Cir. R. 33, but the parties have not reached a settlement.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robert A. Whitman
Robert A. Whitman
Andrea Pacelli
Michael DeVincenzo
MISHCON DE REYA NEWYORK LLP
156 Fifth Avenue, Suite 904
New York, New York 10010
Counsel for Appellant ChanBond, LLC
/s/ Sarah J. Guske
Sarah J. Guske
Wayne O. Stacy
BAKER BOTTS LLP
101 California Street, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Counsel for Appellee Cisco Systems, Inc.
Dated: March 1, 2019
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A2f47cdfb-121c-4b55-8388-bc02c77145b5
and
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A0c17db33-bca7-4108-bb50-04c8bc25d153