UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[ZIA SPIRIT]

From OneBrokeMama:

Re: ctb Post# 30868
As I understand it, Cisco provides the equipment to the Cable companies that UOIP/Chanbond has filed infrigment on. They filed the IPRs because they may be effected by the lawsuit as well.

This is from Cisco's 10Q explaining they may have to indemnify customers due to infringement lawsuits. They may also have to negotiate licensing fees and/or pay us damages for utilizing our technology.

Quote:
WE MAY BE FOUND TO INFRINGE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF OTHERS

Third parties, including customers, have in the past and may in the future assert claims or initiate litigation related to exclusive patent, copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property rights to technologies and related standards that are relevant to us. These assertions have increased over time as a result of our growth and the general increase in the pace of patent claims assertions, particularly in the United States. Because of the existence of a large number of patents in the networking field, the secrecy of some pending patents, and the rapid rate of issuance of new patents, it is not economically practical or even possible to determine in advance whether a product or any of its components infringes or will infringe on the patent rights of others. The asserted claims and/or initiated litigation can include claims against us or our manufacturers, suppliers, or customers, alleging infringement of their proprietary rights with respect to our existing or future products or components of those products. Regardless of the merit of these claims, they can be time-consuming, result in costly litigation and diversion of technical and management personnel, or require us to develop a non-infringing technology or enter into license agreements. Where claims are made by customers, resistance even to unmeritorious claims could damage customer relationships. There can be no assurance that licenses will be available on acceptable terms and conditions, if at all, or that our indemnification by our suppliers will be adequate to cover our costs if a claim were brought directly against us or our customers. Furthermore, because of the potential for high court awards that are not necessarily predictable, it is not unusual to find even arguably unmeritorious claims settled for significant amounts. If any infringement or other intellectual property claim made against us by any third party is successful, if we are required to indemnify a customer with respect to a claim against the customer, or if we fail to develop non-infringing technology or license the proprietary rights on commercially reasonable terms and conditions, our business, operating results, and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected. For additional information regarding our indemnification obligations, see Note 12(g) to the Consolidated Financial Statements contained in this report.


https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/858877/000085887716000123/a10qq117.htm#sE16D8598493F908466817C35B0FDFB1A


This also applies to other companies.

Arris mentions the UOIP/Chanbond lawsuit specifically.
Quote:

ChanBond v. MSOs, C.A. 15-cv-00848, et al, District of Delaware (RGA). On September 21, 2015, ChanBond filed suit against several MSOs alleging infringement of three US Patents. Certain of our customers have requested that we provide indemnification. The complaint requests unspecified damages for infringement and injunction against future infringement. To date, no evidence of infringement or damages has been introduced. It is premature to assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. In the event of an unfavorable outcome, ARRIS may be required to indemnify the MSOs and/or pay damages for utilizing certain technology.


https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1645494/000119312517065796/d289156d10k.htm#toc289156_6




Replies:
Thank you so much OneBrokeMama! The larger
ctb on 6/9/2017 7:21:14 PM



Report TOS