UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[Sharktnk]

Timelines -

3/3/17 - 3/6/17
STIPULATION and Proposed Order Staying Cases Pending PTAB Decision to Institute Inter Partes Review, by ChanBond, LLC. (Brauerman, Stephen) Modified on 3/3/2017 (nms)

NOTICE OF SERVICE of Defendants' Fourth Supplemental Invalidity Contentions filed by Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC, Time Warner Cable Inc., Cable One, Inc., Bright House Networks, LLC, RCN Telecom Services, LLC, Cox Communications, Inc., WideOpen West Finance, LLC, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast Corporation, Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC, Cequel Communications, LLC, Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC, CSC Holdings, LLC, Cablevision Systems Corporation, Mediacom Communications Corporation, WaveDivision Holdings, LLC, Charter Communications, Inc..(Ying, Jennifer)

3/6/17 -
ORDER re (102 in 15-cv-845-RGA, 102 in 15-cv-851-RGA, 103 in 15-cv-842-RGA, 102 in 15-cv-850-RGA, 102 in 15-cv-852-RGA, 102 in 15-cv-854-RGA, 102 in 15-cv-848-RGA, 102 in 15-cv-844-RGA, 101 in 15-cv-847-RGA, 103 in 15-cv-853-RGA, 101 in 15-cv-849-RGA, 104 in 15-cv-846-RGA, 101 in 15-cv-843-RGA) Stipulation and Order to Consolidate. *All filings in these actions shall be made only in Civil Action No. 15-842-RGA. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 3/3/2017. Associated Cases: 1:15-cv-00842-RGA et al.(nms)


Results:

Cisco -
On March 29, 2017, six IPR petitions for US Patent Nos. 8,341,679 and 8,984,565 were denied institution. The denial was based on a difference in opinion about the broadest reasonable interpretation for the term “RF channel,” which affected every claim Cisco sought to have reviewed.

RXP -
5/25/17

It is ORDERED claims 1–31 of the ’822 patent are not held unpatentable; and FURTHER ORDERED that, because this is a Final Written Decision, parties to the proceeding seeking judicial review of the decision must comply with the notice and service requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 90.2.

Links:
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426392/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Comcast_Corporation_et_al

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=132049143


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Timeline -

5/16/2017
SO ORDERED, re110 STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME for the parties to submit a joint status report and proposed revised schedule to June 12, 2017. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/16/2017. (nms)

6/12/17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE CHANBOND, LLC ) C.A. No. 15-842 (RGA) PATENT LITIGATION ) CONSOLIDATED STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, and subject to the approval of the Court, that the time for the parties to submit a joint status report and proposed revised schedule (see D.I. 109) is extended until June 15, 2017.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=132033995

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=132119488

Results - (To be determined)

Consolidated Stipulation = An agreement between attorneys that concerns business before a court and is designed to simplify or shorten litigation and save costs. During the course of a civil lawsuit, criminal proceeding, or any other type of litigation, the opposing attorneys may come to an agreement about certain facts and issues. Such an agreement is called a stipulation. Courts look with favor on stipulations because they save time and simplify the matters that must be resolved. Stipulations are voluntary, however, and courts may not require litigants to stipulate with the other side. A valid stipulation is binding only on the parties who agree to it. Courts are usually bound by valid stipulations and are required to enforce them.