UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[Sharktnk]

As some others here have mentioned I'd still be cautious in presuming too much come Monday. Anything's possible and at worst there should be some filings on PACER, but they may or not get posted right away, could be later in the week. Goes without saying the $ these cable giants have at their disposal ... Delay tactics, behind the scenes negotiations, any number of things could take place.

Lot of misinformation going around. Not completely surprised by the reactions but fwiw ...

This case was always set to go to trail, this is not a new development.

COMPLAINT filed with Jury Demand against Comcast Cable Communications ... et al. With a date circa Jan, 2018

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

This whole idea of an imminent settlement was an assumption that was posited out into the ether, took hold and was decided to be gospel.

Nothings changed here.

The order couldn't be any more clear;

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.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=132137410

And after the 3 day extension that is precisely what they did, jointly, which means both sides agreed to the proposed
schedule.

What does it all mean? Frankly, it's just semantics, normal course of events that were already laid out.

Redundantly, this is what was filed today:

STATUS REPORT AND JOINT, PROPOSED, REVISED SCHEDULE
Pursuant to the Court’s May 17, 2017 Docket Order continuing the stay in this action while the parties discussed a revised schedule, attached as Exhibit A is the parties’ joint, proposed, Revised Scheduling Order.

In addition, for the Court’s information, on May 25, 2017, the PTAB issued its Final Decision regarding the IPR that RPX had filed against asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,941,822. The PTAB denied the petition on each of the considered grounds, holding that RPX failed to demonstrate that any ’822 claim was unpatentable. A copy of the PTAB’s Final Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
June 15, 2017

It's interesting to see the PTAB decision included there. But it seems logical that it was also expected. Without it, ChanBonds case would have been likely thrown out, with it ... kind of goes without saying.

So is there an agreement still being hashed out behind the scenes?
Could be. But the extra couple of days weren't a deciding factor. Even if there was, without a resolution these steps would have continued on regardless as they apparently have.

Many years ago I sat in the audience for the Intel vs. AMD case. Quite the experience and more often, boring as hell. At times even the judge could be seen nodding off. But If I took anything away from that it's simply this ... These guys can dodge and weave, bluff and bs a lot better than any of us that aren't of the same profession.

Anything could happen in the days and months ahead, but for now, this is all just SOP.