UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[TonyJoe1957]

Latest attached...no horrible rush...

UOIP

Investors Holding ? Shares of UnifiedOnline, Inc. Stock Believe ?% Return is Likely at ?$ Per Share

Up to 5 bullet points okay…below are proposed bullet points:
• A lawsuit over patent infringement (February 2012-) could INDIRECTLY involve Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) and Arris International, PLC (ARRS).
• 13 domestic cable providers are DIRECTLY involved in the lawsuit; we provide a listing of these firms.
• Shareholders in UOIP note that VHC had their patents invalidated by the PTAB, while patents controlled by UOIP were validated and reinforced by the PTAB.

The below created a bit of excitement on the UnifiedOnline, Inc. (UOIP) stock chat message board on IHUB:




The number of shares of common stock at $0.001 par value approximated 1,011,928,504 shares on February 15, 2016. Presently, issued and outstanding shares approximate 1,614,601,069 and float approximates 663,868,192 shares. Therefore, stock ownership approximates 903M shares.

To illustrate the returns possible from a positive outcome, if UnifiedOnline were to win a comparable, $500M judgment [see above, for VirnetX], the price-per-share would increase quite dramatically, at about 90 time the latest valuation or share price, as follows:



Cisco and Arris are not being sued, only the 13 cable companies. Cisco attempted to get the patents invalidated because their customers were at risk of infringement. Cisco failed to get the patents invalidated, in fact they made them stronger for the trial later this year. Arris is trying the same process, but will be found to have started the process too late.

Cable companies are the ones being sued. No lawsuits against Cisco or arris but they both tried to get the patents invalidated because they provide the hardware to the cable co’s that infringe on the patents

RPX lost the institution and then filed the appeal which also didn't work for it. RPX is done here.I have provided the links in my #40237.

Billy Carter in 2014 videos:

Background

On October 27, 2015, the Company acquired 100% of the membership interest of ChanBond, LLC [ChanBond], a portfolio of patents that disclose a technology that allows cable companies to provide high-speed data transmission over their existing hybrid-fiber coaxial networks. ChanBond contends that virtually every cable multi-system operator (MSO) in the U.S. utilizing DOCSIS 3.0+ is infringing upon its patents, accordingly on September 21, 2015, ChanBond filed lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Delaware against the 13 largest cable MSOs in the country. Alleged infringement of 3 wideband signal distribution system patents follow:

Patent #1: 7,941,822,
Patent #2: 8,341,679, and
Patent #3: 8,984,565.

Cisco filed 8 interparty reviews [IPRs] on above three patents. All six Cisco IPRs on patents 8,341,679 and 8,984,565 were not instituted for IPR. One IPR on 7,941,822 [claims 13 & 14] was also not instituted, but another IPR (IPR2016-01744) on 7,941,822 (claims 1,2, 5, 6, 19, 20, 23 & 29) was instituted for IPR on March 3, 2017. The decision on IPR2016-01744 [February 23, 2018] supported Cisco:

“…(p)etitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 19, 20, 23, and 29 of the ’822 patent are unpatentable."
Links are available here and here. All cases are still pending.
On November 20, 2015 RPX Corporation filed a Petition for [IPR] with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board [PTAB], seeking review of ChanBond Patent No. 7,941,822. The IPR petition is also still pending. Therefore, the original trial with cable companies is still moving forward based on patents 8,341,679 and 8,984,565 and two claims – 13 & 14 - of patent 7,941,822.

UnifiedOnline entered into a purchase agreement with Deirdre Leane and ChanBond, LLC. They purchased Chanbond in exchange for $5,000,000 payable on or before October 27, 2020 and forty-four million, seven hundred thousand (44,700,000) shares of the Company’s common stock. William R. Carter, Jr. (a related party to the Company) was appointed as sole manager and has sole and exclusive authority over all operations and activities.

At December 31, 2015 the Company is the party to 13 pending lawsuits. On September 21, 2015, ChanBond filed lawsuits in U.S. District Court in Delaware against the 13 largest cable MSOs in the country. The civil cases were brought against them.

Cable System Providers

The cable system providers involved in the lawsuit follow:

(1) WaveDivision Holdings, LLC., a private company,
(2) Comcast Corporation (CMCSA) et al,
(3) Charter Communications, Inc. (CHTR),
(4) WideOpen West Finance, LLC., a private company,
(5) Cequel Communications, LLC., a private company,
(6) RCN Telecom Services ,LLC., a private company,
(7) Cox Communications, Inc.et al, a private company,
(8) Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC) et al,
(9) Mediacom Communications Corporation (MCCC),
(10) Bright House Networks, LLC. (CHTR; see above),
(11) Cablevision Systems Corporation (CVC) et al,
(12) Cable One, Inc. (CABO), and
(13) Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC (CGECF).

Links to the original IPR reviews in which Chanbond prevailed are provided here, here for Cisco, and an appeal, where Chanbond prevailed is provided here. Cisco appealed and 5 of the 6 IPRs were denied appeal.

Excellent idea! AJ
In my opinion, if you want to write an article that will reach the most eyes, it should be on recent events in the courts regarding Cisco and Arris, what it could mean to them, what the patents are, and then follow it up with a little on Billy Carter and the fact that he’s come up with over 500 million in patent litigations since 2005 and that this seems to be his grand prize.
In my opinion that’s the best layout. Arris and Cisco investors will see it, UOIP people will see it, and it will blossom from there.

The trial is ongoing and per below link, there was an activity on it as recently as Feb. 22nd, 2018.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426386/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Atlantic_Broadband_Group,_LLC


Check post 26450 that why this deposition is so super critical at the current state. We need to know what was said in the deposition. It costs 5 dollars to download the document once it is available on pacemonitor.
Wednesday, 04/11/18 09:31:36 PM
Re: I_Am_Ram post# 40159
Post # 40162 of 40228
Probably deposition happened yesterday.
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/9426386/ChanBond,_LLC_v_Atlantic_Broadband_Group,_LLC
Monday, April 09, 2018
NOTICE to Take Deposition of James Finnegan on April 10, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. filed by ChanBond, LLC.(Bussiere, Sara)
James Finnegan, Vice President, Intellectual Property Strategy for Comcast Corporation
https://corporate.comcast.com/news-information/leadership-overview/james-finnegan
Chanbond went after cable companies, Cisco filed IPRs which didn’t work out, now Chanbond is calling VP of one of the cable company in the court claiming that his company was contacted several years ago.
It seems that cable companies are now going after the vendors and have issued subpoenas to both Arris and Cisco. Check post 39879 and it has the information on Subpoena to both Cisco and Arris. You can also go through 39969.
Arris also filed the new IPRs in February, and Chanbond has about three months from Feb 22nd or 23rd to respond.
Also check posts 39537 and 39667 as these have good DDs.
RPX also went after Chanbond and didn’t get its required objectives.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/non-defendant-ipr-petitioners-appellate-standing-shaky-ground



Disclosures:

Nothing is intended to prevent any shareholder from buying, selling or trading this stock. Current, self-reported holdings include:
A.J. Cataldo, holding 6.5 million shares of UOIP as of Saturday, April 14, 2018