UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[stockfan100]

I agree. It must be a minor change. We really need to post a good summary of what has been happening on this board every day too as we will get more eyes on this board as we get closer to the "event" (settlement/buyout/trial) that will change our lives for better.

Here is one great post that was posted by another poster a few days ago. Sorry...I don't remember who did it but ...thank you for posting it!

$$$ UOIP $$$

Load & hold till settlement

Public DD available says its coming

RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=132282283


Proof UOIP & Chanbond connected

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=131893771


Good read on the process.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=132253727


A little history

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=130077466


More DD on what to expect

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=131655295


LINK to the Markman Hearing Win.

http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf

The judge that is hearing our case already decided in UOIP/Chanbond's favor in the Markman hearing.

Markman hearings are important, since the court determines patent infringement cases by the interpretation of claims.

A Markman hearing may encourage settlement, since the judge's claim construction finding can indicate a likely outcome for the patent infringement case as a whole.

We also have the Patent Board who has decided in our favor for IPR's from CISCO and RPX.
https://archive.is/lhgDu

After these devastating losses the cable companies would be looking for Settlement.

What can we expect in terms of a settlement and royalties ?

5 years of past infringement penalties

13 cable companies being sued

Plus royalties going forward

10 million per year for past infringement is very tiny but let's use that number anyway.

10 mil times 5 years times 13 cable companies

10 * 5 * 13 = 650 million

Plus add royalties

Based on the same tiny value of 10 million per year for 13 cable companies gives you 130 million of revenue per year as royalties.

As you can see the pps can literally jump to dollars.

-----------------------------

Good summary Article about UOIP and ChanBond

http://www.eprfinancialnews.com/2017/06/14/7833-the-story-of-chanbonds-fight-for-its-patent-infringement/

Erich Spangenberg and Billy Carter went against some of the largest media companies like CNN, FOX and won. Just google it you will find many links. Billy Carter is no nonsense guy and when he gets after you be careful. He knows how to get job done.

UOIP/Chanbond is represented by one of the prestigious law firms in Mishcon De Reya and best lawyers in Robert Whitman. It employs more than 600 lawyers. Just google it.


Summary:
----------

The Markman hearing was held and after that there was a stay pending the PTAB decision. Now that we won both IPR's (Cisco & RPX) the new schedule had to be made. We may not even get close to the first date on the schedule before a settlement is reached.

It is painfully obvious the Cable companies case is extremely weak. They will get crucified in court just like they did in the Markman and IPR hearings. Settlement is their only option. It is in their best interest to settle quickly. They have lost leverage and intentionally delaying things will only make Chanbond less agreeable in negotiations.


Summary of IPR's
------------------

there are following three patents:

a) 7,941,822 AKA '822
b) 8,341,679
c) 8,984,565

Following IPRs against Chanbond were filed (and no more IPRs can be filed by anyone since 12 months limit now has passed):

1) RPX's IPR2016-00234 (Claim 1 - 31) against 7,941,822 AKA '822 - Denied on May 25, 2017 !!! Chanbond won IPR !!!

2) Cisco's IPR2016-01744 (Claim 1,2, 5, 6, 19, 20, 23 and 29) against 7,941,822 AKA '822 - Under IPR Review, Ordered on March 3, 2017 !

3) Cisco's IPR2016-01746 (Claim 13 and 14) against 7,941,822 AKA '822 - Denied March 3, 2017 !!! Chanbond won IPR !!!

4) Cisco's IPR2016-01889 against 8,341,679 and 8,984,565 - Denied on March 29, 2017 !!! Chanbond won IPR !!!

5) Cisco's IPR2016-01890 against 8,341,679 and 8,984,565 - Denied on March 29, 2017 !!! Chanbond won IPR !!!

6) Cisco's IPR2016-01891 against 8,341,679 and 8,984,565 - Denied on March 29, 2017 !!! Chanbond won IPR !!!

7) Cisco's IPR2016-01898 against 8,341,679 and 8,984,565 - Denied on March 29, 2017 !!! Chanbond won IPR !!!

8) Cisco's IPR2016-01899 against 8,341,679 and 8,984,565 - Denied on March 29, 2017 !!! Chanbond won IPR !!!

9) Cisco's IPR2016-01900 against 8,341,679 and 8,984,565 - Denied on March 29, 2017 !!! Chanbond won IPR !!!


Ref for #2 above: Cisco's IPR2016-01744 (Claim 1,2, 5, 6, 19, 20, 23 and 29) - Case IPR2016-01744, Patent 7,941,822 B2, Paper No. 10, Entered: March 3, 2017

Ref for above items #3,4,5,6,7,8,9 : http://www.reexamlink.com/2017/04/chanbond-avoids-institution-six-cisco-ipr-petitions/

Ref for #1: RPX's IPR2016-00234 (Claim 1 - 31) against 7,941,822
FINAL WRITTEN DECISION - Case IPR2016-00234, Patent 7,941,822 B2, Paper No. 28, Entered: May 25, 2017

Ref: Cisco's IPR2016-01744 (Claim 1,2, 5, 6, 19, 20, 23 and 29)
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2016-01744/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._7941822/