UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[justus1]

Hey AF glad to see you survived the storm. We hope to all buy some groceries on Comcast when this is all said and done. They once tried to cheat me out 350$ and I won't ever forget the treatment received.

Hey Comcast, Let's see you talk your way out of this one!!!

http://www.reexamlink.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ChanBond-Complaint-ded-1-15-cv-00848-1.pdf

WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’822, ’679, and ’565 PATENTS
26. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 25 herein by reference as if set forth
here in full.
27. In January 2012, Comcast announced that it had completed its rollout of DOCSIS
3.0.
28. In February 2012, a business associate of the inventors communicated with Mr.
Joseph DiTrolio, Comcast Vice President and Corporate Comptroller, regarding the patent
portfolio. On February 23, 2012, the business associate had a face-to-face meeting with Mr.
DiTrolio, wherein he provided a write-up that identified the ’822 Patent and the application that
would issue as the ’679 Patent, and that indicated other continuations were pending. The writeup
described the patents and applications and their applicability to DOCSIS 3.0 and the cable
industry’s channel bonding technology. The business associate and Mr. DiTrolio discussed the
patents, patent applications, relevant technology, and the patents’ and patent applications’
applicability to the cable industry’s channel bonding technology. By February 23, 2012, Mr.
DiTrolio, and thus Comcast, knew of the at least the ’822 Patent and the application that would
9
issue as the ’679 Patent, and knew of their relevance to the DOCSIS 3.0 channel bonding
technology used by Comcast.
29. By February 27, 2012, Mr. DiTrolio had communicated the patent portfolio and
the write-up to Mr. James Finnegan, Comcast Senior Vice President, Intellectual Property
Strategy. On information and belief, by February 27, 2012, Mr. Finnegan knew of the ’822
Patent and the applications that would issue as the ’679 and ’565 Patents, and knew of their
relevance to the DOCSIS 3.0 channel bonding technology used by Comcast.
30. On March 28, 2012, Mr. Hennenhoefer (one of the co-inventors) had a
teleconference with Mr. Finnegan during which the patents, applications and CBV were
discussed. Mr. Finnegan informed Mr. Hennenhoefer that Comcast was obtaining a legal
opinion regarding the patents. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hennenhoefer had a follow-up call with
Mr. Finnegan.
31. On February 12, 2013, the ’822 and ’679 Patents and the application that would
issue as the ’565 Patent were also brought to the attention of Mr. TonyWerner of Comcast. On
February 13, 2013, Mr. Werner communicated the patents and applications, for at least a second
time, to Mr. Finnegan. Shortly thereafter, Messrs. Hennenhoefer and Stine (another of the coinventors)
had a teleconference with Mr. Mark Dellinger, Comcast Vice President, Intellectual
Property Strategy in which the patents and applications were discussed, along with their
applicability to DOCSIS 3.0.
32. Despite Comcast’s knowledge of the Patents and the channel bonding technology
that they covered, Comcast nevertheless continued making, using and selling products that
complied with and used DOCSIS 3.0 (and higher) channel bonding, despite an objectively high
likelihood that such actions constituted infringement of the Patents. This infringement was
10
known to Comcast or was so obvious that Comcast should have known about this infringement.
Despite knowing that its actions constituted infringement of the Patents and/or despite knowing
that that there was a high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the Patents,
Comcast nevertheless continued its infringing actions, and continued to make, use and sell
infringing DOCSIS 3.0 (and higher) products.
33. Comcast’s infringement of the ’822, ’679 and ’565 Patents has thus been
deliberate and willful, at least since February 23, 2012.