Wednesday, May 06, 2020 7:33:15 PM
Updated Huge collection of research and DD
Thank you Longterm
Update 5/6/2020
Specialneeds provided his knowledge of business insurance and how insurance companies that have a chance of being on the hook financially. In the situation here, the insurance companies for the modem manufactures will encourage a settlement, to minimize their loses.
Specialneeds ~ The insurance companies for the manufacturers will force a settlement.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154793582
Remember that there is multiple years of significant insurance coverage. This will attach before their balance sheets are hit
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154263578
the mfgs are on the hook
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154260052
we have hired the high cost attorneys who told us we had a great case, spent a ton of money to be told right before trial that we had to settle. I’ve seen it over and over
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154259937
Contractual indemnifiers don’t give their counter parties a blank check to get hit with any jury award as a bill to pay. This is what I do for a living. The manufacturers will force this to settle.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154258831
Indemnification from the modem manufacturers would be at risk if they are not given control over this case. No indemnifier is going give an open checkbook to the counter party to go to court and get crushed then have to swallow the bill.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154015422
The insurance companies covering the box manufacturers are going to be running the litigation here since they will be indemnifying their customers for IP infringement. the indemnification agreements are not contingent on a jury outcome to be triggered. They never are written that way because the indemnifier will never give up control over their exposure.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=153918585
The thing that we have to keep in mind is that this case has third party risk transfer. Cisco and Arris have several years of insurance towers that will be hit. They act differently in that the insurance layers have to work in good faith toward each other or they risk bad faith judgements. This will have very serious settlement discussions in the insurance aspect of this.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=153888632
lean toward a global settlement with the 13 sometime before trial.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=153887617
the 13 are still required to act in “good faith” relative to their contractual counterparties(Cisco and others). They won’t just drive this thru trial to get a verdict that will be indemnified. They will be required to make a good faith attempt to settle this in coordination with those contractual partners
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=153723240
the issue is the valuation at this point. That discussion is going to be ongoing all the way to settlement just before trial. If there are any talks going on now they are about probing as to what Carter is willing to take. All settlement discussions start out this way
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=153465627
update 4/25/2020 DD & links & for U.K. & CANADA Consolidated
CABLE INTERNET PROVIDERS (HUGE SOURCE)
https://broadbandnow.com/Cable-Providers
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
First, you must understand that there are two complex frameworks of resolving patent disputes which co-exist (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjs2cDWtMfUAhXD1IMKHVISAEQQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6267%26context%3Dfaculty_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNHA2qv5T7IP5BHhu41-1RxqHvzCnw&sig2=EPcMfoUKCbJsQDBY2fHfdw&cad=rja):
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND
(II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
PTAB
First, we won at the PTAB:
https://archive.is/lhgDu
ARTICLE III COURTS
Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE
Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY
Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING)
Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT
From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial,
Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE
Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
The impact of the Teva Court ruling on Markman hearings is discussed in this law review article (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqzpjPq8fUAhUh4oMKHeXABJ4QFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.shu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1899%26context%3Dstudent_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNFew5ibGAhGXpmYWSsOYxJpz58gDw&sig2=yR6MLF4_zUCpgz8duodAWw)
MY OPINION
So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
MODEL PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS
August 2017?(updated October 2019)
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NDCAL_Model_Pat_Jury_Inst_8-2017_updated_10-2019.docx
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Time line
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
Thoughts on Judge Casper.
1. She is fully aware of what's been going on in the IP legal arena
2. A message was sent to her when the defense attorney said " this will cost billion's " that was not a plea for leniency but rather suggestion/ threat ....to delay send it to ptab & caft thus delay delay = ware out wddd / she'd be appealed. Judge Casper recognized this & gave them what they wanted by referring to PTAB knowing by doing so it could likely strengthen wddd,s case ( if they could do so successfully & wddd do so) Result, now the case returns to her court & wddd has a much stronger case . Activision recognized this possibility thus enter Google
3. No judge wants to be appealed by doing what she did strengthens whatever ruling is made & that's what's good about what she did. Remember TK wasn't happy about going through the gauntlet but recognized the value thus he really wasn't as upset by these delays because he believed wddd would come out on top. How's that for faith / confidence.
4. Unless there's a buy out(not likely) or a settlement Judge Casper will proceed with the trial with a personal objective ......of providing nothing that will be appellate as a result of judicial mistakes .
Will a judgement that comes out of her court be appealed? Likely, Activision will find something & we'll go through the appeals process. Again... time & delay.,
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
ong uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
First, you must understand that there are two complex frameworks of resolving patent disputes which co-exist (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjs2cDWtMfUAhXD1IMKHVISAEQQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6267%26context%3Dfaculty_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNHA2qv5T7IP5BHhu41-1RxqHvzCnw&sig2=EPcMfoUKCbJsQDBY2fHfdw&cad=rja):
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND
(II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
PTAB
First, we won at the PTAB:
https://archive.is/lhgDu
ARTICLE III COURTS
Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE
Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY
Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING)
Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT
From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial,
Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE
Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
The impact of the Teva Court ruling on Markman hearings is discussed in this law review article (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqzpjPq8fUAhUh4oMKHeXABJ4QFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.shu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1899%26context%3Dstudent_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNFew5ibGAhGXpmYWSsOYxJpz58gDw&sig2=yR6MLF4_zUCpgz8duodAWw)
MY OPINION
So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
MODEL PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS
August 2017?(updated October 2019)
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NDCAL_Model_Pat_Jury_Inst_8-2017_updated_10-2019.docx
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Time line
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
case judge asked for
December 2, 2019
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case
law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers
for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the
market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019,
Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.)
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the
propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding,
or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points,
the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle
Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla.
June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v.
Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
case judge asked for
December 2, 2019
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case
law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers
for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the
market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019,
Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.)
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the
propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding,
or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points,
the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle
Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla.
June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v.
Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=aicpa_guides
Comcast Revenue 2006-2019 | CMCSA
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CMCSA/comcast/revenue
source philhump03
============================
estami
Scruffer
Sunday, 12/08/19 04:45:53 PM
Re: justus1 post# 75266
0
Post # 75286 of 75627
Market share by provider, both U.S. & Canada
.
Main Fixed Broadband Providers – U.S. & Canada
https://blog.telegeography.com/cable-is-main-form-of-broadband-access-in-north-america
There are 64.35M cable subscribers in the U.S. w/ an average monthly charge of $60.
https://www.leichtmanresearch.com/2-4-million-added-broadband-in-2018/
https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/how-much-should-i-be-paying-for-high-speed-internet-resource
https://www.allconnect.com/blog/cost-of-high-speed-internet
There are a total of 450 Cable Internet service providers in the U.S.
https://broadbandnow.com/Cable-Providers
=========================================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers
$60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!)
12 months per year
$46,332,000,000 per year
20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties)
$926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS)
__@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S
0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement)
0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%)
0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %)
1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152680338
Scruffer
Monday, December 30, 2019 5:04:36 PM
Re: I-Glow post# 75574
Post # 75582 of 75625
===============================
Thoughts on Judge Casper.
1. She is fully aware of what's been going on in the IP legal arena
2. A message was sent to her when the defense attorney said " this will cost billion's " that was not a plea for leniency but rather suggestion/ threat ....to delay send it to ptab & caft thus delay delay = ware out wddd / she'd be appealed. Judge Casper recognized this & gave them what they wanted by referring to PTAB knowing by doing so it could likely strengthen wddd,s case ( if they could do so successfully & wddd do so) Result, now the case returns to her court & wddd has a much stronger case . Activision recognized this possibility thus enter Google
3. No judge wants to be appealed by doing what she did strengthens what ever ruling is made & that's what's good about what she did. Remember TK wasn't happy about going through the gauntlet but recognized the value thus he really wasn't as upset by these delays because he believed wddd would come out on top. How's that for faith / confidence.
4. Unless there's a buy out(not likely) or a settlement Judge Casper will proceed with the trial with a personal objective ......of providing nothing that will be appellate as a result of judicial mistakes .
Will a judgement that comes out of her court be appealed? Likely, Activision will find something & we'll go through the appeals process. Again... time & delay.,
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
long uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
First, you must understand that there are two complex frameworks of resolving patent disputes which co-exist (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjs2cDWtMfUAhXD1IMKHVISAEQQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6267%26context%3Dfaculty_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNHA2qv5T7IP5BHhu41-1RxqHvzCnw&sig2=EPcMfoUKCbJsQDBY2fHfdw&cad=rja):
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND
(II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
PTAB
First, we won at the PTAB:
https://archive.is/lhgDu
ARTICLE III COURTS
Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE
Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY
Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING)
Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT
From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial,
Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE
Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
The impact of the Teva Court ruling on Markman hearings is discussed in this law review article (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqzpjPq8fUAhUh4oMKHeXABJ4QFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.shu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1899%26context%3Dstudent_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNFew5ibGAhGXpmYWSsOYxJpz58gDw&sig2=yR6MLF4_zUCpgz8duodAWw)
MY OPINION
So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
MODEL PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS
August 2017?(updated October 2019)
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NDCAL_Model_Pat_Jury_Inst_8-2017_updated_10-2019.docx
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1,
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers
$60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!)
12 months per year
$46,332,000,000 per year
20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties)
$926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS)
__@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S
0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement)
0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%)
0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %)
1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152680338
Scruffer
Monday, December 30, 2019 5:04:36 PM
Re: I-Glow post# 75574
Post # 75582 of 75625
Thoughts on Judge Casper.
1. She is fully aware of what's been going on in the IP legal arena
2. A message was sent to her when the defense attorney said " this will cost billion's " that was not a plea for leniency but rather suggestion/ threat ....to delay send it to ptab & caft thus delay delay = ware out wddd / she'd be appealed. Judge Casper recognized this & gave them what they wanted by referring to PTAB knowing by doing so it could likely strengthen wddd,s case ( if they could do so successfully & wddd do so) Result, now the case returns to her court & wddd has a much stronger case . Activision recognized this possibility thus enter Google
3. No judge wants to be appealed by doing what she did strengthens what ever ruling is made & that's what's good about what she did. Remember TK wasn't happy about going through the gauntlet but recognized the value thus he really wasn't as upset by these delays because he believed wddd would come out on top. How's that for faith / confidence.
4. Unless there's a buy out(not likely) or a settlement Judge Casper will proceed with the trial with a personal objective ......of providing nothing that will be appellate as a result of judicial mistakes .
Will a judgement that comes out of her court be appealed? Likely, Activision will find something & we'll go through the appeals process. Again... time & delay.,
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
case judge asked for
December 2, 2019
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case
law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers
for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the
market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019,
Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.)
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the
propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding,
or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points,
the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle
Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla.
June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v.
Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=aicpa_guides
Comcast Revenue 2006-2019 | CMCSA
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CMCSA/comcast/revenue
source philhump03
THU DEC 19, 2019 / 10:17 PM EST
U.S. makes it easier for holders of industry-standard patents to block product sales
Stephen Nellis
• ? ?
(Reuters) - United States antitrust and patent officials on Thursday said they no longer deem holders of industry-standard patents anti-competitive if they sue to stop the sale of infringing products, a far-reaching policy shift that they said supports innovation.
The new position could have seen chipmaker Qualcomm Inc, for instance, sue in an attempt to stop the sale of all models of Apple Inc's iPhones in Germany last year - rather than the limited number that were ultimately affected - without fear of being investigated by the U.S. antitrust body.
The U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and National Institute of Standards and Technology jointly released a policy statement on so-called standard essential patents to replace its policy since 2013.
Standard essential patents are often used in the technology industry when makers of different kinds of devices want them all to work together. In the case of cellular networks, for example, phones and cell towers must be compatible across makers and borders.
To arrive at a single standard, companies such as Nokia, Ericsson and InterDigital Wireless contribute patents to a certain technology such as 5G, the upcoming generation of cellular data networks.
Every company that makes a cellular device is required to adopt that technology and pay a license fee to patent holders. In exchange, the holders agree to license the patents on fair and reasonable terms.
In 2013, the Justice Department and Patent Office said it was anti-competitive for patent holders to seek injunctions to block the sale of a products for infringing standards patents. Holders could still seek monetary damages without running afoul of the policy.
The policy had real-world effects. When Qualcomm sued Apple to block the sale of iPhones during a wide-ranging legal dispute, Qualcomm did not use any of its standards patents to make its claims. As a result, Qualcomm's suits affected only a subset of models.
Officials reversed their policy on Thursday, saying seeking to block sales in standards patents cases presented no harm to competition and that standards patents should be treated no differently than other patents.
"Our patent system is what has made the American economy the innovation capital of the world, and we should not misapply the antitrust laws to diminish the incentive to innovate," Assistant Attorney General Delrahim said in a statement.
Morgan Reed, president of The App Association, in a statement said the group which represents software developers was disappointed by the move.
It "does not go far enough in protecting small businesses from abusive (standards patent) licensing behavior," Reed said.
(Reporting by Stephen Nellis in San Francisco; Editing by Christopher Cushing)
Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
MORE FROM REUTERS
SEPhttps://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/16-153_1.pdf
(D.1. 334, Ex. A~ 5). At best, Dr. Cox states a general rationale for using the "top-down" approach in the FRAND context. Dr. Cox fails to explain why that approach applies here, where the '488 patent is not subject to a FRAND obligation. Even more problematic, Dr. Cox never addresses why the specific rate associated with the ETSI standard essential patents should apply here, where the '488 patent was never accepted into the ETSI standard. (See D.I. 334, Ex. A~~ 8-10). Sprint argues that it is irrelevant that TC Tech was not actually part of a standards setting organization, because TC Tech alleges that the '488 patent is essential to the LTE standard. (D.1. 286 at 15). Sprint cites to Ericsson, Inc. v. D-LinkSystems, Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which Sprint argues "identified 'special apportionment issues' that arise any time a 'standard requires that devices utilize specific technology' such that 'compliant devices necessarily infringe certain claims in patents that cover technology incorporated into the standard." (D.1. 286 at 15 (citing D-Link, 773 F.3d at 1209, 1232)). Sprint reads D-Link out of context. The patents at issue were Ericsson's standard essential patents, as defined by the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE"), a standards setting organization.
Analogous to the situation in TCL, Ericsson had agreed to "grant a license under reasonable rates to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis 29 with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination." DLink, 773 F.3d at 1208-09. In other words, Ericsson was subject to a FRAND obligation. Therefore, D-Link is inapposite for the same reasons as TCL. A "standard essential patent," as described in TCL and D-Link, is not merely a patent that is essential to practice a standard. It is a formal designation made by a standard setting organization that subjects the patent holder to a FRAND obligation in exchange for a defined set of benefits. It is undisputed that the '488 patent is not such a "standard essential patent." Because Dr. Cox fails to explain why the ETSI rates should apply to a non-standard essential patent, his "top-down" testimony is inadmissible as insufficiently tied to the facts of this case. See Fed. R. Evid. 702.
=================================================
SEP speaks to:Teece
1. Standard setting and standards development .................................................................27 2. Standard essential patents (SEPs) and royalties...............................................................29
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/98e0/3d35857f66c34fa79f3ea0dd2b4e3b670044.pdf
David J. Teece and Greg Linden. Business Models, Value Capture, and the Digital Enterprise. Journal of Organizational Design,.
2017
https://haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/teece-david/
• Translational
• Open Access
•
dillythekid
Thursday, 11/28/19 02:55:40 PM
Re: None
0
Post # 74933 of 74950
I believe these are the cases they brought back:
Dear Judge Andrews:
Pursuant to the Court’s November 25, 2019 Oral Order requesting case authority
supporting the use of technology investments in the assessment of damages calculations in patent
cases, Defendants respectfully submit the following cases to the Court for consideration.
? Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 WL
11072175, at *1-2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2015)
? Ristvedt-Johnson, Inc. v. Brandt, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 557, 568 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
? TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-CV-04545-HSG, 2015 WL 4148354, at *4 (N.D.
Cal. July 9, 2015)
Counsel is available should the Court have any additional questions.
Respectfully,
/s/ Jennifer Ying
Jennifer Ying (#5550)
Case consolidation letter 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28095
600 N. King Street ? Suite 400 Writer’s Direct Access: P.O. Box 25130 ? Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 429-4232 Zip Code For Deliveries 19801 November 18, 2019
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
Pursuant to the Court’s November 4, 2019 Order (D.I. 449), ChanBond provides the following responses to the questions raised by the Court.
1. In Plaintiffs view, how many hours would it need for opening statement, direct and cross-examination for it to present its case if the case were consolidated as it proposes?
ChanBond provides the following time estimates for its opening statement, direct examination, cross examination, and closing statement in both a consolidated trial and the trial of any single Defendant. Presumably, Defendants will need the same or a similar amount of total time for presentation of their case. Since there are many undisputed facts in these cases, ChanBond expects that, in either a single Defendant or consolidated trial, trial time will be reduced through stipulation.
Trial Phase Individual Defendant Consolidated Opening 2 hours 2 hours Direct Exam – Fact Witnesses 4 hours 7.5 hours Direct Exam – Infringement 5 hours 6 hours Direct Exam – Damages 4 hours 6.5 hours Cross Exam – Infringement 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Validity 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Damages 1.5 hours 1.5 hours Direct Exam – Validity 2.5 hours 2.5 hours Closing 2 hours 2 hours TOTAL CHANBOND TIME 25 hours 32 hours
2. There seems to be a dispute about whether Defendants (as opposed to Cisco, Arris, and Casa) have any different views on infringement. (D.I. 445 at 5: D.I. 447 at 2). I see a lengthy (820 pages) report of Plaintiffs expert Nettles (D.I. 445-1 at 20) but I do not see the non-infringement report of Defendants’ expert Cromarty. I would like Defendants to file Cromarty’s complete report with a letter identifying the “top five” places where Defendants’ non-infringement arguments vary among Defendants.
Not applicable to ChanBond.
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28096
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 2
3. I think it would also be helpful to have Plaintiffs and Defendants’ main damages reports filed, with Defendants identifying the most significant differences among the various Defendants' positions.
ChanBond is providing herewith, via Notice of Lodging, an exemplary report (directed to Defendant Comcast) from Dr. David J. Teece, ChanBond’s main damages expert. The body of Dr. Teece’s reports is substantively identical for all Defendants. The reports differ in the Defendant- specific numbers and calculations presented in Exhibits 1-11. Should the Court so desire, ChanBond will lodge the remaining reports of Dr. Teece.
4. Are there any reasonable options other than all or nothing? For example, what about a consolidated invalidity trial? What about consolidating trials of Defendants who now have common ownership? What about consolidating infringement trials based on which of the three suppliers (Cisco, Arris, Casa) makes the equipment? What about having a first trial with either Cablevision or Time Warner Cable, who appear to use all the CMTSs at issue? (D .I. 442-1 at 2).
ChanBond maintains that complete consolidation is the most practical and appropriate way to proceed. Defendants disagree and request thirteen separate trials.
The Court has provided several criteria to consider in the determination, including a consolidated invalidity trial, consolidation based on common ownership, and consolidation based on common CMTS usage.
Regarding invalidity, and as noted in the opening brief (D.I. 442 at 3), consolidation on the common theory of invalidity is warranted. But a single, consolidated invalidity trial would still require thirteen infringement and damages trials. Regarding common ownership, consolidation based on changes in corporate ownership would only result in a reduction to nine or ten separate trials.
As an alternative to complete consolidation, ChanBond proposes partial consolidation based on the Defendants’ CMTS usage. Using this approach would reduce the number of trials to five or less. ChanBond proposes a first trial for Defendants that
Focusing on the makes logical sense for multiple reasons. First,
Second, this group includes the greatest number of Defendants (five in total). Third,
Fourth, F
as noted in the IPRs filed by Cisco and Arris in this case, both Cisco and Arris are in privity with the Defendants, and at least Arris is indemnifying Defendants. See, e.g., IPR2018-00570, Paper 21. ChanBond thus proposes that this group of five Defendants be tried first, which would be . .
The next logical group of Defendants to be tried would comprise
which are . .
These two Defendants also happen to collectively represent the next largest percentage of total damages sought by ChanBond. The third group of Defendants would be those that , ,
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 28097
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 3
which also happen to represent the next largest percentage of total damages, then those Defendants
, ,
and finally, the one Defendant (and smallest Defendant) that
These groupings are noted in the table below.
ChanBond further proposes that validity be tried only with the first group. Defendants are seeking separate trials because they, and their privies Cisco and Arris, desire to try invalidity and non-infringement as many times as possible.
Group 1
Infringement Validity Damages Group 2 Infringement
Damages Group 3 Infringement
Damages Group 4 Infringement
Damages Group 5 Infringement
Damages
5. Finally, when should I decide this? I'll have a much better picture of the case at the time of the summary judgment argument.
A Trial Scheduling Conference has been set for January 31, 2020. During the course of meeting and conferring, the parties agreed that this conference would be the most appropriate time for the Court to resolve the issues regarding consolidation and trial schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Case consolidation letter 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28095
600 N. King Street ? Suite 400 Writer’s Direct Access: P.O. Box 25130 ? Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 429-4232 Zip Code For Deliveries 19801 November 18, 2019
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
Pursuant to the Court’s November 4, 2019 Order (D.I. 449), ChanBond provides the following responses to the questions raised by the Court.
1. In Plaintiffs view, how many hours would it need for opening statement, direct and cross-examination for it to present its case if the case were consolidated as it proposes?
ChanBond provides the following time estimates for its opening statement, direct examination, cross examination, and closing statement in both a consolidated trial and the trial of any single Defendant. Presumably, Defendants will need the same or a similar amount of total time for presentation of their case. Since there are many undisputed facts in these cases, ChanBond expects that, in either a single Defendant or consolidated trial, trial time will be reduced through stipulation.
Trial Phase Individual Defendant Consolidated Opening 2 hours 2 hours Direct Exam – Fact Witnesses 4 hours 7.5 hours Direct Exam – Infringement 5 hours 6 hours Direct Exam – Damages 4 hours 6.5 hours Cross Exam – Infringement 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Validity 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Damages 1.5 hours 1.5 hours Direct Exam – Validity 2.5 hours 2.5 hours Closing 2 hours 2 hours TOTAL CHANBOND TIME 25 hours 32 hours
2. There seems to be a dispute about whether Defendants (as opposed to Cisco, Arris, and Casa) have any different views on infringement. (D.I. 445 at 5: D.I. 447 at 2). I see a lengthy (820 pages) report of Plaintiffs expert Nettles (D.I. 445-1 at 20) but I do not see the non-infringement report of Defendants’ expert Cromarty. I would like Defendants to file Cromarty’s complete report with a letter identifying the “top five” places where Defendants’ non-infringement arguments vary among Defendants.
Not applicable to ChanBond.
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28096
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 2
3. I think it would also be helpful to have Plaintiffs and Defendants’ main damages reports filed, with Defendants identifying the most significant differences among the various Defendants' positions.
ChanBond is providing herewith, via Notice of Lodging, an exemplary report (directed to Defendant Comcast) from Dr. David J. Teece, ChanBond’s main damages expert. The body of Dr. Teece’s reports is substantively identical for all Defendants. The reports differ in the Defendant- specific numbers and calculations presented in Exhibits 1-11. Should the Court so desire, ChanBond will lodge the remaining reports of Dr. Teece.
4. Are there any reasonable options other than all or nothing? For example, what about a consolidated invalidity trial? What about consolidating trials of Defendants who now have common ownership? What about consolidating infringement trials based on which of the three suppliers (Cisco, Arris, Casa) makes the equipment? What about having a first trial with either Cablevision or Time Warner Cable, who appear to use all the CMTSs at issue? (D .I. 442-1 at 2).
ChanBond maintains that complete consolidation is the most practical and appropriate way to proceed. Defendants disagree and request thirteen separate trials.
The Court has provided several criteria to consider in the determination, including a consolidated invalidity trial, consolidation based on common ownership, and consolidation based on common CMTS usage.
Regarding invalidity, and as noted in the opening brief (D.I. 442 at 3), consolidation on the common theory of invalidity is warranted. But a single, consolidated invalidity trial would still require thirteen infringement and damages trials. Regarding common ownership, consolidation based on changes in corporate ownership would only result in a reduction to nine or ten separate trials.
As an alternative to complete consolidation, ChanBond proposes partial consolidation based on the Defendants’ CMTS usage. Using this approach would reduce the number of trials to five or less. ChanBond proposes a first trial for Defendants that
Focusing on the makes logical sense for multiple reasons. First,
Second, this group includes the greatest number of Defendants (five in total). Third,
Fourth, F
as noted in the IPRs filed by Cisco and Arris in this case, both Cisco and Arris are in privity with the Defendants, and at least Arris is indemnifying Defendants. See, e.g., IPR2018-00570, Paper 21. ChanBond thus proposes that this group of five Defendants be tried first, which would be . .
The next logical group of Defendants to be tried would comprise
which are . .
These two Defendants also happen to collectively represent the next largest percentage of total damages sought by ChanBond. The third group of Defendants would be those that , ,
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 28097
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 3
which also happen to represent the next largest percentage of total damages, then those Defendants
, ,
and finally, the one Defendant (and smallest Defendant) that
These groupings are noted in the table below.
ChanBond further proposes that validity be tried only with the first group. Defendants are seeking separate trials because they, and their privies Cisco and Arris, desire to try invalidity and non-infringement as many times as possible.
Group 1
Infringement Validity Damages Group 2 Infringement
Damages Group 3 Infringement
Damages Group 4 Infringement
Damages Group 5 Infringement
Damages
5. Finally, when should I decide this? I'll have a much better picture of the case at the time of the summary judgment argument.
A Trial Scheduling Conference has been set for January 31, 2020. During the course of meeting and conferring, the parties agreed that this conference would be the most appropriate time for the Court to resolve the issues regarding consolidation and trial schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
==========================================
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
CALCULATE rev in Millions
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12rB-Y7nBsMGd5DLRg_a8fs75n9Xvev_161J-OCKv1cY/edit#gid=0
Valuation Tools
https://www.tpa-global.com/business-solutions/valuation-tools
Transforming the World of Tax
The three main approaches are:
1. Cost Based Approach
The cost approach measures the values of the intangible assets by assessing the expenditures necessary to replace the assets. The cost approach is based on the economic concept ofsubstitution, that is, people will pay no more for an asset than it would cost to develop or obtain another asset with similar functionality. Cost items that should be included when valuing the assets include the legal costs, registrations costs, personnel costs, development costs, production costs and marketing and advertising costs.
2. Market Based Approach
Intangible assets are valued by comparing recent sales or similar transactions with similar assets involved in similar markets. This method is applicable when similar markets and similar transactions exist; however, more than often, comparable assets can’t be found due to the uniqueness of most intangibles which limits the application of this method.
3. Income Based Approach
The income approach measures the value of an intangible asset based on the future income streams that are expected to be generated by the asset.
Some income approach methods:
• Relief from royalty method
• Multi Period Excess Earnings method
• Incremental cash flow method?
Business Valuation Tool IP Valuation Tool Super IP-Calculator
This tool enables you to do a rudimentary?business valuation.?All major items are incorporated in this setup.?Default values are shown in 'grey'. This tool enables you to do a rudimentary?IP valuation (patents, trademarks)?using the relief from royalty method.?Default values are shown in 'grey'. This tool allows to assess?internationally used multiples?in order to get a first indication?of a company's value in a particular?industry and country.
START
START
START
The Economic Analysis Method
The economic-analysis valuation method has three approaches: cost, income, and market.
Cost Approach
This approach states that a patent's value is the replacement cost or the amount that would be necessary to replace the protection right on the invention. The replacement cost of an item refers to the amount of money that would be paid, at the present time, to replace the item. If an inventor has an item that he or she has patented, the patent's value would be the amount of money required to replace that invention. A prospective client would not be willing to pay more for a patent than the amount he or she would have to pay to obtain an equivalent protection right.
Income Approach
This method looks to future cash flows in determining valuation. It states that a patent's value is the present value of the incremental cash flows or cost savings it will help provide. When a company or individual develops a product that has the potential to be patented, the underlying hope is that the patented product will cause an increase in sales, or at least be a cost-saving measure in the company. This approach states that the patent's value is the current cash value of these future benefits.
Market Approach
This methodology involves determining what a willing buyer would pay for similar property. In other words, the patent's value is approximately equal to the value of similar patents or patented products that have been sold and purchased before.
Two things must be in place for this approach to be used for patent valuation:
• Existence of an active market for the patent, or a similar one
• Past transactions of comparable property
Look for similar values for the following items when looking for comparable patents:
• Industry characteristics
• Market share or market share potential
• Growth prospects
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental-analysis/09/valuing-patent.asp
Methodologies for Determining Reasonable Royalty Damages
The fifteen Georgia-Pacific factors are as follows. Not all may be applicable in any given case. Further, some may, in certain cases, act to lower the damages royalty rather than increase it. Thus, in any given case, some factors may increase the royalty, while others could be neutral or tend to decrease it. The net result, however, can never be below the statutory minimum, which is really reflected by the last factor.
• The royalties received by the patent owner for the licensing of the patent-in-suit, proving or tending to prove an established royalty;?
• The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent-in-suit;?
• The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or non-exclusive, or as restricted or non-restricted in terms of territory or with respect to whom the manufactured product may be sold;?
• The licensor’s established policy and marketing program to maintain its patent monopoly by not licensing others to use the invention or by granting licenses under special conditions designed to preserve that monopoly;?
• The commercial relationship between the licensor and the licensee, such as whether they are competitors in the same territory in the same line of business, or whether they are inventor and promoter;?
• The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other products of the licensee; the existing value of the invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of its non-patented items; and the extent of such derivative or convoyed sales;?
• The duration of the patent and the term of the license;?
• The established profitability of the product made under the patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity;?
• The utility and advantages of the patent property over the old modes or devices, if any, that had been used for working out similar results;?
• The nature of the patented invention; the character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor; and the benefits to those who have used the invention;?
• The extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention, and any evidence probative of the value of that use;?
• The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be customary in the particular business or in comparable businesses to allow for the use of the invention or analogous inventions;?
• The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the infringer;?
• The opinion testimony of qualified experts; and?
• The amount that a licensor (such as the patent owner) and a licensee (such as the infringer) would have agreed upon (at the time the infringement began) if both had been reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach an agreement; that is, the amount that a prudent licensee – who desired, as a business proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying the patented invention – would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be able to make a reasonable profit, and which amount would have been acceptable by a prudent patent owner who was willing to grant a license.??
https://www.fr.com/reasonableroyalty/
==========================================
The factors most often used are those enumerated in Georgia-Pacific v US Plywood Corp., 318 F.Supp 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) and include, among other things, utility and advantages of the patented invention, commercial success of the patented invention, licenses for comparable products
ARTICLE
U.S. Patent Damages
September 2018
CIPA Journal
By Timothy P. McAnulty; Jeffrey C. Totten; Nathan I. North
https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/u.s.-patent-damages.html
============================================
Patent damages in US courts: overview of current state of play
https://www.iam-media.com/patent-damages-us-courts-overview-current-state-play
=============================================
Patent Infringement Damages: Everything You Need to Know
https://www.upcounsel.com/patent-infringement-damages
=============================================
Significant 2018 Patent Decisions and a Look Ahead
Thursday, December 20, 2018
The Supreme Court has entertained a cert. petition on behalf of RPX to determine whether this frequent patent challenger has standing to appeal a PTAB decision upholding a patent. RPX Corp. v. ChanBond LLC, 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Pending S. Ct. Cert. Petition). The Supreme Court recently requested the Solicitor General to provide briefing on the matter.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/significant-2018-patent-decisions-and-look-ahead
=============================================
Compensatory Damages Issues in Patent Infringement Cases
https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2017/Compensatory_Patent_Damages_2d_ed_2017.pdf
stockfan100
Friday, 11/29/19 12:56:31 PM
Re: Scruffer post# 74943
0
Post # 74952 of 74952
Great reminder to start the holiday season with!
Beats any baseless void of fact nonsense claim against the company! smile
Even the middle value of each option is enough to make us all rich!
Quote:
Patent infringement value scenarios based on # of cable customers:
0.29/share = .002 (charge 1/5th a penny a day for 10 years)
0.73/share = .005 (charge 1/2 a penny...)
1.44/share = .01 (charge 1 penny a day...)
2.88/share = .02 (charge 2 pennies a day...)
4.32/share = .03 (charge 3 cents per day...)
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/cable-and-satellite-tv-sinks-again-as-online-streaming-soars/
https://www.leichtmanresearch.com/2-4-million-added-broadband-in-2018/
Patent infringement value scenarios based on revenues:
$200B now, but must reduce each previous year so say, average $125B for 10 years.
0.77/share = .0010 (1/10th of 1% revenues) = .001*125B*10/1,614,601,069
1.94/share = .0025 (1/4th of 1% revenues)
3.87/share = .0050 (1/2 of 1% revenues)
7.74/share = .0100 (1% of revenues)
Scruffer
Tuesday, 02/27/18 10:10:09 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 39541 of 74950
Tot Mkt Cap ~600B+, Rev, Net Inc
___MC______Rev_____NI__
__3.5B____2.2B___300.7M == Cogeco, CCA.TO (acquired Atlantic Broadband)
__4.1B____909M___117.7M == Cable One, CABO
_14.1B____9.3B___(971M) == Altice USA, ATUS [acquired Cablevision & Suddenlink (Cequel)]
100.2B___41.6B_____9.9B == Charter, Inc, CHTR (acquired Bright House Networks)
183.3B___84.5B____22.7B == Comcast, CMCSA
___xxx____1.5B_____158M == Mediacom, LLC
_74.5B___31.3B_____5.3B == Time Warner, TWX
__4.6B_____xxx______xxx == TPG Capital (acquired WaveDivision 2.3B, RCN 1.6B, Grande 650M)
__925M____1.2B_____103M == WideOpenWest, WOW
__4.9B____6.6B____93.1M == Arris, ARRS
215.3B___48.1B___(1.4B) == Cisco, CSCO
Sources: Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance Statistics, Home Page & Wikipedia
JME (Estimate).
Scruffer = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wtfhZwyrcc
Cox Communications Fact Sheet
Newsroom >
Cox Communications is a broadband communications and entertainment company, providing advanced digital video, Internet, telephone and home security and automation services over its own nationwide IP network. The largest private telecom company in the U.S., Cox serves more than 6 million residences and businesses. Cox Business is a facilities-based provider of voice, video and data solutions for commercial customers, and Cox Media is a full-service provider of national and local cable spot and new media advertising.
Cox is known for its pioneering efforts in broadband and commercial services, industry-leading customer care and its outstanding workplaces. For nine years, Cox has been recognized as the top operator for women by Women in Cable Telecommunications; Cox has ranked among DiversityInc's Top 50 Companies for Diversity 12 times. More information about Cox Communications, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, is available at www.cox.com and www.coxmedia.com.
Company Stats:
• Cox has approximately 6 million total residential and commercial customers
• Total revenues of $11 billion in 2016
• Cox operates 6 clustered cable systems in 18 states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Virginia
• Cox has approximately 20,000 employees nationwide
• Approximately 2/3 of our customers are in a bundle, approximately 1/3 of customers are triple play
• 350,000 commercial customers with more than 1.5 million business phone lines
• In the last 10 years, Cox has invested more than $15 billion in its communities through infrastructure upgrades to deliver video, phone and high-speed Internet service to homes and businesses in the company’s service area. Cox plans to invest $10 billion in the next five years.
• Cox’s in-kind and direct cash contributions totaled $70 million dollars in 2016, with a community outreach focus on youth and education initiatives.
• Cox is a leader in customer satisfaction, earning a total of 34 awards from J.D. Power and Associates, including 10 consecutive wins for residential phone and 9 awards for business services.
• Cox Communications is 55 years old, and remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, a privately-held, family-owned corporation with $20 billion in annual revenues (2016)
• Since 2012, Cox has connected more than 300,000 people to the Internet through the Connect2Compete program, most for the first time.
Here R the patents @ the USPTO
Inventors: Hennenhoefer; Earl (Harrisburg, PA), Snyder; Richard V. (Harrisburg, PA), Stine; Robert D. (Dillsburg, PA)
Assignee: CBV, Inc. (Carlisle, PA)
And then the top one (# 9,363,554) with:
Inventors: Hennenhoefer; Earl (Carlisle, PA), Snyder; Richard (Harrisburg, PA), Stine; Robert (Mechanicsburg, PA)
Applicant: Name City State Country Type
CBV, Inc. Carlisle PA US
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC (Dallas, TX)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=cbv&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=Hennenhoefer&FIELD2=&d=PTXT
cable spects
https://specification-search.cablelabs.com/?currentPage=1&sortby=false&order=false&query=H8,341,679&category=DOCSIS&subcat=DOCSIS%203.1&doctype=Specifications&content=true&archives=true
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1,
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers
$60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!)
12 months per year
$46,332,000,000 per year
20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties)
$926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS)
__@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S
0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement)
0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%)
0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %)
1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152680338
Scruffer
Monday, December 30, 2019 5:04:36 PM
Re: I-Glow post# 75574
Post # 75582 of 75625
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
court of appeals voice recording
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings
5 Patent Law Petitions to Watch at the Supreme Court
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/5-patent-law-petitions-to-watch-at-the-94926/
PROVIDERS OFFERING CABLE SERVICE
We've found 452 providers offering Cable service in the US. Below are stats on their coverage and speeds.
Philhump03 listed the following
listed the following
Provider Est. Population Covered States Max Speed
XFINITY from Comcast 111,710,288 40 987 mbps
2014 was 68.78B and 2018 was 91.51B. 1% of 2018 is $915,100,000
Charter Spectrum 102,473,344 43 940 mbps
43.634B in annual revenue/sales for 2018.... 1% of that is $43,634,000
Cox Communications 21,128,654 19 300 mbps
6 million total residential and commercial customers
Total revenues of $11 billion in 2016
Optimum by Altice 12,437,931 4 400 mbps
Mediacom Cable 7,510,920 22 1000 mbps
WOW! 7,174,627 9 50 mbps
Suddenlink Communications 6,818,884 19 1000 mbps
RCN 4,103,162 7 1000 mbps
Cable ONE 3,358,492 20 1000 mbps
Wave Broadband 1,908,564 3 1000 mbps
Atlantic Broadband 1,871,420 13 1000 mbps
Midco 1,312,111 5 1000 mbps
Grande Communications 1,226,241 1 1000 mbps
Newwave Communications 1,057,601 7 100 mbps
Armstrong 982,867 5 1000 mbps
Service Electric Broadband Cable 969,100 2 150 mbps
Blue Ridge Communications 616,308 1 1000 mbps
Vyve Broadband 606,062 10 1000 mbps
GCI Communication 556,741 1 1000 mbps
Buckeye Broadband 544,140 2 300 mbps
En-Touch Systems 535,246 1 115 mbps
Northland Communications 492,413 8 100 mbps
TDS Telecom 475,628 10 600 mbps
Service Electric Cablevision 438,870 1 350 mbps
Shentel 411,731 3 150 mbps
Windstream 406,072 49 1000 mbps
Fidelity Communications 384,027 5 1000 mbps
Cablelynx Broadband 364,058 4 50 mbps
Comporium Communications 294,033 2 400 mbps
Vast Broadband 285,321 2 200 mbps
Zito Media 271,350 16 200 mbps
MaxxSouth Broadband 259,771 2 60 mbps
Consolidated Communications 207,589 8 100 mbps
Horry Telephone Cooperative 205,403 1 300 mbps
Blue Stream 186,428 1 1000 mbps
Massillon Cable TV 169,891 1 100 mbps
Cable America Missouri 144,579 2 100 mbps
BendBroadband 143,789 1 300 mbps
Morris Broadband 133,711 1 100 mbps
Hargray Communications 132,008 2 30 mbps
Antietam Broadband 131,986 1 200 mbps
Direct Communications 126,571 4 20 mbps
Ritter Communications 124,154 3 100 mbps
Continuum 104,611 1 200 mbps
Adams Cable Service 101,045 2 50 mbps
Summit Broadband 98,010 1 1000 mbps
TruVista 95,293 2 250 mbps
Reach Broadband 93,246 1 75 mbps
Inter Mountain Cable 90,008 3 300 mbps
Reserve Telecommunications 89,631 1 300 mbps
USA Communications 87,146 3 60 mbps
NuLink Digital 85,098 1 100 mbps
CTV Beam 83,932 1 102 mbps
CAS Cable 83,926 2 1000 mbps
Giggle Fiber 79,795 1 500 mbps
ImOn Communications 75,307 1 80 mbps
ComSouth 73,728 1 50 mbps
CentraCom 72,489 2 100 mbps
ETC Communications 71,927 3 150 mbps
OneSource Communications 70,808 1 35 mbps
Eagle Communications 69,886 3 100 mbps
Orbitel Communications 68,665 1 150 mbps
Mid-Hudson Cablevision 65,153 1 200 mbps
Thames Valley Communications 63,923 1 110 mbps
Conway Corporation 60,799 1 50 mbps
Home Telecom 59,774 1 100 mbps
Arvig 58,044 1 100 mbps
All West Communications 53,422 1 100 mbps
Golden West Telecommunications 52,372 1 50 mbps
Frankfort Plant Board 51,201 1 250 mbps
D&P Communications 51,053 2 110 mbps
Full Channel 49,612 1 320 mbps
Nittany Media 49,477 1 125 mbps
Thacker-Grigsby Telephone 49,081 1 50 mbps
ATMC 46,398 1 200 mbps
Rainier Connect 44,688 1 55 mbps
CASSCOMM 44,640 1 50 mbps
Bailey Cable TV 43,875 2 12 mbps
Spanish Fork Community Network 43,188 1 120 mbps
Indco Cable 41,849 4 4.0 mbps
Emery Telcom 41,800 1 40 mbps
commZoom 41,540 1 100 mbps
AllensTV 41,347 1 50 mbps
Long Lines 41,245 3 300 mbps
FiberVision Florida 41,098 1 90 mbps
Spirit Broadband 40,356 1 10 mbps
Access Cable Television 40,221 2 100 mbps
LivCom 39,774 1 25 mbps
HBC 38,057 1 1000 mbps
Vision Communications 37,474 1 25 mbps
USA Communications (Iowa) 37,432 1 6.0 mbps
Country Cablevision 36,919 1 100 mbps
Consolidated Smart Broadband Systems 36,760 2 1000
mbps
CableSouth Media3 35,893 2 10 mbps
SELCO 35,608 1 50 mbps
GVTC Communications 34,641 1 12 mbps
Satview Broadband 34,640 1 10 mbps
BELD Broadband 33,909 1 300 mbps
Kings Bay Communications 32,113 1 1000 mbps
CPWS Broadband 32,002 1 100 mbps
1% of 43.6 billion is 436 million.How bout as we waite to pass
the time w collectively do some DD on the following and post info to this post.
Name of 13 companies & their Annual income for each to present 12-31-2018
1 Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC,
2 Bright House Networks, LLC,
3 CSC Holdings, LLC,
4 Cable One, Inc.,
5 Cablevision Systems Corporation,
6 Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC,
7 Cequel Communications, LLC,
8 Charter Communications, Inc.,
9 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC,
10 Comcast Corporation,
11 Cox Communications, Inc.,
12 Mediacom Communications Corporation,
13 RCN Telecom Services, LLC,
14 Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC,TT
15 Time Warner Cable Inc.,
16 WaveDivision Holdings, LLC,
17 WideOpen West Finance, LLC.
x years infringement for each x 13=
Future licensing for each....????? Years ( not sure how many)=
Punitive damages for each = up to 3x final amount
Looser pays legal fees and costs ( if goes to trial)
Cut & past edit pg # 1
Useing (.05%) A percentage historically 1-5% ( since the amt here may be very large I'd guess.5-1.5%)
All About News, DDs and Charts ****
#1-SISTER FORUM
$Pistol Pete$, $Mick$ & Friends Stock Picks /news, DD and charts
#2-SISTER FORUM
*** MICK, $Pistol Pete$ & FRIENDS STOCK PICKS *** M F S P''''''''
#3-SISTER FORUM
Billionaire Boys Club Member Forum (BBCMF)
#4-SISTER FORUM
**** SNAP CHAT MESSENGERS ****
#5-SISTER FORUM
$$Pistol Pete$$, $$Mick$$ Uranium Rare Earth Gold Silver Metals Exporation
https://valueinvestor.com/category/mining-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/marijuana-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/biotech-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/cryptocurrency-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/top-stories/
those just starting out or flirting with subs
No Bid
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/Profile.aspx?user=171071
$UPER $TOCKS DD and RESEARCH FORUM
Business Insider-market alerts
http://dailymarketalerts.com/
CANNABIS SECTIONS?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/breaking-news/?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/the-watchlist/?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/category/breakingnews/united-states/ ;?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/category/breakingnews/canada/
Coins
*****SHOP AVC COIN - INTERESTING ITEMS
https://shopavc.com/
https://avccoins.com/
https://avccoins.com/Watchlive.htm
Coins?*****Collectors Alliance. ?http://www.collectorsalliance.com ;?
Coins
***** https://www.rarecollectiblestv.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_half_dollar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_half_dollar
https://www.govmint.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-OWSn46r4QIVrR-tBh0kcA95EAEYASAAEgKvZPD_BwE
Coins
https://catalog.usmint.gov/
==========================================================
Coins JBCOIN
http://jbcoinsinc.com/
==========================================================
Coins?https://www.landofcoins.com/index.php?/
Coins?http://www.thecoinvault.com
[COINS---AAC ONLINE] AUCTION [IFFY]
ttps://www.aactv.com/
Coin Grading?http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/
Coin Grading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_grading#Sheldon_grading_system
America's Auction House-HERITAGE - auction
https://www.ha.com/
125+ World-Class Experts in 40 Categories
---GOLD
https://www.blanchardgold.com/
https://www.blanchardgold.com/shop/gold/certified-bullion-coins/
---SILVER
https://www.blanchardgold.com/shop/silver/certified-bullion-coins-silver/
---RARE
https://www.blanchardgold.com/shop/rare-coins/
Golden Glossary of Coin Terminology
COINS
https://www.blanchardgold.com/glossary/letter-a/
GOOD COINS---HTTPS://SHOPCSNTV.COM
GOOD COIN CHAT -SILVER EAGLE-HALF DOLLAR -GOLD COINS ---
https://shopcsntv.com/
https://shopcsntv.com/2019-silver-eagle-pair-pr70-ms70-1st-strike.html
SD Bullion Silver ---... https://sdbullion.com/silver
World Numismatic
http://worldnumismaticnews.com/
HTTP://WWW.AMERICANBULLS.COM
PRESS RELEASES
https://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/my-business-wire/
NEWS ROOM
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/business
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/medicine-and-healthcare
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/business-finance
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/beats
https://www.newswire.com/feeds
https://www.forbes.com/#1919276c2254
https://www.forbes.com/innovation/#6529acf16834
https://www.forbes.com/money/#34aa487ac19a
https://www.forbes.com/industry/#2f0aab9c4ab5
https://www.forbes.com/lists/list-directory/#459b21f7b274
https://www.forbes.com/markets/#7f3c06731fbf
https://www.forbes.com/editors-picks/#790dcf2078bf
CNN MONEY BUSINESS
https://www.cnn.com/business
https://money.cnn.com/data/markets/
https://www.cnn.com/business/tech
https://www.cnn.com/business/media
https://www.cnn.com/business/success
https://www.cnn.com/business/perspectives
https://www.cnn.com/business/videos
FOREIGN AFFAIRS;
I.P.O.'SFrance
FRANCE 24 Live – International Breaking News & Top stories - 24/7 stream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J78SdCzzumA
ttps://thefly.com/syndicate.php
https://thefly.com/landingPageNews.php?id=2807735
https://thefly.com/
https://thefly.com/news.php
https://thefly.com/events.php
https://thefly.com/news.php?insight_filter=on&h=6
COMPANY INFORMATION
http://www.wallstreetreporter.com/
https://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/ethereum-is-about-to-boom/90323
https://www.wealthdaily.com/reports
https://www.wealthdaily.com/resources
https://www.wealthdaily.com/podcasts
Home Pg. SPUTNIK NEWS
https://sputniknews.com/
http://wallstreetnation.com/
https://www.stockwatch.com/default.aspx
https://www.reuters.com/
https://seekingalpha.com/market-news
https://www.businesstimes.com.
https://www.oann.com/
Zardiw Working on more features for DDAmanda - chartist/
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=2760
DDAmanda
https://www.finra.org/
https://otce.finra.org/otce/home
http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/MarketData/EquityOptions/default.jsp
https://otce.finra.org/otce/equityShortInterest
https://otce.finra.org/otce/dailyList?viewType=Additions
https://otce.finra.org/otce/dailyList?viewType=Symbol%2FName%20Changes
https://otce.finra.org/otce/marketStatistics/historicalData
https://otce.finra.org/otce/marketStatistics/top100Issues
https://otce.finra.org/otce/marketStatistics/monthlyShareVolume
Website Is For Good Information
http://www.clippercorporatepartners.com/
https://twitter.com/GeorgeASharp
https://oilandenergyinvestor.com/
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/acrl
SHELL STOCK REINSTATEMENTS
Estrella's Sizzling Hot Stock Plays
KAT Exploration Inc. (KATX)
GOLD MINING LINKS
http://www.miningweekly.com/page/latest-news
MINING/
http://www.miningstocks.com
Jay Taylor's Gold and Technology Stocks
http://www.miningstocks.com
https://goldsilver.com/
MoneyTV with Donald Baillargeon
http://moneytv.net/
http://moneytv.net/this-weeks-show/
SMART MONEY GROUP
Pinto Beans and Money Making Stock Picks 2018
JW Value Stocks
The next BIG CUSTODIAN play---OWNERSHIP
https://investorshub.advfn.com/The-next-BIG-CUSTODIAN-play-35974/
Sunnyland Master of OTC. Specializing in L2 and charting instruction along with OTC institutional integration.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=431444
https://twitter.com/SUNNYLAND24
GOOD CHAT ON THIS LINK/
https://dcdirtylaundry.com/house-republicans-submit-bills-to-abolish-the-irs-audit-the-fed/
https://dcdirtylaundry.com/
CHARTING/
http://www.stockta.com/cgi-bin/analysis.pl?symb=ACRL&cobrand=&mode=stock
CHARTING/
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=acrl&insttype=&freq=&show=
CHARTING/
https://stockcharts.com/
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=CBIS&p=D&yr=0&mn=6&dy=0&id=p63415940898
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=WYNN
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=23771&qm_symbol=%20rshn
Chairman of the Board, President, and CEO en HUDSON CORPORATION
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=53425&qm_symbol=potn
Advisor to the Board en PotNetwork Holding Inc.
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=19542&qm_symbol=idgc
– Senior Advisor to the President en IDGlobal Corp
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=94353&qm_symbol=MCGI
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=35503&qm_symbol=LVGI
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=57937&qm_symbol=PMCB
https://twitter.com/idgreencorp / RANDY HUDSON /$IDGC
https://rumormurmursbuzz.blogspot.com/?m=1
Mr Wowza-
ILUS
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_person.aspx?membernum=171071
Ilustrato Pictures International, Inc. (ILUS)
Oil & Gas - Energy - Commodities - Resources
GREAT ARTICLES/ MANY STARTUPS
https://www.stockgumshoe.com/reviews/radical-technology-profits/whats-the-6-million-startup-behind-the-code-of-life/#
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/02/22/1380357/0/en/Clean-TeQ-Sunrise-Project-Update.html
https://www.stockgumshoe.com/reviews/radical-technology-profits/whats-the-6-million-startup-behind-the-code-of-life/#
RED CHIP
https://www.redchip.com/home
CEO INTERVIEW
http://www.wallstreetreporter.com/
FORTUNE
http://fortune.com/
x22 reports
https://x22report.com/
QUALITY INFORMATION
https://www.energyandcapital.com/reports/
https://www.energyandcapital.com/
https://stocktalktoday.com/category/news/
WIRES/
https://globenewswire.com/Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Bloomberg Global News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp8PhLsUcFE
http://www.bloomberg.com/live
FINDINGS/
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Awr9Il1on51aDj4AMV1XNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA3VoM19maW5hbmNlX3ZlcnQEZ3ByaWQDSHUyNXlERkxTTFd5cDd1T0J2WUZ2QQRuX3JzbHQDMARuX3N1Z
MARIJUANA
http://chasingmarkets.com/?
MARK IT FOLKS /////\\\\\ i'd like to see this happen. sanctuary placement for homeless as soon as possible.
**** illegals have the sanctuary placement in most states.****
why not the homeless be sponsored by the sports leagues of america.
ah special taxation on their salary to support the homeless.
heck figure how many would finally have an address to file claims
to the gov't.
the homeless have no speaker for them.
i think some lawyers could donate some time to this.
mark this message for improvement for the homeless.
SHO LIST BUYINS.NET Chart Analysis Chart Video Lessons Charts Charts Charts Clinical Trials Corporate Bankruptcy Corporate Records Search Deregistering
Document Research Earnings Email Address Verifier EYE ON THE FDA FINRA Daily Short List Floats Form 4 Filings High Short Interest Stocks Insider Buy & Sell Info
Investing Glossary Investor Words Low Float Stocks Message, Blog & Twitter Postings Multicollinearity Patterns Platform Reverse Splits SEC Form Types and Definitions
Secretary Of State Sites - All states Shell Stocks SHO Threshold List Short Stocks Stock Chart Patterns Stock Promotions Stock Promotions Stock Research
Technical Analysis Technical Indicators/Overlays Trading Halts Trading Platform Trading Stations Transfer Agent Contact Information
Information Cannabis/
Jurisdiction with legalized cannabis.
Jurisdiction with both medical and decriminalization laws.*
Jurisdiction with legal psychoactive medical cannabis.
Jurisdiction with legal non-psychoactive medical cannabis
Jurisdiction with decriminalized cannabis possession laws.
Jurisdiction with total cannabis prohibition
* Mississippi has only legal non-psychoactive medical cannabis, and Illinois has decriminalized cannabis as of July 29th, 2016
Attribution: Lokal_Profil , CC-BY-SA-2.5
[-chart]investorshub.advfn.com/Images/cannibusUS.png[/chart]
https://investorshub.advfn.com/Images/cannibusUS.png
most;
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#mpcs
most;
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#csn
most
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#csih
company's
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#csih
Hey Datzzz Me/ Casper Da Friendly Ghost
thank you lots/ i am casper and the 5th dimension [time zone]
https://media1.tenor.com/images/881e357ad319d14704762f8b4afa450e/tenor.gif?itemid=8463633
https://tenor.com/search/casper-gifs
https://tenor.com/
court 4 2 19
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A8619926c-a24e-42ed-9553-df7df6f84701
Friday, March 15, 2019 1:22:45 PM
Re: None
Post # 64456 of 64474
A few weeks/months back I posted a link to cnnmoney that forecasted a 12 month stock price of 1200.00. Most people laughed and shrugged it off without much thought. I’d like to present several thoughts why I feel the forecast while not totally accurate, does give an idea of the long term global potential of the plan zwolf spoke about recently and the relevancy to Mr. Spangenburgs current business models concerning patent monetization/analysis/reform. Many may not know that Mr. Spangenburg and Mr. Carter are close business partners and have founded and continue to run successful patent service companies. Many call them trolls but it doesn’t take much reading to see that they are far from that. They provide services and solutions to patent holders to better arm themselves against large corporations who prey on and benefit from small scale IP owners/creators. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity that we are fortunate to be in below the ground floor. All of Mr. Spangenburg and Mr. Carters companies are PRIVITELY held companies and I have no issues owning stock with these two guys running not only this show, but many, many others with outstanding success. I’m quite sure all the private noteholders across their many organizations are being paid proportionally to the amount of shares they own, and owning a personal stake in every company they finance litigation for says everything I need to hear honestly. What’s good for them is good for me and I’m grateful for this opportunity. To those who are that concerned, I would suggest you put on a pot of coffee, grab some snacks and start reading…that’s what I did back in 2017. I went back and read about 1-2 years of posts over the course or a week or so.
These links gave me a really good idea of Carter and Spangenburgs “big picture link,
ipwe.com
The key words to listen for are smart contracts.link
This link is one I’m sure we have all seen, but I like it because its proof Carter is Spangenburgs right hand man and that they personally purchase a stake in every company they finance litigation for and are motivated to get the patent creators and thereby themselves, paid.link
Also some may have missed the info on carter from post 21698 from 2014
In closing, if I think about all the money ive spent on internet service from dial-up to gigabit and to know that the technology enabling comfortable internet use has not been going into the hands of the people who helped enhance it is a pure and utter shame. I hope Mr Spangenburg succeeds in his patent reform efforts and I hope this case sets a new precedent going forward.
Billy carter
ice2014
Monday, 09/22/14 10:16:21 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 21698 of 63460
UnifiedOnline! LLC is owned by Billy Carter, the person who bought ICEWEB and took all its debt by paying about 116K. IMO, he is not dumping shares in the market but is using these shares to pay the other debt holders, e.g. Asher enterprise who dumped theirs in the market.
IMO, it seems that the stock has been taken over by MMs and has been shorted like hell, and that's why you see 1+ billion on bids at 0.0001. It is a possibility that MMs have sold more than the float. These MMs may be turned upside down if any positive news is released on/before Sept. 30th, and they have to cover their short positions.
You can check more about Billy Carter at following sites:
http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/print-edition/2014/03/21/a-troll-or-a-foe-of-trolls.html?page=all
http://www.columbusceo.com/content/stories/apexchange/2013/07/13/has-patent--will-sue-.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/how-a-typical-patent-battle-took-an-unexpected-turn.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Make a search on carter in 2nd and 3rd URL. It seems that new owner of IEWEB Mr. Carter really has deep pockets. He has probably invested in ICEWEB not to double or triple his 116K but probably to multiply his 116K by 100s of times. ICEWEB and KCNAP play in the hottest cloud space. It seems that Mr. Carter is involved in too many businesses that I can track. He is also the president of Plant Transformation Technology (PTT) with chairman Erich Spangenberg of IPNAV (check above links). He seems to be very much involved in IPNAV as well, which has sued 1600+ companies.
http://www.planttt.com/team.html
Also he is the president with chairman Erich Spangenberg at IPCM:
http://www.ipcmadvisors.com/about-ipcm/management-team/
He is an owner of UnifiedOnline! LLC
http://www.uoip.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1:about-uo-ip&Itemid=185
Again, IMO, Billy Carter probably didn't buy ICEWEB for 116K to double his money but to make it really big. This is probably the last week and we should hear news (official 10-K) from ICEWEB before Sept. 30th deadline.
Evilbean
Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:27:31 AM
Re: None Post # 62182 of 62222
If you want more understanding of where we sit, this court document is actually pretty good at explaining the issues with the appeal and the IPRs. It also discusses some of the 13s intent/strategy in what may be an argument against us in court. This is a court document filed 6/15/18. It is well worth the time to read and may help clarify issues in your mind.
This is not a slam dunk for us there is still a lot of legal wrangling that must go on and I think this document will show that.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17o8Ymz4-T3Xg_HccyKExwxGPVAXnyJmw/view
Scruffer
Sunday, 01/06/19 02:35:59 PM
Re: None
0
Post # 60213 of 60258
183B in annual rev by the 13.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142407605
And consider this:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/cbs-cant-dodge-750m-defamation-suit-jonbenet-ramseys-brother-1072118
I'm beginning to think much, much higher, but who knows. Possibly record setting.
And listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1i5coU-0_Q
Scruffer-B-Goode
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
First, you must understand that there are two complex frameworks of resolving patent disputes which co-exist (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjs2cDWtMfUAhXD1IMKHVISAEQQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6267%26context%3Dfaculty_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNHA2qv5T7IP5BHhu41-1RxqHvzCnw&sig2=EPcMfoUKCbJsQDBY2fHfdw&cad=rja):
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND
(II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
PTAB
First, we won at the PTAB:
https://archive.is/lhgDu
ARTICLE III COURTS
Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE
Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY
Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING)
Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT
From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial,
Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE
Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
The impact of the Teva Court ruling on Markman hearings is discussed in this law review article (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqzpjPq8fUAhUh4oMKHeXABJ4QFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.shu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1899%26context%3Dstudent_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNFew5ibGAhGXpmYWSsOYxJpz58gDw&sig2=yR6MLF4_zUCpgz8duodAWw)
MY OPINION
So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
MODEL PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS
August 2017?(updated October 2019)
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NDCAL_Model_Pat_Jury_Inst_8-2017_updated_10-2019.docx
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Time line
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
Thoughts on Judge Casper.
1. She is fully aware of what's been going on in the IP legal arena
2. A message was sent to her when the defense attorney said " this will cost billion's " that was not a plea for leniency but rather suggestion/ threat ....to delay send it to ptab & caft thus delay delay = ware out wddd / she'd be appealed. Judge Casper recognized this & gave them what they wanted by referring to PTAB knowing by doing so it could likely strengthen wddd,s case ( if they could do so successfully & wddd do so) Result, now the case returns to her court & wddd has a much stronger case . Activision recognized this possibility thus enter Google
3. No judge wants to be appealed by doing what she did strengthens whatever ruling is made & that's what's good about what she did. Remember TK wasn't happy about going through the gauntlet but recognized the value thus he really wasn't as upset by these delays because he believed wddd would come out on top. How's that for faith / confidence.
4. Unless there's a buy out(not likely) or a settlement Judge Casper will proceed with the trial with a personal objective ......of providing nothing that will be appellate as a result of judicial mistakes .
Will a judgement that comes out of her court be appealed? Likely, Activision will find something & we'll go through the appeals process. Again... time & delay.,
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
ong uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
First, you must understand that there are two complex frameworks of resolving patent disputes which co-exist (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjs2cDWtMfUAhXD1IMKHVISAEQQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6267%26context%3Dfaculty_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNHA2qv5T7IP5BHhu41-1RxqHvzCnw&sig2=EPcMfoUKCbJsQDBY2fHfdw&cad=rja):
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND
(II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
PTAB
First, we won at the PTAB:
https://archive.is/lhgDu
ARTICLE III COURTS
Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE
Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY
Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING)
Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT
From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial,
Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE
Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
The impact of the Teva Court ruling on Markman hearings is discussed in this law review article (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqzpjPq8fUAhUh4oMKHeXABJ4QFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.shu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1899%26context%3Dstudent_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNFew5ibGAhGXpmYWSsOYxJpz58gDw&sig2=yR6MLF4_zUCpgz8duodAWw)
MY OPINION
So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
MODEL PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS
August 2017?(updated October 2019)
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NDCAL_Model_Pat_Jury_Inst_8-2017_updated_10-2019.docx
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Time line
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
case judge asked for
December 2, 2019
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case
law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers
for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the
market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019,
Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.)
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the
propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding,
or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points,
the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle
Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla.
June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v.
Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
case judge asked for
December 2, 2019
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case
law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers
for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the
market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019,
Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.)
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the
propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding,
or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points,
the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle
Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla.
June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v.
Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=aicpa_guides
Comcast Revenue 2006-2019 | CMCSA
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CMCSA/comcast/revenue
source philhump03
============================
estami
Scruffer
Sunday, 12/08/19 04:45:53 PM
Re: justus1 post# 75266
0
Post # 75286 of 75627
Market share by provider, both U.S. & Canada
.
Main Fixed Broadband Providers – U.S. & Canada
https://blog.telegeography.com/cable-is-main-form-of-broadband-access-in-north-america
There are 64.35M cable subscribers in the U.S. w/ an average monthly charge of $60.
https://www.leichtmanresearch.com/2-4-million-added-broadband-in-2018/
https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/how-much-should-i-be-paying-for-high-speed-internet-resource
https://www.allconnect.com/blog/cost-of-high-speed-internet
There are a total of 450 Cable Internet service providers in the U.S.
https://broadbandnow.com/Cable-Providers
=========================================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers
$60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!)
12 months per year
$46,332,000,000 per year
20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties)
$926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS)
__@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S
0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement)
0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%)
0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %)
1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152680338
Scruffer
Monday, December 30, 2019 5:04:36 PM
Re: I-Glow post# 75574
Post # 75582 of 75625
===============================
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
====================
long uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
First, you must understand that there are two complex frameworks of resolving patent disputes which co-exist (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjs2cDWtMfUAhXD1IMKHVISAEQQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6267%26context%3Dfaculty_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNHA2qv5T7IP5BHhu41-1RxqHvzCnw&sig2=EPcMfoUKCbJsQDBY2fHfdw&cad=rja):
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND
(II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
PTAB
First, we won at the PTAB:
https://archive.is/lhgDu
ARTICLE III COURTS
Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE
Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY
Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING)
Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT
From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial,
Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE
Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
The impact of the Teva Court ruling on Markman hearings is discussed in this law review article (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqzpjPq8fUAhUh4oMKHeXABJ4QFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.shu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1899%26context%3Dstudent_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNFew5ibGAhGXpmYWSsOYxJpz58gDw&sig2=yR6MLF4_zUCpgz8duodAWw)
MY OPINION
So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
MODEL PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS
August 2017?(updated October 2019)
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NDCAL_Model_Pat_Jury_Inst_8-2017_updated_10-2019.docx
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1,
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers
$60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!)
12 months per year
$46,332,000,000 per year
20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties)
$926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS)
__@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S
0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement)
0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%)
0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %)
1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152680338
Scruffer
Monday, December 30, 2019 5:04:36 PM
Re: I-Glow post# 75574
Post # 75582 of 75625
======================================
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
=====================
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
case judge asked for
December 2, 2019
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case
law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers
for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the
market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019,
Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.)
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the
propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding,
or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points,
the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle
Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla.
June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v.
Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=aicpa_guides
Comcast Revenue 2006-2019 | CMCSA
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CMCSA/comcast/revenue
source philhump03
THU DEC 19, 2019 / 10:17 PM EST
U.S. makes it easier for holders of industry-standard patents to block product sales
Stephen Nellis
• ? ?
(Reuters) - United States antitrust and patent officials on Thursday said they no longer deem holders of industry-standard patents anti-competitive if they sue to stop the sale of infringing products, a far-reaching policy shift that they said supports innovation.
The new position could have seen chipmaker Qualcomm Inc, for instance, sue in an attempt to stop the sale of all models of Apple Inc's iPhones in Germany last year - rather than the limited number that were ultimately affected - without fear of being investigated by the U.S. antitrust body.
The U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and National Institute of Standards and Technology jointly released a policy statement on so-called standard essential patents to replace its policy since 2013.
Standard essential patents are often used in the technology industry when makers of different kinds of devices want them all to work together. In the case of cellular networks, for example, phones and cell towers must be compatible across makers and borders.
To arrive at a single standard, companies such as Nokia, Ericsson and InterDigital Wireless contribute patents to a certain technology such as 5G, the upcoming generation of cellular data networks.
Every company that makes a cellular device is required to adopt that technology and pay a license fee to patent holders. In exchange, the holders agree to license the patents on fair and reasonable terms.
In 2013, the Justice Department and Patent Office said it was anti-competitive for patent holders to seek injunctions to block the sale of a products for infringing standards patents. Holders could still seek monetary damages without running afoul of the policy.
The policy had real-world effects. When Qualcomm sued Apple to block the sale of iPhones during a wide-ranging legal dispute, Qualcomm did not use any of its standards patents to make its claims. As a result, Qualcomm's suits affected only a subset of models.
Officials reversed their policy on Thursday, saying seeking to block sales in standards patents cases presented no harm to competition and that standards patents should be treated no differently than other patents.
"Our patent system is what has made the American economy the innovation capital of the world, and we should not misapply the antitrust laws to diminish the incentive to innovate," Assistant Attorney General Delrahim said in a statement.
Morgan Reed, president of The App Association, in a statement said the group which represents software developers was disappointed by the move.
It "does not go far enough in protecting small businesses from abusive (standards patent) licensing behavior," Reed said.
(Reporting by Stephen Nellis in San Francisco; Editing by Christopher Cushing)
Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
MORE FROM REUTERS
SEPhttps://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/16-153_1.pdf
(D.1. 334, Ex. A~ 5). At best, Dr. Cox states a general rationale for using the "top-down" approach in the FRAND context. Dr. Cox fails to explain why that approach applies here, where the '488 patent is not subject to a FRAND obligation. Even more problematic, Dr. Cox never addresses why the specific rate associated with the ETSI standard essential patents should apply here, where the '488 patent was never accepted into the ETSI standard. (See D.I. 334, Ex. A~~ 8-10). Sprint argues that it is irrelevant that TC Tech was not actually part of a standards setting organization, because TC Tech alleges that the '488 patent is essential to the LTE standard. (D.1. 286 at 15). Sprint cites to Ericsson, Inc. v. D-LinkSystems, Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which Sprint argues "identified 'special apportionment issues' that arise any time a 'standard requires that devices utilize specific technology' such that 'compliant devices necessarily infringe certain claims in patents that cover technology incorporated into the standard." (D.1. 286 at 15 (citing D-Link, 773 F.3d at 1209, 1232)). Sprint reads D-Link out of context. The patents at issue were Ericsson's standard essential patents, as defined by the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE"), a standards setting organization.
Analogous to the situation in TCL, Ericsson had agreed to "grant a license under reasonable rates to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis 29 with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination." DLink, 773 F.3d at 1208-09. In other words, Ericsson was subject to a FRAND obligation. Therefore, D-Link is inapposite for the same reasons as TCL. A "standard essential patent," as described in TCL and D-Link, is not merely a patent that is essential to practice a standard. It is a formal designation made by a standard setting organization that subjects the patent holder to a FRAND obligation in exchange for a defined set of benefits. It is undisputed that the '488 patent is not such a "standard essential patent." Because Dr. Cox fails to explain why the ETSI rates should apply to a non-standard essential patent, his "top-down" testimony is inadmissible as insufficiently tied to the facts of this case. See Fed. R. Evid. 702.
=================================================
SEP speaks to:Teece
1. Standard setting and standards development .................................................................27 2. Standard essential patents (SEPs) and royalties...............................................................29
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/98e0/3d35857f66c34fa79f3ea0dd2b4e3b670044.pdf
David J. Teece and Greg Linden. Business Models, Value Capture, and the Digital Enterprise. Journal of Organizational Design,.
2017
https://haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/teece-david/
• Translational
• Open Access
•
dillythekid
Thursday, 11/28/19 02:55:40 PM
Re: None
0
Post # 74933 of 74950
I believe these are the cases they brought back:
Dear Judge Andrews:
Pursuant to the Court’s November 25, 2019 Oral Order requesting case authority
supporting the use of technology investments in the assessment of damages calculations in patent
cases, Defendants respectfully submit the following cases to the Court for consideration.
? Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 WL
11072175, at *1-2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2015)
? Ristvedt-Johnson, Inc. v. Brandt, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 557, 568 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
? TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-CV-04545-HSG, 2015 WL 4148354, at *4 (N.D.
Cal. July 9, 2015)
Counsel is available should the Court have any additional questions.
Respectfully,
/s/ Jennifer Ying
Jennifer Ying (#5550)
Case consolidation letter 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28095
600 N. King Street ? Suite 400 Writer’s Direct Access: P.O. Box 25130 ? Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 429-4232 Zip Code For Deliveries 19801 November 18, 2019
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
Pursuant to the Court’s November 4, 2019 Order (D.I. 449), ChanBond provides the following responses to the questions raised by the Court.
1. In Plaintiffs view, how many hours would it need for opening statement, direct and cross-examination for it to present its case if the case were consolidated as it proposes?
ChanBond provides the following time estimates for its opening statement, direct examination, cross examination, and closing statement in both a consolidated trial and the trial of any single Defendant. Presumably, Defendants will need the same or a similar amount of total time for presentation of their case. Since there are many undisputed facts in these cases, ChanBond expects that, in either a single Defendant or consolidated trial, trial time will be reduced through stipulation.
Trial Phase Individual Defendant Consolidated Opening 2 hours 2 hours Direct Exam – Fact Witnesses 4 hours 7.5 hours Direct Exam – Infringement 5 hours 6 hours Direct Exam – Damages 4 hours 6.5 hours Cross Exam – Infringement 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Validity 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Damages 1.5 hours 1.5 hours Direct Exam – Validity 2.5 hours 2.5 hours Closing 2 hours 2 hours TOTAL CHANBOND TIME 25 hours 32 hours
2. There seems to be a dispute about whether Defendants (as opposed to Cisco, Arris, and Casa) have any different views on infringement. (D.I. 445 at 5: D.I. 447 at 2). I see a lengthy (820 pages) report of Plaintiffs expert Nettles (D.I. 445-1 at 20) but I do not see the non-infringement report of Defendants’ expert Cromarty. I would like Defendants to file Cromarty’s complete report with a letter identifying the “top five” places where Defendants’ non-infringement arguments vary among Defendants.
Not applicable to ChanBond.
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28096
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 2
3. I think it would also be helpful to have Plaintiffs and Defendants’ main damages reports filed, with Defendants identifying the most significant differences among the various Defendants' positions.
ChanBond is providing herewith, via Notice of Lodging, an exemplary report (directed to Defendant Comcast) from Dr. David J. Teece, ChanBond’s main damages expert. The body of Dr. Teece’s reports is substantively identical for all Defendants. The reports differ in the Defendant- specific numbers and calculations presented in Exhibits 1-11. Should the Court so desire, ChanBond will lodge the remaining reports of Dr. Teece.
4. Are there any reasonable options other than all or nothing? For example, what about a consolidated invalidity trial? What about consolidating trials of Defendants who now have common ownership? What about consolidating infringement trials based on which of the three suppliers (Cisco, Arris, Casa) makes the equipment? What about having a first trial with either Cablevision or Time Warner Cable, who appear to use all the CMTSs at issue? (D .I. 442-1 at 2).
ChanBond maintains that complete consolidation is the most practical and appropriate way to proceed. Defendants disagree and request thirteen separate trials.
The Court has provided several criteria to consider in the determination, including a consolidated invalidity trial, consolidation based on common ownership, and consolidation based on common CMTS usage.
Regarding invalidity, and as noted in the opening brief (D.I. 442 at 3), consolidation on the common theory of invalidity is warranted. But a single, consolidated invalidity trial would still require thirteen infringement and damages trials. Regarding common ownership, consolidation based on changes in corporate ownership would only result in a reduction to nine or ten separate trials.
As an alternative to complete consolidation, ChanBond proposes partial consolidation based on the Defendants’ CMTS usage. Using this approach would reduce the number of trials to five or less. ChanBond proposes a first trial for Defendants that
Focusing on the makes logical sense for multiple reasons. First,
Second, this group includes the greatest number of Defendants (five in total). Third,
Fourth, F
as noted in the IPRs filed by Cisco and Arris in this case, both Cisco and Arris are in privity with the Defendants, and at least Arris is indemnifying Defendants. See, e.g., IPR2018-00570, Paper 21. ChanBond thus proposes that this group of five Defendants be tried first, which would be . .
The next logical group of Defendants to be tried would comprise
which are . .
These two Defendants also happen to collectively represent the next largest percentage of total damages sought by ChanBond. The third group of Defendants would be those that , ,
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 28097
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 3
which also happen to represent the next largest percentage of total damages, then those Defendants
, ,
and finally, the one Defendant (and smallest Defendant) that
These groupings are noted in the table below.
ChanBond further proposes that validity be tried only with the first group. Defendants are seeking separate trials because they, and their privies Cisco and Arris, desire to try invalidity and non-infringement as many times as possible.
Group 1
Infringement Validity Damages Group 2 Infringement
Damages Group 3 Infringement
Damages Group 4 Infringement
Damages Group 5 Infringement
Damages
5. Finally, when should I decide this? I'll have a much better picture of the case at the time of the summary judgment argument.
A Trial Scheduling Conference has been set for January 31, 2020. During the course of meeting and conferring, the parties agreed that this conference would be the most appropriate time for the Court to resolve the issues regarding consolidation and trial schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Case consolidation letter 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28095
600 N. King Street ? Suite 400 Writer’s Direct Access: P.O. Box 25130 ? Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 429-4232 Zip Code For Deliveries 19801 November 18, 2019
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
Pursuant to the Court’s November 4, 2019 Order (D.I. 449), ChanBond provides the following responses to the questions raised by the Court.
1. In Plaintiffs view, how many hours would it need for opening statement, direct and cross-examination for it to present its case if the case were consolidated as it proposes?
ChanBond provides the following time estimates for its opening statement, direct examination, cross examination, and closing statement in both a consolidated trial and the trial of any single Defendant. Presumably, Defendants will need the same or a similar amount of total time for presentation of their case. Since there are many undisputed facts in these cases, ChanBond expects that, in either a single Defendant or consolidated trial, trial time will be reduced through stipulation.
Trial Phase Individual Defendant Consolidated Opening 2 hours 2 hours Direct Exam – Fact Witnesses 4 hours 7.5 hours Direct Exam – Infringement 5 hours 6 hours Direct Exam – Damages 4 hours 6.5 hours Cross Exam – Infringement 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Validity 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Damages 1.5 hours 1.5 hours Direct Exam – Validity 2.5 hours 2.5 hours Closing 2 hours 2 hours TOTAL CHANBOND TIME 25 hours 32 hours
2. There seems to be a dispute about whether Defendants (as opposed to Cisco, Arris, and Casa) have any different views on infringement. (D.I. 445 at 5: D.I. 447 at 2). I see a lengthy (820 pages) report of Plaintiffs expert Nettles (D.I. 445-1 at 20) but I do not see the non-infringement report of Defendants’ expert Cromarty. I would like Defendants to file Cromarty’s complete report with a letter identifying the “top five” places where Defendants’ non-infringement arguments vary among Defendants.
Not applicable to ChanBond.
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28096
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 2
3. I think it would also be helpful to have Plaintiffs and Defendants’ main damages reports filed, with Defendants identifying the most significant differences among the various Defendants' positions.
ChanBond is providing herewith, via Notice of Lodging, an exemplary report (directed to Defendant Comcast) from Dr. David J. Teece, ChanBond’s main damages expert. The body of Dr. Teece’s reports is substantively identical for all Defendants. The reports differ in the Defendant- specific numbers and calculations presented in Exhibits 1-11. Should the Court so desire, ChanBond will lodge the remaining reports of Dr. Teece.
4. Are there any reasonable options other than all or nothing? For example, what about a consolidated invalidity trial? What about consolidating trials of Defendants who now have common ownership? What about consolidating infringement trials based on which of the three suppliers (Cisco, Arris, Casa) makes the equipment? What about having a first trial with either Cablevision or Time Warner Cable, who appear to use all the CMTSs at issue? (D .I. 442-1 at 2).
ChanBond maintains that complete consolidation is the most practical and appropriate way to proceed. Defendants disagree and request thirteen separate trials.
The Court has provided several criteria to consider in the determination, including a consolidated invalidity trial, consolidation based on common ownership, and consolidation based on common CMTS usage.
Regarding invalidity, and as noted in the opening brief (D.I. 442 at 3), consolidation on the common theory of invalidity is warranted. But a single, consolidated invalidity trial would still require thirteen infringement and damages trials. Regarding common ownership, consolidation based on changes in corporate ownership would only result in a reduction to nine or ten separate trials.
As an alternative to complete consolidation, ChanBond proposes partial consolidation based on the Defendants’ CMTS usage. Using this approach would reduce the number of trials to five or less. ChanBond proposes a first trial for Defendants that
Focusing on the makes logical sense for multiple reasons. First,
Second, this group includes the greatest number of Defendants (five in total). Third,
Fourth, F
as noted in the IPRs filed by Cisco and Arris in this case, both Cisco and Arris are in privity with the Defendants, and at least Arris is indemnifying Defendants. See, e.g., IPR2018-00570, Paper 21. ChanBond thus proposes that this group of five Defendants be tried first, which would be . .
The next logical group of Defendants to be tried would comprise
which are . .
These two Defendants also happen to collectively represent the next largest percentage of total damages sought by ChanBond. The third group of Defendants would be those that , ,
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 28097
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 3
which also happen to represent the next largest percentage of total damages, then those Defendants
, ,
and finally, the one Defendant (and smallest Defendant) that
These groupings are noted in the table below.
ChanBond further proposes that validity be tried only with the first group. Defendants are seeking separate trials because they, and their privies Cisco and Arris, desire to try invalidity and non-infringement as many times as possible.
Group 1
Infringement Validity Damages Group 2 Infringement
Damages Group 3 Infringement
Damages Group 4 Infringement
Damages Group 5 Infringement
Damages
5. Finally, when should I decide this? I'll have a much better picture of the case at the time of the summary judgment argument.
A Trial Scheduling Conference has been set for January 31, 2020. During the course of meeting and conferring, the parties agreed that this conference would be the most appropriate time for the Court to resolve the issues regarding consolidation and trial schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
==========================================
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
CALCULATE rev in Millions
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12rB-Y7nBsMGd5DLRg_a8fs75n9Xvev_161J-OCKv1cY/edit#gid=0
================================
Valuation Tools
https://www.tpa-global.com/business-solutions/valuation-tools
Transforming the World of Tax
The three main approaches are:
1. Cost Based Approach
The cost approach measures the values of the intangible assets by assessing the expenditures necessary to replace the assets. The cost approach is based on the economic concept ofsubstitution, that is, people will pay no more for an asset than it would cost to develop or obtain another asset with similar functionality. Cost items that should be included when valuing the assets include the legal costs, registrations costs, personnel costs, development costs, production costs and marketing and advertising costs.
2. Market Based Approach
Intangible assets are valued by comparing recent sales or similar transactions with similar assets involved in similar markets. This method is applicable when similar markets and similar transactions exist; however, more than often, comparable assets can’t be found due to the uniqueness of most intangibles which limits the application of this method.
3. Income Based Approach
The income approach measures the value of an intangible asset based on the future income streams that are expected to be generated by the asset.
Some income approach methods:
• Relief from royalty method
• Multi Period Excess Earnings method
• Incremental cash flow method?
Business Valuation Tool IP Valuation Tool Super IP-Calculator
This tool enables you to do a rudimentary?business valuation.?All major items are incorporated in this setup.?Default values are shown in 'grey'. This tool enables you to do a rudimentary?IP valuation (patents, trademarks)?using the relief from royalty method.?Default values are shown in 'grey'. This tool allows to assess?internationally used multiples?in order to get a first indication?of a company's value in a particular?industry and country.
START
START
START
The Economic Analysis Method
The economic-analysis valuation method has three approaches: cost, income, and market.
Cost Approach
This approach states that a patent's value is the replacement cost or the amount that would be necessary to replace the protection right on the invention. The replacement cost of an item refers to the amount of money that would be paid, at the present time, to replace the item. If an inventor has an item that he or she has patented, the patent's value would be the amount of money required to replace that invention. A prospective client would not be willing to pay more for a patent than the amount he or she would have to pay to obtain an equivalent protection right.
Income Approach
This method looks to future cash flows in determining valuation. It states that a patent's value is the present value of the incremental cash flows or cost savings it will help provide. When a company or individual develops a product that has the potential to be patented, the underlying hope is that the patented product will cause an increase in sales, or at least be a cost-saving measure in the company. This approach states that the patent's value is the current cash value of these future benefits.
Market Approach
This methodology involves determining what a willing buyer would pay for similar property. In other words, the patent's value is approximately equal to the value of similar patents or patented products that have been sold and purchased before.
Two things must be in place for this approach to be used for patent valuation:
• Existence of an active market for the patent, or a similar one
• Past transactions of comparable property
Look for similar values for the following items when looking for comparable patents:
• Industry characteristics
• Market share or market share potential
• Growth prospects
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental-analysis/09/valuing-patent.asp
Methodologies for Determining Reasonable Royalty Damages
The fifteen Georgia-Pacific factors are as follows. Not all may be applicable in any given case. Further, some may, in certain cases, act to lower the damages royalty rather than increase it. Thus, in any given case, some factors may increase the royalty, while others could be neutral or tend to decrease it. The net result, however, can never be below the statutory minimum, which is really reflected by the last factor.
• The royalties received by the patent owner for the licensing of the patent-in-suit, proving or tending to prove an established royalty;?
• The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent-in-suit;?
• The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or non-exclusive, or as restricted or non-restricted in terms of territory or with respect to whom the manufactured product may be sold;?
• The licensor’s established policy and marketing program to maintain its patent monopoly by not licensing others to use the invention or by granting licenses under special conditions designed to preserve that monopoly;?
• The commercial relationship between the licensor and the licensee, such as whether they are competitors in the same territory in the same line of business, or whether they are inventor and promoter;?
• The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other products of the licensee; the existing value of the invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of its non-patented items; and the extent of such derivative or convoyed sales;?
• The duration of the patent and the term of the license;?
• The established profitability of the product made under the patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity;?
• The utility and advantages of the patent property over the old modes or devices, if any, that had been used for working out similar results;?
• The nature of the patented invention; the character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor; and the benefits to those who have used the invention;?
• The extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention, and any evidence probative of the value of that use;?
• The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be customary in the particular business or in comparable businesses to allow for the use of the invention or analogous inventions;?
• The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the infringer;?
• The opinion testimony of qualified experts; and?
• The amount that a licensor (such as the patent owner) and a licensee (such as the infringer) would have agreed upon (at the time the infringement began) if both had been reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach an agreement; that is, the amount that a prudent licensee – who desired, as a business proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying the patented invention – would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be able to make a reasonable profit, and which amount would have been acceptable by a prudent patent owner who was willing to grant a license.??
https://www.fr.com/reasonableroyalty/
==========================================
The factors most often used are those enumerated in Georgia-Pacific v US Plywood Corp., 318 F.Supp 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) and include, among other things, utility and advantages of the patented invention, commercial success of the patented invention, licenses for comparable products
ARTICLE
U.S. Patent Damages
September 2018
CIPA Journal
By Timothy P. McAnulty; Jeffrey C. Totten; Nathan I. North
https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/u.s.-patent-damages.html
============================================
Patent damages in US courts: overview of current state of play
https://www.iam-media.com/patent-damages-us-courts-overview-current-state-play
=============================================
Patent Infringement Damages: Everything You Need to Know
https://www.upcounsel.com/patent-infringement-damages
=============================================
Significant 2018 Patent Decisions and a Look Ahead
Thursday, December 20, 2018
The Supreme Court has entertained a cert. petition on behalf of RPX to determine whether this frequent patent challenger has standing to appeal a PTAB decision upholding a patent. RPX Corp. v. ChanBond LLC, 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Pending S. Ct. Cert. Petition). The Supreme Court recently requested the Solicitor General to provide briefing on the matter.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/significant-2018-patent-decisions-and-look-ahead
=============================================
Compensatory Damages Issues in Patent Infringement Cases
https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2017/Compensatory_Patent_Damages_2d_ed_2017.pdf
stockfan100
Friday, 11/29/19 12:56:31 PM
Re: Scruffer post# 74943
0
Post # 74952 of 74952
Great reminder to start the holiday season with!
Beats any baseless void of fact nonsense claim against the company! smile
Even the middle value of each option is enough to make us all rich!
Quote:
Patent infringement value scenarios based on # of cable customers:
0.29/share = .002 (charge 1/5th a penny a day for 10 years)
0.73/share = .005 (charge 1/2 a penny...)
1.44/share = .01 (charge 1 penny a day...)
2.88/share = .02 (charge 2 pennies a day...)
4.32/share = .03 (charge 3 cents per day...)
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/cable-and-satellite-tv-sinks-again-as-online-streaming-soars/
https://www.leichtmanresearch.com/2-4-million-added-broadband-in-2018/
Patent infringement value scenarios based on revenues:
$200B now, but must reduce each previous year so say, average $125B for 10 years.
0.77/share = .0010 (1/10th of 1% revenues) = .001*125B*10/1,614,601,069
1.94/share = .0025 (1/4th of 1% revenues)
3.87/share = .0050 (1/2 of 1% revenues)
7.74/share = .0100 (1% of revenues)
Scruffer
Tuesday, 02/27/18 10:10:09 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 39541 of 74950
Tot Mkt Cap ~600B+, Rev, Net Inc
___MC______Rev_____NI__
__3.5B____2.2B___300.7M == Cogeco, CCA.TO (acquired Atlantic Broadband)
__4.1B____909M___117.7M == Cable One, CABO
_14.1B____9.3B___(971M) == Altice USA, ATUS [acquired Cablevision & Suddenlink (Cequel)]
100.2B___41.6B_____9.9B == Charter, Inc, CHTR (acquired Bright House Networks)
183.3B___84.5B____22.7B == Comcast, CMCSA
___xxx____1.5B_____158M == Mediacom, LLC
_74.5B___31.3B_____5.3B == Time Warner, TWX
__4.6B_____xxx______xxx == TPG Capital (acquired WaveDivision 2.3B, RCN 1.6B, Grande 650M)
__925M____1.2B_____103M == WideOpenWest, WOW
__4.9B____6.6B____93.1M == Arris, ARRS
215.3B___48.1B___(1.4B) == Cisco, CSCO
Sources: Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance Statistics, Home Page & Wikipedia
JME (Estimate).
Scruffer = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wtfhZwyrcc
Cox Communications Fact Sheet
Newsroom >
Cox Communications is a broadband communications and entertainment company, providing advanced digital video, Internet, telephone and home security and automation services over its own nationwide IP network. The largest private telecom company in the U.S., Cox serves more than 6 million residences and businesses. Cox Business is a facilities-based provider of voice, video and data solutions for commercial customers, and Cox Media is a full-service provider of national and local cable spot and new media advertising.
Cox is known for its pioneering efforts in broadband and commercial services, industry-leading customer care and its outstanding workplaces. For nine years, Cox has been recognized as the top operator for women by Women in Cable Telecommunications; Cox has ranked among DiversityInc's Top 50 Companies for Diversity 12 times. More information about Cox Communications, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, is available at www.cox.com and www.coxmedia.com.
Company Stats:
• Cox has approximately 6 million total residential and commercial customers
• Total revenues of $11 billion in 2016
• Cox operates 6 clustered cable systems in 18 states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Virginia
• Cox has approximately 20,000 employees nationwide
• Approximately 2/3 of our customers are in a bundle, approximately 1/3 of customers are triple play
• 350,000 commercial customers with more than 1.5 million business phone lines
• In the last 10 years, Cox has invested more than $15 billion in its communities through infrastructure upgrades to deliver video, phone and high-speed Internet service to homes and businesses in the company’s service area. Cox plans to invest $10 billion in the next five years.
• Cox’s in-kind and direct cash contributions totaled $70 million dollars in 2016, with a community outreach focus on youth and education initiatives.
• Cox is a leader in customer satisfaction, earning a total of 34 awards from J.D. Power and Associates, including 10 consecutive wins for residential phone and 9 awards for business services.
• Cox Communications is 55 years old, and remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, a privately-held, family-owned corporation with $20 billion in annual revenues (2016)
• Since 2012, Cox has connected more than 300,000 people to the Internet through the Connect2Compete program, most for the first time.
Here R the patents @ the USPTO
Inventors: Hennenhoefer; Earl (Harrisburg, PA), Snyder; Richard V. (Harrisburg, PA), Stine; Robert D. (Dillsburg, PA)
Assignee: CBV, Inc. (Carlisle, PA)
And then the top one (# 9,363,554) with:
Inventors: Hennenhoefer; Earl (Carlisle, PA), Snyder; Richard (Harrisburg, PA), Stine; Robert (Mechanicsburg, PA)
Applicant: Name City State Country Type
CBV, Inc. Carlisle PA US
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC (Dallas, TX)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=cbv&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=Hennenhoefer&FIELD2=&d=PTXT
cable spects
https://specification-search.cablelabs.com/?currentPage=1&sortby=false&order=false&query=H8,341,679&category=DOCSIS&subcat=DOCSIS%203.1&doctype=Specifications&content=true&archives=true
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1,
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers
$60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!)
12 months per year
$46,332,000,000 per year
20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties)
$926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS)
__@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S
0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement)
0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%)
0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %)
1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152680338
Scruffer
Monday, December 30, 2019 5:04:36 PM
Re: I-Glow post# 75574
Post # 75582 of 75625
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
court of appeals voice recording
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings
5 Patent Law Petitions to Watch at the Supreme Court
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/5-patent-law-petitions-to-watch-at-the-94926/
PROVIDERS OFFERING CABLE SERVICE
We've found 452 providers offering Cable service in the US. Below are stats on their coverage and speeds.
Philhump03 listed the following
listed the following
Provider Est. Population Covered States Max Speed
XFINITY from Comcast 111,710,288 40 987 mbps
2014 was 68.78B and 2018 was 91.51B. 1% of 2018 is $915,100,000
Charter Spectrum 102,473,344 43 940 mbps
43.634B in annual revenue/sales for 2018.... 1% of that is $43,634,000
Cox Communications 21,128,654 19 300 mbps
6 million total residential and commercial customers
Total revenues of $11 billion in 2016
Optimum by Altice 12,437,931 4 400 mbps
Mediacom Cable 7,510,920 22 1000 mbps
WOW! 7,174,627 9 50 mbps
Suddenlink Communications 6,818,884 19 1000 mbps
RCN 4,103,162 7 1000 mbps
Cable ONE 3,358,492 20 1000 mbps
Wave Broadband 1,908,564 3 1000 mbps
Atlantic Broadband 1,871,420 13 1000 mbps
Midco 1,312,111 5 1000 mbps
Grande Communications 1,226,241 1 1000 mbps
Newwave Communications 1,057,601 7 100 mbps
Armstrong 982,867 5 1000 mbps
Service Electric Broadband Cable 969,100 2 150 mbps
Blue Ridge Communications 616,308 1 1000 mbps
Vyve Broadband 606,062 10 1000 mbps
GCI Communication 556,741 1 1000 mbps
Buckeye Broadband 544,140 2 300 mbps
En-Touch Systems 535,246 1 115 mbps
Northland Communications 492,413 8 100 mbps
TDS Telecom 475,628 10 600 mbps
Service Electric Cablevision 438,870 1 350 mbps
Shentel 411,731 3 150 mbps
Windstream 406,072 49 1000 mbps
Fidelity Communications 384,027 5 1000 mbps
Cablelynx Broadband 364,058 4 50 mbps
Comporium Communications 294,033 2 400 mbps
Vast Broadband 285,321 2 200 mbps
Zito Media 271,350 16 200 mbps
MaxxSouth Broadband 259,771 2 60 mbps
Consolidated Communications 207,589 8 100 mbps
Horry Telephone Cooperative 205,403 1 300 mbps
Blue Stream 186,428 1 1000 mbps
Massillon Cable TV 169,891 1 100 mbps
Cable America Missouri 144,579 2 100 mbps
BendBroadband 143,789 1 300 mbps
Morris Broadband 133,711 1 100 mbps
Hargray Communications 132,008 2 30 mbps
Antietam Broadband 131,986 1 200 mbps
Direct Communications 126,571 4 20 mbps
Ritter Communications 124,154 3 100 mbps
Continuum 104,611 1 200 mbps
Adams Cable Service 101,045 2 50 mbps
Summit Broadband 98,010 1 1000 mbps
TruVista 95,293 2 250 mbps
Reach Broadband 93,246 1 75 mbps
Inter Mountain Cable 90,008 3 300 mbps
Reserve Telecommunications 89,631 1 300 mbps
USA Communications 87,146 3 60 mbps
NuLink Digital 85,098 1 100 mbps
CTV Beam 83,932 1 102 mbps
CAS Cable 83,926 2 1000 mbps
Giggle Fiber 79,795 1 500 mbps
ImOn Communications 75,307 1 80 mbps
ComSouth 73,728 1 50 mbps
CentraCom 72,489 2 100 mbps
ETC Communications 71,927 3 150 mbps
OneSource Communications 70,808 1 35 mbps
Eagle Communications 69,886 3 100 mbps
Orbitel Communications 68,665 1 150 mbps
Mid-Hudson Cablevision 65,153 1 200 mbps
Thames Valley Communications 63,923 1 110 mbps
Conway Corporation 60,799 1 50 mbps
Home Telecom 59,774 1 100 mbps
Arvig 58,044 1 100 mbps
All West Communications 53,422 1 100 mbps
Golden West Telecommunications 52,372 1 50 mbps
Frankfort Plant Board 51,201 1 250 mbps
D&P Communications 51,053 2 110 mbps
Full Channel 49,612 1 320 mbps
Nittany Media 49,477 1 125 mbps
Thacker-Grigsby Telephone 49,081 1 50 mbps
ATMC 46,398 1 200 mbps
Rainier Connect 44,688 1 55 mbps
CASSCOMM 44,640 1 50 mbps
Bailey Cable TV 43,875 2 12 mbps
Spanish Fork Community Network 43,188 1 120 mbps
Indco Cable 41,849 4 4.0 mbps
Emery Telcom 41,800 1 40 mbps
commZoom 41,540 1 100 mbps
AllensTV 41,347 1 50 mbps
Long Lines 41,245 3 300 mbps
FiberVision Florida 41,098 1 90 mbps
Spirit Broadband 40,356 1 10 mbps
Access Cable Television 40,221 2 100 mbps
LivCom 39,774 1 25 mbps
HBC 38,057 1 1000 mbps
Vision Communications 37,474 1 25 mbps
USA Communications (Iowa) 37,432 1 6.0 mbps
Country Cablevision 36,919 1 100 mbps
Consolidated Smart Broadband Systems 36,760 2 1000
mbps
CableSouth Media3 35,893 2 10 mbps
SELCO 35,608 1 50 mbps
GVTC Communications 34,641 1 12 mbps
Satview Broadband 34,640 1 10 mbps
BELD Broadband 33,909 1 300 mbps
Kings Bay Communications 32,113 1 1000 mbps
CPWS Broadband 32,002 1 100 mbps
1% of 43.6 billion is 436 million.How bout as we waite to pass
the time w collectively do some DD on the following and post info to this post.
Name of 13 companies & their Annual income for each to present 12-31-2018
1 Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC,
2 Bright House Networks, LLC,
3 CSC Holdings, LLC,
4 Cable One, Inc.,
5 Cablevision Systems Corporation,
6 Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC,
7 Cequel Communications, LLC,
8 Charter Communications, Inc.,
9 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC,
10 Comcast Corporation,
11 Cox Communications, Inc.,
12 Mediacom Communications Corporation,
13 RCN Telecom Services, LLC,
14 Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC,TT
15 Time Warner Cable Inc.,
16 WaveDivision Holdings, LLC,
17 WideOpen West Finance, LLC.
x years infringement for each x 13=
Future licensing for each....????? Years ( not sure how many)=
Punitive damages for each = up to 3x final amount
Looser pays legal fees and costs ( if goes to trial)
Cut & past edit pg # 1
Useing (.05%) A percentage historically 1-5% ( since the amt here may be very large I'd guess.5-1.5%)
All About News, DDs and Charts ****
#1-SISTER FORUM
$Pistol Pete$, $Mick$ & Friends Stock Picks /news, DD and charts
#2-SISTER FORUM
*** MICK, $Pistol Pete$ & FRIENDS STOCK PICKS *** M F S P''''''''
#3-SISTER FORUM
Billionaire Boys Club Member Forum (BBCMF)
#4-SISTER FORUM
**** SNAP CHAT MESSENGERS ****
#5-SISTER FORUM
$$Pistol Pete$$, $$Mick$$ Uranium Rare Earth Gold Silver Metals Exporation
https://valueinvestor.com/category/mining-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/marijuana-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/biotech-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/cryptocurrency-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/top-stories/
those just starting out or flirting with subs
No Bid
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/Profile.aspx?user=171071
$UPER $TOCKS DD and RESEARCH FORUM
Business Insider-market alerts
http://dailymarketalerts.com/
CANNABIS SECTIONS?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/breaking-news/?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/the-watchlist/?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/category/breakingnews/united-states/ ;?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/category/breakingnews/canada/
Coins
*****SHOP AVC COIN - INTERESTING ITEMS
https://shopavc.com/
https://avccoins.com/
https://avccoins.com/Watchlive.htm
Coins?*****Collectors Alliance. ?http://www.collectorsalliance.com ;?
Coins
***** https://www.rarecollectiblestv.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_half_dollar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_half_dollar
https://www.govmint.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-OWSn46r4QIVrR-tBh0kcA95EAEYASAAEgKvZPD_BwE
Coins
https://catalog.usmint.gov/
==========================================================
Coins JBCOIN
http://jbcoinsinc.com/
==========================================================
Coins?https://www.landofcoins.com/index.php?/
Coins?http://www.thecoinvault.com
[COINS---AAC ONLINE] AUCTION [IFFY]
ttps://www.aactv.com/
Coin Grading?http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/
Coin Grading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_grading#Sheldon_grading_system
America's Auction House-HERITAGE - auction
https://www.ha.com/
125+ World-Class Experts in 40 Categories
---GOLD
https://www.blanchardgold.com/
https://www.blanchardgold.com/shop/gold/certified-bullion-coins/
---SILVER
https://www.blanchardgold.com/shop/silver/certified-bullion-coins-silver/
---RARE
https://www.blanchardgold.com/shop/rare-coins/
Golden Glossary of Coin Terminology
COINS
https://www.blanchardgold.com/glossary/letter-a/
GOOD COINS---HTTPS://SHOPCSNTV.COM
GOOD COIN CHAT -SILVER EAGLE-HALF DOLLAR -GOLD COINS ---
https://shopcsntv.com/
https://shopcsntv.com/2019-silver-eagle-pair-pr70-ms70-1st-strike.html
SD Bullion Silver ---... https://sdbullion.com/silver
World Numismatic
http://worldnumismaticnews.com/
HTTP://WWW.AMERICANBULLS.COM
PRESS RELEASES
https://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/my-business-wire/
NEWS ROOM
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/business
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/medicine-and-healthcare
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/business-finance
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/beats
https://www.newswire.com/feeds
https://www.forbes.com/#1919276c2254
https://www.forbes.com/innovation/#6529acf16834
https://www.forbes.com/money/#34aa487ac19a
https://www.forbes.com/industry/#2f0aab9c4ab5
https://www.forbes.com/lists/list-directory/#459b21f7b274
https://www.forbes.com/markets/#7f3c06731fbf
https://www.forbes.com/editors-picks/#790dcf2078bf
CNN MONEY BUSINESS
https://www.cnn.com/business
https://money.cnn.com/data/markets/
https://www.cnn.com/business/tech
https://www.cnn.com/business/media
https://www.cnn.com/business/success
https://www.cnn.com/business/perspectives
https://www.cnn.com/business/videos
FOREIGN AFFAIRS;
I.P.O.'SFrance
FRANCE 24 Live – International Breaking News & Top stories - 24/7 stream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J78SdCzzumA
ttps://thefly.com/syndicate.php
https://thefly.com/landingPageNews.php?id=2807735
https://thefly.com/
https://thefly.com/news.php
https://thefly.com/events.php
https://thefly.com/news.php?insight_filter=on&h=6
COMPANY INFORMATION
http://www.wallstreetreporter.com/
https://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/ethereum-is-about-to-boom/90323
https://www.wealthdaily.com/reports
https://www.wealthdaily.com/resources
https://www.wealthdaily.com/podcasts
Home Pg. SPUTNIK NEWS
https://sputniknews.com/
http://wallstreetnation.com/
https://www.stockwatch.com/default.aspx
https://www.reuters.com/
https://seekingalpha.com/market-news
https://www.businesstimes.com.
https://www.oann.com/
Zardiw Working on more features for DDAmanda - chartist/
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=2760
DDAmanda
https://www.finra.org/
https://otce.finra.org/otce/home
http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/MarketData/EquityOptions/default.jsp
https://otce.finra.org/otce/equityShortInterest
https://otce.finra.org/otce/dailyList?viewType=Additions
https://otce.finra.org/otce/dailyList?viewType=Symbol%2FName%20Changes
https://otce.finra.org/otce/marketStatistics/historicalData
https://otce.finra.org/otce/marketStatistics/top100Issues
https://otce.finra.org/otce/marketStatistics/monthlyShareVolume
Website Is For Good Information
http://www.clippercorporatepartners.com/
https://twitter.com/GeorgeASharp
https://oilandenergyinvestor.com/
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/acrl
SHELL STOCK REINSTATEMENTS
Estrella's Sizzling Hot Stock Plays
KAT Exploration Inc. (KATX)
GOLD MINING LINKS
http://www.miningweekly.com/page/latest-news
MINING/
http://www.miningstocks.com
Jay Taylor's Gold and Technology Stocks
http://www.miningstocks.com
https://goldsilver.com/
MoneyTV with Donald Baillargeon
http://moneytv.net/
http://moneytv.net/this-weeks-show/
SMART MONEY GROUP
Pinto Beans and Money Making Stock Picks 2018
JW Value Stocks
The next BIG CUSTODIAN play---OWNERSHIP
https://investorshub.advfn.com/The-next-BIG-CUSTODIAN-play-35974/
Sunnyland Master of OTC. Specializing in L2 and charting instruction along with OTC institutional integration.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=431444
https://twitter.com/SUNNYLAND24
GOOD CHAT ON THIS LINK/
https://dcdirtylaundry.com/house-republicans-submit-bills-to-abolish-the-irs-audit-the-fed/
https://dcdirtylaundry.com/
CHARTING/
http://www.stockta.com/cgi-bin/analysis.pl?symb=ACRL&cobrand=&mode=stock
CHARTING/
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=acrl&insttype=&freq=&show=
CHARTING/
https://stockcharts.com/
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=CBIS&p=D&yr=0&mn=6&dy=0&id=p63415940898
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=WYNN
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=23771&qm_symbol=%20rshn
Chairman of the Board, President, and CEO en HUDSON CORPORATION
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=53425&qm_symbol=potn
Advisor to the Board en PotNetwork Holding Inc.
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=19542&qm_symbol=idgc
– Senior Advisor to the President en IDGlobal Corp
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=94353&qm_symbol=MCGI
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=35503&qm_symbol=LVGI
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=57937&qm_symbol=PMCB
https://twitter.com/idgreencorp / RANDY HUDSON /$IDGC
https://rumormurmursbuzz.blogspot.com/?m=1
Mr Wowza-
ILUS
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_person.aspx?membernum=171071
Ilustrato Pictures International, Inc. (ILUS)
Oil & Gas - Energy - Commodities - Resources
GREAT ARTICLES/ MANY STARTUPS
https://www.stockgumshoe.com/reviews/radical-technology-profits/whats-the-6-million-startup-behind-the-code-of-life/#
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/02/22/1380357/0/en/Clean-TeQ-Sunrise-Project-Update.html
https://www.stockgumshoe.com/reviews/radical-technology-profits/whats-the-6-million-startup-behind-the-code-of-life/#
RED CHIP
https://www.redchip.com/home
CEO INTERVIEW
http://www.wallstreetreporter.com/
FORTUNE
http://fortune.com/
x22 reports
https://x22report.com/
QUALITY INFORMATION
https://www.energyandcapital.com/reports/
https://www.energyandcapital.com/
https://stocktalktoday.com/category/news/
WIRES/
https://globenewswire.com/Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Bloomberg Global News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp8PhLsUcFE
http://www.bloomberg.com/live
FINDINGS/
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Awr9Il1on51aDj4AMV1XNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA3VoM19maW5hbmNlX3ZlcnQEZ3ByaWQDSHUyNXlERkxTTFd5cDd1T0J2WUZ2QQRuX3JzbHQDMARuX3N1Z
MARIJUANA
http://chasingmarkets.com/?
MARK IT FOLKS /////\\\\\ i'd like to see this happen. sanctuary placement for homeless as soon as possible.
**** illegals have the sanctuary placement in most states.****
why not the homeless be sponsored by the sports leagues of america.
ah special taxation on their salary to support the homeless.
heck figure how many would finally have an address to file claims
to the gov't.
the homeless have no speaker for them.
i think some lawyers could donate some time to this.
mark this message for improvement for the homeless.
SHO LIST BUYINS.NET Chart Analysis Chart Video Lessons Charts Charts Charts Clinical Trials Corporate Bankruptcy Corporate Records Search Deregistering
Document Research Earnings Email Address Verifier EYE ON THE FDA FINRA Daily Short List Floats Form 4 Filings High Short Interest Stocks Insider Buy & Sell Info
Investing Glossary Investor Words Low Float Stocks Message, Blog & Twitter Postings Multicollinearity Patterns Platform Reverse Splits SEC Form Types and Definitions
Secretary Of State Sites - All states Shell Stocks SHO Threshold List Short Stocks Stock Chart Patterns Stock Promotions Stock Promotions Stock Research
Technical Analysis Technical Indicators/Overlays Trading Halts Trading Platform Trading Stations Transfer Agent Contact Information
Information Cannabis/
Jurisdiction with legalized cannabis.
Jurisdiction with both medical and decriminalization laws.*
Jurisdiction with legal psychoactive medical cannabis.
Jurisdiction with legal non-psychoactive medical cannabis
Jurisdiction with decriminalized cannabis possession laws.
Jurisdiction with total cannabis prohibition
* Mississippi has only legal non-psychoactive medical cannabis, and Illinois has decriminalized cannabis as of July 29th, 2016
Attribution: Lokal_Profil , CC-BY-SA-2.5
[-chart]investorshub.advfn.com/Images/cannibusUS.png[/chart]
https://investorshub.advfn.com/Images/cannibusUS.png
most;
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#mpcs
most;
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#csn
most
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#csih
company's
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#csih
Hey Datzzz Me/ Casper Da Friendly Ghost
thank you lots/ i am casper and the 5th dimension [time zone]
https://media1.tenor.com/images/881e357ad319d14704762f8b4afa450e/tenor.gif?itemid=8463633
https://tenor.com/search/casper-gifs
https://tenor.com/
court 4 2 19
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A8619926c-a24e-42ed-9553-df7df6f84701
Friday, March 15, 2019 1:22:45 PM
Re: None
Post # 64456 of 64474
A few weeks/months back I posted a link to cnnmoney that forecasted a 12 month stock price of 1200.00. Most people laughed and shrugged it off without much thought. I’d like to present several thoughts why I feel the forecast while not totally accurate, does give an idea of the long term global potential of the plan zwolf spoke about recently and the relevancy to Mr. Spangenburgs current business models concerning patent monetization/analysis/reform. Many may not know that Mr. Spangenburg and Mr. Carter are close business partners and have founded and continue to run successful patent service companies. Many call them trolls but it doesn’t take much reading to see that they are far from that. They provide services and solutions to patent holders to better arm themselves against large corporations who prey on and benefit from small scale IP owners/creators. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity that we are fortunate to be in below the ground floor. All of Mr. Spangenburg and Mr. Carters companies are PRIVITELY held companies and I have no issues owning stock with these two guys running not only this show, but many, many others with outstanding success. I’m quite sure all the private noteholders across their many organizations are being paid proportionally to the amount of shares they own, and owning a personal stake in every company they finance litigation for says everything I need to hear honestly. What’s good for them is good for me and I’m grateful for this opportunity. To those who are that concerned, I would suggest you put on a pot of coffee, grab some snacks and start reading…that’s what I did back in 2017. I went back and read about 1-2 years of posts over the course or a week or so.
These links gave me a really good idea of Carter and Spangenburgs “big picture link,
ipwe.com
The key words to listen for are smart contracts.link
This link is one I’m sure we have all seen, but I like it because its proof Carter is Spangenburgs right hand man and that they personally purchase a stake in every company they finance litigation for and are motivated to get the patent creators and thereby themselves, paid.link
Also some may have missed the info on carter from post 21698 from 2014
In closing, if I think about all the money ive spent on internet service from dial-up to gigabit and to know that the technology enabling comfortable internet use has not been going into the hands of the people who helped enhance it is a pure and utter shame. I hope Mr Spangenburg succeeds in his patent reform efforts and I hope this case sets a new precedent going forward.
Billy carter
ice2014
Monday, 09/22/14 10:16:21 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 21698 of 63460
UnifiedOnline! LLC is owned by Billy Carter, the person who bought ICEWEB and took all its debt by paying about 116K. IMO, he is not dumping shares in the market but is using these shares to pay the other debt holders, e.g. Asher enterprise who dumped theirs in the market.
IMO, it seems that the stock has been taken over by MMs and has been shorted like hell, and that's why you see 1+ billion on bids at 0.0001. It is a possibility that MMs have sold more than the float. These MMs may be turned upside down if any positive news is released on/before Sept. 30th, and they have to cover their short positions.
You can check more about Billy Carter at following sites:
http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/print-edition/2014/03/21/a-troll-or-a-foe-of-trolls.html?page=all
http://www.columbusceo.com/content/stories/apexchange/2013/07/13/has-patent--will-sue-.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/how-a-typical-patent-battle-took-an-unexpected-turn.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Make a search on carter in 2nd and 3rd URL. It seems that new owner of IEWEB Mr. Carter really has deep pockets. He has probably invested in ICEWEB not to double or triple his 116K but probably to multiply his 116K by 100s of times. ICEWEB and KCNAP play in the hottest cloud space. It seems that Mr. Carter is involved in too many businesses that I can track. He is also the president of Plant Transformation Technology (PTT) with chairman Erich Spangenberg of IPNAV (check above links). He seems to be very much involved in IPNAV as well, which has sued 1600+ companies.
http://www.planttt.com/team.html
Also he is the president with chairman Erich Spangenberg at IPCM:
http://www.ipcmadvisors.com/about-ipcm/management-team/
He is an owner of UnifiedOnline! LLC
http://www.uoip.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1:about-uo-ip&Itemid=185
Again, IMO, Billy Carter probably didn't buy ICEWEB for 116K to double his money but to make it really big. This is probably the last week and we should hear news (official 10-K) from ICEWEB before Sept. 30th deadline.
Evilbean
Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:27:31 AM
Re: None Post # 62182 of 62222
If you want more understanding of where we sit, this court document is actually pretty good at explaining the issues with the appeal and the IPRs. It also discusses some of the 13s intent/strategy in what may be an argument against us in court. This is a court document filed 6/15/18. It is well worth the time to read and may help clarify issues in your mind.
This is not a slam dunk for us there is still a lot of legal wrangling that must go on and I think this document will show that.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17o8Ymz4-T3Xg_HccyKExwxGPVAXnyJmw/view
Scruffer
Sunday, 01/06/19 02:35:59 PM
Re: None
0
Post # 60213 of 60258
183B in annual rev by the 13.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142407605
And consider this:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/cbs-cant-dodge-750m-defamation-suit-jonbenet-ramseys-brother-1072118
I'm beginning to think much, much higher, but who knows. Possibly record setting.
And listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1i5coU-0_Q
Scruffer-B-Goode
PCT Europe LTD Signs Distribution Agreement With UK NHS Company, Receives Additional NYC Hospital Order
PCT LTD Discusses Its Rapid Growth and Expansion Plans with The Stock Day Podcast
https://audioboom.com/posts/7562220-pct-ltd-discusses-its-rapid-growth-and-expansion-plans-with-the-stock-day-podcast
LINK:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pct-europe-ltd-signs-distribution-200000409.html
PCTL on 2 TV BROADCAST Networks. Plus Fully current !
TOMORROW should be VERY EXTREMELY exciting !
https://www.wmbfnews.com/video/2020/04/15/little-river-company-makes-hospital-cleaning-supplies/
https://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/latest-news/article242029616.html
ACTION NEEDED Pctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do
We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been posted
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
https://www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/Request-BARDA-TechWatch-Meeting/
See how it works - https://lnkd.in/eacqr7x
My VP of nyc hospital attests to how good our machine works
https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/content/?facetSortBy=date_posted&keywords=Jonathan%20Johonnesson&origin=GLOBAL_SEARCH_HEADER
Info they’ll need:
PODCAST LINK click
Click in search....Pctl
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders.
The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought.
At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed.
Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be:
* - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities
* - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability
* - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19?
If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Select A portion of this DD ( below dotted line)& send to government site
https://www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/Request-BARDA-TechWatch-Meeting/
PR/heightened demand: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200313005307/en/
Annihilyzer™ system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZLjJdqpz9s&feature=youtu.be
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation
Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing
[color=red]
ACTION NEEDEDPctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do
We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
https://www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/Request-BARDA-TechWatch-Meeting/
Info they’ll need:
PODCAST LINK click
Click in search....Pctl
Much more DD below dotted line
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders.
The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought.
At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed.
Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be:
* - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities
* - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability
* - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19?
If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
===================================================
--GENERAL INFORMATION---
Company Site: para-con.com
Twitter: @PCTL2020
Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
Markets Served: Hospitals & Healthcare, Agriculture, Oil & Gas, Hotel & Tourism, Food Service/Production
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System
The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20
Authorized- 1,000,000,000
Outstanding- 511,315,300
Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company
440 East 400 South, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150
www.standardtransferco.com
Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital.
(3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital
(1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center
(1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center
(450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
5: Johnston UNC Healthcare Hospital Smithfield
(509 N Brightleaf Blvd , Smithfield, NC 27577)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe
(1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial)
(University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH)
(University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital
(Ranked Top 5 in the Nation)
(622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032)
---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
2. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
3. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
4. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
5. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
6. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
7. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
8. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
9. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
10. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
11. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
12. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
13. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
14. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
15. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
16. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
17. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
18. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
----Investor Call Summation, Paradigm Convergeance Technologies Corporation----
---First 10 minutes of call---
---Addressing Financial Filings---
3rd Quarter 10Q
In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys
Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks
(updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K
Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes
"very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution
No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019---
on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly
company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner
Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results
"unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets---
Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remediation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service
"Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally eliminates the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20)
8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian
[Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
[Suppressed Image]
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
UPDATED DUE DILIGENCE 3-17 - RESEARCH NOW
Below is a good portion of the DD done here, by myself and others. Do YOURS now!
(Also pinned on top of board)
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation
Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing
---GENERAL INFORMATION---
Company Site: para-con.com
Twitter: @PCTL2020 - (I urge you to follow them and review their posts)
Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
Markets Served: Hospitals & Healthcare, Agriculture, Oil & Gas, Hotel & Tourism, Food Service/Production
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System
The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20
Authorized- 1,000,000,000
Outstanding- 511,315,300
Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company
440 East 400 South, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150
www.standardtransferco.com
Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital.
(3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital
(1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center
(1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center
(450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
5: Johnston UNC Healthcare Hospital Smithfield
(509 N Brightleaf Blvd , Smithfield, NC 27577)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe
(1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial)
(University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH)
(University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital
(Ranked Top 5 in the Nation)
(622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032)
---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/18/20 - PCT LTD Receives Large Purchase Order for Recurring Sales of Fluids for Non-Medical Use and Explains Current Revenue Streams PR LINK
2. 03/16/20 - PCT LTD Interview with Stock Day Podcast (MUST LISTEN) PR LINK
3. 03/13/20 - PCT LTD Adds International Distributor and Sells High-Volume Equipment to Existing Customer as a Result of Heightened Demand PR LINK
4. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
5. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
6. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
7. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
8. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
9. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
10. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
11. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
12. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
13. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
14. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
15. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
16. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
17. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
18. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
19. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
20. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
21. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
----Investor Call Summation, Paradigm Convergeance Technologies Corporation----
---First 10 minutes of call---
---Addressing Financial Filings---
3rd Quarter 10Q
In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys
Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks
(updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K
Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes
"very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution
No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019---
on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly
company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner
Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results
"unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets---
Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remidiation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service
"Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally elimiants the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20)
8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian and other execs
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a. comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
=================
exactly what the EPA said
Quote:
List N includes products that meet EPA’s criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19.
The key word here is against The EPA does not come out and say any products on these lists will kill CV-19. However I doubt the EPA would use a strong word as against in the above statement.
Quote:
Note: Inclusion on this list does not constitute an endorsement by EPA. There may be additional disinfectants that meet the criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2. EPA will update this list with additional products as needed.
It's pretty obvious this disclaimer is stating the EPA does not endorse as in recommend any product that's listed. They do not because it would constitute marketing for that product.... The EPA also recognizes that there are other products that meet the criteria against SARS-CV-2 AKA Coronavirus. Why do they make this statement? Because there are other products that are registered with the EPA that are not on this list that meets the criteria against CV-19
Nothing hard to understand there. Here is the a pic of it below:
[Suppressed Image]
Lets move on
List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 | Pesticide ...www.epa.gov › pesticide-registration › list-n-disinfectants-use-against-...
If a product qualified for the Emerging Viral Pathogen Claim, it demonstrated efficacy against a harder-to-kill virus than the enveloped human coronavirus
From this statement we know that EXCELYTE which meets this criteria. How do we know this? We know because they are on the N list under EPA registration 92108-1. I also believe this Reg number can be used against the harder to lill Norovirus. Coronavirus is easier to kill than Norovirus. Any amount of basic DD will show that.
Below is the reg and product number for EXCELYTE
[Suppressed Image]
Finally Below is the EPA reg link for EXCELYTE showing it's registered to PCT Ltd. This link is the original registration.
https://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=PPLS:8:1272595636521::NO::P8_PUID,P8_RINUM:513158,92108-1
To wrap it all up is the link to the current N list
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2
Pretty basic stuff is you ask me lol
==============
Pics of the product - Sorry about it being sideways
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
============
PCT LTD Obtains EPA Approval for Emerging Pathogens Labeling for Use Against SARS-CoV-2, the Novel Coronavirus That Causes the Disease COVID-19
Business WireMarch 27, 2020, 9:49 AM CST
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is pleased to announce that it has received approval for "emerging pathogens" labeling with the US EPA.
The application was filed under the guidance document "Guidance to Registrants: Process for Making Claims Against Emerging Viral Pathogens Not on EPA-Registered Disinfectant Labels." It was approved on March 26th, 2020. The guidance document provides the following information regarding different classes of viruses and their resistance to being killed by disinfectants:
EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognize that certain microorganisms can be ranked with respect to their tolerance to chemical disinfectants. The Spaulding Classification model, used by CDC, tiers microorganisms in accordance with the level of resistance to being killed (inactivation) by typical disinfectant products. With this approach viruses are divided into three viral subgroups (small non-enveloped, large non-enveloped, and enveloped) based on their relative resistance to inactivation … According to this hierarchy, if an antimicrobial product can kill a small, non-enveloped virus it should be able to kill any large, non-enveloped virus or any enveloped virus. Similarly, a product that can kill a large, non-enveloped virus should be able to kill any enveloped virus.
Small, Non-Enveloped Viruses (<50 nm): These small, non-enveloped viruses can be highly resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Despite the lack of a lipid envelope, these organisms have a very resistant protein capsid…
Large, Non-Enveloped Viruses: Compared to small, non-enveloped viruses, these viruses are less resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Although they have a resistant protein capsid, their larger size (50-100nm) makes them more vulnerable than their smaller viral counterparts…
Enveloped Viruses: Enveloped viruses are the least resistant to inactivation by disinfection. The structure of these viruses includes a lipid envelope, which is easily compromised by most disinfectants. Once the lipid envelope is damaged, the integrity of the virus is compromised, thereby neutralizing its infectivity.
In addition to being "an EPA-registered, hospital/healthcare or broad-spectrum disinfectant …", in order to meet product eligibility criteria, the product "should have disinfectant efficacy claims against at least one of the following viral pathogen groupings:
a) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one large or one small non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against an enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
b) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one small, non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against a large, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
c) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least two small, non-enveloped viruses with each from a different viral family to be eligible for use against a small, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
This approach, where disinfectant products registered for use against viral pathogens in one category of the Spaulding Classification model can be presumed effective against viral pathogens in less-resistant categories, is intended to serve as a conservative approach to identifying disinfectant products likely to be effective against emerging pathogens."
As a result of meeting all of the Product Eligibility Criteria, PCT LTD can now make the following statement "only through the following communication outlets: … "1-800" consumer information services, social media sites and company websites (non-label related) … [as well as] technical literature distributed exclusively to health care facilities, physicians, nurses and public health officials":
This Product meets the criteria to make claims against certain emerging viral pathogens from the following viral category[ies]:
Enveloped Viruses
Large Non-Enveloped Viruses
Small Non-Enveloped Viruses
For an emerging viral pathogen that is a/an…
…follow the directions for use for the following organisms on the label:
Enveloped virus
Norovirus
Large, non-enveloped virus
Norovirus
Small, non-enveloped virus
Norovirus, Rhinovirus (Type 16)
Hydrolyte® has demonstrated effectiveness against viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 virus on hard, non-porous surfaces. Therefore, Hydrolyte® can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus. Hydrolyte® kills similar viruses and therefore can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
"We are very pleased to receive approval for an "emerging pathogens" claim on our product label," says CEO Gary Grieco. "It represents an important step for us as a business and in helping to control the spread of infectious disease as a whole. Additionally, we are now prequalified for future emerging pathogens of any virus classification."
Due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, PCT LTD has seen an increased number of inquiries from existing clients, sub-registrants, and distributors; in addition to new and prospective customers. The company recently announced that they had temporarily shifted their focus towards producing mass quantities of disinfecting fluids to meet growing demand.
"Fluid sales have been tremendous for us," says PCT Ltd CEO Gary Grieco. "To put it simply, we are routinely shipping fluids out at rapid pace and into the hands of trained professionals where our product can be put to good use fighting the spread of infectious disease in our communities. We are limited only by our capacity to produce the fluids, but we expect to double our production capacity by April 1st."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
About PCT LTD:
PCT LTD ("PCTL") focuses its business on acquiring, developing and providing sustainable, environmentally safe disinfecting, cleaning and tracking technologies. The company acquires and holds rights to innovative products and technologies, which are commercialized through its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation (PCT Corp). Currently trading on OTC, "PCTL" aspires to and is actively engaged in preparations for up-listing its common stock to a national securities exchange. The Company established entry into its target markets with commercially viable products in the United States and now continues to gain market share in the U.S. and U.K.
Forward-Looking Statements:
This press release contains "forward-looking statements" as defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward-looking statements."
Such statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Such statements involve risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: the impact of having met the EPA Criteria for use Against SARS-CoV-2, actual sales derived by the Company; the transition to producing large quantities of fluids; PCTL's and its subsidiary's business prospects; PCTL's ability to raise sufficient funds to satisfy its working capital requirements; the ability of PCTL to execute its business plan; any other effects resulting from the information disclosed above; risks and effects of legal and administrative proceedings and government regulation; future financial and operational results; competition; general economic conditions; and the ability to manage and continue growth. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual outcomes may vary materially from those indicated. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements PCTL makes in this press release include market conditions and those set forth in reports or documents it files from time to time with the SEC. PCTL undertakes no obligation to revise or update such statements to reflect current events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200327005363/en/
Contacts
Gary Grieco, CEO and Chairman, PCT LTD
(843) 390-7900 Office
(843) 390-2347 Fax
www.para-con.com
www.pctcorphealth.com
www.survivalyte.com
Brokers and Analysts: Chesapeake Group
+1-410-825-3930
info@chesapeakegp.com
==================================================================================================================. CANADA INFO & LINKS
BokehRebl
Tuesday, 03/31/20 10:29:25 PM
Re: Long term post# 78282
?
0
Post # 78283 of 78339
Here’s THE list I put together of all relevant contact in the US and Canadien Government, Feel free to add more!
USA Counter Measures
https://www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/Request-BARDA-TechWatch-Meeting/
Canada calling all suppliers
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/calling-all-suppliers-help-canada-combat-covid-19
Health ministers of Canada
Patty Hardy
Patty.Hajdu@parl.gc.ca
————————————————
Health minister of Quebec
Danielle McCann
ministre@msss.gouv.qc.ca
Danielle.McCann.SAGU@assnat.qc.ca
Health minister of Ontario
Christine Elliott
christine.elliott@pc.ola.org
Health minister of British Columbia
Adrian Dix
adrian.dix.MLA@leg.bc.ca
Health Minister of Alberta
Tyler Shandro
health.minister@gov.ab.ca
Jason Luan
associateminister-mha@gov.ab.ca
Health Minister of Saskatchewan
Jim Reiter
he.minister@gov.sk.ca
Health Minister of Manitoba
Cameron Frysien
dmhsal@leg.gov.mb.ca
Others for Canada
Chief Public Health Officer of Canada
Twitter @CPHO_Canada
Dr. Theresa Tam
drtheresa.tam@canada.ca
phac.info.aspc@canada.ca
general email
Health Commissioners USA
Alabama
Scott Harris, MD, MPH [Bio]
State Health Officer
scott.harris@adph.state.al.us
Alaska
Anne Zink, MD, FACEP*
Chief Medical Officer
Anne.zink@alaska.gov
Arizona
Cara M. Christ, MD, MS [Bio]
Director and State Health Official
cara.christ@azdhs.gov
Arkansas
Nathaniel H. Smith, MD, MPH [Bio]
Director and State Health Officer
nathaniel.smith@arkansas.gov
California
Sonia Angell, MD, MPH
Director, Department of Public Health
Sonia.Angell@cdph.ca.gov
Colorado
Jill Ryan, MPH [Bio]
Executive Director
Jill.Ryan@state.co.us
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
Esther L. Muña, MHA, FACHE [Bio]
CEO, Commonwealth Healthcare Corporation
esther.muna@dph.gov.mp
Connecticut
Renee Coleman-Mitchell, MPH [Bio]
Commissioner\
renee.coleman-mitchell@ct.gov
Delaware
Karyl Rattay, MD, MS [Bio]
Director, Division of Public Health
karyl.rattay@state.de.us
District of Columbia
LaQuandra S. Nesbitt, MD, MPH [Bio]
Director
laquandra.nesbitt@dc.gov
Florida
Scott Rivkees, MD
State Surgeon General
health@flhealth.gov
Covid-19@flhealth.gov
Georgia
Kathleen Toomey, MD, MPH [Bio]
Commissioner, Director of Health Protection
kathleen.toomey@dph.ga.gov
Guam
Linda Unpingco-DeNorcey, MPH [Bio]
Director, Department of Public Health and Social Services
linda.denorcey@dphss.guam.gov
Hawaii
Bruce S. Anderson, PhD [Bio]
Director of Health
Bruce.S.Anderson@doh.hawaii.gov
Idaho
Elke Shaw-Tulloch, MHS [Bio]
Public Health Administrator
elke.shawtulloch@dhw.idaho.gov
Illinois
Ngozi Ezike, MD [Bio]
Director of Public Health
Ngozi.Ezike@illinois.gov
Indiana
Kristina M. Box, MD [Bio]
State Health Commissioner
kbox@isdh.in.gov
Iowa
Gerd W. Clabaugh, MPA [Bio]
Director
gerd.clabaugh@idph.iowa.gov
Kansas
Lee Norman, MD, MHS, MBA*
Secretary
lee.norman@ks.gov
Kentucky
Angela Dearinger, MD, MPH*
Commissioner
jeffreyd.howard@ky.gov
Louisiana
Alexander Billioux, MD, DPhil [Bio]
Assistant Secretary of Health
Alexander.Billioux@LA.GOV
Maine
Nirav Shah, MD, JD*
Director, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Nirav.Shah@Maine.Gov
Maryland
Robert Neall
Secretary of Health
Frances B. Phillips, RN, MHA [Bio]
Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services
S/THO Designee
robert.neall@maryland.gov
Massachusetts
Monica Bharel, MD, MPH [Bio]
Commissioner
monica.bharel@state.ma.us
Michigan
Joneigh Khaldun, MD, MPH, FACEP [Bio]
Chief Deputy Director for Health and CME
khaldunj@michigan.gov
Minnesota
Jan Malcolm [Bio]
Health Commissioner
jan.malcolm@state.mn.us
Mississippi
Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH*
State Health Officer
thomas.dobbs@msdh.ms.gov
Missouri
Randall W. Williams, MD, FACOG [Bio]
Director
randall.williams@health.mo.gov
Montana
Sheila Hogan
Director
Gregory Holzman, MD [Bio]
Chief Medical Officer
S/THO Designee
gHolzman@mt.gov
Nebraska
Dannette Smith, MSW *
Chief Executive Officer, Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services
Gary Anthone, MD
Chief Medical Officer and Director, Division of Public Health
S/THO Designee
Dannette.Smith@nebraska.gov
Nevada
Lisa Sherych, MBA*
Administrator
lsherych@adsd.nv.gov
New Hampshire
Lisa Morris, MSSW [Bio]
Director, Division of Public Health Service
lisa.morris@dhhs.nh.gov
New Jersey
Judith Persichilli RN, BSN, MA*
Commissioner of Health
Judith.Pershichilli@doh.nj.gov
New Mexico
Kathy Kunkel, JD, MSW [Bio]
Cabinet Secretary Designee
Abinash Achrekar, MD
Deputy Secretary
S/THO Designee
kathy.kunkel@doh.state.nm.us
New York
Howard Zucker, MD, JD [Bio]
Commissioner of Health
howard.zucker@health.ny.gov
North Carolina
Mark Benton [Bio]
Assistant Secretary for Public Health
mark.benton@dhhs.nc.gov
North Dakota
Mylynn K. Tufte, MBA, MSIM, RN [Bio]
State Health Officer
mylynntufte@nd.gov
Ohio
Amy Acton, MD, MPH [Bio]
Director of Health
DirectorAmyActon@odh.ohio.gov
Oklahoma
Gary Cox, JD*
Commissioner of Health
GaryC@health.ok.gov
Oregon
Lillian M. Shirley, BSN, MPH, MPA [Bio]
Public Health Director
lillian.shirley@state.or.us
Pennsylvania
Rachel Levine, MD [Bio]
Secretary of Health
ralevine@pa.gov
Puerto Rico
Rafael Rodriguez Mercado, MD, FACS, FAANS
Secretary of Health
Catherine De La Cruz-Duran*
S/THO Designee
drrafael.rodriguez@salud.pr.gov
Rhode Island
Nicole Alexander-Scott, MD, MPH [Bio]
Director
nicole.alexanderscott@health.ri.gov
South Carolina
Richard Toomey, MHA, DHA [Bio]
Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Rick.Toomey@dhec.sc.gov
South Dakota
Kim Malsam-Rysdon [Bio]
Secretary
kim.malsam-rysdon@state.sd.us
Tennessee
Lisa Piercey MD, MBA, FAAP [Bio]
Commissioner
tn.health@tn.gov
Texas
John Hellerstedt, MD [Bio]
Commissioner
john.hellerstedt@dshs.texas.gov
Utah
Joseph Miner, MD [Bio]
Executive Director
joeminer@utah.gov
Vermont
Mark Levine, MD [Bio]
Commissioner of Health
mark.levine@vermont.gov
Virginia
M. Norman Oliver, MD, MA [Bio]
State Health Commissioner
norm.oliver@vdh.virginia.gov
Washington
John M. Wiesman, DrPH, MPH [Bio]
Secretary of Health
secretary@doh.wa.gov
West Virginia
Cathy Slemp, MD, MPH [Bio]
Commissioner and State Health Officer
catherine.slemp@wv.gov
Wisconsin
Jeanne Ayers, RN, MPH [Bio]
Administrator, Division of Public Health
Jeanne.Ayers@dhs.wisconsin.gov
Wyoming
Alexia Harrist, MD, PhD [Bio]
State Health Officer
alexia.harrist1@wyo.gov
—————————————
davidsan Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:57:18 PM
Re: None Post # 78774 of 78834
Can PCTL's fluid turn sour crude oil into sweet?
I vaguely remember this was something said in discussing why that large unnamed oil&gas company was so interested in setting up the customized trial they are doing. I remember clearly that it helped make the liquid involved in fracking much more environmentally friendly, much more green, with a more pure and less costly product, something to that effect. There was some big reason why that oil&gas company was so excited about it. If the oil&gas industry incorporates this into their standard processes, with the sheer volume of this fluid they will need every day, that will be HUGE, just that one piece of all this alone. Somewhere in there I thought I remembered that in the process it helped turn sour crude into sweet, just don't recall how specific that point was.
Anyone here remember?
This is so much more than just hospitals and spraying to kill the coronavirus. The agricultural/cannabis industry and oil&gas industry customized trials are going on as well.
And, of course, the UK trials are about to hit (The UK hospital trial already completed, and the 2 university studies are supposed to complete the end of March to first week of April, meaning anytime now). Just waiting on results and orders, both expected to be very favorable.
Long & Strong!
GLTA
========================
J
?
jayashri bhadane
Hypochlorous Acid Market Demand Would Increase Rapidly
Hypochlorous Acid Market: Excellent Microbial and Oxidizing Properties
Hypochlorous acid is a weak acid formed by dissolving chlorine in water. It possesses excellent microbial and oxidizing properties. It is used as a disinfectant agent in medical, water treatment, and food additives in food & beverages industry.
Sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite are the two types of hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite is a widely consumed hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite can be easily stored and transported. It is more effective than chlorine gas in various applications.
Read report Overview@
https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/hypochlorous-acid-market.html
Hypochlorous acid is employed in various end-user industries such as water treatment, wound management, food & beverages, oil & gas, and personal care. Demand for hypochlorous acid in the wound management segment is projected to rise significantly in the near future. Hypochlorous acid acts as an excellent disinfectant in wound healing applications. It accelerates the healing process of any wound and other infections such as eye infection, ear infection, etc. Hypochlorous acid has excellent disinfectant properties, which help destroy pathogens, bacteria, and fungi.
Request PDF Brochure@
https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=B&rep_id=68783
Key drivers of Hypochlorous Acid market
Rise in demand for oxidizing and disinfecting agents in order to provide quality water is driving the global hypochlorous acid market.
Hypochlorous acid is highly cost effective. It is non-toxic to humans and animals. Therefore, it is highly preferred in the water treatment industry.
Rise in usage of hypochlorous acid in sterilizing bacterial infection by drying out blood cells is boosting its demand in the medical industry.
Hypochlorous acid is also used as an active sanitizing agent in swimming pools and skin cleansing agent in cosmetic applications.
It is used in the manufacture of calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), which are further used in the manufacture of disinfectants, bleaches, and deodorants.
Food & Beverage Industry and Wound Management to offer attractive opportunities
Increase in usage of hypochlorous acid in the food & beverages industry is estimated to provide lucrative opportunities to manufacturers of hypochlorous acid in the near future.
Hypochlorous acid is used for cleaning food processing equipment and dish washers. It is also employed as food additive in processing poultry products and seafood products.
Hypochlorous acid is gaining momentum as a potential wound care agent in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a highly effective wound irrigation solution, which is entirely safe for human tissues. It aids in elimination of unpleasant wound odor and removes bacteria from wound surface.
Hypochlorous Acid may form Explosive Gas in Concentrated Form likely to Restrain Market
Hypochlorous acid is highly dangerous and can form explosive gas if used in concentrated form. This is anticipated to restrain the market during the forecast period.
When exposed to air, it disintegrates and causes nausea, abdomen pain, etc. If released in water bodies, hypochlorous acid may harm aquatic animals, thereby adversely affecting biodiversity. These factors are estimated to restrain the demand for hypochlorous acid during the forecast period.
Stuck in a neck-to-neck competition with other brands? Request a custom report on competition on Hypochlorous Acid Market here
Asia Pacific Expected to Hold Leading Share in the Global Hypochlorous Acid Market
In terms of region, the demand for hypochlorous acid can be split across five regions: North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa.
In terms of consumption, Asia Pacific dominated the global hypochlorous acid market in 2018. Developing economies such as China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia are the leading consumers of hypochlorous acid in Asia Pacific.
Rapid industrialization and increase in demand for sodium hypochlorite in chemical, agriculture, and pharmaceutical industries are anticipated to fuel the hypochlorous acid market during the forecast period.
Demand for hypochlorous acid in countries in Europe such as Germany, France, and the U.K. is projected to increase during the forecast period primarily due to the rise in demand for sodium and calcium hypochlorite in the food & beverages industry in the region.
The U.S. is the leading consumer of hypochlorous acid in North America. Increase in demand for hypochlorous acid in industrial applications such as cooling water treatment is propelling the market in the U.S.
Latin America and Middle East & Africa are highly dependent on hypochlorous acid import. This is likely to hamper the sales of hypochlorous acid in these regions. However, production capacity expansion by various manufacturers in Brazil, Mexico, and GCC is expected to augment the demand for hypochlorous acid in Latin America and Middle East & Africa during the forecast period.
Key Players in Hypochlorous Acid Market:
New product launches and mergers & acquisitions are the key strategies adopted by top players operating in the market. For instance, in 2018, URGO Medical, a leading player in wound care products, entered into an asset purchasing agreement with REALM Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company based in the U.S. REALM Therapeutics engages in research activities to discover new hypochlorous acid based treatments for atopic dermatitis and allergic conjunctivitis. This acquisition is expected to help URGO Medical become the leading player in advanced wound care business across the globe.
Key players operating in the global hypochlorous acid market include
Lenntech B.V.
BASF SE
Arkema S.A.
Lonza.
Inovyn Chlorvinyls Limited
Olin Corporation
Nouryon (Previously under Akzo Nobel N.V.'s coating division)
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Kuehne Company
AGC Chemicals
Surpass Chemical Company, Inc.
Westlake Chemical Corporation
Clorox Company
Tianjin Ruifuxin Chemical
Tosoh Corporation
Aditya Birla Chemicals
Aqualution Systems Ltd
Ultrapure HOCL (Pty) Ltd
Others
===================
Friday, April 3, 2020 10:10:28 AM Cherry
Re: None Post # 80097 of 80187
WHY YOU WANT TO BUY ALL THE PCTL YOU CAN
Right now, IMO, before PCT LTD (ticker PCTL) announces the UK hospital results which might potentially lead to 600+ hospital installations in the UK, before the March 2020 revenues from increased fluid sales are known, before the scientific data on treating disease/mold/fungi in the citrus & cannabis industries is announced, before results from the oil & gas industry testing, and before the delayed 2019 Q3 of which will contain outdated information from over 6 months ago-
People reading here may have read and seen, in bits and pieces, all these things below.
How anyone interprets & verifies anything, and researches further, is up to them. Nothing here is advice.
Since late 2019:
More hospitals,
More distribution,
More geographic regions,
More production capacity,
More sales of the fluid itself & increasing dramatically,
EPA approved on List N to disinfect surfaces for NCOV-19-SARS-2,
Existing clients are buying more systems or extending their contracts,
They have 2 websites:
https://www.para-con.com/
https://pctcorphealth.com/
Social media
https://twitter.com/PCTL2020
https://www.facebook.com/PreventTheSpreadOfInfections/
Videos of some types of applications:
https://youtu.be/Qo6B2pjFBzw
https://youtu.be/bZLjJdqpz9s
https://youtu.be/tMTBcFGxTRk
https://www.linkedin.com/…/alex-guttman-821b506_a-hospital-…
https://www.linkedin.com/…/alex-guttman-821b506_do-our-part…
Quotes:
read comment by Kurt Strauss, NY Presbyterian Hospital, VP Support Services
https://www.linkedin.com/…/jonathan-johonnesson-2981986_hea…
read comment by Greg Baker, Johnston UNC Healthcare, Environmental Services Associate Director
https://www.linkedin.com/p…/ugcPost-6650417189276958720-aiRk
read comment by John Pickett, Memorial Healthcare System, Director EVS
https://www.linkedin.com/…/alex-guttman-821b506_i-just-left…
read comments by Alex Guttman, Ace Janitorial (NY distributor), VP Marketing & Research
https://www.linkedin.com/…/alex-guttman-821b506_i-just-left…
read comment by person connected to UK NHS
https://twitter.com/CharlotteFox…/status/1237415226695389185
Recent news:
Mar 27
PCT LTD Obtains EPA Approval for Emerging Pathogens Labeling for Use Against SARS-CoV-2, the Novel Coronavirus That Causes the Disease COVID-19
http://www.businesswire.com/…/PCT-Obtains-EPA-Approval-Emer…
Mar 25
https://www.businesswire.com/…/PCT-Expands-Production-Capac…
Mar 18
PCT LTD Receives Large Purchase Order for Recurring Sales of Fluids for Non-Medical Use and Explains Current Revenue Streams
https://www.businesswire.com/…/PCT-Receives-Large-Purchase-…
Mar 16 interview
PCT LTD Expands Production Capacity, Accelerates Hypochlorous Acid Production, UK update
https://audioboom.com/…/7532080-pct-ltd-discusses-their-uni…
Mar 13 adds a distributed in Puerto Rico and follow on sales of high volume units
http://www.businesswire.com/…/PCT-Adds-International-Distri…
Mar 11 Adds another NYC hospital
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200311005641/en/
Feb 20 conference call
https://stme.in/tAIWdx33KX
Some of the hospitals they appear to be in:
FL: Memorial Healthcare System
read comment by John Pickett (in replies), Director EVS
"Great product and part of our enhanced disinfectant effort in our ER and public areas today."
https://www.linkedin.com/…/alex-guttman-821b506_i-just-left…
https://www.mhs.net/…/…/memorial-regional-exterior-image.jpg
NC: Johnston UNC Health Care Hospital
?509 N Brightleaf Blvd , Smithfield, NC 27577?
news 5/18/2018 http://tiny.cc/idn9ez
https://www.johnstonhealth.org/…/jh-smithfield-web-652x377.…
NY: Mount Sinai South Nassau
?1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572?
news 10/4/2019 http://tiny.cc/gen9ez
https://www.mountsinai.org/…/MSHS-Landing-SouthNassau-2col-…
NY: Presbyterian Columbia University Irving Medical Center
?622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032?
news 9/24/2019 http://tiny.cc/44feiz
https://columbiasurgery.org/s…/default/files/location_ph.jpg
NY: Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital
3959 Broadway At, W ?165 St, New York NY 10032?
news 5/6/2019 http://tiny.cc/sfn9ez
https://columbiasurgery.org/…/defa…/files/location_chony.jpg
NY: SUNY Downstate Medical Center, University Hospital of Brooklyn
?450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203?
news 10/31/2019 http://tiny.cc/onzhfz
https://www.downstate.edu/uhb/_images/uhb-canopy.jpg
NY: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
(not confirmed)
?1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065?
https://www.mskcc.org/…/1125/3x2/092716_msk-00047_ret2_3x2_…
NY: additional NY hospital
news: 03/11/2020 https://www.businesswire.com/…/PCT-Experiencing-Rapid-Incre…
NV: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center
?1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703?
news 1/10/2019 http://tiny.cc/8jn9ez
https://www.travelnursesource.com/images/hospitals/5201.jpg
UK: hospital
500 beds http://tiny.cc/u6m9ez
news 10/22/2019 http://tiny.cc/mmn9ez
sales could reach 600+ hospitals in system
https://audioboom.com/…/7532080-pct-ltd-discusses-their-uni…
Some of the distributors, sub registrants, etc:
ABC, Puerto Rico
www.abcmedicalpr.com
(https://apnews.com/Busines…/f5ac60f75c4b407fb7b69ead849905b9)
ACE Janitorial, NY
https://www.acejan.com/#infection-control
Advance Industrial Maintenance, NY
https://www.advanceindustrial.org/
https://www.linkedin.com/…/alex-guttman-821b506_do-our-part…
Bio Blasting, NJ
https://BioBlasting.com
Interior Maintenance Specialists, TX
https://imsdfw.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/…/activity-6651456530740768768-GHv9
Sanitis, TX
https://www.sanitisglobal.com/annihilyzer-room-disinfection…
V
Santa Fe Power, FL
http://www.santafepower.net/healthcare-products.html
===============
Tuesday, 04/07/20 11:13:24 AM
Re: Patience 1 post# 81708
0.005
Post # 81730 of 82300
Quote:
NEWS OUT!! 4/7/20, 9:55 AM LITTLE RIVER, S.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is excited to announce they have increased production capacity at their Little River, South Carolina facility.
Updating an earlier release (March 25th), the South Carolina facility is now capable of producing up to 10,000 gallons of fluids per day. A marked increase over earlier capabilities. The company is now better positioned to meet the growing demand for its Hypochlorous Acid-based disinfecting fluids.
“Our team has been working around the clock over the last several weeks to make this happen,” says Stuart Emmons, PCTL Executive VP of Engineering and R & D. “The South Carolina facility is now better positioned to fulfill the daily orders we have been receiving.”
Due in part to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the company has seen an exponential increase in sales and inquiries from current and prospective customers. Late last month the company shifted its short-term focus towards fluid production and sales to meet increasing demand.
“It’s supply and demand,” according to PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. “The demand is there and now so is the supply. We needed to shift our focus towards where we can have the most impact and do the most good for our customers and the communities they serve. At the same time, this presents an opportunity for us to elevate our profile, grow our business, and showcase how effective our products can be in the ongoing fight against the spread of infectious disease.”
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly.
Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems.
Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
“We are continuing our rapid growth plans,” says Grieco. “Through strategic partnerships, distribution agreements, and more, we are gaining market share, increasing revenue at a rapid pace, and growing our business both quickly and efficiently.”
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
====================
Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:22:30 PM Beer money
Re: None Post # 82319 of 82350
Yes Gary Grieco, PCTL CEO, stated, "As a result of the capabilities and benefits of our products, many companies and municipalities across a variety of industries and geographic locations are engaging in intense discussions with PCT LTD."
03/11/2020
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/PCTL/news/story?e&id=1551496
PCTL "The 800 pound gorilla, Corona-virus, that has opened up a huge opportunity for us and I can not say any more than that we have been contacted by, and are actively negotiating to address the problem with both companies and government officials and I can not say more than that."
Gary Geico, CEO
March 16th, 2020
To hear Gary Grieco’s entire interview, follow the link to the podcast here:
https://audioboom.com/posts/7532080-pct-ltd-discusses-their-unique-annihilyzer-disinfectingsystem-and-impact-of-the-coronavirus-wit
In addition, Grieco further commented, "All of our hospital customers using our infection control system and disinfectant are utilizing the systems as a front-line defense throughout their facilities, including in all public area such as restrooms, lobbies, waiting rooms, elevators, corridors, cafeterias, etc. all throughout the day and night and in the presence of patients, staff and visitors."
Gary Grieco’s entire interview link here:
https://www.para-con.com/images/docs/PCTL03-16-20.pdf
============
Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:01:52 AM
Re: None Post # 82599 of 82789
Hypochlorous Acid Okay For Easter Eggs
Hypochlorous acid is cleared by the FDA for use on meat, poultry, fish & seafood, fruits & vegetables and shell eggs as a no-rinse sanitizer.
FCN 1811 is a Food Contact Notification (FCN) from the FDA for using electrolytically generated hypochlorous acid as an antimicrobial agent in an aqueous solution in the production and preparation of whole or cut meat and poultry; processed and preformed meat and poultry; fish and seafood; fruits and vegetables; and shell eggs.
To read more about food contact notification 1811, visit the FDA website in the link below.
https://www.hypochlorousacid.com/regulation
[Suppressed Image]
==================
Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:35:37 AM
Re: None Post # 82670 of 82807
Why the NHS and Private Clinics Should Look Further than Alcohol-Based Sanitisers
The CoViD-19 pandemic has brought alcohol to the fore; whether it is the amount the British public is consuming to get through self-isolation or the level required in hand sanitiser to make it effective, the news stories are everywhere.
Many of these revolving around the shortage of traditional alcohol-based hand sanitisers and how prices are soaring. With this being the case, why then don’t the NHS and other health care facilities look elsewhere? Is there no other option?
In fact, there is another option which is rapidly emerging as the new go-to sanitiser during the CoViD-19 pandemic; Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl).
What is Hypochlorous Acid?
HOCI is generated when white blood cells attack harmful bacteria and is harmless to the human body. In December 2019 Optometry Times published an article on HOCl and they explain it much better than I can… “HOCl is a weak acid that occurs naturally in our body. Neutrophils are white blood cells that are the first to arrive on site when an invading pathogen is detected. Neutrophils will chase down and engulf the pathogen through phagocytosis. Upon contact, neutrophils release a burst of bactericidal chemicals including its most powerful oxidizing agent, HOCl. This kills the pathogen by tearing down the cell membranes and proteins”.
Optometry Times called HOCl “the perfect weapon to fight germs. It hits hard against pathogens like Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas Aeroginosa. Yet this powerful weapon is 100 percent safe for humans, chemical free, non-toxic and all-natural”.
Due to these attributes HOCl is being widely used in South Korea in their battle against CoViD-19, disinfecting everything from food to people to hospital wards and their mass transit systems. Looking at the way in which they have taken control of the spread of the virus it is clear to see that HOCl can also help the United Kingdom to gain the upper hand in this struggle.
https://www.belle.org.uk/news-1/2020/4/2/why-the-nhs-and-private-clinics-should-look-to-hypochlorous-acid-rather-than-alcohol-based-sanitisers
=============
beer$$money ?
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:04:27 PM
Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83703
Post # 83709 of 83745
Alex Guttman Author> Huge interest being developed on LinkedIN
VP marketing and Research at Ace Janitorial, Sales Mgr Escalator Cleaning company, Senior VP HAI Consultants
Randy Stiles can't mention names without permission but I can say that most of the major healthcare systems in NYC are now using our system
Randy Stiles +Executive Account Manager at Paylidify
Jon Pickett, MBA is this being used at all Memorial Healthcare Locations? The feedback on the system has been great.
Jody Read
CEO at PCT Health, PCT LTD
Glad to see that the efforts of the entire team at ACE and PCT to bring this system to market has been a success and we are looking forward to placing these systems into every hospital, surgical center, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities!
Mansour N Elchammaa
Advisor, consultent, restaurants franchises,Tourism,Real estate,stocks .EX founder pita NUTSY/O restaurants.
Good am Mr Jody.could I represent your company in Dubai.? Tnx
Fritz Oehler
Executive Director at Sprenger Health Care Systems
Looks like this product could be an answer to many infection control issues in our industry.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alex-guttman-821b506_i-just-left-mount-sinai-south-nassau-system-activity-6644264439115763712-vN4T/
=============
Evaluate ?
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:53:14 PM
Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83629
Post # 83715 of 83745
Some additional DD. The full section in that recent PCTL release includes:
Quote:
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly.
Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems.
Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
I could not find much on google in regards to Joseph Tippmann.
I did find Werks Manufacturing Inc. = http://werksmfg.com ;;... but ... website is “under construction”.
It appears to be located at 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803.
It appears the phone number might be (260) 428-2698.
Also at this address appears to be: Advanced Media Integration LLC = Video production service = Vincent P Tippmann. same phone number?
I did also find Vincent P. Tippmann at this website: https://vptag.com/
Tippmann Affiliated Group is a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Approaching a half-century in business, Tippmann Affiliated Group businesses hold 17 patents and numerous product and service awards in various industries, including Automotive, Food Service, Refrigeration, Medical Device and Transportation. As it stands today, Tippmann Affiliated Group remains a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Headquartered in Fort Wayne, IN, Tippmann Affiliated Group operates its main campus on 75 acres and 810,000 sq/ft. of manufacturing and office space. 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Phone:(260) 428-2500.
It appears that 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803 is immediately adjacent to 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Father & son? Could Vincent Tippman be the co-owner of Werks Manufacturing (together with Joseph Tippmann?
=====================
Ronin Wednesday, 04/15/20 10:42:51 AM
Re: TKane post# 86153
Post # 86171 of 86190
News hit DOW JONES and BUSINESS wire! Lots of eyes on this now!
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200415005407/en/PCT-Reports-Q3-2019-Financials-Revenue-Increases
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pct-ltd-reports-q3-2019-130800993.html
https://www.wallstreet-online.de/nachricht/12406105-pct-ltd-reports-q3-2019-financials-revenue-increases-435-operating-expenses-decrease
=======================
Evaluate Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:12:04 PM
Re: Evaluate post# 86473 Post # 86479 of 86491
https://pureandclean.us/disinfectant-sanitizer-gallon/
It appears that Pure & Clean is a distributor for PCT's HOCl, at 460 PPM, since their web page shows it is a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1.
Only available in the following states: Florida, Kansas Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas. For all other states, please order the Surface Cleaner Pro products: https://pureandclean.us/surface-cleanser-pro/ Pure&Clean Disinfectant/Sanitizer?
460 ppm HOCl. This is a New Generation Disinfectant formulated using Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl) that cleans, deodorizes, and disinfects. As a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1, the product pure&clean™ (EPA Reg. No. 92108-1-88098) is included on the list of products approved by the US
=====================
BIGBUCKS Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:09:42 PM
Re: None Post # 86478 of 86491
PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200415005407/en/PCT-Reports-Q3-2019-Financials-Revenue-Increases
===============
Re: BRITT2575 post# 86776
0.500
Post # 86946 of 86994
Quote:
ANOTHER NEWS COVERAGE TONIGHT ON PCTL VIDEO #2
https://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/latest-news/article242029616.html
At 0’37: it shows that the “Annihilyzer is “Presented By: Annihilare and Paradigm Convergence Technology Corp”
I was surprised to see this.
Question: Does Annihilare also share in the revenues/profits of selling/leasing Annihilyzers?
Perhaps related to the patent on the RFID?
=====================
Q & A
Home - HypochlorousAcid.com
https://www.hypochlorousacid.com/faq/hocl-faq
==================
governors email addresses
https://www.nga.org/governors/addresses/
===========
BRITT2575 ?
Friday, 04/17/20 12:41:50 AM
Re: None
?
0
Post # 88648 of 88658
PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER
April 17 2020 - 12:08AM
InvestorsHub NewsWire Print
PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER
Little River, SC -- April 17, 2020 -- InvestorsHub NewsWire -- PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) is pleased to announce new growth and expansion activities in the UK and NYC. PCT Europe Ltd, the UK-based partner of PCTL is pleased to announce they have signed an exclusive trading partnership/distributor agreement with an NHS (U.K. National Health Service) company.
In tandem with PCT Europe Ltd, the UK NHS company will introduce PCT technology to each NHS Hospital Trust with the intention of them rolling out PCT's unique technology and system throughout the health services 233 Trusts comprising over 600 hospitals. In addition, approximately 14,000 Care Homes in the U.K. will also be introduced to PCT's technology. A steady flow of orders is expected to commence throughout the remainder of 2020 and into 2021.
The first PCT system has now been installed in a large NHS hospital in the north of England. This system is expected to enter clinical service early in May once the final series of biological tests of the PCT hospital disinfectant solution have been completed. Results of these tests have so far demonstrated that the PCT disinfectant has met or exceeded its ability to kill the range of pathogens previously achieved during EPA tests in the United States.
"We couldn't be happier with the results thus far in our UK trials and are delighted with the progress our UK partner is making. This arrangement will introduce our system to thousands of hospitals and healthcare facilities," says PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. "At the same time, the reality of the current healthcare crisis both domestically and abroad is sobering. We're thrilled to be able to grow our business but nevertheless remain focused on our core mission which from day one has always been helping people."
The company continues to expand domestically as well. Following an earlier release dated April 14th, the company is also announcing an additional purchase order for PCT Corp.'s Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems in New York City.
The order comes from a large NYC hospital with a current bed count in excess of 2,500. Installation will be made in coordination with PCT Corp's primary healthcare distributor, ACE Janitorial Services.
"With three PO's for our infection control system this week and more on the way, we continue to make strides both in growing our business as well as our goal of helping our clients fight the spread of infectious diseases," says Grieco. "We are on pace for unprecedented and record growth in all areas of our business."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
========================
Details for EXCELYTE VET
*
EPA Contract Info
EPA Contact Information
https://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=PPLS:8:::NO::P8_PUID,P8_RINUM:513158,92108-1
==============================
PM
Re: None Post # 92362 of 92385
PCTL> UK NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world.
SELLING TO THE NHS
SUMMARY
This guide outlines the structures that exist to help companies contact and sell existing and innovative products into the NHS, a huge organisation which can appear very complex.
IN BRIEF
NHS Supply Chain
Procurement routes – national, regional and local contracts
Products for GP prescription
Estates – capital equipment
Innovation – new products
The NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world. It constitutes a major opportunity for UK medical device companies. NHS trusts can purchase products through one of five main routes:
Directly from suppliers using National Framework Contracts
From the NHS Supply Chain which provides end-to-end supply chain services incorporating procurement, logistics, e-commerce and customer and supplier support
Collaborative Procurement Hubs/Confederations (regional multi-trust purchasing)
Local contracts managed by individual trusts
Pan-government National Framework Contracts
NHS SUPPLY CHAIN
The NHS Supply Chain is a single organisation created for the benefit of NHS trusts, hospitals and other healthcare organisations. The organisation combines the former NHS Logistics Authority, significant parts of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, expertise in healthcare logistics from DHL and procurement experience from Novation.
PROCUREMENT ROUTES
National contracts Tenders: Contracts for products and services valued at over £90,319 (01 Jan 2008) must be advertised in the Supplement to the daily Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Procurement levels change, but you can confirm the current level by visiting: http://www.ojec.com.
NHS-sid: This is the official NHS supplier information database on which companies can enter their information for free:
http://www.sid4health.nhs.uk. It rationalises the management of pre-qualification data during the procurement process and can only be fully accessed by authorised NHS personnel. Suppliers looking to compete for advertised NHS contracts must still submit applications in the required format. Any supplier is free to register its services on NHS-sid.
The information published is made freely available to NHS users. Registering on this system does not imply that a supplier has any special or ‘approved’ status. Regional contracts Collaborative organisations: Most NHS trusts are now partners in ‘collaborative procurement organisations’ where, normally on a regional basis, they can share information and resources to achieve economies of scale.
Local contracts Individual trust contracts: Local contracts are often managed by a trust’s supplies department. Its approach to suppliers will vary according to the value, size and complexity of its requirements. DH has set down procurement guidelines indicating that for contracts valued below £3,000 a trust should ask for telephone quotes; for contracts valued between £3,000 and £10,000, it should request a minimum of three written quotes; for contracts valued above £10,000, a minimum of three formal written tenders should be sought. Actual interpretations of these guidelines vary from trust to trust.
PRODUCTS FOR GP PRESCRIPTION
Suppliers wishing to list their products under the Drug Tariff for prescription by GPs or nurses must seek approval from the NHS Business Service Authority (NHSBSA). These will usually be products for self-administration, possibly with a carer’s help, and will normally fall into the following categories: dressings, bandage and associated appliances, incontinence appliances, stoma appliances, and chemical reagents. If the NHSBSA grant approval, the cost, either comparatively with other similar products, or, if it is a new treatment regime, by comparison with alternatives, will be reimbursed. You can access the application form at: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk.
ESTATES – CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
DH uses two major Public and Private Partnerships (PPPs) to deliver its NHS Plan: the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The NHS ProCure 21 Framework brings the NHS and the construction industry together for new-build projects. You can find information on PPPs and associated procurement policies at: www.dh.gov.uk.
INNOVATION – NEW PRODUCTS
The procurement routes above apply to established products. If you are a supplier of innovative products, you should be aware of the organisations involved in product approval:
The UK Medicines and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) This is the government agency responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are safe.
Regulatory affairs: Medical devices can only be placed on the market in the UK/EU if they are certified safe, are of the required quality to fulfill the manufacturer’s ‘intended purpose’ and comply with the appropriate Medical Device Directive (CE marking). The MHRA audits the performance of manufacturers and notifies bodies responsible for granting CE marks. You can find more details at: www.mhra.gov.uk.
Clinical trials: The MHRA approves clinical trials/investigations and provides guidance for manufacturers. To obtain a CE mark, a manufacturer must show that the device complies with the relevant ‘Essential Requirements’ of the appropriate Medical Device Directive. In some instances, a clinical investigation will be required. The MHRA website (listed above) provides guidance on this issue.
Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI): The new SBRI is a cross-government programme for the procurement of technology development projects, including the demonstration and evaluation of new technologies. DH has run a pilot SBRI competition in Healthcare Associated Infections in conjunction with the Technology Strategy Board. The benefit to the Department and the NHS is to make new developments available faster and more effectively. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) NICE (www.nice.org.uk) is responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health. Its activities include:
Technology appraisals – Recommendations on the use of new and existing medicines and treatments within the NHS, based upon a review of clinical and economic evidence
Interventional procedure guidance – Many of the procedures that NICE investigates are new, but it also looks at more established procedures if there is uncertainty about their safety or how well they work
NHS National Innovation Centre (NIC): NIC determines the need for innovative products, particularly in the development stage, and speeds up the development and adoption of those that deliver the best results for patients. It provides a point of entry to innovators of healthcare technology via its website and through a web-based assessment process. By considering ideas and products at every stage, it can direct them to the most.
http://knowledge.nic.nhs.uk/documentDetails.aspx?docId=10
Thank you Longterm
Update 5/6/2020
Specialneeds provided his knowledge of business insurance and how insurance companies that have a chance of being on the hook financially. In the situation here, the insurance companies for the modem manufactures will encourage a settlement, to minimize their loses.
Specialneeds ~ The insurance companies for the manufacturers will force a settlement.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154793582
Remember that there is multiple years of significant insurance coverage. This will attach before their balance sheets are hit
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154263578
the mfgs are on the hook
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154260052
we have hired the high cost attorneys who told us we had a great case, spent a ton of money to be told right before trial that we had to settle. I’ve seen it over and over
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154259937
Contractual indemnifiers don’t give their counter parties a blank check to get hit with any jury award as a bill to pay. This is what I do for a living. The manufacturers will force this to settle.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154258831
Indemnification from the modem manufacturers would be at risk if they are not given control over this case. No indemnifier is going give an open checkbook to the counter party to go to court and get crushed then have to swallow the bill.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154015422
The insurance companies covering the box manufacturers are going to be running the litigation here since they will be indemnifying their customers for IP infringement. the indemnification agreements are not contingent on a jury outcome to be triggered. They never are written that way because the indemnifier will never give up control over their exposure.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=153918585
The thing that we have to keep in mind is that this case has third party risk transfer. Cisco and Arris have several years of insurance towers that will be hit. They act differently in that the insurance layers have to work in good faith toward each other or they risk bad faith judgements. This will have very serious settlement discussions in the insurance aspect of this.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=153888632
lean toward a global settlement with the 13 sometime before trial.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=153887617
the 13 are still required to act in “good faith” relative to their contractual counterparties(Cisco and others). They won’t just drive this thru trial to get a verdict that will be indemnified. They will be required to make a good faith attempt to settle this in coordination with those contractual partners
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=153723240
the issue is the valuation at this point. That discussion is going to be ongoing all the way to settlement just before trial. If there are any talks going on now they are about probing as to what Carter is willing to take. All settlement discussions start out this way
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=153465627
update 4/25/2020 DD & links & for U.K. & CANADA Consolidated
CABLE INTERNET PROVIDERS (HUGE SOURCE)
https://broadbandnow.com/Cable-Providers
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
First, you must understand that there are two complex frameworks of resolving patent disputes which co-exist (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjs2cDWtMfUAhXD1IMKHVISAEQQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6267%26context%3Dfaculty_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNHA2qv5T7IP5BHhu41-1RxqHvzCnw&sig2=EPcMfoUKCbJsQDBY2fHfdw&cad=rja):
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND
(II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
PTAB
First, we won at the PTAB:
https://archive.is/lhgDu
ARTICLE III COURTS
Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE
Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY
Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING)
Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT
From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial,
Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE
Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
The impact of the Teva Court ruling on Markman hearings is discussed in this law review article (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqzpjPq8fUAhUh4oMKHeXABJ4QFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.shu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1899%26context%3Dstudent_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNFew5ibGAhGXpmYWSsOYxJpz58gDw&sig2=yR6MLF4_zUCpgz8duodAWw)
MY OPINION
So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
MODEL PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS
August 2017?(updated October 2019)
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NDCAL_Model_Pat_Jury_Inst_8-2017_updated_10-2019.docx
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Time line
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
Thoughts on Judge Casper.
1. She is fully aware of what's been going on in the IP legal arena
2. A message was sent to her when the defense attorney said " this will cost billion's " that was not a plea for leniency but rather suggestion/ threat ....to delay send it to ptab & caft thus delay delay = ware out wddd / she'd be appealed. Judge Casper recognized this & gave them what they wanted by referring to PTAB knowing by doing so it could likely strengthen wddd,s case ( if they could do so successfully & wddd do so) Result, now the case returns to her court & wddd has a much stronger case . Activision recognized this possibility thus enter Google
3. No judge wants to be appealed by doing what she did strengthens whatever ruling is made & that's what's good about what she did. Remember TK wasn't happy about going through the gauntlet but recognized the value thus he really wasn't as upset by these delays because he believed wddd would come out on top. How's that for faith / confidence.
4. Unless there's a buy out(not likely) or a settlement Judge Casper will proceed with the trial with a personal objective ......of providing nothing that will be appellate as a result of judicial mistakes .
Will a judgement that comes out of her court be appealed? Likely, Activision will find something & we'll go through the appeals process. Again... time & delay.,
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
ong uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
First, you must understand that there are two complex frameworks of resolving patent disputes which co-exist (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjs2cDWtMfUAhXD1IMKHVISAEQQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6267%26context%3Dfaculty_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNHA2qv5T7IP5BHhu41-1RxqHvzCnw&sig2=EPcMfoUKCbJsQDBY2fHfdw&cad=rja):
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND
(II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
PTAB
First, we won at the PTAB:
https://archive.is/lhgDu
ARTICLE III COURTS
Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE
Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY
Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING)
Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT
From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial,
Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE
Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
The impact of the Teva Court ruling on Markman hearings is discussed in this law review article (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqzpjPq8fUAhUh4oMKHeXABJ4QFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.shu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1899%26context%3Dstudent_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNFew5ibGAhGXpmYWSsOYxJpz58gDw&sig2=yR6MLF4_zUCpgz8duodAWw)
MY OPINION
So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
MODEL PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS
August 2017?(updated October 2019)
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NDCAL_Model_Pat_Jury_Inst_8-2017_updated_10-2019.docx
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Time line
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
case judge asked for
December 2, 2019
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case
law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers
for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the
market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019,
Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.)
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the
propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding,
or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points,
the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle
Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla.
June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v.
Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
case judge asked for
December 2, 2019
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case
law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers
for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the
market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019,
Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.)
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the
propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding,
or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points,
the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle
Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla.
June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v.
Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=aicpa_guides
Comcast Revenue 2006-2019 | CMCSA
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CMCSA/comcast/revenue
source philhump03
============================
estami
Scruffer
Sunday, 12/08/19 04:45:53 PM
Re: justus1 post# 75266
0
Post # 75286 of 75627
Market share by provider, both U.S. & Canada
.
Main Fixed Broadband Providers – U.S. & Canada
https://blog.telegeography.com/cable-is-main-form-of-broadband-access-in-north-america
There are 64.35M cable subscribers in the U.S. w/ an average monthly charge of $60.
https://www.leichtmanresearch.com/2-4-million-added-broadband-in-2018/
https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/how-much-should-i-be-paying-for-high-speed-internet-resource
https://www.allconnect.com/blog/cost-of-high-speed-internet
There are a total of 450 Cable Internet service providers in the U.S.
https://broadbandnow.com/Cable-Providers
=========================================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers
$60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!)
12 months per year
$46,332,000,000 per year
20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties)
$926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS)
__@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S
0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement)
0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%)
0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %)
1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152680338
Scruffer
Monday, December 30, 2019 5:04:36 PM
Re: I-Glow post# 75574
Post # 75582 of 75625
===============================
Thoughts on Judge Casper.
1. She is fully aware of what's been going on in the IP legal arena
2. A message was sent to her when the defense attorney said " this will cost billion's " that was not a plea for leniency but rather suggestion/ threat ....to delay send it to ptab & caft thus delay delay = ware out wddd / she'd be appealed. Judge Casper recognized this & gave them what they wanted by referring to PTAB knowing by doing so it could likely strengthen wddd,s case ( if they could do so successfully & wddd do so) Result, now the case returns to her court & wddd has a much stronger case . Activision recognized this possibility thus enter Google
3. No judge wants to be appealed by doing what she did strengthens what ever ruling is made & that's what's good about what she did. Remember TK wasn't happy about going through the gauntlet but recognized the value thus he really wasn't as upset by these delays because he believed wddd would come out on top. How's that for faith / confidence.
4. Unless there's a buy out(not likely) or a settlement Judge Casper will proceed with the trial with a personal objective ......of providing nothing that will be appellate as a result of judicial mistakes .
Will a judgement that comes out of her court be appealed? Likely, Activision will find something & we'll go through the appeals process. Again... time & delay.,
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
long uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
First, you must understand that there are two complex frameworks of resolving patent disputes which co-exist (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjs2cDWtMfUAhXD1IMKHVISAEQQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6267%26context%3Dfaculty_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNHA2qv5T7IP5BHhu41-1RxqHvzCnw&sig2=EPcMfoUKCbJsQDBY2fHfdw&cad=rja):
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND
(II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
PTAB
First, we won at the PTAB:
https://archive.is/lhgDu
ARTICLE III COURTS
Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE
Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY
Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING)
Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT
From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial,
Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE
Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
The impact of the Teva Court ruling on Markman hearings is discussed in this law review article (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqzpjPq8fUAhUh4oMKHeXABJ4QFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.shu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1899%26context%3Dstudent_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNFew5ibGAhGXpmYWSsOYxJpz58gDw&sig2=yR6MLF4_zUCpgz8duodAWw)
MY OPINION
So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
MODEL PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS
August 2017?(updated October 2019)
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NDCAL_Model_Pat_Jury_Inst_8-2017_updated_10-2019.docx
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1,
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers
$60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!)
12 months per year
$46,332,000,000 per year
20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties)
$926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS)
__@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S
0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement)
0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%)
0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %)
1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152680338
Scruffer
Monday, December 30, 2019 5:04:36 PM
Re: I-Glow post# 75574
Post # 75582 of 75625
Thoughts on Judge Casper.
1. She is fully aware of what's been going on in the IP legal arena
2. A message was sent to her when the defense attorney said " this will cost billion's " that was not a plea for leniency but rather suggestion/ threat ....to delay send it to ptab & caft thus delay delay = ware out wddd / she'd be appealed. Judge Casper recognized this & gave them what they wanted by referring to PTAB knowing by doing so it could likely strengthen wddd,s case ( if they could do so successfully & wddd do so) Result, now the case returns to her court & wddd has a much stronger case . Activision recognized this possibility thus enter Google
3. No judge wants to be appealed by doing what she did strengthens what ever ruling is made & that's what's good about what she did. Remember TK wasn't happy about going through the gauntlet but recognized the value thus he really wasn't as upset by these delays because he believed wddd would come out on top. How's that for faith / confidence.
4. Unless there's a buy out(not likely) or a settlement Judge Casper will proceed with the trial with a personal objective ......of providing nothing that will be appellate as a result of judicial mistakes .
Will a judgement that comes out of her court be appealed? Likely, Activision will find something & we'll go through the appeals process. Again... time & delay.,
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
case judge asked for
December 2, 2019
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case
law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers
for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the
market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019,
Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.)
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the
propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding,
or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points,
the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle
Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla.
June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v.
Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=aicpa_guides
Comcast Revenue 2006-2019 | CMCSA
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CMCSA/comcast/revenue
source philhump03
THU DEC 19, 2019 / 10:17 PM EST
U.S. makes it easier for holders of industry-standard patents to block product sales
Stephen Nellis
• ? ?
(Reuters) - United States antitrust and patent officials on Thursday said they no longer deem holders of industry-standard patents anti-competitive if they sue to stop the sale of infringing products, a far-reaching policy shift that they said supports innovation.
The new position could have seen chipmaker Qualcomm Inc, for instance, sue in an attempt to stop the sale of all models of Apple Inc's iPhones in Germany last year - rather than the limited number that were ultimately affected - without fear of being investigated by the U.S. antitrust body.
The U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and National Institute of Standards and Technology jointly released a policy statement on so-called standard essential patents to replace its policy since 2013.
Standard essential patents are often used in the technology industry when makers of different kinds of devices want them all to work together. In the case of cellular networks, for example, phones and cell towers must be compatible across makers and borders.
To arrive at a single standard, companies such as Nokia, Ericsson and InterDigital Wireless contribute patents to a certain technology such as 5G, the upcoming generation of cellular data networks.
Every company that makes a cellular device is required to adopt that technology and pay a license fee to patent holders. In exchange, the holders agree to license the patents on fair and reasonable terms.
In 2013, the Justice Department and Patent Office said it was anti-competitive for patent holders to seek injunctions to block the sale of a products for infringing standards patents. Holders could still seek monetary damages without running afoul of the policy.
The policy had real-world effects. When Qualcomm sued Apple to block the sale of iPhones during a wide-ranging legal dispute, Qualcomm did not use any of its standards patents to make its claims. As a result, Qualcomm's suits affected only a subset of models.
Officials reversed their policy on Thursday, saying seeking to block sales in standards patents cases presented no harm to competition and that standards patents should be treated no differently than other patents.
"Our patent system is what has made the American economy the innovation capital of the world, and we should not misapply the antitrust laws to diminish the incentive to innovate," Assistant Attorney General Delrahim said in a statement.
Morgan Reed, president of The App Association, in a statement said the group which represents software developers was disappointed by the move.
It "does not go far enough in protecting small businesses from abusive (standards patent) licensing behavior," Reed said.
(Reporting by Stephen Nellis in San Francisco; Editing by Christopher Cushing)
Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
MORE FROM REUTERS
SEPhttps://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/16-153_1.pdf
(D.1. 334, Ex. A~ 5). At best, Dr. Cox states a general rationale for using the "top-down" approach in the FRAND context. Dr. Cox fails to explain why that approach applies here, where the '488 patent is not subject to a FRAND obligation. Even more problematic, Dr. Cox never addresses why the specific rate associated with the ETSI standard essential patents should apply here, where the '488 patent was never accepted into the ETSI standard. (See D.I. 334, Ex. A~~ 8-10). Sprint argues that it is irrelevant that TC Tech was not actually part of a standards setting organization, because TC Tech alleges that the '488 patent is essential to the LTE standard. (D.1. 286 at 15). Sprint cites to Ericsson, Inc. v. D-LinkSystems, Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which Sprint argues "identified 'special apportionment issues' that arise any time a 'standard requires that devices utilize specific technology' such that 'compliant devices necessarily infringe certain claims in patents that cover technology incorporated into the standard." (D.1. 286 at 15 (citing D-Link, 773 F.3d at 1209, 1232)). Sprint reads D-Link out of context. The patents at issue were Ericsson's standard essential patents, as defined by the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE"), a standards setting organization.
Analogous to the situation in TCL, Ericsson had agreed to "grant a license under reasonable rates to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis 29 with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination." DLink, 773 F.3d at 1208-09. In other words, Ericsson was subject to a FRAND obligation. Therefore, D-Link is inapposite for the same reasons as TCL. A "standard essential patent," as described in TCL and D-Link, is not merely a patent that is essential to practice a standard. It is a formal designation made by a standard setting organization that subjects the patent holder to a FRAND obligation in exchange for a defined set of benefits. It is undisputed that the '488 patent is not such a "standard essential patent." Because Dr. Cox fails to explain why the ETSI rates should apply to a non-standard essential patent, his "top-down" testimony is inadmissible as insufficiently tied to the facts of this case. See Fed. R. Evid. 702.
=================================================
SEP speaks to:Teece
1. Standard setting and standards development .................................................................27 2. Standard essential patents (SEPs) and royalties...............................................................29
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/98e0/3d35857f66c34fa79f3ea0dd2b4e3b670044.pdf
David J. Teece and Greg Linden. Business Models, Value Capture, and the Digital Enterprise. Journal of Organizational Design,.
2017
https://haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/teece-david/
• Translational
• Open Access
•
dillythekid
Thursday, 11/28/19 02:55:40 PM
Re: None
0
Post # 74933 of 74950
I believe these are the cases they brought back:
Dear Judge Andrews:
Pursuant to the Court’s November 25, 2019 Oral Order requesting case authority
supporting the use of technology investments in the assessment of damages calculations in patent
cases, Defendants respectfully submit the following cases to the Court for consideration.
? Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 WL
11072175, at *1-2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2015)
? Ristvedt-Johnson, Inc. v. Brandt, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 557, 568 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
? TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-CV-04545-HSG, 2015 WL 4148354, at *4 (N.D.
Cal. July 9, 2015)
Counsel is available should the Court have any additional questions.
Respectfully,
/s/ Jennifer Ying
Jennifer Ying (#5550)
Case consolidation letter 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28095
600 N. King Street ? Suite 400 Writer’s Direct Access: P.O. Box 25130 ? Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 429-4232 Zip Code For Deliveries 19801 November 18, 2019
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
Pursuant to the Court’s November 4, 2019 Order (D.I. 449), ChanBond provides the following responses to the questions raised by the Court.
1. In Plaintiffs view, how many hours would it need for opening statement, direct and cross-examination for it to present its case if the case were consolidated as it proposes?
ChanBond provides the following time estimates for its opening statement, direct examination, cross examination, and closing statement in both a consolidated trial and the trial of any single Defendant. Presumably, Defendants will need the same or a similar amount of total time for presentation of their case. Since there are many undisputed facts in these cases, ChanBond expects that, in either a single Defendant or consolidated trial, trial time will be reduced through stipulation.
Trial Phase Individual Defendant Consolidated Opening 2 hours 2 hours Direct Exam – Fact Witnesses 4 hours 7.5 hours Direct Exam – Infringement 5 hours 6 hours Direct Exam – Damages 4 hours 6.5 hours Cross Exam – Infringement 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Validity 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Damages 1.5 hours 1.5 hours Direct Exam – Validity 2.5 hours 2.5 hours Closing 2 hours 2 hours TOTAL CHANBOND TIME 25 hours 32 hours
2. There seems to be a dispute about whether Defendants (as opposed to Cisco, Arris, and Casa) have any different views on infringement. (D.I. 445 at 5: D.I. 447 at 2). I see a lengthy (820 pages) report of Plaintiffs expert Nettles (D.I. 445-1 at 20) but I do not see the non-infringement report of Defendants’ expert Cromarty. I would like Defendants to file Cromarty’s complete report with a letter identifying the “top five” places where Defendants’ non-infringement arguments vary among Defendants.
Not applicable to ChanBond.
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28096
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 2
3. I think it would also be helpful to have Plaintiffs and Defendants’ main damages reports filed, with Defendants identifying the most significant differences among the various Defendants' positions.
ChanBond is providing herewith, via Notice of Lodging, an exemplary report (directed to Defendant Comcast) from Dr. David J. Teece, ChanBond’s main damages expert. The body of Dr. Teece’s reports is substantively identical for all Defendants. The reports differ in the Defendant- specific numbers and calculations presented in Exhibits 1-11. Should the Court so desire, ChanBond will lodge the remaining reports of Dr. Teece.
4. Are there any reasonable options other than all or nothing? For example, what about a consolidated invalidity trial? What about consolidating trials of Defendants who now have common ownership? What about consolidating infringement trials based on which of the three suppliers (Cisco, Arris, Casa) makes the equipment? What about having a first trial with either Cablevision or Time Warner Cable, who appear to use all the CMTSs at issue? (D .I. 442-1 at 2).
ChanBond maintains that complete consolidation is the most practical and appropriate way to proceed. Defendants disagree and request thirteen separate trials.
The Court has provided several criteria to consider in the determination, including a consolidated invalidity trial, consolidation based on common ownership, and consolidation based on common CMTS usage.
Regarding invalidity, and as noted in the opening brief (D.I. 442 at 3), consolidation on the common theory of invalidity is warranted. But a single, consolidated invalidity trial would still require thirteen infringement and damages trials. Regarding common ownership, consolidation based on changes in corporate ownership would only result in a reduction to nine or ten separate trials.
As an alternative to complete consolidation, ChanBond proposes partial consolidation based on the Defendants’ CMTS usage. Using this approach would reduce the number of trials to five or less. ChanBond proposes a first trial for Defendants that
Focusing on the makes logical sense for multiple reasons. First,
Second, this group includes the greatest number of Defendants (five in total). Third,
Fourth, F
as noted in the IPRs filed by Cisco and Arris in this case, both Cisco and Arris are in privity with the Defendants, and at least Arris is indemnifying Defendants. See, e.g., IPR2018-00570, Paper 21. ChanBond thus proposes that this group of five Defendants be tried first, which would be . .
The next logical group of Defendants to be tried would comprise
which are . .
These two Defendants also happen to collectively represent the next largest percentage of total damages sought by ChanBond. The third group of Defendants would be those that , ,
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 28097
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 3
which also happen to represent the next largest percentage of total damages, then those Defendants
, ,
and finally, the one Defendant (and smallest Defendant) that
These groupings are noted in the table below.
ChanBond further proposes that validity be tried only with the first group. Defendants are seeking separate trials because they, and their privies Cisco and Arris, desire to try invalidity and non-infringement as many times as possible.
Group 1
Infringement Validity Damages Group 2 Infringement
Damages Group 3 Infringement
Damages Group 4 Infringement
Damages Group 5 Infringement
Damages
5. Finally, when should I decide this? I'll have a much better picture of the case at the time of the summary judgment argument.
A Trial Scheduling Conference has been set for January 31, 2020. During the course of meeting and conferring, the parties agreed that this conference would be the most appropriate time for the Court to resolve the issues regarding consolidation and trial schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Case consolidation letter 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28095
600 N. King Street ? Suite 400 Writer’s Direct Access: P.O. Box 25130 ? Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 429-4232 Zip Code For Deliveries 19801 November 18, 2019
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
Pursuant to the Court’s November 4, 2019 Order (D.I. 449), ChanBond provides the following responses to the questions raised by the Court.
1. In Plaintiffs view, how many hours would it need for opening statement, direct and cross-examination for it to present its case if the case were consolidated as it proposes?
ChanBond provides the following time estimates for its opening statement, direct examination, cross examination, and closing statement in both a consolidated trial and the trial of any single Defendant. Presumably, Defendants will need the same or a similar amount of total time for presentation of their case. Since there are many undisputed facts in these cases, ChanBond expects that, in either a single Defendant or consolidated trial, trial time will be reduced through stipulation.
Trial Phase Individual Defendant Consolidated Opening 2 hours 2 hours Direct Exam – Fact Witnesses 4 hours 7.5 hours Direct Exam – Infringement 5 hours 6 hours Direct Exam – Damages 4 hours 6.5 hours Cross Exam – Infringement 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Validity 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Damages 1.5 hours 1.5 hours Direct Exam – Validity 2.5 hours 2.5 hours Closing 2 hours 2 hours TOTAL CHANBOND TIME 25 hours 32 hours
2. There seems to be a dispute about whether Defendants (as opposed to Cisco, Arris, and Casa) have any different views on infringement. (D.I. 445 at 5: D.I. 447 at 2). I see a lengthy (820 pages) report of Plaintiffs expert Nettles (D.I. 445-1 at 20) but I do not see the non-infringement report of Defendants’ expert Cromarty. I would like Defendants to file Cromarty’s complete report with a letter identifying the “top five” places where Defendants’ non-infringement arguments vary among Defendants.
Not applicable to ChanBond.
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28096
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 2
3. I think it would also be helpful to have Plaintiffs and Defendants’ main damages reports filed, with Defendants identifying the most significant differences among the various Defendants' positions.
ChanBond is providing herewith, via Notice of Lodging, an exemplary report (directed to Defendant Comcast) from Dr. David J. Teece, ChanBond’s main damages expert. The body of Dr. Teece’s reports is substantively identical for all Defendants. The reports differ in the Defendant- specific numbers and calculations presented in Exhibits 1-11. Should the Court so desire, ChanBond will lodge the remaining reports of Dr. Teece.
4. Are there any reasonable options other than all or nothing? For example, what about a consolidated invalidity trial? What about consolidating trials of Defendants who now have common ownership? What about consolidating infringement trials based on which of the three suppliers (Cisco, Arris, Casa) makes the equipment? What about having a first trial with either Cablevision or Time Warner Cable, who appear to use all the CMTSs at issue? (D .I. 442-1 at 2).
ChanBond maintains that complete consolidation is the most practical and appropriate way to proceed. Defendants disagree and request thirteen separate trials.
The Court has provided several criteria to consider in the determination, including a consolidated invalidity trial, consolidation based on common ownership, and consolidation based on common CMTS usage.
Regarding invalidity, and as noted in the opening brief (D.I. 442 at 3), consolidation on the common theory of invalidity is warranted. But a single, consolidated invalidity trial would still require thirteen infringement and damages trials. Regarding common ownership, consolidation based on changes in corporate ownership would only result in a reduction to nine or ten separate trials.
As an alternative to complete consolidation, ChanBond proposes partial consolidation based on the Defendants’ CMTS usage. Using this approach would reduce the number of trials to five or less. ChanBond proposes a first trial for Defendants that
Focusing on the makes logical sense for multiple reasons. First,
Second, this group includes the greatest number of Defendants (five in total). Third,
Fourth, F
as noted in the IPRs filed by Cisco and Arris in this case, both Cisco and Arris are in privity with the Defendants, and at least Arris is indemnifying Defendants. See, e.g., IPR2018-00570, Paper 21. ChanBond thus proposes that this group of five Defendants be tried first, which would be . .
The next logical group of Defendants to be tried would comprise
which are . .
These two Defendants also happen to collectively represent the next largest percentage of total damages sought by ChanBond. The third group of Defendants would be those that , ,
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 28097
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 3
which also happen to represent the next largest percentage of total damages, then those Defendants
, ,
and finally, the one Defendant (and smallest Defendant) that
These groupings are noted in the table below.
ChanBond further proposes that validity be tried only with the first group. Defendants are seeking separate trials because they, and their privies Cisco and Arris, desire to try invalidity and non-infringement as many times as possible.
Group 1
Infringement Validity Damages Group 2 Infringement
Damages Group 3 Infringement
Damages Group 4 Infringement
Damages Group 5 Infringement
Damages
5. Finally, when should I decide this? I'll have a much better picture of the case at the time of the summary judgment argument.
A Trial Scheduling Conference has been set for January 31, 2020. During the course of meeting and conferring, the parties agreed that this conference would be the most appropriate time for the Court to resolve the issues regarding consolidation and trial schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
==========================================
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
CALCULATE rev in Millions
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12rB-Y7nBsMGd5DLRg_a8fs75n9Xvev_161J-OCKv1cY/edit#gid=0
Valuation Tools
https://www.tpa-global.com/business-solutions/valuation-tools
Transforming the World of Tax
The three main approaches are:
1. Cost Based Approach
The cost approach measures the values of the intangible assets by assessing the expenditures necessary to replace the assets. The cost approach is based on the economic concept ofsubstitution, that is, people will pay no more for an asset than it would cost to develop or obtain another asset with similar functionality. Cost items that should be included when valuing the assets include the legal costs, registrations costs, personnel costs, development costs, production costs and marketing and advertising costs.
2. Market Based Approach
Intangible assets are valued by comparing recent sales or similar transactions with similar assets involved in similar markets. This method is applicable when similar markets and similar transactions exist; however, more than often, comparable assets can’t be found due to the uniqueness of most intangibles which limits the application of this method.
3. Income Based Approach
The income approach measures the value of an intangible asset based on the future income streams that are expected to be generated by the asset.
Some income approach methods:
• Relief from royalty method
• Multi Period Excess Earnings method
• Incremental cash flow method?
Business Valuation Tool IP Valuation Tool Super IP-Calculator
This tool enables you to do a rudimentary?business valuation.?All major items are incorporated in this setup.?Default values are shown in 'grey'. This tool enables you to do a rudimentary?IP valuation (patents, trademarks)?using the relief from royalty method.?Default values are shown in 'grey'. This tool allows to assess?internationally used multiples?in order to get a first indication?of a company's value in a particular?industry and country.
START
START
START
The Economic Analysis Method
The economic-analysis valuation method has three approaches: cost, income, and market.
Cost Approach
This approach states that a patent's value is the replacement cost or the amount that would be necessary to replace the protection right on the invention. The replacement cost of an item refers to the amount of money that would be paid, at the present time, to replace the item. If an inventor has an item that he or she has patented, the patent's value would be the amount of money required to replace that invention. A prospective client would not be willing to pay more for a patent than the amount he or she would have to pay to obtain an equivalent protection right.
Income Approach
This method looks to future cash flows in determining valuation. It states that a patent's value is the present value of the incremental cash flows or cost savings it will help provide. When a company or individual develops a product that has the potential to be patented, the underlying hope is that the patented product will cause an increase in sales, or at least be a cost-saving measure in the company. This approach states that the patent's value is the current cash value of these future benefits.
Market Approach
This methodology involves determining what a willing buyer would pay for similar property. In other words, the patent's value is approximately equal to the value of similar patents or patented products that have been sold and purchased before.
Two things must be in place for this approach to be used for patent valuation:
• Existence of an active market for the patent, or a similar one
• Past transactions of comparable property
Look for similar values for the following items when looking for comparable patents:
• Industry characteristics
• Market share or market share potential
• Growth prospects
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental-analysis/09/valuing-patent.asp
Methodologies for Determining Reasonable Royalty Damages
The fifteen Georgia-Pacific factors are as follows. Not all may be applicable in any given case. Further, some may, in certain cases, act to lower the damages royalty rather than increase it. Thus, in any given case, some factors may increase the royalty, while others could be neutral or tend to decrease it. The net result, however, can never be below the statutory minimum, which is really reflected by the last factor.
• The royalties received by the patent owner for the licensing of the patent-in-suit, proving or tending to prove an established royalty;?
• The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent-in-suit;?
• The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or non-exclusive, or as restricted or non-restricted in terms of territory or with respect to whom the manufactured product may be sold;?
• The licensor’s established policy and marketing program to maintain its patent monopoly by not licensing others to use the invention or by granting licenses under special conditions designed to preserve that monopoly;?
• The commercial relationship between the licensor and the licensee, such as whether they are competitors in the same territory in the same line of business, or whether they are inventor and promoter;?
• The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other products of the licensee; the existing value of the invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of its non-patented items; and the extent of such derivative or convoyed sales;?
• The duration of the patent and the term of the license;?
• The established profitability of the product made under the patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity;?
• The utility and advantages of the patent property over the old modes or devices, if any, that had been used for working out similar results;?
• The nature of the patented invention; the character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor; and the benefits to those who have used the invention;?
• The extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention, and any evidence probative of the value of that use;?
• The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be customary in the particular business or in comparable businesses to allow for the use of the invention or analogous inventions;?
• The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the infringer;?
• The opinion testimony of qualified experts; and?
• The amount that a licensor (such as the patent owner) and a licensee (such as the infringer) would have agreed upon (at the time the infringement began) if both had been reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach an agreement; that is, the amount that a prudent licensee – who desired, as a business proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying the patented invention – would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be able to make a reasonable profit, and which amount would have been acceptable by a prudent patent owner who was willing to grant a license.??
https://www.fr.com/reasonableroyalty/
==========================================
The factors most often used are those enumerated in Georgia-Pacific v US Plywood Corp., 318 F.Supp 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) and include, among other things, utility and advantages of the patented invention, commercial success of the patented invention, licenses for comparable products
ARTICLE
U.S. Patent Damages
September 2018
CIPA Journal
By Timothy P. McAnulty; Jeffrey C. Totten; Nathan I. North
https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/u.s.-patent-damages.html
============================================
Patent damages in US courts: overview of current state of play
https://www.iam-media.com/patent-damages-us-courts-overview-current-state-play
=============================================
Patent Infringement Damages: Everything You Need to Know
https://www.upcounsel.com/patent-infringement-damages
=============================================
Significant 2018 Patent Decisions and a Look Ahead
Thursday, December 20, 2018
The Supreme Court has entertained a cert. petition on behalf of RPX to determine whether this frequent patent challenger has standing to appeal a PTAB decision upholding a patent. RPX Corp. v. ChanBond LLC, 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Pending S. Ct. Cert. Petition). The Supreme Court recently requested the Solicitor General to provide briefing on the matter.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/significant-2018-patent-decisions-and-look-ahead
=============================================
Compensatory Damages Issues in Patent Infringement Cases
https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2017/Compensatory_Patent_Damages_2d_ed_2017.pdf
stockfan100
Friday, 11/29/19 12:56:31 PM
Re: Scruffer post# 74943
0
Post # 74952 of 74952
Great reminder to start the holiday season with!
Beats any baseless void of fact nonsense claim against the company! smile
Even the middle value of each option is enough to make us all rich!
Quote:
Patent infringement value scenarios based on # of cable customers:
0.29/share = .002 (charge 1/5th a penny a day for 10 years)
0.73/share = .005 (charge 1/2 a penny...)
1.44/share = .01 (charge 1 penny a day...)
2.88/share = .02 (charge 2 pennies a day...)
4.32/share = .03 (charge 3 cents per day...)
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/cable-and-satellite-tv-sinks-again-as-online-streaming-soars/
https://www.leichtmanresearch.com/2-4-million-added-broadband-in-2018/
Patent infringement value scenarios based on revenues:
$200B now, but must reduce each previous year so say, average $125B for 10 years.
0.77/share = .0010 (1/10th of 1% revenues) = .001*125B*10/1,614,601,069
1.94/share = .0025 (1/4th of 1% revenues)
3.87/share = .0050 (1/2 of 1% revenues)
7.74/share = .0100 (1% of revenues)
Scruffer
Tuesday, 02/27/18 10:10:09 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 39541 of 74950
Tot Mkt Cap ~600B+, Rev, Net Inc
___MC______Rev_____NI__
__3.5B____2.2B___300.7M == Cogeco, CCA.TO (acquired Atlantic Broadband)
__4.1B____909M___117.7M == Cable One, CABO
_14.1B____9.3B___(971M) == Altice USA, ATUS [acquired Cablevision & Suddenlink (Cequel)]
100.2B___41.6B_____9.9B == Charter, Inc, CHTR (acquired Bright House Networks)
183.3B___84.5B____22.7B == Comcast, CMCSA
___xxx____1.5B_____158M == Mediacom, LLC
_74.5B___31.3B_____5.3B == Time Warner, TWX
__4.6B_____xxx______xxx == TPG Capital (acquired WaveDivision 2.3B, RCN 1.6B, Grande 650M)
__925M____1.2B_____103M == WideOpenWest, WOW
__4.9B____6.6B____93.1M == Arris, ARRS
215.3B___48.1B___(1.4B) == Cisco, CSCO
Sources: Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance Statistics, Home Page & Wikipedia
JME (Estimate).
Scruffer = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wtfhZwyrcc
Cox Communications Fact Sheet
Newsroom >
Cox Communications is a broadband communications and entertainment company, providing advanced digital video, Internet, telephone and home security and automation services over its own nationwide IP network. The largest private telecom company in the U.S., Cox serves more than 6 million residences and businesses. Cox Business is a facilities-based provider of voice, video and data solutions for commercial customers, and Cox Media is a full-service provider of national and local cable spot and new media advertising.
Cox is known for its pioneering efforts in broadband and commercial services, industry-leading customer care and its outstanding workplaces. For nine years, Cox has been recognized as the top operator for women by Women in Cable Telecommunications; Cox has ranked among DiversityInc's Top 50 Companies for Diversity 12 times. More information about Cox Communications, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, is available at www.cox.com and www.coxmedia.com.
Company Stats:
• Cox has approximately 6 million total residential and commercial customers
• Total revenues of $11 billion in 2016
• Cox operates 6 clustered cable systems in 18 states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Virginia
• Cox has approximately 20,000 employees nationwide
• Approximately 2/3 of our customers are in a bundle, approximately 1/3 of customers are triple play
• 350,000 commercial customers with more than 1.5 million business phone lines
• In the last 10 years, Cox has invested more than $15 billion in its communities through infrastructure upgrades to deliver video, phone and high-speed Internet service to homes and businesses in the company’s service area. Cox plans to invest $10 billion in the next five years.
• Cox’s in-kind and direct cash contributions totaled $70 million dollars in 2016, with a community outreach focus on youth and education initiatives.
• Cox is a leader in customer satisfaction, earning a total of 34 awards from J.D. Power and Associates, including 10 consecutive wins for residential phone and 9 awards for business services.
• Cox Communications is 55 years old, and remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, a privately-held, family-owned corporation with $20 billion in annual revenues (2016)
• Since 2012, Cox has connected more than 300,000 people to the Internet through the Connect2Compete program, most for the first time.
Here R the patents @ the USPTO
Inventors: Hennenhoefer; Earl (Harrisburg, PA), Snyder; Richard V. (Harrisburg, PA), Stine; Robert D. (Dillsburg, PA)
Assignee: CBV, Inc. (Carlisle, PA)
And then the top one (# 9,363,554) with:
Inventors: Hennenhoefer; Earl (Carlisle, PA), Snyder; Richard (Harrisburg, PA), Stine; Robert (Mechanicsburg, PA)
Applicant: Name City State Country Type
CBV, Inc. Carlisle PA US
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC (Dallas, TX)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=cbv&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=Hennenhoefer&FIELD2=&d=PTXT
cable spects
https://specification-search.cablelabs.com/?currentPage=1&sortby=false&order=false&query=H8,341,679&category=DOCSIS&subcat=DOCSIS%203.1&doctype=Specifications&content=true&archives=true
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1,
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers
$60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!)
12 months per year
$46,332,000,000 per year
20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties)
$926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS)
__@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S
0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement)
0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%)
0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %)
1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152680338
Scruffer
Monday, December 30, 2019 5:04:36 PM
Re: I-Glow post# 75574
Post # 75582 of 75625
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
court of appeals voice recording
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings
5 Patent Law Petitions to Watch at the Supreme Court
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/5-patent-law-petitions-to-watch-at-the-94926/
PROVIDERS OFFERING CABLE SERVICE
We've found 452 providers offering Cable service in the US. Below are stats on their coverage and speeds.
Philhump03 listed the following
listed the following
Provider Est. Population Covered States Max Speed
XFINITY from Comcast 111,710,288 40 987 mbps
2014 was 68.78B and 2018 was 91.51B. 1% of 2018 is $915,100,000
Charter Spectrum 102,473,344 43 940 mbps
43.634B in annual revenue/sales for 2018.... 1% of that is $43,634,000
Cox Communications 21,128,654 19 300 mbps
6 million total residential and commercial customers
Total revenues of $11 billion in 2016
Optimum by Altice 12,437,931 4 400 mbps
Mediacom Cable 7,510,920 22 1000 mbps
WOW! 7,174,627 9 50 mbps
Suddenlink Communications 6,818,884 19 1000 mbps
RCN 4,103,162 7 1000 mbps
Cable ONE 3,358,492 20 1000 mbps
Wave Broadband 1,908,564 3 1000 mbps
Atlantic Broadband 1,871,420 13 1000 mbps
Midco 1,312,111 5 1000 mbps
Grande Communications 1,226,241 1 1000 mbps
Newwave Communications 1,057,601 7 100 mbps
Armstrong 982,867 5 1000 mbps
Service Electric Broadband Cable 969,100 2 150 mbps
Blue Ridge Communications 616,308 1 1000 mbps
Vyve Broadband 606,062 10 1000 mbps
GCI Communication 556,741 1 1000 mbps
Buckeye Broadband 544,140 2 300 mbps
En-Touch Systems 535,246 1 115 mbps
Northland Communications 492,413 8 100 mbps
TDS Telecom 475,628 10 600 mbps
Service Electric Cablevision 438,870 1 350 mbps
Shentel 411,731 3 150 mbps
Windstream 406,072 49 1000 mbps
Fidelity Communications 384,027 5 1000 mbps
Cablelynx Broadband 364,058 4 50 mbps
Comporium Communications 294,033 2 400 mbps
Vast Broadband 285,321 2 200 mbps
Zito Media 271,350 16 200 mbps
MaxxSouth Broadband 259,771 2 60 mbps
Consolidated Communications 207,589 8 100 mbps
Horry Telephone Cooperative 205,403 1 300 mbps
Blue Stream 186,428 1 1000 mbps
Massillon Cable TV 169,891 1 100 mbps
Cable America Missouri 144,579 2 100 mbps
BendBroadband 143,789 1 300 mbps
Morris Broadband 133,711 1 100 mbps
Hargray Communications 132,008 2 30 mbps
Antietam Broadband 131,986 1 200 mbps
Direct Communications 126,571 4 20 mbps
Ritter Communications 124,154 3 100 mbps
Continuum 104,611 1 200 mbps
Adams Cable Service 101,045 2 50 mbps
Summit Broadband 98,010 1 1000 mbps
TruVista 95,293 2 250 mbps
Reach Broadband 93,246 1 75 mbps
Inter Mountain Cable 90,008 3 300 mbps
Reserve Telecommunications 89,631 1 300 mbps
USA Communications 87,146 3 60 mbps
NuLink Digital 85,098 1 100 mbps
CTV Beam 83,932 1 102 mbps
CAS Cable 83,926 2 1000 mbps
Giggle Fiber 79,795 1 500 mbps
ImOn Communications 75,307 1 80 mbps
ComSouth 73,728 1 50 mbps
CentraCom 72,489 2 100 mbps
ETC Communications 71,927 3 150 mbps
OneSource Communications 70,808 1 35 mbps
Eagle Communications 69,886 3 100 mbps
Orbitel Communications 68,665 1 150 mbps
Mid-Hudson Cablevision 65,153 1 200 mbps
Thames Valley Communications 63,923 1 110 mbps
Conway Corporation 60,799 1 50 mbps
Home Telecom 59,774 1 100 mbps
Arvig 58,044 1 100 mbps
All West Communications 53,422 1 100 mbps
Golden West Telecommunications 52,372 1 50 mbps
Frankfort Plant Board 51,201 1 250 mbps
D&P Communications 51,053 2 110 mbps
Full Channel 49,612 1 320 mbps
Nittany Media 49,477 1 125 mbps
Thacker-Grigsby Telephone 49,081 1 50 mbps
ATMC 46,398 1 200 mbps
Rainier Connect 44,688 1 55 mbps
CASSCOMM 44,640 1 50 mbps
Bailey Cable TV 43,875 2 12 mbps
Spanish Fork Community Network 43,188 1 120 mbps
Indco Cable 41,849 4 4.0 mbps
Emery Telcom 41,800 1 40 mbps
commZoom 41,540 1 100 mbps
AllensTV 41,347 1 50 mbps
Long Lines 41,245 3 300 mbps
FiberVision Florida 41,098 1 90 mbps
Spirit Broadband 40,356 1 10 mbps
Access Cable Television 40,221 2 100 mbps
LivCom 39,774 1 25 mbps
HBC 38,057 1 1000 mbps
Vision Communications 37,474 1 25 mbps
USA Communications (Iowa) 37,432 1 6.0 mbps
Country Cablevision 36,919 1 100 mbps
Consolidated Smart Broadband Systems 36,760 2 1000
mbps
CableSouth Media3 35,893 2 10 mbps
SELCO 35,608 1 50 mbps
GVTC Communications 34,641 1 12 mbps
Satview Broadband 34,640 1 10 mbps
BELD Broadband 33,909 1 300 mbps
Kings Bay Communications 32,113 1 1000 mbps
CPWS Broadband 32,002 1 100 mbps
1% of 43.6 billion is 436 million.How bout as we waite to pass
the time w collectively do some DD on the following and post info to this post.
Name of 13 companies & their Annual income for each to present 12-31-2018
1 Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC,
2 Bright House Networks, LLC,
3 CSC Holdings, LLC,
4 Cable One, Inc.,
5 Cablevision Systems Corporation,
6 Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC,
7 Cequel Communications, LLC,
8 Charter Communications, Inc.,
9 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC,
10 Comcast Corporation,
11 Cox Communications, Inc.,
12 Mediacom Communications Corporation,
13 RCN Telecom Services, LLC,
14 Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC,TT
15 Time Warner Cable Inc.,
16 WaveDivision Holdings, LLC,
17 WideOpen West Finance, LLC.
x years infringement for each x 13=
Future licensing for each....????? Years ( not sure how many)=
Punitive damages for each = up to 3x final amount
Looser pays legal fees and costs ( if goes to trial)
Cut & past edit pg # 1
Useing (.05%) A percentage historically 1-5% ( since the amt here may be very large I'd guess.5-1.5%)
All About News, DDs and Charts ****
#1-SISTER FORUM
$Pistol Pete$, $Mick$ & Friends Stock Picks /news, DD and charts
#2-SISTER FORUM
*** MICK, $Pistol Pete$ & FRIENDS STOCK PICKS *** M F S P''''''''
#3-SISTER FORUM
Billionaire Boys Club Member Forum (BBCMF)
#4-SISTER FORUM
**** SNAP CHAT MESSENGERS ****
#5-SISTER FORUM
$$Pistol Pete$$, $$Mick$$ Uranium Rare Earth Gold Silver Metals Exporation
https://valueinvestor.com/category/mining-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/marijuana-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/biotech-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/cryptocurrency-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/top-stories/
those just starting out or flirting with subs
No Bid
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/Profile.aspx?user=171071
$UPER $TOCKS DD and RESEARCH FORUM
Business Insider-market alerts
http://dailymarketalerts.com/
CANNABIS SECTIONS?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/breaking-news/?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/the-watchlist/?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/category/breakingnews/united-states/ ;?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/category/breakingnews/canada/
Coins
*****SHOP AVC COIN - INTERESTING ITEMS
https://shopavc.com/
https://avccoins.com/
https://avccoins.com/Watchlive.htm
Coins?*****Collectors Alliance. ?http://www.collectorsalliance.com ;?
Coins
***** https://www.rarecollectiblestv.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_half_dollar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_half_dollar
https://www.govmint.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-OWSn46r4QIVrR-tBh0kcA95EAEYASAAEgKvZPD_BwE
Coins
https://catalog.usmint.gov/
==========================================================
Coins JBCOIN
http://jbcoinsinc.com/
==========================================================
Coins?https://www.landofcoins.com/index.php?/
Coins?http://www.thecoinvault.com
[COINS---AAC ONLINE] AUCTION [IFFY]
ttps://www.aactv.com/
Coin Grading?http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/
Coin Grading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_grading#Sheldon_grading_system
America's Auction House-HERITAGE - auction
https://www.ha.com/
125+ World-Class Experts in 40 Categories
---GOLD
https://www.blanchardgold.com/
https://www.blanchardgold.com/shop/gold/certified-bullion-coins/
---SILVER
https://www.blanchardgold.com/shop/silver/certified-bullion-coins-silver/
---RARE
https://www.blanchardgold.com/shop/rare-coins/
Golden Glossary of Coin Terminology
COINS
https://www.blanchardgold.com/glossary/letter-a/
GOOD COINS---HTTPS://SHOPCSNTV.COM
GOOD COIN CHAT -SILVER EAGLE-HALF DOLLAR -GOLD COINS ---
https://shopcsntv.com/
https://shopcsntv.com/2019-silver-eagle-pair-pr70-ms70-1st-strike.html
SD Bullion Silver ---... https://sdbullion.com/silver
World Numismatic
http://worldnumismaticnews.com/
HTTP://WWW.AMERICANBULLS.COM
PRESS RELEASES
https://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/my-business-wire/
NEWS ROOM
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/business
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/medicine-and-healthcare
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/business-finance
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/beats
https://www.newswire.com/feeds
https://www.forbes.com/#1919276c2254
https://www.forbes.com/innovation/#6529acf16834
https://www.forbes.com/money/#34aa487ac19a
https://www.forbes.com/industry/#2f0aab9c4ab5
https://www.forbes.com/lists/list-directory/#459b21f7b274
https://www.forbes.com/markets/#7f3c06731fbf
https://www.forbes.com/editors-picks/#790dcf2078bf
CNN MONEY BUSINESS
https://www.cnn.com/business
https://money.cnn.com/data/markets/
https://www.cnn.com/business/tech
https://www.cnn.com/business/media
https://www.cnn.com/business/success
https://www.cnn.com/business/perspectives
https://www.cnn.com/business/videos
FOREIGN AFFAIRS;
I.P.O.'SFrance
FRANCE 24 Live – International Breaking News & Top stories - 24/7 stream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J78SdCzzumA
ttps://thefly.com/syndicate.php
https://thefly.com/landingPageNews.php?id=2807735
https://thefly.com/
https://thefly.com/news.php
https://thefly.com/events.php
https://thefly.com/news.php?insight_filter=on&h=6
COMPANY INFORMATION
http://www.wallstreetreporter.com/
https://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/ethereum-is-about-to-boom/90323
https://www.wealthdaily.com/reports
https://www.wealthdaily.com/resources
https://www.wealthdaily.com/podcasts
Home Pg. SPUTNIK NEWS
https://sputniknews.com/
http://wallstreetnation.com/
https://www.stockwatch.com/default.aspx
https://www.reuters.com/
https://seekingalpha.com/market-news
https://www.businesstimes.com.
https://www.oann.com/
Zardiw Working on more features for DDAmanda - chartist/
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=2760
DDAmanda
https://www.finra.org/
https://otce.finra.org/otce/home
http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/MarketData/EquityOptions/default.jsp
https://otce.finra.org/otce/equityShortInterest
https://otce.finra.org/otce/dailyList?viewType=Additions
https://otce.finra.org/otce/dailyList?viewType=Symbol%2FName%20Changes
https://otce.finra.org/otce/marketStatistics/historicalData
https://otce.finra.org/otce/marketStatistics/top100Issues
https://otce.finra.org/otce/marketStatistics/monthlyShareVolume
Website Is For Good Information
http://www.clippercorporatepartners.com/
https://twitter.com/GeorgeASharp
https://oilandenergyinvestor.com/
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/acrl
SHELL STOCK REINSTATEMENTS
Estrella's Sizzling Hot Stock Plays
KAT Exploration Inc. (KATX)
GOLD MINING LINKS
http://www.miningweekly.com/page/latest-news
MINING/
http://www.miningstocks.com
Jay Taylor's Gold and Technology Stocks
http://www.miningstocks.com
https://goldsilver.com/
MoneyTV with Donald Baillargeon
http://moneytv.net/
http://moneytv.net/this-weeks-show/
SMART MONEY GROUP
Pinto Beans and Money Making Stock Picks 2018
JW Value Stocks
The next BIG CUSTODIAN play---OWNERSHIP
https://investorshub.advfn.com/The-next-BIG-CUSTODIAN-play-35974/
Sunnyland Master of OTC. Specializing in L2 and charting instruction along with OTC institutional integration.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=431444
https://twitter.com/SUNNYLAND24
GOOD CHAT ON THIS LINK/
https://dcdirtylaundry.com/house-republicans-submit-bills-to-abolish-the-irs-audit-the-fed/
https://dcdirtylaundry.com/
CHARTING/
http://www.stockta.com/cgi-bin/analysis.pl?symb=ACRL&cobrand=&mode=stock
CHARTING/
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=acrl&insttype=&freq=&show=
CHARTING/
https://stockcharts.com/
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=CBIS&p=D&yr=0&mn=6&dy=0&id=p63415940898
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=WYNN
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=23771&qm_symbol=%20rshn
Chairman of the Board, President, and CEO en HUDSON CORPORATION
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=53425&qm_symbol=potn
Advisor to the Board en PotNetwork Holding Inc.
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=19542&qm_symbol=idgc
– Senior Advisor to the President en IDGlobal Corp
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=94353&qm_symbol=MCGI
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=35503&qm_symbol=LVGI
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=57937&qm_symbol=PMCB
https://twitter.com/idgreencorp / RANDY HUDSON /$IDGC
https://rumormurmursbuzz.blogspot.com/?m=1
Mr Wowza-
ILUS
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_person.aspx?membernum=171071
Ilustrato Pictures International, Inc. (ILUS)
Oil & Gas - Energy - Commodities - Resources
GREAT ARTICLES/ MANY STARTUPS
https://www.stockgumshoe.com/reviews/radical-technology-profits/whats-the-6-million-startup-behind-the-code-of-life/#
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/02/22/1380357/0/en/Clean-TeQ-Sunrise-Project-Update.html
https://www.stockgumshoe.com/reviews/radical-technology-profits/whats-the-6-million-startup-behind-the-code-of-life/#
RED CHIP
https://www.redchip.com/home
CEO INTERVIEW
http://www.wallstreetreporter.com/
FORTUNE
http://fortune.com/
x22 reports
https://x22report.com/
QUALITY INFORMATION
https://www.energyandcapital.com/reports/
https://www.energyandcapital.com/
https://stocktalktoday.com/category/news/
WIRES/
https://globenewswire.com/Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Bloomberg Global News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp8PhLsUcFE
http://www.bloomberg.com/live
FINDINGS/
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Awr9Il1on51aDj4AMV1XNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA3VoM19maW5hbmNlX3ZlcnQEZ3ByaWQDSHUyNXlERkxTTFd5cDd1T0J2WUZ2QQRuX3JzbHQDMARuX3N1Z
MARIJUANA
http://chasingmarkets.com/?
MARK IT FOLKS /////\\\\\ i'd like to see this happen. sanctuary placement for homeless as soon as possible.
**** illegals have the sanctuary placement in most states.****
why not the homeless be sponsored by the sports leagues of america.
ah special taxation on their salary to support the homeless.
heck figure how many would finally have an address to file claims
to the gov't.
the homeless have no speaker for them.
i think some lawyers could donate some time to this.
mark this message for improvement for the homeless.
SHO LIST BUYINS.NET Chart Analysis Chart Video Lessons Charts Charts Charts Clinical Trials Corporate Bankruptcy Corporate Records Search Deregistering
Document Research Earnings Email Address Verifier EYE ON THE FDA FINRA Daily Short List Floats Form 4 Filings High Short Interest Stocks Insider Buy & Sell Info
Investing Glossary Investor Words Low Float Stocks Message, Blog & Twitter Postings Multicollinearity Patterns Platform Reverse Splits SEC Form Types and Definitions
Secretary Of State Sites - All states Shell Stocks SHO Threshold List Short Stocks Stock Chart Patterns Stock Promotions Stock Promotions Stock Research
Technical Analysis Technical Indicators/Overlays Trading Halts Trading Platform Trading Stations Transfer Agent Contact Information
Information Cannabis/
Jurisdiction with legalized cannabis.
Jurisdiction with both medical and decriminalization laws.*
Jurisdiction with legal psychoactive medical cannabis.
Jurisdiction with legal non-psychoactive medical cannabis
Jurisdiction with decriminalized cannabis possession laws.
Jurisdiction with total cannabis prohibition
* Mississippi has only legal non-psychoactive medical cannabis, and Illinois has decriminalized cannabis as of July 29th, 2016
Attribution: Lokal_Profil , CC-BY-SA-2.5
[-chart]investorshub.advfn.com/Images/cannibusUS.png[/chart]
https://investorshub.advfn.com/Images/cannibusUS.png
most;
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#mpcs
most;
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#csn
most
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#csih
company's
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#csih
Hey Datzzz Me/ Casper Da Friendly Ghost
thank you lots/ i am casper and the 5th dimension [time zone]
https://media1.tenor.com/images/881e357ad319d14704762f8b4afa450e/tenor.gif?itemid=8463633
https://tenor.com/search/casper-gifs
https://tenor.com/
court 4 2 19
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A8619926c-a24e-42ed-9553-df7df6f84701
Friday, March 15, 2019 1:22:45 PM
Re: None
Post # 64456 of 64474
A few weeks/months back I posted a link to cnnmoney that forecasted a 12 month stock price of 1200.00. Most people laughed and shrugged it off without much thought. I’d like to present several thoughts why I feel the forecast while not totally accurate, does give an idea of the long term global potential of the plan zwolf spoke about recently and the relevancy to Mr. Spangenburgs current business models concerning patent monetization/analysis/reform. Many may not know that Mr. Spangenburg and Mr. Carter are close business partners and have founded and continue to run successful patent service companies. Many call them trolls but it doesn’t take much reading to see that they are far from that. They provide services and solutions to patent holders to better arm themselves against large corporations who prey on and benefit from small scale IP owners/creators. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity that we are fortunate to be in below the ground floor. All of Mr. Spangenburg and Mr. Carters companies are PRIVITELY held companies and I have no issues owning stock with these two guys running not only this show, but many, many others with outstanding success. I’m quite sure all the private noteholders across their many organizations are being paid proportionally to the amount of shares they own, and owning a personal stake in every company they finance litigation for says everything I need to hear honestly. What’s good for them is good for me and I’m grateful for this opportunity. To those who are that concerned, I would suggest you put on a pot of coffee, grab some snacks and start reading…that’s what I did back in 2017. I went back and read about 1-2 years of posts over the course or a week or so.
These links gave me a really good idea of Carter and Spangenburgs “big picture link,
ipwe.com
The key words to listen for are smart contracts.link
This link is one I’m sure we have all seen, but I like it because its proof Carter is Spangenburgs right hand man and that they personally purchase a stake in every company they finance litigation for and are motivated to get the patent creators and thereby themselves, paid.link
Also some may have missed the info on carter from post 21698 from 2014
In closing, if I think about all the money ive spent on internet service from dial-up to gigabit and to know that the technology enabling comfortable internet use has not been going into the hands of the people who helped enhance it is a pure and utter shame. I hope Mr Spangenburg succeeds in his patent reform efforts and I hope this case sets a new precedent going forward.
Billy carter
ice2014
Monday, 09/22/14 10:16:21 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 21698 of 63460
UnifiedOnline! LLC is owned by Billy Carter, the person who bought ICEWEB and took all its debt by paying about 116K. IMO, he is not dumping shares in the market but is using these shares to pay the other debt holders, e.g. Asher enterprise who dumped theirs in the market.
IMO, it seems that the stock has been taken over by MMs and has been shorted like hell, and that's why you see 1+ billion on bids at 0.0001. It is a possibility that MMs have sold more than the float. These MMs may be turned upside down if any positive news is released on/before Sept. 30th, and they have to cover their short positions.
You can check more about Billy Carter at following sites:
http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/print-edition/2014/03/21/a-troll-or-a-foe-of-trolls.html?page=all
http://www.columbusceo.com/content/stories/apexchange/2013/07/13/has-patent--will-sue-.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/how-a-typical-patent-battle-took-an-unexpected-turn.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Make a search on carter in 2nd and 3rd URL. It seems that new owner of IEWEB Mr. Carter really has deep pockets. He has probably invested in ICEWEB not to double or triple his 116K but probably to multiply his 116K by 100s of times. ICEWEB and KCNAP play in the hottest cloud space. It seems that Mr. Carter is involved in too many businesses that I can track. He is also the president of Plant Transformation Technology (PTT) with chairman Erich Spangenberg of IPNAV (check above links). He seems to be very much involved in IPNAV as well, which has sued 1600+ companies.
http://www.planttt.com/team.html
Also he is the president with chairman Erich Spangenberg at IPCM:
http://www.ipcmadvisors.com/about-ipcm/management-team/
He is an owner of UnifiedOnline! LLC
http://www.uoip.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1:about-uo-ip&Itemid=185
Again, IMO, Billy Carter probably didn't buy ICEWEB for 116K to double his money but to make it really big. This is probably the last week and we should hear news (official 10-K) from ICEWEB before Sept. 30th deadline.
Evilbean
Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:27:31 AM
Re: None Post # 62182 of 62222
If you want more understanding of where we sit, this court document is actually pretty good at explaining the issues with the appeal and the IPRs. It also discusses some of the 13s intent/strategy in what may be an argument against us in court. This is a court document filed 6/15/18. It is well worth the time to read and may help clarify issues in your mind.
This is not a slam dunk for us there is still a lot of legal wrangling that must go on and I think this document will show that.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17o8Ymz4-T3Xg_HccyKExwxGPVAXnyJmw/view
Scruffer
Sunday, 01/06/19 02:35:59 PM
Re: None
0
Post # 60213 of 60258
183B in annual rev by the 13.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142407605
And consider this:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/cbs-cant-dodge-750m-defamation-suit-jonbenet-ramseys-brother-1072118
I'm beginning to think much, much higher, but who knows. Possibly record setting.
And listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1i5coU-0_Q
Scruffer-B-Goode
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
First, you must understand that there are two complex frameworks of resolving patent disputes which co-exist (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjs2cDWtMfUAhXD1IMKHVISAEQQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6267%26context%3Dfaculty_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNHA2qv5T7IP5BHhu41-1RxqHvzCnw&sig2=EPcMfoUKCbJsQDBY2fHfdw&cad=rja):
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND
(II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
PTAB
First, we won at the PTAB:
https://archive.is/lhgDu
ARTICLE III COURTS
Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE
Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY
Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING)
Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT
From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial,
Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE
Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
The impact of the Teva Court ruling on Markman hearings is discussed in this law review article (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqzpjPq8fUAhUh4oMKHeXABJ4QFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.shu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1899%26context%3Dstudent_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNFew5ibGAhGXpmYWSsOYxJpz58gDw&sig2=yR6MLF4_zUCpgz8duodAWw)
MY OPINION
So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
MODEL PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS
August 2017?(updated October 2019)
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NDCAL_Model_Pat_Jury_Inst_8-2017_updated_10-2019.docx
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Time line
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
Thoughts on Judge Casper.
1. She is fully aware of what's been going on in the IP legal arena
2. A message was sent to her when the defense attorney said " this will cost billion's " that was not a plea for leniency but rather suggestion/ threat ....to delay send it to ptab & caft thus delay delay = ware out wddd / she'd be appealed. Judge Casper recognized this & gave them what they wanted by referring to PTAB knowing by doing so it could likely strengthen wddd,s case ( if they could do so successfully & wddd do so) Result, now the case returns to her court & wddd has a much stronger case . Activision recognized this possibility thus enter Google
3. No judge wants to be appealed by doing what she did strengthens whatever ruling is made & that's what's good about what she did. Remember TK wasn't happy about going through the gauntlet but recognized the value thus he really wasn't as upset by these delays because he believed wddd would come out on top. How's that for faith / confidence.
4. Unless there's a buy out(not likely) or a settlement Judge Casper will proceed with the trial with a personal objective ......of providing nothing that will be appellate as a result of judicial mistakes .
Will a judgement that comes out of her court be appealed? Likely, Activision will find something & we'll go through the appeals process. Again... time & delay.,
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
ong uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
First, you must understand that there are two complex frameworks of resolving patent disputes which co-exist (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjs2cDWtMfUAhXD1IMKHVISAEQQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6267%26context%3Dfaculty_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNHA2qv5T7IP5BHhu41-1RxqHvzCnw&sig2=EPcMfoUKCbJsQDBY2fHfdw&cad=rja):
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND
(II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
PTAB
First, we won at the PTAB:
https://archive.is/lhgDu
ARTICLE III COURTS
Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE
Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY
Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING)
Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT
From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial,
Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE
Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
The impact of the Teva Court ruling on Markman hearings is discussed in this law review article (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqzpjPq8fUAhUh4oMKHeXABJ4QFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.shu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1899%26context%3Dstudent_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNFew5ibGAhGXpmYWSsOYxJpz58gDw&sig2=yR6MLF4_zUCpgz8duodAWw)
MY OPINION
So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
MODEL PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS
August 2017?(updated October 2019)
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NDCAL_Model_Pat_Jury_Inst_8-2017_updated_10-2019.docx
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Time line
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
case judge asked for
December 2, 2019
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case
law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers
for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the
market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019,
Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.)
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the
propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding,
or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points,
the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle
Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla.
June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v.
Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
case judge asked for
December 2, 2019
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case
law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers
for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the
market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019,
Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.)
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the
propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding,
or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points,
the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle
Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla.
June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v.
Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=aicpa_guides
Comcast Revenue 2006-2019 | CMCSA
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CMCSA/comcast/revenue
source philhump03
============================
estami
Scruffer
Sunday, 12/08/19 04:45:53 PM
Re: justus1 post# 75266
0
Post # 75286 of 75627
Market share by provider, both U.S. & Canada
.
Main Fixed Broadband Providers – U.S. & Canada
https://blog.telegeography.com/cable-is-main-form-of-broadband-access-in-north-america
There are 64.35M cable subscribers in the U.S. w/ an average monthly charge of $60.
https://www.leichtmanresearch.com/2-4-million-added-broadband-in-2018/
https://www.highspeedinternet.com/resources/how-much-should-i-be-paying-for-high-speed-internet-resource
https://www.allconnect.com/blog/cost-of-high-speed-internet
There are a total of 450 Cable Internet service providers in the U.S.
https://broadbandnow.com/Cable-Providers
=========================================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers
$60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!)
12 months per year
$46,332,000,000 per year
20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties)
$926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS)
__@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S
0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement)
0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%)
0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %)
1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152680338
Scruffer
Monday, December 30, 2019 5:04:36 PM
Re: I-Glow post# 75574
Post # 75582 of 75625
===============================
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
t TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
====================
long uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Sunday, 06/18/17 10:59:07 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 33853 of 78158
RECENT UOIP/CHANBOND WINS and what they mean for us as shareholders.
First, you must understand that there are two complex frameworks of resolving patent disputes which co-exist (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwjs2cDWtMfUAhXD1IMKHVISAEQQFggkMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.duke.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D6267%26context%3Dfaculty_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNHA2qv5T7IP5BHhu41-1RxqHvzCnw&sig2=EPcMfoUKCbJsQDBY2fHfdw&cad=rja):
(I) ordinary infringement litigation and declaratory judgment actions in Article III courts ("Article III Courts") ; AND
(II) administrative invalidation actions in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent and Trial Appeal Board ("PTAB").
PTAB
First, we won at the PTAB:
https://archive.is/lhgDu
ARTICLE III COURTS
Now we are en route to a win in civil court with the patent litigation. In fact, we are probably closer to receiving a settlement given the way this case has gone. The scheduled stages in the case are, chronologically, (i) Fact Discovery, (ii) Status Conference, (iii) Any Summary Judgment/Daubert (i.e. expert witness testimony) motions, (iv) Pretrial Conference, and (v) Jury Trial.
Here's why I think settlement is imminent:
OBLIGATION TO TRY TO SETTLE
Initially, for the joint submission brief, these parties were to discuss the possibility of settlement. By the time of (iv), they must specifically certify (basically affirm) that they have engaged in a good faith effort to explore the resolution of controversy by settlement (see Rule 16.3(c)(12) of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware). Initially, they have to state whether there's a possibility of settlement whereas, later along in the case, they must undertake to engage in a good faith effort to settle. Despite getting smoked at the Markman hearing, it appears the Defendants haven't yet tried to engage in a good faith effort to settle.
COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE LOSING PARTY
Also keep in mind that the longer the case drags on, the higher the costs that can be incurred against the losing party (even if the case settles). For example, it appears that you can get a jury cost assessment against you if the case is settled less than 3 days before the scheduled jury selection (Rule 54.2). It also appears that you can still apply for attorneys' fees even in connection with settled cases (Rule 54.3).
It doesn't leave much room to play games and push the matter to trial before you settle as costs can be assessed against you the further the case progresses. I read somewhere that the average cost of taking a patent case through trial is over $2 Million per case.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION HEARING (A.K.A. MARKMAN HEARING)
Keep in mind that there is also a pretrial hearing that the parties go through, called a Markman hearing, which was already heard by Justice Andrews December 9, 2016. As per Wikipedia: "Markman hearings are before a judge, and generally take place before trial. A Markman hearing may occur before the close of discovery, along with a motion for preliminary injunction, or at the end of discovery, in relation to a motion for summary judgment. A Markman hearing may also be held after the trial begins, but before jury selection."
In any case, this Markman hearing was very important because the issues of law are adjudicated and it basically encourages settlement, particularly in Judge Andrews' court room. If you read about Andrews (who is set to try the case if you haven't been paying attention), it appears he has the fewest patent-specific procedures and guidelines out of all four Article III judges that sit on the Delaware court. He apparently has a unique procedure for these Markman hearings. I read that "instead of having the parties file separate claim construction charts and briefs for the Markman hearing, he requires the parties to exchange their proposed claim terms for construction, exchange their proposed constructions, confer, and file a Joint Claim Construction Chart, as well as a Joint Claim Construction Brief." In other words, he gets the parties to sit down and really pinpoint what the contentious issues are. This leads to less strong-arming and taking a tunnel-vision approach with one's own case. This makes the aspect of settlement more conducive, particularly as Andrews found in favor of ChanBond after the December 9th Markman hearing (http://www.morrisjames.com/assets/htmldocuments/patent%20blog%20-%20Chanbond%20-%201826.pdf). I encourage you to read Judge Andrews' decision as he outlines how the defendants were struggling to make a case and rules against every single one of the Defendants' proposed constructions. I also encourage everyone to read the last law review article in this post under the heading "New Changes in the Law Affecting this Case" and truly see how instrumental it was for ChanBond to win the Markman hearing.
BACKGROUND OF JUSTICE ANDREWS AND DELAWARE'S DISTRICT COURT
From Law Review Article of 2016 (Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Stop for Summary Judgment: The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware’s Seemingly Disjunctive Yet Efficient Procedures in Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Katherine Rhoades, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property):
It is no secret that the District of Delaware’s four Article III judges have extensive patent experience and are some of the most experienced in the country in handling patent infringement cases. The District of Delaware leads all other district courts with the most patent case filings per judge, which results in an experienced bench. In fact, Judge Andrews, Judge Robinson, Judge Sleet, and Chief Judge Stark are among the U.S. district court judges who hear the most patent cases, and they are the four judges that hear the most ANDA cases in the country.
The District of Delaware’s lack of local patent rules does not seem to have affected the district’s case efficiency or time-to-trial. Research “suggests that districts with local patent rules process patent cases faster than districts lacking such rules.” However, this research is not dispositive. Additionally, experienced judges can resolve cases more quickly. The District of Delaware has an overall faster time-to-trial - time from the day the complaint is filed to the first day of trial—than the District of New Jersey for patent cases that do not settle. While local patent rules can decrease the time-to-trial,
Delaware’s experienced bench is efficient in resolving patent disputes.
In other words, due to the venue and the fact it's being heard by Judge Andrews, this isn't a case that will be bogged down by a slow court system or, worse, be adjudicated before an inexperienced judge. Efficient venue + reputable judge = quick route to trial or settlement.
NEW CHANGES IN THE LAW AFFECTING THIS CASE
Maybe you think the Defendants will play strategic games and appeal Justice Andrews' ruling in the Markman hearing? Think again. On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court changed the standard under which trial court claim construction rulings will be reviewed on appeal, holding that a trial court’s factual findings underlying its claim construction rulings must be given deference. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 831 (2014). In a 7-2 decision, the Teva Court concluded that a trial court’s findings of fact underpinning a claim construction ruling must be reviewed under a “clearly erroneous” standard, rather than under the general de novo standard previously applied by the Federal Circuit. Without getting into the details, this means that it's much harder for the Defendants to appeal Justice Andrews' Markman ruling due to this heightened review standard from Teva which, in turn, will lead to an increased likelihood of settlement.
The impact of the Teva Court ruling on Markman hearings is discussed in this law review article (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiqzpjPq8fUAhUh4oMKHeXABJ4QFggqMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.shu.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1899%26context%3Dstudent_scholarship&usg=AFQjCNFew5ibGAhGXpmYWSsOYxJpz58gDw&sig2=yR6MLF4_zUCpgz8duodAWw)
MY OPINION
So I personally think settlement will happen soon enough. Maybe not next week, but certainly quite soon given the mounting costs, the potential to have costs assessed against you even in the midst of settlement, the fact that the Markman hearing has already taken place and the issues of law have been adjudicated in favor of ChanBond as per Andrews' order (which also has to be submitted to the jury if it gets as far as a jury trial), and the fact that Markman hearings - after the Teva ruling - are now more important than ever in patent litigation.
MODEL PATENT JURY INSTRUCTIONS
August 2017?(updated October 2019)
https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/NDCAL_Model_Pat_Jury_Inst_8-2017_updated_10-2019.docx
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1,
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers
$60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!)
12 months per year
$46,332,000,000 per year
20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties)
$926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS)
__@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S
0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement)
0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%)
0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %)
1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152680338
Scruffer
Monday, December 30, 2019 5:04:36 PM
Re: I-Glow post# 75574
Post # 75582 of 75625
======================================
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
=====================
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
TIMELINE of UOIP legal actions,
thanks to Magnus
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020 6:53:42 PM
Re: Goodbuddy4863 post# 78508
Post # 78509 of 78599
as per various shareholders requests (yellow highlighted portion)
from this posting ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=154516042
page 1 Judge Andrews ~
A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger
of unfair prejudice caused by the failure to interest anyone in the
technology at the time and the waste of time needed to explain why the
non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
page 2
The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they
are valuing the potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates
by the parties of the likely outcomes of litigation are now offered to
prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
page 3
There has been no showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the
agreement between two parties who want to be on one side of either a
litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an
input for determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus,
the "contemporaneous valuations" including not only the two completed
transactions but the various statements during the same time period are
excluded as unreliable.
______________________________________________________________
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (document in full)
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
IN RE CHANBOND, LLC
PATENT LITIGATION
C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
CONSOLIDATED
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and
Testimony of Defendants' Damages Expert. (D.I. 370). I have reviewed the parties' briefing
and heard oral argument. (D.I. 371,398, 409,471).
Defendant's damages expert, Mr. Bakewell, offers three quantitative analysis approaches
in his 200 page "Rebuttal Expert Report," one of which is the "market approach." (D.I. 399, Ex.
A at~ 171 ). Plaintiff argues that Mr. Bakewell' s market approach opinions should be excluded
because Mr. Bakewell does not use reliable principles or methods. (D.I. 371 at 1). Plaintiff
contends that Mr. Bakewell fails to establish that the evidence he relies on is comparable to a
hypothetical licensing negotiation in December 2012 for the patents-in-suit. (Id.; D.I. 339, Ex. A
at ~164).
Mr. Bakewell's market approach is based on three valuation datapoints: (1) "pre-DOCSIS
3.0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit," (2) "2014-2015
contemporaneous valuations," and (3) "2012 AST offer to sell." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at~ 287).
Plaintiff argues that each should be excluded, and thus I should exclude Mr. Bakewell's entire
market approach opinion. (D.I. 371 at 8).
1. Pre-DOCSIS 3. 0 investment solicitations for technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit
The "Pre-DOCSIS 3.0" datapoint relies on investment solicitations by Z-Band, the
company formed by the inventors of the patents-in-suit. In December 2000, Z-Band sought
between $2 million and $5 million in venture capital funding. In 2001 , Z-Band received an offer
for $5 million from an unidentified foreign company for a "minority interest," which it rejected.
(D.I. 399, Ex. A at 11 178-79). Mr. Bakewell concludes from these two facts that a lump sum
royalty in the "mid seven figures" would be appropriate. (Id. at 1 287). Plaintiff argues that the
investment solicitations and rejected offer are not technologically or economically comparable to
a hypothetical negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 371 at 9). I agree. The
solicitations and offer occurred approximately ten years before the first of the patents-in-suit
issued on May 10, 2011. (Id.). The solicitations cannot be representative of a hypothetical
negotiation for a license to the patents-in-suit when the patents-in-suit did not yet exist.
Therefore, Mr. Bakewell's opinion based on "pre-DOCSIS 3.0 investment solicitations for
technology disclosed in the patents-in-suit" is irrelevant and excluded.
Further, any marginal relevance that such an analysis might have, even if it specifically
related to a license for the patents-in-suit, is minimized by the fact that no agreement was
reached and that the investment opportunity took place some ten to twelve years before the date
of the hypothetical negotiation. A non-agreement at a distant time period has so little probative
value that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
caused by the failure to interest anyone in the technology at the time and the waste of time
needed to explain why the non-agreement is uninformative. I would thus also exclude the 2000-
2002 evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 .
2
2. 2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations
The lawsuit in this case was filed September 21 , 2015.
Mr. Bakewell opines that the "2014-2015 contemporaneous valuations" datapoint reflects
a reasonable royalty of "less than $20 million." (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i 287). I am unsure why he
uses the word "contemporaneous," but I assume he means valuations contemporaneous with
each other rather than with the hypothetical negotiation date.
The contemporaneous valuations datapoint is recited in the narrative of the expert report.
It seems to consist of two transactions in which ownership of the patents-in-suit changed hands,
and various statements made by interested parties during negotiations for the two successful
transactions as well as ones that did not take place. (See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 210-286; D.I. 371
at 16-20; D.I. 398 at 5-7). The terms of the first completed transaction- sale by CBV to
ChanBond on April 9, 2015-stated that the purchaser would pay an upfront fee and a
percentage payout based on the recoveries associated with the enforcement of the patents-in-suit.
(See D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 232-233). These transaction terms are not representative of a
hypothetical negotiation because they base the payment for the patents on the outcome of
litigation. The parties to the transaction are not valuing the patents; rather they are valuing the
potential outcomes of litigation. Thus, the estimates by the parties of the likely outcomes of
litigation are now offered to prove what the outcome of the litigation should be.
The second completed transaction is the October 27, 2015 sale of ChanBond, a month
after the lawsuits in this case had been filed, to UnifiedOnline. (D.I. 399, Ex. A at ,i,i 244-248).
ChanBond's only assets were the patents-in-suit, two other patents, two patent applications, and
this litigation. (Id. at ,i 244). To purchase ChanBond, UnifiedOnline paid $5 million and 44.7
3
million shares of its common stock. 1 (Id.). Thus, as with the earlier 2015 transaction, and as the
expert report makes clear, the thing being valued in the transaction was this litigation. This
transaction therefore is not comparable to the hypothetical negotiation. A licensing transaction
values the patents. All other things being equal, a licensing transaction is much preferred over a
settlement agreement that licenses a patent. See Laser Dynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.,
694 F.3d 51, 77-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Estimating the hypothetical negotiation, that is, what a
willing licensee and a willing licensor would agree to, is one step further removed from being
comparable than a settlement agreement. Instead of its being an agreement between a party who
has a patent and a party that wants to be able to use the patent, it is an agreement between two
parties who want to be on one side of that transaction, that of the licensor. There has been no
showing, and I doubt that there could be, that the agreement between two parties who want to be
on one side of either a litigation-influenced settlement or a trial is a reliable basis as an input for
determining the outcome of the hypothetical negotiation. Thus, the "contemporaneous
valuations" including not only the two completed transactions but the various statements during
the same time period are excluded as unreliable.
Further, any marginal relevance that the two transactions and the related statements might
have has so little probative value that the probative value is substantially outweighed by the
danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of issues inherent in bringing into the litigation how
trials are financed. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would exclude it.
Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
1 Mr. Bakewell assigns negligible value to the 44.7 million shares of UnifiedOnline on the basis of the par value of
the stock. I assume it did not have any known market value. At least at this stage, the value of the shares is not at
issue.
4
3. 2012 AST offer to sell
Mr. Bakewell's market approach opined that the 2012 offer to sell the patents by nonparty Allied Security Trust ("AST") reflected a reasonable royalty of "high seven figures." (D.I.
399, Ex. A at, 287). AST is a cooperative that helps member companies secure rights to
patents. (Id. at, 192). Rights to the patents-in-suit were offered to AST member companies for
"high seven figures." (Id. at, 198). While the fact that rights to the patents-in-suit were offered
for "high seven figures" is relevant to the valuation of the patents-in-suit, this datapoint alone
cannot serve as the basis for Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion. Neither Defendants nor
their expert have shown that a single offer to sell rights to patents is a viable basis for a market
approach calculation of a reasonable royalty. (See D.I. 470). The 2012 AST offer is therefore
excluded from Mr. Bakewell's market approach opinion.
I am not concerned about excluding this last remaining datapoint of Mr. Bakewell's
market approach, and thus his entire market approach opinion, because Mr. Bakewell offered
two other damages theories aside from the market approach. The market approach is not
essential to Defendants' damages analysis. See United States v. Driggs, 823 F.2d 52, 54-55 (3d
Cir. 1987).
Outside of the market approach, the 2012 AST offer itself is independently relevant to the
valuation of the patents-in-suit and may come in as evidence of such.
A word of caution. The fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is not only
irrelevant to a reasonable royalty analysis but also would be unfairly prejudicial to Plaintiff,
confuse the issues, and mislead the jury. A hypothetical negotiation assumes that the parties are
a willing licensor and a willing licensee and that the patents are valid and infringed. Lucent
Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc. , 580 F.3d 1301 , 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Because no company
5
responded to the 2012 AST offer, the situation does not represent a hypothetical negotiation with
a willing licensee. Therefore, the fact that no company responded to the 2012 AST offer is
irrelevant and inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 402.
Further, even if the nonresponse to the 2012 AST offer were relevant to a reasonable
royalty analysis, any possible probative value it might have would be substantially outweighed
by the danger of unfair prejudice and confusion of the issues that would result from evidence that
AST' s offer was not accepted. Thus, even if there were any relevance to this analysis, I would
exclude evidence that the offer was not accepted. Fed. R. Evid. 403 .
For the reasons above, Plaintiffs Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions and Testimony of
Defendants' Damages Expert (D.I. 370) is GRANTED.
case judge asked for
December 2, 2019
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
At the November 25, 2019 hearing, the Court asked Defendants to identify their best case
law concerning whether litigation financing agreements, requests for investment financing, or offers
for sale of the asserted patents can be properly considered as comparable transactions under the
market approach. (See Nov. 25, 2019 Hearing Tr. at 115:11-116:11.) On November 27, 2019,
Defendants identified three cases not cited in Defendants’ briefing. (D.I. 470.)
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the
propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding,
or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points,
the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle
Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla.
June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v.
Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Calculating intellectual property infringement damages; AICPA practice aid series 06-1
https://egrove.olemiss.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=aicpa_guides
Comcast Revenue 2006-2019 | CMCSA
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/CMCSA/comcast/revenue
source philhump03
THU DEC 19, 2019 / 10:17 PM EST
U.S. makes it easier for holders of industry-standard patents to block product sales
Stephen Nellis
• ? ?
(Reuters) - United States antitrust and patent officials on Thursday said they no longer deem holders of industry-standard patents anti-competitive if they sue to stop the sale of infringing products, a far-reaching policy shift that they said supports innovation.
The new position could have seen chipmaker Qualcomm Inc, for instance, sue in an attempt to stop the sale of all models of Apple Inc's iPhones in Germany last year - rather than the limited number that were ultimately affected - without fear of being investigated by the U.S. antitrust body.
The U.S. Justice Department, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and National Institute of Standards and Technology jointly released a policy statement on so-called standard essential patents to replace its policy since 2013.
Standard essential patents are often used in the technology industry when makers of different kinds of devices want them all to work together. In the case of cellular networks, for example, phones and cell towers must be compatible across makers and borders.
To arrive at a single standard, companies such as Nokia, Ericsson and InterDigital Wireless contribute patents to a certain technology such as 5G, the upcoming generation of cellular data networks.
Every company that makes a cellular device is required to adopt that technology and pay a license fee to patent holders. In exchange, the holders agree to license the patents on fair and reasonable terms.
In 2013, the Justice Department and Patent Office said it was anti-competitive for patent holders to seek injunctions to block the sale of a products for infringing standards patents. Holders could still seek monetary damages without running afoul of the policy.
The policy had real-world effects. When Qualcomm sued Apple to block the sale of iPhones during a wide-ranging legal dispute, Qualcomm did not use any of its standards patents to make its claims. As a result, Qualcomm's suits affected only a subset of models.
Officials reversed their policy on Thursday, saying seeking to block sales in standards patents cases presented no harm to competition and that standards patents should be treated no differently than other patents.
"Our patent system is what has made the American economy the innovation capital of the world, and we should not misapply the antitrust laws to diminish the incentive to innovate," Assistant Attorney General Delrahim said in a statement.
Morgan Reed, president of The App Association, in a statement said the group which represents software developers was disappointed by the move.
It "does not go far enough in protecting small businesses from abusive (standards patent) licensing behavior," Reed said.
(Reporting by Stephen Nellis in San Francisco; Editing by Christopher Cushing)
Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
MORE FROM REUTERS
SEPhttps://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/16-153_1.pdf
(D.1. 334, Ex. A~ 5). At best, Dr. Cox states a general rationale for using the "top-down" approach in the FRAND context. Dr. Cox fails to explain why that approach applies here, where the '488 patent is not subject to a FRAND obligation. Even more problematic, Dr. Cox never addresses why the specific rate associated with the ETSI standard essential patents should apply here, where the '488 patent was never accepted into the ETSI standard. (See D.I. 334, Ex. A~~ 8-10). Sprint argues that it is irrelevant that TC Tech was not actually part of a standards setting organization, because TC Tech alleges that the '488 patent is essential to the LTE standard. (D.1. 286 at 15). Sprint cites to Ericsson, Inc. v. D-LinkSystems, Inc., 773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014), which Sprint argues "identified 'special apportionment issues' that arise any time a 'standard requires that devices utilize specific technology' such that 'compliant devices necessarily infringe certain claims in patents that cover technology incorporated into the standard." (D.1. 286 at 15 (citing D-Link, 773 F.3d at 1209, 1232)). Sprint reads D-Link out of context. The patents at issue were Ericsson's standard essential patents, as defined by the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ("IEEE"), a standards setting organization.
Analogous to the situation in TCL, Ericsson had agreed to "grant a license under reasonable rates to an unrestricted number of applicants on a worldwide basis 29 with reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination." DLink, 773 F.3d at 1208-09. In other words, Ericsson was subject to a FRAND obligation. Therefore, D-Link is inapposite for the same reasons as TCL. A "standard essential patent," as described in TCL and D-Link, is not merely a patent that is essential to practice a standard. It is a formal designation made by a standard setting organization that subjects the patent holder to a FRAND obligation in exchange for a defined set of benefits. It is undisputed that the '488 patent is not such a "standard essential patent." Because Dr. Cox fails to explain why the ETSI rates should apply to a non-standard essential patent, his "top-down" testimony is inadmissible as insufficiently tied to the facts of this case. See Fed. R. Evid. 702.
=================================================
SEP speaks to:Teece
1. Standard setting and standards development .................................................................27 2. Standard essential patents (SEPs) and royalties...............................................................29
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/98e0/3d35857f66c34fa79f3ea0dd2b4e3b670044.pdf
David J. Teece and Greg Linden. Business Models, Value Capture, and the Digital Enterprise. Journal of Organizational Design,.
2017
https://haas.berkeley.edu/faculty/teece-david/
• Translational
• Open Access
•
dillythekid
Thursday, 11/28/19 02:55:40 PM
Re: None
0
Post # 74933 of 74950
I believe these are the cases they brought back:
Dear Judge Andrews:
Pursuant to the Court’s November 25, 2019 Oral Order requesting case authority
supporting the use of technology investments in the assessment of damages calculations in patent
cases, Defendants respectfully submit the following cases to the Court for consideration.
? Smartflash LLC, et al. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:13-CV-447-JRG-KNM, 2015 WL
11072175, at *1-2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2015)
? Ristvedt-Johnson, Inc. v. Brandt, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 557, 568 (N.D. Ill. 1992)
? TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-CV-04545-HSG, 2015 WL 4148354, at *4 (N.D.
Cal. July 9, 2015)
Counsel is available should the Court have any additional questions.
Respectfully,
/s/ Jennifer Ying
Jennifer Ying (#5550)
Case consolidation letter 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28095
600 N. King Street ? Suite 400 Writer’s Direct Access: P.O. Box 25130 ? Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 429-4232 Zip Code For Deliveries 19801 November 18, 2019
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
Pursuant to the Court’s November 4, 2019 Order (D.I. 449), ChanBond provides the following responses to the questions raised by the Court.
1. In Plaintiffs view, how many hours would it need for opening statement, direct and cross-examination for it to present its case if the case were consolidated as it proposes?
ChanBond provides the following time estimates for its opening statement, direct examination, cross examination, and closing statement in both a consolidated trial and the trial of any single Defendant. Presumably, Defendants will need the same or a similar amount of total time for presentation of their case. Since there are many undisputed facts in these cases, ChanBond expects that, in either a single Defendant or consolidated trial, trial time will be reduced through stipulation.
Trial Phase Individual Defendant Consolidated Opening 2 hours 2 hours Direct Exam – Fact Witnesses 4 hours 7.5 hours Direct Exam – Infringement 5 hours 6 hours Direct Exam – Damages 4 hours 6.5 hours Cross Exam – Infringement 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Validity 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Damages 1.5 hours 1.5 hours Direct Exam – Validity 2.5 hours 2.5 hours Closing 2 hours 2 hours TOTAL CHANBOND TIME 25 hours 32 hours
2. There seems to be a dispute about whether Defendants (as opposed to Cisco, Arris, and Casa) have any different views on infringement. (D.I. 445 at 5: D.I. 447 at 2). I see a lengthy (820 pages) report of Plaintiffs expert Nettles (D.I. 445-1 at 20) but I do not see the non-infringement report of Defendants’ expert Cromarty. I would like Defendants to file Cromarty’s complete report with a letter identifying the “top five” places where Defendants’ non-infringement arguments vary among Defendants.
Not applicable to ChanBond.
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28096
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 2
3. I think it would also be helpful to have Plaintiffs and Defendants’ main damages reports filed, with Defendants identifying the most significant differences among the various Defendants' positions.
ChanBond is providing herewith, via Notice of Lodging, an exemplary report (directed to Defendant Comcast) from Dr. David J. Teece, ChanBond’s main damages expert. The body of Dr. Teece’s reports is substantively identical for all Defendants. The reports differ in the Defendant- specific numbers and calculations presented in Exhibits 1-11. Should the Court so desire, ChanBond will lodge the remaining reports of Dr. Teece.
4. Are there any reasonable options other than all or nothing? For example, what about a consolidated invalidity trial? What about consolidating trials of Defendants who now have common ownership? What about consolidating infringement trials based on which of the three suppliers (Cisco, Arris, Casa) makes the equipment? What about having a first trial with either Cablevision or Time Warner Cable, who appear to use all the CMTSs at issue? (D .I. 442-1 at 2).
ChanBond maintains that complete consolidation is the most practical and appropriate way to proceed. Defendants disagree and request thirteen separate trials.
The Court has provided several criteria to consider in the determination, including a consolidated invalidity trial, consolidation based on common ownership, and consolidation based on common CMTS usage.
Regarding invalidity, and as noted in the opening brief (D.I. 442 at 3), consolidation on the common theory of invalidity is warranted. But a single, consolidated invalidity trial would still require thirteen infringement and damages trials. Regarding common ownership, consolidation based on changes in corporate ownership would only result in a reduction to nine or ten separate trials.
As an alternative to complete consolidation, ChanBond proposes partial consolidation based on the Defendants’ CMTS usage. Using this approach would reduce the number of trials to five or less. ChanBond proposes a first trial for Defendants that
Focusing on the makes logical sense for multiple reasons. First,
Second, this group includes the greatest number of Defendants (five in total). Third,
Fourth, F
as noted in the IPRs filed by Cisco and Arris in this case, both Cisco and Arris are in privity with the Defendants, and at least Arris is indemnifying Defendants. See, e.g., IPR2018-00570, Paper 21. ChanBond thus proposes that this group of five Defendants be tried first, which would be . .
The next logical group of Defendants to be tried would comprise
which are . .
These two Defendants also happen to collectively represent the next largest percentage of total damages sought by ChanBond. The third group of Defendants would be those that , ,
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 28097
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 3
which also happen to represent the next largest percentage of total damages, then those Defendants
, ,
and finally, the one Defendant (and smallest Defendant) that
These groupings are noted in the table below.
ChanBond further proposes that validity be tried only with the first group. Defendants are seeking separate trials because they, and their privies Cisco and Arris, desire to try invalidity and non-infringement as many times as possible.
Group 1
Infringement Validity Damages Group 2 Infringement
Damages Group 3 Infringement
Damages Group 4 Infringement
Damages Group 5 Infringement
Damages
5. Finally, when should I decide this? I'll have a much better picture of the case at the time of the summary judgment argument.
A Trial Scheduling Conference has been set for January 31, 2020. During the course of meeting and conferring, the parties agreed that this conference would be the most appropriate time for the Court to resolve the issues regarding consolidation and trial schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
Case consolidation letter 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 28095
600 N. King Street ? Suite 400 Writer’s Direct Access: P.O. Box 25130 ? Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 429-4232 Zip Code For Deliveries 19801 November 18, 2019
sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
VIA CM/ECF & HAND DELIVERY
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: ChanBond, LLC v. Atl. Broadband Group, LLC, et al., Cons. C.A. No. 15-842-RGA
Dear Judge Andrews:
Pursuant to the Court’s November 4, 2019 Order (D.I. 449), ChanBond provides the following responses to the questions raised by the Court.
1. In Plaintiffs view, how many hours would it need for opening statement, direct and cross-examination for it to present its case if the case were consolidated as it proposes?
ChanBond provides the following time estimates for its opening statement, direct examination, cross examination, and closing statement in both a consolidated trial and the trial of any single Defendant. Presumably, Defendants will need the same or a similar amount of total time for presentation of their case. Since there are many undisputed facts in these cases, ChanBond expects that, in either a single Defendant or consolidated trial, trial time will be reduced through stipulation.
Trial Phase Individual Defendant Consolidated Opening 2 hours 2 hours Direct Exam – Fact Witnesses 4 hours 7.5 hours Direct Exam – Infringement 5 hours 6 hours Direct Exam – Damages 4 hours 6.5 hours Cross Exam – Infringement 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Validity 2 hours 2 hours Cross Exam – Damages 1.5 hours 1.5 hours Direct Exam – Validity 2.5 hours 2.5 hours Closing 2 hours 2 hours TOTAL CHANBOND TIME 25 hours 32 hours
2. There seems to be a dispute about whether Defendants (as opposed to Cisco, Arris, and Casa) have any different views on infringement. (D.I. 445 at 5: D.I. 447 at 2). I see a lengthy (820 pages) report of Plaintiffs expert Nettles (D.I. 445-1 at 20) but I do not see the non-infringement report of Defendants’ expert Cromarty. I would like Defendants to file Cromarty’s complete report with a letter identifying the “top five” places where Defendants’ non-infringement arguments vary among Defendants.
Not applicable to ChanBond.
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 28096
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 2
3. I think it would also be helpful to have Plaintiffs and Defendants’ main damages reports filed, with Defendants identifying the most significant differences among the various Defendants' positions.
ChanBond is providing herewith, via Notice of Lodging, an exemplary report (directed to Defendant Comcast) from Dr. David J. Teece, ChanBond’s main damages expert. The body of Dr. Teece’s reports is substantively identical for all Defendants. The reports differ in the Defendant- specific numbers and calculations presented in Exhibits 1-11. Should the Court so desire, ChanBond will lodge the remaining reports of Dr. Teece.
4. Are there any reasonable options other than all or nothing? For example, what about a consolidated invalidity trial? What about consolidating trials of Defendants who now have common ownership? What about consolidating infringement trials based on which of the three suppliers (Cisco, Arris, Casa) makes the equipment? What about having a first trial with either Cablevision or Time Warner Cable, who appear to use all the CMTSs at issue? (D .I. 442-1 at 2).
ChanBond maintains that complete consolidation is the most practical and appropriate way to proceed. Defendants disagree and request thirteen separate trials.
The Court has provided several criteria to consider in the determination, including a consolidated invalidity trial, consolidation based on common ownership, and consolidation based on common CMTS usage.
Regarding invalidity, and as noted in the opening brief (D.I. 442 at 3), consolidation on the common theory of invalidity is warranted. But a single, consolidated invalidity trial would still require thirteen infringement and damages trials. Regarding common ownership, consolidation based on changes in corporate ownership would only result in a reduction to nine or ten separate trials.
As an alternative to complete consolidation, ChanBond proposes partial consolidation based on the Defendants’ CMTS usage. Using this approach would reduce the number of trials to five or less. ChanBond proposes a first trial for Defendants that
Focusing on the makes logical sense for multiple reasons. First,
Second, this group includes the greatest number of Defendants (five in total). Third,
Fourth, F
as noted in the IPRs filed by Cisco and Arris in this case, both Cisco and Arris are in privity with the Defendants, and at least Arris is indemnifying Defendants. See, e.g., IPR2018-00570, Paper 21. ChanBond thus proposes that this group of five Defendants be tried first, which would be . .
The next logical group of Defendants to be tried would comprise
which are . .
These two Defendants also happen to collectively represent the next largest percentage of total damages sought by ChanBond. The third group of Defendants would be those that , ,
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 473 Filed 12/04/19 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 28097
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews November 18, 2019 Page 3
which also happen to represent the next largest percentage of total damages, then those Defendants
, ,
and finally, the one Defendant (and smallest Defendant) that
These groupings are noted in the table below.
ChanBond further proposes that validity be tried only with the first group. Defendants are seeking separate trials because they, and their privies Cisco and Arris, desire to try invalidity and non-infringement as many times as possible.
Group 1
Infringement Validity Damages Group 2 Infringement
Damages Group 3 Infringement
Damages Group 4 Infringement
Damages Group 5 Infringement
Damages
5. Finally, when should I decide this? I'll have a much better picture of the case at the time of the summary judgment argument.
A Trial Scheduling Conference has been set for January 31, 2020. During the course of meeting and conferring, the parties agreed that this conference would be the most appropriate time for the Court to resolve the issues regarding consolidation and trial schedule.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
==========================================
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1, 2017).
CALCULATE rev in Millions
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12rB-Y7nBsMGd5DLRg_a8fs75n9Xvev_161J-OCKv1cY/edit#gid=0
================================
Valuation Tools
https://www.tpa-global.com/business-solutions/valuation-tools
Transforming the World of Tax
The three main approaches are:
1. Cost Based Approach
The cost approach measures the values of the intangible assets by assessing the expenditures necessary to replace the assets. The cost approach is based on the economic concept ofsubstitution, that is, people will pay no more for an asset than it would cost to develop or obtain another asset with similar functionality. Cost items that should be included when valuing the assets include the legal costs, registrations costs, personnel costs, development costs, production costs and marketing and advertising costs.
2. Market Based Approach
Intangible assets are valued by comparing recent sales or similar transactions with similar assets involved in similar markets. This method is applicable when similar markets and similar transactions exist; however, more than often, comparable assets can’t be found due to the uniqueness of most intangibles which limits the application of this method.
3. Income Based Approach
The income approach measures the value of an intangible asset based on the future income streams that are expected to be generated by the asset.
Some income approach methods:
• Relief from royalty method
• Multi Period Excess Earnings method
• Incremental cash flow method?
Business Valuation Tool IP Valuation Tool Super IP-Calculator
This tool enables you to do a rudimentary?business valuation.?All major items are incorporated in this setup.?Default values are shown in 'grey'. This tool enables you to do a rudimentary?IP valuation (patents, trademarks)?using the relief from royalty method.?Default values are shown in 'grey'. This tool allows to assess?internationally used multiples?in order to get a first indication?of a company's value in a particular?industry and country.
START
START
START
The Economic Analysis Method
The economic-analysis valuation method has three approaches: cost, income, and market.
Cost Approach
This approach states that a patent's value is the replacement cost or the amount that would be necessary to replace the protection right on the invention. The replacement cost of an item refers to the amount of money that would be paid, at the present time, to replace the item. If an inventor has an item that he or she has patented, the patent's value would be the amount of money required to replace that invention. A prospective client would not be willing to pay more for a patent than the amount he or she would have to pay to obtain an equivalent protection right.
Income Approach
This method looks to future cash flows in determining valuation. It states that a patent's value is the present value of the incremental cash flows or cost savings it will help provide. When a company or individual develops a product that has the potential to be patented, the underlying hope is that the patented product will cause an increase in sales, or at least be a cost-saving measure in the company. This approach states that the patent's value is the current cash value of these future benefits.
Market Approach
This methodology involves determining what a willing buyer would pay for similar property. In other words, the patent's value is approximately equal to the value of similar patents or patented products that have been sold and purchased before.
Two things must be in place for this approach to be used for patent valuation:
• Existence of an active market for the patent, or a similar one
• Past transactions of comparable property
Look for similar values for the following items when looking for comparable patents:
• Industry characteristics
• Market share or market share potential
• Growth prospects
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/fundamental-analysis/09/valuing-patent.asp
Methodologies for Determining Reasonable Royalty Damages
The fifteen Georgia-Pacific factors are as follows. Not all may be applicable in any given case. Further, some may, in certain cases, act to lower the damages royalty rather than increase it. Thus, in any given case, some factors may increase the royalty, while others could be neutral or tend to decrease it. The net result, however, can never be below the statutory minimum, which is really reflected by the last factor.
• The royalties received by the patent owner for the licensing of the patent-in-suit, proving or tending to prove an established royalty;?
• The rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent-in-suit;?
• The nature and scope of the license, as exclusive or non-exclusive, or as restricted or non-restricted in terms of territory or with respect to whom the manufactured product may be sold;?
• The licensor’s established policy and marketing program to maintain its patent monopoly by not licensing others to use the invention or by granting licenses under special conditions designed to preserve that monopoly;?
• The commercial relationship between the licensor and the licensee, such as whether they are competitors in the same territory in the same line of business, or whether they are inventor and promoter;?
• The effect of selling the patented specialty in promoting sales of other products of the licensee; the existing value of the invention to the licensor as a generator of sales of its non-patented items; and the extent of such derivative or convoyed sales;?
• The duration of the patent and the term of the license;?
• The established profitability of the product made under the patent; its commercial success; and its current popularity;?
• The utility and advantages of the patent property over the old modes or devices, if any, that had been used for working out similar results;?
• The nature of the patented invention; the character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor; and the benefits to those who have used the invention;?
• The extent to which the infringer has made use of the invention, and any evidence probative of the value of that use;?
• The portion of the profit or of the selling price that may be customary in the particular business or in comparable businesses to allow for the use of the invention or analogous inventions;?
• The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the infringer;?
• The opinion testimony of qualified experts; and?
• The amount that a licensor (such as the patent owner) and a licensee (such as the infringer) would have agreed upon (at the time the infringement began) if both had been reasonably and voluntarily trying to reach an agreement; that is, the amount that a prudent licensee – who desired, as a business proposition, to obtain a license to manufacture and sell a particular article embodying the patented invention – would have been willing to pay as a royalty and yet be able to make a reasonable profit, and which amount would have been acceptable by a prudent patent owner who was willing to grant a license.??
https://www.fr.com/reasonableroyalty/
==========================================
The factors most often used are those enumerated in Georgia-Pacific v US Plywood Corp., 318 F.Supp 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) and include, among other things, utility and advantages of the patented invention, commercial success of the patented invention, licenses for comparable products
ARTICLE
U.S. Patent Damages
September 2018
CIPA Journal
By Timothy P. McAnulty; Jeffrey C. Totten; Nathan I. North
https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/u.s.-patent-damages.html
============================================
Patent damages in US courts: overview of current state of play
https://www.iam-media.com/patent-damages-us-courts-overview-current-state-play
=============================================
Patent Infringement Damages: Everything You Need to Know
https://www.upcounsel.com/patent-infringement-damages
=============================================
Significant 2018 Patent Decisions and a Look Ahead
Thursday, December 20, 2018
The Supreme Court has entertained a cert. petition on behalf of RPX to determine whether this frequent patent challenger has standing to appeal a PTAB decision upholding a patent. RPX Corp. v. ChanBond LLC, 897 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Pending S. Ct. Cert. Petition). The Supreme Court recently requested the Solicitor General to provide briefing on the matter.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/significant-2018-patent-decisions-and-look-ahead
=============================================
Compensatory Damages Issues in Patent Infringement Cases
https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2017/Compensatory_Patent_Damages_2d_ed_2017.pdf
stockfan100
Friday, 11/29/19 12:56:31 PM
Re: Scruffer post# 74943
0
Post # 74952 of 74952
Great reminder to start the holiday season with!
Beats any baseless void of fact nonsense claim against the company! smile
Even the middle value of each option is enough to make us all rich!
Quote:
Patent infringement value scenarios based on # of cable customers:
0.29/share = .002 (charge 1/5th a penny a day for 10 years)
0.73/share = .005 (charge 1/2 a penny...)
1.44/share = .01 (charge 1 penny a day...)
2.88/share = .02 (charge 2 pennies a day...)
4.32/share = .03 (charge 3 cents per day...)
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/cable-and-satellite-tv-sinks-again-as-online-streaming-soars/
https://www.leichtmanresearch.com/2-4-million-added-broadband-in-2018/
Patent infringement value scenarios based on revenues:
$200B now, but must reduce each previous year so say, average $125B for 10 years.
0.77/share = .0010 (1/10th of 1% revenues) = .001*125B*10/1,614,601,069
1.94/share = .0025 (1/4th of 1% revenues)
3.87/share = .0050 (1/2 of 1% revenues)
7.74/share = .0100 (1% of revenues)
Scruffer
Tuesday, 02/27/18 10:10:09 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 39541 of 74950
Tot Mkt Cap ~600B+, Rev, Net Inc
___MC______Rev_____NI__
__3.5B____2.2B___300.7M == Cogeco, CCA.TO (acquired Atlantic Broadband)
__4.1B____909M___117.7M == Cable One, CABO
_14.1B____9.3B___(971M) == Altice USA, ATUS [acquired Cablevision & Suddenlink (Cequel)]
100.2B___41.6B_____9.9B == Charter, Inc, CHTR (acquired Bright House Networks)
183.3B___84.5B____22.7B == Comcast, CMCSA
___xxx____1.5B_____158M == Mediacom, LLC
_74.5B___31.3B_____5.3B == Time Warner, TWX
__4.6B_____xxx______xxx == TPG Capital (acquired WaveDivision 2.3B, RCN 1.6B, Grande 650M)
__925M____1.2B_____103M == WideOpenWest, WOW
__4.9B____6.6B____93.1M == Arris, ARRS
215.3B___48.1B___(1.4B) == Cisco, CSCO
Sources: Bloomberg, Yahoo Finance Statistics, Home Page & Wikipedia
JME (Estimate).
Scruffer = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wtfhZwyrcc
Cox Communications Fact Sheet
Newsroom >
Cox Communications is a broadband communications and entertainment company, providing advanced digital video, Internet, telephone and home security and automation services over its own nationwide IP network. The largest private telecom company in the U.S., Cox serves more than 6 million residences and businesses. Cox Business is a facilities-based provider of voice, video and data solutions for commercial customers, and Cox Media is a full-service provider of national and local cable spot and new media advertising.
Cox is known for its pioneering efforts in broadband and commercial services, industry-leading customer care and its outstanding workplaces. For nine years, Cox has been recognized as the top operator for women by Women in Cable Telecommunications; Cox has ranked among DiversityInc's Top 50 Companies for Diversity 12 times. More information about Cox Communications, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, is available at www.cox.com and www.coxmedia.com.
Company Stats:
• Cox has approximately 6 million total residential and commercial customers
• Total revenues of $11 billion in 2016
• Cox operates 6 clustered cable systems in 18 states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Virginia
• Cox has approximately 20,000 employees nationwide
• Approximately 2/3 of our customers are in a bundle, approximately 1/3 of customers are triple play
• 350,000 commercial customers with more than 1.5 million business phone lines
• In the last 10 years, Cox has invested more than $15 billion in its communities through infrastructure upgrades to deliver video, phone and high-speed Internet service to homes and businesses in the company’s service area. Cox plans to invest $10 billion in the next five years.
• Cox’s in-kind and direct cash contributions totaled $70 million dollars in 2016, with a community outreach focus on youth and education initiatives.
• Cox is a leader in customer satisfaction, earning a total of 34 awards from J.D. Power and Associates, including 10 consecutive wins for residential phone and 9 awards for business services.
• Cox Communications is 55 years old, and remains a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises, a privately-held, family-owned corporation with $20 billion in annual revenues (2016)
• Since 2012, Cox has connected more than 300,000 people to the Internet through the Connect2Compete program, most for the first time.
Here R the patents @ the USPTO
Inventors: Hennenhoefer; Earl (Harrisburg, PA), Snyder; Richard V. (Harrisburg, PA), Stine; Robert D. (Dillsburg, PA)
Assignee: CBV, Inc. (Carlisle, PA)
And then the top one (# 9,363,554) with:
Inventors: Hennenhoefer; Earl (Carlisle, PA), Snyder; Richard (Harrisburg, PA), Stine; Robert (Mechanicsburg, PA)
Applicant: Name City State Country Type
CBV, Inc. Carlisle PA US
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC (Dallas, TX)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=cbv&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=Hennenhoefer&FIELD2=&d=PTXT
cable spects
https://specification-search.cablelabs.com/?currentPage=1&sortby=false&order=false&query=H8,341,679&category=DOCSIS&subcat=DOCSIS%203.1&doctype=Specifications&content=true&archives=true
The three cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach. In contrast to such data points, the market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements. StoneEagle Servs., Inc. v. Pay-Plus Solutions, Inc., 8:13-CV-2240, 2015 WL 3824170, at *9-*11 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2015); D.I. 372, Ex. 1, Bakewell Rpt., §§ 273-274; see also AVN Technologies, LLC v. Intel Corp., 15-CV-33-RGA, 2017 WL 178752, at *3 (D. Del. May 1,
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:06:57 AM
Re: long uoip post# 76368
0
Post # 76380 of 76412
2017).
..
“has anybody responded privately or is there a way we can source this information ? are you suspecting same valuation method will be utilized with uoip ?
Waiting or others to respond....unsure where to get other jury instruction sheet in similar cases.....judge Johnson in the brings v Google case someone got the instruction sheet but didn’t know where they got it...u might be able to find out at Wordpress....go there enter vrng 24.....there’s a lot there to look through.....am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts.
Suspecting the same valuation method to be utilized? Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, ...perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate.... can’t really tell that’s why one must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference as to what the parties are talking about......believe at the end of the hearing a plan will either be approved by judge and / or will send both sides with his guidance to further negotiate an agreed upon method ( this wouldn’t be bad) an acceptable delay if it prevents an appealable miss application of setting upon an agreed method.
===========
long uoip
Saturday, 02/01/20 11:30:59 AM
Re: Long term post# 76380
0
Post # 76381 of 76412
re: "Judge Andrews asked for other cases, perhaps that was just pointing the parties in a general direction, perhaps it was a hint as to what parameters he thinks is appropriate" ..I concur, certainly initiates genesis point
re: "3 cases identified by Defendants do not concern the market approach or the propriety of an expert considering litigation financing agreements, requests for investment funding, or offers for sale as comparable transactions under any approach" ..another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways
re:"market approach must be based on actual licenses or comparable agreements" ..I concur, thanks for the additional examples
re:"must be familiar with multiple methods so when discussed in court in Feb we can pick up on inference"..my research shows various modalities, court will reveal judge's sentiments which would be best suited
re:"am under the weather presently..have enough energy to just read posts" ..sorry to hear that (hope it's not what's on the news)
thanks for responding despite your fatigue, hope you feel better
we need you.. . court 17 days
========================
Long term
Saturday, 02/01/20 12:47:18 PM
Re: long uoip post# 76381
0
Post # 76384 of 76412
“;another stall tactic or modus of operandi to veer case sideways “
Don’t think it’s a stall tactic...Andrews is being accommodating to the defense & pointing out to defendants to get real after what valuation methods they proposed ( what they proposed was ridiculous) the purpose is not to fall into a appealable trap....Andrews,as all judges have as an objective is not to be appealed for judicial mistake......his direction to 13 read those cases as a guide in developing a mutually agreed upon method that he could approve.
The Feb hearing will further clarify what was said in the Nov25 hearing....if both sides have reached agreement of method of valuation & if Andrews is comfortable then the method will be applied & we’ll probably know by the end of the hearing. If the sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method. As to setting trial date he could set it thus adding more pressure ( again demonstrating to an appeal court of his fairness rendering a non appealable point)
=================
long uoip
Saturday, February 1, 2020 6:26:26 PM
Re: Long term post# 76384
Post # 76399 of 76411
re:"appealable trap" ..I shudder from even the inference
I would rather go nice & slow then deal with weeks, months, years of appeals, seems like Judge Andrews track record is professional & methodical
re:"get real about evaluation" ..analogy between defendants offer of nov court hearing $5-10 million & figures that shareholders are submitting parallel to other similar cases @ $1.6 B (curious to what that amounts to per share)
correct me if I'm wrong.. . 1,614,601,069 uoip shares
$1.2 B = approx. $.75 share
I'm all for ~ "judges having an objective to not to be appealed for judicial mistakes"
re: "mutually agreed upon method"..ugh, Houston, we have a problem LOL
"probably know by the end of the hearing?".. wow, seriously ?
"MUST BE APPROVED by the judge"..dilemma for the defendants
re: "sides haven’t agreed I think he’ll give further instruction & set another date to determine method" ..I suspect this will be the great debate
=================
Billions in settlement dollars. No doubt.
64.35M cable subscribers
$60 per month for one's internet connection or "ACCESS" only (NO CONTENT INCLUDED!)
12 months per year
$46,332,000,000 per year
20 years (Suing for the life of the patent(s), via royalties)
$926,640,000,000 (Almost a TRILLION DOLLARS)
__@_______w/ ~1,614,601,069 shares O/S
0.1% == $926,640,000________$0.57/share (that's 1/10th of 1% for infringement)
0.25% = $2,316,600,000?______$1.44 (1/4th of 1%)
0.5% == $4,633,200,000______$2.87 (half a %)
1% === $9,266,400,000______$5.74
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=152680338
Scruffer
Monday, December 30, 2019 5:04:36 PM
Re: I-Glow post# 75574
Post # 75582 of 75625
302,167,304 # of people / units
Enhanced Channel Assignment and Load Distribution in IEEE 802.11 WLANs
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AHA07.pdf
Dynamic Channel Assignment in IEEE 802.11 Networks
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AA07.pdf
Capacity Allocation in Multi-cell UMTS Networks for Different Spreading Factors with Perfect and Imperfect Power Contro
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/AN06.pdf
This is our expert whiteness ?
Dr. Robert Akl
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Experience
http://www.cse.unt.edu/~rakl/resume.htm
long uoip
Friday, March 27, 2020 10:55:57 AM
Re: A deleted message Post # 78575 of 78599
respectfully easyme, I concur with most of your analogy.. .
bill gates metaphor "great corrector" analogy was in reference to our impending aug. 18th court date, opportunity for Stephen B. Brauerman to advocate on behalf of Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine (the 3 chanbond inventors) so the legal system can validate their innovative technology & their long overdue $ compensation
Economics + Law = Damages
p.s. I don't think covd19 is nothing, it is changing the trajectory of many people's lives, mostly the lower socioeconomic class, unfortunately
____________________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 10136180
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: April 6, 2015
Date of Patent: November 20, 2018
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
____________________________________
Intelligent device system and method for distribution of digital signals on a wideband signal distribution system
Patent number: 9363554
Abstract: A plurality of intelligent device systems for use with a wideband signal distribution network, and methods for transmitting digital information and receiving digital and non-digital information onto and off of an RF carrier through a wideband signal distribution network, are disclosed. The intelligent device systems provide networks of intelligent devices that modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, using existing EIA/TIA 568 standard wiring infrastructure. The methods modulate and demodulate digital video, IP video/data/voice and digital wireless onto, and off of, a wideband distribution system, such as an analog carrier system, and separate IP portions from non-IP portions.
Type: Grant
Filed: January 29, 2014
Date of Patent: June 7, 2016
Assignee: CHANBOND LLC
Inventors: Earl Hennenhoefer, Richard Snyder, Robert Stine
court of appeals voice recording
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings
5 Patent Law Petitions to Watch at the Supreme Court
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/5-patent-law-petitions-to-watch-at-the-94926/
PROVIDERS OFFERING CABLE SERVICE
We've found 452 providers offering Cable service in the US. Below are stats on their coverage and speeds.
Philhump03 listed the following
listed the following
Provider Est. Population Covered States Max Speed
XFINITY from Comcast 111,710,288 40 987 mbps
2014 was 68.78B and 2018 was 91.51B. 1% of 2018 is $915,100,000
Charter Spectrum 102,473,344 43 940 mbps
43.634B in annual revenue/sales for 2018.... 1% of that is $43,634,000
Cox Communications 21,128,654 19 300 mbps
6 million total residential and commercial customers
Total revenues of $11 billion in 2016
Optimum by Altice 12,437,931 4 400 mbps
Mediacom Cable 7,510,920 22 1000 mbps
WOW! 7,174,627 9 50 mbps
Suddenlink Communications 6,818,884 19 1000 mbps
RCN 4,103,162 7 1000 mbps
Cable ONE 3,358,492 20 1000 mbps
Wave Broadband 1,908,564 3 1000 mbps
Atlantic Broadband 1,871,420 13 1000 mbps
Midco 1,312,111 5 1000 mbps
Grande Communications 1,226,241 1 1000 mbps
Newwave Communications 1,057,601 7 100 mbps
Armstrong 982,867 5 1000 mbps
Service Electric Broadband Cable 969,100 2 150 mbps
Blue Ridge Communications 616,308 1 1000 mbps
Vyve Broadband 606,062 10 1000 mbps
GCI Communication 556,741 1 1000 mbps
Buckeye Broadband 544,140 2 300 mbps
En-Touch Systems 535,246 1 115 mbps
Northland Communications 492,413 8 100 mbps
TDS Telecom 475,628 10 600 mbps
Service Electric Cablevision 438,870 1 350 mbps
Shentel 411,731 3 150 mbps
Windstream 406,072 49 1000 mbps
Fidelity Communications 384,027 5 1000 mbps
Cablelynx Broadband 364,058 4 50 mbps
Comporium Communications 294,033 2 400 mbps
Vast Broadband 285,321 2 200 mbps
Zito Media 271,350 16 200 mbps
MaxxSouth Broadband 259,771 2 60 mbps
Consolidated Communications 207,589 8 100 mbps
Horry Telephone Cooperative 205,403 1 300 mbps
Blue Stream 186,428 1 1000 mbps
Massillon Cable TV 169,891 1 100 mbps
Cable America Missouri 144,579 2 100 mbps
BendBroadband 143,789 1 300 mbps
Morris Broadband 133,711 1 100 mbps
Hargray Communications 132,008 2 30 mbps
Antietam Broadband 131,986 1 200 mbps
Direct Communications 126,571 4 20 mbps
Ritter Communications 124,154 3 100 mbps
Continuum 104,611 1 200 mbps
Adams Cable Service 101,045 2 50 mbps
Summit Broadband 98,010 1 1000 mbps
TruVista 95,293 2 250 mbps
Reach Broadband 93,246 1 75 mbps
Inter Mountain Cable 90,008 3 300 mbps
Reserve Telecommunications 89,631 1 300 mbps
USA Communications 87,146 3 60 mbps
NuLink Digital 85,098 1 100 mbps
CTV Beam 83,932 1 102 mbps
CAS Cable 83,926 2 1000 mbps
Giggle Fiber 79,795 1 500 mbps
ImOn Communications 75,307 1 80 mbps
ComSouth 73,728 1 50 mbps
CentraCom 72,489 2 100 mbps
ETC Communications 71,927 3 150 mbps
OneSource Communications 70,808 1 35 mbps
Eagle Communications 69,886 3 100 mbps
Orbitel Communications 68,665 1 150 mbps
Mid-Hudson Cablevision 65,153 1 200 mbps
Thames Valley Communications 63,923 1 110 mbps
Conway Corporation 60,799 1 50 mbps
Home Telecom 59,774 1 100 mbps
Arvig 58,044 1 100 mbps
All West Communications 53,422 1 100 mbps
Golden West Telecommunications 52,372 1 50 mbps
Frankfort Plant Board 51,201 1 250 mbps
D&P Communications 51,053 2 110 mbps
Full Channel 49,612 1 320 mbps
Nittany Media 49,477 1 125 mbps
Thacker-Grigsby Telephone 49,081 1 50 mbps
ATMC 46,398 1 200 mbps
Rainier Connect 44,688 1 55 mbps
CASSCOMM 44,640 1 50 mbps
Bailey Cable TV 43,875 2 12 mbps
Spanish Fork Community Network 43,188 1 120 mbps
Indco Cable 41,849 4 4.0 mbps
Emery Telcom 41,800 1 40 mbps
commZoom 41,540 1 100 mbps
AllensTV 41,347 1 50 mbps
Long Lines 41,245 3 300 mbps
FiberVision Florida 41,098 1 90 mbps
Spirit Broadband 40,356 1 10 mbps
Access Cable Television 40,221 2 100 mbps
LivCom 39,774 1 25 mbps
HBC 38,057 1 1000 mbps
Vision Communications 37,474 1 25 mbps
USA Communications (Iowa) 37,432 1 6.0 mbps
Country Cablevision 36,919 1 100 mbps
Consolidated Smart Broadband Systems 36,760 2 1000
mbps
CableSouth Media3 35,893 2 10 mbps
SELCO 35,608 1 50 mbps
GVTC Communications 34,641 1 12 mbps
Satview Broadband 34,640 1 10 mbps
BELD Broadband 33,909 1 300 mbps
Kings Bay Communications 32,113 1 1000 mbps
CPWS Broadband 32,002 1 100 mbps
1% of 43.6 billion is 436 million.How bout as we waite to pass
the time w collectively do some DD on the following and post info to this post.
Name of 13 companies & their Annual income for each to present 12-31-2018
1 Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC,
2 Bright House Networks, LLC,
3 CSC Holdings, LLC,
4 Cable One, Inc.,
5 Cablevision Systems Corporation,
6 Cequel Communications Holdings I, LLC,
7 Cequel Communications, LLC,
8 Charter Communications, Inc.,
9 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC,
10 Comcast Corporation,
11 Cox Communications, Inc.,
12 Mediacom Communications Corporation,
13 RCN Telecom Services, LLC,
14 Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC,TT
15 Time Warner Cable Inc.,
16 WaveDivision Holdings, LLC,
17 WideOpen West Finance, LLC.
x years infringement for each x 13=
Future licensing for each....????? Years ( not sure how many)=
Punitive damages for each = up to 3x final amount
Looser pays legal fees and costs ( if goes to trial)
Cut & past edit pg # 1
Useing (.05%) A percentage historically 1-5% ( since the amt here may be very large I'd guess.5-1.5%)
All About News, DDs and Charts ****
#1-SISTER FORUM
$Pistol Pete$, $Mick$ & Friends Stock Picks /news, DD and charts
#2-SISTER FORUM
*** MICK, $Pistol Pete$ & FRIENDS STOCK PICKS *** M F S P''''''''
#3-SISTER FORUM
Billionaire Boys Club Member Forum (BBCMF)
#4-SISTER FORUM
**** SNAP CHAT MESSENGERS ****
#5-SISTER FORUM
$$Pistol Pete$$, $$Mick$$ Uranium Rare Earth Gold Silver Metals Exporation
https://valueinvestor.com/category/mining-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/marijuana-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/biotech-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/cryptocurrency-stocks/
https://valueinvestor.com/category/top-stories/
those just starting out or flirting with subs
No Bid
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/Profile.aspx?user=171071
$UPER $TOCKS DD and RESEARCH FORUM
Business Insider-market alerts
http://dailymarketalerts.com/
CANNABIS SECTIONS?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/breaking-news/?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/the-watchlist/?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/category/breakingnews/united-states/ ;?https://wholesalestockmarket.com/category/breakingnews/canada/
Coins
*****SHOP AVC COIN - INTERESTING ITEMS
https://shopavc.com/
https://avccoins.com/
https://avccoins.com/Watchlive.htm
Coins?*****Collectors Alliance. ?http://www.collectorsalliance.com ;?
Coins
***** https://www.rarecollectiblestv.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_half_dollar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_half_dollar
https://www.govmint.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-OWSn46r4QIVrR-tBh0kcA95EAEYASAAEgKvZPD_BwE
Coins
https://catalog.usmint.gov/
==========================================================
Coins JBCOIN
http://jbcoinsinc.com/
==========================================================
Coins?https://www.landofcoins.com/index.php?/
Coins?http://www.thecoinvault.com
[COINS---AAC ONLINE] AUCTION [IFFY]
ttps://www.aactv.com/
Coin Grading?http://www.pcgscoinfacts.com/
Coin Grading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coin_grading#Sheldon_grading_system
America's Auction House-HERITAGE - auction
https://www.ha.com/
125+ World-Class Experts in 40 Categories
---GOLD
https://www.blanchardgold.com/
https://www.blanchardgold.com/shop/gold/certified-bullion-coins/
---SILVER
https://www.blanchardgold.com/shop/silver/certified-bullion-coins-silver/
---RARE
https://www.blanchardgold.com/shop/rare-coins/
Golden Glossary of Coin Terminology
COINS
https://www.blanchardgold.com/glossary/letter-a/
GOOD COINS---HTTPS://SHOPCSNTV.COM
GOOD COIN CHAT -SILVER EAGLE-HALF DOLLAR -GOLD COINS ---
https://shopcsntv.com/
https://shopcsntv.com/2019-silver-eagle-pair-pr70-ms70-1st-strike.html
SD Bullion Silver ---... https://sdbullion.com/silver
World Numismatic
http://worldnumismaticnews.com/
HTTP://WWW.AMERICANBULLS.COM
PRESS RELEASES
https://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/my-business-wire/
NEWS ROOM
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/business
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/medicine-and-healthcare
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/business-finance
https://www.newswire.com/newsroom/beats
https://www.newswire.com/feeds
https://www.forbes.com/#1919276c2254
https://www.forbes.com/innovation/#6529acf16834
https://www.forbes.com/money/#34aa487ac19a
https://www.forbes.com/industry/#2f0aab9c4ab5
https://www.forbes.com/lists/list-directory/#459b21f7b274
https://www.forbes.com/markets/#7f3c06731fbf
https://www.forbes.com/editors-picks/#790dcf2078bf
CNN MONEY BUSINESS
https://www.cnn.com/business
https://money.cnn.com/data/markets/
https://www.cnn.com/business/tech
https://www.cnn.com/business/media
https://www.cnn.com/business/success
https://www.cnn.com/business/perspectives
https://www.cnn.com/business/videos
FOREIGN AFFAIRS;
I.P.O.'SFrance
FRANCE 24 Live – International Breaking News & Top stories - 24/7 stream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J78SdCzzumA
ttps://thefly.com/syndicate.php
https://thefly.com/landingPageNews.php?id=2807735
https://thefly.com/
https://thefly.com/news.php
https://thefly.com/events.php
https://thefly.com/news.php?insight_filter=on&h=6
COMPANY INFORMATION
http://www.wallstreetreporter.com/
https://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/ethereum-is-about-to-boom/90323
https://www.wealthdaily.com/reports
https://www.wealthdaily.com/resources
https://www.wealthdaily.com/podcasts
Home Pg. SPUTNIK NEWS
https://sputniknews.com/
http://wallstreetnation.com/
https://www.stockwatch.com/default.aspx
https://www.reuters.com/
https://seekingalpha.com/market-news
https://www.businesstimes.com.
https://www.oann.com/
Zardiw Working on more features for DDAmanda - chartist/
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=2760
DDAmanda
https://www.finra.org/
https://otce.finra.org/otce/home
http://finra-markets.morningstar.com/MarketData/EquityOptions/default.jsp
https://otce.finra.org/otce/equityShortInterest
https://otce.finra.org/otce/dailyList?viewType=Additions
https://otce.finra.org/otce/dailyList?viewType=Symbol%2FName%20Changes
https://otce.finra.org/otce/marketStatistics/historicalData
https://otce.finra.org/otce/marketStatistics/top100Issues
https://otce.finra.org/otce/marketStatistics/monthlyShareVolume
Website Is For Good Information
http://www.clippercorporatepartners.com/
https://twitter.com/GeorgeASharp
https://oilandenergyinvestor.com/
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/acrl
SHELL STOCK REINSTATEMENTS
Estrella's Sizzling Hot Stock Plays
KAT Exploration Inc. (KATX)
GOLD MINING LINKS
http://www.miningweekly.com/page/latest-news
MINING/
http://www.miningstocks.com
Jay Taylor's Gold and Technology Stocks
http://www.miningstocks.com
https://goldsilver.com/
MoneyTV with Donald Baillargeon
http://moneytv.net/
http://moneytv.net/this-weeks-show/
SMART MONEY GROUP
Pinto Beans and Money Making Stock Picks 2018
JW Value Stocks
The next BIG CUSTODIAN play---OWNERSHIP
https://investorshub.advfn.com/The-next-BIG-CUSTODIAN-play-35974/
Sunnyland Master of OTC. Specializing in L2 and charting instruction along with OTC institutional integration.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=431444
https://twitter.com/SUNNYLAND24
GOOD CHAT ON THIS LINK/
https://dcdirtylaundry.com/house-republicans-submit-bills-to-abolish-the-irs-audit-the-fed/
https://dcdirtylaundry.com/
CHARTING/
http://www.stockta.com/cgi-bin/analysis.pl?symb=ACRL&cobrand=&mode=stock
CHARTING/
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=acrl&insttype=&freq=&show=
CHARTING/
https://stockcharts.com/
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=CBIS&p=D&yr=0&mn=6&dy=0&id=p63415940898
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=WYNN
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=23771&qm_symbol=%20rshn
Chairman of the Board, President, and CEO en HUDSON CORPORATION
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=53425&qm_symbol=potn
Advisor to the Board en PotNetwork Holding Inc.
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=19542&qm_symbol=idgc
– Senior Advisor to the President en IDGlobal Corp
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=94353&qm_symbol=MCGI
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=35503&qm_symbol=LVGI
https://www.tinygems.net/quotedetail.html?qm_page=57937&qm_symbol=PMCB
https://twitter.com/idgreencorp / RANDY HUDSON /$IDGC
https://rumormurmursbuzz.blogspot.com/?m=1
Mr Wowza-
ILUS
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_person.aspx?membernum=171071
Ilustrato Pictures International, Inc. (ILUS)
Oil & Gas - Energy - Commodities - Resources
GREAT ARTICLES/ MANY STARTUPS
https://www.stockgumshoe.com/reviews/radical-technology-profits/whats-the-6-million-startup-behind-the-code-of-life/#
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/02/22/1380357/0/en/Clean-TeQ-Sunrise-Project-Update.html
https://www.stockgumshoe.com/reviews/radical-technology-profits/whats-the-6-million-startup-behind-the-code-of-life/#
RED CHIP
https://www.redchip.com/home
CEO INTERVIEW
http://www.wallstreetreporter.com/
FORTUNE
http://fortune.com/
x22 reports
https://x22report.com/
QUALITY INFORMATION
https://www.energyandcapital.com/reports/
https://www.energyandcapital.com/
https://stocktalktoday.com/category/news/
WIRES/
https://globenewswire.com/Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Bloomberg Global News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp8PhLsUcFE
http://www.bloomberg.com/live
FINDINGS/
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Awr9Il1on51aDj4AMV1XNyoA;_ylc=X1MDMjc2NjY3OQRfcgMyBGZyA3VoM19maW5hbmNlX3ZlcnQEZ3ByaWQDSHUyNXlERkxTTFd5cDd1T0J2WUZ2QQRuX3JzbHQDMARuX3N1Z
MARIJUANA
http://chasingmarkets.com/?
MARK IT FOLKS /////\\\\\ i'd like to see this happen. sanctuary placement for homeless as soon as possible.
**** illegals have the sanctuary placement in most states.****
why not the homeless be sponsored by the sports leagues of america.
ah special taxation on their salary to support the homeless.
heck figure how many would finally have an address to file claims
to the gov't.
the homeless have no speaker for them.
i think some lawyers could donate some time to this.
mark this message for improvement for the homeless.
SHO LIST BUYINS.NET Chart Analysis Chart Video Lessons Charts Charts Charts Clinical Trials Corporate Bankruptcy Corporate Records Search Deregistering
Document Research Earnings Email Address Verifier EYE ON THE FDA FINRA Daily Short List Floats Form 4 Filings High Short Interest Stocks Insider Buy & Sell Info
Investing Glossary Investor Words Low Float Stocks Message, Blog & Twitter Postings Multicollinearity Patterns Platform Reverse Splits SEC Form Types and Definitions
Secretary Of State Sites - All states Shell Stocks SHO Threshold List Short Stocks Stock Chart Patterns Stock Promotions Stock Promotions Stock Research
Technical Analysis Technical Indicators/Overlays Trading Halts Trading Platform Trading Stations Transfer Agent Contact Information
Information Cannabis/
Jurisdiction with legalized cannabis.
Jurisdiction with both medical and decriminalization laws.*
Jurisdiction with legal psychoactive medical cannabis.
Jurisdiction with legal non-psychoactive medical cannabis
Jurisdiction with decriminalized cannabis possession laws.
Jurisdiction with total cannabis prohibition
* Mississippi has only legal non-psychoactive medical cannabis, and Illinois has decriminalized cannabis as of July 29th, 2016
Attribution: Lokal_Profil , CC-BY-SA-2.5
[-chart]investorshub.advfn.com/Images/cannibusUS.png[/chart]
https://investorshub.advfn.com/Images/cannibusUS.png
most;
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#mpcs
most;
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#csn
most
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#csih
company's
https://investorshub.advfn.com/cannabis-stocks/#csih
Hey Datzzz Me/ Casper Da Friendly Ghost
thank you lots/ i am casper and the 5th dimension [time zone]
https://media1.tenor.com/images/881e357ad319d14704762f8b4afa450e/tenor.gif?itemid=8463633
https://tenor.com/search/casper-gifs
https://tenor.com/
court 4 2 19
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A8619926c-a24e-42ed-9553-df7df6f84701
Friday, March 15, 2019 1:22:45 PM
Re: None
Post # 64456 of 64474
A few weeks/months back I posted a link to cnnmoney that forecasted a 12 month stock price of 1200.00. Most people laughed and shrugged it off without much thought. I’d like to present several thoughts why I feel the forecast while not totally accurate, does give an idea of the long term global potential of the plan zwolf spoke about recently and the relevancy to Mr. Spangenburgs current business models concerning patent monetization/analysis/reform. Many may not know that Mr. Spangenburg and Mr. Carter are close business partners and have founded and continue to run successful patent service companies. Many call them trolls but it doesn’t take much reading to see that they are far from that. They provide services and solutions to patent holders to better arm themselves against large corporations who prey on and benefit from small scale IP owners/creators. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity that we are fortunate to be in below the ground floor. All of Mr. Spangenburg and Mr. Carters companies are PRIVITELY held companies and I have no issues owning stock with these two guys running not only this show, but many, many others with outstanding success. I’m quite sure all the private noteholders across their many organizations are being paid proportionally to the amount of shares they own, and owning a personal stake in every company they finance litigation for says everything I need to hear honestly. What’s good for them is good for me and I’m grateful for this opportunity. To those who are that concerned, I would suggest you put on a pot of coffee, grab some snacks and start reading…that’s what I did back in 2017. I went back and read about 1-2 years of posts over the course or a week or so.
These links gave me a really good idea of Carter and Spangenburgs “big picture link,
ipwe.com
The key words to listen for are smart contracts.link
This link is one I’m sure we have all seen, but I like it because its proof Carter is Spangenburgs right hand man and that they personally purchase a stake in every company they finance litigation for and are motivated to get the patent creators and thereby themselves, paid.link
Also some may have missed the info on carter from post 21698 from 2014
In closing, if I think about all the money ive spent on internet service from dial-up to gigabit and to know that the technology enabling comfortable internet use has not been going into the hands of the people who helped enhance it is a pure and utter shame. I hope Mr Spangenburg succeeds in his patent reform efforts and I hope this case sets a new precedent going forward.
Billy carter
ice2014
Monday, 09/22/14 10:16:21 AM
Re: None
0
Post # 21698 of 63460
UnifiedOnline! LLC is owned by Billy Carter, the person who bought ICEWEB and took all its debt by paying about 116K. IMO, he is not dumping shares in the market but is using these shares to pay the other debt holders, e.g. Asher enterprise who dumped theirs in the market.
IMO, it seems that the stock has been taken over by MMs and has been shorted like hell, and that's why you see 1+ billion on bids at 0.0001. It is a possibility that MMs have sold more than the float. These MMs may be turned upside down if any positive news is released on/before Sept. 30th, and they have to cover their short positions.
You can check more about Billy Carter at following sites:
http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/print-edition/2014/03/21/a-troll-or-a-foe-of-trolls.html?page=all
http://www.columbusceo.com/content/stories/apexchange/2013/07/13/has-patent--will-sue-.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/business/how-a-typical-patent-battle-took-an-unexpected-turn.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Make a search on carter in 2nd and 3rd URL. It seems that new owner of IEWEB Mr. Carter really has deep pockets. He has probably invested in ICEWEB not to double or triple his 116K but probably to multiply his 116K by 100s of times. ICEWEB and KCNAP play in the hottest cloud space. It seems that Mr. Carter is involved in too many businesses that I can track. He is also the president of Plant Transformation Technology (PTT) with chairman Erich Spangenberg of IPNAV (check above links). He seems to be very much involved in IPNAV as well, which has sued 1600+ companies.
http://www.planttt.com/team.html
Also he is the president with chairman Erich Spangenberg at IPCM:
http://www.ipcmadvisors.com/about-ipcm/management-team/
He is an owner of UnifiedOnline! LLC
http://www.uoip.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1:about-uo-ip&Itemid=185
Again, IMO, Billy Carter probably didn't buy ICEWEB for 116K to double his money but to make it really big. This is probably the last week and we should hear news (official 10-K) from ICEWEB before Sept. 30th deadline.
Evilbean
Thursday, February 21, 2019 7:27:31 AM
Re: None Post # 62182 of 62222
If you want more understanding of where we sit, this court document is actually pretty good at explaining the issues with the appeal and the IPRs. It also discusses some of the 13s intent/strategy in what may be an argument against us in court. This is a court document filed 6/15/18. It is well worth the time to read and may help clarify issues in your mind.
This is not a slam dunk for us there is still a lot of legal wrangling that must go on and I think this document will show that.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17o8Ymz4-T3Xg_HccyKExwxGPVAXnyJmw/view
Scruffer
Sunday, 01/06/19 02:35:59 PM
Re: None
0
Post # 60213 of 60258
183B in annual rev by the 13.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142407605
And consider this:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/cbs-cant-dodge-750m-defamation-suit-jonbenet-ramseys-brother-1072118
I'm beginning to think much, much higher, but who knows. Possibly record setting.
And listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1i5coU-0_Q
Scruffer-B-Goode
PCT Europe LTD Signs Distribution Agreement With UK NHS Company, Receives Additional NYC Hospital Order
PCT LTD Discusses Its Rapid Growth and Expansion Plans with The Stock Day Podcast
https://audioboom.com/posts/7562220-pct-ltd-discusses-its-rapid-growth-and-expansion-plans-with-the-stock-day-podcast
LINK:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pct-europe-ltd-signs-distribution-200000409.html
PCTL on 2 TV BROADCAST Networks. Plus Fully current !
TOMORROW should be VERY EXTREMELY exciting !
https://www.wmbfnews.com/video/2020/04/15/little-river-company-makes-hospital-cleaning-supplies/
https://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/latest-news/article242029616.html
ACTION NEEDED Pctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do
We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been posted
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
https://www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/Request-BARDA-TechWatch-Meeting/
See how it works - https://lnkd.in/eacqr7x
My VP of nyc hospital attests to how good our machine works
https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/content/?facetSortBy=date_posted&keywords=Jonathan%20Johonnesson&origin=GLOBAL_SEARCH_HEADER
Info they’ll need:
PODCAST LINK click
Click in search....Pctl
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders.
The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought.
At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed.
Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be:
* - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities
* - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability
* - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19?
If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
Select A portion of this DD ( below dotted line)& send to government site
https://www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/Request-BARDA-TechWatch-Meeting/
PR/heightened demand: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200313005307/en/
Annihilyzer™ system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZLjJdqpz9s&feature=youtu.be
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation
Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing
[color=red]
ACTION NEEDEDPctl has been trying to get in contact with the government to make them aware of our machine & what it can do
We can help with & in our numbers send them copies of the DD that’s been
This is the contact point in government that needs to know about pctl Paradigm Convergence Technology. (Read below)
https://www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/Request-BARDA-TechWatch-Meeting/
Info they’ll need:
PODCAST LINK click
Click in search....Pctl
Much more DD below dotted line
This is who we can contact in government to make them aware of our machine.
point of entry for the submission of market research packages and meeting requests from interested stakeholders.
The U.S. government, in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, seeks information from stakeholders on available medical countermeasures in development. We are particularly interested in products and technologies that have progressed into or beyond non-clinical trials, have established large-scale cGMP manufacturing capability, or utilize an approved platform. Information regarding diagnostics, therapeutics, vaccines, and other products or technologies relevant to addressing this outbreak are sought.
At this time, we ask for a brief description of your product or technology, accompanied by a slide deck, manuscript, publications, or other non-confidential information of your choosing. Please note that while we will use any information you present as market research, submission is no guarantee of a meeting or funding and your submission will be shared across U.S. Government agencies involved in COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development. Only U.S. government officials are invited to join a CoronaWatch meeting, and are bound by law to maintain confidentiality of what is presented and discussed.
Ideal technologies and products would (but are not required to) be:
* - Relevant to the U.S. government COVID-19 medical countermeasure research and development efforts and/or Emerging .Infectious Disease rapid response capabilities
* - Utilize an already-approved platform, have non-clinical data suggesting efficacy, and/or have significant manufacturing capability
* - Fully owned or licensed by your organization (you have full IP rights and/or freedom to operate)
Would you like to meet with a federal agency regarding a product that you are developing for COVID-19?
If you are interested in requesting a CoronaWatch meeting, please Register for an account and Login, or if you have an account Login to submit some basic product information.
===================================================
--GENERAL INFORMATION---
Company Site: para-con.com
Twitter: @PCTL2020
Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
Markets Served: Hospitals & Healthcare, Agriculture, Oil & Gas, Hotel & Tourism, Food Service/Production
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System
The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20
Authorized- 1,000,000,000
Outstanding- 511,315,300
Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company
440 East 400 South, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150
www.standardtransferco.com
Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital.
(3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital
(1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center
(1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center
(450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
5: Johnston UNC Healthcare Hospital Smithfield
(509 N Brightleaf Blvd , Smithfield, NC 27577)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe
(1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial)
(University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH)
(University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital
(Ranked Top 5 in the Nation)
(622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032)
---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
2. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
3. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
4. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
5. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
6. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
7. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
8. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
9. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
10. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
11. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
12. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
13. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
14. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
15. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
16. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
17. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
18. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
----Investor Call Summation, Paradigm Convergeance Technologies Corporation----
---First 10 minutes of call---
---Addressing Financial Filings---
3rd Quarter 10Q
In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys
Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks
(updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K
Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes
"very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution
No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019---
on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly
company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner
Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results
"unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets---
Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remediation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service
"Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally eliminates the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20)
8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian
[Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
[Suppressed Image]
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
UPDATED DUE DILIGENCE 3-17 - RESEARCH NOW
Below is a good portion of the DD done here, by myself and others. Do YOURS now!
(Also pinned on top of board)
Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation
Summarized Due Diligence Sheet for Investing
---GENERAL INFORMATION---
Company Site: para-con.com
Twitter: @PCTL2020 - (I urge you to follow them and review their posts)
Investor Relations Chesapeake Group - Get on the email list for news info@chesapeakegp.com
About: a technology licensing company specializing in environmentally safe solutions for global sustainability with products for various markets they serve.
Mission: Infectious Disease and Contamination Control
Markets Served: Hospitals & Healthcare, Agriculture, Oil & Gas, Hotel & Tourism, Food Service/Production
About Products: Products and solutions are designed to take an environmentally conscious approach to combating the spread of infectious disease in the Healthcare and Cleaning industries, as well as contributing to the sustainability of global natural resources in the energy and agriculture markets.
The PCT Annihilyzer® Patented Monitoring, Tracking & Reporting System
The Kiosk, which sits on top of the Filling Station Cabinet, houses The PCT Annihilyzer® System’s computer controls, information system, RFID tagging and reading system and an interactive touch screen display.
---FINANCIAL INFO---
Filings: LINK
Current info as of 3/9/20
Authorized- 1,000,000,000
Outstanding- 511,315,300
Restricted- 35,139,690
Standard Registrar and Transfer Company
440 East 400 South, Suite 200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: 801-571-8844 or 801-596-2150
www.standardtransferco.com
Amy Merrill Email: amy@standardregistrar.com
---CURRENT CLIENT LIST---
1: Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital.
(3959 Broadway At, W 165 St, New York NY 10032)
2: Mount Sinai South Nassau Hospital
(1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572)
3: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center
(1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703)
4: SUNY Downstate Medical Center
(450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203)
5: Johnston UNC Healthcare Hospital Smithfield
(509 N Brightleaf Blvd , Smithfield, NC 27577)
6: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center ??? Maybe
(1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065)
7: North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, (UK Trial underway began Jan 15th 2020 - 60 day trial)
(University Hospital of Hartlepool, Holdforth Road, Hartlepool, TS24 9AH)
(University Hospital of North Tees, Hardwick, Stockton on Tees, TS19 8PE)
8: New York Presbyterian Columbia Hospital
(Ranked Top 5 in the Nation)
(622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032)
---VP recently endorsed in a LinkedIn post---
9: New York Hospital -- as per PR Release (labeled #1 below)
---PR & RELATED INFORMATION---
1. 03/18/20 - PCT LTD Receives Large Purchase Order for Recurring Sales of Fluids for Non-Medical Use and Explains Current Revenue Streams PR LINK
2. 03/16/20 - PCT LTD Interview with Stock Day Podcast (MUST LISTEN) PR LINK
3. 03/13/20 - PCT LTD Adds International Distributor and Sells High-Volume Equipment to Existing Customer as a Result of Heightened Demand PR LINK
4. 03/11/20 - PCT LTD Experiencing Rapid Increase in Interest and Receives Purchase Order from Additional Hospital in New York City PR LINK
5. 03/09/20 - Interview: PCT LTD Hospital Infection Control System installed in seven hospitals and expanding INTERVIEW LINK
6. 02/14/20 - PCT LTD Schedules Investor Call (Call took place on 2/20/20) PR LINK Audio Link (Written Summation below)
7. 01/30/20 - PCT LTD Executes Term Sheet for Debt Financing PR LINK
8. 01/08/20 - PCT LTD Discusses Their International Expansion and Growth Strategy with The Stock Day Podcast PR LINK
9. 12/16/19 - PCT LTD Issues Company Update and Signs Collaborative Agreement for Oil & Gas, and Cannabis Applications PR LINK
10. 10/31/19 - PCT LTD Continues to Expand By Signing Agreement with SUNY Downstate Medical Center Worth over $500,000 PR LINK
11. 10/25/19 - 3rd Quarter 8K released (see above FILINGS link)
12. 10/22/19 - Hospital-acquired Infection Control Market Is Estimated To Expand At a Healthy CAGR in the Upcoming Forecast Period MARKET RESEARCH PR
13. 10/22/19 - PCT LTD Deploys Initial Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System to the United Kingdom PR LINK
14. 10/4/19 - PCT LTD Announces Additional Hospital Installation of Annihilyzer(R) Infection Control System PR LINK
15. 7/26/19 - The Infection Prevention Strategy is pleased to announce our Top Innovations of the Year: 2019 (Annihilyzer) PR LINK
16. 5/6/2019 - PCT LTD Announces New Purchase Order as the Result of a Successful Trial of Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems (A TOP 5 hospital in the U.S. AND --#1 in NY-- CONVERTED from Trial to a customer AFTER a successful trial period) - Morgan Stanley Presbyterian Children’s Hospital PR LINK
17. 2/25/19 - PCT LTD Installs a Large Volume Hydrolyte® System with Option Agreement for 4 additional LVH Systems with Oil & Gas Industry Customer PR LINK
18. 1/10/19 - PCT LTD Executes New Master Service Agreement for Installation of Annihilyzer® Hospital Infection Control System at Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center PR LINK
19. 11/08/18 - PCT LTD Announces Completion of Major Commercialization Milestones and Promotion of Jody Read to CEO Position PR LINK
20. 5/16/18 - Newly Launched Disinfecting System Reduces Hospital Acquired Infections PR LINK
21. 5/10/18 - PCT LTD Receives Patents for RFID Tracking Technology in Cleaning System (US Patent#9679170) PR LINK
----Investor Call Summation, Paradigm Convergeance Technologies Corporation----
---First 10 minutes of call---
---Addressing Financial Filings---
3rd Quarter 10Q
In final review with auditors & SEC Attorneys
Expected to be completed in up to 3 weeks
(updated per IR email--- expected in the next week)
10K
Expected to be filed by April 13th
Convertible Notes
"very active negotiations" to come to a resolve by time of 10K filing (April 13th)
No material change is O/S in months
very actively negotiating financing with negligible, if any, dissolution
No anticipation of R/S
---Growth of about 400% in 2019---
on target to grow exponentially in 2020
G&A down significantly
company become more efficicent, losses narrowed significantly down around 75% from 2018
---Currently Doing---
PCT UK joint venture partner
Trial ongoing: Universities as well as hospitals involved to verify U.S. results
"unless bacteria and virsuses are any different, which they aren't, don't anticipate any difficulty verifying claims"
"Preliminary discussions between PCT UK and National Healthcare system of the UK"
---Markets---
Primary Focus on healthcare sector - hospitals, medical centers assisted living, rehab facilities
Secondarily - Oil & Gas, remidiation of Hydrogen Sulfide (very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable)
Recently - Cannabis Industry - purveyor of service
"Happy to discover our product greatly mitigates or totally elimiants the 3 major problems they are having"
---Current Placement--- (Does not include newest NY Hospital announced above in PR on 3/11/20)
8 hospitals, 11 units installed with "3 more slated in next few weeks with more behind it"
Endorsement from VP of MY Presbyterian and other execs
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
Not sure how many are aware of BARDA, but I came across a post on Twitter this evening and after doing a little digging, found this:
Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, was established to aid in securing our nation from chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, as well as from pandemic influenza (PI) and emerging infectious diseases (EID).
In my eyes that's most certainly an organization that should be aware of the Annihilyzer product, so I connected with their Director, Rick B and provided a post on Linkedin for more exposure to their request of building out a. comprehensive portfolio of COVID-19 countermeasures. See below.
(For my privacy, I did redact my information on the image)
Post made to BARDA Director, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Preparedness & Response - U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
=================
exactly what the EPA said
Quote:
List N includes products that meet EPA’s criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19.
The key word here is against The EPA does not come out and say any products on these lists will kill CV-19. However I doubt the EPA would use a strong word as against in the above statement.
Quote:
Note: Inclusion on this list does not constitute an endorsement by EPA. There may be additional disinfectants that meet the criteria for use against SARS-CoV-2. EPA will update this list with additional products as needed.
It's pretty obvious this disclaimer is stating the EPA does not endorse as in recommend any product that's listed. They do not because it would constitute marketing for that product.... The EPA also recognizes that there are other products that meet the criteria against SARS-CV-2 AKA Coronavirus. Why do they make this statement? Because there are other products that are registered with the EPA that are not on this list that meets the criteria against CV-19
Nothing hard to understand there. Here is the a pic of it below:
[Suppressed Image]
Lets move on
List N: Disinfectants for Use Against SARS-CoV-2 | Pesticide ...www.epa.gov › pesticide-registration › list-n-disinfectants-use-against-...
If a product qualified for the Emerging Viral Pathogen Claim, it demonstrated efficacy against a harder-to-kill virus than the enveloped human coronavirus
From this statement we know that EXCELYTE which meets this criteria. How do we know this? We know because they are on the N list under EPA registration 92108-1. I also believe this Reg number can be used against the harder to lill Norovirus. Coronavirus is easier to kill than Norovirus. Any amount of basic DD will show that.
Below is the reg and product number for EXCELYTE
[Suppressed Image]
Finally Below is the EPA reg link for EXCELYTE showing it's registered to PCT Ltd. This link is the original registration.
https://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=PPLS:8:1272595636521::NO::P8_PUID,P8_RINUM:513158,92108-1
To wrap it all up is the link to the current N list
https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/list-n-disinfectants-use-against-sars-cov-2
Pretty basic stuff is you ask me lol
==============
Pics of the product - Sorry about it being sideways
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
[Suppressed Image]
============
PCT LTD Obtains EPA Approval for Emerging Pathogens Labeling for Use Against SARS-CoV-2, the Novel Coronavirus That Causes the Disease COVID-19
Business WireMarch 27, 2020, 9:49 AM CST
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is pleased to announce that it has received approval for "emerging pathogens" labeling with the US EPA.
The application was filed under the guidance document "Guidance to Registrants: Process for Making Claims Against Emerging Viral Pathogens Not on EPA-Registered Disinfectant Labels." It was approved on March 26th, 2020. The guidance document provides the following information regarding different classes of viruses and their resistance to being killed by disinfectants:
EPA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recognize that certain microorganisms can be ranked with respect to their tolerance to chemical disinfectants. The Spaulding Classification model, used by CDC, tiers microorganisms in accordance with the level of resistance to being killed (inactivation) by typical disinfectant products. With this approach viruses are divided into three viral subgroups (small non-enveloped, large non-enveloped, and enveloped) based on their relative resistance to inactivation … According to this hierarchy, if an antimicrobial product can kill a small, non-enveloped virus it should be able to kill any large, non-enveloped virus or any enveloped virus. Similarly, a product that can kill a large, non-enveloped virus should be able to kill any enveloped virus.
Small, Non-Enveloped Viruses (<50 nm): These small, non-enveloped viruses can be highly resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Despite the lack of a lipid envelope, these organisms have a very resistant protein capsid…
Large, Non-Enveloped Viruses: Compared to small, non-enveloped viruses, these viruses are less resistant to inactivation by disinfection. Although they have a resistant protein capsid, their larger size (50-100nm) makes them more vulnerable than their smaller viral counterparts…
Enveloped Viruses: Enveloped viruses are the least resistant to inactivation by disinfection. The structure of these viruses includes a lipid envelope, which is easily compromised by most disinfectants. Once the lipid envelope is damaged, the integrity of the virus is compromised, thereby neutralizing its infectivity.
In addition to being "an EPA-registered, hospital/healthcare or broad-spectrum disinfectant …", in order to meet product eligibility criteria, the product "should have disinfectant efficacy claims against at least one of the following viral pathogen groupings:
a) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one large or one small non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against an enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
b) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least one small, non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against a large, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
c) A product should be approved by EPA to inactivate at least two small, non-enveloped viruses with each from a different viral family to be eligible for use against a small, non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
This approach, where disinfectant products registered for use against viral pathogens in one category of the Spaulding Classification model can be presumed effective against viral pathogens in less-resistant categories, is intended to serve as a conservative approach to identifying disinfectant products likely to be effective against emerging pathogens."
As a result of meeting all of the Product Eligibility Criteria, PCT LTD can now make the following statement "only through the following communication outlets: … "1-800" consumer information services, social media sites and company websites (non-label related) … [as well as] technical literature distributed exclusively to health care facilities, physicians, nurses and public health officials":
This Product meets the criteria to make claims against certain emerging viral pathogens from the following viral category[ies]:
Enveloped Viruses
Large Non-Enveloped Viruses
Small Non-Enveloped Viruses
For an emerging viral pathogen that is a/an…
…follow the directions for use for the following organisms on the label:
Enveloped virus
Norovirus
Large, non-enveloped virus
Norovirus
Small, non-enveloped virus
Norovirus, Rhinovirus (Type 16)
Hydrolyte® has demonstrated effectiveness against viruses similar to SARS-CoV-2 virus on hard, non-porous surfaces. Therefore, Hydrolyte® can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
COVID-19 is caused by SARS-CoV-2 virus. Hydrolyte® kills similar viruses and therefore can be used against SARS-CoV-2 virus when used in accordance with the directions for use against Norovirus and Rhinovirus type 16 on hard, non-porous surfaces. Refer to the CDC website at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/home/cleaning-disinfection.html for additional information.
"We are very pleased to receive approval for an "emerging pathogens" claim on our product label," says CEO Gary Grieco. "It represents an important step for us as a business and in helping to control the spread of infectious disease as a whole. Additionally, we are now prequalified for future emerging pathogens of any virus classification."
Due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, PCT LTD has seen an increased number of inquiries from existing clients, sub-registrants, and distributors; in addition to new and prospective customers. The company recently announced that they had temporarily shifted their focus towards producing mass quantities of disinfecting fluids to meet growing demand.
"Fluid sales have been tremendous for us," says PCT Ltd CEO Gary Grieco. "To put it simply, we are routinely shipping fluids out at rapid pace and into the hands of trained professionals where our product can be put to good use fighting the spread of infectious disease in our communities. We are limited only by our capacity to produce the fluids, but we expect to double our production capacity by April 1st."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
About PCT LTD:
PCT LTD ("PCTL") focuses its business on acquiring, developing and providing sustainable, environmentally safe disinfecting, cleaning and tracking technologies. The company acquires and holds rights to innovative products and technologies, which are commercialized through its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, Paradigm Convergence Technologies Corporation (PCT Corp). Currently trading on OTC, "PCTL" aspires to and is actively engaged in preparations for up-listing its common stock to a national securities exchange. The Company established entry into its target markets with commercially viable products in the United States and now continues to gain market share in the U.S. and U.K.
Forward-Looking Statements:
This press release contains "forward-looking statements" as defined in Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Any statements that express or involve discussions with respect to predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, goals, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be "forward-looking statements."
Such statements are based on expectations, estimates and projections at the time the statements are made that involve a number of risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those presently anticipated. Such statements involve risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to: the impact of having met the EPA Criteria for use Against SARS-CoV-2, actual sales derived by the Company; the transition to producing large quantities of fluids; PCTL's and its subsidiary's business prospects; PCTL's ability to raise sufficient funds to satisfy its working capital requirements; the ability of PCTL to execute its business plan; any other effects resulting from the information disclosed above; risks and effects of legal and administrative proceedings and government regulation; future financial and operational results; competition; general economic conditions; and the ability to manage and continue growth. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual outcomes may vary materially from those indicated. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements PCTL makes in this press release include market conditions and those set forth in reports or documents it files from time to time with the SEC. PCTL undertakes no obligation to revise or update such statements to reflect current events or circumstances after the date hereof or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200327005363/en/
Contacts
Gary Grieco, CEO and Chairman, PCT LTD
(843) 390-7900 Office
(843) 390-2347 Fax
www.para-con.com
www.pctcorphealth.com
www.survivalyte.com
Brokers and Analysts: Chesapeake Group
+1-410-825-3930
info@chesapeakegp.com
==================================================================================================================. CANADA INFO & LINKS
BokehRebl
Tuesday, 03/31/20 10:29:25 PM
Re: Long term post# 78282
?
0
Post # 78283 of 78339
Here’s THE list I put together of all relevant contact in the US and Canadien Government, Feel free to add more!
USA Counter Measures
https://www.medicalcountermeasures.gov/Request-BARDA-TechWatch-Meeting/
Canada calling all suppliers
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/calling-all-suppliers-help-canada-combat-covid-19
Health ministers of Canada
Patty Hardy
Patty.Hajdu@parl.gc.ca
————————————————
Health minister of Quebec
Danielle McCann
ministre@msss.gouv.qc.ca
Danielle.McCann.SAGU@assnat.qc.ca
Health minister of Ontario
Christine Elliott
christine.elliott@pc.ola.org
Health minister of British Columbia
Adrian Dix
adrian.dix.MLA@leg.bc.ca
Health Minister of Alberta
Tyler Shandro
health.minister@gov.ab.ca
Jason Luan
associateminister-mha@gov.ab.ca
Health Minister of Saskatchewan
Jim Reiter
he.minister@gov.sk.ca
Health Minister of Manitoba
Cameron Frysien
dmhsal@leg.gov.mb.ca
Others for Canada
Chief Public Health Officer of Canada
Twitter @CPHO_Canada
Dr. Theresa Tam
drtheresa.tam@canada.ca
phac.info.aspc@canada.ca
general email
Health Commissioners USA
Alabama
Scott Harris, MD, MPH [Bio]
State Health Officer
scott.harris@adph.state.al.us
Alaska
Anne Zink, MD, FACEP*
Chief Medical Officer
Anne.zink@alaska.gov
Arizona
Cara M. Christ, MD, MS [Bio]
Director and State Health Official
cara.christ@azdhs.gov
Arkansas
Nathaniel H. Smith, MD, MPH [Bio]
Director and State Health Officer
nathaniel.smith@arkansas.gov
California
Sonia Angell, MD, MPH
Director, Department of Public Health
Sonia.Angell@cdph.ca.gov
Colorado
Jill Ryan, MPH [Bio]
Executive Director
Jill.Ryan@state.co.us
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
Esther L. Muña, MHA, FACHE [Bio]
CEO, Commonwealth Healthcare Corporation
esther.muna@dph.gov.mp
Connecticut
Renee Coleman-Mitchell, MPH [Bio]
Commissioner\
renee.coleman-mitchell@ct.gov
Delaware
Karyl Rattay, MD, MS [Bio]
Director, Division of Public Health
karyl.rattay@state.de.us
District of Columbia
LaQuandra S. Nesbitt, MD, MPH [Bio]
Director
laquandra.nesbitt@dc.gov
Florida
Scott Rivkees, MD
State Surgeon General
health@flhealth.gov
Covid-19@flhealth.gov
Georgia
Kathleen Toomey, MD, MPH [Bio]
Commissioner, Director of Health Protection
kathleen.toomey@dph.ga.gov
Guam
Linda Unpingco-DeNorcey, MPH [Bio]
Director, Department of Public Health and Social Services
linda.denorcey@dphss.guam.gov
Hawaii
Bruce S. Anderson, PhD [Bio]
Director of Health
Bruce.S.Anderson@doh.hawaii.gov
Idaho
Elke Shaw-Tulloch, MHS [Bio]
Public Health Administrator
elke.shawtulloch@dhw.idaho.gov
Illinois
Ngozi Ezike, MD [Bio]
Director of Public Health
Ngozi.Ezike@illinois.gov
Indiana
Kristina M. Box, MD [Bio]
State Health Commissioner
kbox@isdh.in.gov
Iowa
Gerd W. Clabaugh, MPA [Bio]
Director
gerd.clabaugh@idph.iowa.gov
Kansas
Lee Norman, MD, MHS, MBA*
Secretary
lee.norman@ks.gov
Kentucky
Angela Dearinger, MD, MPH*
Commissioner
jeffreyd.howard@ky.gov
Louisiana
Alexander Billioux, MD, DPhil [Bio]
Assistant Secretary of Health
Alexander.Billioux@LA.GOV
Maine
Nirav Shah, MD, JD*
Director, Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention
Nirav.Shah@Maine.Gov
Maryland
Robert Neall
Secretary of Health
Frances B. Phillips, RN, MHA [Bio]
Deputy Secretary for Public Health Services
S/THO Designee
robert.neall@maryland.gov
Massachusetts
Monica Bharel, MD, MPH [Bio]
Commissioner
monica.bharel@state.ma.us
Michigan
Joneigh Khaldun, MD, MPH, FACEP [Bio]
Chief Deputy Director for Health and CME
khaldunj@michigan.gov
Minnesota
Jan Malcolm [Bio]
Health Commissioner
jan.malcolm@state.mn.us
Mississippi
Thomas Dobbs, MD, MPH*
State Health Officer
thomas.dobbs@msdh.ms.gov
Missouri
Randall W. Williams, MD, FACOG [Bio]
Director
randall.williams@health.mo.gov
Montana
Sheila Hogan
Director
Gregory Holzman, MD [Bio]
Chief Medical Officer
S/THO Designee
gHolzman@mt.gov
Nebraska
Dannette Smith, MSW *
Chief Executive Officer, Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services
Gary Anthone, MD
Chief Medical Officer and Director, Division of Public Health
S/THO Designee
Dannette.Smith@nebraska.gov
Nevada
Lisa Sherych, MBA*
Administrator
lsherych@adsd.nv.gov
New Hampshire
Lisa Morris, MSSW [Bio]
Director, Division of Public Health Service
lisa.morris@dhhs.nh.gov
New Jersey
Judith Persichilli RN, BSN, MA*
Commissioner of Health
Judith.Pershichilli@doh.nj.gov
New Mexico
Kathy Kunkel, JD, MSW [Bio]
Cabinet Secretary Designee
Abinash Achrekar, MD
Deputy Secretary
S/THO Designee
kathy.kunkel@doh.state.nm.us
New York
Howard Zucker, MD, JD [Bio]
Commissioner of Health
howard.zucker@health.ny.gov
North Carolina
Mark Benton [Bio]
Assistant Secretary for Public Health
mark.benton@dhhs.nc.gov
North Dakota
Mylynn K. Tufte, MBA, MSIM, RN [Bio]
State Health Officer
mylynntufte@nd.gov
Ohio
Amy Acton, MD, MPH [Bio]
Director of Health
DirectorAmyActon@odh.ohio.gov
Oklahoma
Gary Cox, JD*
Commissioner of Health
GaryC@health.ok.gov
Oregon
Lillian M. Shirley, BSN, MPH, MPA [Bio]
Public Health Director
lillian.shirley@state.or.us
Pennsylvania
Rachel Levine, MD [Bio]
Secretary of Health
ralevine@pa.gov
Puerto Rico
Rafael Rodriguez Mercado, MD, FACS, FAANS
Secretary of Health
Catherine De La Cruz-Duran*
S/THO Designee
drrafael.rodriguez@salud.pr.gov
Rhode Island
Nicole Alexander-Scott, MD, MPH [Bio]
Director
nicole.alexanderscott@health.ri.gov
South Carolina
Richard Toomey, MHA, DHA [Bio]
Director, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Rick.Toomey@dhec.sc.gov
South Dakota
Kim Malsam-Rysdon [Bio]
Secretary
kim.malsam-rysdon@state.sd.us
Tennessee
Lisa Piercey MD, MBA, FAAP [Bio]
Commissioner
tn.health@tn.gov
Texas
John Hellerstedt, MD [Bio]
Commissioner
john.hellerstedt@dshs.texas.gov
Utah
Joseph Miner, MD [Bio]
Executive Director
joeminer@utah.gov
Vermont
Mark Levine, MD [Bio]
Commissioner of Health
mark.levine@vermont.gov
Virginia
M. Norman Oliver, MD, MA [Bio]
State Health Commissioner
norm.oliver@vdh.virginia.gov
Washington
John M. Wiesman, DrPH, MPH [Bio]
Secretary of Health
secretary@doh.wa.gov
West Virginia
Cathy Slemp, MD, MPH [Bio]
Commissioner and State Health Officer
catherine.slemp@wv.gov
Wisconsin
Jeanne Ayers, RN, MPH [Bio]
Administrator, Division of Public Health
Jeanne.Ayers@dhs.wisconsin.gov
Wyoming
Alexia Harrist, MD, PhD [Bio]
State Health Officer
alexia.harrist1@wyo.gov
—————————————
davidsan Wednesday, April 1, 2020 4:57:18 PM
Re: None Post # 78774 of 78834
Can PCTL's fluid turn sour crude oil into sweet?
I vaguely remember this was something said in discussing why that large unnamed oil&gas company was so interested in setting up the customized trial they are doing. I remember clearly that it helped make the liquid involved in fracking much more environmentally friendly, much more green, with a more pure and less costly product, something to that effect. There was some big reason why that oil&gas company was so excited about it. If the oil&gas industry incorporates this into their standard processes, with the sheer volume of this fluid they will need every day, that will be HUGE, just that one piece of all this alone. Somewhere in there I thought I remembered that in the process it helped turn sour crude into sweet, just don't recall how specific that point was.
Anyone here remember?
This is so much more than just hospitals and spraying to kill the coronavirus. The agricultural/cannabis industry and oil&gas industry customized trials are going on as well.
And, of course, the UK trials are about to hit (The UK hospital trial already completed, and the 2 university studies are supposed to complete the end of March to first week of April, meaning anytime now). Just waiting on results and orders, both expected to be very favorable.
Long & Strong!
GLTA
========================
J
?
jayashri bhadane
Hypochlorous Acid Market Demand Would Increase Rapidly
Hypochlorous Acid Market: Excellent Microbial and Oxidizing Properties
Hypochlorous acid is a weak acid formed by dissolving chlorine in water. It possesses excellent microbial and oxidizing properties. It is used as a disinfectant agent in medical, water treatment, and food additives in food & beverages industry.
Sodium hypochlorite and calcium hypochlorite are the two types of hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite is a widely consumed hypochlorous acid. Sodium hypochlorite can be easily stored and transported. It is more effective than chlorine gas in various applications.
Read report Overview@
https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/hypochlorous-acid-market.html
Hypochlorous acid is employed in various end-user industries such as water treatment, wound management, food & beverages, oil & gas, and personal care. Demand for hypochlorous acid in the wound management segment is projected to rise significantly in the near future. Hypochlorous acid acts as an excellent disinfectant in wound healing applications. It accelerates the healing process of any wound and other infections such as eye infection, ear infection, etc. Hypochlorous acid has excellent disinfectant properties, which help destroy pathogens, bacteria, and fungi.
Request PDF Brochure@
https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=B&rep_id=68783
Key drivers of Hypochlorous Acid market
Rise in demand for oxidizing and disinfecting agents in order to provide quality water is driving the global hypochlorous acid market.
Hypochlorous acid is highly cost effective. It is non-toxic to humans and animals. Therefore, it is highly preferred in the water treatment industry.
Rise in usage of hypochlorous acid in sterilizing bacterial infection by drying out blood cells is boosting its demand in the medical industry.
Hypochlorous acid is also used as an active sanitizing agent in swimming pools and skin cleansing agent in cosmetic applications.
It is used in the manufacture of calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCl)2) and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), which are further used in the manufacture of disinfectants, bleaches, and deodorants.
Food & Beverage Industry and Wound Management to offer attractive opportunities
Increase in usage of hypochlorous acid in the food & beverages industry is estimated to provide lucrative opportunities to manufacturers of hypochlorous acid in the near future.
Hypochlorous acid is used for cleaning food processing equipment and dish washers. It is also employed as food additive in processing poultry products and seafood products.
Hypochlorous acid is gaining momentum as a potential wound care agent in the pharmaceutical industry. It is a highly effective wound irrigation solution, which is entirely safe for human tissues. It aids in elimination of unpleasant wound odor and removes bacteria from wound surface.
Hypochlorous Acid may form Explosive Gas in Concentrated Form likely to Restrain Market
Hypochlorous acid is highly dangerous and can form explosive gas if used in concentrated form. This is anticipated to restrain the market during the forecast period.
When exposed to air, it disintegrates and causes nausea, abdomen pain, etc. If released in water bodies, hypochlorous acid may harm aquatic animals, thereby adversely affecting biodiversity. These factors are estimated to restrain the demand for hypochlorous acid during the forecast period.
Stuck in a neck-to-neck competition with other brands? Request a custom report on competition on Hypochlorous Acid Market here
Asia Pacific Expected to Hold Leading Share in the Global Hypochlorous Acid Market
In terms of region, the demand for hypochlorous acid can be split across five regions: North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, Latin America, and Middle East & Africa.
In terms of consumption, Asia Pacific dominated the global hypochlorous acid market in 2018. Developing economies such as China, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia are the leading consumers of hypochlorous acid in Asia Pacific.
Rapid industrialization and increase in demand for sodium hypochlorite in chemical, agriculture, and pharmaceutical industries are anticipated to fuel the hypochlorous acid market during the forecast period.
Demand for hypochlorous acid in countries in Europe such as Germany, France, and the U.K. is projected to increase during the forecast period primarily due to the rise in demand for sodium and calcium hypochlorite in the food & beverages industry in the region.
The U.S. is the leading consumer of hypochlorous acid in North America. Increase in demand for hypochlorous acid in industrial applications such as cooling water treatment is propelling the market in the U.S.
Latin America and Middle East & Africa are highly dependent on hypochlorous acid import. This is likely to hamper the sales of hypochlorous acid in these regions. However, production capacity expansion by various manufacturers in Brazil, Mexico, and GCC is expected to augment the demand for hypochlorous acid in Latin America and Middle East & Africa during the forecast period.
Key Players in Hypochlorous Acid Market:
New product launches and mergers & acquisitions are the key strategies adopted by top players operating in the market. For instance, in 2018, URGO Medical, a leading player in wound care products, entered into an asset purchasing agreement with REALM Therapeutics, a biopharmaceutical company based in the U.S. REALM Therapeutics engages in research activities to discover new hypochlorous acid based treatments for atopic dermatitis and allergic conjunctivitis. This acquisition is expected to help URGO Medical become the leading player in advanced wound care business across the globe.
Key players operating in the global hypochlorous acid market include
Lenntech B.V.
BASF SE
Arkema S.A.
Lonza.
Inovyn Chlorvinyls Limited
Olin Corporation
Nouryon (Previously under Akzo Nobel N.V.'s coating division)
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Kuehne Company
AGC Chemicals
Surpass Chemical Company, Inc.
Westlake Chemical Corporation
Clorox Company
Tianjin Ruifuxin Chemical
Tosoh Corporation
Aditya Birla Chemicals
Aqualution Systems Ltd
Ultrapure HOCL (Pty) Ltd
Others
===================
Friday, April 3, 2020 10:10:28 AM Cherry
Re: None Post # 80097 of 80187
WHY YOU WANT TO BUY ALL THE PCTL YOU CAN
Right now, IMO, before PCT LTD (ticker PCTL) announces the UK hospital results which might potentially lead to 600+ hospital installations in the UK, before the March 2020 revenues from increased fluid sales are known, before the scientific data on treating disease/mold/fungi in the citrus & cannabis industries is announced, before results from the oil & gas industry testing, and before the delayed 2019 Q3 of which will contain outdated information from over 6 months ago-
People reading here may have read and seen, in bits and pieces, all these things below.
How anyone interprets & verifies anything, and researches further, is up to them. Nothing here is advice.
Since late 2019:
More hospitals,
More distribution,
More geographic regions,
More production capacity,
More sales of the fluid itself & increasing dramatically,
EPA approved on List N to disinfect surfaces for NCOV-19-SARS-2,
Existing clients are buying more systems or extending their contracts,
They have 2 websites:
https://www.para-con.com/
https://pctcorphealth.com/
Social media
https://twitter.com/PCTL2020
https://www.facebook.com/PreventTheSpreadOfInfections/
Videos of some types of applications:
https://youtu.be/Qo6B2pjFBzw
https://youtu.be/bZLjJdqpz9s
https://youtu.be/tMTBcFGxTRk
https://www.linkedin.com/…/alex-guttman-821b506_a-hospital-…
https://www.linkedin.com/…/alex-guttman-821b506_do-our-part…
Quotes:
read comment by Kurt Strauss, NY Presbyterian Hospital, VP Support Services
https://www.linkedin.com/…/jonathan-johonnesson-2981986_hea…
read comment by Greg Baker, Johnston UNC Healthcare, Environmental Services Associate Director
https://www.linkedin.com/p…/ugcPost-6650417189276958720-aiRk
read comment by John Pickett, Memorial Healthcare System, Director EVS
https://www.linkedin.com/…/alex-guttman-821b506_i-just-left…
read comments by Alex Guttman, Ace Janitorial (NY distributor), VP Marketing & Research
https://www.linkedin.com/…/alex-guttman-821b506_i-just-left…
read comment by person connected to UK NHS
https://twitter.com/CharlotteFox…/status/1237415226695389185
Recent news:
Mar 27
PCT LTD Obtains EPA Approval for Emerging Pathogens Labeling for Use Against SARS-CoV-2, the Novel Coronavirus That Causes the Disease COVID-19
http://www.businesswire.com/…/PCT-Obtains-EPA-Approval-Emer…
Mar 25
https://www.businesswire.com/…/PCT-Expands-Production-Capac…
Mar 18
PCT LTD Receives Large Purchase Order for Recurring Sales of Fluids for Non-Medical Use and Explains Current Revenue Streams
https://www.businesswire.com/…/PCT-Receives-Large-Purchase-…
Mar 16 interview
PCT LTD Expands Production Capacity, Accelerates Hypochlorous Acid Production, UK update
https://audioboom.com/…/7532080-pct-ltd-discusses-their-uni…
Mar 13 adds a distributed in Puerto Rico and follow on sales of high volume units
http://www.businesswire.com/…/PCT-Adds-International-Distri…
Mar 11 Adds another NYC hospital
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200311005641/en/
Feb 20 conference call
https://stme.in/tAIWdx33KX
Some of the hospitals they appear to be in:
FL: Memorial Healthcare System
read comment by John Pickett (in replies), Director EVS
"Great product and part of our enhanced disinfectant effort in our ER and public areas today."
https://www.linkedin.com/…/alex-guttman-821b506_i-just-left…
https://www.mhs.net/…/…/memorial-regional-exterior-image.jpg
NC: Johnston UNC Health Care Hospital
?509 N Brightleaf Blvd , Smithfield, NC 27577?
news 5/18/2018 http://tiny.cc/idn9ez
https://www.johnstonhealth.org/…/jh-smithfield-web-652x377.…
NY: Mount Sinai South Nassau
?1 Healthy Way, Oceanside NY 11572?
news 10/4/2019 http://tiny.cc/gen9ez
https://www.mountsinai.org/…/MSHS-Landing-SouthNassau-2col-…
NY: Presbyterian Columbia University Irving Medical Center
?622 W 168th St, New York NY 10032?
news 9/24/2019 http://tiny.cc/44feiz
https://columbiasurgery.org/s…/default/files/location_ph.jpg
NY: Presbyterian Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital
3959 Broadway At, W ?165 St, New York NY 10032?
news 5/6/2019 http://tiny.cc/sfn9ez
https://columbiasurgery.org/…/defa…/files/location_chony.jpg
NY: SUNY Downstate Medical Center, University Hospital of Brooklyn
?450 Clarkson Ave, Brooklyn NY 11203?
news 10/31/2019 http://tiny.cc/onzhfz
https://www.downstate.edu/uhb/_images/uhb-canopy.jpg
NY: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center
(not confirmed)
?1275 York Avenue New York, NY 10065?
https://www.mskcc.org/…/1125/3x2/092716_msk-00047_ret2_3x2_…
NY: additional NY hospital
news: 03/11/2020 https://www.businesswire.com/…/PCT-Experiencing-Rapid-Incre…
NV: Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center
?1600 Medical Pkwy, Carson City NV 89703?
news 1/10/2019 http://tiny.cc/8jn9ez
https://www.travelnursesource.com/images/hospitals/5201.jpg
UK: hospital
500 beds http://tiny.cc/u6m9ez
news 10/22/2019 http://tiny.cc/mmn9ez
sales could reach 600+ hospitals in system
https://audioboom.com/…/7532080-pct-ltd-discusses-their-uni…
Some of the distributors, sub registrants, etc:
ABC, Puerto Rico
www.abcmedicalpr.com
(https://apnews.com/Busines…/f5ac60f75c4b407fb7b69ead849905b9)
ACE Janitorial, NY
https://www.acejan.com/#infection-control
Advance Industrial Maintenance, NY
https://www.advanceindustrial.org/
https://www.linkedin.com/…/alex-guttman-821b506_do-our-part…
Bio Blasting, NJ
https://BioBlasting.com
Interior Maintenance Specialists, TX
https://imsdfw.com/
https://www.linkedin.com/…/activity-6651456530740768768-GHv9
Sanitis, TX
https://www.sanitisglobal.com/annihilyzer-room-disinfection…
V
Santa Fe Power, FL
http://www.santafepower.net/healthcare-products.html
===============
Tuesday, 04/07/20 11:13:24 AM
Re: Patience 1 post# 81708
0.005
Post # 81730 of 82300
Quote:
NEWS OUT!! 4/7/20, 9:55 AM LITTLE RIVER, S.C.--(BUSINESS WIRE)
PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) ("PCTL") is excited to announce they have increased production capacity at their Little River, South Carolina facility.
Updating an earlier release (March 25th), the South Carolina facility is now capable of producing up to 10,000 gallons of fluids per day. A marked increase over earlier capabilities. The company is now better positioned to meet the growing demand for its Hypochlorous Acid-based disinfecting fluids.
“Our team has been working around the clock over the last several weeks to make this happen,” says Stuart Emmons, PCTL Executive VP of Engineering and R & D. “The South Carolina facility is now better positioned to fulfill the daily orders we have been receiving.”
Due in part to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, the company has seen an exponential increase in sales and inquiries from current and prospective customers. Late last month the company shifted its short-term focus towards fluid production and sales to meet increasing demand.
“It’s supply and demand,” according to PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. “The demand is there and now so is the supply. We needed to shift our focus towards where we can have the most impact and do the most good for our customers and the communities they serve. At the same time, this presents an opportunity for us to elevate our profile, grow our business, and showcase how effective our products can be in the ongoing fight against the spread of infectious disease.”
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly.
Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems.
Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
“We are continuing our rapid growth plans,” says Grieco. “Through strategic partnerships, distribution agreements, and more, we are gaining market share, increasing revenue at a rapid pace, and growing our business both quickly and efficiently.”
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
====================
Wednesday, April 8, 2020 1:22:30 PM Beer money
Re: None Post # 82319 of 82350
Yes Gary Grieco, PCTL CEO, stated, "As a result of the capabilities and benefits of our products, many companies and municipalities across a variety of industries and geographic locations are engaging in intense discussions with PCT LTD."
03/11/2020
https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/PCTL/news/story?e&id=1551496
PCTL "The 800 pound gorilla, Corona-virus, that has opened up a huge opportunity for us and I can not say any more than that we have been contacted by, and are actively negotiating to address the problem with both companies and government officials and I can not say more than that."
Gary Geico, CEO
March 16th, 2020
To hear Gary Grieco’s entire interview, follow the link to the podcast here:
https://audioboom.com/posts/7532080-pct-ltd-discusses-their-unique-annihilyzer-disinfectingsystem-and-impact-of-the-coronavirus-wit
In addition, Grieco further commented, "All of our hospital customers using our infection control system and disinfectant are utilizing the systems as a front-line defense throughout their facilities, including in all public area such as restrooms, lobbies, waiting rooms, elevators, corridors, cafeterias, etc. all throughout the day and night and in the presence of patients, staff and visitors."
Gary Grieco’s entire interview link here:
https://www.para-con.com/images/docs/PCTL03-16-20.pdf
============
Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:01:52 AM
Re: None Post # 82599 of 82789
Hypochlorous Acid Okay For Easter Eggs
Hypochlorous acid is cleared by the FDA for use on meat, poultry, fish & seafood, fruits & vegetables and shell eggs as a no-rinse sanitizer.
FCN 1811 is a Food Contact Notification (FCN) from the FDA for using electrolytically generated hypochlorous acid as an antimicrobial agent in an aqueous solution in the production and preparation of whole or cut meat and poultry; processed and preformed meat and poultry; fish and seafood; fruits and vegetables; and shell eggs.
To read more about food contact notification 1811, visit the FDA website in the link below.
https://www.hypochlorousacid.com/regulation
[Suppressed Image]
==================
Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:35:37 AM
Re: None Post # 82670 of 82807
Why the NHS and Private Clinics Should Look Further than Alcohol-Based Sanitisers
The CoViD-19 pandemic has brought alcohol to the fore; whether it is the amount the British public is consuming to get through self-isolation or the level required in hand sanitiser to make it effective, the news stories are everywhere.
Many of these revolving around the shortage of traditional alcohol-based hand sanitisers and how prices are soaring. With this being the case, why then don’t the NHS and other health care facilities look elsewhere? Is there no other option?
In fact, there is another option which is rapidly emerging as the new go-to sanitiser during the CoViD-19 pandemic; Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl).
What is Hypochlorous Acid?
HOCI is generated when white blood cells attack harmful bacteria and is harmless to the human body. In December 2019 Optometry Times published an article on HOCl and they explain it much better than I can… “HOCl is a weak acid that occurs naturally in our body. Neutrophils are white blood cells that are the first to arrive on site when an invading pathogen is detected. Neutrophils will chase down and engulf the pathogen through phagocytosis. Upon contact, neutrophils release a burst of bactericidal chemicals including its most powerful oxidizing agent, HOCl. This kills the pathogen by tearing down the cell membranes and proteins”.
Optometry Times called HOCl “the perfect weapon to fight germs. It hits hard against pathogens like Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) and Pseudomonas Aeroginosa. Yet this powerful weapon is 100 percent safe for humans, chemical free, non-toxic and all-natural”.
Due to these attributes HOCl is being widely used in South Korea in their battle against CoViD-19, disinfecting everything from food to people to hospital wards and their mass transit systems. Looking at the way in which they have taken control of the spread of the virus it is clear to see that HOCl can also help the United Kingdom to gain the upper hand in this struggle.
https://www.belle.org.uk/news-1/2020/4/2/why-the-nhs-and-private-clinics-should-look-to-hypochlorous-acid-rather-than-alcohol-based-sanitisers
=============
beer$$money ?
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:04:27 PM
Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83703
Post # 83709 of 83745
Alex Guttman Author> Huge interest being developed on LinkedIN
VP marketing and Research at Ace Janitorial, Sales Mgr Escalator Cleaning company, Senior VP HAI Consultants
Randy Stiles can't mention names without permission but I can say that most of the major healthcare systems in NYC are now using our system
Randy Stiles +Executive Account Manager at Paylidify
Jon Pickett, MBA is this being used at all Memorial Healthcare Locations? The feedback on the system has been great.
Jody Read
CEO at PCT Health, PCT LTD
Glad to see that the efforts of the entire team at ACE and PCT to bring this system to market has been a success and we are looking forward to placing these systems into every hospital, surgical center, nursing homes, and long-term care facilities!
Mansour N Elchammaa
Advisor, consultent, restaurants franchises,Tourism,Real estate,stocks .EX founder pita NUTSY/O restaurants.
Good am Mr Jody.could I represent your company in Dubai.? Tnx
Fritz Oehler
Executive Director at Sprenger Health Care Systems
Looks like this product could be an answer to many infection control issues in our industry.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alex-guttman-821b506_i-just-left-mount-sinai-south-nassau-system-activity-6644264439115763712-vN4T/
=============
Evaluate ?
Sunday, April 12, 2020 8:53:14 PM
Re: BIGBUCKS post# 83629
Post # 83715 of 83745
Some additional DD. The full section in that recent PCTL release includes:
Quote:
The company has also been hiring additional support staff to support growing business operations. Most recently, the company engaged Joseph Tippmann, graduate of The University of Michigan’s Industrial Design and Architecture program, as a new design engineer. Tippmann joined the company on a contract basis initially and has spent the past two weeks performing design updates on Annihilyzer and Hydrolyte Rack systems in addition to helping design a more modular system for easier assembly.
Tippmann is also a co-owner of Werks Manufacturing, a Fort Wayne, Indiana based manufacturing company which PCTL engages for the purpose of manufacturing and assembling parts for use in the company’s Annihilyzer® Infection Control System and other systems.
Werks Manufacturing is expanding their operation and will increase parts and assembly production to meet PCTL’s growing demand. In addition, Werks will also serve as a fluid depot for PCTL’s clients in the northern Midwest part of the United States. Werks will initially be capable of producing up to 4,000 gallons per day of disinfecting fluids, including Hydrolyte®, for sale and use by PCTL to clients in Detroit, Chicago, and throughout the region. This fluid production capacity can be increased as needed to serve growing demand.
I could not find much on google in regards to Joseph Tippmann.
I did find Werks Manufacturing Inc. = http://werksmfg.com ;;... but ... website is “under construction”.
It appears to be located at 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803.
It appears the phone number might be (260) 428-2698.
Also at this address appears to be: Advanced Media Integration LLC = Video production service = Vincent P Tippmann. same phone number?
I did also find Vincent P. Tippmann at this website: https://vptag.com/
Tippmann Affiliated Group is a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Approaching a half-century in business, Tippmann Affiliated Group businesses hold 17 patents and numerous product and service awards in various industries, including Automotive, Food Service, Refrigeration, Medical Device and Transportation. As it stands today, Tippmann Affiliated Group remains a family owned organization with a diversified group of business segments throughout North America and around the world. Headquartered in Fort Wayne, IN, Tippmann Affiliated Group operates its main campus on 75 acres and 810,000 sq/ft. of manufacturing and office space. 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Phone:(260) 428-2500.
It appears that 2300 Meyer Road Fort Wayne, IN 46803 is immediately adjacent to 4410 New Haven Ave Fort Wayne, IN 46803. Father & son? Could Vincent Tippman be the co-owner of Werks Manufacturing (together with Joseph Tippmann?
=====================
Ronin Wednesday, 04/15/20 10:42:51 AM
Re: TKane post# 86153
Post # 86171 of 86190
News hit DOW JONES and BUSINESS wire! Lots of eyes on this now!
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200415005407/en/PCT-Reports-Q3-2019-Financials-Revenue-Increases
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pct-ltd-reports-q3-2019-130800993.html
https://www.wallstreet-online.de/nachricht/12406105-pct-ltd-reports-q3-2019-financials-revenue-increases-435-operating-expenses-decrease
=======================
Evaluate Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:12:04 PM
Re: Evaluate post# 86473 Post # 86479 of 86491
https://pureandclean.us/disinfectant-sanitizer-gallon/
It appears that Pure & Clean is a distributor for PCT's HOCl, at 460 PPM, since their web page shows it is a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1.
Only available in the following states: Florida, Kansas Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma and Texas. For all other states, please order the Surface Cleaner Pro products: https://pureandclean.us/surface-cleanser-pro/ Pure&Clean Disinfectant/Sanitizer?
460 ppm HOCl. This is a New Generation Disinfectant formulated using Hypochlorous Acid (HOCl) that cleans, deodorizes, and disinfects. As a distributor of EPA Reg. No. 92108-1, the product pure&clean™ (EPA Reg. No. 92108-1-88098) is included on the list of products approved by the US
=====================
BIGBUCKS Wednesday, April 15, 2020 3:09:42 PM
Re: None Post # 86478 of 86491
PCT LTD Reports Q3 2019 Financials; Revenue Increases 435%, Operating Expenses Decrease
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200415005407/en/PCT-Reports-Q3-2019-Financials-Revenue-Increases
===============
Re: BRITT2575 post# 86776
0.500
Post # 86946 of 86994
Quote:
ANOTHER NEWS COVERAGE TONIGHT ON PCTL VIDEO #2
https://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/latest-news/article242029616.html
At 0’37: it shows that the “Annihilyzer is “Presented By: Annihilare and Paradigm Convergence Technology Corp”
I was surprised to see this.
Question: Does Annihilare also share in the revenues/profits of selling/leasing Annihilyzers?
Perhaps related to the patent on the RFID?
=====================
Q & A
Home - HypochlorousAcid.com
https://www.hypochlorousacid.com/faq/hocl-faq
==================
governors email addresses
https://www.nga.org/governors/addresses/
===========
BRITT2575 ?
Friday, 04/17/20 12:41:50 AM
Re: None
?
0
Post # 88648 of 88658
PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER
April 17 2020 - 12:08AM
InvestorsHub NewsWire Print
PCT EUROPE LTD SIGNS DISTRIBUTION AGREEMENT WITH UK NHS COMPANY, RECEIVES ADDITIONAL NYC HOSPITAL ORDER
Little River, SC -- April 17, 2020 -- InvestorsHub NewsWire -- PCT LTD (OTC Pink: PCTL) is pleased to announce new growth and expansion activities in the UK and NYC. PCT Europe Ltd, the UK-based partner of PCTL is pleased to announce they have signed an exclusive trading partnership/distributor agreement with an NHS (U.K. National Health Service) company.
In tandem with PCT Europe Ltd, the UK NHS company will introduce PCT technology to each NHS Hospital Trust with the intention of them rolling out PCT's unique technology and system throughout the health services 233 Trusts comprising over 600 hospitals. In addition, approximately 14,000 Care Homes in the U.K. will also be introduced to PCT's technology. A steady flow of orders is expected to commence throughout the remainder of 2020 and into 2021.
The first PCT system has now been installed in a large NHS hospital in the north of England. This system is expected to enter clinical service early in May once the final series of biological tests of the PCT hospital disinfectant solution have been completed. Results of these tests have so far demonstrated that the PCT disinfectant has met or exceeded its ability to kill the range of pathogens previously achieved during EPA tests in the United States.
"We couldn't be happier with the results thus far in our UK trials and are delighted with the progress our UK partner is making. This arrangement will introduce our system to thousands of hospitals and healthcare facilities," says PCTL CEO Gary Grieco. "At the same time, the reality of the current healthcare crisis both domestically and abroad is sobering. We're thrilled to be able to grow our business but nevertheless remain focused on our core mission which from day one has always been helping people."
The company continues to expand domestically as well. Following an earlier release dated April 14th, the company is also announcing an additional purchase order for PCT Corp.'s Annihilyzer® Infection Control Systems in New York City.
The order comes from a large NYC hospital with a current bed count in excess of 2,500. Installation will be made in coordination with PCT Corp's primary healthcare distributor, ACE Janitorial Services.
"With three PO's for our infection control system this week and more on the way, we continue to make strides both in growing our business as well as our goal of helping our clients fight the spread of infectious diseases," says Grieco. "We are on pace for unprecedented and record growth in all areas of our business."
Additional News and Corporate Updates:
PCTL would like to warn its stockholders and potential investors that material corporate information regarding sales, areas of business and other corporate updates will only be made through press releases or filings with the SEC. PCTL does not utilize social media, chatrooms or other online sources to disclose material information. The public should only rely on official press releases and corporate filings for accurate and up to date information regarding PCTL.
========================
Details for EXCELYTE VET
*
EPA Contract Info
EPA Contact Information
https://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=PPLS:8:::NO::P8_PUID,P8_RINUM:513158,92108-1
==============================
PM
Re: None Post # 92362 of 92385
PCTL> UK NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world.
SELLING TO THE NHS
SUMMARY
This guide outlines the structures that exist to help companies contact and sell existing and innovative products into the NHS, a huge organisation which can appear very complex.
IN BRIEF
NHS Supply Chain
Procurement routes – national, regional and local contracts
Products for GP prescription
Estates – capital equipment
Innovation – new products
The NHS is the largest single healthcare delivery organisation in the world. It constitutes a major opportunity for UK medical device companies. NHS trusts can purchase products through one of five main routes:
Directly from suppliers using National Framework Contracts
From the NHS Supply Chain which provides end-to-end supply chain services incorporating procurement, logistics, e-commerce and customer and supplier support
Collaborative Procurement Hubs/Confederations (regional multi-trust purchasing)
Local contracts managed by individual trusts
Pan-government National Framework Contracts
NHS SUPPLY CHAIN
The NHS Supply Chain is a single organisation created for the benefit of NHS trusts, hospitals and other healthcare organisations. The organisation combines the former NHS Logistics Authority, significant parts of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, expertise in healthcare logistics from DHL and procurement experience from Novation.
PROCUREMENT ROUTES
National contracts Tenders: Contracts for products and services valued at over £90,319 (01 Jan 2008) must be advertised in the Supplement to the daily Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). Procurement levels change, but you can confirm the current level by visiting: http://www.ojec.com.
NHS-sid: This is the official NHS supplier information database on which companies can enter their information for free:
http://www.sid4health.nhs.uk. It rationalises the management of pre-qualification data during the procurement process and can only be fully accessed by authorised NHS personnel. Suppliers looking to compete for advertised NHS contracts must still submit applications in the required format. Any supplier is free to register its services on NHS-sid.
The information published is made freely available to NHS users. Registering on this system does not imply that a supplier has any special or ‘approved’ status. Regional contracts Collaborative organisations: Most NHS trusts are now partners in ‘collaborative procurement organisations’ where, normally on a regional basis, they can share information and resources to achieve economies of scale.
Local contracts Individual trust contracts: Local contracts are often managed by a trust’s supplies department. Its approach to suppliers will vary according to the value, size and complexity of its requirements. DH has set down procurement guidelines indicating that for contracts valued below £3,000 a trust should ask for telephone quotes; for contracts valued between £3,000 and £10,000, it should request a minimum of three written quotes; for contracts valued above £10,000, a minimum of three formal written tenders should be sought. Actual interpretations of these guidelines vary from trust to trust.
PRODUCTS FOR GP PRESCRIPTION
Suppliers wishing to list their products under the Drug Tariff for prescription by GPs or nurses must seek approval from the NHS Business Service Authority (NHSBSA). These will usually be products for self-administration, possibly with a carer’s help, and will normally fall into the following categories: dressings, bandage and associated appliances, incontinence appliances, stoma appliances, and chemical reagents. If the NHSBSA grant approval, the cost, either comparatively with other similar products, or, if it is a new treatment regime, by comparison with alternatives, will be reimbursed. You can access the application form at: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk.
ESTATES – CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
DH uses two major Public and Private Partnerships (PPPs) to deliver its NHS Plan: the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and NHS Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). The NHS ProCure 21 Framework brings the NHS and the construction industry together for new-build projects. You can find information on PPPs and associated procurement policies at: www.dh.gov.uk.
INNOVATION – NEW PRODUCTS
The procurement routes above apply to established products. If you are a supplier of innovative products, you should be aware of the organisations involved in product approval:
The UK Medicines and Healthcare product Regulatory Agency (MHRA) This is the government agency responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are safe.
Regulatory affairs: Medical devices can only be placed on the market in the UK/EU if they are certified safe, are of the required quality to fulfill the manufacturer’s ‘intended purpose’ and comply with the appropriate Medical Device Directive (CE marking). The MHRA audits the performance of manufacturers and notifies bodies responsible for granting CE marks. You can find more details at: www.mhra.gov.uk.
Clinical trials: The MHRA approves clinical trials/investigations and provides guidance for manufacturers. To obtain a CE mark, a manufacturer must show that the device complies with the relevant ‘Essential Requirements’ of the appropriate Medical Device Directive. In some instances, a clinical investigation will be required. The MHRA website (listed above) provides guidance on this issue.
Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI): The new SBRI is a cross-government programme for the procurement of technology development projects, including the demonstration and evaluation of new technologies. DH has run a pilot SBRI competition in Healthcare Associated Infections in conjunction with the Technology Strategy Board. The benefit to the Department and the NHS is to make new developments available faster and more effectively. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) NICE (www.nice.org.uk) is responsible for providing national guidance on the promotion of good health and the prevention and treatment of ill health. Its activities include:
Technology appraisals – Recommendations on the use of new and existing medicines and treatments within the NHS, based upon a review of clinical and economic evidence
Interventional procedure guidance – Many of the procedures that NICE investigates are new, but it also looks at more established procedures if there is uncertainty about their safety or how well they work
NHS National Innovation Centre (NIC): NIC determines the need for innovative products, particularly in the development stage, and speeds up the development and adoption of those that deliver the best results for patients. It provides a point of entry to innovators of healthcare technology via its website and through a web-based assessment process. By considering ideas and products at every stage, it can direct them to the most.
http://knowledge.nic.nhs.uk/documentDetails.aspx?docId=10
Personal Bacteria Killer!!!
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
