Thursday, February 25, 2021 3:44:27 PM
Long term UOIP DD library 8/29/2020
magnus_invest
Thursday, 03/28/19 04:40:27 PM
Re: None 0
Post # of 84169
I am on a personal mission to find all the data I can on the UnifiedOnline/Chanbond deal. I just came across this exhibit for the 8-K from 10/30/2015. It have lots of information like the promissory note and a statement of unanimous consent... which talks about the 100% membership interests of Chanbond. (see this link https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815004760/ex101page_18.jpg)
I hope to read this tonight and I encourage anyone else to take a read and comment.
http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=10979018-9778-20253&type=sect&TabIndex=2&companyid=68562&ppu=%252fdefault.aspx%253fsym%253dUOIP
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815004760/0001354488-15-004760-index.htm
Long UOIP,
~Magnus
Goodbuddy4863
Thursday, 03/28/19 02:11:14 PM
Re: None 0
Post # of 84169
UPDATED PACER reports from khenry458>>> latest Pacer reports included:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/manage_msg.asp?message_id=147852842
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147730659
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147690657
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147690638
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147546963
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147518374
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147504727
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147504681
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147441579
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147399870
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147369073
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147357629
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147357481
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147286601
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147236895
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147129845
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147088176
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147055838
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147041236
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=147015920
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146962726
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146860209
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146856271
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146798455
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146798316
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146557121
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146482661
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146402182
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146402182
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146402092
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146324256
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=146324016
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/manage_msg.asp?message_id=146231297
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=145721119
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=145416116
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=145936075
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=145399938
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=145376975
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=145337342
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=145237635
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=145222134
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=145088380
Special thanks to Khenry and Evilbean.
magnus_invest
Thursday, 03/28/19 09:11:26 AM
Re: None 0
Post # of 84169
This is a UnifiedOnline & Chanbond document update as of 3/28/2019. I will ad more and continue to make them sticky. Please message me with other noteworthy links.
Long UOIP,
~Magnus
================================================================================
This may be even more confusing, so I will include as many links for your enjoyment smile
On April 23,2014 UNIFIEDONLINE, INC. (formerly IceWeb, Inc) entered into a subscription agreement (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815005061/uoip_sc13d.htm) with UnifiedOnline! LLC (William Carter) see exhibit 10.1 of the Subscription Agreement (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815005061/uoip_ex101.htm) and purchased 400,000 shares of Series AA Preferred Stock which were converted on January 5, 2015 to 903,825,954 shares of common stock becoming a majority shareholder in the Company (UNIFIEDONLINE, INC.). William Carter paid for the stock from his company (UO! IP of NC, LLC)
Added side note, some people have asked what is the "!" in the Inc. name and does it mean we are not purchasing the correct stock:
UNIFIEDONLINE!, INC. and UNIFIEDONLINE, INC. are the same company (see below: STATE OF DELAWARE CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION)
Corporate Entity Searches
================================================================================
https://www.sosnc.gov/online_services/search/Business_Registration_Results
Legal Name: UO! IP of NC, LLC
SosId: 1102741
https://businesswiki.info/company/nc/1102741/uo-ip-of-nc-llc
Company Overview
Uo! Ip Of Nc, LLC is a Limited Liability Company located in Greensboro , North Carolina. The company was registered on 2009-06-17 and it is approximately 9 years years old. According to North Carolina business register Uo! Ip Of Nc, LLC status is Current-Active.
Uo! Ip Of Nc, LLC agent is Carter, William R., Jr.. We don't have information about this agent address.
There is 1 director in Uo! Ip Of Nc, LLC.
================================================================================
https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx
Entity Name: UNIFIEDONLINE! LLC
File Number: 5504684
================================================================================
Entity Name: UNIFIEDONLINE, INC.
File Number: 703828
================================================================================
Entity Name: ICEWEB, INC.
File Number: 3440022
UNIFIEDONLINE!, INC. and UNIFIEDONLINE, INC
================================================================================
STATE OF DELAWARE CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION
State of Delaware
Secretary of State
Division of Corporations
Delivered 05:07 PM 12/22/2014
FILED 5:07 pm 12/22/2014
SRV 141574856 0703828 FILE
UNIFIEDONLINE!, INC., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:
1.The name of the corporation is UNIFIEDONLINE!, INC.
2.That a Certificate of Amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation (Title of Certificate Being Corrected) was filed by the Secretary of State of Delaware on December 16, 2014 and that said Certificate requires correction as permitted by Section 103 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware
3.The inaccuracy or defect of said Certificate is: (must be specific) CUSIP will not issue a new number if the new name contains an exclamation point. The corporation is a public company and is required to have a CUSIP number for its stock.
4. Article FIRST of the Certificate is corrected to read as follows:
The name of the corporation (hereinafter "corporation") is UnifiedOnline, Inc.
SEC Filings
================================================================================
http://filings.irdirect.net/data/1097718/000135448815000023/iweb_8k.pdf
January 5, 2015
From 8-K
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported) January 5, 2015
UnifiedOnline, Inc. (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
0-27865 (Commission File Number)
13-2640971 (IRS Employer Identification No.)
4126 Leonard Drive, Fairfax, VA (Address of principal executive offices)
22030 (Zip Code)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code (816) 979-1893
IceWEB, Inc. (Former name or former address, if changed since last report)
Definition of "Subscription Agreement"
================================================================================
Subscription Agreement
REVIEWED BY WILL KENTON Updated Mar 30, 2018
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subscriptionagreement.asp
What is a Subscription Agreement
A subscription agreement is an investor's application to join a limited partnership. It is also a two-way guarantee between a company and a subscriber. The company agrees to sell a certain number of shares at a specific price, and in return, the subscriber promises to buy the shares at the predetermined price.
BREAKING DOWN Subscription Agreement
In a limited partnership (LP), a general partner manages the partnership entity and brings in limited partners using a subscription agreement. Candidates subscribe to become limited partners. After meeting standard requirements, the general partner decides whether to accept the candidate. Limited partners act as silent partners by providing capital, usually a one-time investment, and have no material participation in the business's operations. As a result, they typically have little to no voice in the day-to-day operations of the partnership and are exposed to less risk than full partners. Each limited partner’s exposure to business losses is limited to that partner's original investment. The subscription agreement for joining the limited partnership describes the investment experience, sophistication, and net worth of the potential limited partner.
Broadly defined, a partnership is a business agreement between two or more people who all have personal ownership in the business. The partnership entity does not pay taxes. Instead, the profits and losses flow through to each partner. Partners will pay taxes on their distributive share of the partnership's taxable income based on a partner agreement. Law firms and accounting firms are often formed as general partnerships.
Subscription Agreements With Private Placements
When a company wishes to raise capital, they will often issue shares of stock for purchase by either the general public or through a private placement. The primary disclosure form for potential general public investors is a prospectus. The prospectus is a disclosure document listing information about the business and its underlying security.
A private placement is a sale of stock to a limited number of accredited investors who meet specific criteria. The criteria for accredited status includes having a particular level of investment experience, assets, and net worth. Investors will receive a private placement memorandum as an alternative to the prospectus. The memorandum provides a less comprehensive description of the investment.
================================================================================
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815005300/uoip_10q.htm
Commission file number: 0-27865
UNIFIEDONLINE, INC.(Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)
DELAWARE (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
13-2640971 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
4126 Leonard Drive, Fairfax, VA (Address of principal executive offices)
22030 (Zip Code)
NOTE 17 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS
On April 23, 2014, we [UNIFIEDONLINE, INC.] entered into a Subscription Agreement with UnifiedOnline! LLC (the “Subscriber”), a Delaware limited liability company, pursuant to which the Subscriber purchased 400,000 shares of Series AA Preferred Stock which were converted on January 5, 2015 to 903,825,954 shares of common stock becoming a majority shareholder in the Company. UO! IP of NC, LLC is a related party to Unified Online! LLC. In consideration for the Shares, Subscriber paid $116,087 to various vendors and obtained the agreement of a certain related party lessor to temporarily forbear exercising non-payment default remedies. Since entering into the Subscription Agreement, the Subscriber has advanced approximately $1.0 million bearing interest at 10% per annum to fund general working capital. The balance due was $1,090,255 and $1,029,005 at September 30, 2015 and June 30, 2015, respectively, and is reflected as note payable, related party in the balance sheet.
================================================================================
Uo! Ip Of Nc, LLC is a Limited Liability Company located in Greensboro , North Carolina. The company was registered on 2009-06-17 and it is approximately 9 years years old. According to North Carolina business register Uo! Ip Of Nc, LLC status is Current-Active.
Uo! Ip Of Nc, LLC agent is Carter, William R., Jr.
==========================
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815005300/uoip_10q.htm
On February 27, 2014, Agility Ventures LLC sold and assigned the Master Lease and Equipment Schedule to a third party, UO! IP of NC, LLC (see Note 5). UO! IP of NC, LLC has advanced the payments made on this lease to the Company at a rate of 10% per annum. The balance due to UO!IP of NC, LLC was $635,000 at September 30, 2015 and June 30, 2015, respectively.
On April 23, 2014, we entered into a Subscription Agreement with UnifiedOnline! LLC (the “Subscriber”), a Delaware limited liability company, pursuant to which the Subscriber purchased 400,000 shares of Series AA Preferred Stock which were converted on January 5, 2015 to 903,825,954 shares of common stock becoming a majority shareholder in the Company. UO! IP of NC, LLC is a related party to Unified Online! LLC. In consideration for the Shares, Subscriber paid $116,087 to various vendors and obtained the agreement of a certain related party lessor to temporarily forbear exercising non-payment default remedies. Since entering into the Subscription Agreement, the Subscriber has advanced approximately $1.0 million bearing interest at 10% per annum to fund general working capital. The balance due was $1,090,255 and $1,029,005 at September 30, 2015 and June 30, 2015, respectively, and is reflected as note payable, related party in the balance sheet.
On January 5, 2015, IceWEB, Inc. changed its name to UnifiedOnline, Inc.
====================
Aug 15, 2014
CHANBOND, LLC was formed in Delaware as a Limited Liability Company
====================
Jan 5, 2015
https://www.einpresswire.com/article/242649598/iceweb-name-change-and-reverse-split-is-complete
We’re also branching into the area of Intellectual Property Monetization around patent portfolios we’re negotiating in our lines of business; there’ll be more on that later.
I’ve never been more excited to be a part of anything as I am to be making these changes. We’ve worked extremely hard to get our company into position to make this happen. Our model is sound; our approach is right; our systems are perfected, and our resolve is solid. Come along with us! Be a part of UNIFIEDONLINE!, INC (UOIP: OTC BB). It’s a new day and a bright future!” Howe said.
====================
Sep 21, 2015
Chanbond files suit against 13 cable providers. Chanbond and their legal team MISHCON DE REYA NEW YORK LLP file suite against the 13 cable providers
====================
https://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=11104682
Oct 27, 2015
purchase agreement by and among Deirdre Leane, and ChanBond, LLC
Company purchased Chanbond, in exchange for a cash payment of five million U.S. Dollars ($5,000,000) payable on or before October 27, 2020 (the “Cash Payment”) and a shares payment of forty-four million, seven hundred thousand (44,700,000) shares of the Company’s common stock
====================
Oct 27, 2015
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815004760/uoip_8k.htm
Robert M. Howe, III of UnifiedOnline, Inc. purchases ChanBond, LLC
Robert M. Howe, III of UnifiedOnline, Inc. (the “Company”) entered into a purchase agreement (the “Agreement”) by and among Deirdre Leane, (the “Seller”) and ChanBond, LLC (“Chanbond”)
====================
Oct 27, 2015
https://www.streetinsider.com/dr/news.php?id=11104682
Deirdre Leane is the Manager of Chanbond. LLC
according to her signature on the 10-Q Deirdre Leane is the manager of Chanbond, LLC Schedule 2.2.7
====================
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815005300/uoip_10q.htm
On October 27, 2015, the Company entered into a purchase agreement (the “Agreement”) by and among Deirdre Leane, (the “Seller”) and ChanBond, LLC (“Chanbond”), pursuant to which the Company purchased Chanbond, in exchange for a cash payment of five million U.S. Dollars ($5,000,000) payable on or before October 27, 2020 (the “Cash Payment”) and a shares payment of forty-four million, seven hundred thousand (44,700,000) shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Shares”) par value of $0.001. The obligation to make the Cash Payment shall be evidenced by a promissory note (the “Promissory Note”). The above securities were issued in reliance upon exemptions from registration pursuant to Section 4(2) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”) and/or Rule 506 promulgated under the Securities Act.
On the Closing Date, pursuant to the Agreement, the Seller executed an interest assignment deed which assigned, transferred and conveyed all of its membership interests in ChanBond to the Company and ChanBond appointed William R. Carter, Jr. (a related party to the Company) as sole manager (“Manager”) who shall have sole and exclusive authority over the business of ChanBond.
Effective October 27, 2015, the Company entered into $5,000,000 no interest Promissory Note with the Seller. The Promissory Note is due and payable on or prior to October 27, 2020. If the Promissory Note is not paid in full by the Maturity Date, the aggregate principal amount shall be increased by Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) for each month such payment is delayed (or pro rata portion thereof) until paid in full.
Until the Note is paid in full, the Company shall be obligated to make payments on this Promissory Note to the Seller from 100% of any Net Revenues, derived from the monetization of the ChanBond patent portfolio, within thirty (30) calendar days after each calendar month commencing with the calendar month ending October 31, 2015.
In October, 2015 a forbearance agreement was reached between the Company and UO! IP of NC, LLC which forbeared its enforcement of rights due to the existing defaults and amended the payment terms of the lease. The final payment date has been extended to October 31, 2017 at which time the then outstanding principal balance, together with all accrued but unpaid interest on the unpaid balance, shall be due and payable in full
================================================================================
Assignment of patents from CBV to Chanbond
https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search/resultAssignee?assigneeName=CHANDBOND%20LLC
https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search/resultAbstract?id=10136180&type=patNum
http://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-36609-871.pdf
http://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-36621-134.pdf
http://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-36621-243.pdf
http://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-36621-163.pdf
http://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-36609-889.pdf
http://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-37208-770.pdf
http://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-37208-856.pdf
http://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-36641-384.pdf
papa p
Tuesday, 10/13/20 05:47:23 PM
Re: None 0
Post # of 83174
For those who did not see the original agreement.
http://irdirect.net/filings/viewer/index/1097718/000135448815005300/2
http://www.contexxia.com/a/organization/UOIP
Long uoip Saturday, August 29, 2020 4:32:39 PM
Re: Specialneeds post# 82363
Post # of 82389
since we're all waiting, another compilation re: Specialneeds' commercial insurance business experience ~
Specialneeds ~
#81710 Of course, unless they collectively feel the can get a deal in a global settlement. Everyone involved here knows the tech was stolen and great profits were gained by doing so. The value of the patents vs the revenue stream is easily and clearly estimated. The 13 and the manufacturers may have a sober view of all this and want to look for the exit early. The numbers grow exponentially for them by waiting this out. They must know Billy is not going away by now.
____________
#81886 In the Commercial insurance business we have seen a significant award inflation trend. Most believe that the millennial generation is more likely to not just provide economic justice but rather punish corporations. We term it social claim inflation. This trend is causing significant rate increases due to these very large awards. Claim adjusters are extremely wary to go to trial and are settling claims rather than take the risk with a jury. I can understand her concern.
______________________
#81521 I m just putting the dots together. Cisco is not highlighting this case in their financial statement thinking they are going to win this case. Our attorney highlights global settlement negotiations in a way that indicates the judge is well aware of those talks. I think we are close
___________________________
#81909 I don’t have a crystal ball, I just have been thru the mill in litigation over my career. I could go on for hours on huge awards that had little or no negligence been settled due to the fear of being in front of a jury. This one has negligence and huge negatives for the other side in terms of potential payout. Both sides will get closer to an agreement as we move toward a new trial date IMO
___________________
#82158 The problem with buying the tech is that if Comcast did that they would not be able to past the cost back to the manufacturers. This would not be a covered claim in a typical indemnification agreement. The manufacturers would also face the same problem as this would not be covered in an insurance contract
_____________________
#82161 The treble damages, also know as punitive damages, are typically not covered. I would be surprised if these are awarded. I’ve rarely seen them awarded.
It would make great sense for Comcast to buy the tech.
________________
#81904 It basically boils down to this-did u act when you had to opportunity to and by not acting did u cause greater damage to a counter party that you were indemnifying. This is true for insurance contracts and other contractual law.
_________________________
#81902 I’m not saying there is a limit on a settlement based on insurance coverage available. There just needs to be a good faith attempt to settle if the conditions are right. Billy can and probably has rejected those attempts so far. Billy is in complete control here and he , Diedre and the inventors have a number in mind which none of us can accurately guess the amount.
____________________________
#81894 Here is basically how the settlement situation will play out IMO. The majority or several of the 13 are depending on indemnification contracts by the manufacturers. In contact law both parties must act in good faith toward their counter party. The 13 know how much insurance coverage the manufacturers carry collectively over the time period of infringement. This could total hundreds of millions of dollars. If our demand is within that total then the carriers need to negotiate in good faith to settle within that amount. If they fail to do that and this goes to trial and multiples of that amount is awarded then the insurance carriers could be on the hook for the entire award because they did not negotiate in good faith. Last yr I had to pay 14m on a 1 m policy because our adjusters messed up a settlement. The contractual indemnification in this case is very important toward driving a settlement because of the case law around good and bad faith negotiations and the risk inherent with these. There are lots of factors going on behind the scene that are not obvious. I bought a ton of shares based on the structure of the suit and my experience with how litigation plays out. If Billy is asking for huge dollars then this can play out for several more yrs because his demands, if they are large enough, oddly gives some contractual protection to the indemnifiers.
_________________________________
#81601 Sooner or later we will win. Sooner is better but I will also very much like later too
_____________________
#82004 ~ Since most of my experience has involved defending the liability of my insureds I thought it would be worthwhile to share how the process works from the standpoint of the defense and how it may play out on their side.
First, once we are presented with a suit discovery starts and the first question to be answered is are we at fault. That question is answered fairly quickly as to the facts. In this case they know the answer to this basic question. The marksman and PTAB decisions and their own discussions with the engineers of the modems will make this clear that there is liability. The next step is to determine the potentially most effective defense strategy. Here they have three options and they have probed at each in the published pacer docs. They are:
Prior Art was in existence
The tech was obvious so it could not be patented
The tech they use was not used as patented.
Based on the most recent docs available it appears that they are focusing on third option. Their tech is different.
Once this strategy is established they will determine the likely outcome of the success of that strategy. This will involve detailed discussions with their experts and analysis of prior similar cases.
The next step will be holding internal mock trials arguing both sides in front of a jury to determine their likely decision. If they determine that it is highly likely that they will win they will follow the established strategy thru to a verdict. If they determine they will lose, a new set of decisions that need to be made will emerge. First, they will decide the high/low range of the potential award. Second, could a settlement agreement be reached at or below the low range. Finally, could the low range or below be established during the appeal process. They may attempt to lower the high end of the award range pre trial by entering into a high/low verdict agreement with Chanbond that basically says that we will pay an established pre agreed amount regardless of the outcome of the trial. This amount is significantly less than the high end of their award range calculations.
In this case, the most likely appealable issue will be based on an excessive award rather than any trial errors. So , if they appeal they will be betting on the CAFE judges lowering an award to the low end of the verdict award range. If a high/low agreement is agreed to by our side I don’t see this being appealed.
So before trial, the defense side will have a very accurate view of their chances of a jury win, the low side and high side of a verdict range and the potential for a verdict to be lowered on appeal.
The only other determination they will be considering will be how strong is Chanbond’s staying power if they try to drag this out and what impact will that have on the high end of their verdict range. I believe our new law firm has increased our staying power so the defense will take that into consideration. As always this is just MHO.
Private Reply | Keep | Public Reply | View Replie
Scruffer
Sunday, 08/02/20 11:55:31 AM
Re: Long term post# 82034
0.005
Post # of 82172
It appears using "# of PEOPLE could reach".
https://broadbandnow.com/Cable-Providers
This is broadband USED. Cable (modems) split-out.
https://www.leichtmanresearch.com/about-1165000-added-broadband-in-1q-2020/
Also, going for global in settlement talks.
Not exactly sure which countries count, what % is cable, but HUGE NUMBER!
This is broadband. Does NOT differentiate among cable, DSL, satellite, phone, mobile hotspot, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_broadband_Internet_subscriptions
Broadband now in more than 700 million homes worldwide (old, but good: 2014)
http://www.digitaltvnews.net/?p=24980
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183614/us-households-with-broadband-internet-access-since-2009/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/680645/number-of-cable-subscribers-usa/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251268/number-of-pay-tv-households-in-the-us/
P.S. Some of these statista links may not show b/c have to subscribe, but may get a few views free.
Thanks Long Term-inal.
You're credited with the longest post ever.
You're like our encyclopedia Britannica or wikipedia of posts.
It just keeps going and going, like a long airport terminal that never seems to end.
When you think you're close, #56, must go to #98, another 1/3rd mile.
Then find out in wrong concourse or terminal and must reverse course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0KpMLGC70Q
Specialneeds Friday, 07/31/20 08:55:21 AM
Re: None 0.005
Post # of 82030
Since most of my experience has involved defending the liability of my insureds I thought it would be worthwhile to share how the process works from the standpoint of the defense and how it may play out on their side.
First, once we are presented with a suit discovery starts and the first question to be answered is are we at fault. That question is answered fairly quickly as to the facts. In this case they know the answer to this basic question. The marksman and PTAB decisions and their own discussions with the engineers of the modems will make this clear that there is liability. The next step is to determine the potentially most effective defense strategy. Here they have three options and they have probed at each in the published pacer docs. They are:
Prior Art was in existence
The tech was obvious so it could not be patented
The tech they use was not used as patented.
Based on the most recent docs available it appears that they are focusing on third option. Their tech is different.
Once this strategy is established they will determine the likely outcome of the success of that strategy. This will involve detailed discussions with their experts and analysis of prior similar cases.
The next step will be holding internal mock trials arguing both sides in front of a jury to determine their likely decision. If they determine that it is highly likely that they will win they will follow the established strategy thru to a verdict. If they determine they will lose, a new set of decisions that need to be made will emerge. First, they will decide the high/low range of the potential award. Second, could a settlement agreement be reached at or below the low range. Finally, could the low range or below be established during the appeal process. They may attempt to lower the high end of the award range pre trial by entering into a high/low verdict agreement with Chanbond that basically says that we will pay an established pre agreed amount regardless of the outcome of the trial. This amount is significantly less than the high end of their award range calculations.
In this case, the most likely appealable issue will be based on an excessive award rather than any trial errors. So , if they appeal they will be betting on the CAFE judges lowering an award to the low end of the verdict award range. If a high/low agreement is agreed to by our side I don’t see this being appealed.
So before trial, the defense side will have a very accurate view of their chances of a jury win, the low side and high side of a verdict range and the potential for a verdict to be lowered on appeal.
The only other determination they will be considering will be how strong is Chanbond’s staying power if they try to drag this out and what impact will that have on the high end of their verdict range. I believe our new law firm has increased our staying power so the defense will take that into consideration. As always this is just MHO.
==========================================================
long uoip
Wednesday, July 15, 2020 12:10:46 PM
Re: long uoip post# 81553
Post # of 81589
Aug 18th cox TRIAL is POSTPONED
513 07/15/2020 ORAL ORDER: The jury trial scheduled for August 18, 2020, is POSTPONED. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 7/15/2020.
ChanBond, LLC v. Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC, et al.
Court Docket Sheet
District of Delaware
1:2015-cv-00842 (ded)
long uoip
Wednesday, July 15, 2020 11:08:10 AM
Re: Scruffer post# 81545
Post # of 81586
Stephen B. Brauerman letter to The Honorable Richard G. Andrews regarding Continuance.
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:
This morning we received a copy of a letter from Cox’s counsel to the Court asking for a
three-month continuance of the trial due to the current COVID situation. This request comes as no
surprise to ChanBond, as Cox and the other defendants have sought to delay trial in these matters
since these cases were filed.
ChanBond recognizes the unique circumstances that exist and, because ChanBond would
like to try its case before a jury and protect prospective jury members and Court personnel from
unreasonable risk, ChanBond does not reject the concept of rescheduling the upcoming Cox trial.
However, delaying the Cox trial will invariably delay the sequential trials of the other defendants,
such as Comcast and the Charter entities (Charter Communications, Time Warner Cable and Bright
House Networks). These collective cases have been pending for almost five years and, to date, the
only scheduled trial is Cox. Prior to the present health crisis, the parties and the Court discussed the
scheduling of a second trial. See, e.g., D.I. 489, 490, 492, 493, and 494. In view of this
unanticipated delay, ChanBond requests that the Court reschedule the Cox trial to the Court’s first
available trial date in October or November. Additionally, ChanBond requests that the Court
schedule trials for Comcast and the Charter entities to be held eight (8) weeks and sixteen (16)
weeks following the newly scheduled Cox trial date. By doing so, in the event that the Cox trial
must be continued a second time, the Cox trial can be moved to follow the Charter entities’ trial in
the Court’s calendar and Comcast would be tried first.
ChanBond believes this approach fairly balances the needs of managing the current health
crisis and ChanBond’s right to try its case before a jury. Indeed, with the Cox case already prepared
for trial, the parties will be able to use the continuance to prepare pretrial materials for the Comcast
and Charter entities trials. ChanBond fears that without scheduling dates for these first few trials, a
global resolution of ChanBond’s claims are unlikely as defendants will continue to try to delay trial
interminably. Indeed, ChanBond believes that merely scheduling these additional trial dates for
Comcast and the Charter entities will assist the parties’ discussions with respect to a global
settlement.
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 sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com
Case 1:15-cv-00842-RGA Document 512 Filed 07/14/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 31462
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
July 14, 2020
Page 2
Thank you for your consideration. ChanBond is available at the Court’s convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Stephen B. Brauerman
Stephen B. Brauerman (No. 4952)
https://www.law360.com/articles/1291967/attachments/2
NewbieDoobyDoo
Tuesday, 07/07/20 05:14:55 PM
Re: rbd1 post# 81025
0
Post # of 81027
The number is 90470W101.
Plug it into a search engine and you get UOIP.
Thursday, 07/02/20 02:43:49 PM
Re: Gonfishun post# 80880
0
Post # of 80890
ChanBond, LLC v. Atlantic Broadband Group, LLC
Court Docket Sheet
District of Delaware
1:2015-cv-00842 (ded)
07/02/2020 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard G. Andrews - Pretrial Conference held on 7/2/2020. Local counsel for plaintiff: S. Brauerman. Local counsel for defendant: J. Ying. (Court Reporter Heather Triozzi.) (Text entry; no document attached.)
web ~ A minute entry is the memorialization, electronic or otherwise, either by form or narrative of events occurring during a court proceeding or of matters required to be performed by statute or rule. It is not intended to be a verbatim record of the court proceeding.
Comment ~ It is important that minute entries provide a concise record of court proceedings, identifying the nature of and participants in each proceeding, and actions taken during the proceeding including official acts of the court. The itemization appearing in section (a)(1)-(10) is not intended to be an exhaustive list. However, it is not intended that minute entries be used to describe proceedings in the level of detail characteristic of an official transcript.
A court proceeding includes those matters heard in chambers when one or more parties are present or represented by counsel. In addition to the date and starting and ending times of a proceeding and the identity of the certified court reporter, alternative recording method and operator, or the absence thereof, a minute entry shall include all official acts occurring during the proceeding, which may consist of any or all of the following as applicable:
(1) nature of the hearing;
(2) appearances of counsel and parties;
(3) identification and admission of exhibits;
(4) administration of oaths and to whom administered;
(5) names of witnesses who are called to testify;
(6) parties' motions;
(7) findings of fact and conclusions of law by the court as required by law or rule;
(8) court rulings, orders, decisions and notices to the parties made in the course of the proceeding;
(9) verdicts; and/or
(10) any other matter directed by the court.
Nothing in this rule shall be read to require minute entries in any proceeding or to inhibit innovations or programs that would eliminate minute entries.
(b) Court Order or Ruling. A court order or ruling is a record of any out-of-court decision by a judicial officer on a procedural or substantive issue.
(c) Notice. A notice is the memorialization of the scheduling of an event before the court or of an administrative action of the court.
(d) Copies. Parties shall provide the court with sufficient copies of orders or notices to serve all parties.
(e) Intent. This rule is not intended to allocate responsibility for preparing, processing or distributing rulings, orders or notices. Work assignments within each courthouse should be determined locally based on local resources and practice.
=================================
This is a sample of a verdict form (was applied in vrng) note the final calculations the jury used a calculator with NOT enough didgets so add a 0
https://vrng24.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/edva_jury_verdict.pdf
================================
magnus_invest
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 12:28:10 PM
Re: None Post # of 80846
2020-07-01 - UPDATED PACER REPORTS:
Update 2020-07-01
============================================================
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=156631797
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=156628294
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=156628275
Long uoip 7/1/2020
1) https://www.dropbox.com/s/beiwa5hq7e70dud/ded-1-2015-cv-00842-00502.pdf?dl=0
2) https://www.dropbox.com/s/3xms6smidroxznh/ded-1-2015-cv-00842-00504.pdf?dl=0
3) https://www.dropbox.com/s/wkqurlh4c6suet2/ded-1-2015-cv-00842-00506.pdf?dl=0
If u want to signe up for drop box go here
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ky51umkmy69q4nx/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Chanbond%20-%20FINAL%20Joint%20Pretrial%20Order%2823832167.1%29.docx%20-%20ChanBond%2C%20LLC%20v.%20Atlantic%20Broadband%20Group%2C%20LLC%20Proposed%20Pretrial%20Order%20%20Parties%20Joint%20Proposed%20Final%20Pretrial%20Order%20%28Volume.%201%29%20by%20ChanBond%2C%20LLC..pdf?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ajeq1wwxueerh6/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Chanbond%20-%20PTO%20Cover%20%28Pt.%202%29%2823832241.1%29.docx%20-%20ChanBond%2C%20LLC%20v.%20Atlantic%20Broadband%20Group%2C%20LLC%20Proposed%20Pretrial%20Order%20%20Parties%20Joint%20Proposed%20Final%20Pretrial%20Order%20%28Volume.%202%29%20by%20ChanBond%2C%20LLC..pdf?dl=0
==========================================
Long uoip
Re: NewbieDoobyDoo post# 78958
0.001
Post # of 80134
questions about insurance have come up various times, previous answers to indemnity queries.. .
(uoip shareholders are grateful for specialneeds background & expertise)
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
=======================================
magnus_invest
https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/unifiedonline-uoip
==================================================
Court timeline
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00572/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8341679/06-01-2018-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2043-62-EX2043_DI_271_2018_05_24_Amended_Scheduling_Order/
Long uoip79916
Re: BrokeAgent post# 79914
Post # of 79925
I'll concur with your analogy BrokeAgent as of Sept. 1st, 2020
until then I'm assuming no one (including me) truly knows how this will conclude.. .however
I'm seeing it from another angle, carter may want a certain $ figure & the defendants lining up a guy who's specialty is "primary drafter of dozens of appellate briefs" is inferring to carter that cox is seriously following through all levels of litigation if billy tries to hold out for the bigger teece valuation (cox is "upping the ante")
(I don't purport to be a professional, these are just my personal views based on the information/stats/data I've studied, I believe that's what all posters do)
additionally, specialneeds "contractual indemnity risk" factors in, to seriously consider ~
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155245181
global-intellectual-property-litigation-risk-research-report.pdf
page 13 ~ US patent litigation: Most U.S. patent cases settle, with only 5% going through trial
ARTICLE ~ Why plaintiffs in US patent cases who understand the odds of victory are almost always best off settling
The vast majority of patent disputes in the US settle before they end up in court. One reason for this, it is claimed, is because scared defendants are worried into making suits go away by aggressive plaintiffs who give them a choice of settlement at one price or fighting a suit at a higher price. And, undoubtedly, there is an element of that involved.
However, there is a lot more on top. For example, looking from the plaintiff’s perspective there are also significant disincentives to take a fight all the way - especially against deep pocket corporate opponents.
Plaintiffs that properly understand the odds of prevailing in a US patent case are likely to favour settlement in all but the most open and shut cases of infringement.
The US - it’s the land of opportunity, including for inventors who protect their dreams with patent protection. In 2016, the US government granted more than 325,000 patents to inventors.
Inventors enforce their patent rights through litigation, when they believe a corporation is practising their protected idea. In 2016 there were 5,100 patent litigation lawsuit filings. The vast majority of patent lawsuits settle before trial—95% to 97% of them.
Some policy makers and corporations strongly criticise patent enforcement practices that favour early settlement. They argue early settlements to avoid testing the merits on patent disputes
are an abusive litigation practice.
Early settlement isn’t an abusive practice, but rather a prudent business decision.
Our team filed a patent litigation lawsuit on an inventor's behalf.
Fast forward to the pertinent part of the story: we came to a critical point in his litigation - the claim construction hearing.
This is where a judge interprets the patent’s protected property: the claims.
A judge’s determination in claim construction reveals what technology areas a patent does and does not cover.
Our position was strong. On each claim term, we could rely on a plain meaning of the words.
The defendants, on the other hand, needed to weave convoluted interpretations to support their defence.
When strategising with inventor, we presented why we believed he would win at claim construction.
At that point he asked a question: “Is there risk?”
We informed him there was risk.
He followed: “What’s the best- and worst-case scenario?”
We explained the best case would be the judge ruling in our favour on each of the four claim terms. That did mean, we said, that the inventor would actually “win”, but that he would live to fight to another stage in the litigation.
On the other hand, we said, the worst case would be the judge ruling against us on any one of the four claim terms. In that case we’d not only lose the current litigation, but all future litigations as well.
The inventor didn’t find the risk profile very appetising.
He directed us take an offer on the table, thereby settling the case and avoiding any risk associated with claim construction.
Though it was puzzling at the time, I learned years later why his decision to minimise risk was the right one.
1st, patent litigation is structured like a video game. You must win every level to end up the
winner. If you lose any one level, no matter how far you’ve come, then it’s game over.
And like a video game, every level has its own gatekeeper.
The table below describes each level of litigation, the gatekeeper, and provides the 2017
statistics of winning at each level.
Litigation level Gatekeeper ..Plaintiff Win Rate
Pretrial motion Judge ..6% - 15%*
Trial Jury ..61% - 66%*
Appeals Appeals panel ..38% - 40%**
In level one, you must convince a judge why you have a winnable case. If you reach level 2, you present your case to a jury. If you win there then at level 3, you must convince an appeals panel
to uphold a favourable jury verdict.
What are your overall chances of winning at every level, to win at patent litigation? It’s just 9% to 14%.
Second, at every level you must perform a flawless juggling routine.
In every patent litigation, as a baseline you must prove a corporation infringes your patent. This is one ball to juggle in every patent litigation.
But a corporation can defend itself by raising up to 27 patent defences, each representing an additional ball to juggle.
A corporation has 17 validity defences to invalidate your patent, two enforceability defences to render it unenforceable, four damages defences to prevent you from recovering the money you want and four infringement defences to be excused for infringing.
If you drop the ball on any one of the 27 defences, then you lose and the defendant wins.
The chart below illustrates the chances of winning this juggling routine. It is pulled from a 2000-2013 composite study from the University of Houston on the win/loss rate per legal issue in
patent litigation.
Let’s say you accuse a corporation of directly infringing your patent and the corporation raises a
validity defence called 102(e) - this creates two legal issues you need to successfully juggle through the patent litigation. You have a 17.4% chance of winning both issues, through all levels.
But suppose the corporation raises two more defences, two validity defences called 103 obviousness and 112 indefiniteness. This now creates four legal issues to juggle. Your chances of winning drop to 5.5%.
Adding just two defences decreases your chances of success by 42.8%, because you must win on every legal issue at every level in front of a judge, jury and appeals panel.
If you’re a patent owner, do you go for the home run on every legal issue, at every level in the litigation, for a 9% to 14% chance of winning?
Or do you do what the inventor did? Take a settlement offer to reduce risk to the patent and live to fight another day?
Most people do what the inventor did. That’s why 90% of all patent cases settle before claim construction and, as noted above, 95% to 97% settle before trial.
This high settlement rate may seem alarming, but it demonstrates business judgement due to skewed risks against patent holders.
If you’re a patent owner and are considering patent litigation, consider taking a page from my client's book and minimising risk to your patent assets.
Re: pillskill post# 79906
Post # of 79924
Robbie Manhas ~ focuses on high-stakes appeals, with a particular emphasis on patent law
Managing Associate
Washington, D.C.
Litigation and IP
A former Federal Circuit clerk, Robbie Manhas is a member of the firm's Supreme Court and Appellate group. His practice focuses on high-stakes appeals, with a particular emphasis on patent law and administrative law. He has been the primary drafter of dozens of appellate briefs, and has presented oral argument in the Federal Circuit and the Sixth Circuit.
Robbie is a lawyer because he is passionate about legal analysis, writing, and advocacy—understanding how to properly frame and creatively answer challenging questions of law, and then communicate that understanding to others in a credible and efficient way.
Robbie's work includes wins in the Federal Circuit and other appellate courts, and spans a variety of industries and products, such as semiconductors and electronics, software, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and sporting goods. His work has also involved a number of U.S. agencies, including the Patent and Trademark Office, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Agriculture.
Prior to joining Orrick, Robbie was a Senior Associate at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, where he was a member of its Appellate and Supreme Court Litigation, Intellectual Property Litigation, and Government and Regulatory Litigation groups. Before that, Robbie was a law clerk for the Honorable Richard G. Taranto of the Federal Circuit.
[Suppressed Image]
https://www.orrick.com/en/People/7/A/F/Robbie-Manhas
sorry for the duplicate Katoprimate, we must have posted simultaneously (I only saw pillskills' post & was too busy copy/pasting)
Appellate Brief
The appellant and appellee must file individual briefs to aid the appellate court in its consideration of the issues presented. Failure to do so results in a dismissal of the appeal. The facts of the case, the grounds for review, and the arguments relating to those questions must be concisely stated. Any statements referring to the trial record must be supported by an appropriate reference to it.
DEFINITION ~ The appellant's brief must specifically discuss the alleged errors that entitle the appellant to a reversal and discuss why each ruling of the lower court was wrong, citing authority, such as a case in which a similar point of law has been decided or a statute that applies to the particular point in issue. Disrespectful or abusive language directed against the lower court, the appellate court, the parties, witnesses, or opposing counsel cannot be used. If it is, it will be stricken from the brief, and the costs of the brief that might have been awarded are disallowed.
Long uoip
Re: TonyJoe1957 post# 79613
0
Post # of 79625
if comcast settles.. .they'll ALL SETTLE
given it's the largest cable company of 13 defendants
the deductible component is foremost concern
Cable One - average over 8 year (2011-2018) 629 million. no data before 2013, assumed 0 2011 and 2012
Cablevision - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 6.353 billion.
Cequel Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 2.313 billion.
Charter Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 19.492 billion.
Comcast Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 73.453 billion.
Cox Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 12.460 billion.
Mediacom Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 1.532 billion.
RCN Telecom Services - no data, assumed 0 revenue
Time Warner Cable - no data, assumed 0 revenue
WaveDivision Holdings - hidden behind paywalls. Conservative estimate 325 million/year averaged over 8 years
Wideopen West Finance - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 1.102 billion.
Atlantic Broadband Group - no data, assumed 0 revenue
Bright House Networks - no data, assumed 0 revenue
Total average per company per year
$9,050,960,949.63 / year ..stats c/o Xjon1600
===========================================
Long uoip
Re: flyingboozeman post# 79611
0
Post # of 79625
treble cost
court transcript ~ line 25 only Comcast has a willfulness claim
Willful infringement in patent litigation is rooted in punishing culpable and intentional infringers. The beneficiaries of that punishment—the patent owners—can receive up to 3x the damages resulting from the act of infringement, making it an attractive claim. No longer do patent owners have to demonstrate that the accused infringer acted objectively reckless. Instead, the focus is solely on the accused infringer’s subjective willfulness.
Willful Infringement for treble damages (3x standard) / Deposition of Comcast SVP (Intellectual Proporty Strategy):
April 10, 2018: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=139940185
September 15, 2017: http://www.reexamlink.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ChanBond-Complaint-ded-1-15-cv-00848-1.pdf
[Suppressed Image]
==========================================
Transcript Feb hearing DR teece valuaion
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LFdugjOHT1seSowTGqMHb3LoceS3P-AE/view?usp=drivesdk
Read more about Dr. Teece and his publications and activities at the UC Berkeley website, his Berkeley Research Group profile, and his Google Scholar page.
========================================
long uoip
Tuesday, 05/19/20 11:02:02 PM
Re: Mic ll post# 79444
0
Post # of 79458
thought this was worthy of reposting, to lift your spirits re: your shares
(btw, Micll there were a couple of shareholders tryna unload their shares a while back for 0.05 per share)
if any uoip shareholders have better stats/data, feel free to amend/adjust.. .correct
Cable One - average over 8 year (2011-2018) 629 million. no data before 2013, assumed 0 2011 and 2012
Cablevision - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 6.353 billion.
Cequel Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 2.313 billion.
Charter Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 19.492 billion.
Comcast Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 73.453 billion.
Cox Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 12.460 billion.
Mediacom Communications - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 1.532 billion.
RCN Telecom Services - no data, assumed 0 revenue
Time Warner Cable - no data, assumed 0 revenue
WaveDivision Holdings - hidden behind paywalls. Conservative estimate 325 million/year averaged over 8 years
Wideopen West Finance - average/year over 8 year (2011-2018) 1.102 billion.
Atlantic Broadband Group - no data, assumed 0 revenue
Bright House Networks - no data, assumed 0 revenue
Total average per company per year
$9,050,960,949.63 / year
c/o Xjon1600
scruffer's evaluation ~ https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=149195692
===============================
Scruffer
Tuesday, 06/04/19 12:22:18 PM
Re: None 0
Post # of 79458
~$183B in REV by 13, mostly from 2017.
Many of the 13 acquired. (The 17 are parents/subs/related to the primary 13).
183B * .01 = $1.83B
183B * .005 = $915M
183B * .0025 = $458M
Then extrapolating and taking average * 7 = BILLIONS!!!
Attorneys should have all annuals of public companies, but get point.
They should have the proof, that is, the exact and precise numbers.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=142407605
Cha-Ching, Scruffer
==================================
Scruffer
Tuesday, 07/24/18 07:32:28 AM
Re: None 0
Post # of 79458
Forgot Cox too. Add $11B+ so > $183B
This is old so Market Cap & Net Income have obviously changed.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=138868669
Moreover, NI is easily manipulated within GAAP rules & standards (accelerate revenue, delay/accelerate expenses, one-time charges, hold excess reserves, share buybacks, etc.).
And Market Cap is based on current stock price so changes daily.
$183B+ IN YEARLY REVENUE (a rough estimate b/c some companies private).
http://newsroom.cox.com/company-overview
LONG & STRONG ÜÖIP, Scruffer
==========================
Scruffer
Tuesday, 02/27/18 10:10:09 AM
Re: None 0
Post # of 79458
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
=======================================
Re: None
0
Post # 38663 of 38663
Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel –
lets get a little real world perspective.
In late 2018, Plaintiff NetSoc sued Chegg in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), alleging infringement of a patent directed to "establishing and using a social network to facilitate people in life issues."
Chegg filed a motion to dismiss and argued that the asserted patent failed to claim patent-eligible subject matter.
While Chegg's motion to dismiss was pending, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas found the asserted patent to be invalid under Section 101.
Chegg filed a supplemental brief and argued that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped from pursuing its patent infringement claims in SDNY because of the recent decision in Texas.
The plaintiff acknowledged that it was estopped, but the court found that it must review the issue and decide whether the doctrine's requisite elements were met.
Issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, prohibits a party from seeking another determination of the litigated issue in a subsequent action.
"It is well established that once the claims of a patent are held invalid in a suit involving one alleged infringer, an unrelated party who is sued for infringement of those claims may reap the benefit of the invalidity decision under the principles of collateral estoppel."
Nevertheless, the court laid out the four elements that must be met for collateral estoppel to apply in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit:
• 1-the issues of both proceedings must be identical
• 2-the relevant issues were actually litigated and decided
in the prior proceeding
• 3-there must have been "full and fair opportunity" for the
litigation of the issues in the prior proceeding
• 4-the issues were necessary to support a valid and final
judgment on the merits
SDNY found that all four criteria for collateral estoppel were clearly satisfied.
The two actions involved the same plaintiff,
the same patent and the same allegations.
The Texas court resolved the issue after a full briefing and a hearing on the matter.
With the plaintiff being represented by the same counsel in both cases.
"There is no doubt that the issue was fully litigated" and that the patentee "had both fair opportunity and incentive to litigate the validity issue in the first litigation."
The Northern District of Texas' conclusion that the asserted patent claims were invalid under Section 101 was the basis and a necessary part of the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims with prejudice.
Accordingly, the court found that Chegg could "reap the benefit" of the earlier invalidity decision, dismissed the case against Chegg and noted that plaintiff's pending appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did not alter the collateral estoppel analysis.
So this was a SDNY case.
Lets see how the four pillars work with worlds v activision.
1ST The issues must be identical –
If the CE issue is based on the judges prior MSJ she herself can re-rule this issue as she sent the parties to the USPTO for guidance once sent to the USPTO it means this was no final judgment, no complete ruling.
There was an USPTO issue raised and the judge received it back from the USPTO on the error issue corrected.
If the CE issue is based on the judges prior MSJ she herself can rule that upon guidance from the USPTO, The PTAB, The CAFC and the PTAB again that the case is different due solely to the fact that Bungie had ZERO right to file in the first place.
Lest us not forget that legally ATVI and Bungie have been legally found to have engaged in collusion before a non article III court yes, but still a federal agency.
So how can anything at the USPTO, PTAB, CAFC, PTAB again mean ANYTHING if – I F – it should never have happened in the first place.
Think on that.
Ok we only brought into the CAFC roughly 30 other claims as WORLDS Inc wisely did not want to risk the 6 patent claims UPHELD.
This way if we lost at the CAFC we still would be able to go back to boston with 6 claims.
So could in anyway shape or form, could ATVI be saying that only X patents / claims be brought forth now. No.
The IPR was tainted from the beginning.
The IPR was brought forth by collusion.
While we had all patents challenged in the PTAB 6 were permitted to go forward. And ultimately all were returned.
I do not see how CE works from that direction.
Should the issue become the judges decision, I again do not see how the MSJ affects this case.
As well, these were not identical as Bungies case was a different plaintiff and different level of adjudication.
As well we did not have an identical issue as the USPTO had to adjust an issue during the trial which bungie did not have to deal with.
2ND Litigated previously
How was a MSJ with prejudice a litigated fully and fairly case.
If it were then the judge would have simply dismissed with prejudice. Game over.
The case was held over due to Bungie filing
This was a delay, not litigation, fully and fairly.
3RD Full and fair opportunity
Really, do I even have to write this section.
The Judge, rules to hold over without prejudice actually saying some of these may be patentable and says let the ruling body of the USPTO decide.
Now ATVI is going to walk back in with a judge knowing that the 4 plus year delay was due to ATVI and Bungie and I will say it again colluding to destroy a small company.
No way this leg stands.
4TH The issues were necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits
On this I may be a bit off but the issues here originally raised were a patent case complaint.
Which never got to the PATENTS and which CLAIMS would be at issue.
So what issues were completely allowed light of day, what issues were or were not supported and what was the FINAL judgement issued here?
------------------------------------------
A final judgment I get, because if one court at the FC level says we found each and everyone of these patents absurd and the claims within and with prejudice dismissed it, then the issue is stopping a patent holder from court shopping until they find a friendly court. Yes I get it. But how it would apply here. I do not know.
------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, the court laid out the four elements that must be met for collateral estoppel to apply.
How ATVI-Bungie think they have all four pillars here I am not sure.
But what I am sure of is that the attorneys will tell them they have a good chance on getting this bounced at $1200.00 an hour plus.
Judge Casper, who we all were upset about back when, for Whitey Bulger Etc. Threw us a legal lifeline.
Yes this is old news but use it in the real world v CE.
She would have to rule against:
Her own instinct of MSJ with prejudice
The USPTO – Saying yes there is an issue here with a patent, we have fixed it, here it its.
The USPTO – PTAB Saying originally the 6 were of all the claims without a doubt patentable.
The USPTO – PTAB not allowing proper discovery
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit bouncing it back saying you did not provide a fair court
The USPTO- PTAB saying you know on review Bungie should not have been allowed to bring this IPR
How does she rule against this.
The Judge had to have during her OWN review, had to have said, you know, this looks like they had the ideas, they fixed on going issues with limited information transfer, etc etc but there are smarter people than me, let me send it to them (the USPTO) and see what they say.
If they agree its good, then i have the cover i need to move this forward. Nobody can say you should not allow these patents or cliams to move forward. Even with a 97.8% kill rate of patents/claims if the PTAB USPTO CAFC, if it can somehow survive all that, then I will take it back to my court room.
How in the real world does the judge say, the PTAB UPHELD this, the CAFC said they did not get a fair hearing, the PTAB then 100% upheld by finding the actual litigants for the defense colluded here but the hell with it Now i will kill it.... No..
And that is I believe where we are at.
JMHO
=================================
February 18, 2020 2:01:09 PM
20200218-140109.m4a
http://vrpro.mobi/rcgmwzufd/
Download Password: Xdn32T
Link will expire in 24 hours.
Suggest you copy / record
When pass word is accepted look to the bottom left side of your screen...click there to click open.
Note a long period before it starts waiting for Judge Andrews.
==============
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: 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.
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.
