61. IPNAV is not ChanBond.
62. IPNAV is not controlled by ChanBond.
63. IPNAV does not control ChanBond.
64. IPNAV is not under common control with ChanBond.
65. No amount paid to IPNAV would inure to the benefit of ChanBond, or any entity
that ChanBond controlled, or any entity that controlled ChanBond, or any entity under common
control with ChanBond.
CBV’s silence and conduct after being informed of ChanBond’s retention of
IPNAV was sufficient approval of the payment to IPNAV, and such payment
may be deducted from Gross Recoveries in calculating Net Recoveries under
the PPA.
74. After agreeing to serve as ChanBond’s patent monetization advisor, IPNAV
provided ChanBond with significant patent monetization services.
75. Those services continued after Leane sold ChanBond to Unified.
76. Prior to selling the patents at issue to ChanBond, CBV had repeatedly attempted
to license or sell the patents to the cable industry, all without success.
77. ChanBond’s patent litigations, in contrast, generated millions of dollars for CBV.
78. IPNAV’s patent monetization services contributed to the success of ChanBond’s
patent litigations.
79. IPNAV’s patent monetization services thereby contributed to any recovery by
CBV under the PPA.
81. As alleged above, Leane had previously informed CBV that the fee for such
services was a percentage of the gross proceeds of a successful monetization.
82. For years, CBV allowed ChanBond to obtain IPNAV’s services without
objection.
83. In so doing, CBV obtained a significant financial benefit from IPNAV’s services.
84. Now that the time has come for ChanBond to pay IPNAV for such services,
however, CBV objects to any such payment.
85. It would be against equity and good conscience to allow CBV to retain the benefit
of IPNAV’s services without payment.
86. As such, CBV has been unjustly enriched at IPNAV’s expense, and IPNAV is
entitled to damages in an amount to be proven at trial
AI
