Replies to post #32891 on UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[Goodbuddy4863]

Did You see this:

Spectrum recently bought Time Warner Cable.......I wonder if that deal had anything to do with the litigation?

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/money/2017/03/16/time-warner-cable-now-spectrum/99257490/

[Link is compliments of Zig Zag].

We are doing research on this Spectrum, Time Warner/ Charter Communication Fiasco:

Look at this from our IHUB landing page.

Specifically mentions Charter and Time Warner:

PTAB Nixes Six Cisco IPR Petitions Over Networking Patents
By Kelcee Griffis

Law360, New York (March 30, 2017, 5:59 PM EDT) -- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has denied six petitions for inter partes review launched by Cisco Systems Inc., shooting down the company’s bid to invalidate two high-speed networking patents held by ChanBond LLC. In declining to review the two relevant patents, the PTAB said Wednesday that Cisco failed to show that the patents are likely invalid after ChanBond asserted the patents against a group of telecom companies. ChanBond has been active in asserting the patents against major cable companies.... ....including CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS Inc., TIME WARNER CABLE Inc., Comcast Corp. and others, court records show. In response, Cisco filed six separate IPR challenges with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in September 2016. Now, the PTAB says Cisco has not proved that it can be successful in invalidating the challenged claims. Both of the challenged patents cover a “system and method for distribution of digital signals onto, and off of, a wideband signal distribution system,” according to case documents. Andrea Pacelli, an attorney with Mishcon de Reya New York LLP who represented ChanBond, told Law360 on Thursday that the board’s decision focused on two elements: claims construction regarding the term “RF channel” and analysis of potential prior art references that Cisco had put forth. The board found that the term “RF channel” should be given the "broadest reasonable interpretation." As such, it does not include “code channels” such as data streams and only applies to frequency bands. The PTAB also said that asserted prior art references can’t be combined to reach the patents at issue. “We agree with patent owner that petitioner does not show adequately that any of the cited portions of the prior art references teach modulating digital information into at least two separate RF channels as required by each of the challenged claims,” the board said. Robert Whitman, ChanBond lead attorney, said in a Thursday statement that the company was pleased that the PTAB agreed with ChanBond "on virtually all issues." “The board’s decision confirms the strength of ChanBond’s patents,” he said. Counsel for Cisco declined to comment Thursday. The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,341,679 and 8,894,565. ChanBond is represented by Robert Whitman, Timothy Rousseau, Andrea Pacelli and John Petrsoric of Mishcon de Reya New York LLP. Cisco is represented by Wayne Stacy and Kathryn Juffa of Baker Botts LLP. The cases are Cisco Systems Inc. v. ChanBond LLC, case nos. IPR2016-01889/IPR2016-01890/IPR2016-01898/IPR2016-0189/IPR2016-01899/IPR2016-01900, before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. --Editing by Sara Ziegler
______________________________________________

Wonder how this could effect a settlement?

Maybe "I_am_Ram" can chirp in on this too!