Telephones Royalty sales [per unit] were included with Qualcomm/Ericsson fight and once Qualcomm settled with Ericsson...all the other Sellers/manufacturer's fell in line.
We are indeed looking at a different approach here with Unified Online going after the Cable Companies.
Maybe it has a lot to do with the speed of the internet only?
Maybe the ChanBond Lawyers knows something We don't?
Maybe the Cable Companies will attempt to get indemnified by Arris and Cisco[possibly contacted Cisco long ago].
Maybe that is why Cisco is contesting this one Patent?
WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’822, ’679, and ’565 PATENTS 26. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 25 herein by reference as if set forth here in full. 27. In January 2012, Comcast announced that it had completed its rollout of DOCSIS 3.0. 28. In February 2012, a business associate of the inventors communicated with Mr. Joseph DiTrolio, Comcast Vice President and Corporate Comptroller, regarding the patent portfolio. On February 23, 2012, the business associate had a face-to-face meeting with Mr. DiTrolio, wherein he provided a write-up that identified the ’822 Patent and the application that would issue as the ’679 Patent, and that indicated other continuations were pending. The writeup described the patents and applications and their applicability to DOCSIS 3.0 and the cable industry’s channel bonding technology. The business associate and Mr. DiTrolio discussed the patents, patent applications, relevant technology, and the patents’ and patent applications’ applicability to the cable industry’s channel bonding technology. By February 23, 2012, Mr. DiTrolio, and thus Comcast, knew of the at least the ’822 Patent and the application that would 9 issue as the ’679 Patent, and knew of their relevance to the DOCSIS 3.0 channel bonding technology used by Comcast. 29. By February 27, 2012, Mr. DiTrolio had communicated the patent portfolio and the write-up to Mr. James Finnegan, Comcast Senior Vice President, Intellectual Property Strategy. On information and belief, by February 27, 2012, Mr. Finnegan knew of the ’822 Patent and the applications that would issue as the ’679 and ’565 Patents, and knew of their relevance to the DOCSIS 3.0 channel bonding technology used by Comcast. 30. On March 28, 2012, Mr. Hennenhoefer (one of the co-inventors) had a teleconference with Mr. Finnegan during which the patents, applications and CBV were discussed. Mr. Finnegan informed Mr. Hennenhoefer that Comcast was obtaining a legal opinion regarding the patents. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hennenhoefer had a follow-up call with Mr. Finnegan. 31. On February 12, 2013, the ’822 and ’679 Patents and the application that would issue as the ’565 Patent were also brought to the attention of Mr. TonyWerner of Comcast. On February 13, 2013, Mr. Werner communicated the patents and applications, for at least a second time, to Mr. Finnegan. Shortly thereafter, Messrs. Hennenhoefer and Stine (another of the coinventors) had a teleconference with Mr. Mark Dellinger, Comcast Vice President, Intellectual Property Strategy in which the patents and applications were discussed, along with their applicability to DOCSIS 3.0. 32. Despite Comcast’s knowledge of the Patents and the channel bonding technology that they covered, Comcast nevertheless continued making, using and selling products that complied with and used DOCSIS 3.0 (and higher) channel bonding, despite an objectively high likelihood that such actions constituted infringement of the Patents. This infringement was 10 known to Comcast or was so obvious that Comcast should have known about this infringement. Despite knowing that its actions constituted infringement of the Patents and/or despite knowing that that there was a high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the Patents, Comcast nevertheless continued its infringing actions, and continued to make, use and sell infringing DOCSIS 3.0 (and higher) products. 33. Comcast’s infringement of the ’822, ’679 and ’565 Patents has thus been deliberate and willful, at least since February 23, 2012.
That Comcast is using technology that is infringing is not the question. Show where a customer of a manufacturer infringing on patents lost a case, while the manufacturer skated or paid under indemnification.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
