Replies to post #65559 on UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[justus1]

WOW! Why don't we just start all over and pretend nothing has happened until now! Thanks KH

[BrokeAgent]

Thank you khenry. It would seem they are still moving forward with the Daubert hearing. This looks like a Daubert brief, as it doesn't mention the new theory introduced. Perhaps they will leave it to the judge to decide the fate of the deposition and new theory separately at the end of the month.

I thought there were only six patents in question. That's all I found on the PTAB when I bought in a couple of years ago. Anyhow, I didn't read the entire brief, but it's interesting that they only seem to be disputing parts of 3 of the patents. What are we to think about this? They are resigned to paying, but they are just trying to minimize the damage?

[Goodbuddy4863]

Thank You Khenry458..no need to answer this post.

This New Pacer Report is now filed with the Sticky.

[Scruffer]

We're getting down to the wire.

Same argument on all 3 patents, just repeated.

Whatever Jennifer Ying (defendants) can try to make stick.

It’s very easy to take credit for the thinking. The doing is more concrete. But somebody, it’s very easy to say “Oh, I thought of these three years ago”. But usually when you dig a little deeper, you find that the people that really did it were also the people that really worked through the hard intellectual problems as well.
-- Steve Jobs

http://wisdomquotes.com/steve-jobs-quotes/


The PTAB rejected Cisco’s assertion that multiple channels are multiplexed on the same frequency bands, and that code channels or CDMA channels could be an RF channel within the meaning of the ‘679 patent. The panel cited an inconsistent statement by Cisco’s expert which described a FDMA and CDMA hybrid system using Walsh codes: “[t]he mutual orthogonality of Walsh codes allows one particular coded channel to be isolated and decoded from all other coded channels, even though they are all broadcasting on the same RF channel.” (italics added by the panel). The panel reasoned that this statement referred to a particular frequency band as an “RF channel” and to divisions within the RF channel as “coded channels,” and therefore gave no weight to the expert’s testimony regarding the meaning of “RF channel.”

The PTAB concluded that the term “RF channel” as used in the ‘679 patent “does not include code channels – for example data streams created by CDMA– but instead refers only to frequency bands, such as those created by FDMA.” (Final Written Decision of IPR2016-01898, p. 13.) All six of the IPR petitions of the ‘679 and ‘565 patents were denied based on the claim construction issue and because Cisco’s grounds were based CDMA prior art.

It appears that the one year window after service to file IPRs has passed, so it will be interesting to see if a request for rehearing is filed by Cisco to challenge the panel’s decision. It is not clear if the interpretations proffered by the panel will somehow pose issues for ChanBond to enforce its patents as planned, but it has at least avoided further review of the ‘679 and ‘565 patents for now.

http://www.reexamlink.com/2017/04/chanbond-avoids-institution-six-cisco-ipr-petitions/

[ds634843]

Page 13:
2. The terms “Chanbond,” “Plaintiff,” “You,” or “Your” mean Chanbond, LLC, and any and all predecessors, successors, divisions, subsidiaries, or joint ventures thereof, together with any and all parent or affiliated companies or corporations, including at least CBV and ZBand, and all past or present members, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, any past or current investors or persons with an interest in Chanbond, LLC or the Asserted Patents, Related Patents, or Related Applications, including at least UnifiedOnline or Whitaker, and all other persons acting or purporting to act or that have acted or purported to have acted on behalf of any of the foregoing. To resolve any doubt, for purposes of Defendants’ discovery requests, C.W. Smith and Earl Hennenhoefer are considered agents of Chanbond.

Page 14
5. The term “UnifiedOnline” means UnifiedOnline, Inc., and any and all predecessors, successors, divisions, subsidiaries, or joint ventures thereof, together with any and all parent or affiliated companies or corporations, and all past or present members, shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys, representatives, any past or current investors or persons with an interest in UnifiedOnline, Inc., and all other persons acting or purporting to act or that have acted or purported to have acted on behalf of any of the foregoing