Replies to post #91756 on UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[shajandr]

Also, go to the USPTO website and look up the file wrappers for the Chanbond patents. You will see numerous disclaimers filed in July. These are essentially irreversible disclaimers, and no sentient patent counsel would allow these to be filed unless DaMunny had already been received. You will note that EACH of the 13 parties have disclaimers directed to them. Thus all 13 must have paid before anyone repping Chanbond would have taken the substantially irrevocable step of filing those disclaimers.

Oh, and BTW, note that ALL the claims have been disclaimed - not just the ones that were at bar in the lawsuit. Every claim has been disclaimed in favor of all 13.

[GColl]

As someone just posted, the money could still be escrowed. Signing disclaimers are required - as you said - but they are not hand-in-hand a part of the actual release of the funds. Just preliminary house-cleaning.

You're much sharper than I am. I can tell by your writings. So I give your posts considerable weight.... but are you saying that the California lawsuit is the "move" the SH lawyers have been planning?

I saw it as an independent action by large holders to protect their interests.... although a state court suit doesn't protect those interests very much.

So I ask you - if you know - is California the shot fired by the SH group? If so, how do they effect a hold on funds escrowed in a Federal court?

Just asking. Not sure how that would work.
Thanks.

[I-Glow]

Excellent DD once again!

"Also, go to the USPTO website and look up the file wrappers for the Chanbond patents. You will see numerous disclaimers filed in July. These are essentially irreversible disclaimers, and no sentient patent counsel would allow these to be filed unless DaMunny had already been received. You will not that EACH of the 13 parties have disclaimers directed to them. Thus all 13 must have paid before anyone repping Chanbond would have taken the substantially irrevocable step of filing those disclaimers."

[shajandr]

shajandr Sunday, September 26, 2021 12:15:34 AM

Re: GColl post# 91754
Post# of 95243

The lawyers representing the shareholders are much smarter and more experienced than I am, so they have a handle on this.'

So that ridiculous complaint filed in a California state court and signed by a dude who describes himself as a real estate agent and is nott even listed on the law firm website is the evidence of a smart and experienced lawyer?

LOL. No, I think you are prolly better AND more experienced than to have done anything like that. Give yourself some credit.

And, as you state, the money has already been there and there is no obstacle in place - the state court joke case does not have a TRO issued (and it lacks jurisdiction over anyone butt Billy and even Billy is likely to file a general demurrer and/or deny being in the SoCal state court's jurisdiction).

So the situation is already at (b) in your bifurcation.

Also, go to the USPTO website and look up the file wrappers for the Chanbond patents. You will see numerous disclaimers filed in July. These are essentially irreversible disclaimers, and no sentient patent counsel would allow these to be filed unless DaMunny had already been received. You will not that EACH of the 13 parties have disclaimers directed to them. Thus all 13 must have paid before anyone repping Chanbond would have taken the substantially irrevocable step of filing those disclaimers.

Next event: motion to unseal DENIED.