Tag Archives: Unified Online Inc.

The Saga Continues Between UnifiedOnline/Chanbond & The 13 Cable Companies

Fairfax, VA, 03-Aug-2018 — /EPR Financial News/ — UnifiedOnline, Inc. acquired 100 percent membership interest of ChanBond, LLC on 27th October 2015. That was a portfolio of patents through which the company understands that there is a technology that allows all the major cable companies to offer high-speed data transmission over the hybrid-fiber coaxial networks. UOIP purchased Chanbond for $5,000,000 payable before October 2020 along with 44,700,000 shares of the common stock. On 21st September 2015, Chanbond files a lawsuit in District Court of U.S. against the 13 biggest cable MSOs in the country. Chanbond claims that every cable multi-system operator in the country is virtually using DOCSIS 3.0+ which is infringing upon its patents. The three alleged infringement of wideband signal distribution system patents are:

Patent #1: 7,941,822

Patent # 2: 8,341,679

Patent # 3: 8,984,565

One of the major cable modem manufacturer Cisco filed eight interparty reviews on these patents. Six of the Cisco IPRs on patent 2, and 3 were not established for IPR. Only one of eight interparty reviews was established for IPR on March 3, 2017. Chanbond and the legal team of Mishcon de Reya New York LLP which is a respected law firm are appealing the single IPR that Cisco got.

ChanBond, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals

Case #:            0:18-bcaag-01886

Case Files: Apr 26, 2018

ARRIS International PLC also filed for five interparty reviews on these patents, but on July 27, 2018, the PTAB denied Arris a hearing because the petition is time-barred. Arris and Cisco are not being sued; only the thirteen cable companies are being sued for the infringement. However, the modem manufacturers are trying to invalidate the patents because their clients are at risk of patent infringement and Arris International has made it public that they have indemnified certain cable companies. This is from the “ARRIS Form” 10-K filed for March 31, 2018

From page 47 ARRIS INTERNATIONAL PLC FORM 10-K

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1645494/000119312518066821/d505150d10k.htm 

“ChanBond v. MSOs, C.A. 15-cv-00848, et al, District of Delaware (RGA). On September 21, 2015, ChanBond filed suit against several MSOs alleging infringement of three US Patents. Certain of our customers have requested that we provide indemnification. The complaint requests unspecified damages for infringement and injunction against future infringement. To date, no evidence of infringement or damages has been introduced. It is premature to assess the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome. In the event of an unfavorable outcome, ARRIS may be required to indemnify the MSOs and/or pay damages for utilizing certain technology.

Throughout all of this UnifiedOnline has remained quiet and if you search UOIP on OTCMarkets the company is listed as Caveat Emptor (buyer beware) and as Delinquent SEC reporting. On October 26, 2014, UnifiedOnline Inc. submitted the necessary 13-D with the SEC (https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1097718/000135448815005061/uoip_sc13d.htm) that they were operating in the dark. The sole manager of the company is William R. Carter, Jr. and he is the one who has exclusive and sole authority over all the activities and operations.

During this time there have been no comments from UOIP, but do not let that cloud your judgment about the validity of the company, its patents, or this case. Bear in mind that UnifedOnline retains Mishcon de Reya New York LLP which is a respected law firm, representing a diverse portfolio of clients in more than 60 countries with more than 200 litigators across New York and London. UnifiedOnline has been under the microscope of the 13 largest cable companies in the United States (billion dollar corporations) and the Federal Court System. If there were a hint of scam or any wrongdoing no one would be wasting time, energy, and money to fight these patents. Do not confuse silence on UOIP’s part with sound legal recommendations.

Keep yourself informed with the court schedule, but keep in mind that this may settle or UOIP could be bought out any moment between now and the actual trail.

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2018-00572/Inter_Partes_Review_of_U.S._Pat._8341679/06-01-2018-Patent_Owner/Exhibit-2043-62-EX2043_DI_271_2018_05_24_Amended_Scheduling_Order/

Please do your own research and perform due diligence before taking my word or the advice of others.

Disclosure: I am long UOIP

Recent Rise in the Stock of UOIP and its Relation to ChanBond

Fairfax, VA, Jul-3-2017 — /EPR FINANCIAL NEWS/ — Unified Online Inc. (UOIP) is an internet and cloud computing company. According to company materials, UOIP provides wireless and fiber broadband service, co-location space and related services. It operates a Network Access Point where clients directly interconnect with a network ecosystem of partners and customers.

The company was created after the acquisition of 100% of the outstanding stock of Computers and Tele-Comm., Inc., a Missouri corporation, and its wholly owned subsidiary, KC NAP, LLC in exchange for 23,921 shares of common stock. In 2013, UOIP announced that it would merge with Storage vendor ICE WEB. With this new business transaction, the company started to provide cloud application services, and cloud storage services that include file sharing and collaboration services.

UOIP has a market cap of $11.33 million. In addition, through the Company’s ICE-WEB Storage Corporation subsidiary, it can deliver online cloud computing application services, other managed services, such as Disaster Recovery, Archive Storage, Redundant File Storage, Redundant Broadband Services and Business Continuity Services.

The company has not put out any recent press, so the recent volatility is now quite noticeable. It is entirely possible that the company has a large order pending that has been undisclosed, or that the company is in negotiations for a buyout, but both are speculative at best.

It currently has negative earnings. It has been volatile since the attack last month by several other cable companies. UOIP’s subsidiary deals with disaster recovery, could be responsible for pushing shares higher.

The Wannacry attack has been pushing up software companies across market since the attack. The virus attacked windows systems that had not been updated and did not include a “critical” patch that had been “issued by Microsoft to remove an underlying vulnerability “. Many organizations, which were not secured, suffered the attack that spread all over the world in the following days. Experts estimate that over 200,000 victims and more than 230,000 computers were infected. The virus did not slow down its activity until late May. Hackers demanded $300 to $600 from each user to recover the encrypted files as ransom. UOIP might be riding this wave along with other sector companies, but it is unclear.

UOIP details intangible assets on the balance sheet; $5,049,383. Diving deeper into that means that the total amount of assets is approximately $5.2 million. Intangible assets could be patents or technologies that are still be developed and could be valued broadly. Above all this, UOIP is currently flagged by the OTC Markets exchange with the “Caveat Emptor” sign, which means that shareholders need to “exercise additional care and perform thorough due diligence before making an investment decision in the company”.

Unified Online Inc. (OTCMKTS: UOIP) is a volatile company with murky evidence behind the rise. Investors should be absolutely careful because the company has not released any press about business moves or investments. Following the bread crumbs leads us nowhere and UOIP could just be riding a temporary wave. This is a stock to watch but also a sector to keep an eye on as well.

On October 27, 2015, Unified Online (UOIP) acquired 100% of the membership interest Chan-Bond, LLC (Chan-Bond), a portfolio of patents that disclose a technology that allows cable companies to provide high-speed data transmission over their existing hybrid-fiber coaxial networks.

Petitioner, RPX Corporation (“RPX”), filed a petition on November 20, 2015, requesting an inter parties review of claims 1–31 of U.S. Patent No. 7,941,822 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’822 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, Chan-Bond LLC (“Chan-Bond”), filed a Preliminary Response on March 10, 2016. Paper 6 (“Prelim. Resp.”).

Chan-Bond sued several cable company defendants alleging patent infringement of three wideband signal distribution system patents in the District of Delaware in 2015. The defendants included Atlantic Broadband Group, Bright House Networks, Cable One, Cablevision, Cequel Communications, Charter Communications, Comcast Communications, Cox Communications, Mediacom Communications, RCN Telecom Services, Time Warner Cable, Wave-Division Holdings, and Wide-open West Finance (District of Delaware case nos. 15-cv-842 to -854). Non-party Cisco filed eight IPR petitions against the three Chan-Bond patents in September 2016, and a stay was ordered on March 3, 2017 pending the PTAB’s decisions to institute IPR.

Cisco’s IPR petitions had mixed results. The day the stay was ordered the PTAB instituted inter parties review of claims 1,2, 5, 6, 19, 20, 23 and 29 from US Patent 7,941,822 (IPR2016-01744), but denied institution of claims 13 and 14 in a second IPR petition of the ‘822 patent (IPR2016-01746). (Note: RPX filed an IPR petition on claims 1-31 of the ‘822 which was instituted for trial and oral arguments were held in January 2017. A final written decision has not been issued by the PTAB yet. See IPR2016-00234.) On March 29, 2017, six IPR petitions for US Patent Nos. 8,341,679 and 8,984,565 were denied institution.

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 orthogonally 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 Chan-Bond to enforce its patents as planned, but it has at least avoided further review of the ‘679 and ‘565 patents for now.

###