Fairfax, VA, 03-Aug-2018 — /EPR Financial News/ — UnifiedOnline, Inc. acquired 100 percent membership interest of ChanBond, LLC on 27^th 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 21^st 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