Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
SUCCESS ! ! ! New all time high (intra-day) of $120.54 and a new all time high CLOSE at $120.38.
GUESS WHAT --- $120.00 OREENO ! ! ! ! !
Funny how that happens during a time in which that will cause even more dilution. Hmmm…………. I wonder who owns all those warrants?
News & Insight
InterDigital (IDCC) Secures Patent License Deal From Google
July 03, 2024 — 06:51 am EDT
Written by Zacks Equity Research for Zacks ->
InterDigital, Inc. IDCC has signed a significant patent license agreement with Google for an undisclosed amount. The new agreement covers a range of devices, including Pixel smartphones, Fitbit wearables and other consumer electronics, integrating InterDigital’s cellular wireless, Wi-Fi and HEVC video patented technologies.
The partnership is set to bolster InterDigital’s position in the tech industry. By licensing its innovative technologies to Google, the company ensures its continued influence and relevance in the rapidly evolving landscape of consumer electronics. The agreement also underscores the importance of InterDigital’s technologies across various consumer devices.
The relevance of this deal extends beyond the immediate benefits for both companies involved. For InterDigital, it signifies a robust validation of its R&D efforts and strengthens its market presence. For Google, the deal implies access to cutting-edge technology that can enhance its product offerings, from smartphones to wearables and beyond.
From an industry perspective, the partnership highlights the critical role of innovation and intellectual property in driving technological advancements. As the market for connected devices continues to grow, agreements like this demonstrate the essential nature of collaboration between tech giants and specialized R&D firms.
InterDigital’s commitment to licensing its broad portfolio of technologies to wireless terminal equipment makers, which allows it to expand its core market capability, is laudable. It has leading companies, such as Huawei, Samsung, LG and Apple, under its licensing agreements. Consequently, the company expects to generate solid recurring revenues from the patent licensing business in the forthcoming quarters as well.
IDCC’s global footprint, diversified product portfolio and ability to penetrate different markets are impressive. Apart from the company’s strong portfolio of wireless technology solutions, the addition of technologies related to sensors, user interface and video to its offerings is likely to drive significant value, considering the massive size of the market it licenses. Furthermore, the company remains committed to pursuing acquisitions to drive its product portfolio and boost organic growth.
The company is focused on pursuing agreements with unlicensed customers in the handset and consumer electronics markets. InterDigital aims to become a leading designer and developer of technology solutions and innovation for the mobile industry, IoT and allied technology areas by leveraging its research and development capabilities, technological know-how and rich industry experience. At the same time, it intends to enhance its licensing revenue base by adding licensees and expanding into adjacent technology areas that align with its intellectual property position.
The stock has gained 23.2% over the past year compared with the industry’s growth of 40.4%.
Someone posted on S A blog yesterday
blue_skies_at_night
New: Yesterday, 8:58 PM
Comments (70)
|
« Prev | Next »
keep in mind interdigital has an AI lab
“Focusing on long-term, high-impact research, the AI Lab examines how ideas at the leading edge of AI/ML research (particularly deep learning) can be used to deliver the next generation of wireless and immersive technologies. Our efforts seek to improve performance or reduce energy usage of systems, or even to open up or enable brand new capabilities in our core business areas. The lab also carries out research on disruptive technologies such as quantum computing and blockchain to understand their potential impact on our business.
Priorities for the AI Lab include:
Using deep learning to deliver disruptive solutions in wireless communications and video compression
Delivering a data and machine learning platform to support internal workflows
Applying the latest advances in natural language processing (NLP) toward analyzing patent documents
Investigating next-generation technologies such as blockchain and quantum computing”
InterDigital Announces Convertibility of 3.50% Senior Convertible Notes Due 2027
Company Release - 7/3/2024
WILMINGTON, Del., July 03, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile, video and AI technology research and development company, announced today that, pursuant to the terms of the Indenture governing its 3.50% Senior Convertible Notes due 2027 (the “Notes”), the Notes are convertible during its calendar quarter ending September 30, 2024. The current conversion rate of the Notes is 12.9041 shares of InterDigital’s Common Stock per $1,000 principal amount of the Notes.
Upon the conversion of any Notes, InterDigital will pay cash up to the aggregate principal amount of the Notes to be converted, and will pay cash, shares of its Common Stock or a combination of cash and shares of its Common Stock for any conversion obligation in excess of the aggregate principal amount being converted, if any, at InterDigital’s election, as set forth in the Indenture governing the Notes.
At the time InterDigital issued the Notes, InterDigital entered into call spread transactions that together were designed to have the economic effect of reducing the net number of shares that will be issued in the event of conversion of the Notes by, in effect, increasing the conversion price of the Notes from InterDigital’s economic standpoint from $77.49 to $106.35. Refer to Footnote 5 of the Financial Statements from InterDigital’s Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2024 for more information.
About InterDigital
InterDigital is a global research and development company focused primarily on wireless, video, artificial intelligence (“AI”), and related technologies. We design and develop foundational technologies that enable connected, immersive experiences in a broad range of communications and entertainment products and services. We license our innovations worldwide to companies providing such products and services, including makers of wireless communications devices, consumer electronics, IoT devices, cars and other motor vehicles, and providers of cloud-based services such as video streaming. As a leader in wireless technology, our engineers have designed and developed a wide range of innovations that are used in wireless products and networks, from the earliest digital cellular systems to 5G and today’s most advanced Wi-Fi technologies. We are also a leader in video processing and video encoding/decoding technology, with a significant AI research effort that intersects with both wireless and video technologies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on Nasdaq.
InterDigital is a registered trademark of InterDigital, Inc.
For more information, visit: www.interdigital.com.
CONTACT: InterDigital, Inc.
Email: investor.relations@interdigital.com
+1 (302) 300-1857
Vegas,
Perhaps we will see a U-Tube video of IDCC shorts scurrying about to meet margin calls!! Like roaches when the lights are turned on!
Yes - Video and TV could be very big!!
IDCC - is a little like a gold mine & a mother lode potential. A patent could be developed by IDCC in AI, wireless, video, etc. that is so important and transformative that the world will pay us almost anything to access our IP.
VBG - Tomcat
YouTube tv is becoming very popular as a cable alternative.
…and YouTubeTv. Maybe this is the beginning of revenue from streaming services they have talked about. If it was I guess they likely would say that.
tnyellowtomcat, I think the video is new to this contract. It might be bigger than we think with all the Youtube videos...
The Google license should keep the BEARS away!
IMHO - Tomcat
I think they (we) had one , but this seems more, Google and IDCC in same headline is good, and probably bots will go wild , details on these are under a cloak
of vague and ambiguous , such is our world
Is this a new customer, or a renewal? Back payments?
Anything in 2nd qtr? So many unanswered questions,
Will the 8 k be helpful?
nterDigital signs license agreement with Google
Company Release - 7/2/2024
WILMINGTON, Del., July 02, 2024 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile, video and AI technology research and development company, today announced it has signed a new license agreement with Google.
The agreement licenses a range of devices including Pixel smartphones, Fitbit wearables and other consumer electronics devices to InterDigital’s cellular wireless, Wi-Fi, and HEVC video patented technologies.
“This agreement with Google is another sign of the importance of our technologies to a range of consumer devices,” commented Eeva Hakoranta, Chief Licensing Officer, InterDigital. “It also strengthens our belief that, from smartphones, to wearables, and the Internet of Things, our innovation is only becoming more important in an increasingly connected world.”
About InterDigital®
InterDigital is a global research and development company focused primarily on wireless, video, artificial intelligence (“AI”), and related technologies. We design and develop foundational technologies that enable connected, immersive experiences in a broad range of communications and entertainment products and services. We license our innovations worldwide to companies providing such products and services, including makers of wireless communications devices, consumer electronics, IoT devices, cars and other motor vehicles, and providers of cloud-based services such as video streaming. As a leader in wireless technology, our engineers have designed and developed a wide range of innovations that are used in wireless products and networks, from the earliest digital cellular systems to 5G and today’s most advanced Wi-Fi technologies. We are also a leader in video processing and video encoding/decoding technology, with a significant AI research effort that intersects with both wireless and video technologies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on Nasdaq.
InterDigital is a registered trademark of InterDigital, Inc.
For more information, visit: www.interdigital.com.
InterDigital Contact:
Richard Lloyd
Email: richard.lloyd@interdigital.com
+1 (202) 349-1716
To follow up on the warrant dilution, if the warrants were all exercised at an average of Fridays closing stock price , $117.07, there would be a little over 101,000 shares of dilution for the remaining 2024 warrants.
So, in other words, to close out the 2024 notes, calls, and warrants, IDCC will pay back the $126.2 million principal along with any outstanding interest, there won’t be any dilution from the convertible notes because the calls will offset them, and the warrants will cause dilution as in the above paragraph. The amount of warrant dilution will depend on the average stock price on the day the warrants are exercised.
Didn’t see an 8k in 2016. The bonds are cancelled out by the calls. The warrants are probably still hanging out there though. The warrants will cause dilution for the amount they are above the strike price. The table in the 10k shows about how much that would be.
jealmc79 - I wonder if all of the bonds were surrendered for redemption by close of business today (6/28/24). If so, would that require an SEC filing as a material event? I'm anxious to know the number of shares outstanding after all of these transactions.
Gotta wonder how much last Fridays trading affected those numbers.
Hopefully before the court goes on summer vacation.
bobsil - Somewhere I read that the head appeals judge typically writes his decisions relative soon (whatever that means?) after the conclusion of his hearings. But in this case, there were two other judges that also will rule. So I believe that all three judges will need to be in agreement before any decision is announced. Basically, I have no idea how long it may require.
Whenever we get the Lenovo appeal and Samsung arbitration decisions let’s hope it sends the shorts running for cover, resulting in IDCC share price appreciation.
Does anyone have an opinion as to when we will hear the decision from the UK on the Lenovo appeal?
Does anyone have an opinion as to when we will hear the decision from the UK on the Lenovo appeal?
IDCC short interest as of 6/14/24 @ 4.46 million shares, up from 4.40 million as of 5/31/24.
MirageWitch, I'm saddened to hear about the loss of your friend. Please share my condolences with his family as well. I enjoyed the exchanges with Teecee on the IDCC iHub board. He will be missed.
Badgerkid
I can't find the article but here is the headline
Lenovo Knocks Bid To 'Treble' Payment For SEPs
By Alex Baldwin
Law360, London (June 11, 2024, 9:26 PM BST) -- Lenovo hit back at InterDigital's contentions that a landmark patent ruling underestimated what the Chinese company should pay to license its essential wireless technology patents, claiming that the bid to "essentially...
MirageWitch75, My deepest sympathy to you and his family. I enjoyed posting with him.
So sorry to hear this. I only met with him twice, including the NJ47 gathering at your office. Remembering the good times, and adding him to my list of those from our stock boards that have gone before us. RIP TeeCee.
Tony had a passion for life. My sincere condolences to his family.
My condolences, for your loss. I suspect all posters here are sad to hear this news.
“Also, at play are the warrents that IDCC controls as a hedge against dilution, and in my opinion, there is not enough information available to really understand how they function.”
IDCC doesn’t control them, they sold them to somebody else. The 2024 and 2027 warrants are all currently in the money and as they are exercised they will cause dilution. The 2024 warrants have either already been exercised or are being exercised in daily tranches since the first of June. In 2016 they did it over a three month period after the convertible debt reached maturity.
Will be interesting to see the next short interest report to see if any of that volume was used to cover. could all be related to closing out some of the 2027 convertibles. It’s all just a guess for now.
Too sad for words other than my sympathy and condolences to his family and very much extended family. I did not know Tony (TC) personally but always enjoyed his posts on this on other IDCC boards. Rest in Peace Tony (TC).
sinceIMM- Sorry, but I have no "insightful commentary" to offer concerning the good question you bring to the forum. I haven't been watching the options action as closely as I used to and don't know how many contracts were in the money for expiration on Friday. Volume of 2.04 million shares changing hands on Friday must be related to both options active together with the convertible bonds eligible for exchange this month. Also, at play are the warrents that IDCC controls as a hedge against dilution, and in my opinion, there is not enough information available to really understand how they function. [Sure could use input from Teecee56 about this].
Until the next quarterly SEC Q filing, I'm not sure how to fill in the blanks, like:
* Have all of the convertible bonds been exchanged? [technically the bond holder has untill maturity to surrender the bond but due to the difference in the coupon rate and current corporate interest rates that are available now I would imagine all of the bonds will be submitted by the end of June].
* Have all of the warrents that IDCC owns been exercised? How many remain to be exercised, and how long does InterDigital have to use any remaining warrents?
* Has InterDigital replaced the converted bonds with any new types of debt, such as a line credit or a new bond issue?
* What is the remaining cash balance in the authorized stock buyback?
The third and fourth quarters for InterDigital hold a few wildcards, like:
* Lenovo appeal ruling
* Samsung arbitration finalized
* Avanci/ Tesla litigation
* Ublox litigation
* Oppo litigation
* Sony partnership - Are more license agreements in the pipeline?
Have never met TC...but I appreciate his contributions on this board...Rest in peace...
MirageWitch75 - Thank you for posting about Teecee56. He was kind to the shareholders of IDCC and generous to share his investment experience. I attended 3 Annual Stockholders Meetings over the years, and TeeCee was at all three. I still owe him a drink. Rest in peace.
I recall the stock holders meeting with TC and other share holders. The meetings were memorable and TC the more so.
Those who are remembered in and after their death shall live as long as there is someone to remember them.
Rest in peace TC. My prayers go out to your family.
Such sad news to learn.
I *think* this is correct link to teecee’s obit.
https://www.williamjleberfh.com/obituaries/Anthony-Cianci-III?obId=31194946
So sad to hear this. He will be missed. Thank you for bringing this news to us. 🙏🙏🙏
OMG. Rest in peace Tony. You were the glue for us and my condolences go out to your family and friends. Godspeed.
I KNOW MY FORMER PARTNER TONY CIANCI -ANTHONY AKA TEECEE56 USED TO POST A LOT ABOUT IDCC . WE WERE INVOLVED IN THE STOCK HEAVELY. IT IS WITH GREAT SADNESS THAT I INFORM YOU TONY PASSED AWAY MID APRIL OF A SUDDEN HEART ATTACK . HE WAS 64 AND LEAVES 3 SONS AND HIS WIFE KATHY .TO HIS FRIENDS ON THE BOARD HE ROOTED FOR U ALWAYS HE MENTIONED MANY OF YOU TO ME .MAY GOD BLESS HIS SOUL AND I AM SORRY TO NOT INFORM YOU SOONER.HE WILL BE MISSED BY FAMILY AND FRIENDS .AS HIS SON SAID TONY DID NOT HAVE FRIENDS HE HAD FAMILY
Anticipating some insightful commentary on today's options expiration and late volume spike.
Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of
Certain Officers.
On June 17, 2024, Dr. Pierre-Yves Lesaicherre delivered notice of his resignation as a director from the Board of Directors of InterDigital, Inc. (the “Company”), and all committees thereof, due to personal reasons. Dr. Lesaicherre’s resignation was not related to disagreements on any matter relating to the Company’s operations, policies or practices.
Thank you Glen. We wait!
I watched most of the appeal and found it to be very interesting. Although I may be mistaken, both Liren Chen [CEO] and Doug Hutcheson [Chairman] were in attendance for the entire proceeding. In general, my impression is the Judges were readily satisfied with the concise answers that IDCC's counsel provided to their questions; as opposed to the Judges responses to Lenovo's counsel's ramblings. In summary, I would expect IDCC to receive substantial additional funds whether they be designated royalties or interest. JMHO
Thank you Gamco for posting.
UK Court of Appeal’s FRAND ruling will signal London’s role in SEP litigation
In an unusually long and complex appeal hearing, the UK Court of Appeal heard the FRAND rate dispute between InterDigital and Lenovo last week. The court's upcoming ruling will be a landmark for the UK's position in the global SEP dispute. But the UK patent courts have other cases in the pipeline.
19 June 2024 by Mathieu Klos
“Thank you for your detailed and interesting submissions,” presiding judge Richard Arnold could hardly have bid a more sober farewell to the barristers and solicitors representing InterDigital and Lenovo last Friday afternoon. But experienced patent judge Arnold is said to have a very sober style.
After five days of intensive hearings in room 63 of the venerable UK Court of Appeal, all 21 lawyers and judges present will have been glad to start the weekend. Usually patent hearings at the Court of Appeal last for up to two days. But the appeal against High Court judge James Mellor’s judgment in InterDigital vs. Lenovo not only concerned the calculation of FRAND rates, but also London’s future position in global SEP litigation.
Global significance
Mobile communications patents and the associated licences are a global billion-dollar business. When SEP holders and implementers cannot agree on a licence rate covering the important SEPs for 3G, 4G and 5G, for example, they often end up in court. In such cases, patent courts in the US, UK, China and Germany aim to provide clarity, usually playing a central role in these battles. It is not yet clear what role the new Unified Patent Court, which has now received a number of SEP lawsuits, will play in the future.
Up to now, the UK High Court is the only court in the world to have set a global FRAND rate with judge Colin Birss’ landmark ruling in Unwired Planet vs. Huawei.
Following the Unwired Planet ruling, SEP holders seeking to enforce a favourable FRAND rate regarded London as particularly attractive. The tables were turned, however, when judge James Mellor handed down his ruling in the dispute between InterDigital and Lenovo last March.
The case concerned a 3G, 4G and 5G portfolio licence and it was the first time the High Court judge was able to apply the Birss ruling. For this reason, the patent community is closely following the case.
Independent judges panel
Mellor’s judgment favoured the implementer. His decision on FRAND-rate setting saw the court order Lenovo to pay a FRAND rate of $138.7 million. The judgment also declared both parties’ previous offers as non-FRAND. Later in 2023, Mellor released two further decisions in which he declared Lenovo the “overall winner” of the FRAND trial.
Unsatisfied with the judgment, however, both InterDigital and Lenovo subsequently lodged appeals. The Court of Appeal combined both appeals (case IDs: CA-2023-001492 for InterDigital and CA-2023-001489 for Lenovo) and a panel featuring judges Richard Arnold and Christopher Nugee held the hearing last week. Colin Birss also sat on the bench as the third judge.
On 10 June, the panel opened the hearing just as soberly as it would end five days later — with a bow to the lawyers present and the British Crown. Internationally renowned UK patent judge Arnold took the lead. He has heard countless patent cases, though he has not yet had the chance to adjudicate in an SEP case. However, he is on the panel in the Court of Appeal case on willingness between Optis and Apple.
Thanks in part to his Unwired Planet ruling, Colin Birss is one of the best-known UK patent judges. He is also an advocate of the UPC and many considered him a top candidate for the UPC Court of Appeal.
Christopher Nugee
Richard Arnold, High Court, London, patent
Richard Arnold
Judge Colin Birss, IPEC, UK High Court
Colin Birss
Christopher Nugee, on the other hand, has an extensive commercial background, rooted in property and business law. However, Nugee has previously ruled on patent cases alongside Arnold, such as on the validity of Bristol-Myers Squibb’s apixaban patent in 2023 and the heat-not-burn e-cigarettes battle between BAT and Philip Morris.
InterDigital goes first
London lawyers describe the three judges as “extremely competent” and “intellectually independent”. In any case, the three judges were well prepared for the hearing and did not shy away from asking questions. They were clearly unimpressed by the fact that the case involved balance sheets, licence agreements and the calculation of complicated rates from licences that InterDigital had previously concluded with other implementers.
As the hearing began, InterDigital’s legal team went first. Barrister Adrian Speck from 8 New Square supported by Mark Chacksfield and Tom Jones presented InterDigital’s arguments. A Gowling WLG team around Alexandra Brodie, Michael Carter and Olivia Nimmo instructed the barristers. All three judges put questions to Adrian Speck regarding InterDigital’s appeal.
Lenovo responds
Lenovo then presented its case from Tuesday until Thursday. Lenovo’s barristers Daniel Alexander from 8 New Square and James Segan from Blackstone Chambers first responded to the arguments from InterDigital, and then presented Lenovo’s own appeal. A Kirkland & Ellis team around Daniel Lim, Nicola Dagg and Oscar Robinson instructed and supported the barristers.
On Friday parties addressed the opponent’s arguments. There were final opportunities for the judges to ask questions, which they mainly put to Lenovo’s lead counsel Daniel Alexander and James Segan. But trial observers did not see this as a disadvantage.
Questions over calculation
In essence, the two opponents wrestled before the Court of Appeal over James Mellor’s calculation of the licence rate. In March 2023 Mellor found a per unit rate of $0.175 much closer to Lenovo’s proposal of $0.16, and a “long way” from InterDigital’s contention of a blended rate of $0.53. Additionally, the court found the payable lump sum “substantially lower” than InterDigital’s offer of $337 million. Furthermore, the judges found Lenovo the winner regarding comparables, and Lenovo successful on the “top down” and “conduct” aspects of the case.
Lenovo based its appeal on two key points. James Mellor had miscalculated the royalties for the past, claimed Lenovo’s barristers, because he applied to the FRAND rate all sales made by Lenovo from 2007 onwards. Instead, they argued, Mellor should only have calculated sales since the third quarter of 2023.
Lenovo is also challenging James Mellor’s decision to grant interest to InterDigital, at 4% compounded quarterly, for the whole period for which royalties were awarded. Lenovo considers this to be wholly unjustifiable.
As a result, Lenovo’s representatives asked the Court of Appeal judges to set the FRAND lump sum at $108,900,000. The High Court, on the other hand, had set $138.7 million plus $46.2 million in interest.
The calculation of the licence rate also played a central role for InterDigital, as judge Mellor had set a rate significantly lower than InterDigital’s offer. In addition, InterDigital wants a revision of its designation as an unwilling licensor in the first instance ruling. This assessment is important for future negotiations with licensees.
Shift towards implementers?
Judge Mellor’s FRAND judgment has led patent experts to infer the UK High Court would tend towards an implementer-friendly position in the future and thus potentially deter SEP owners from suing there.
During the appeal hearing, the three judges endeavoured to remain neutral. They gave no insight into their current view of the case. Those present considered the hearing to be undecided. In the end, no one wanted to speculate whether the implementer or the SEP holder was winning.
Nevertheless, it was clear that the judges are taking a very close look at judge Mellor’s method of calculating the FRAND rate. Should they set a lower FRAND rate than judge Mellor’s, as Lenovo has called for, it will cause a sensation.
Lenovo initiates second trial
The intensity of the debate in the courtroom showed the importance of the case for London as a patent location. The case will shed light on how the UK patent courts will determine FRAND rates in the future, and especially how judges factor in payments for the past.
But the current InterDigital vs. Lenovo appeal is not the only significant case in determining the future importance of London courts for SEP litigation.
For example, Lenovo has initiated a second FRAND trial in its battle with InterDigital. Lenovo has asked the UK High Court to set a global licence rate for InterDigital’s entire portfolio, which includes implementation patents as well as SEPs. The court is thus to calculate the FRAND rate from 2024 onwards.
More FRAND judgments to come
Furthermore, new cases have already been filed. Another significant case is the appeal in Optis vs. Apple. And in Panasonic’s global dispute against Xiaomi and Oppo, for example, the UK High Court ordered an initial FRAND trial for both implementers in the fourth quarter of 2024 (case ID: HP-2023-000025). Two technical trials will only start two and four months after the FRAND trial. Thus, the court is following previous reasoning from London, in that courts should first clarify the FRAND rate before entering into the often lengthy technical trials. In a further twist, the Unified Patent Court is expected to hear cases in the same dispute around the same time. This means Xiaomi and Oppo may face their first injunctions on the continent while London is hearing the FRAND case.
In a dispute with Ericsson, Lenovo and its subsidiary Motorola are seeking a global cross-licence from the London courts. Ericsson initiated the dispute with patent infringement and ITC cases in the US. In response Lenovo filed suits at the UPC and UK High Court. A global FRAND cross-licence determination by the UK High Court could lead to global patent peace between the two opponents. According to reports, the court has asked the two companies to agree on an interim regime and to stop enforcing injunctions until a competent court decides on a FRAND rate.
July or October?
Following the conclusion of the appeal hearing, InterDigital and Lenovo will now have to be patient. “We reserve our judgments,” said judge Arnold on the final day. “I’m not going to make any promises as to how quickly they will be handed down. We will do it as seriously as we can.”
The judges could publish the verdict as early as the end of July. Indeed, Richard Arnold is generally known to write his judgments quickly. The crucial question, however, is whether the three judges agree in their rulings or whether they have differing opinions on individual points. If this is the case, it will not only be more time-consuming to reach a verdict, but also to interpret it.
The official judicial year in the UK ends at the end of July. The courts then enter a two-month break and do not resume their work until October. Given the complexity of the case, a verdict in around six weeks seems rather unrealistic. But perhaps Richard Arnold, Colin Birss and Christopher Nugee still have surprises in store for the patent community.
https://www.juve-patent.com/legal-commentary/uk-court-frand-ruling-lenovo-interdigital-signals-londons-role-in-sep-litigation/
Zdog my humble opinion is that IDCC will win on the rate appeal.
Wow sons, that is dedication to dd.
Do you have an opinion?
I didn’t have time to watch it.
I've listened to 9 hours of it. Haven't found time to finish...Father's Day and all. Do you have any thoughts about the appeal?
Paullee I had listened to them all on the day they were argued at the court. Do you have an opinion as to the decision you expect from the court based on the hearings.
Followers
|
879
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
432707
|
Created
|
01/05/02
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
The principle objective of the iHub message boards is to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio while encouraging the exchange of all points of view. Moderators are an important part of making our message boards beneficial to all participants and readers. Moderating a stock-specific board, particularly those which are controversial due to many divergent perspectives or newsworthy events, can be a challenging and time consuming role. The time and effort expended by our Members who volunteer their time to fulfill this valuable role is greatly appreciated and our Moderators should be treated with the respect they deserve for donating their time and efforts to the collective benefit of our community. Company-specific boards are the lifeblood of iHub. The Moderators' role is simple to define for company-specific boards:
To promote the civil exchange of on-topic dialog that complies with the Investors Hub Terms of Service. |
It is no accident that neither the above definition nor the Terms of Service makes mention of investment sentiment, shareholder interests, or considerations such as "the good of the company." That is because the TOS are blind to investment sentiment. In order to be a successful Moderator and conduct a board within the scope of iHub's TOS, it is critical that Moderators distinguish their role and privileges as Moderator from their role and privileges as a posting Member. That is often easier said than done, particularly on active boards with both the typical and atypical controversy.
If a post does not fit into any of these categories the post must not be removed.
Some posts fall into a "gray" area and are borderline depending upon the way they are read. As inclusion is favored over exclusion, please err or the side of not removing posts if they are not clear violations. Please use the "Report TOS Violation" button at the bottom of the post with your comments if the post is not egregious in nature and Site Admins will review the message.
Bottom line: Please use your best judgment in removing posts based on the above guidelines and let us know if you have any questions or need any help. And keep in mind that post removal and non-removal have to be given the same emphasis. It is not permissible, for example, to remove a post that calls someone a "pumper" while not also removing a post that calls someone a "basher". Investor sentiment, including your own, can NOT be part of the removal/non-removal decision.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |