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.
Jealmc79 - I'm still trying to figure this whole thing out also.
Time seems to be of the essence...'we will pay $69...No wait, make that $75...' why the rush? Change of share ownership = change of control.
Something is about to change that IDCC management deems will increase profitability.
The presentation on February 15th should be fun.
“They are simply buying stock at a price that is less than the conversion price.”
Not at the rate their going with this. Next weeks offer $75-80? I’m still trying to figure this whole thing out. So far I believe that paying dividends lowers the conversion price. Shouldn’t stock buybacks increase the conversion price? Less dilution for note holder should command a higher price shouldn’t it?
I may sell my shares when IDCC reaches a billion dollars in revenue and trading at (X) times revenue.
Monterey2000 - I believe that the convertible bond redemption is what has prompted the Dutch Auction. The company foresees a time in the near future when the window opens for the convertible bonds to convert. They are simply buying stock at a price that is less than the conversion price. JMHO
IMO, after the dutch auction, they may increase the dividends..
Any thoughts on what happens if/when the stock price hits the note conversion price of approx. $77.49?
dndodd. I remember you set a good until cancelled price well above $100 and maybe even closer to $200 many many years ago.
Just wondering if you might do the same again this time around.
I wonder if this might help push the share price up:
Since the Dutch Auction price range is between 65.25 -75.00, what if the shares I own were put up for sale at a price range of $80 to $90, good until cancelled. If individual shareholders did the same, would it move the share price considerably higher?
Would IDCC then consider raising the Dutch Auction price again to higher grounds? The more shares put up for sale at the $80 to $90 levels might spur IDCC to raise their price again, as it would signal them that shareholders think IDCC commands a much higher price level.
More importantly, would shorts scramble to cover their short positions in fear that shareholders (and institutional holders likewise) see the share value too low and a higher price might influence institutions with smaller positions to offer up their shares.
The Backrocks and other institutional holders with significant positions could decide at what level they would offer up their shares.
Just thinking ! ! !
.
Rooster - If IDCC is close to signing a license that involves the video comprehension patent portfolio, it will represent a completely new revenue stream that has not been priced into our market value. JMHO
Why are they buying shares this way? Why change it from the way they were buying shares before?
Can we close at $75. That should torch a few shorts.
nah...it was a hit job designed to soften up the price for someone...it caused to company to get their game up a couple of notches...
You can bet BOA loaded up right about the time he came out with that.
WHERE IS OUR CHICKEN SCHIFF B OF A ANALYST W/ THE $50 PX TARGET?????
hi ho hi ho....its off to work we go....they are telegraphing that big things are happening and the stock is cheap....right now its a shorts nightmare....TRAPPED!!!
appears they want a big block of stock off the table at one time, and to let some know what they think its worth , I expect we will know the reason someday
I am puzzled as to why the need and urgency to raise price....Are they testing the buyout price for going private or for the potential acquirers?? ?? AMHO
It looks a about time that they raised the auction floor and ceiling prices. The folks who ere bringing the price down now have to pay up to cover more shares.
What will a blowout quarter and annual report do to the price, especially with a nice FRAND rate granted by the UK high court. And/or another essential patent validity and infringement win over Lenovo.
That might shake loose a share or two - I’m still waiting for $80 and they can have just a few of mine. A few.
What a bunch of amateurs
they just raised the auction price to 65.25 -75.00
In reference to my question as to what Lenovo/Motorola know about IDCC’s top 100 company ranking. I was just being humorous as I think a company that big knows more about IDCC than I do.
Does anyone think Lenovo/Motorola is aware of this. If not they should be.
InterDigital again named one of the world’s top 100 innovators
WILMINGTON, Del., Jan. 31, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE)
glen....stock loan is among the last places that traditional brokerage firms are "allowed" to make money in the stock market....the stock/loan market is fast and efficient....and has some of the sharpest operators in all of wall street....if your a hedge fund thats short idcc and intends to stay short through the tender....your on the phone lining up shares in anticipation of a call after the tender
Teecee56 - Thanks for your reply. So the borrower of the shares has no control over the timing of the repayment of the shares. The lender of the shares can end the arrangement in their sole discretion.
The closing of the Dutch Auction on February 17th may require some mandatory overtime for multiple Margin Clerks around the country. JMHO
glen...very simple...if you sell your shares for any reason....they get called back from the borrower...many institutions lend their whole portfolio of stocks out for a single price....and the borrowers pick and choose what they need..they will have to find other lenders....if the price of borrowing goes up...it hurts the shorts right in their pocketbook....technically with 2myn shares short and 29myn outstanding....there should be 31 myn of holdings among the various classes of shareholders
Wow, those are Mickeybritt numbers! It would be great if they finally go to a judgement, but I suspect they will settle and take some patents in lieu of cash for the past due. I am simply going by Interdigital’s history of accommodating the long term infringers.
A few more Lenovo patent case and/or appeals losses in the UK High Court should provide a price increase for IDCC. Imagine how much they can owe for past royalties since 2009 to date. Personally I would accept nothing less than a couple of billion in cash. 13 years of infringement without remuneration should require substantial arrears payment.
Note: I would not offset the payment with some of their patents.
The above is just conjecture o my part.
Question: Some institutional owners loan their shares (for a fee) to an entity that will sell the stock short. If the Institution that loans those shares decides that they want to participate in the Dutch Auction, what is the procedure for them to regain control of the loaned shares?
Thanks in advance.
Vegas Options - I suspect that you are referring to the following paragraph from this article:
"Average portfolio weight of all funds dedicated to US:IDCC is 0.1331%, a decrease of 18.2737%. Total shares owned by institutions decreased in the last three months by 1.27% to 28,152K shares."
I do not understand what the author is trying to convey with that statement.
From a different website [Webull] that I use often and believe to provide accurate information:
AS OF 1/25/2023
Institutions (25.8300M) 87.09%
Insiders (.4142M) 1.40%
Holding Co. (?) .01%
Other 11.50%
Total 100%
who knows if this case will ever end
InterDigital Fights To Restore Wireless Patent In Appeal
By Sophia Dourou · Listen to article
Law360, London (January 31, 2023, 7:23 PM GMT) -- Technology giant InterDigital asked an appeals court on Tuesday to reinstate one of its wireless technology patents, arguing an earlier decision that the standard-essential patent lacks novelty was based on too narrow of an interpretation.
Counsel for InterDigital told a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal that one of its standard-essential patents for 3G wireless technology did indeed contain an invention and was infringed by Chinese tech giant Lenovo.
Adrian Speck KC, representing the U.S. research and development company, told the court that the High Court judge hearing the case used the wrong construction of the patent's claims when assessing whether it was obvious given the prior art in the field.
The patent covers the way data blocks of specified sizes are transmitted by mobile phones.
InterDigital is seeking to overturn an April 2022 High Court decision holding that its patent was invalid and tossing out its infringement suit against Lenovo.
Speck said that the judge was wrong in his approach to an earlier 2005 invention known as Filiatrault, which aims to improve the performance of 3G mobile transmissions to reduce delays. The prior art did not anticipate the patent-in-suit, which included an apparatus to ensure that the technology was fully functional, Speck argued.
"It couldn't be clearer that the judge proceeding on the basis that this is a requirement and gave its absence in Filiatrault as a reason it didn't anticipate," Speck said, outlining his argument that the judge included two constructions in his analysis, despite his ruling that the patent was anticipated.
But James Abrahams KC, representing Lenovo, told the panel that the judge correctly read the prior art, urging the court to dismiss the appeal as a result.
"The main issue at trial…was the dispute of what the Filiatrault prior art described, what it meant in relation to the common general knowledge," Abrahams said. "Our case on Filiatrault is that it actually disclosed the detailed process that InterDigital now wants to write into [its claim.]"
Abrahams rejected Lenovo's arguments that the earlier judge had included two different interpretations in his judgment, arguing it would be "impossible" for him to forget. But he added that even if the appeals court did accept InterDigital's new construction of the patent, it couldn't conclude that Lenovo had infringed the patent because InterDigital didn't raise that argument at the High Court.
InterDigital and Lenovo have been in talks since 2009 to license the U.S. company's patent portfolio covering 3G and 4G standards in a number of different jurisdictions including the U.K., China and U.S. with no success, according to a related July 2021 decision.
The High Court ruled at that time that Lenovo had infringed another valid standard-essential patent of InterDigital's for 4G wireless technology. Lenovo is currently appealing that decision.
Separately, on Tuesday the High Court upheld the validity of yet another InterDigital telecommunication patent and ruled it essential to the 3G technology standard.
That dispute marks one of a series focusing on determining what FRAND – fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory – licensing terms would be for the telecommunications patents. It follows a landmark decision by the U.K. Supreme Court in 2020 that England's courts have the authority to set global rates for use of standard-essential patents.
The appeal before Justices Kim Lewison, Sarah Asplin and Richard Arnold is set to continue on Wednesday.
Gamco, in your ownership article I have a difficult time believing the author. He states that institutional ownership is 28.1 M shares which means they own 97%. Add another 500K for insiders and you only have 1M shares left over.
fyi
Lenovo Loses Latest Bid To Invalidate InterDigital 3G Patent
By Alex Baldwin · Listen to article
Law360, London (January 31, 2023, 8:01 PM GMT) -- A London court ruled Tuesday that a telecommunications patent held by U.S. wireless tech
company InterDigital is both valid and essential to the 3G technology standard, rebuffing yet another attempt from Chinese tech giant Lenovo to nix
several of its telecom patents.
High Court Judge James Mellor upheld InterDigital's patent, rejecting Lenovo's arguments that prior art anticipated the telephone patent, in the latest
chapter in an ongoing licensing dispute between the two companies currently underway in the London courts.
InterDigital initially sued Lenovo for purportedly infringing several of its telecommunication patents and claiming that the company was illegally
using the technology without taking a license to its patent portfolio. Lenovo fired back by challenging the validity of the patents, including the one at
issue in Tuesday's ruling.
That patent, EP(UK) 2,421,318B1, relates to the sending of scheduling information "in the context" of an enhanced uplink system, according to the
judgment.
InterDigital said that whether the patent was essential to the 3G standard "stands or falls" depending on the interpretation of the terms "in response to"
found in the first claim of the patent, according to the judgment.
1/31/23, 10:39 PM Lenovo Loses Latest Bid To Invalidate InterDigital 3G Patent - Law360
https://www.law360.com/articles/1571024/lenovo-loses-latest-bid-to-invalidate-interdigital-3g-patent 4/8
Lenovo, meanwhile, argued that there were scenarios where the system would not necessarily trigger the sending of scheduling information "in
response" that undermined the claim that the method was essential to 3G technology.
But the High Court sided with InterDigital's reading of the claim and ruled that it was essential to the standard.
The expert witness for Lenovo also argued that the first claim of the patent was invalid as a specialist in the field would be able to eventually arrive at
the solution described in the claim through "routine work" by running into a "transmission blocking problem" posed by the 3G network.
While the High Court said that this was a "powerful analysis," Judge Mellor was ultimately unpersuaded by the argument, agreeing with InterDigital
that the path to overcoming the transmission blocking problem was only obvious "in hindsight."
"If you know the end point you are trying to reach, it is easy to direct the questioning with a laserlike focus to lead to that end point," the judge wrote.
The High Court also dismissed a key piece of prior art put forward by Lenovo referred to as "Kim," that the Chinese tech company argued proved that
InterDigital's patent protected technology was already known.
While the court accepted that a specialist in the field would be able to "take the central idea" of Kim and apply it to other communications systems,
such as the system detailed in the InterDigital patent, this was not reason enough to claim that Kim "anticipates" the patent, Judge Mellor concluded.
Lenovo has until Feb. 25 to appeal the decision, according to the judgment.
"This is another excellent win for InterDigital, particularly as it follows our recent victory in the U.K. Court of Appeal in another proceeding against
Lenovo," said Josh Schmidt, chief legal officer at InterDigital.
Representatives for Lenovo did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.
This judgment comes shortly after a Jan. 19 Court of Appeal judgment that dismissed Lenovo's bid to reconsider a High Court ruling upholding the
validity of another InterDigital patent.
This marked the first in a series of trials before the Court of Appeal that will consider the validity of several InterDigital patents and later go on to
determine whether Lenovo infringed and should accept a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory, or FRAND, license for them.
One of the patents InterDigital accused Lenovo of infringing was axed by Judge Mellor last year. He later denied InterDigital's bid to appeal the
ruling.
The patent-in-suit is European Patent (UK) No. 2,421,318B1
They have never discussed specific license information before. They have told us it has been renewed. Some of the wording, As InterDigital completes its quarter-end and year-end financial close processes and finalizes its financial statements for the quarter and year-end, it will be required to make significant judgments in a number of areas, indicates the company and the auditors are figuring out future reporting of the additional cash at year end. This could be Samsung and must be reported in a fashion to avoid incurring taxes on the whole amount now rather than spread out over the term of the renewal license.
MO
loop
They should provide guidance for the 1st qtr and analysts will probably ask questions about Samsung.
Why the 15th/\? Samsung's old license will be reported for 4Q.
MO
loop
Maybe guess we will know more on the 15th
dndodd, I believe that since Samsung is only objecting to the rate. they will pay the current rate and when it is decided there will be a true up.
Loop,
Do you think it is possible that Samsung would agree to pay whatever they offer in arbitration as a minimum. TIA, I have no idea if companies in arbitration do such things.
Push and pull. Buyers push the price up and sellers pull the price down.
Sheriff, please call Mr. Dodd back in the bar, he is trying to scare the townsfolk again. He is telling the kids they will not have any candy for 18 months despite a lack of confirmation by the Interdigital store.
MO
loop
I understand that but this get no respect IDCC and the headline qtr to qtr comparisons will not be good.
True, but will ultimately being paying for those 18 months.
Right but they are looking at up to 18 months of zero revenue from Samsung.
I am wondering how Samsung will be handled by the analysts. They know IDCC will get paid, but they can only guess at how much.
Dndodd we may not hear much new information regarding Samsung as they are in arbitration regarding a license rate only.
I am most interested in Guidance for the 1st qtr and how Samsung is handled.
Maybe they can take the $200 million cash and increase the dividend.
Some are working to keep the price down.
Followers
|
879
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
432755
|
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: |