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.
Another concept!
"Bully Spanking"
What is "Bully Spanking?" This is buying a few hundred shares (or even 1 share) at the asked of the after or premarket bid / asked spread to show a bis after or premarket price gain. The intent is to create buying interest in the stock.
The opposite is "Bear Baiting."
Lesson of the day!
Tomcat
So far, no "Shorty Drifting!"
WHAT is "Shorty Drifting?'
That is where the stock opens higher, then sells off constantly all day long, to end in a loss at the end of the day!
Tomcat
Vegas,
IDCC is 25 points below target!
There is plenty of room for buying shares.
The shorts hope is to lower the share price with small continuous sells at the bid, lowering the bid asked price. Without steady buyers, or a market buyback program, the short strategy has worked - against all odds, seemingly. Their hope is to get an institution or two to liquidate their IDCC investment along the way, and then others might join in for fear of losing their profits! This in a time of no news from the company. I think we have seen some of that (institutional liquidation) with the end of day up volume price plunges. At least one or two institutions have probably sold out to buy into NVDA or TSLA.
IDCC typically has done its buybacks by purchasing blocks of shares from institutions. I think that if they strategically purchased shares at the asked prices throughout the day instead, the 100 share "machine gun" shorts might be overwhelmed, and their whole walkdown of the share price strategy might fail. This could result in a short squeeze & a short term IDCC share price well north of $100.
IMHO - Tomcat
tnyellowtomcat, so you think that there are plenty of shares available... a smaller firm William Blair probably will get their customers to buy maybe 500K in shares over the next week. So far today the volume is 31K and the stock is up $2.
A day of a little heartburn for the shorts? How unusual!! How will they stand it? Being as cottled and protected as they are??
Tomcat
William Blair resumed coverage of InterDigital with a rating of Outperform
Scooby,
On Wall Street, if it is obvious, it is obviously wrong!
The odds looked to be stacked against the shorts, but the shorts are winning here! Typical!!
At this point, it is probably too late to sell; however, I give 90% or better odds that the shorts, machines, etc take the stock below $80 tomorrow or later this week to collect the stop loss orders below $80. Perhaps we will bottom out then?
?? - Tomcat
Here comes the end of the day walk down. Pretty much every day for 2 weeks.
Big Tech Voices Concern Over EU's Essential Patent Plan
By Alex Baldwin · Listen to article
Law360, London (August 17, 2023, 1:39 PM BST) -- Technology giants are still skeptical about the European Union's proposal to overhaul the system for licensing standard-essential patents, telling the bloc that its move to create a more "transparent" framework could lead to mounting costs and further delays in the licensing process.
Add required Alt Text here for accessibility purposes
The European Commission, pictured, wants to create a more transparent and efficient system for licensing patents deemed "essential" to some technology. (iStock.com/PaulGrecaud)
The latest responses to the European Commission's proposal — which was open for consultation until Aug. 10 — shows that interested parties are in favor of the push for greater transparency. But patent owners, and the companies that implement them, are concerned that the proposed regulations could introduce more roadblocks to the licensing system.
The commission has set out to create a more transparent, predictable and efficient system for licensing patents deemed "essential" to some technology, including 4G/5G, Bluetooth and Wi-Fi.
A company that wants to release a mobile phone or laptop in the market must pay for a license for these patents to be in the legal clear to use the industry-wide standards.
Both the licensor and the company seeking to use the patented technology must agree to a license for the patent on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, known as FRAND. But what exactly are "fair" terms and rates for these patents? That question has created a series of legal disputes in recent years.
"This is a very divided landscape between patent holders and implementers," Allen & Overy LLP partner David Por said. "When these big waves of [standard-essential patents] cases get filed, they just overwhelm the courts ... Judges have been quite vocal for quite a time about the fact that they would welcome an alternative way to solve these disputes."
Courts in England, Germany and China have, so far, ruled that they have the jurisdiction to set licensing rates for these patents. But now the European Commission seeks to create a new framework to tackle the problem of what it described as "inefficient licensing" for these patents.
A promise of greater transparency for licensing of standard-essential patents, or SEPs, is central to the proposal. The commission plans to introduce requirements for SEP owners to register their patents on a database with the EU's Intellectual Property Office and make patent owners enter into "nonbinding" FRAND determination proceedings before litigating. It also wants to set up a procedure for determining the "essentiality" of patents.
The immediate response from the sector was skeptical. Major players including Apple Inc., Dell, InterDigital Inc., Qualcomm Inc. and Nokia Corp. have voiced their concerns about the plan directly to the commission.
The commission hopes that a register for SEPs would allow for a more streamlined process for implementers looking to license patents. But SEP owners are asking whether the resources required to implement this outweigh any potential benefits.
Semiconductor giant Qualcomm said that the concept of a register is "sound," but contended that the inevitable costs associated with registering are "unlikely to be worthwhile in the absence of substantial licensing activity." The company also pointed out that the burden of the additional costs associated with the new framework seem to be directed exclusively at the patent owners.
"If the registry is enacted, then it should be enacted in a balanced way," Qualcomm said in its response to the consultation. "The proposed measures impose all obligations and virtually all of the direct and indirect costs on patent holders. Transparency from implementers should also be required, in the form of a registry of standards-compliant products."
The register would not be the first of its kind: many standards-setting agencies maintain public databases on SEPs, including the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, or ETSI.
The question of how exactly the register would exist alongside these established databases was raised by the institute itself, which asked the commission to clarify whether it intends to have an "interrelation" between the two registers.
Por, of Allen & Overy, acknowledged that the ETSI database was "extremely comprehensive." But he said it typically holds too much information to be useful for determining what exactly is essential and non-essential. Patent owners tend to "over-declare" the essentiality of their patents, he said.
Apple said that the creation of a SEP register was "desirable" for increasing transparency, but added that the regulation, as it stands, does not provide "sufficient incentives to ensure that SEP owners will make accurate, complete and timely registrations." The iPhone maker also expressed concerns that the plan does not set out any serious consequences for making inaccurate or incomplete registrations.
The commission also proposed enforcing a mandatory procedure to determine seemingly nonbinding FRAND terms before patent owners are allowed to enforce the patent against an implementer.
Ericsson said that proposition was "confusing and complex." The telecoms giant said that could yield an "ideal setting for the creation of many (new) purely procedural friction points" that could be exploited to delay the conclusion of a licensing agreement.
InterDigital — which was a party to one of the FRAND disputes heard in London in recent years, which led to Lenovo handing over a lower-than-expected $138 million in royalties — also echoed the concern that either side could use these proceedings to delay licensing talks. The patent owner added that it would be "legally unclear" how these nonbinding commitments would work in practice and would probably be treated differently depending on the jurisdiction.
And Dell said that the requirement for a pre-litigation FRAND determination "has promise." The consumer tech giant also told the commission that it supported the publication of the final nonbinding FRAND determination to give third parties insight into rates associated with specific patent portfolios.
"Any delay associated with the FRAND determination process is relatively inconsequential," Dell added.
The proposal also posits mandatory "essentiality checks" for a sample of patents registered by larger companies, which would be handled by Europe's Intellectual Property Office. The office would collect and publish data on a representative "ratio" of all patent owner SEPs.
But the checks must be reliable and the sampling methodology sound if the ratio is to be representative, Qualcomm said. If that is not the case, it might give companies looking to license SEPs "unreliable information" as they argue for FRAND rates.
Canon Inc. doubted that the EUIPO has the "knowledge and experience necessary" to deal with the so-called essentiality checks as well as the FRAND determinations. The camera company said that the office's "extensive experience" in dispute settlements is limited purely to trademark and design matters.
Canon also questioned whether the EUIPO would be equipped to deal with the number of checks it would have to conduct in the first few years that the system is in operation. The commission estimates that 14,500 patents will have to be checked, according to the company. The 30 full-time employees assumed to be carrying out the checks "cannot possibly" be responsible for that many checks, Canon said.
Apple argued in its responses that much of the criticism of the essentiality checks falls flat. It noted that the regulation is intended to "provide useful inputs for bilateral negotiations" rather than being the "final word" on the matter.
Although the respondents have been quick to poke holes in the new proposal, there is a long road of refinements and amendments ahead. The proposal will have to be approved by member states and the bloc's parliament and will probably face opposition every step of the way.
"Maybe things can be improved, but it needs to be properly considered with input from more sides, but I just don't think this has been," Andrew Sharples, partner at EIP, a patent boutique law firm, said.
"Maybe as it goes through Parliament it will get that input and may impact on how this proposed legislation progresses," Sharples added.
The shorts are dragging the price around like a rag doll.
This pattern of slow decline after a good rise in share price has been taking place for the last twenty or twenty five years since I have been invested. We probably could have made some good profits by just shorting or playing with puts each time a good news event with IDCC takes place.
It is just difficult to bet on the downside of a stock that you believe has the technology to be great.
At least the modest dividend blunts some of the pain.
MD
Price rose on good news and is being walked down daily on no news.
Vegas,
It appears there are shares being sold & available for purchase every day!
In fact, this stock declines so dependably each day that the U.S government should buy puts and set up a short position as part of funding Social Security!
I have never seen a perfect shorty squeeze work - this one included!
I guess I should just stop looking at the stock price!!
Tomcat
Paullee, I assume Loop is only basing his comments on his memory of prior comments by IDCC mgmt at about the time the 2G arbitration settlement agreement was reached. I don't believe there is an open court case. However, there may be some mention of this in Nokia's financial filings if Nokia (still) considers this a potential future financial liability for Nokia. I have no idea about how to research it. Personally, I think it is an improbable longshot if such financial liability does still exist for Nokia. No offense Loop.
...MO...
PNokio’s current share price is $3.760. Zero dollars is what they deserve.
Is Nokia still in business? I don't see any case with IDCC still open!
israt, Basically no analyst can recommend IDCC because there are almost no shares available for their clients.
I would prefer to see the institutional ownership much lower. With over 100% who is left to buy?
Ok - I see your point.
IDCC is much smaller than QCOM and has achieved major licensing wins.
I don't see why that doesn't make a difference.
Just fuming - Tomcat
Vegas,
Thanks for the reply. I am staying long,
BUT ...
I am FLABBERGASTED that the shorts can get a 15 point decline in the stock with institutional ownership above 100%!
Unbelievable!!
Shorts here live blessed lives!
Tomcat
Dog days of August. Blue skies ahead.
QCOM is down about 16% in about the prior 14 days while IDCC is only down about 14% in the prior 30 days. Just a perspective.
Once the decision on UK case appeal about the world-wide FRAND rate is rendered and if Loop's memory about Pnokio actually comes true as a result, this would be blockbuster news like no other. Just my wishful thinking on a probable (or improbable) longshot, but who knows for sure.
Loop, thanks for the memories and your input.
tnyellowtomcat, I have been on vacation for 2 weeks sorry for late reply. The stock needs news. The volume has been going down which makes it easier to push down the stock price. As long as the short interest goes up and the company continues to buy back be happy. Fintel has the institutional ownership at 107.5% as of today. I like my long position.
End of July short interest up only 7000 shares.
From a Facebook post 'Friends of the WWII National Memorial':
On August 11, 1942, actress Hedy Lamarr and musician George Antheil received a patent for a frequency-hopping system to prevent interception and jamming of radio communications.
Lamarr’s path to inventing the cornerstone of Wi-Fi began when she heard about the Navy’s difficulties with radio-controlled torpedoes. She recruited Antheil, a composer she met through MGM Studios, to create what was known as a Secret Communication System.
The idea behind the invention was to create a system that constantly changed frequencies, making it difficult for the Axis powers to decode radio messages. The invention would help the Navy make their torpedo systems become more stealthy and make it less likely for the torpedoes to be rendered useless by enemies.
Lamarr was the brains behind the invention, with her background knowledge in ammunition, and Antheil was the artist that brought it to life, using the piano for inspiration.
In 1942, under her then-married name, Hedy Kiesler Markey, she filed for a patent for the Secret Communication System, patent case file 2,292,387, and proposed it to the Navy.
The Navy refused to accept the new technology during WWII. Not only did the invention come from a civilian, but it was complex and ahead of its time.
As the invention sat unused, Lamarr continued on in Hollywood and found other ways to help with the war effort, such as working with the USO. It wasn’t until Lamarr’s Hollywood career ended that her invention started gaining notice.
Around the time Lamarr filmed her last scene with the 1958 film The Female Animal, her patented invention caught the attention of other technological innovators. The Secret Communication System saw use in the 1950s during the development of CDMA network technology in the private sector, while the Navy officially adopted the technology in the 1960s around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. The methods described in the patent assisted greatly in developing Bluetooth and Wi-Fi.
It appears shorts left some on the table at close for us or mgmt was buying today to slow the sell off. IMHO
This would be a great price point to use the rest of the funds for the buyback.
I agree! It really is getting old and boring!
Tomcat
Time for this bleeding to stop.
There is absolutely no justification for this selloff! We have too many issues pending and leaning strongly in our favor. Shorts are going to get burned!!!
Eagle
InterDigital Beats Antitrust Suit Over Patent Licenses, For Now
By Henrik Nilsson · Listen to article
Law360 (August 8, 2023, 8:12 PM EDT) -- A California federal judge on Tuesday dismissed with leave to amend a suit brought by a Swiss chipmaker alleging that InterDigital Inc. is breaking antitrust laws by demanding unfairly high royalty rates to license patents considered essential to 3G and 4G cellular tech standards.
In a minute order following a hearing on Wilmington, Delaware-based licensing company InterDigital's motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo tossed Zurich-based U-blox AG's antitrust suit with leave to amend.
The judge's ruling comes after InterDigital accused U-blox, which makes microchips for wireless mobile devices, of manufacturing a dispute to impose litigation costs and secure a favorable patent licensing deal.
U-blox filed the underlying complaint on Jan. 1, alleging that InterDigital violated commitments to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, a standards-setting organization, by failing to license its patents to U-blox on "fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory" conditions.
InterDigital has collected "approximately 2,400 U.S. patents and 11,500 non-U.S. patents" and is now demanding "royalties that are discriminatory and far higher than FRAND rates," according to the suit.
U-blox urged Judge Bencivengo to set a fair licensing rate and stop InterDigital "from wrongfully interfering with U-blox's customers and downstream manufacturers."
But in April, InterDigital argued that it never accused U-blox of actually infringing on any patents, saying U-blox is seeking to force InterDigital to grant a patent license.
"U-blox has no contractual right to such a license, and InterDigital has not sued (or even threatened to sue) U-blox for patent infringement. There is thus no cognizable dispute between the parties," InterDigital argued in its motion to dismiss.
Additionally, InterDigital said that the patents it was trying to license to U-blox were not "essential" to manufacturing any products U-blox sells, meaning there isn't any legal way to apply antitrust laws that let courts jump in and set rates.
Much of the language in that lawsuit over InterDigital's licensing practices had been largely identical to language in an earlier lawsuit that U-blox filed in 2019. That case was settled and according to InterDigital, the terms of the settlement also prevent U-blox from filing the kind of lawsuit that it filed ever again.
Counsel for U-blox declined to comment on Tuesday. Lawyers for InterDigital did not immediately return a request for comment.
U-blox is represented by Martin Bader, Ryan Patrick Cunningham, Stephen S. Korniczky, Ericka Jacobs Schulz and Mona Solouki of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
InterDigital is represented by Richard A. Kamprath, Nicholas Mathews, Blake Bailey, James H. Smith and Eliza Beeney of McKool Smith and James J. Yukevich and Nina J. Kim of Yukevich Cavanaugh LLP.
The case is U-blox AG et al. v. InterDigital Inc. et al., case number 3:23-cv-00002, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
monty...i think they should have already increased the div by 10%....just based on the tender offer alone....either way they are returning money to shareholders via buybacks...the converts play into the whole equation also
if IDCC completes the share buyback in 3rd Qtr 2023, then possibly a dividend increase will be declared for 4th Qtr 2023 or 1st Qtr 2024. Just my wishful thinking.
Vegas,
Despite the apparent overwhelming odds that would seem to favor a short squeeze here in IDCC, how is it that the stock price is so obviously being led down by the shorts?
?? - Tomcat
Article about 6G from China's "People's Daily Online". The article "Experts' Take on 6G Technology" is written by Chen Zhi, Gao Yuan and Qaio Xinsheng. The authors are experts and share their views with China Daily.
http://en.people.cn/n3/2023/0807/c90000-20054775.html
Yep, the stock buyback has been good for mgmt (EPS increase) and stock traders and yes most likely the shorts too. Mgmt. needs to show some love to the long-term shareholders with a dividend increase. Maybe then the price swings will be a little easier for us longs to take.
I don't know how or why, but the shorts in this stock are coddled and protected! It has been this way for years! A related company, OLED, always gets the benefit of the doubt and trades at more than twice our earnings capitalization. Again - it has been this way for years!
Fundamentals at IDCC seem very good! I don't get it??
Tomcat.
The CFO let it slip in the transcript that the company has $142M left in the buyback. Since they ended the quarter with $158.25M, that means that they bought back another 170K-180K in July.
Yes in earnings, but not in revenue.
Yes in earnings, but not in revenue.
BoA continues its Buy rating, target 105
That’s over 30 cents per share
That’s reflected in the earnings?
bim524, about $10.2M
How much interest did they make in all
That cash?
InterDigital, Inc. (IDCC) Q2 2023 Earnings Call Transcript
Aug. 03, 2023 1:43 PM ETInterDigital, Inc. (IDCC)
Q2: 2023-08-03 Earnings Summary
InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC) Q2 2023 Earnings Call Transcript August 3, 2023 10:00 AM ET
Company Participants
Raiford Garrabrant - Head of Investor Relations
Liren Chen - President & Chief Executive Officer
Richard Brezski - Chief Financial Officer
Conference Call Participants
Anja Soderstrom - Sidoti
Brian Chen - Jefferies
Operator
Good morning and thank you for standing by. Welcome to InterDigital Second Quarter 2023 Earnings Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only. After the speaker’s presentation there will be a question-and-session. [Operator Instructions] Please be advised that today's conference is being recorded.
I would now like to hand the conference over to your speaker today, Raiford Garrabrant, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Raiford Garrabrant
Good morning to everyone, and welcome to InterDigital's Second Quarter 2023 Earnings Conference Call. I am Raiford Garrabrant, Head of Investor Relations for InterDigital. With me on today's call are Liren Chen, our President and CEO; and Richard Brezski, our CFO. Consistent with last quarter's call, we will offer some highlights about the quarter and the company and then open the call up for questions.
Before we begin our remarks, I need to remind you that in this call we will make forward-looking statements regarding our current beliefs, plans and expectations, which are not guarantees of future performance and are made only as of the date hereof. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and events to differ materially from results and events contemplated by such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include those described in the Risk Factors section of our 2022 Annual Report on Form 10-K and in our other SEC filings.
In addition, today's presentation may contain references to non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measures are included in our financial metrics tracker, which is available on the Investor Relations section of our website.
With that taken care of, I will turn the call over to Liren.
Liren Chen
Thank you, Raiford. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us today. This was another strong quarter for the business. We added to our recent momentum once again demonstrated our ability to deliver stable recurring revenue and strong profitability, and continued our excellent track record of returning capital to shareholders.
Let me start with the status update on licensing. We continue to make solid progress in the smartphone space where we added a new licensee in Q2. In addition, we closed a new licensing agreement with Alps Alpine a specialist system and technology provider in the IoT and auto sector. In the first half of the year, our recurring revenue from the consumer electronics and IoT, including auto, increased by almost 20% year-over-year, once again highlighting how we are capitalizing the opportunities in multiple verticals. In addition, early in the third quarter, we added another new licensee from consumer electronics sector.
We also continue to advance our case arbitration with Samsung, the three arbitrators who will hear the case has now been confirmed. And the case management conference is being held today. As a reminder, Samsung has already agreed to take a license to our portfolio effective January 1, 2023, where the arbitration process will decide the monetary terms. We remain confident that our new license with Samsung will reflect the value of our portfolio and continue our long-term relationship with Samsung that started more than 25 years ago.
Next, I want to give you an update on our litigation with Lenovo. Recently, we received another good decision from the U.K. High Court, which increased the amount Lenovo must pay us for license to our 3G, 4G and 5G patents to just under $185 million, which we already received from Lenovo. Rich will explain the revenue recognition topic in his remarks.
This is a very positive development for us. And as to the court's previous ruling, the Lenovo must pay us in full for the past sales going back to [2007] (ph). As court noted, this is intended to be a powerful way of discouraging licenses from holding out on taking up-front license. I want to remind you that the $185 million judgment is for license to only our cellular patents until the end of 2023. It does not include our valuable portfolio of video, WiFi and implementation patterns. And we remain committed to receive a full and fair return our technology that Lenovo uses in its devices each day.
One aspect of our dispute, which I'm particularly pleased with is that, when we asserted our pattern in three separate technical trials against Lenovo, each pattern were found to be valid, essential and infringed. Because they are all standard essential patents, this not only places us in a strong position in our Lenovo case, but also in our future negotiations and litigation with other prospective licensees.
We are, in our heart, a research innovation business. The technology we give out and the pattern that we filed each year are in many ways the products that we bring to the market. The high-quality of our portfolio is directly connected to our ability to remain at the cutting edge of foundational research in wireless, video and increasingly in AI. This year has already included many examples of how we excel as an innovation business. Our engineers produced a record number of new invention filings in the first half across both 5G and video spaces. As we continue our work in 5G, including what will be the first release of 5G advanced, we are also deepening our research for 6G.
In Q2, we announced a new research partnership with the University of Surrey in the U.K. to focus on specific technologies that we think will become a part of the 6G standard. Our ongoing wireless work, including the use of AI to improve the efficiency and reliability of mobile networks is an excellent example of how central AI has become so much of our innovation. Our CTO, Rajesh Pankaj is a well-known leading expert in AI and has been working in the space for years. Many of our other engineers are becoming noted expert and like Rajesh, several has emerged as leaders in the field.
For example, in Q2, one of our senior engineers [indiscernible] of our industry group within the standard body, ATSC, which is focused on creating standards to preserve and improve the security of AI. Stating our innovation success, we were recently named by LexisNexis as one of world’s top 100 companies in innovation that advances sustainability. We strongly believe that our innovation has only become more valuable in an increasingly connected world, and I'm delighted that we are also playing our part in steering us towards a more sustainable future.
Before I hand it over to Rich, I want to thank all our employees for the hard work in putting us in a strong position and deliver superb value to our shareholders. Our financial strength, combined with our innovation leadership and the growing importance of our technology for different use cases means that we remain ideally placed to build our recent success.
And with that, I hand it over to Rich.
Richard Brezski
Thanks, Liren. I'm pleased to share that in Q2 we delivered diluted earnings per share and adjusted EBITDA above the high end of our guidance range. This was driven primarily by revenue in line with expectations, coupled with continued expense management.
It's worth highlighting that when we received the initial Lenovo judgment in Q1, we recognized a large amount of catch-up revenue and a smaller amount of recurring revenue. In Q2, the U.K. High Court increased the value of the award, but in Q2 we recognized the same conservative level of recurring revenue from Lenovo as in Q1. Furthermore, we expect to continue to recognize revenue on that same basis throughout the balance of the year or until the related appeal process progresses. As such, we are deferring recognition for about 40% of the updated award. This is rooted in the conservatism inherent in the generally accepted accounting principles applicable to the situation since some of the award is still contingent on appeal.
Even with the deferral, our revenue continued to drive strong profitability as we posted adjusted EBITDA of $54 million at a 53% adjusted EBITDA margin. Notably, we have delivered an adjusted EBITDA margin over 50% in seven out of the last eight quarters. Our adjusted EBITDA margin shows the power of our business model as even in a quarter with only a small amount of catch-up sales, we converted over half our revenue to adjusted EBITDA. This is driven by the operating leverage inherent in our model combined with the discipline to ensure we maximize the conversion of revenue to profit and cash flow. As discussed on the last few calls, we believe adjusted EBITDA is a great metric to measure the ability of our business to generate cash over time because it adjusts for timing differences in cash collections under our fixed fee agreements.
For example, this year, we used cash in the first half of the year, but expect customer receipts, including Lenovo will drive well more than $200 million of free cash flow in Q3, and we continue to return excess cash to shareholders. As previously discussed, in the first quarter of this year, we repurchased 2.7 million shares through a $200 million Dutch tender. Since then, we have repurchased over 700,000 additional shares for almost $60 million. That brings the year-to-date totals to over $0.25 billion of share repurchases, a reduction of 12% of the outstanding shares since the beginning of the year.
Looking forward to Q3, I'll remind you that our Q3 revenue guidance is based off of contracts signed to date, since the timing of new license agreements is inherently uncertain. We expect Q3 recurring revenues will once again be around $99 million. We expect operating expenses to be similar to Q2. We expect an adjusted EBITDA margin of about 50%. We expect to continue to repurchase stock. And finally, we expect GAAP diluted earnings per share of $0.60 to $0.70.
Since both of our converts are in the money now, the diluted share count in our guidance includes an estimated 1.2 million shares of accounting dilution. It's important to note that while the converts are dilutive from a GAAP standpoint, they are not economically dilutive below $106 due to hedges we have in place. Longer term, our goal remains to achieve and sustain a 60% adjusted EBITDA margin on $650 million of annual recurring revenue from device licenses with additional upside from licensing new products and services.
With that, I'll turn it back to Raiford.
Raiford Garrabrant
Thanks, Rich. At this point, Michelle, we are ready to take questions.
Question-and-Answer Session
Operator
[Operator Instructions] The first question comes from Anja Soderstrom with Sidoti. Your line is open.
Anja Soderstrom
Hi. Thank you for taking my question and congratulations on the solid execution. I have question on the Lenovo case. So the resolution you got, now the $185 million is just in regards to license for the cellular. Are you running the other technologies parallel? Or is that something you will -- when do you think that's going to be resolved as well? And how is that progressing?
Liren Chen
Hi, Anja. Good morning. This is Liren. So as I mentioned in the prepared remarks, our current $185 million reward from the U.K. judge only captures 3G, 4G, 5G cellular technology. And -- but it also only captures the use of those technology until end of this year. So therefore, there is really three elements for additional value. One, we have other patents that's WiFi, HEVC and implementation patterns that their devices are using. We also have patents waiting on their non-cellular devices, including their PC and their laptop, which are not part of the judge's decision.
In addition, after end of the year going forward, they are unlicensed, even for the cellular devices. So regarding us capture the value, we currently already have ongoing litigation against them, for example, in Germany, but we are asserting our HEVC patents against both their laptop and their mobile devices, their cell phones and the trial is actually coming up in the next month. So we're definitely working on those, and we cracked, as I said in the prepared remarks, to be paid fully for our technology that they are using.
Anja Soderstrom
Okay. Thank you. And in terms of capital allocation with all this cash coming in, what's your sort of priorities?
Richard Brezski
Yes. So Anja, our priorities are to be responsible stewards of our cash. We've returned, as I noted in my comments, quite a bit of cash so far this year. But we have $142 million remaining on the authorization. And as I indicated, we certainly plan to continue to repurchase shares into Q3. So that's, as always, an ongoing discussion with us.
Anja Soderstrom
Okay. Thank you. That was all from me.
Operator
[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Brian Chen with Jefferies. Your line is open.
Brian Chen
Hi. Thanks for taking the question. Just on the targets that you've outlined, $500 million for wireless and the $150 million for IoT revenues. Could you please give an update on reaching those targets? How should we think about levers that you still need to pull, perhaps upside from the ongoing cases to reach that $500 million wireless target?
Liren Chen
Yes. Hi, Brian, this is Liren. So on the target for $500 million for mobile, we are proceeding very well. Obviously, the Lenovo case is part of the step towards that decision, but the three largest unlicensed including also Oppo and Vivo, which frankly size-wise are bigger than Lenovo regarding their annual device sales. We currently have cases against Oppo pending in multiple jurisdictions. One of the things I mentioned in my prepared remarks is the decision in U.K. for the three patent trials is actually a very helpful decision even for the Oppo case, because the standard essential patterns, all our patents have been found -- the three patents have been found to be valid, infringed and actual to the standard, which allows us to fast track that case in U.K. against Oppo and there's actually an important hearing coming up in October of this year. It's still in trial and followed by up-front redetermination next February. So those are -- frankly, the Oppo time line is quite good. And regarding Vivo, we are continuing active dialogue with them. So we feel confident about our $500 million target for the mobile side.
Regarding the CE and IoT space, the $150 million, that's something we are making progress. And frankly, if you look at our program here, our IoT, CE growth rate is faster than our mobile. We have been achieving double-digit year-over-year growth for the IoT space for the last couple of years already. And the first half of this year we grew about 20% year-over-year. So we'd like to keep on building on that momentum.
Brian Chen
Okay. Perfect. And I just had one follow-up. So on -- you guys have started articulating potential monetization of services. Could you perhaps provide an update on potential size of opportunity and timing of this and if you could provide any color on the processing and strategy and building out this platform that would be great.
Liren Chen
Yes. Again, look, Brian, this is Liren. So if you look at -- so what the kind of technology those online services are using, the online services have been the distribution of video, either in one direction interactively. It's beyond any reasonable doubt that they're using and benefiting a lot from our connectivity as well as from our video technology. So the real question is really how do we launch a licensing program in there, which we have been working on for quite a bit now. If you look at the market size, the online video space is projected to be growing to about $500 billion in 2027, which is interesting enough, it's the same size as today's smartphone market size.
So we are working on that quite diligently. Currently, we don't have enough specification to provide a precise estimate on how big a licensing opportunity this is with us because we really would prefer to sign up at least one or more license before we put a specific number to it. So we'll keep you informed, and we have been working quite diligently on that space.
Brian Chen
Okay. Great. Thank you.
Operator
[Operator Instructions] I’m showing no other questions in the queue at this time. I would now like to turn the call back to Raiford for closing remarks.
Raiford Garrabrant
Thank you, Michelle. I'll now turn it back to Liren for his closing remarks.
Liren Chen
Thank you, everyone, who joined today's call. We look forward to updating you on our progress next quarter.
Operator
This concludes today's conference call. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.
i would have thought there would be more volume...down 3.50....and it seems like a nothing day
Looks like a potential BEAR TRAP today
New opportunity in Services licensing. Oppo trial next Feb. Trial to revue frand rates by next Jan. They said AI many many times. They are continuing to buy back shares...
Followers
|
880
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
1
|
Posts (Total)
|
433140
|
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: |