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.
Fish, seeking alpha's usual hatchet job as the company estimated 93 cents so they put $1.09
leon......tommorrow is the tender....im surprised there wasnt more volume.....im watching from the cheap seats...taking notes...cause this is a "one of a kind event"....as least as far as im concerned......good luck men...anybody still here after 25 years...has got what it takes!!!
Rokky57, I really depends on how much stock that they bought in the 4th Q (300K). Their current outlook. How all the cases are progressing. Who did the $400 M come from. Should everything be positive, the stock will go over $75 and the company will get very few shares. If it is so so or bad all the shares from the last week will be tendered. In either case I win.
@Vegas ... Thanks and understood.
They obviously paid a lot more for the Puts in the money and are hedging for an upside surprise with the short term ( March ) Calls..
Any expectations for tomorrow action from your own personal experience with options?
Over 1.11 million shares traded today. Earnings tomorrow should be interesting, and the auction closes at 11:59 pm New York time on Friday night.
Huge volume day. Tomorrow will be interesting.
Rokky57, the RSI and all charts are meaningless when a company is looking to buy back up to 20% of their stock which will bring the share count to less than what the institutions own...
Rokky57, Whoever did it spent $2.4M for the puts and $180K for the calls. It clearly is an institution that is short. The reason they spent so much on the puts is their bias is for the stock to fall, but in either case they created 300,00 shares.
@Vegas
What's your takeaway from the 3,000 Puts and Calls of the March 80's? Somebody is obviously playing both sides but, is there anything else that can be read from that AT THIS TIME? The day before earnings.
I've been watching IDCC for a long time..I don't remember seeing the RSI so overbought for this long ...since Jan. 3, 2023 it's stayed over 75 and overbought and doesn't seem to want to give an inch.
SEEKING ALPHA ERNINGS PREVIEW
InterDigital Q4 2022 Earnings Preview
Feb. 14, 2023 1:53 PM ETInterDigital, Inc. (IDCC)By: Anuron Mitra, SA News Editor
InterDigital (NASDAQ:IDCC) is scheduled to announce Q4 earnings results on Wednesday, February 15th, before market open.
The consensus EPS Estimate is $1.09 (vs. $0.70 last year) and the consensus Revenue Estimate is $113.93M (+1.9% Y/Y).
Over the last 3 months, EPS estimates have seen 1 upward revision and 0 downward. Revenue estimates have seen 2 upward revisions and 0 downward.
Now Read: InterDigital rises on offer to repurchase $200M of common stock
scooby5, you get to look behind the green curtain tomorrow morning then decide to tender or not.
Rokky57, that is half of the synthetic shares. The other half is that they bought 3000 80 puts.
3,010 Call options of the Strike 80 today.
Rare high volume for InterDigital options.
looks like some of our shorts have created 575,000 synthetic shares in the options market for March in the last 2 days
I'm surprised we aren't closer to $75.00
Interdigital Inc (Symbol: IDCC) saw options trading volume of 4,626 contracts, representing approximately 462,600 underlying shares or approximately 123.5% of IDCC's average daily trading volume over the past month, of p trailing twelve month trading history, with the $80 strike highlighted in orange:
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/notable-monday-option-activity:-byd-idcc-atvi
I am with you Tony.
i guess they found a price where shares are starting to change hands....seems like they will get their allotment within the price range...we're all on board one way or another...i once had so many shares i couldnt sleep at night .....now its the last thing on my mind....but its still more than a bite in my portfolio...im taking this baby with me!!!
Volume was pretty high today, and no change in SP close from Fri.
Vegas, I appreciate your perspective. I certainly was looking very short term in my financial outlook for available funding resources. IDCC is a much stronger company from a revenue growth and earnings standpoint these days. I was not aware that the convertible notes were hedged to a $125 price point. Interesting times ahead and hopefully even greater investment value await all IDCC longs in 2023.
February 10, 2023 00:00
Declaration
Document: 308
DECLARATION re 307 Reply Brief (of Leif Peterson) - by Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Holding Company Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-3)(Smith, Rodger)
Monterey2000, another way to look at IDCC should they sign OPPO, VIVO and Lenovo this year their recurring revenue would be $135M-$140M per Q against expenses of $75M-$80Mper Q. That means earnings of around $2 per Q. Add in some new royalties from IOT, AI, Cars and film you can get to $2.50 per Q. Should the buybacks eliminate 4M shares it will cause a massive short squeeze. You can determine what you think the multiple should be...
so action today in court
February 10, 2023 00:00
Declaration
Document: 308
DECLARATION re 307 Reply Brief (of Leif Peterson) - by Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Holding Company Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exs. 1-3)(Smith, Rodger)
February 10, 2023 00:00
Brief - Reply
Document: 307
REPLY BRIEF re 300 MOTION to Sever MOTION to Stay Interdigital's Patent Infringement Claims - filed by Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lenovo Holding Company Inc., Motorola Mobility LLC. (Smith, Rodger)
InterDigital Gets Wireless Patent Reinstated On Appeal
By Sophia Dourou · Listen to article
Law360, London (February 9, 2023, 5:29 PM GMT) -- A London appeals court reinstated on Thursday a wireless patent of InterDigital Inc., finding that it had been infringed by Chinese rival Lenovo Group Ltd.
The Court of Appeal sided with the U.S. tech giant's argument that one of its standard-essential patents for 3G wireless technology did indeed contain an invention and was not obvious given the prior art in the field.
Justice Richard Arnold said that a lower court judge was wrong to find that a piece of prior art anticipated the patent-in-suit, which included an apparatus to ensure that the technology was fully functional.
He added that the earlier judge "was beguiled by a sleight of hand" during the cross-examination of InterDigital's expert witness. The panel of three justices found that an earlier 2005 invention, known as Filiatrault, which aims to improve the performance of 3G mobile transmissions to reduce delays, did not anticipate InterDigital's patent.
The patent covers the way data blocks of specified sizes are transmitted by mobile phones.
InterDigital was seeking to overturn an April 2022 High Court decision holding that its patent was invalid and tossing out its infringement lawsuit against Lenovo.
The justices sided on Thursday with InterDigital's version of the construction of the patent's claims, but noted that conclusion had no bearing on whether the patent had been infringed.
"So far as is material to essentiality/infringement there is no difference between the judge's construction and the construction I have adopted," Justice Arnold wrote.
"We are delighted to have helped InterDigital secure another win in its longstanding dispute with Lenovo," said Alexandra Brodie of Gowling WLG, who represented InterDigital.
A Lenovo representative declined to comment.
InterDigital and Lenovo have since 2009 been in unsuccessful talks 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., according to a related July 2021 decision.
The High Court ruled at that time that Lenovo had infringed another of InterDigital's valid standard-essential patents for 4G wireless technology. Lenovo is currently appealing that decision.
Separately, the High Court upheld the validity of yet another InterDigital telecommunication patent in January 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 was before Justices Richard Arnold, Kim Lewison and Sarah Asplin.
The patent-in-suit is European (UK) Patent No. 3,355,537.
Lenovo is represented by James Abrahams KC of 8 New Square and Kyra Nezami of 11 South Square, instructed by Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
InterDigital is represented by Adrian Speck KC of 8 New Square, instructed by Gowling WLG.
The case is InterDigital Technology Corp. and others v. Lenovo Group Ltd. and others, case number CA-2022-001060, in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.
Monterey, IDCC does have unlimited money as they continue to earn. Every share that they buy is gone off the market. When the shorts can not borrow they have to cover. If IDCC buys their 11% of the company at $75 (9% +2% overage) that would put the share count below 26.4M shares which is below institutions and insider holdings. In that case I will have a lot of fun...I believe that their end game is to take it private for $125 as the bonds are hedged to that level.
I too am wondering what is IDCC’s ultimate objective. I hope they have a better end game than just to hurt the short game. The shorts have unlimited financial capital vs IDCC’s limited capital of 200 to even 400 million. Looking forward to a very interesting earnings call on Feb 15 especially with the 3rd win against Lenovo in the bag.
Massive jump in short interest a/o 1/31.....AFTER THE FIRST TENDER WAS ANNOUNCED...went from 2.182 myn to 2.562 myn....wonder what the response will be to the increase in the price of the tender.....this is some game of chicken thats being played here
Fish, I believe that the loser pays attorney's fees in the UK.
I personally believe this matter with Lenovo would have been settled had it not been for the Motorola Mobility component and the 1995 court fiasco involving the 089 patent. IMHO.
Who here thinks Lenovo will settle before earnings are announced on Feb 15th?
Personally, I don’t think the Lenovo legal team will allow settlement as they may say recommend waiting to see what the UK court sets as a FRAND rate.
A decision is pending in a separate trial to determine fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for a license to InterDigital’s portfolio.
Attorneys are necessary and they must also eat.
Valid, ESSENTIAL, and infringed. What powerful words and judicial determinations.
So, what does the court determined infringer do? The smartest thing they can do is agree to a worldwide license with IDCC. 1) Pay IDCC their requested rate for the many years of past usage. 2) Sign a long term 7-10 year ongoing license commencing from the signing date going forward.
The not so smart thing Lenovo can do is to continue to infringe. IDCC on the other hand can wait on a court determined FRAND rate.
And let us all recall that an ESSENTIAL patent is for the worldwide standard. Thereby infringed worldwide.
Go IDCC. You are like the little engine that could. Good or even great things come to those who wait.
Somehow even losing attorneys win.
The question really is between whether you go the full 10 rounds in court or take less in order to end all further ligigation matters.
You either get less from the settlement or get more but pay attorney fees to get a bigger amount.
Seem to me the real winner is the attorneys.
It's time for Interdigital to make it clear that isn't happening anymore starting right now.
Thanks Gamco,
All these Interdigital wins must have Lenovo feeling the pressure to settle. They must know Interdigital always caves some on the past sales. If they go to a judgment that won’t happen.
Lenovo It is time to license at IDCC’s FRAND rate, with adequate reimbursement for 10 plus years of past use.
lime...first you get the legal victory....then you either are awarded damages...or the company signs a license...number 2 is the much preffered outcome
All wins appear priced in, we need a judgment , $$$
InterDigital wins third decision in 2023 from UK court in Lenovo dispute
Source: GlobeNewswire Inc.
InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile and video technology research and development company, today announced that a UK court has once again ruled in its favor in the company’s patent litigation with Lenovo. The Court of Appeal in London overturned the High Court's ruling on invalidity, finding that InterDigital's patent is valid and upheld the High Court's ruling that the patent is essential and infringed.
This is the third court victory for InterDigital in this dispute since the beginning of 2023. In January, the Court of Appeal upheld a lower court verdict that an InterDigital cellular patent is valid, essential and infringed and, in the third technical trial, the High Court ruled that Lenovo is infringing another InterDigital cellular patent, which was also deemed to be valid and essential. A decision is pending in a separate trial to determine fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms for a license to InterDigital’s portfolio.
“This latest UK court victory, our third in a matter of weeks, serves as further confirmation of the quality of our patented innovations,” commented Josh Schmidt, Chief Legal Officer, InterDigital. “Our portfolio of foundational cellular and video technologies has repeatedly been recognized as world class by third parties and is further validated by our long record of licensing many of the leading device manufacturers in the world.”
About InterDigital®
InterDigital develops mobile and video technologies that are at the core of devices, networks, and services worldwide. We solve many of the industry’s most critical and complex technical challenges, inventing solutions for more efficient broadband networks, better video delivery, and richer multimedia experiences years ahead of market deployment. InterDigital has licenses and strategic relationships with many of the world’s leading technology companies. 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
Teecee56 - I suppose you are correct; I'm prone to over think things. However I'm still looking for either a patent sale or a license for a technology that would be a first for IDCC. The video patent portfolio has more potential than we have seen to date. JMHO
glen...i wouldnt try to over analyze the whole thing...the company believes for one reason or another that the stock is undervalued....defeasing the convert with stock is an interesting concept....they would then be able to take money out of their collar hedges by selling them off...they have the flexibility to do whatever they want with the capital structure because of their financial strength ....im just going to enjoy the ride to its logical conclusion ...which in my mind has always been some type of take-out
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?
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: |