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.
Lenovo / Motorola offered InterDigital $80 million last year.
So at least this ruling is higher than that. But it looks like IDCC
isn't happy with the willing licensee aspect of the ruling as well
as the 17.5 cents per phone.
And important question is how does the 17.5 cents reflect on their
other licenses like Apple and the Samsung arbitration. It's
important for IDCC to hit their revenue targets.
Lenovo Makes $80M Play To Resolve InterDigital IP Dispute
https://www.law360.com/articles/1455185/lenovo-makes-80m-play-to-resolve-interdigital-ip-dispute
So at a rate of .175 per unit, what might we expect in income from Lenova going forward? How many units do they sell per year?
Thanks Vegas and Gamco...I was not aware of that part of the story.
UK High Court recognizes Lenovo as willing licensee in landmark FRAND case
Thu, March 16, 2023 at 9:48 AM EDT
LONDON, March 16, 2023--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Lenovo today announced that the UK High Court has ruled in Lenovo’s favor in the ongoing litigation with InterDigital regarding license rates for 3G, 4G, and 5G patents. This judgement reinforces the company’s continued commitment as a willing licensee and validates the license rate Lenovo advocated for.
This is a landmark decision of a Court establishing a modern global FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-discriminatory) rate for Standard Essential Patents (SEP).
Lenovo’s John Mulgrew, Vice President, Deputy General Counsel & Chief Intellectual Property Officer, welcomes the decision as follows:
"Lenovo thanks the Court for its judgment in InterDigital v. Lenovo. We see this as a major win for the technology industry and the customers we serve, as it underscores both the importance of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms for patent licensing and the requirement of transparency by patent holders engaged in licensing practices.
We are grateful for the Court’s careful and objective analysis of the cellular patent licensing history between InterDigital and others, supporting its determination that InterDigital’s global cellular royalty rate should be $0.175 per unit. With this judgment, the Court has confirmed that Lenovo is, and always has been, a willing licensee – even in the face of InterDigital’s supra-FRAND offers and behavior as an unwilling licensor.
In the meantime, we are pleased that this judgment reinforces FRAND’s critical role in facilitating transparent and equitable licensing practices for standardized technologies – enabling the proliferation of affordable innovation to customers around the world."
The full judgement will be available on the National Archive website later today under case number is HP-2019-000032.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230316005489/en/
Contacts
Stuart Gill
sgill@lenovo.com
The way I read it is, all they are getting is 138 mil for infringement, not clear whether there is a thru date (like 12/31/22) or is it one lump payment for everything? Motorola is not part of the case and there is no action against them.
It's a British court so do we get legal fees also ?? And then he has to rule on back interest, too.
Remember Lenova offered 100 mil a year ago.
IDCC is going to appeal, so do we get anything before the appeals plays out? Will Lenova appeal. More questions than answers.
Could be one of the worst PR's I have ever seen. And Mr. Market yawns
Monterey2000, Court ruled Lenovo is a willing licensee...so no penalties.
Looks like IDCC wants more and plans to appeal...
Monterey2000, I do not know if Lenovo bought the liabilities or not.
So does Motorola pay in full for past sales dating back to 2007?
I believe that the $138.7 is before interest, penalties, lawyers fees, etc. Lenovo bought Motorola phones at the end of 2014.
So is the 138.7 just for this year, or is it a paid-up license going forward?
Let's keep an eye out for any analyst comments
I'm dreaming of $4. Been waiting a pretty, pretty, pretty long time.
How about a dollar/share divvy?
And a special dividend would be nice. Buh-bye shorts, lower litigation costs going forward, WOOHOO!
Sounds good to me....that's a very explicit ruling!!!!.
UK court issues decision in InterDigital's FRAND licensing case against Lenovo
7:30 am ET March 16, 2023 (Globe Newswire) Print
GlobeNewswireMarch 16, 2023
WILMINGTON, Del., March 16, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile and video technology research and development company, today announced that the UK's High Court handed down its judgment in the company's licensing dispute with Lenovo.
The Court ruled that Lenovo should pay a total of $138.7 million for a license to InterDigital's portfolio of 3G, 4G and 5G patents, and should pay in full for past sales dating back to 2007. The Court will decide in due course whether additional interest is due on the past payments.
"We welcome the Court's decision as the first major SEP FRAND judgment that recognizes that a licensee should pay in full for the past infringement of standard essential patents and we agree with the Court that this could be a powerful way of guarding against patent holdout in the future," commented Josh Schmidt, Chief Legal Officer, InterDigital. "However, we plan to appeal, as we believe that certain aspects of the decision do not accurately reflect our licensing program."
EDIT - I see you're already aware of this
https://www.reddit.com/r/LWLG/comments/11rca6y/my_ofc_experience/
Yes, he apparently did want to update that for you as he felt that his statement was misinterpreted, but is locked into one post per day limbo.
He replied to me earlier on IHUB that many were in the room, but the conversation was between the four people. I notice my posts have been removed as well as KCC's.
Loop, Reddit is temporarily offline - KCCO stated that in this case proto did not exaggerate and that Lebby did indeed silence the room.
I suddenly cannot get into Reddit. I guess I have been removed. Proto was not right about silencing 250 people during the rump session. The conversation was between KCC, Richard and two LWLG representatives.
MO
loop
Loop, KCCO responded to you on Reddit/LWLG. It appears that proto had that particular bit of hype correct.
my3sons87, Yes they can to all of the cases you state. The reason I am interested in the institutional holdings is that it was over 26M shares as of Dec. 31
Vegas are the institution’s allowed to own shares and short shares at the same time, or loan them out to shorts. Are maybe have a subsidiary company short them? How does that work, if at all.
It will be most interesting to see the end of quarter institutional ownership. We know by default insider ownership went up due to the Dutch auction. To have 3.83M shares short out of 26.93M should make it exciting...
cat....you took the words out of my mouth....short term treasuries are yielding 5%....the coupon on the converts is 3.5%.....that is the textbook definition of positive carry.....good work if you can get it...especially in this market!!!
InterDigital sues OPPO in the UK, India and Germany over 3G/4G/5G and HEVC
2023-03-12 10:26 HKT
Remember the Christmas lawsuit between Ericsson and Samsung at this time last year? At that time, the two license agreements expired, but the new negotiations have not progressed. So Samsung took the lead in issuing a unilateral counterclaim injunction "Christmas gift" to Ericsson in the Wuhan Intermediate Court.
Ericsson was even better. During the Christmas holiday in the United States, the Texas court successfully issued a counter-suit injunction to Samsung for overtime on December 28 and responded with a "Christmas gift". The energy behind it can be seen.
But the dispute between the two companies was quickly over within half a year. But this "Christmas gift" stalk left is probably remembered by others.
I wonder if each family wants to carry forward this "SEP Christmas gift" tradition?
Just now, the documents disclosed by InterDigital to the US SEC show that on December 20th and 22nd, it has sued the Chinese OPPO company and its affiliated companies OnePlus and Realme in the UK, India and Germany, accusing it of infringing on InterDigital. 3G, 4G/LET and 5G patents, as well as HEVC patents, and seek injunctions.
Although it is very likely that there is no direct connection between InterDigital and Nokia, this kind of "group" to sue a company will obviously consume OPPO's internal resources, because fighting a lawsuit consumes the fighting power of the corporate IP department.
From the OPPO point of view, this is currently the only Chinese company that has rushed forward to resist the "5G reasonable rate" of foreign rights holders. Therefore, the joining of InterDigital this time makes me think that this is not an attempt by Western rights holders to join forces. A move to encircle and suppress China's "pioneer" rushing forward.
Because the future 5G coverage is too wide, the US think tank had a special report in November to recommend to the US government , so if the 5G rate OPPO fails to take the lead in setting a reasonable range, I am afraid that many Chinese companies will have to follow suit.
Since 2019, InterDigital has sued Huawei, Lenovo and Xiaomi, all in the United Kingdom. It seems that InterDigital prefers the rulings of the British courts.
On August 3 this year , it reached a settlement with Xiaomi and also signed a package license agreement including 3G, 4G, 5G, WiFi and HEVC video technology.
The litigation with Lenovo is still ongoing. In a latest ruling in a British court on the 16th of this month, a British judge rejected InterDigital's request for an injunction against Lenovo, but this is only one of the five patent litigations of both parties. The "bad war" between the two sides is still going on.
Therefore, InterDigital continues to sue OPPO before completing the litigation with Lenovo, which is also a considerable expense for it.
But in order to receive royalties, InterDigital also has a budget for "war" each year.
For example, its financial report shows that in 2019, InterDigital filed a lawsuit with ZTE, Huawei and Lenovo, and sued Xiaomi in 2020. This has caused InterDigital's IP enforcement costs in 2020 to rise from US$25.4 million in 2019 to US$28.6 million, accounting for 17% of its total patent management and licensing costs (US$170.2 million) in 2020.
According to InterDigital's financial report, in 2020, revenue from Apple, Samsung, and Huawei accounted for 31%, 22%, and 15% of its license fee income that year, reaching 111.7 million U.S. dollars, 78.5 million U.S. dollars and 52.1 million U.S. dollars, respectively. The fourth place LG contributed more than 30 million U.S. dollars.
So it's not clear whether this is a battle for Christmas gifts, or whether InterDigital also wants to learn from China's surprise spending at the end of the year.
https://min.news/en/digital/8c6eabc7dcfa4b5a0a24a5fda385c07c.html
J,
What bank(s) hold IDCC cash? Please tell us!
I would expect that the bulk of the $$ is held in short term Treasury securities.
With today's higher rates, I have seen comments by others about positive carry and contribution to earnings by the bond program.
Tomcat
Teecee with all of the patent infringement decisions in IDCC’s favor in the UK and Delaware, we should be very close to a major license announcement and an ultimate short roast.
Anybody else wondering what a bank failure would do to a company like IDCC with all that uninsured cash lying around? I still don’t understand why they have so much money borrowed when they don’t need it. Why pay tens of millions of dollars to borrow money you don’t need? I started figuring how much this last round of funding cost and quit after becoming disgusted by such a waste of money. The amount is incredibly high and for nothing. Can anybody tell me what this money is needed for and how it benefits the company? What happens if the bank fails? I imagine IDCC would still be obligated to pay the money back, wouldn’t they? Seems like a huge unnecessary risk to take and they’re paying $millions to do it.
short interest now 3.8myn+ as of 2/28....in the words of marvin gaye...LETS GET IT ON!!!
Still trading above tender....market is weak....although today's news about LIBERAL west coast bankers not obeying the rules of banking....will put an end to the tightening cycle....the good comes with the bad that leads back to the good.....idc is in good shape...like I've said before...it's a great bad market stock
I don’t know where I read this sometime ago , but I put it in my notes. IDCC was to have a 10 day jury trial commencing March 6, 2023. I have no idea if that court date was moved like they normally are, but I wouldn’t be surprised.
Possibly a FRAND ruling on UK, or good news from Mobile World Congress.
scooby5, can not be as there are many rules. Can not buy in 1st 1/2 hour or last 10 minutes. Limited to 25% of average volume. ( about 70K ). Therefore IDCC buys would fade by the first hour and a half.
Volume is very good. Most of the action on the buy side. Possibly new coverage.
New 52 week $75.52 high so far today
QCOM' comment on recent dividend increase:
Cristiano Amon, President and CEO of Qualcomm Incorporated, said, "We are pleased to announce an increase in our quarterly dividend. We remain committed to returning capital to stockholders through a balanced capital return policy, including a baseline of anti-dilutive stock repurchases."
Something that the IDCC Board of Directors should learn from those who came from Qualcomm !
If Infringement was a criminal matter of which a party has been found guilty at least 3 times to date. They would be deemed a repeat offender eligible for sanction under special circumstances and eligible for extended long term imprisonment.
Since infringement is a civil matter may the court deem the infringers an unwilling licensee subject to significant monetary sanctions. X dollars for multiple years of past infringement. X dollars per unit going forth for a 10 year license period. And if the infringers do not pay. a sales injunction is issued forthwith, and any liquid assets within the courts jurisdiction is impounded and will be distributed and granted to the patent holder.
If only the above was how it would work.
its a no brainer...div will be increased at least ten pct...which would keep current amount idc spends on dividend equal to last qtr...my guess is...minimum of 20% increase....my target would be 50c per qtr 2 dlrs per year for a yield of 3% at 75 per share...over the next year or so
They have had many chances to increase dividend and have plenty of FcF
Not too friendly in this area. Seems like a token to shareholders.
With the share count reduced by over 25% on why last few years the total div allocation monies have gone down and so they have actually decreased that amount with less shares to pay out
Today QCOM raised its next quarterly dividend by 5 cents. That's a total of a 20 cent increase over the past 3 years. Hopefully IDCC will increase its dividend when Lenovo finally pays up for past infringements and licenses going forward giving it more cash flow to cover the increase.
As I recall the UK court and appeal court have collectively to date found and ruled at least 3 times that the main litigant ahi h IDCC is suing in the UK has:
infringe verb
in·?fringe in-'frinj
infringed; infringing
Synonyms of infringe
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another
infringe a patent
How many times is enough before the license is signed.
.@InterDigitalCom CEO Liren Chen welcomed our group and presented #AI-enabled solutions that improve smart devices and network behaviours. We controlled remotely a ?? robotic arm and learned about ??? video codec innovations for seamless immersive experiences.
2/27/23
volume is a problem for the shorts....no non -sellers remorse from missing out on the tender...volume only 125k as of 3.55...
not a good sign, the CFO is turning in stock (this early in the year) to get his "free" stock, instead of paying some tax and keeping the stock for the future.
BREZSKI RICHARD 2. Issuer Name and Ticker or Trading Symbol
InterDigital, Inc. [ IDCC ] 5. Relationship of Reporting Person(s) to Issuer (Check all applicable)
_____ Director _____ 10% Owner
__X__ Officer (give title below) _____ Other (specify below)
Chief Financial Officer
(Last) (First) (Middle)
200 BELLEVUE PARKWAY, SUITE 300 3. Date of Earliest Transaction (MM/DD/YYYY)
2/28/2023
(Street)
WILMINGTON, DE 19809
(City) (State) (Zip)
4. If Amendment, Date Original Filed (MM/DD/YYYY)
6. Individual or Joint/Group Filing (Check Applicable Line)
_X _ Form filed by One Reporting Person
___ Form filed by More than One Reporting Person
Table I - Non-Derivative Securities Acquired, Disposed of, or Beneficially Owned
1.Title of Security
(Instr. 3) 2. Trans. Date 2A. Deemed Execution Date, if any 3. Trans. Code
(Instr. 8) 4. Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed of (D)
(Instr. 3, 4 and 5) 5. Amount of Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s)
(Instr. 3 and 4) 6. Ownership Form: Direct (D) or Indirect (I) (Instr. 4) 7. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership (Instr. 4)
Code V Amount (A) or (D) Price
Common Stock 2/28/2023 M 12518 A $54.93 101881.7646 D
Common Stock 2/28/2023 S(1) 10386 D $73.77 (2) 91495.7646 D
Common Stock 1955 (3) I By 401(k) Plan
Table II - Derivative Securities Beneficially Owned (e.g., puts, calls, warrants, options, convertible securities)
1. Title of Derivate Security
(Instr. 3) 2. Conversion or Exercise Price of Derivative Security 3. Trans. Date 3A. Deemed Execution Date, if any 4. Trans. Code
(Instr. 8) 5. Number of Derivative Securities Acquired (A) or Disposed of (D)
(Instr. 3, 4 and 5) 6. Date Exercisable and Expiration Date 7. Title and Amount of Securities Underlying Derivative Security
(Instr. 3 and 4) 8. Price of Derivative Security
(Instr. 5) 9. Number of derivative Securities Beneficially Owned Following Reported Transaction(s) (Instr. 4) 10. Ownership Form of Derivative Security: Direct (D) or Indirect (I) (Instr. 4) 11. Nature of Indirect Beneficial Ownership (Instr. 4)
Code V (A) (D) Date Exercisable Expiration Date Title Amount or Number of Shares
Employee Stock Options (Right-to-Buy) $54.93 2/28/2023 M 12518 (4) 3/30/2023 Common Stock 12518 $0.00 0 D
Explanation of Responses:
(1) This sale represents a sell-to-cover transaction, whereby a portion of the shares acquired through the exercise of employee stock options were sold in the open market, with the proceeds used to fund the aggregate exercise price of the options and associated tax withholdings.
(2) The number of securities reported represents an aggregate number of shares sold in multiple sell-to-cover transactions over a range of sales prices ranging from $72.59 to $74.35 per share. The price reported represents the weighted average price. The Reporting Person undertakes to provide to the staff of the SEC, the Issuer, or a stockholder of the Issuer, upon request, the number of shares sold by the Reporting Person at each separate price within the range.
(3) As of the most recently published account statement, the reporting person beneficially owned this number of whole shares of common stock pursuant to the InterDigital Savings and Protection Plan.
(4) The stock options vested in three equal annual installments beginning on March 30, 2017.
Followers
|
878
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
432788
|
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: |