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.
InterDigital appoints Skip Maloney as Chief People Officer
Source: GlobeNewswire Inc.
InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile and video technology research and development company, today announced that Skip Maloney has been appointed as the company’s new Chief People Officer, reporting to Liren Chen, President and Chief Executive Officer of InterDigital.
Skip has over 25 years of industry experience and joins InterDigital from Aspen Technology, a Nasdaq-listed provider of asset optimization software, where he served as the Chief Human Resource Officer since 2018.
“Our people are our most important asset, and I am excited by the role that Skip will play in enabling the further growth and development of our workforce,” commented Liren Chen, President and Chief Executive Officer of InterDigital. “Skip has a long history as a leader in HR, particularly with innovation-led companies, and his track record is an excellent fit for us in our ongoing evolution.”
“InterDigital is at the leading edge of innovation, and I am excited to work with some of the brightest engineers and leaders of our industry as they drive change within the wireless, video and AI ecosystems,” Skip added. "I'm looking forward to help further the mission of InterDigital and support its transformation in this ever-changing environment."
Prior to Aspen Technology, Skip was the Chief Human Resources Officer at Netscout Systems where he designed and led HR strategy for a 3,000-plus employee global organization with offices in over 40 countries. Before that he held senior roles at Lake Region Medical, Brooks Automation and Mercury Computer Systems. A native of Boston, Skip is a certified professional executive coach.
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: media@interdigital.com
+1 (202) 349-1716
InterDigital, Inc.'s (NASDAQ:IDCC) Intrinsic Value Is Potentially 25% Below Its Share Price
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/interdigital-inc-nasdaq-idcc-intrinsic-122147185.html
Thursday, April 20, 2023
InterDigital v. OPPO patent infringement lawsuits stayed in Mannheim (formally) and Munich (de facto) after Federal Patent Court rendered negative preliminary opinions
After a UK FRAND determination that InterDigital said it would appeal, the research and licensing firm has now also suffered a few setbacks against OPPO in Germany. In late December 2021, InterDigital announced standard-essential patent (SEP) enforcement against actions OPPO in Germany, the UK, and India.
I found out at the time that one case had been filed in Mannheim, and two in Munich.
Like other plaintiffs in recent months (example, InterDigital faces the problem that ever more infringement actions in Germany get stayed or otherwise delayed by preliminary opinions of the Federal Patent Court. Those preliminary opinions used to take about two years to come down. But roughly a year ago, a provision of Germany's 2021 patent "reform" bill entered into force (for nullity actions filed from there on out) and now calls on the Federal Patent Court to hand down preliminary assessments within six months of a nullity complaint. The statute that was originally considered the most important one of the "reform" bill--the injunction statute--has proved just as useless as I predicted (there is not a single case in which a disproportionality defense even came close to preventing or otherwise affecting a patent injunction). And that one took effect more than 20 months ago.
The six-month target for the Federal Patent Court is, however, making a difference, even though it is not a hard requirement and the judges of the Federal Patent Court wouldn't have to express a strong opinion on the validity or invalidity of the challenged patent claims (they could just outline what issues appear likely to be outcome-determinative).
Plaintiffs now need a good strategy to amend the claims, though new claim language that has not been examined by a patent office meets a lot of skepticism in some German courts. Otherwise they need to be patient or, if they are not (and few licensors want to wait years to get paid), they must assert more patents against a given defendant than before.
Apart from the fact that the Federal Patent Court often deems patents--on a preliminary basis--invalid, it's generally neither enjoyable nor profitable to sue OPPO over patents. Nokia sued OPPO almost two frustrating years ago, and InterDigital's campaign started almost 16 months back and is not likely to yield results in Germany anytime soon.
A spokesman for the Mannheim Regional Court has confirmed to me that on March 10, 2023, the court's Seventh Civil Chamber stayed InterDigital v. OPPO case no. 7 O 46/22 over EP2485558 on a "method and apparatus for providing and utilizing a non-contention based channel in a wireless communication system." That same patent was actually deemed valid and essential to 4G by a UK judge in an InterDigital v. Lenovo case less than two years ago. But the Federal Patent Court of Germany handed down a preliminary opinion on February 2, 2023, in light of which the Mannheim Regional Court stayed the case.
I've also received information from a spokesman for the Munich I Regional Court concerning two cases pending before different civil chambers (judicial panels):
In case no. 21 O 17303/21 (21st Civil Chamber; Presiding Judge: Dr. Georg Werner) over EP2421318 on a "method and apparatus for transmitting scheduling information in a wireless communication system." That patent, too, fared well in the UK InterDigital v. Lenovo litigation. But instead of entering final judgment on March 1, 2023, the Munich court scheduled an additional trial day for October 18, 2023. According to the court, InterDigital had asked to reopen the proceedings.
On February 20, 2023, the Federal Patent Court issued a preliminary opinion in preparation of a September 14, 2023 nullity trial. The new trial date in the infringement case suggests that the outcome of the nullity trial (where a decision is typically announced, though the written judgment still takes several months to come down) will be considered. Should InterDigital be able to salvage the patent in one form or another, the trial will go ahead. Otherwise the case will presumably be stayed. The Federal Patent Court's preliminary opinion raises non-novelty issues for the challenged claims and declares some--but not all--auxiliary claims (amended claims) inadmissible.
On April 27, 2023 (i.e., in a week from today), the Munich I Regional Court will announce a decision in case no. 7 O 17302/21 (Seventh Civil Chamber; Presiding Judge: Dr. Oliver Schoen ("Schön" in German)) over EP2127420 on an "implicit drx cycle length adjustment control in lte_active mode." It is unclear whether next week's decision will be a final judgment or, practically, a stay. For the latter case, the court has already scheduled a new trial date: November 23, 2023.
The Federal Patent Court had rendered a preliminary opinion on that patent on March 27, 2023.
When InterDigital sued OPPO in December 2021, expectations were presumably higher than what has come out of those German cases so far. And even if InterDigital wins a German patent injunction against OPPO at some point, it may prove useless as the company stopped selling devices in Germany last summer so as not to be forced to take worldwide patent licenses that would adversely impact OPPO's competitiveness in some large but rather price-sensitive markets
InterDigital Nominates Samir Armaly to Board of Directors
Source: GlobeNewswire Inc.
InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile and video technology research and development company, today announced the nomination of Samir Armaly for election to the company’s Board of Directors at the company’s annual shareholder meeting scheduled for June 7, 2023.
Mr. Armaly is an experienced tech executive with a deep understanding of the video services sector and global IP licensing. From June 2020 to March 2022, Mr. Armaly was the President, IP Licensing of Xperi (now Adeia) Inc., a leading IP licensing business, and before that was a strategic advisor on intellectual property matters to the CEO and Board of Directors of Rovi and its successor TiVo Corporation. He graduated from the University of Missouri Columbia with a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering and received his J.D. degree from the University of California Berkeley.
“Samir combines a keen insight into key technology markets with excellent experience in global IP licensing,” said S. Doug Hutcheson, Chairman of the Board, InterDigital. “We believe his background in the implementation of video and other media technologies across a growing range of devices and services will be incredibly valuable in broadening InterDigital’s existing licensing programs and in helping to develop new opportunities.”
“As we continue to see the rise of streaming video, the convergence of wireless and video technologies, and the proliferation of connected devices, this is an incredibly exciting time for InterDigital,” said Samir Armaly. “If elected, I look forward to working with the Board and with the company’s leadership to help realize even more value from InterDigital’s foundational innovation.”
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.
Avanci welcomes Samsung Electronics
April 18, 2023 by Avanci
Leading global innovator joins several Avanci licensing programs, increasing value for licensees
Avanci, a leader in simplifying the sharing of advanced technologies, today announced that Samsung Electronics has become a licensor for several of its licensing programs, including Avanci Vehicle 4G, Avanci Aftermarket and Avanci Broadcast.
Avanci has transformed how companies share technology, enabling product makers to access patented technology from many companies and research institutes in a single transaction at fixed rates, paid once for the product’s lifetime. The Avanci model efficiently helps businesses unlock the potential of technologies created by thousands of inventors around the globe to create innovative new products for their customers.
Existing licensees of Avanci Vehicle 4G, spanning more than 80 auto brands, are now also licensed to the 4/3/2G standard essential patents (SEPs) of Samsung Electronics for their connected vehicles, extending the value of their license. Similarly, Avanci Aftermarket licensees are covered for their aftermarket vehicle products.
Avanci also recently launched Avanci Broadcast, a one-stop licensing platform for the ATSC 3.0 television standard. Samsung Electronics was one of the largest contributors to the development of that standard and is among the initial licensors for the platform, which collectively represent more than 70% of all patent families containing patents declared essential for the ATSC 3.0 standard. Samsung Electronics is also the world’s largest manufacturer of televisions and is one of the initial licensees for Avanci Broadcast, which collectively have been responsible for the vast majority of ATSC 3.0 televisions sold to date. “We are delighted to welcome Samsung Electronics, a global leader in innovation and a long-term contributor to the development of standardized technologies, as an Avanci licensor,” said Kasim Alfalahi, Founder and Chief Executive Officer at Avanci. “This announcement reinforces the broad industry enthusiasm for the Avanci model and adds value for existing and future licensees at no additional cost to them. We look forward to working with Samsung Electronics and our other partners on efficient licensing solutions for today and in the future.”
https://www.avanci.com/2023/04/18/avanci-welcomes-samsung-electronics/
BREAKING: Avanci signs Samsung to 2G-4G SEP platform as a licensor
Adam Houldsworth
18 April 2023
The Korean company has also joined the Aftermarket licensing programme and is already a member of Avanci Broadcast
U-Blox / InterDigital current litigation:
https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/review?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:bb51e19e-6d3b-3d01-88ba-ebd09629fd55
Just to add some more confusion
InterDigital Pans 'Wholly Manufactured' Tech Licensing Suit
By Andrew Karpan · Listen to article
Law360 (April 18, 2023, 9:11 PM EDT) -- InterDigital Inc. says that a Swiss chipmaker's latest antitrust lawsuit is little more than "a wholly manufactured dispute," filed in order to impose "litigation costs" and procure a more favorable patent licensing deal.
The main problem is that InterDigital hasn't accused U-blox AG, based in Zurich, of actually infringing any patents yet, according to the dismissal bid filed by InterDigital on Tuesday.
"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," argued InterDigital, a Wilmington, Delaware-based licensing company that has collected "approximately 2,400 U.S. patents and 11,500 non-U.S. patents," according to the lawsuit from U-blox, filed in early January.
"The court should dismiss U-blox's contrived claims," InterDigital said.
The suit claims that InterDigital is breaking antitrust laws by demanding royalties for those patents "that are discriminatory and far higher than FRAND rates."
U-blox, which makes microchips for wireless mobile devices, sued in order to get a federal court in California to set what a fair licensing rate would be, and to issue an injunction "stopping InterDigital from wrongfully interfering with U-blox's customers and downstream manufacturers," according to the complaint.
Much of the language in that lawsuit over InterDigital's licensing practices had been largely identical to language in an earlier lawsuit that the same U-blox lawyers at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP filed against InterDigital in 2019.
That case ended with a settlement, after the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division weighed in and told the court that the agency planned to argue that the Swiss company's reading of antitrust laws would "unhelpfully distort licensing negotiations." According to InterDigital, the terms of that settlement also prevent U-blox from filing the kind of lawsuit that it filed ever again.
Reached by email, U-blox lawyer Stephen Korniczky of Sheppard Mullin wrote that "InterDigital's belief that the lawsuit is 'a wholly manufactured dispute' is untrue and not supported by the facts of the case."
Korniczky added that "U-blox's request for a FRAND license is necessary to protect itself and its customers from the real and present threat of an infringement allegation by InterDigital. There is nothing manufactured about this dispute."
Representatives for InterDigital did not return a request for comment.
Additionally, in the filings, InterDigital says that the patents it was trying to sell U-blox were not "essential" to manufacturing of any products U-blox sells, meaning there isn't any legal way to apply antitrust laws that let courts jump in and set this kind of rates.
"U-blox fails to allege — and indeed expressly denies — that InterDigital owns any 'essential' patents," InterDigital said.
According to InterDigital, the two companies had been negotiating to set a new rate when U-blox filed suit. The rate the company offered "did not properly value InterDigital's technology," says InterDigital.
New Report Details the Transformational Potential in the Video Codecs Ecosystem
Company Release - 4/19/2023
InterDigital and Futuresource Consulting report sizes up the latest video codecs and their ability to unlock new efficiencies to support burgeoning video demand
WILMINGTON, Del., April 19, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- A recent white paper commissioned by InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile and video technology research and development company, and written by market research firm Futuresource Consulting, examines the foundational nature, state of evolution, and critical features of codecs and video standards, especially as video becomes ubiquitous and demand for video services and entertainment grows and diversifies.
The report, “The Evolution of Compression in a Video-First Economy,” outlines the development path of video compression codecs that have proven to be critical in reducing bandwidth and improving efficiency in the delivery of the data dense video services and entertainment we all enjoy. In simple terms, video codecs compress and encode video data into a format that is efficiently stored and can later be decoded and played back, and their capabilities underpin the ability to enjoy increasingly data-rich content across an array of screens and devices.
“Video is redefining the ways we communicate and the types of content we consume, and codecs are a critical tool to satiate our voracious demand for video more efficiently and resourcefully without compromising our perceived experience,” said Lionel Oisel, Head of Video Labs, InterDigital. “We continue to leverage our video compression and codec expertise through innovation and standards contributions that enhance our ability to stream high quality content and introduce novel ways to engage with video entertainment.”
Providing a 360-degree view of the video compression ecosystem, the report details the landscape of video compression technology and history of video coding standards, alongside the advantages of today’s codecs for video-powered experiences and potential impact for the future. Streaming a two-hour movie without compression would require more than 1.3TB of data, but the evolution of video compression techniques over the last 40 years now supports the seamless delivery of increased volumes of new types of video content and IP-based streaming services.
The report cites the broad transformational impact of video codecs, from state-of-the-art codecs enabling the delivery of ultra-high-definition content on IP-based streaming services, to innovation in compression techniques and AI integration reducing the computational load and latency to support immersive video applications like VR and AR, and the ability for video codecs to not only reduce storage and bandwidth but also use energy more sustainably.
“Video dominates internet traffic today, with over 3.5 billion internet users streaming or downloading some form of video at least once per month. Furthermore, there were 1.47 billion SVoD subscriptions globally at the close of 2022, with the sector posting a 12% increase in subscriber numbers year over year,” said Simon Forrest, Principal Technology Analyst, Futuresource Consulting. “The applications for video are expanding. Consumers spent around 11% of their time watching content from video sharing sites in 2022, up only 0.6% year over year, yet time spent viewing videos posted on social media increased by 24% over the same period. The research confirms that the industry requirement to utilize more efficient codecs is intensifying.”
The report spotlights Versatile Video Coding (VVC/H.266) as a standout video codec with a highly versatile design for use across an extended range of applications and capabilities far exceeding those of previous standards. VVC/H.266 offers an up to 50% bit-rate reduction over its predecessor HEVC/H.265 and boasts enhanced capabilities to efficiently transmit ultra-high-definition content, from 4K and 8K video to high dynamic range (HDR) content and 360° and immersive video formats. When comparing the current landscape of video codecs, VVC/H.266 is strongly positioned to support video-on-demand applications and offers the highest benefits in terms of bitrate savings while maintaining visual quality, according to a recent 3GPP study.
To read the white paper “The Evolution of Compression in a Video-First Economy,” please click here
im going to say it was accumulation....mostly in the form of the 2.8myn share tender offer
Nobody does with any degree of certainty.
Randy Phinney at the Rightsideofthechart.com thinks the market is ready to go down as does Doug Kass.
The recent rallies have been narrow and not widespread 46% of stocks are above their 200Day Moving Average vs 66% in February and only 13% late September.
The 40DMA averages numbers are 48%, 81% and 9% respectively.
Many technicians have said this a bull rally in a longer term bear market.
The dividend yield on the S&P is a little over 1% historical average is a little over 4%. You can over 4% safely short term now.
IDCC has been basically trading sideways since February. The Float is lower and insiders have been net sellers.
IMO IDCC will go which ever direction the market goes.
Anyone have an opinion as to whether chart pattern from February to April is Distribution or Accumulation. If Distribution, we are headed for a steep fall. If Accumulation, a nice rise. I have no idea.
israt
Recent 5G article with a few mentions from IDCC personnel:
#5G holds potential to deliver enhanced #wireless capabilities across diverse facets of industry. ICYMI, get insight from industry experts like #InterDigital's Ghyslain Pelletier in this @telecoms article exploring 5G's defining features and applications.https://t.co/ZVwPlHK2YT
— InterDigital (IDCC) (@InterDigitalCom) April 13, 2023
Short interest as of 3/31/23:
2.84m shares, down from 3.99m.
InterDigital Announces Date for First Quarter 2023 Financial Results
Company Release - 4/13/2023
WILMINGTON, Del., April 13, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile and video technology research and development company, today announced that the company will release its first quarter 2023 financial results before market open on Thursday, May 4, 2023.
InterDigital executives will host a conference call that same day at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time (ET) to discuss the company's performance.
For a live Internet webcast of the conference call, visit www.interdigital.com and click on the “Webcast” link on the Investors page. The company encourages participants to take advantage of the Internet option.
For telephone access to the conference call, visit www.interdigital.com and click on the “Dial In Registration” link on the Investors page. Registration is necessary to obtain a dial in phone number and PIN to join.
An Internet replay of the conference call will be available on InterDigital’s website under Events in the Investors section. The replay will be available for one year.
Cat the shorties keep pooping up intermittently
So here as extra 50 pound anchor. We want to keep them down permanently.
Good idea!!
Tomcat
Tomcat hand shorty this 50 pound anchor. That should help keep ‘em floating on the bottom.
SHORTY gonna need a bigger boat!
<Laughter> - Tomcat
Interdigital and UKIPO consultation highlight that UK is still key
11 April 2023
Since the UK SEP/FRAND overview was published on 2 December 2022, there have been some interesting developments in the United Kingdom – in the UK High Court and at the UK IP Office (UKIPO) – that are having a significant impact on all those involved in FRAND licensing.
Interdigital v Lenovo
On 16 March 2023, Mr Justice Mellor handed down his long-awaited FRAND judgment in Interdigital v Lenovo. Mr Justice Mellor made some interesting findings and observations from a policy perspective, which will have significant implications in the United Kingdom and other jurisdictions for both SEP holders and licensees.
In this context, the key takeaway is that a licensor is not acting as a ‘willing licensor’ if it makes a supra-FRAND offer. Mr Justice Mellor found that Interdigital was not acting as a willing licensor by making supra-FRAND offers to Lenovo. Following an extensive analysis of the expert evidence, he looked at the licence agreements that Interdigital entered into and unpacked the running royalty rates and lump sum payments with other licensees (large companies and SMEs). He ultimately derived a global FRAND rate for Interdigital’s SEPs for 3G, 4G and 5G at $0.175 per unit, to cover past and future sales to the end of 2023.
Mr Justice Mellor said that Interdigital’s volume discounts given to larger companies (eg, Samsung and Apple), from their headline “program rates”, did not have any economic or other justification. Their primary purpose was to attempt to shore up their programme rates, but the actual effect was discrimination against smaller licensees. Mr Justice Mellor stated that this is exactly what FRAND is supposed to avoid.
Mr Justice Birss (as he then was) touched on this issue of discrimination against smaller licensees in Unwired Planet v Huawei when he noted that “it would not be FRAND, for example, for a small new entrant to the market to have to pay a higher royalty rate than an established large entity”.
Mr Justice Mellor summarised his reasons for considering there had been discrimination against smaller licensees, stating, among other things that:
…in the field of SEP licensing, there is no equivalent to the economies of scale which can be achieved in the manufacture and distribution of physical products. Leaving aside transactional costs in concluding licences […], the licence or permission given to utilise the standardised technology (whether 3G, 4G or 5G) of the SEP licensor is intangible and effectively costless. This does not ignore the costs of R&D, but those are sunk costs.
It is important to keep in mind how implementers like Lenovo are able to access and use each generation of standardised technology. A SEP owner must invest in R&D, make his invention (assume), persuade the relevant ETSI Working Group to adopt his invention into the standard, write, file and prosecute his patent family in various territories and maintain them in force by paying the renewal fees, and declare to ETSI the relevant patent(s) as essential to a relevant standard. The SEP owner makes no explicit transfer of technology to the implementer. Instead, the implementer acquires the technology by buying in chipsets, with the chipset manufacturer bearing the responsibility to give effect to a relevant standard in the chipset.
No doubt chipsets for a given generation of cellular technology will vary in their capabilities and performance, but all will implement the standardised technology along, no doubt, with many optional extras. A more expensive high-end 4GMM chipset might be incorporated into a high-end smartphone with a large touch screen and various other attributes attractive to the consumer. By contrast a lower-end, much more basic phone with the same 4GMM capability may sell for a fraction of the price of the higher end phone. However, in terms of the standardised 4GMM technology, both phones use the same technology. Against this backdrop, I find it difficult to understand why the royalty paid for each of those phones should differ significantly or, for that matter, at all.
…the evidence that volume discounts of a similar magnitude were available from the AVC and HEVC patent pools does nothing to persuade me against my conclusion. I do not need to make any finding about those patent pools, although I suspect they are using volume discounts in the same way as InterDigital, as one of a number of levers they can use (a) to encourage licensees to sign up to a PLA and (b) to justify departing from any published programme rates.
On the other hand, he emphasised that he was not deciding that volume discounts of any magnitude are not FRAND, and suggested that relatively small volume discounts might not take a rate outside of the FRAND range. However, SEP licensors and SEP licensing pools – particularly in the audio and video codec space – will undoubtedly be reviewing their programme rates and looking at the scale of the volume discounts being offered to larger companies.
In relation to the SEP-licensing industry generally, Mr Justice Mellor welcomed the publication of rates, with the goal of creating more transparency in the market, which is a “much-needed commodity”. He was critical of problems caused in the negotiations by Lenovo not having access to adequate information from Interdigital on comparable licences until a confidentiality regime was established in the course of the litigation, although it transpired in the judgment that Interdigital did confidentially share with Lenovo some ‘real rates’ with third parties before the litigation started. Justice Mellor noted that ETSI’s IPR Policy offered no solution to this problem and suggested that a possible solution could be for the parties to start an action, agree to early disclosure of potentially comparable licences under a court-monitored confidentiality regime and agree to a stay of the action to allow the parties to negotiate on the basis of the available information. If those negotiations do not succeed after a limited time, then the action may continue. However, the reality for almost every company is that it does not want to engage in litigation at all.
Early disclosure of FRAND agreements without full-scale litigation might be achieved by seeking similar orders to that sought in Big Bus v Ticketogo, where the court ordered pre-action disclosure of patent licences previously granted by Ticketogo in order to enable Big Bus to quantify the value of a patent infringement claim that Ticketogo had initiated against it (Big Bus v Ticketogo, EWHC 1094 (Pat), 28 April 2015). Pre-action disclosure might offer another solution to avoid expensive litigation.
The lack of transparency of what the real market rates are (rather than the headline rates) is a challenge for all prospective licensees, but particularly for those less experienced in FRAND negotiations. What I call the ‘willing licensee penalty’ can be suffered by the practice of SEP licensors refusing to disclose their claimed benchmark/comparable rates or agreements (even those they rely on), or ‘real’ royalty rates unless there is actual litigation. One potential consequence that might be drawn from this is that companies, fearful of the costs of litigating, are forced to enter into agreements that are not FRAND and where they have been unable to check the veracity of representations made about the claimed FRAND rates being imposed or offered. It can be argued that, from a negotiation and due diligence perspective, SMEs and smaller companies that willingly take licences may be in a worse position than they would have been if they had litigated. It is to be hoped that there will be more transparency in future FRAND cases in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
UKIPO invites SMEs and small/mid-cap companies to comment
The UKIPO has issued a request for SMEs, small and mid-cap businesses and companies to provide it with feedback on issues and challenges with SEP licensing. The UKIPO is keen to speak with as many companies as possible on a confidential basis, saying that this will help the government to ensure that the SEP ecosystem is functioning effectively as they want it to strike the right balance for entities involved. The UKIPO particularly wants to hear from those involved with the development or production of interoperable products or services that use technical standards. They would like to be informed on issues such as:
whether companies have sufficient information on how their innovation relates to SEPs;
if the current system is fair for everyone involved in the licensing and implementing of SEPs, or if change is needed;
whether, if SMEs have a licence, they were offered it on FRAND terms;
if they have enough information on the pricing of SEPs that they licence or may licence in future; and
what their experience has been in respect of licensing disagreements and how they were resolved.
If any SMEs or smaller/mid-size companies make or sell connected products, have received an SEP-related licensing request or have had to consider liability for SEPs in purchasing or supply agreements, the UKIPO has invited them to submit comments via its website.
The deadline for responding is 24 April 2023.
https://www.iam-media.com/hub/sepfrand-hub/2022/article/interdigital-and-ukipo-consultation-highlight-uk-still-key
Ironically, the tech company that made the most contributions to 5G does not sell a 5G phone
See graph concerning IDCC:
https://www.phonearena.com/news/huawei-makes-most-5g-contributions_id146633
InterDigital’s Atle Monrad Re-Elected as Vice Chair of 3GPP’s Core Network and Terminals (CT) Plenary
Source: GlobeNewswire Inc.
InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile and video technology research and development company, announced the re-election of Atle Monrad to return for second term as Vice Chair of 3GPP’s Core Network and Terminals (CT) plenary.
Within the 3GPP standards-setting organization, the CT plenary oversees the work of all core network and terminals working groups that are critical for network evolution. In general, the CT working groups are responsible for defining the foundational interfaces and protocols within the core network, as well as between the core network and terminal devices.
“We applaud Atle on his re-election to Vice Chair of the CT plenary, which stands as a testament to the respect he has earned over his 35 years of industry experience and his observed track record as a leader in 3GPP,” said Rajesh Pankaj, CTO, InterDigital. “Leadership within this committee holds great responsibility in shaping the critical framework for networks and terminals, and we know Atle is best equipped for this role.”
Atle began attending 3GPP meetings in 2001 and is a well-respected 3GPP contributor with a long history of leadership positions, including serving as 3GPP CT Plenary chair and two long terms as CT1 Chair. Within his long career, Atle has also worked in standardization of the cellular systems including 5G, LTE, UMTS and, GSM. Following his first term as Vice Chair of the CT plenary, InterDigital’s Monrad will begin his second two-year term alongside vice chairs from OPPO and China Telecom, with Huawei chairing the plenary.
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:
Roya Stephens
Email: roya.stephens@interdigital.com
+1 (202) 349-1714
The standards body should have set this up years ago. I do not think it will hurt IDCC. We have been fairly successful defending our patents in EU filings. The legal cost should also be reduced under this venue. This news should increase the value of IDCC as a stand-alone entity or takeover target.
MO
loop
Exclusive: EU patent body to oversee tech-standard patent royalties -EU draft rule
By Foo Yun Chee
March 28, 2023 3:53 PM EDT
BRUSSELS, March 28 (Reuters) - The European Union patent body will oversee a new process to set fair royalties on patents for technologies widely used in products like cellphones, according to a draft EU regulation that seeks to reduce litigation over royalty disputes.
Standard-essential patents cover technology that devices must include to comply with international standards like 4G, Wi-Fi and USB. Some standards entail thousands of essential patents, and their owners are required to offer licenses on fair and reasonable terms.
Users of the standards are usually producers of telecoms equipment, mobile phones, computers, tablets and increasingly, makers of connected cars, drones, payment terminals and other smart devices.
The royalty process to be overseen by the European Intellectual Office (EUIPO) is aimed at resolving disputes between patent holders and users of such standards.
"The FRAND determination procedure should simplify and speed up negotiations concerning FRAND terms and reduce costs. The EUIPO should administer the procedure," said the European Commission document seen by Reuters on Tuesday.
FRAND (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) terms are often used in relation to technical standards developed through an industry-led standardisation process.
The FRAND-setting process should be concluded within nine months and is a mandatory step before patent holders can take legal action against infringements, the document said.
"This is necessary because disagreements about the FRAND terms are the main reason to seek recourse in courts," the document said.
The draft regulation requires EUIPO to set up a register of standard essential patents (SEP) and companies to sign up if they want to charge patent fees or take legal action.
"A SEP owner shall not be entitled to receive royalties or seek damages for infringement of a claimed SEP subject to registration," the document said.
To help SEP owners determine how much they can charge, the Commission wants companies to agree among themselves on an aggregate royalty, in effect the potential royalties for all SEPs covering a standard.
Independent evaluators will check whether a patent is crucial to the standard.
European Commission Vice President Margrethe Vestager is scheduled to announce the draft regulation on April 26, according to a Commission agenda.
The draft rules need to be agreed with EU countries and the European Parliament before they can become law.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-patent-body-be-involved-tech-standard-patent-royalties-eu-draft-rule-2023-03-28/
InterDigital Declares Regular Quarterly Cash Dividend
Source: GlobeNewswire Inc.
InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile and video technology research and development company, today announced that its Board of Directors has declared a regular quarterly cash dividend of $0.35 per share on its common stock, payable on April 26, 2023, to shareholders of record at the close of business on April 12, 2023.
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:
investor.relations@interdigital.com
+1 (302) 300-1857
?
?
New Study Emphasizes the Need for Quality of “Personal” Experience Metrics to Ensure Profitability of Future 6G Services
Today at 04:01 am
INTERDIGITAL, INC.
WILMINGTON, Del., March 27, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC) and Omdia have released a joint study titled “Experience the Future of 6G: A New Direction for Telecom,” highlighting the need for a new quality of "personal” experience (QoPE) framework and metrics to measure the success of 6G-enabled services that will unlock new possibilities for users and operators alike.
The study draws on experiments conducted by students at Carnegie Mellon University’s Human Computer Interaction Institute, as well as interviews with a variety of potential 6G enterprise customers, service providers and other industry stakeholders. The study also reveals that future 6G services will be capable of engaging a diversity of human senses, including touch and spatial awareness, that will allow people to have fully immersive cyber-physical experiences. However, justifying the price tag of sensory-enriched services poses unique challenges for telecom operators and the industry at large unless the opportunity is fully understood.
the commercialization of future 6G services. As the metaverse and other immersive applications mature, there will be a need for a QoPE to provide users with the best possible experience. Sensory driven metrics will become critical as networks start to shift from people-to-device networks to people-to-people networks. Those who focus on delivering a better experience will find new service opportunities in the future.
To read the whitepaper, Experience the Future of 6G: A New Direction for Telecom., please click here.
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:
Roya StephensEmail: Roya.Stephens@interdigital.com+1 (202) 349-1714
About Omdia
Omdia, part of Informa Tech, is a technology research and advisory group. Our deep knowledge of tech markets combined with our actionable insights empower organizations to make smart growth decisions.
For more information, visit: www.omdia.com
Omdia Contact:
Fasiha KhanEmail: Fasiha.khan@informa.com+44 7503 666806
Monterey and gamco thanks for the information.
small increase in short interest as of 3/15...now 3.992myn
6G Is Coming: What Will Be The Business Impact?
6G Is Coming: What Will Be The Business Impact?
Anyone catch the discussion about the sensation of touch and 6G on 60 minutes yesterday.
IoT is about to hit full stride with ChatGPT emerging, the next "big thing" is to marry Iot to machines---the dream of engineers for years ----EV's, Driverless cars, AV---part of a new smart cities, IDCC will have a part in it
Paullee the 2 ways in which the company can be sold are as follows: 1- the company sells itself, or; 2- the share holder sells their shares and moves on.
I for one do not wish to see either situation arise. I am holding my shares like the cat hanging on the limb all of these years. But if you sell I will understand.
This company needs to be sold, when was the last time the management or the Board made a good decision
InterDigital Ruling A Warning Shot For UK FRAND Litigation
By Alex Baldwin · Listen to article
Law360, London (March 22, 2023, 11:06 PM GMT) -- While the English courts have now twice proved that they can settle global essential patent licensing disputes, the delays and costs in litigating these issues could discourage both licensors and licensees from taking their battles to court in the first place, lawyers say.
Chinese tech giant Lenovo was ordered, in a highly anticipated High Court decision, to pay $139 million to InterDigital to license several standard-essential patents. (AP Photo/Andy Wong)
In a much-anticipated decision, Judge James Mellor ordered Chinese tech giant Lenovo to pay $138.7 million to Delaware's InterDigital to license several standard-essential patents, or SEPs. In the process, the court laid out a burgeoning model for determining these fees going forward.
The court held that the licensing deals pitched by both InterDigital and Lenovo were not fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND, and settled on a total figure Lenovo should pay that was far below the $337 million InterDigital was gunning for when it decided to bring the case.
The judgment of 230-odd pages attempts to standardize similarly complex disputes going forward, in what attorneys said appears to be a bid to streamline the FRAND determination process. But in the end, Judge Mellor arrived at a figure that could prove uninviting for licensors looking to bring their own cases before the courts.
"I don't think that there is much argument that an adversarial court system is not ideal for the resolution of these types of disputes," Powell Gilbert LLP partner Tess Waldron said.
Waldron, who represented Huawei in the English courts' first FRAND rate-setting decision, likewise noted that the process so far has "been time-consuming and expensive."
InterDigital's case was separated into six trials: five to determine the validity and essentiality of the patents and the final one to weigh the FRAND offers and licensing rates for those patents.
It took just over three years from the time InterDigital brought the case to the court's eventual FRAND ruling. The FRAND trial itself represented close to a full month's worth of hearings and expert testimony.
"Unless the sums in play are large, the costs and delay could be disproportionate," Brown Rudnick LLP partner David Knight said.
But while the judgment landed closer to Lenovo's figure for the final lump sum payment, one decision Judge Mellor made was that no limitation period should apply for disputes over FRAND terms.
This means that a licensee that was "willing" to license the patents would have to pay royalties dating back to the first sale of the products that used the patented technology.
To this point, Judge Mellor decided to forgo the six-year window that both InterDigital and Lenovo had proposed in line with the standard cutoff under English law to determine the lump sum. Instead, he decided that the total Lenovo should pay needed to take into account royalties for all sales of products that include the patented technology, dating back to 2007.
While this would generally fall outside the national limitation period for torts, Judge Mellor said that the limitation should not apply in determining FRAND terms between willing licensors and licensees.
"I think there is acknowledgment here that this action is a hybrid one, and that it's kind of an action in tort of patent infringement but also to determine a contractual arrangement on FRAND terms, to the point that the limitation period would not apply at all," Paul Hastings LLP partner Jason Raeburn said.
Judge Mellor's findings could ward off parties from litigating these issues altogether and opt for alternate avenues to decide FRAND rates rather than seek a decision from the English courts.
"I think there is a fear that this might be the last one, not only because of Mellor's comments, but because there could be better avenues to solve these disputes," Knight said.
While both key examples of U.K. FRAND litigation — Unwired Planet v. Huawei and InterDigital v. Lenovo — have proved lengthy and costly, the new decision goes some way to laying the groundwork for further FRAND cases before the courts as well as licensing negotiations going forward.
Judge Mellor provided a methodology designed to minimize the busywork of unpacking, selecting comparable agreements and deriving a FRAND rate present in this case. The methodology essentially states that the rate should be the amount paid divided by the units sold.
"You could see us getting to a point where we have a relatively streamlined FRAND procedure if these principles are applied, which would make it quicker and perhaps more attractive," Waldron said.
If Judge Mellor's approach to determining FRAND rates survives the impending appeal from InterDigital, the reasoning could provide guidance outside the court for licensors and licensees looking to arrive at fair rates going forward.
Ultimately, SEP owners want products out in the market that use their technology, and this ruling will have a large impact on negotiations for SEP licenses before the issue ever reaches the bench, according to Raeburn.
"I think the general intention of these types of judgments is to mitigate the number of claims that end up getting to court … with the aim of making the parties come closer on suitable figures and not having to litigate and fight over what the FRAND rate truly is," Raeburn said.
must have been one hell of a presentation today. The internet is on fire
New presentation slides for today's sidoti conference
https://d3ka4b6b7wffw2.cloudfront.net/0001405495/100117352613/03f27455-ecf9-428c-8928-a308ae99f926.html
Unusual pre-market interest in IDCC this morning on someone's part. Just 16K shares but that seldom happens.
InterDigital chief backs 6G to inspire new thinking
https://www.mobileworldlive.com/session/interview-liren-chen-ceo-interdigital-2023/
LTE - Regarding Eric Cohen: I'm not certain that the 116% represented the maximum that he could have been entitled to receive from this performance-based incentive plan. My past experience with Rule 10b5-1 trading plans indicate that these plan parameters are established well in advance of creating any transactions. The authorization to sell these shares where described in the past rather than any court actions that were announced last week. JMHO
Acquisition (Non Open Market) Direct 22,822 $0.00 67,120
* The transaction reported represents the vesting of awards of performance-based restricted stock units granted to the reporting person on March 31, 2020 pursuant to the company's 2017 Equity Incentive Plan in accordance with the company's long-term compensation program. Based on the achievement level of the 2020 cycle performance goal, 116% of the reporting person's target performance-based restricted stock unit awards, or 21,444 restricted stock units, vested on March 15, 2023, together with 1,378.2084 additional shares representing accrued dividend equivalent units.
Disposition (Non Open Market) Direct 17,369 $73.43 49,750
* in satisfaction of the reporting person's tax liability - See notes #2 & #4 below
Automatic Sell Direct 7,597 $72.42 42,153
* The transaction was effected pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan adopted by the reporting person. See notes #6 & #7 below.
_______________________________
1. The transaction reported represents the vesting of awards of performance-based restricted stock units granted to the reporting person on March 31, 2020 pursuant to the company's 2017 Equity Incentive Plan in accordance with the company's long-term compensation program. Based on the achievement level of the 2020 cycle performance goal, 116% of the reporting person's target performance-based restricted stock unit awards, or 21,444 restricted stock units, vested on March 15, 2023, together with 1,378.2084 additional shares representing accrued dividend equivalent units.
2. The transaction reported reflects the withholding of restricted stock units in satisfaction of the reporting person's tax liability in connection with the transaction described in Note 1.
3. The transaction reported reflects the cash settlement of fractional shares in connection with the vesting of restricted stock units, as described in Note 1.
4. The transaction reported reflects the withholding of restricted stock units in satisfaction of the reporting person's tax liability. The restricted stock units were granted to the reporting person on March 31, 2020, March 31, 2021 and March 15, 2022 pursuant to the company's 2017 Equity Incentive Plan in accordance with the company's long-term compensation program and vested on March 15, 2023, together with accrued dividend equivalents.
5. The transaction reported reflects the cash settlement of fractional shares in connection with the vesting of restricted stock units, as described in Note 4.
6. The number of securities reported represents an aggregate number of shares sold in multiple open market transactions over a range of sales prices ranging from $71.798 to $72.76 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. The transaction was effected pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan adopted by the reporting person.
7. The number of securities reported represents an aggregate number of shares sold in multiple open market transactions over a range of sales prices ranging from $72.80 to $73.77 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. The transaction was effected pursuant to a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan adopted by the reporting person.
Your recent post #431092:
How thrilled was Cohen when he dumped his stock grants?
COHEN ERIC Officer 03/15/2023 Acquisition (Non Open Market) Direct 22,822 $0.00 67,120
COHEN ERIC Officer 03/15/2023 Disposition (Non Open Market) Direct 17,369 $73.43 49,750
COHEN ERIC Officer 03/15/2023 Automatic Sell Direct 7,597 $72.42 42,153
Zacks Research Weighs in on InterDigital, Inc.'s Q2 2023 Earnings (NASDAQ:IDCC)
MON., MARCH 20, 2023
InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC - Get Rating) - Equities researchers at Zacks Research cut their Q2 2023 EPS estimates for InterDigital in a report released on Wednesday, March 15th. Zacks Research analyst S. Bose now anticipates that the Wireless communications provider will post earnings of $0.41 per share for the quarter, down from their prior estimate of $0.54. The consensus estimate for InterDigital's current full-year earnings is $2.54 per share. Zacks Research also issued estimates for InterDigital's Q4 2023 earnings at $0.59 EPS, FY2023 earnings at $1.85 EPS, Q3 2024 earnings at $0.64 EPS, FY2024 earnings at $2.49 EPS and FY2025 earnings at $2.96 EPS.
InterDigital (NASDAQ:IDCC - last issued its quarterly earnings results on Wednesday, February 15th. The Wireless communications provider reported $1.08 earnings per share for the quarter, beating analysts' consensus estimates of $0.92 by $0.16. The business had revenue of $117.10 million during the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $113.93 million. InterDigital had a net margin of 20.47% and a return on equity of 13.02%. InterDigital's revenue for the quarter was up 4.7% compared to the same quarter last year. During the same quarter last year, the business posted $0.70 earnings per share.
A number of other analysts have also commented on IDCC. StockNews.com assumed coverage on shares of InterDigital in a report on Thursday. They set a "hold" rating for the company. Jefferies Financial Group assumed coverage on shares of InterDigital in a report on Friday, December 9th. They set a "buy" rating and a $80.00 target price for the company. William Blair assumed coverage on shares of InterDigital in a report on Thursday, January 26th. They set an "outperform" rating for the company. Finally, TheStreet raised shares of InterDigital from a "c+" rating to a "b" rating in a report on Monday, January 23rd. One investment analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, one has assigned a hold rating and two have given a buy rating to the company. According to data from MarketBeat.com, the company presently has a consensus rating of "Hold" and an average price target of $70.00.
InterDigital Price Performance
IDCC opened at $72.59 on Monday. The company has a fifty day moving average price of $69.83 and a two-hundred day moving average price of $55.87. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.83, a quick ratio of 4.96 and a current ratio of 4.96. InterDigital has a 52 week low of $40.23 and a 52 week high of $75.74. The firm has a market capitalization of $2.15 billion, a PE ratio of 23.49, a P/E/G ratio of 2.45 and a beta of 1.21.
Insider Transactions at InterDigital
In other news, insider Eeva K. Hakoranta sold 766 shares of InterDigital stock in a transaction on Thursday, February 23rd. The shares were sold at an average price of $73.05, for a total transaction of $55,956.30. Following the transaction, the insider now directly owns 20,200 shares of the company's stock, valued at $1,475,610. The sale was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, which is available at the SEC website. In related news, insider Eeva K. Hakoranta sold 766 shares of the business's stock in a transaction on Thursday, February 23rd. The shares were sold at an average price of $73.05, for a total value of $55,956.30. Following the sale, the insider now directly owns 20,200 shares of the company's stock, valued at approximately $1,475,610. The transaction was disclosed in a legal filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available at this hyperlink. Also, CFO Richard Brezski sold 10,386 shares of the business's stock in a transaction dated Tuesday, February 28th. The stock was sold at an average price of $73.77, for a total transaction of $766,175.22. Following the transaction, the chief financial officer now owns 91,496 shares in the company, valued at $6,749,659.92. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. Insiders have sold a total of 23,023 shares of company stock valued at $1,691,327 over the last three months. 1.20% of the stock is currently owned by corporate insiders.
Institutional Inflows and Outflows
A number of institutional investors and hedge funds have recently bought and sold shares of IDCC. Huntington National Bank grew its position in shares of InterDigital by 602,700.0% during the 3rd quarter. Huntington National Bank now owns 6,028 shares of the Wireless communications provider's stock worth $244,000 after purchasing an additional 6,027 shares in the last quarter. Boston Trust Walden Corp grew its position in shares of InterDigital by 33.6% during the 3rd quarter. Boston Trust Walden Corp now owns 543,536 shares of the Wireless communications provider's stock worth $21,970,000 after purchasing an additional 136,772 shares in the last quarter. SG Americas Securities LLC grew its position in shares of InterDigital by 89.8% during the 3rd quarter. SG Americas Securities LLC now owns 22,207 shares of the Wireless communications provider's stock worth $898,000 after purchasing an additional 10,505 shares in the last quarter. AlphaCrest Capital Management LLC grew its position in shares of InterDigital by 185.8% during the 3rd quarter. AlphaCrest Capital Management LLC now owns 20,360 shares of the Wireless communications provider's stock worth $823,000 after purchasing an additional 13,236 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Lazard Asset Management LLC grew its position in shares of InterDigital by 49.0% during the 2nd quarter. Lazard Asset Management LLC now owns 1,998 shares of the Wireless communications provider's stock worth $121,000 after purchasing an additional 657 shares in the last quarter. Institutional investors and hedge funds own 83.97% of the company's stock.
About InterDigital (Get Rating)
InterDigital, Inc engages in the design and development of technologies that enable and enhance wireless communications, and capabilities. It focuses on mobile technology and devices, which includes cellular wireless technology, Internet of Things, technology, video coding & transmission, sensor and sensor fusion technology.
https://www.marketbeat.com/instant-alerts/nasdaq-idcc-analyst-earnings-estimates-2023-03-20/
InterDigital (IDCC) - Sidoti Virtual Conference Presentation
Description
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, and is included in the S&P SmallCap 600.
Time: Mar 22, 2023 03:15 PM in Eastern Time (US and Canada)
https://sidoti.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_N450qSSSRRO6RlIJowQwaw
How thrilled was Cohen when he dumped his stock grants?
COHEN ERIC Officer 03/15/2023 Acquisition (Non Open Market) Direct 22,822 $0.00 67,120
COHEN ERIC Officer 03/15/2023 Disposition (Non Open Market) Direct 17,369 $73.43 49,750
COHEN ERIC Officer 03/15/2023 Automatic Sell Direct 7,597 $72.42 42,153
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/idcc/insider-activity
Several of the Form 4's that were posted today imply to me that management thinks our inhouse legal team did very well last week.
By the way, during the past twenty years, I can't think of any court appeal that IDCC did not win.
the legal outcomes....as always are as clear as mud...the patents involved here are a small fraction of the total portfolio......i do know that this decision moves the needle forward on infringement....and nobody in their right mind would award a rate lower than apple pays idc per unit for the whole portfolio...thank god we're not silly enough to go sit in a courtroom and watch this krap unfold...anymore!!!!
LTE thanks for the article. A link to the actual court judgement from the article is found below for anyone interested.
ENGLAND AND WALES HIGH COURT (PATENTS COURT) DECISIONS - APPROVED JUDGMENT - PUBLIC VERSION
This is why IDCC is upset. And I'm not happy either:
Mr Justice Mellor, in a significant and substantial judgment, examined and clarified the key principles applicable in global FRAND disputes as well as procedural issues which arise in such litigation.
The Court determined, among other things, the following key points:
(1) The Court set a FRAND rate under InterDigital’s portfolio of 17.5 cents per device (¶813), which was 65% lower than the rate being sought by InterDigital (¶23).
(2) The Court did so based upon a comparable licence analysis, rejecting the 20 licences relied upon by InterDigital as comparables and relying principally upon one of the seven licences relied upon by Lenovo (¶¶793-814).
(3) The Court rejected the utility of the top-down analysis put forward by InterDigital (¶¶815-885).
(4) The Court held that “by consistently seeking supra-FRAND rates, InterDigital did not act as a willing licensor” (¶928), whereas “for the most part, Lenovo did conduct themselves as a willing licensee” (¶¶931-932).
(5) The Court emphasised the need for transparency in this market: “the SEP universe would be able to converge on and agree FRAND terms very much more quickly if the basics of each SEP licence were made public (by ‘basics’ I mean the number of units covered, the royalty rates or total sum paid/payable and which standards are involved). In other words, the market for mobile telephony SEP licences would work very much more smoothly with transparency of what terms had been agreed in the past” (¶200) and this “has implications for how the SEP licensor should conduct itself as a willing licensor” (¶202).
(6) The Court decided that FRAND required Lenovo to pay royalties on sales from 2007 onwards (¶¶424-433, 450-451, 515-527, 532-537, 548, 554-555, 559-561).
https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/interdigital-technology-corp-and-ors-v-lenovo-group-limited-and-ors/
Paullee, I disagree with your statement bout the IDCC teams. 1) Lenovo has been found to infringe multiple patents. 2) the judge set the frand rate not IDCC who is appealing the rate.
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: |