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.
The BOA "Analyst / Short" should short his own employer!
Tomcat
From the conference call
1. they won't take calls from shareholders
2. They are not yet receiving any cash from Lenova and Samsung
Bank of America analyst is crying....
scooby5, the first 12,000 shares the ask did not fall below $70.5. It was the market maker filling in. He probably is looking to pick up some cheaper shares. If the company continues to buy back $25M of shares on the open market per month he is going to need them.
How can we possibly be trading in the $67.00 range?
probably in the deferred revenue , or backlog since we are collecting royalties---no products
IDCC still has $40M to recognize from the Lenovo decision, More if the appeal is successful, They bought about 340,000 shares in April and have about $175M + left in the buyback. Lookout shorts. They made about $13 M in interest.
Board goes quiet on a 3.58 profit qtr
note the balance sheet 378mil in revenue current and long term differed revenue ,
InterDigital Announces Financial Results for First Quarter 2023
Company Release - 5/4/2023
Samsung arbitration agreement and Lenovo judgment drive total revenue to over $200 million; record return of capital to shareholders
WILMINGTON, Del., May 04, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile and video technology research and development company, today announced results for the quarter ended March 31, 2023.
"In the first quarter, we continued to make strong progress in executing against our long-term goals,” commented Liren Chen, President and CEO, InterDigital. “The recent Lenovo judgment, along with our Samsung arbitration agreement and the 2022 Apple renewal, drove exceptional financial results in first quarter 2023 and provide a strong recurring revenue base well into the future."
First Quarter 2023 Financial Highlights, as compared to First Quarter 2022:
GAAP
Total revenue was $202.4 million and increased 100%. The increase was driven by the recent Lenovo judgment.
Recurring revenue was $101.6 million and increased 2%.
Operating expenses were $83.1 million and increased 17%. The increase was driven by $8.2 million of one-time items.
Net income1 was $105.3 million and increased 485%.
Diluted earnings per share was $3.58 and increased 517%.
The company completed its modified Dutch auction tender offer in which it repurchased 2.7 million shares, for an aggregate cost of $199.9 million, excluding fees, expenses and excise tax. The company repurchased $24.7 million, or 0.3 million shares, during the period April 1, 2023 through April 30, 2023.
Non-GAAP
Adjusted EBITDA2 was $154.8 million and increased 179%.
Adjusted EBITDA margin2 was 76% up from 55%.
Non-GAAP net income3 was $123.6 million and increased 301%.
Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share3 was $4.21 and increased 325%.
Near Term Outlook
The table below presents guidance of the Company's expectations for second quarter 2023. The revenue range covers both existing licenses and license agreements that we currently expect to be executed in second quarter 2023.
Q2 2023
Revenue $100M - $104M
Operating expenses $78M - $81M
Net income 1 $16.4M - $19.1M
Adjusted EBITDA 2 $50.2M- $52.9M
Diluted earnings per share $0.60 - $0.70
Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share 3 $1.19 - $1.29
Weighted-average diluted shares (a) 27.3M
(a) Based on share repurchases through April 30, 2023, excluding any additional repurchases that may occur during the remainder of second quarter 2023.
Conference Call Information
InterDigital will host a conference call on Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. ET to discuss its first quarter 2023 financial performance and other company matters.
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.
Questions Abound On EU Plan For New Essential Patent Rules
By Ryan Davis · (May 1, 2023, 10:35 PM EDT)
The European Union's call to create a new body to set royalty rates for standard-essential patents before lawsuits could be filed has drawn a skeptical response, with experts questioning how the plan would work and whether it would achieve its goal of streamlining disputes.
The European Commission released its proposal on Thursday, saying the move is aimed at bringing more transparency and predictability to a complex area of the law that has led to heated disputes and litigation.
When patents must be used in a product in order for it to operate on industry standards like Wi-Fi and 5G, the patent owner pledges to license them on terms that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND. However, what constitutes such a rate often spurs legal clashes, and the EU proposal could reshape them in unpredictable ways.
Tom Cotter, a professor at University of Minnesota Law School, said that since rates are now set through litigation in courts around the world, which can lead to inconsistent results and forum shopping, "there is certainly is a lot of discussion around the world about the need to come up with a better, more efficient system for determining FRAND royalties."
"There's a lot to be applauded in trying to do that," he said. "But I'm not sure that this particular proposal is going to go forward as is because of the many objections that people have raised to it."
The European Commission called for a new "competence center" to be established within the European Union Intellectual Property Office, or EUIPO, which would create a central registry of standard-essential patents in force in the EU and conduct checks of whether the patents are in fact essential.
The proposal also calls for the center to operate a system to set a global FRAND rate for the patents when the parties cannot agree, with such a determination becoming a requirement before litigation could be filed in the EU. The commission said the nonbinding rate would be set within nine months, and would "limit the duration of otherwise protracted licensing negotiations."
The many questions spurred by the idea of creating an entirely new framework for standard-essential patents disputes have focused on the role of the EUIPO, whether the new body could meet the task being set out for it, and what would happen once a rate was set.
The EUIPO currently only registers trademarks and designs and has no involvement in patents, so its central position in the process is puzzling to many observers.
Marianne Schaffner of Reed Smith LLP's Paris office said that she found the proposal "quite concerning" since the key role is given to "an office which has no competence in patent law."
Moreover, she said that requiring patent owners to register their patents with the new body, and get determinations on whether they are essential and what a FRAND rate would be before litigation could begin, "adds so much complexity, and it slows down so much the possibility of having a decision from a court, that it's not business-minded to me."
While the proposal envisions the new body coming up with a FRAND determination within nine months, "I think that's very ambitious," said Andrew Sharples of the law firm EIP's London office. "To do a meaningful analysis in that time is going to be difficult, I think."
When the new body does set a FRAND rate, the fact that it would not be binding raises questions about what the parties are supposed to do with that information, attorneys said.
The commission "appears to have realized that the nonbinding nature just facilitates more delay," Sharples said. As a result, he noted that the proposal includes language stating that if one party commits to abide by the determination, it can terminate the process and file suit, putting pressure on the other side.
"They're trying to put in place incentives for parties to actually abide by their ruling, but query whether people will," he said, especially since there's no way of knowing at this stage what kind of rates the new body will set.
The EU aim for the proposal appears to be to "reduce litigation by giving the parties some idea of what a FRAND rate would be," said Amol Parikh of McDermott Will & Emery LLP. "But it's a nonbinding rate, so I'm curious to see if the courts will go through a similar analysis and come up with a similar rate."
In addition, Parikh noted that much about the proposed new process remains unclear, including who would be hired by the EUIPO to make the determinations, what experience they will have and what types of decisions they might make.
"Those are the types of questions that stakeholders are going to have to determine whether the regulations are workable in practice," he said.
Brian Pomper, executive director of the Innovation Alliance, whose members include owners of standard-essential patents like Qualcomm and InterDigital, said that a new body to determine licensing rates is "really going to hurt the technology developers."
When companies create inventions that are essential to industry standards, then are told, "'you're not going to be able to license this on the open market, you are going to have to take the price that we are going to be willing to allow you to charge,' that's a not a recipe for technological success," said Pomper, a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.
He said the proposal appears driven by the concerns of companies like automakers that implement standards in their products and want to pay lower prices to license patents. "I can tell you ... it's not the patent creators and innovator companies that are going to the EU and saying, 'You need to set up a system to set prices in our marketplace,'" Pomper said.
In contrast, the proposal was welcomed by Alex Moss, executive director of the Public Interest Patent Law Institute, a group that says it's dedicated to ensuring that the patent system promotes access to technology for the public's benefit.
The proposed new system would provide more transparency about standard-essential licensing information, which is now largely confidential and can't be accessed by anyone other than patent owners except through litigation, she said.
"So right now, they have an enormous information advantage and that's really how this changes the game," Moss said. "The value of your patent shouldn't reflect an information asymmetry."
In addition, she noted that standard-essential patent litigation is extremely expensive, so the possibility that the new body could reduce disputes would free up money to use for salaries or research and development, to the benefit of both sides.
Others said if the system were to be adopted, it's not clear how it could impact the behavior of patent owners and potential licensees who implement standards in their products.
"It might not have the desired effect. It might simply result in either implementers or owners going to other countries to try to get determinations," rather than dealing with the framework in the EU, said Cotter of the University of Minnesota Law School.
Likewise, Reed Smith's Schaffner described the proposal as "a gift that the EU commission is making to the U.K." Since the courts in that country have said they can make FRAND determinations without all the steps being contemplated in Europe, the U.K. would likely become a more appealing litigation venue if the policy took effect, she said.
For now, it's far from certain that the European Commission's proposal will become a reality. It must be approved by the EU countries and the European Parliament to take effect and will likely face fierce lobbying. "If this is ever implemented, I imagine it's going to look much different than the proposal," said Parikh of McDermott.
"There's a lot of uncertainty and at least from many quarters, I think, some degree of unhappiness with the current proposals," Cotter said. "So that makes me at least somewhat skeptical that it is going to be adopted in its present format."
The site Fintel has institutional ownership at 28.8M shares aggregate total at 106%.
vegas....i hear you....they are playing russian roulette....but so far it hasnt hurt them on the new shares shorted into tender....they had 4myn short...now 3myn...thats still a lot for 27myn outstanding
Teecee56, A short has to buy the shares ultimately from a long. At that moment the long determines the price. Until then a short can pay the rental fees but unless it is a long that sells it just continues as a new short. When you have 27M shares and the threat of $200M Dutch Auction or buyback it takes a miracle for a short not to get trapped.
it would for your shares....the main impediment is that institutions own the vast majority of the shares....and lending is a source of incremental return for them...so they do it freely
Does placing a "Good 'Til Cancelled" way out of the money Sell order cut down on shares available to the shorts?
i agree...they are susceptible to squeezes on unexpected good news....but right now ...they are laying on the stock like a seal on the rocks.....and they usually win on low volume slogs....i understand it ....and accept it....ive been here a long time...and have seen a lot.....
teecee56, those short shares are not free. Those 3 M shares become painful and subject to margin calls when the stock goes up. We get news next week and then again 4 weeks later.
vegas....there are also almost 3myn shares that are being provided by the shorts...which the institutions freely lend them shares to do so....i know its not part of the float...but they are there.....and the shorts always have outsized short term influence when they are active
Market goes up IDCC goes down. Seems we are in the shorts view.
Fish21049, I appreciate when Simply Stupid writes an article like that to encourage people to short it. Let's see IDCC has about $40 cash per share and will earn about $8 per share this year (adding $5 Lenovo and $3 estimates) so it makes sense to me that it is only worth the low $50's......
According to the key statistics on Yahoo finance the institutions plus insiders own over 97% of outstanding shares. I wish it is true but I have not been able to find the new 13D and 13F 's yet as the will start flowing in next week.
I wish mgmt would wake up to what's happening to the stock price. Just saying after the dutch auction...what's next? Guess we will see when 1st quarter is reported next month.
Did I miss something? I was taking a nap.
Paullee those not “Woke” are sleep and don’t have a clue.
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
Followers
|
878
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
432962
|
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: |