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.
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.
Sure would be nice. If insiders start buying as they did in the past, that could be what ignites it.
Could see a huge short squeeze here well into double digits...No float, high short interest, recent 13G filings, insiders buying at higher levels and no need to raise cash for at least 12 months...
https://seekingalpha.com/instablog/752092-mobile-guru/4989570-professional-diversity-network-inc-diversity-specialist-targeting-china-future-growth
"Former Early Key Member of Apple's Secret Products and Accomplished Technology Entrepreneur Joins Spindle Team"
Nothing strange about it. Clearly an orchestrated and heavily compensated stock promotion campaign. Been many of them with this stock. Just look at the chart. It's also not hard to identify at least one poster here who is being compensated for his "work".
Generally respect your opinion shipwreck, however in this particular case, I wholeheartedly disagree with your synopsis. I don't believe the facts support your commentary even in the least.
You're suggestion that Apple is the only opportunity of significant upside appears somewhat illustrative of a general lack of knowledge and understanding of Marathon's current case load and calendar, let alone the combination of Marathon and Uniloc. You may recall, the combined companies have $93.6 million pro forma combined licensing revenue over last 30 months of operations (unaudited), $37.5 million pro forma combined licensing revenue over trailing twelve months of operations (unaudited), 119 active defendants and 101 trials projected through 2017, up to 150 additional potential licensees, and a large, diversified and active patent portfolio consisting of 662 patents.
Moving on, a re-read of the company's recent comments may be in order. Please see the following as I sense you may have missed it:
For the remainder of 2015, our German subsidiaries have two infringement oral hearing and one expected final infringement decision. We believe there are multiple large revenue opportunities that may monetize before year end, given this belief, we continue to expect 2015 revenue will meet or exceed 2014 annual revenue.
I’d now like to specifically discuss the status of certainty of our portfolio starting with Dynamic Advances. Dynamic Advances is the case against Apple was filed in the Northern District of New York on June 3, 2013. On June 26 of this year, the District Court had the motion for summary judgment hearing. We are waiting the Judge is relying on these motions. We are expecting to hear from the Judge any day now at which time we also expect the Judge will assign the trial date.
The signal IP portfolio covers automotive, communication and passenger safety system. Currently, there are 12 active defendants. To-date, we have executed four settlement and license agreements within this portfolio. We continue to move toward our first trial date of March 15 2016. Subsequent trials are set for every 60 days after the first schedule trial. As with all litigation, our trial dates are subject to change.
Our CRSE portfolio covers inter-device session transfer. Currently there are four active defendants Hulu, Spotify, Netflix and Dish Network. The portfolio has 13 settlements to-date with a possibility of adding new defendants. We are waiting the final determinations from the PTAB on the IPR that have been filed against this portfolio and we expect to receive those ruling sometimes in the April 2016 timeframe.
Our clouding portfolio covers cloud computing and cloud storage technology. Currently there are two active defendants EMC and VMware. The portfolio has 23 settlements to-date with a possibility of adding new defendants. We are waiting the final determination from the PTAB on the IPRs that have been filed against that portfolio and we expect to start receiving those rulings over the next two to three months.
Our Orthophoenix portfolio covers bone treatment, bone cavity creation. Currently there are three active defendants in the United States Stryker defined bright medical. The portfolio has six settlements to-date with a possibility of adding new defendants. We are waiting to PTAB determination on four pending IPRs. We expect to receive those rulings later this year. Additionally, the Markman hearing on this case is scheduled for December 3 of this year.
A related portfolio to Orthophoenix is the Medtech portfolio which is our European assets and it covers bone treatment and bone creation just in different jurisdictions though. Currently there are seven active defendants. The portfolio has five settlements to-date with new enforcement campaigns expected.
In April 2016, Medtech will have the infringement appeal hearing against Stryker as well as the infringement first oral hearing for Joline, Pan Medical and Signus.
TLI has a portfolio with German patents, covers the organization of digital images received from a mobile device. Currently, there are 10 active defendants. This portfolio has one settlement today with new enforcement campaigns expected. TLI has an active upcoming calendar including the December 10 expected announcement of the court’s infringement decision against Yahoo's Flickr Service and a possible injunction.
Additionally, on December 10, TLI infringement - first oral hearing against Twitter and Pinterest. On March 10 of 2016, TLI will have the infringement second oral hearing against Google. Also on that same day, we will have the first infringement oral hearing against Yahoo’s Tumblr service and Instagram.
Later in the year, on April 28, TLI will have a second infringement oral hearing against Facebook. The U.S. portfolio named TLI is waiting the federal circuit oral hearing day.
One additional item that I want to discuss on this call is the TPMS portfolio. Bridgestone has several litigations with both TRW and with Schrader. We recognize the portion of the settlement revenue in our third quarter and the remaining revenue will be booked in our fourth quarter.
I believe this isn't even all of their assets or cases, Also note the inclusion of the language, "new enforcement campaigns expected". As for Dynamic Advances, is it possible that there other handset manufactures besides Apple that could also be later sizeable licensing opportunities?
Also, what do you know about their recently acquired, but yet to be publicly discussed portfolio?
"We continue to focus on expanding our pattern portfolio. We recently acquired a portfolio of international assets that we believe lease on the automotive industry. We have commenced our licensing campaign in Germany and while I’m precluded from specifically commenting on these activities, we do believe this portfolio represents a sizable near term revenue opportunity for the company."
I'm sorry, but I think it clear based on the facts as laid out above, the company is anything but "a one trick pony". In fact, many of us closely following it, might argue that there has actually never been a time in its operational history where it had so many potentially large revenue opportunities.
Please know that I don't mean to be adversarial during the holidays, but I think your last post may be predicated more on emotions due to the stock price, as opposed to current reality.
I believe you meant "hear".
Marathon Patent Group, Inc. Announces Sequential Quarterly Revenue Increased 368% to $6.4 Million in Q3 2015
Ed,
Do you know what the main analysts currently are expecting for revenues in the Q?
In particular, I'm interested in what Mike Latimore of Northland has them doing in Q3?
Ed,
Data from IPREO confirms that. Cambridge Investment Research Advisors held 713,459 shares of MARA as of 9/30/15. All purchased during the third quarter.
They are an investment advisor-manager of managers—they outsource a portion of their stock selection to external, third party managers, so technically they have a passive investment orientation.
$3.4B equity under management. They are the number 2 holder now with just under 5% of MARA shares outstanding.
Devastating New York Times critique of US patent reform may indicate the pendulum is swinging back
Joff Wild
The Gerald Loeb Award is regarded as one of the most prestigious there is in business journalism. Past winners include some of the profession’s biggest and most influential names. Among them is New York Times columnist Joe Nocera, who has been a recipient three times – in 1993, 1996 and 2008. That kind of recognition makes Nocera an influential voice; and that is why his column entitled The Patent Troll Smokescreen, which was published by the Times on 23rd October, is potentially so significant. But not only significant, also bang on the money.
Actually, that is not quite right. In using the award of $234 million to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), after a jury found that its patents had been infringed by Apple, as a segue into a devastating critique of the patent reform troll narrative, Nocera assumes that no-one would ever seriously consider WARF itself to be a troll. He is wrong. WARF has been labelled that many times and back in 2012 was identified by Business Insider as the fifth most fearsome troll out there.
That, though, is a quibble; for the fact is that Nocera has put together the most lucid and powerful argument against patent reform proposals currently before Congress that I have ever read in the mainstream American media. He has correctly identified the lobbying dynamics behind the legislation and the harm that it would inflict on SMEs and lone inventors, while also pinpointing the damage that has already been done to both by the America
Invents Act and the Supreme Court:
But what if, in the name of cracking down on trolls, Congress passes an anti-troll law that winds up having huge negative consequences for legitimate inventors? What if a series of Supreme Court rulings make matters worse, putting onerous burdens on inventors while making it easier for big companies to steal unlicensed innovations?
As it happens, thanks to the 2011 America Invents Act and those rulings, big companies can now largely ignore legitimate patent holders.
What's more, he has brought the term “efficient infringing” to wider attention and explained it perfectly:
That’s the relatively new practice of using a technology that infringes on someone’s patent, while ignoring the patent holder entirely. And when the patent holder discovers the infringement and seeks recompense, the infringer responds by challenging the patent’s validity.
Should a lawsuit ensue, the infringer, often a big tech company, has top-notch patent lawyers at the ready. Because the courts have largely robbed small inventors of their ability to seek an injunction — that is, an order requiring that the infringing product be removed from the market — the worst that can happen is that the infringer will have to pay some money.
In other countries, the US would call this practice “compulsory licensing” and would seek to have it outlawed. At home, though, it has become the norm and many patent owners are suffering as a result. Those inside the patent world know all this, now it has been explained to a much broader audience in language that is accessible and clear.
Of course, there was more that Nocera could have written about. He might have referred to the dodgy dataused to justify the legislation and the intellectual dishonesty of the “troll” narrative; while he may also have noted that the PTAB has now become a weapon of choice for many big tech companies, which can use the threat of multiple reviews – and the major additional costs and risks that they involve – to dissuade SMEs from asserting their rights.
But New York Times columns have word counts and like any good journalist Nocera was never going to exceed his. What he has done, though, is deliver a level of balance to the coverage of patent reform that was not there before. Decision makers in Congress and the courts (and, maybe more importantly, their staffers and clerks) read the Times and other mainstream media platforms, and they take note of what people like Paul Nocera have to say.
Up to now, the commentary on patent reform has all been one way. Not anymore. For those of us who want an honest debate about the real need for more change, as well as a proper look at all the consequences of what Congress and the courts have already done, that can only be good news.
There has been some excited talk recently of the patent pendulum perhaps beginning to swing back towards patent owners in the US. From where I sit there has been very little indication of that, but the fact that such an influential voice has published this piece in a newspaper that only a few months ago came out in favour of reform may be a small sign that things are changing – especially when seen in the context of what is (not) happening in Washington DC.
One column will not come close to changing the current situation, but it is a welcome start. Let’s see if other influencers now open their eyes a little and start asking reform proponents much harder questions. Further discussion of “efficient infringing” might be a good place to begin.
Understanding the genesis of certain shareholders one time interest in Marathon is quite simple.
All you have to do is go back to the company's infancy almost 3 years ago and read the public filings. They have always explained exactly how certain referenced persons, and others, initially came to be Marathon shareholders.
Simply put, it was through their previous ownership in the public company American Strategic Minerals Corporation. AMSC and Sampo IP LLC completed a merger which resulted in the formation of the new company, then named Marathon Patent Group.
Filing here: http://ir.marathonpg.com/all-sec-filings?page=24#document-5394-0001521536-12-001170
PR here: http://ir.marathonpg.com/press-releases/detail/214/marathon-patent-group-inc-acquires-foundational-patent
Nice to see Fox and media picking up the story.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2015/10/14/apple-loses-big-patent-suit-to-university-wisconsin.html
Apple loses big patent suit to University of Wisconsin
Apple lost phase one Tuesday of a lawsuit against it by a patent enforcement group that Business Insider once called one of the "most fearsome patent trolls" around—a loss that could cost up to $862 million in damages, Reuters reports.
A US District Court jury decided Apple had violated a 1998 patent for technology that improves processor efficiency—a patent owned by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the University of Wisconsin-Madison's licensing division—by incorporating that technology into the A7, A8, and A8X processors found in its iPhone 5, 6, and 6 Plus models.
The jury also found the patent is valid, a claim Apple unsuccessfully tried to take up with the US Patent and Trademark Office before. Presiding Judge William Conley broke the trial down into three phases: liability, damages, and whether Apple had willfully violated the patent, which could lead to more penalties.
Indeed, WARF had filed for triple damages because it said the patent infringement was "willful, intentional, and in conscious disregard of WARF's right," per the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
This isn't the first time Apple has been sued for iPad/iPhone patent infringement—Boston University filed a complaint in 2013, the Verge reports—or the first time WARF has sued over this technology (Intel settled in 2009).
WARF also sued Apple a second time last month over the newest A9 and A9X chips found in recently released iPhones and the iPad Pro, per Reuters.
Still, a Warwick Business School professor tells CNET that "parallel developments" by different companies means competing intellectual-property claims are "inevitable" and any damages Apple pays won't "have a substantial or lasting impact on its earnings." (Apple and Samsung have gone back and forth on patents, too.)
This article originally appeared on Newser: Apple Loses Patent Suit That Could Cost Close to $1B
Law360, New York (October 13, 2015, 4:29 PM ET) -- A Wisconsin federal jury decided Monday that Apple Inc.'s iPhones and iPads infringe a Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation computer processor patent, which could result in a damages award of nearly $400 million.
Apple products including the iPhone 5S, iPhone 6, iPad Air 2 and iPad Mini were found to have infringed a single WARF patent. (Credit: AP)
The jury returned its verdict following a liability trial that began Oct. 5 and will now move on to the damages phase in which WARF, the patent manager for the University of Wisconsin, Madison, is seeking damages of $398.7 million, according to a source familiar with the case.
In addition to finding that Apple products including the iPhone 5S, iPhone 6, iPad Air 2 and iPad Mini infringed a single WARF patent, the jury found that Apple had not proven that the patent is invalid.
WARF had earlier been seeking up to $862.4 million in damages, but it notified U.S. District Judge William M. Conley Monday that it was withdrawing its claim for damages from the time before the suit was filed in January 2014 "to further streamline the case."
Representatives of Apple and WARF declined to comment on Monday's verdict.
The suit maintained that Apple cited WARF's U.S. Patent Number 5,781,752 in its own patent applications and thus knew that the university's technology existed. The Wisconsin researchers were awarded the patent in July 1998, according to the suit.
The patent covers a predictor circuit, which streamlines the way a processor works by predicting what instructions a user will give the system based on data from previous use and the machine's previous guesses. The same technology appears in Apple’s A7 processor, which is used in the Apple products at issue, the suit says.
Apple filed a petition last year challenging WARF's patent under the America Invents Act's inter partes review program, but the Patent Trial and Appeal Board decided in April not to review the patent.
Judge Conley ruled last month that WARF could not tell the jury about the PTAB's decision, writing that "any probative value of this evidence is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, as well as the risk of jury confusion."
The patent-in-suit is U.S. Patent Number 5,781,752.
WARF is represented by Morgan Chu, Gary Frischling, Jason Sheasby and Alan Heinrich of Irell & Manella LLP and Jennifer L. Gregor of Godfrey & Kahn SC.
Apple is represented by William F. Lee, Bryan S. Conley, Lauren B. Fletcher, David C. Marcus, Andrea J.W. Jeffries, Derek Gosma and Mark D. Selwyn of WilmerHale and Catherine Cetrangolo of Cetra Law Firm LLC.
The case is Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc., case number 3:14-cv-00062, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported that WARF was seeking $862.4 million in damages, based on an order by the judge earlier in the case, but the figure is now lower as a result of WARF’s decision Monday to withdraw its claim for presuit damages. The error has been corrected.
Was fortunate to take a nice profit on that last promotion that ran the stock up. If your interested in the space but another possible much better opportunity, you might look at SPDL. Some nice news this am about actual fundamental progress and not just lip service. Former President of BlockBuster Video Michael Kelly recently acquired almost 10% of the entire outstanding shares.
http://www.virtual-strategy.com/2015/06/29/alpha-bay-ceo-michael-kelly-acquires-spindle-shares#axzz3oSnpZQeI
No toxic financing or unmanageable cap structure like NETE now unfortunately has.
Large recent revenue growth and near term cashflow breakeven.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/spindle-signs-strategic-processing-relationship-agreement-with-ch-financial-services-2015-10-13
You and Ed are correct. Wells Fargo has never initiated coverage of Marathon Patent Group.
Nice reversal today Tim.
Jalase,
I respectfully disagree. There is a very significant difference from a calculated and deliberate statement being made in a company's prepared remarks such as on a CC, as compared to a company's CEO saying something off the cuff and in response to a question asked at an investor conference.
Just my opinion, but I totally respect and understand your point in general.
The irony is that long before that, many here and elsewhere were suggesting management wasn't being bullish enough on calls and needed to be more enthusiastic. It's one of those darned if you do, darned if you don't scenarios in my eyes. Ultimately, it is such a fine line all CEO's have to walk, I don't envy the position.
Appreciate your thoughts Jalese. Did you just see the offer lift all the way to $2.64 a minute or two ago? Currently 2.33 offered. Definitely interesting action with us now back at break even on the day and momentarily even positive.
Interesting assessment as always Nico, thank you for sharing.
I thought you and others may like to see professional and well regarded analyst Mike Latimore's comments made this am.
Marathon Patent Group (MARA - $2.25 - Outperform - $8.00 Target ) Michael Latimore
Nice Settlement
Yesterday Bridgestone announced a settlement with TRW in its tire pressure monitoring patent dispute. We believe Bridgestone/MARA had asked for $8 mil at start of trial. Given the settlement prior to a verdict, we'd expect the settlement was less than the $8 mil. Per a revenue share deal, MARA likely garners 60% of the settlement value. This deal, plus other ones during the quarter, increase our confidence that MARA had a solid 3Q.
Link to full current Research Report: http://northland.bluematrix.com/docs/pdf/19018.pdf
ipnoob,
Think it's challenging to keep up now, just wait if and when they close the merger with Uniloc.
Industry leading management team with proven track record
Highly scalable business model with significant operating leverage
$93.6 million pro forma combined licensing revenue over last 30 months of operations (unaudited)
$37.5 million pro forma combined licensing revenue over trailing twelve months of operations (unaudited)
119 active defendants and 101 trials projected through 2017
Up to 150 additional potential licensees
Large, diversified and active patent portfolio consisting of 662 patents
Scale and diversification potentially eliminates dependence on large, binary licensing or litigation outcomes
Gross margin improvement potential on future cases expected from economies of scale and Uniloc's relationship with law firms that work on a contingency fee basis
Trend Micro doesn’t appear to have a trial date yet, but the markman is scheduled for 12/15/15, and its still on the site (US grid, row 5)
No worries Jalase. I believe Flyers indicated he was there Monday and perhaps would be in attendance Friday.
TLI Communications GMBH Google, Inc. Infringement 1st EP0814611 09/17/15
Porscha,
In addition to their commentary, I would add a comment on the general issue of patent reform. The proposal of patent reform has been extremely burdensome to the space as you well know. Granted, more the fear of it versus the actual reality of it, but nonetheless it's mere presence in the media alone has undisputedly stifled value creation in the space.
Optimistically, some who I have talked to in the space itself as of late have indicated they don't expect to hear or see much in the way of the pushing of reform for at least a couple years at this point. They indicated they believe any hint of it essentially now shelved for the foreseeable future.
They believe that in light of the considerable more pressing matters now in front of law makers, the strong opposition that was mounting to proposed reform, and the upcoming 2016 election, which at this point appears to be likely to install a more patent friendly administration, regardless of Democrat or Republican, we could see the persistent headwind of recent reform initiatives finally abate.
PTAB refuses Volkswagen IPR petition against Marathon patent
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/08/27/ptab-refuses-volkswagen-ipr-petition-against-marathon-patent/id=61067/
By Gene Quinn & on August 27, 2015
Yesterday the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refused to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1, 2 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 5,714,927. Marathon Patent Group (NASDAQ: MARA) subsidiary Signal IP, Inc. is the owner of the ‘927 patent, which was challenged by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
“We are pleased with the USPTO’s decision denying Volkswagen’s IPR petition, especially since this was the only IPR filed against the 927 patent,” said Doug Croxall, Founder and CEO of Marathon Patent Group. “This ruling, along with those that have preceded it, continue to demonstrate the value of our proprietary process to assess, value, and acquire high quality patent assets that have the potential of generating meaningful return on investment for both the company and its shareholders.”
The ‘927 patent
The ‘927 patent relates to side detection vehicle radar systems that control an alarm or alert indicator to increase the perceived coverage of a vehicle’s blind spot. The system prevents, or at least minimizes, radar signal dropouts due to signal flickers in order to improve the zone of coverage in a vehicle side radar section system. Further, the system minimizes the annoying and frequent alert activity caused by passing a stationary or slow moving target.
Claim 1 of the ‘927 patent was deemed to be representative by the Board: It reads:
1. In a radar system wherein a host vehicle uses radar to detect a target vehicle in a blind spot of the host vehicle driver, a method of improving the perceived zone of coverage response of automotive radar comprising the steps of:
determining the relative speed of the host and target vehicles;
selecting a variable sustain time as a function of relative vehicle speed;
detecting target vehicle presence and producing an alert command;
activating an alert signal in response to the alert command;
at the end of the alert command, determining whether the alert signal was active for a threshold time; and
if the alert signal was active for the threshold time, sustaining the alert signal for the variable sustain time, wherein the zone of coverage appears to increase according to the variable sustain time.
Volkswagen asserted that the challenged claims of the ‘927 patent were unpatentable because they were obvious. See 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The ‘927 patent has been asserted in the following proceedings:
•Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2-14-cv-13729 (E.D. Mich.);
•Signal IP, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al., No. 2-14-cv-03109 (C.D. Cal.);
•Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat USA, Inc. et al., No. 2-14-cv-13864 (E.D. Mich.);
•Signal IP, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC et al., No. 2-14-cv-03111 (C.D. Cal.);
•Signal IP, Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, No. 2-14-cv-03108 (C.D. Cal.). SETTLED.
•Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. d/b/a Audi of America, Inc. et al., No. 2-14-cv-03113 (C.D. Cal.);
•Signal IP, Inc. v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., No. 2-14-cv-03114 (C.D. Cal.). SETTLED.
•Signal IP, Inc. v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, No. 2-14-cv-03107 (C.D. Cal.). SETTLED.
•Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 2-14-cv-02962 (C.D. Cal.);
•Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 8-14-cv-00491 (C.D. Cal.);
•Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia Motors America, Inc., No. 2-14-cv-02457 (C.D. Cal.); and
•Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., No. 2-14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.).
PTAB Ruling
The PTAB sided with the patent owner, explaining that the mere fact that any particular invention is comprised of elements found within the prior art does not necessarily mean that the claimed invention is obvious, citing to the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex. The PTAB also explained that the petitioner insufficiently made a case that the claimed invention was obvious because a proper obviousness argument must articulate some rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of obviousness, citing to In re Kahn (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Board wrote:
Rather than articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to Bernhard and Pakett’s alerting system when an obstacle is detected in a blind spot with Fujiki’s braking system, Petitioner has provided only conclusory motivation contentions. Petitioner’s argument lacks any reason, absent impermissible hindsight…
Ultimately, the PTAB went on to say: “We are not persuaded that the Petition demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in establishing unpatentability of claims 1, 2, and 6.”
Is the Tide Turning?
While obtaining rulings from the PTAB is extremely difficult, we know that this latest refusal to institute an IPR trial is at least the second denial this week by the PTAB. Earlier this week the PTAB similarly denied the IPR petition filed by hedge fund billionaire Kyle Bass by and through the Coalition for Affordable Drugs, an entity he backs.
The PTAB has been widely criticized for instituting too many IPR trials and being all too willing to find patent claims invalid, particularly on obviousness grounds. While it is certainly too early to tell, these recent refusals to initiate IPR trials could signal a turning point. The Office is already pursuing rule changes to post grant trial practice. There is also legislation pending that would alter the landscape significantly with respect to post grant trials, making them far more fair to the patent owner.
Perhaps these latest institution decisions are just a blip, perhaps the challenges to the most egregious patents are behind us, but there is also a possibility that the PTAB is starting to better understand that the patent system simply cannot continue to exist if the most commercially viable patent claims are continually killed at the hands of the PTAB.
I agree with you and should have held my trading shares a little longer!
We're definitely at the mercy of a lot of differing and uncontrollable factors. I traded out of the shares I mentioned I previously bought with a decent profit. Still have the core position. Seems to be finding a home, we'll see. Still concerned oil prices could see $25-30 a barrel.
Nico,
This is another one of those issues where factual accuracy is everything.
In actuality, the company never made mention of anything pertaining to their involvement in the Bridgestone matter. Nobody knew about it in fact till literally weeks before trial. Most here were surprised to learn about it and many of us have followed the company since inception. Truth is, they never announced the favorable Markman ruling, only the trial results themselves.
Therefore, to compare the two circumstances, they have handled the Andrulis matter literally in an identical fashion. Depending on the outcome of the appeal and if it makes it to trial, then I'd expect a similar announcement pending the results. Nonetheless, that entire matter was always so far off in the future, that I personally find the current fixation a little strange. Nonetheless, based on the facts, your disparaging comment about management integrity strikes me as inappropriate and undeserving. I respect your right to disagree.
What I find interesting is the complete lack of commentary on today's news about the Signal 927 patent IPR being denied. In the realm of reality, it's indisputable that it dwarfs the Andrulis matter as we speak in terms of near term opportunity. Frankly, this appears to be a powerful victory with possible materially positive implications.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the ruling announced today essentially guarantee that all of the remaining auto manufacturers previously disclosed to amount to $1.4B in collective possible damages, are now going to trial as scheduled early next year? In a highly plaintiff favorable format requiring the defendants court dates to accelerate to an earlier date upon settlements by those ahead of them?
Is it feasible to ask ourselves, in light of their already being 2-3 settlements to date, if today's ruling may essentially seriously strengthen Marathon's position and leverage in terms of driving additional, and now likely higher settlements near term? This news comes on the heals of a settlement with Apple, most said that would never happen, just the other day and at least 6 additional previously announced settlements in the Q. It causes me to ask, is the sky really falling?
While the current stock price inevitably causes, and will continue to cause some, to focus only on what they perceive as negative, I must simply ask if that negativity is a little misdirected at times, and is it causing some an inability to see the proverbial forest through the tree's?
I personally believe all of us investors can sometimes suffer from time to time by allowing our emotions to cloud objectivity. It's a fine line between greed and fear as you know.
"This was the only IPR filed against this patent."
The '927 patent has been asserted in the following proceedings:
Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company, No. 2-14-cv-13729 (E.D. Mich.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC et al., No. 2-14-cv-03109 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Fiat USA, Inc. et al., No. 2-14-cv-13864 (E.D. Mich.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. BMW of North America, LLC et al., No. 2-14-cv-03111 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, No. 2-14-cv-03108 (C.D. Cal.); settled since;
Signal IP, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. d/b/a Audi of America, Inc. et al., No. 2-14-cv-03113 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., No. 2-14-cv-03114 (C.D. Cal.); settled since;
Signal IP, Inc. v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, No. 2-14-cv-03107 (C.D. Cal.); settled since;
Signal IP, Inc. v. Nissan North America, Inc., No. 2-14-cv-02962 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., No. 8-14-cv-00491 (C.D. Cal.);
Signal IP, Inc. v. Kia Motors America, Inc., No. 2-14-cv-02457 (C.D. Cal.); and
Signal IP, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. et al., No. 2-14-cv-02454 (C.D. Cal.).
CONSENT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF APPLE INC. WITH PREJUDICE
Plaintiff TLI Communications LLC
(“
TLI
”) and
Defendant Apple
Inc. (“
Apple
”)
hereby jointly move to advise the Court that TLI and Apple have entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement, settling all claims raised in MDL No. 1:14md2534 and Civil Action No. 1:14cv136, as they relate to Apple. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2)
and the parties’
confidential Settlement Agreement, TLI hereby moves for an order dismissing, WITH PREJUDICE, all claims against Apple, and Apple hereby moves for an order dismissing, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, all counterclaims against TLI arising from the above captioned cases. Each party will bear its own costs, expenses, and
attorneys’ fees.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(E), all counsel agree to submit this motion for expedited ruling without oral argument. The parties have conferred and agree to the aforementioned terms of dismissal. The requested motion for dismissal is thus for good cause and in the interest of justice. A Proposed Order granting this motion is attached hereto.
I'd agree on the strict confidentiality that Apple surely requires. I suspect we hear Marathon make absolutely no mention of it. They'd be smart not to do anything that undermines the working relationship they've clearly established.
One could draw a reasonable inference that they must have a good line of communication between them, both acting in the best interest of reaching equitable resolution, hence the settlement despite the issue with the American case.
Common sense would appear to indicate the goodwill established through working together to resolve the smaller TLI Communications issue, can only help with the possible ultimate resolution of the Dynamic Advances matter.
Nico,
You are correct, it is ultimately a little more complex than a simple interest rate above and beyond libor. The devil is always in the details.
That said, I have personally spoken to some much more educated on the exact subject, intimately familiar with the specific terms themselves.
I have confirmed that the Fortress deal with Marathon is in fact very different in both terms and structure than anything that Fortress had done to date. In fact, I don't expect we see them ever do a deal similar, it has been described as a "one off" so to speak. By all accounts it appears it was heavily negotiated with pretty favorable terms to the company when compared to previous deals with other IP companies.
That said, it does not negate our previously agreed to point that ultimately having printed an equity deal at higher levels in hindsight might have been a good, or even better course of action.
As noted by you, Uniloc too has a deal with them, likely not as company friendly, but irrelevant since according to a shareholder, they have now paid off the majority of their debt with licensing proceeds. One could argue that the strength in numbers methodology behind combining Uniloc and Marathon benefits both the companies in their ability to manage the debt facility, as well as strengthening the underlying combined collateral backing it.
One last thing, while yes the cost of capital is higher than had they done a simple equity raise back when, don't dismiss the fact that from a purely perception point of view, having a regarded financial institution with $66B plus in assets as a partner does send a strong message to those Marathon may be litigating against. What it adds in the way of cost of money, it equally probably benefits the company's profile in the eyes of potential licensees. Hard to know how it comes out in the wash but I think you may be missing one of the most important elements of why the Fortress deal may add value well beyond just financial considerations.
Whose to say the slew of recent settlements including Apple, haven't been helped to some degree by Marathon having such a substantial partner and access to capital. It demonstrates staying power, regardless of a higher cost of capital. That in itself is incredibly valuable in their business.
Nico,
My understanding is that Marathon was never looking at SPEX as a merger, rather just an opportunity to possibly get their assets at a reasonable price. I actually agree with the previous posters comments on what really happened there. I'm not going to go into it, but he's pretty close on the SPEX CEO comment as it's been told to me from various sources. I think you may be reaching a little that MARA was actively seeking a merger candidate back when the SPEX situation arose.
Again, to me that was always merely an interest in an asset purchase if it could be bought cheap. Many have questioned whether it really officially ever advanced to the stage SPEX claimed in their "well timed" press release. I can tell you a few here previously said they talked to the company that day and they were pleasantly surprised to hear SPEX's take. Nonetheless, it no longer matters. SPEX is and never will be a Uniloc, where a merger of equals leads to a combined possible powerhouse bettering the whole.
Why are they doing it with Uniloc? Probably because Lakestreet are Uniloc's bankers and brought it to Marathon as a possibly mutually beneficial opportunity almost 6 months ago as they've clearly said publicly. Let's face it, if just a fraction of what both companies have said is true, then it makes complete and perfect sense. Everything in this space has changed and scale is the key. All the analysts have stated the same. You watch, give it a year and all those smaller players could easily be gone with just two left standing, Acacia and Marathon Group.
As you already know, the two companies combined are on the scale of Acacia with 101 trials, 119 defendants, 150 more potential additional licensees, complimentary court calendars, a combined 662 assets, top management, proprietary analytics platform with a stellar track record never losing in actual trial, and economies of scale on the cost side. When opportunity knocks, open the damn door. I think time could ultimately prove the deal absolutely brilliant.
Moving on, I totally agree that in hindsight, they should have printed a deal and sold equity when the shares were higher. You make a good point. Looking back, I'm sure even they would have to admit that was a missed opportunity. Hard to argue otherwise, I agree. I too wish they had, we'd likely never be here at current levels had that occurred.
Regarding Andrulis, I don't believe they ever owned, currently own, or invested a dime in those patent assets. They may have spent a very nominal amount to advance their monetization through the Markman hearing as a partner of the owner, but not much of consequence or loss on investment as far as you and I are concerned. You might call the company to confirm, but I believe I'm accurate. Flyers could also confirm I assume.
You ask some other good questions, but I'm short on time for now. I think it obviously you're not just trying to stir the pot. I appreciate the intelligent discussion and the way in which you presented your opinions. Look forward to more in the future, thank you.
Thanks Timothy.
Jalese,
From my perspective, it's not just Marathon. You might be well served to take a good hard look at the entire market place. We are far from alone as of late.
Ultimately the market cares about tangible results. It's hard to argue that the list of growing settlements in the quarter, today's included, don't have the potential of ultimately creating value.
As we've all said, talk is cheap. A settlement with Apple is a step in the right direction for many reasons, not limited to it setting a possible precedent for the other cases against Google, Yahoo, Facebook and those who are involved in the US appeal.
Generally speaking a settlement with a larger defendant, such as an Apple, can often act as a lynchpin to possible additional settlements.
http://www.law360.com/articles/694218/apple-tli-comm-settle-claims-in-photosharing-patent-row
Law360, New York (August 24, 2015, 1:34 PM ET) -- TLI Communications LLC asked the Federal Circuit Friday to dismiss Apple Inc. from an appeal it filed after Apple won dismissal of a patent infringement suit brought by the Marathon Patent Group Inc. unit, saying the parties have reached an agreement.
In an unopposed motion filed with the appeals court, TLI said it has reached a settlement with Apple, while noting that matters concerning the remaining parties in the consolidated appeal — including Dropbox Inc. Shutterfly Inc., Snapchat Inc., Yelp Inc., Capital One Financial Corp. and...
Thanks ash. Appreciate the response!