Mike, usually when us longs get the investment thesis wrong we have very little options, and most end up being bag holders. This crazy bounce from the teens to over .50 has been a blessing to many.

Even if longs didn't add more at bargain prices to recoup any/most/all losses over the last year or so, they still now can escape from overweighted positions.

This has been a crazy ride to say the least. I still wish the best for Doug & Co. but I sleep better at night now knowing this wasn't a major debacle from a ROI perspective and my holdings have been reduced to a fraction of my previous position.

Best to all in MARA-land.

Crazy times in MARA-land lately, Mike. I'm not a fan of the scalpers and heavy traders joining in, but a bounce is a bounce and gives everyone - both traders and investors - opportunity to profit, or at the very least reduce exposure to a beaten up equity.

#LacesOut

Obviously, a very low fwd-looking revenue based metric that hints at significantly unrecognized value potential...

...more so if the revenues are accompanied by low expenses

Yes. Now all the market has to do is compare/contrast that range of expected revs to the current market cap and see what the rest of us see.

from the call --> 2017 expected revenue: $40-50 million

there's a link on the company's website that directs listeners here: http://public.viavid.com/index.php?id=123525

Note: it seems to only support browsers with flash enabled

Marathon Patent Group Reports 2016 Financial Results

http://ir.marathonpg.com/press-releases/detail/1150

March 30, 2017

LOS ANGELES, CA -- (Marketwired) -- 03/30/17 -- Marathon Patent Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MARA) ("Marathon" or the "Company"), an IP licensing and commercialization company, announced today its 2016 year-end financial results. Highlights included:

2016 revenue up 93% to $36.6 million
Non-GAAP earnings of $8 million or $0.53 per weighted average basic share
Approximately $5 million in cash as of December 31, 2016
Reduced outstanding debt by $4.8 million since December 31, 2015
19 portfolios totaling 12,000 plus patents covering distinct technology areas; five portfolios in active licensing campaigns
14 portfolios have generated revenue to date
Ten portfolios have generated a net positive cash flow in excess of their cost to acquire and enforce the portfolio

Commenting on the Company's 2016 financial results, Doug Croxall, Founder & Chief Executive Officer of Marathon, stated, "Marathon saw annual revenues almost double in 2016 compared to 2015 as a result of our continuing focus and discipline regarding appropriate license agreements versus the need to meet quarterly expectations."

"We remain optimistic with regard to the fundamental opportunity ahead of us. Currently, we manage a collective pool of quality assets that far surpasses any other time in our history, consisting of over 12,000 assets compared to just 330 this time last year," Croxall concluded.

2016 Year-End Results

Revenue increased approximately 93%, to $36.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 ("FY 2016"), compared to $19.0 million of revenue for the year ended December 31, 2015 ("FY 2015"). The increase in revenue in 2016 resulted primarily from licenses issued by our Dynamic Advances and Orthophoenix subsidiaries, with the Dynamic Advances settlement occurring shortly before commencement of the scheduled trial.

Revenues from the five largest licenses in 2016 accounted for approximately 97% of the Company's revenue for the year ended December 31, 2016 and revenues from the five largest licenses in 2015 accounted for approximately 62% of the Company's revenue for the year ended December 31, 2015.

Direct costs of revenues for the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 were approximately $19.1 million and $16.6 million, respectively. For the year ended December 31, 2016, this represented an increase of approximately $2.5 million, or 15%. Direct costs of revenue include contingent payments related to patent enforcement legal costs, patent enforcement advisors and inventors. Direct costs of revenue also includes various non-contingent costs associated with enforcing the Company's patent rights and otherwise in developing and entering into settlement and licensing agreements that generate the Company's revenue. Such costs include other legal fees and expenses, consulting fees, data management costs and other costs. Direct costs of revenues for 2016 were higher than in 2015 due to higher revenues in 2016. Direct costs of revenues in 2015 were a higher percentage of revenue than in 2016 based on a fixed fee engagement agreement with a law firm that represented one of the Company's subsidiaries in two United States trials during the year, an increase in enforcement activity in Germany and to a lesser extent France and preparation for a significant number of trials in both the United States and Germany in 2015 in the Company's Dynamic Advances, Signal IP and TLI subsidiaries.

Other operating expenses increased 18% to approximately $33.1 million in FY 2016 as compared to approximately $28.1 million in FY 2015. This increase in other operating expenses in 2016 compared to 2015 resulted from an increase in patent impairment expenses in the amount of approximately $6.2 million in 2016 compared to 2015 and goodwill impairment expenses in 2016 of approximately $4.3 million compared to no goodwill impairment expenses in 2015. These increases were partially offset by a decrease in patent amortization expenses of $3.3 million, a decrease of consulting and professional fees of $1.8 million and a decline of $0.3 million in other general and administrative expenses.

Operating expenses for the years ended December 31, 2016 and December 31, 2015 include non-cash operating expenses totaling approximately $25.8 million and $20.8 million, respectively. The results for the year ended December 31, 2016 represent an increase in non-cash operating expenses in the amount of approximately $5.0 million or 24%, compared to the non-cash operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2015. When the Company acquires patents and patent rights, the Company capitalizes those assets and amortizes the costs over the remaining useful lives of the assets. All patent amortization expenses are non-cash expenses.

For the year ended December 31, 2016, net income on a Non-GAAP basis was $0.53 per basic common share compared to net loss per basic common share on a Non-GAAP basis of $(0.48) for the year ended December 31, 2015. On a diluted common share basis, net income on a Non-GAAP basis for the year ended December 31, 2016 was $0.49 per diluted common share compared to a net loss on a Non-GAAP basis of $(0.48) per diluted common share for the year ended December 31, 2015.

Investor Conference Call

Marathon will host a corresponding conference call to discuss the results with Chief Executive Officer Doug Croxall and Chief Financial Officer Frank Knuettel II on Thursday, March 30, 2017 at 4:30 PM ET/1:30 PM PT. To participate in the conference call, investors from the U.S. and Canada should dial (877) 407-0792 ten minutes prior to the scheduled start time. International calls should dial (201) 689-8263.

In addition, the call will be broadcast live over the Internet and can be accessed through the Investor Relations section of the Company's website at www.marathonpg.com. The broadcast will be archived online upon completion of the conference call. A telephonic replay of the conference call will also be available until 11:59 p.m. ET on Thursday, April 13, 2017 by dialing (844) 512-2921 in the U.S. and Canada and (412) 317-6671 internationally and entering the pin number: 13658360.

Yeah that is how I see it, too.

Either something newsworthy has slipped out (where there's smoke there is fire)... Or this stock has been hammered simply because it can be.

I've been in enough patent stocks and small/micro cap plays to know either is possible. Seen it both ways. So while the strong possibility exists that (A) something is not right here -- and we should learn about it soon if that is the case, there's also a decent chance (B) this is a great trade both short & long term.

Like the rest of us, I have no crystal ball and can only make educated guesses. I think if we get through the upcoming reporting cycle without an explanation of what has been happening to the share price, the (B) scenario becomes the much more logical perspective.

Agree. If there is news I haven't seen/read it. If nothing of substance is made public by tomorrow I will be a buyer over the next few days.

I realize it could be trying to catch a falling knife, however it could be the buying opportunity of the year. Time will tell, but if there is no reason for this massive bloodshed other than negative sentiment and traders piling on -- then I like the risk/return gamble MARA presents.

From Hydro_gen:

"The price action is remarkably similar

Qualcomm in Yellow IDCC is Gray"

Earnings: http://ir.marathonpg.com/press-releases/detail/1121

Marathon Patent Group Announces First Quarter Financial Results
May 12, 2016

Conference Call Scheduled Today at 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time

LOS ANGELES, CA -- (Marketwired) -- 05/12/16 -- Marathon Patent Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MARA) ("Marathon" or "Company"), a patent licensing and commercialization company, today announced its first quarter operating results for the quarter ended March 31, 2016 in its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Operating Results for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2016 and Subsequent Events

As of May 10, 2016, we had approximately $26.5 million of cash, court deposits and accounts receivable, including $25.0 million of cash, $1.4 million of court deposits in the process of being returned to the Company, and $0.1 million of accounts receivable. As of March 31, 2016, we had $3.0 million of cash, court deposits and accounts receivable, including $1.4 million of cash, $1.4 million of court deposits (which will be returned as set forth above) and $0.2 million of accounts receivable.

We generated total revenue of $2.1 million and $4.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and March 31, 2015, respectively.

As of May 10, 2016, our year-to-date revenues have exceeded $35 million, compared to full year 2015 revenues of $19 million. Further, based on our current knowledge, we anticipate revenue for the three months ended June 30, 2016 to be between $33 and $36 million, with operating profit in excess of $12 million (excluding any one-time charges).

For the three months ended March 31, 2016, not including cost of revenues, our non-GAAP cash-based operating expenses were approximately $1.4 million, compared to approximately $2.0 million of cash-based operating expenses incurred during the three months ended March 31, 2015. The reduction in non-GAAP cash-based operating expenses reflects our continuing effort to limit costs.

Net operating loss was approximately $4.9 million (including non-cash expenses) for the three months ended March 31, 2016 compared to $6.3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015. Non-GAAP non-cash operating expenses, which primarily relate to share based compensation and amortization and impairment of patents were $3.0 million and $4.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and March 31, 2015, respectively. Excluding non-cash items, the non-GAAP loss was $2.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016 and $2.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2015.

With 14,967,141 shares outstanding, on a per share basis, our GAAP total net loss was $0.26 per basic and diluted share for the three months ended March 31, 2016, compared to a net loss of $0.34 per basic and diluted share for the three months ended March 31, 2015.

On a per share basis, our Non-GAAP total net loss was $0.16 per basic and diluted share for the three months ended March 31, 2016, compared to a net loss of $0.19 per basic and diluted share for the three months ended March 31, 2015.

Doug Croxall, Chief Executive Officer of Marathon, stated, "When we released our 2015 year end results at the end of March, I indicated that we believed we were well positioned for 2016, believing it would be a very different year for our Company. I'm pleased to announce that as of today, our year-to-date 2016 revenues are in the approximate $35 million range, rapidly approaching almost double our entire 2015 fiscal year end results, leading to a substantial strengthening of our balance sheet."

Croxall continued, "While we have made considerable progress as of late due to numerous sizeable successful licensing agreements, we still continue to maintain a full calendar of potential revenue events during the balance of 2016 and into 2017. We are keenly aware of the importance of replenishing our asset base. While we still possess the ability to add additional defendants in existing portfolios, we have been in active discussions to further bolster our IP asset base."

I'm not a moderator. I can't delete posts or remove sticky posts.

Marathon Patent Group and Uniloc Terminate Proposed Business Combination

http://ir.marathonpg.com/news/detail/1108

February 23, 2016

LOS ANGELES, CA and LUXEMBOURG CITY -- (Marketwired) -- 02/23/16 -- Marathon Patent Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: MARA) ("Marathon"), and Uniloc Luxembourg SA, announced today that they have terminated their proposed business combination.

"We have enormous respect for Uniloc, its management and its intellectual property" said Doug Croxall, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Marathon. "Uniloc and Marathon share a common vision of data-driven success in patent licensing. While the timing might not have worked at this juncture, we will remain in contact with Uniloc and its executive team about future possibilities."

Neither Marathon nor Uniloc is entitled to a breakup or termination fee.

that's incorrect

Apple did not "lose joinder status".

In January, PTAB already granted Apple's request to join Mangrove's IPR. Yesterday, VHC asked PTAB to change that decision.

VHC has requested it. That's all. PTAB is not likely to change its own recent decision, and even if they do, they aren't going to make the decision change on the same day VHC asks for it. They will need time to review and deliberate.

See yesterday's Law360.com article on the topic (pasted below for convenience)

-----------------------------------------------------

Apple Can't Jump Into VirnetX Patent Reviews, PTAB Told
By Jenna Ebersole

Law360, Washington (February 9, 2016, 7:53 PM ET) -- VirnetX asked the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to rethink letting Apple join a hedge fund's challenge of two patents the tech giant has repeatedly attacked, saying Monday that the serial challenges and a statutory time limit bar the move.

VirnetX Inc. said PTAB wrongly concluded that Apple Inc. can be part of The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd.’s challenge of VirnetX's network security patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,490,151 and 6,502,135. The board had granted the joinder in January, according to Monday's filings for a rehearing.

Congress intended to bar petitions filed more than a year after the petitioner is sued for infringement and to block repeated challenges, and the fact that the petition was associated with a joinder request does not change that, VirnetX said.

“When Congress established the inter partes review process, it had a clear concern that patent owners would be subjected to serial attacks,” VirnetX said in both filings seeking rehearing. “It is no mistake that Sections 315(b) and 325(d) appear in the statute; both provide tools to alleviate the concern for harassment. The proper and consistent application of these provisions is necessary.”

The company requested a rehearing with an expanded panel that includes the chief judge, saying previous panels have closely split on how the time limit applies to a petition accompanied by a joinder request.

“Given that the board’s willingness to join a time-barred party has been viewed as ultra vires (i.e., beyond the board’s legal authority) by at least some judges, this is an issue of tremendous importance,” the company said.

Representatives from Apple and VirnetX did not immediately respond to a request for comment late Tuesday.

The dispute comes after the board agreed to allow an intellectual property company, Black Swamp IP LLC, to join the challenge of the ‘151 patent last week. VirnetX had argued the challenge was overly burdensome and would require extra response time, but the panel said the company did not prove that would be the case.

That decision came a day after a blockbuster win for VirnetX involving the ‘151 patent and three others. A Texas federal jury hit Apple with a $625.6 million verdict on Feb. 3, concluding features of the tech giant's iPhone operating system infringed four patents held by the network security firm and awarding royalties based on a previous patent infringement finding.

In a unanimous decision following a weeklong trial, the Eastern District of Texas jury found the FaceTime and iMessage features of Apple’s latest operating systems for its iPhones, iPads and desktop computers infringed VirnetX's U.S. Patent Nos. 7,418,504 and 7,921,211. Meanwhile, Apple’s virtual private network on demand function continued to infringe VirnetX’s '135 and '151 patents, despite changes Apple had made after losing a 2012 patent trial to VirnetX tied to an earlier VPN on demand feature, according to the verdict.

As for the inter partes reviews, PTAB had approved Mangrove's request in October, rejecting VirnetX's argument that the hedge fund's petitions should be denied as an improper attempt to manipulate the tech firm's stock price.

The PTAB found Mangrove, run by 37-year-old Nathaniel August, showed there was a "reasonable likelihood" that VirnetX's patents were invalid as obvious or anticipated. The board instituted inter partes reviews, despite previously rejecting multiple petitions by Apple and Microsoft Corp. challenging the same patents.

In January, VirnetX told PTAB that the ‘135 and ‘151 patents were under “serial attack,” as they have been the subject of more than 20 combined challenges, nearly a dozen of which came from Apple.

VirnetX is represented by Joseph E. Palys and Naveen Modi of Paul Hastings LLP.

Apple is represented by Jeffrey P. Kushan of Sidley Austin LLP.

The cases are The Mangrove Partners Master Fund Ltd. et al. v. VirnetX Inc., case numbers IPR2015-01046 and IPR2015-01047, both before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

depending on how the judge rules and what happens between now and then, it's possible

lots of moving parts associated with this case, both directly and indirectly

should provide lots of trading opportunities

actually, there is still a lot left to be done at district court before Apple appeals to the Federal Circuit

there are outstanding motions the judge needs to rule on, and it should take some time for him to issue a final judgement and deal with the issue of willful infringement

so I wouldn't be expecting Apple's appeal until after that is sorted out and published by the judge in Tyler, Texas

No time, actually. Just typed it out in 30 seconds.

1) the patents have historically held up in courts and the previous appeals, as this was just the latest in a number of court cases for VHC that have gone the distance (Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, etc.)... in no jury verdict or court judgment/opinion have the core VHC patents been found invalid... but the concern now for VHC in regards to patent validity is the PTAB. The PTAB just recently granted inter partes review and granted the joinder of Black Swamp IP LLC to the Mangrove hedge fund's petition for IPR.

2) CAFC would only receive an en banc request after a 3 man CAFC panel has disposed of the case first. En banc requests are rare to be granted. There's no guarantee anyone is going to even ask for an en banc re-hearing, especially since there has been no hearing that even needs to be re-heard. Personally, I think it's a losing game to handicap the CAFC at any level. They have in my opinion been very unpredictable as policies and agendas change from one session to the next.

3) SCOTUS would hear the case if they thought the CAFC messed up in a big way. And since it's not even back to the CAFC yet, we would be getting way ahead of ourselves to analyze that. The Supremes grating certiorari is even more rare than CAFC granting en banc review.

The key issue in Apple's appeal is going to be the damages model used by VHC. The final verdict was a huge number. That's what CAFC is going to be looking at. The question is will it hold up or will CAFC remand again? I think the valuation model used at trial hits all the check marks based on CAFC's written opinion on remand. And also because this new trial included multiple infringement levels of intersection (VPN, Facetime, iMessage) -- which makes the complicated task of apportionment much more advanced than other cases tried before. But the CAFC does what it wants, so time will tell.

my intent was to squash the misinformation in regards to several who have written Apple can't appeal this $625,633,841.01 jury verdict

this is eventually headed to appeal at CAFC -- unless a settlement is reached before then, which seems unlikely based on the history of the parties

A request for a rehearing en banc would only come after...

1) the case has left District Court, i.e. the judge files a final judgement

2) one or more party files an appeal with the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit disposes of the matter (e.g., a CAFC panel issues an opinion, etc.)

Currently the case is still at the final stages in Tyler, Texas. In other words, there will be no request for a rehearing for the entire bench (which is what the latin term en banc means) of the Federal Circuit, until the matter reaches CAFC and then is reviewed by CAFC.

Since CAFC remanded the first trial back to DC, it's a good bet a 3 judge panel is going to look at it again and issue a written opinion on the revised damages in the case. The Federal Circuit is always unpredictable and extremely difficult to forecast. But this is still a little ways off, and the next news item to move the stock one way or the other should come from East TX.

it's pretty simple really:

This trial, even though originally remanded by the Federal Circuit (CAFC), presents an entirely new body of applied law which can be (and will be) once again appealed to Federal Circuit. CAFC hears all appeals in patent cases. Additionally, this case has new elements that never existed before (were not part of the remand decision). Clearly, the entire trial (original elements remanded by CAFC, and new infringement verdict not part of the original remanded case) is under the Federal Circuit's jurisdiction to determine if the law was applied correctly.

CAFC has many times in the past remanded a patent case back to district court and then petitioned by one (or more) parties to review the case again. In fact, CAFC has remanded the same case back to district court multiple times. The wheel will keep spinning until it doesn't.

SCOTUS only comes into play in a civil patent case if one of the parties is not happy with a lower court's decisions. That means a final decision by CAFC to not review a case (or re-review a case after a petition for rehearing en banc) At this stage, those parties would file a petition for certiorari - which is asking the Supreme Court to review the case. But they would never file such a writ directly after a district court decision without first appealing that district court judge and then the Federal Circuit first. There's no leap frogging the judicial system.

Anyone invested in the patent sector (which, in recent years, is effectively the "patent litigation" sector) who doesn't understand the basics of the civil judicial system should consider other market niches. Because this is basic.

my3sons87,

Here is the filing, both in PDF format and .jpg image format:

NY Southern District Case No. 116-cv-00910 - Doc 1 (PDF File, 7 pages)

NY Southern District Case No. 116-cv-00910 - Doc 1 (JPEG File, 1.5 MB)

InterDigital Wants Arbitration Award Against LG Confirmed
By Y. Peter Kang

Law360, Los Angeles (February 5, 2016, 9:00 PM ET) -- Wireless communications technology developer InterDigital Inc. asked a New York federal judge Friday to confirm an award issued by an international arbitration tribunal in December against South Korean electronics giant LG Electronics Inc. in a patent licensing dispute.

The Pennsylvania-based company told the court that the American Arbitration Association's International Centre for Dispute Resolution had ruled against LG on Dec. 29 and awarded a final, binding arbitration award to InterDigital following a series of hearings that took place in July and October. The award amount was not discussed in court papers.

“The arbitral tribunal considered opening statements, written witness submissions, accompanying exhibits, live fact and expert testimony, hundreds of pages of briefing, and post-hearing arguments,” InterDigital’s seven-page petition states. “The parties were afforded due process and given every opportunity to fully present their cases.”

The dispute stems from a 2006 patent licensing agreement forged between the companies, in which LG agreed to pay InterDigital $258 million for the rights to unspecified wireless patents, according to court documents.

InterDigital said that under the Federal Arbitration Act, the district court should confirm the award as it has complied with the terms of the New York Convention.

“The sole grounds for refusal or deferral of recognition or enforcement of an award … include failure of the party against whom the award is invoked to receive notice of the arbitration proceedings and other fundamental defects in the process itself,” the petition states. “None of those grounds is present in this case.”

The company said LG cannot meet its “heavy burden” in establishing that the award should not be confirmed.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.

On Tuesday, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shot down LG’s bid to get a second crack under the America Invents Act at invalidating a claim that is part of a multimedia system display patent owned by a subsidiary of chipmaker Advanced Micro Devices Inc.

InterDigital is represented by Lucy Yen, David S. Steuer, Michael B. Levin and Matthew R. Reed of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati PC.

Counsel information for LG was not immediately available.

The case is InterDigital Communications Inc. et al. v. LG Electronics Inc., case number 1:16-cv-00910, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

--Additional reporting by Kevin Penton. Editing by Aaron Pelc.

of course a patent defendant can appeal (and almost certainly will) after a remanded trial has left them with an unfavorable verdict/judgement

in the specific case you mention, the recent trial involved issues that were not even part of the original trial (and subsequent CAFC remand) because it was partially combined with new patent infringement claims not even brought up before that trial was docketed years ago

secondly, even if a new/remanded trial only involved a prior judgment that was remanded, it could still be appealed because there are a slew of new matters where the law may or may not have been applied correctly at trial

happens every quarter, dividend reinvestment

all accessible online:

http://ir.interdigital.com/sec.cfm

Hard to analyze any "reaction" because there is nothing "new" in the news. With the exception of the judge scheduling the trial at yesterday's conference.

The other info is old. The PR references the court's ruling that was made on January 6th. And was publicly available on PACER on January 20th, over a week ago.

Also, the damages info was available from the court reporter in July of last year. A long, long time ago.

The market can be ignorant and naive, but today's abysmally low volume supports the notion that this wasn't tradable news -- because the bulk of it wasn't new at all.

Yes, true. But the Georgia-Pacific hypothetical negotiation alternative in this case is based on a starting point of both plaintiff and defendant acknowledging that $429 million number - as indicated in the transcript.

And of course there is going to be a nice discount to the licensee in this approach for a number of reasons. For example, the negotiation always takes place (theoretically) at the time infringement begins. Not years later after the defendant has been able to, deliberately or otherwise, evade paying patent royalties. Which denies the patent owner years of deserved revenue. There's always a value added over time.

And obviously, patent owners are willing to accept a lesser royalty rate in a mutually agreeable negotiation rather than having to go deep into litigation.

I think MARA only needs to win a fraction of its expert's damage calculation to come out with a major victory.

You're welcome.

Just to clarify, it's not a link directly to PACER, as one needs their own individual account with login/password to access.

I downloaded the document and uploaded it to Bill D.'s server so the board here could access it.

my3sons87,

Here it is:

U.S. District Court CAND case: 5:15-cv-02584-LHK - InterDigital Technology Corporation et al v. Pegatron Corporation - Doc 78 filed 01-20-16 (PDF file, 18 pages)

this is my favorite part of the transcript:

$429 million, to be precise

(per the transcript)

Apple Can't Shake Patent Suit Over Siri
By Vin Gurrieri

Law360, New York (January 7, 2016, 8:46 PM ET) -- A New York magistrate judge has nixed Apple’s bid for a ruling that its Siri program didn’t infringe a patent covering speech recognition technology used to process commands, a ruling that moves a Texas-based licensee's infringement case one step closer to trial.

Although the reasoning behind Magistrate Judge David E. Peebles’s ruling was sealed, a docket entry shows the judge rejected Apple’s bid to win summary judgment that it didn’t infringe Dynamic Advances LLC's U.S. Patent 7,177,798.

Additionally, the judge issued a host of other rulings as part of the sealed order: Dynamic lost a request for judgment that Apple infringed certain asserted claims of the ‘798 patent, and both sides lost various requests to exclude certain expert reports and witnesses.

Marathon Patent Group Inc., a patent licensing company that owns co-plaintiff Dynamic Advances, issued a statement Thursday calling the court's order on the parties' dispositive motions “a major milestone in the case.”

“As a result of the court's order denying Apple's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and denying Apple's motion to exclude the damages opinions of Dynamic Advances' expert witness, the company is preparing for the opportunity later this year to have a jury hear the case,” Marathon’s statement said.

The parties have until Jan. 15 to confer and notify the court as to which portions of Judge Peebles’ order should be redacted from a version that will be made publicly available.

Dynamic along with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute initially filed the suit in 2012, claiming Apple’s Siri personal assistant application for iPhone, iPad and iPod infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,177,798, which covers speech recognition technology used to process commands.

The ‘798 patent was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in February 2007 and assigned to the Rensselaer, which later granted Dynamic an exclusive license, according to court documents.

Dynamic Advances claims Apple shipped, distributed, sold and advertised products that incorporated patented technology covering the process of speaking commands into a device and receiving corresponding information.

“Apple’s Siri personal assistant, available for select iPhones, iPads, and iPods, includes technology claimed in the [Dynamic] patent,” the complaint said. “Apple is thus liable for infringement.”

Siri — introduced in October 2011 in Apple's iPhone 4S — is a voice-to-text intelligent personal assistant program that allows iPad and iPhone users to set reminders, send texts, check the weather and perform other tasks using voice commands.

In seeking a ruling of noninfringement, Apple had argued in a partially redacted April motion that the ‘798 patent is describes a specific way to use natural language to interface with a so-called enterprise database, but that Siri is not an interface to an enterprise database.

“Siri’s vocabulary spans millions and millions of words, something the ’798 patent seeks to avoid and cannot handle,” Apple had argued in its motion. “Because Siri is not an interface to any particular database, Siri’s natural language processing does not use a metadata database with information about the database to be queried as all the claims of the ’798 patent require.”

Counsel for Apple was not immediately available for comment late Thursday.

Dynamic is represented by James R. Muldoon and Steven P. Nonkes of Harris Beach PLLC. Rensselaer is represented by Nicholas Mesiti of Heslin Rothenberg Farley & Mesiti. Both parties are jointly represented by Paul J. Skiermont, Donald E. Tiller, Alexander E. Gasser and Shellie Stephens of Skiermont Derby LLP.

Apple is represented by Carolyn Chang, J. David Hadden, Hector Ribera, Jeffrey A. Ware and William A. Moseley, Jr., of Fenwick & West LLP, as well as Mitchell J. Katz of Menter Rudin & Trivelpiece PC.

The case is Dynamic Advances LLC v. Apple Inc., case number 1:12-cv-01579, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

--Additional reporting by Aaron Vehling. Editing by Patricia K. Cole.

Thanks for the update EMI. Quite a reaction in MARA stock price.

Personally, I think Bungie is a real party-in-interest and that the IPRs should not be instituted, as per the law.

However, what I think or what any individual thinks doesn't matter. Sadly, we have seen that the PTAB has a mind of its own so it's really not possible to predict how this will play out.

This is going to take some time to resolve so I wouldn't be expecting any resolution in the short term.

thank you for confirming this

I wouldn't say they could be "wrong" as much they could be incomplete, or worded carefully.

At this point, after watching the stock trading negative 3 days in a row, although bouncing today (perhaps oversold, perhaps the DirecTV filing, perhaps a combo of both) I think it seems prudent to accept the ZTE deal at face value.

Moreso now that a number of well followed individuals have confirmed communication with the company to this effect.

Like always, the story can change on a dime. We just have to wait on the facts. Not try to make them up, or "hope" that the facts will come out to our liking at a later date.

thank you for the update, would be nice to see VRNG get a decent settlement here

thank you for proving the point

nobody here knows for sure why VRNG hasn't issued a PR, but those who follow the sector are not surprised -- Settlements are often not-disclosed via PRs as per the restrictive provisions of the agreement

If you have followed this sector even with the slightest of effort, you would notice settlement and licensing deals that are disclosed weekly (via SEC filings and court dismissals) that never come with an official company PR. Just look at ACTG or MARA this past year alone.

It is indeed common sense. Non-disclosure is a massive part of negotiating a settlement. happens all the time. it actually is now considered routine.

my guess is it most likely is due to the non-disclosure agreement that accompanies the settlement

very common to see zero PRs from patent owners after settlements due to confidentiality agreements

often, not releasing a PR is good for both parties as they don't have to discuss certain aspects of the deal, nor will they be questioned on why they omitted details from the PR - because there are no PRs for anyone to pick apart

Why would I be laughing? I nailed it... again.

One time payment from ZTE for a lifetime license. Done deal.

Bring on the next infringer.

Years of posting here, years of getting it right. I follow the facts, and the facts don't pick a side. They just are.