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.
They are using the media to sway opinion and possibly a juror.
It is further held that there is no evidence of patent hold-up, that there is evidence of reverse hold-up, and that public interest does not preclude issuance of an exclusion order.
Can you send me a link I went to the site but could not find the transcript?
No love between MSFT and Nok.eom
I suggest looking at it from a different perspective. At this juncture IDCC is of great value to MSFT but in an slightly different model. The cash on hand reduces the cost of the acquisition. An acquisition of IDCC if the ITC results is positive for IDCC would give MSFT considerable leverage over renegotiating with NOKIA licensing fees. The past money owed by Nok could be a big offset towards MSFT's obligations and commitments to Nok, To boot the cross licensing potential with Samsung and Apple would give a boost to the bottom line cellular product profits. Another key area of value is wrapped up in the M2M and video compression patents that MSFT would most certainly look to accelerate deployment thus unlocking additional value. Last but not least the engineering teams value is like wrapping the present in a nice package. I believe the only question left is if MSFT waits for the decision or take a cue from Samsung and strike before the decision. Samsung has jump the gun once by perceiving they were behind the eight ball only to find out Nok had one of those BWW refs that sent the game into overtime.
RIMM was one of the announcements.eom
NOK is asking the ITC to thumb it's nose at the CAFC, they go on to explain we have paid off everyone we can to keep little ole IDCC as a pawn in the wireless game even though the company has been a founding entity in wireless and continue to this day to innovate.
In the Commissions orders for the remand to the ALJ, and subsequently the ALJs direction to Nokia and IDCC there is no mention of a trial.
The Commission’s action is important for several reasons. Foremost, it confirms the validity of the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents in light of the evidence and arguments presented by Nokia in the 337-TA-613 investigation. Additionally, the Commission’s determination that 3GPP WCDMA PRACH preambles satisfy the “code”/“signal” limitation of the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents, and that the transmission of the PRACH preambles meet the claim limitation “increased power level” in the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents, both based on the Federal Circuit’s revised claim constructions, demonstrates the scope and vitality of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents, particularly as these patents apply to 3G WCDMA capable devices.
On February 12, 2014, the Commission issued a notice, order and opinion remanding the investigation to an ALJ. In doing so, the Commission determined certain issues and identified others that would be subject to further proceedings by the ALJ. For example, with respect to domestic industry, the Commission acknowledged the Federal Circuit’s affirmance of InterDigital’s domestic industry and declined Nokia’s invitation to revisit the issue on remand. With respect to validity, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s determination that the Lucas reference does not anticipate or render obvious the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents. The Commission further affirmed the ALJ’s determination that the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ’847 patents are not rendered obvious by the IS-95 references combined with the CODIT reference. The Commission construed the claim limitation “synchronize” in the asserted claims of the ‘847 patent to mean “establishing a timing reference with the pilot signal transmitted by a base station,” as InterDigital had originally proposed to the ALJ.
With respect to infringement, the Commission determined that the PRACH preamble used in the accused Nokia handsets satisfies the “code”/“signal” limitation of the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents under the Federal Circuit’s revised claim construction. The Commission also determined that the transmission of the PRACH preambles meet the claim limitation “increased power level” in the asserted claims of the ‘966 and ‘847 patents based on the Federal Circuit’s revised claim construction. The Commission further determined that Nokia waived any argument that the PRACH preamble and message signals in the accused Nokia handsets are never transmitted. The Commission separately found that the accused handsets do not satisfy the “synchronized to a pilot signal” limitation under the doctrine of equivalents.
Sounds like infringement, what's next
License deal in China?
Maybe will hear more about this next week in English?
Beijing IDC's core 3G authorized by the U.S.
www.educity.cn Author: Greek Competition Network Source: Greek Competition Network February 15, 2014 article comments
Yesterday, the Beijing-core semiconductor company with American InterDigital Corporation (IDC) signed 3G technology transfer and licensing agreement, whereby the master core Beijing IDC provides 3G core technologies to accelerate the development process of 3G and 4G chip technology. This collaboration is part of Beijing and strategic move to build industrial base in Silicon Valley, the mobile phone industry chain. The first product developed by Beijing core samples will be released in June and July of this year, production is expected in the next year.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http://www.educity.cn/shenghuo/868452.html&p
rev=/search?q=Interdigital&biw=1920&bih=995&tbs=qdr:h
Thanks for the breakout by case.eom
Strong message. I know the 613 and 868 ITC case has patent commonality but can you tell me if there is any commonality between 868 and 800, or even with 613?
It is going the distance!
More than what you would have received from IDCC's Investor Relations Department.
How many total seat on the ITC commission and how many total have recused themselves?
J.K. Shin, CEO of Samsung, in an interview with the Wall Street Journal’s Friday, March 15, 2013 print addition: “Samsung Targets Apple’s Home Turf” indicated a top priority for acquisitions is firms like IDCC. I'm glad to see that he values IP. Maybe Samsung will resign with IDCC soon, or buy them... More
Trying to give you a call but your number no longer shows up in my messages.eom
Small fish, WS wants to see the big boys signed.eom
I agree with OD and I disagree with the middle of percentile comment. There are a host of other companies Motorola, Apple, Goog, NTT, ZTE, Huawei, Alcatel Lucnet, Wi-LAN, Nec, and many others that IDCC clearly out ranks in LTE. Additionally this is just one of many analysis concerning LTE. Also keep in mind IDCC doesn't have the big marketing machine and dollars that I am sure is used to meet certain agenda.
Interdigital ranks 5 for essential patents, 6 for patent novelty, and 3 for Advanced carrier aggregation. It is very evident that IDCC has a place at the big table for LTE, however I am somewhat baffled by the claims of other bigs stating rates of 2% to 3% for LTE while IDCC hasn't stated its rate but only mentions it will provide a modest bump in rates.
I am sure someone wanted the LTE assets and I would imagine at this point in time they could get the LTE assets and the whole company for what they are willing to pony up just for the LTE assets and if needed maybe add in few 100M more. IMHO 3.5B right about now would sell the whole company minus the non essential personnel.
Underlining IMO definitely, however per JP IDCC not involved with the deployment by SK.
Last time I checked it was at the company's website. When I get home tonight I will look it up.
Is it coincidence that IDCC field tested an integrated heterogeneous network for SK a few years back and if memory serves me correctly SK went fully operational after trials. IMHO it is IDCC leading the effort or at the least IDCC tech behind the solution.
Officially Monday is the holiday, however as a seasoned civil
servant most federal employees will take today off.
I agree with you Jimlur and I will go as for as calling the ITC shown to be a joke with its financially and politically motivated decisions. Just shows that whether it is an administrative court or a court of law the manipulation is rampant. Very few cases see results befitting the offense and the ones that do is just to keep civilization in tack and give the public the illusion of law an order. Just my opinion and for what it is worth I believe the administrative judge that rule in our case retired on the quick and hurry either because of the blatant mistakes he has made in his recent rulings, or you can fill in the blank with other hypothesis.
IDCC revenues would be severely hampered if it took them
2 years to negotiate a sell of the company without the benefit of new
License or renewal and based on market info it is counter productive for them to license while negotiating a potential sale.
Nonsense, you can't make a rational or logical business move based on an unknown timeframe for resolution.
I wonder did the BoD have more pressing news.eom
I'll bite! What you have in mind.
Simplistic and from a vary narrow perspective true but oh the other possibilities that come into play.
No Deal, No Bonuses, No stock awards.eom
After Hours
Time (ET) After Hours
Price After Hours
Share Volume 19:05 $ 42.52 100 18:22 $ 43.80 100 18:22 $ 43.80 100 17:32 $ 42.53 910 17:29 $ 42.53 3,478 17:22 $ 42.75 100 16:25 $ 42.53 17,901 16:15 $ 42.51 200 16:05 $ 42.409 300
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/idcc/after-hours#ixzz1f38QJEd6
Has there ever been such smack talked against one company repeatedly with skeptical at best info? It is almost as if there is an all out strategy since day 1 to break the pps and business plan of IDCC. In the 14 years I have been invested in the market I have never seened such a bull dog approach against anyone company for the length of time IDCC has been attacked. Many of traders have made a lifetime living off the trading of IDCC.
Who wrote the piece?
NASADQ site updated (Paulson 3M shares)eom
You are right some patent family's are worth the price of gold, some worth silver, many or worth 0 based on current standards, however all lthat can change in the span of 4 to 5 years, and that is why it is hard to determine the value of patent family's and even to a greater degree individual patents. IMho for that very reason a company may first take a broad look and if they like first impression they will go over the portfolio with a fine tooth comb, but in the end whether they assigned individual value to a group of patents or average cost across the entire portfolio you as an outsider may never know!
You are right some patent family's are worth the price of gold, some worth silver, many or worth 0 based on current standards, however all lthat can change in the span of 4 to 5 years, and that is why it is hard to determine the value of patent family's and even to a greater degree individual patents. IMho for that very reason a company may first take a broad look and if they like first impression they will go over the portfolio with a fine tooth comb, but in the end whether they assigned individual value to a group of patents or average cost across the entire portfolio you as an outsider may never know!