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.
Anybody think we will see an 8-K today?
FWIW, my guess is that there is a significant amount of agreement between the parties on the technical aspects of infringement, but they are still at an impasse regarding the economic aspects (i.e., any damages, prospective royalty rate, etc.).
sjratty: Can you provide a brief explanation of the term 'with prejudice' and 'without prejudice.'
Thanks for your comments.
sjratty: Do you read anything into the fact that Lucent has agreed not to seed to recover any legal fees?
Check your e-mail.....Thanks, sjratty
Nothing new on PACER this morning. Will be checking throughout the day.
Thanks, olddog
olddog. Good morning. Any idea why InterDigital is not a member of the China Communications Standards Association?
http://www.cwts.org/english/list.php
George. Yes. IMO, the reason InterDigital has spent 2 years of litigation and umpteem millions of dollars in legal fees on the Tantivy v Lucent suit is because a royalty rate with Lucent for 3G infrastructure will serve as a trigger under the 1999 Nokia Patent License Agreement.
If we win, the idea is that, whatever rate Lucent will pay us for infrastructure, Nokia will have to pay the same rate.
One of our analysts has estimated that the rate for infrastructure may be about 1% of covered sales.
IMHO, the Lucent lawsuit, if we win, may bring InterDigital in the neighborhood of $35 million.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=8006937
From Thompson Scientific:
Click to see three articles from the Financial Times that use analysis from Thomson Scientific to highlight the market insights available from patent intelligence.
What made the mobile phone the phenomenon it is today:
http://scientific.thomson.com/media/pdfs/gr002.pdf
This might explain why the JPO is taking so long (maybe);
http://scientific.thomson.com/media/pdfs/gr001xinnovations.pdf
http://scientific.thomson.com/media/pdfs/ino12_.pdf
InterDigital mentioned re: HSDPA
http://www.epn-online.com/page/22916/truly-mobile-broadband--hsdpa-is-setting-the-pace-hsdpa-is-an-e...
Truly Mobile Broadband: HSDPA is setting the pace
Julien Happich
If you look on the mobility side, broadband Internet is only accessible in limited hot spots covered by WiFi nodes (IEEE 802.11a or 802.11g standards with a theoretical raw data rate of 54Mbps over about 100 meters). WiMax, the IEEE 802.16 standard aiming at 70Mbps data rates over distances up to 50km, requires a brand new wireless infrastructure before it can deliver on its promises. In the much shorter term, the 14Mbps downlink of HSDPA (High-Speed Downlink Packet Access) can be readily implemented using existing UMTS base stations. That compares with the 384kbps rates offered to mobile users today. What's more, only a software upgrade is necessary to run HSDPA from the current cell infrastructure, while mobile phone manufacturers are gearing up to make their products HSDPA-capable - with hopes for an explosive market acceptance by 2008. Let's have a look at how this technology affects 3G-handset design and how the semiconductor industry is responding.
HSDPA is an evolution...
HSDPA is an evolution of the wideband code division multiple access technology (WCDMA Release 99) and has been standardised in the 3GPP WCDMA Release 5 specifications. The higher data rates are achieved through a new high-speed downlink shared channel (HS-DSCH) exploited by several end users, and rely on the rapid adaptation of transmission parameters to the instantaneous channel conditions. Key differences with Release 99 specifications include the use of shorter transmit time intervals (TTI of 2ms instead of 500ms), adaptive modulation and coding (AMC), and fast retransmission based on hybrid automatic repeat request (HARQ) techniques. These mechanisms are located within the UMTS base transceiver stations (BTS or Node B); and data scheduling which is transmitted through the HSDPA shared control channel (HS-SCCH) is implemented by Node B rather than by the radio network controller (RNC). This drastically reduces round-trip delays in case of errors and data retransmission.
No more power control
A high-speed dedicated physical control channel (HS-DPCCH) carries the acknowledgment (ACK/NACK) message from the mobile handset to Node B, that indicates whether the corresponding downlink transmission was successfully decoded. The HS-DPCCH also carries a channel-quality indicator (CQI) sent out at predefined intervals (see Figure 1).
Link adaptation is based on the CQI, which also includes information about the user terminal characteristics. For this purpose, the handset capabilities are standardised in terms of category (12 categories supporting 0.9, 1.2, 1.8, 3.6, 7.3, 10.2 or 14.4Mbps) which depends on the number of channelisation codes, the minimum inter-TTI interval and the support of the 16-QAM modulation in addition to quadrature phase shift keying (QPSK). There is no more power control with HSDPA: the HS-DSCH is transmitted at a constant power while the modulation, the coding and the number of codes are changed up to every 2ms to adapt to the varying radio conditions. On the other end, the HSDPA mobile monitors up to four HS-SCCHs, according to its class, to know when it should receive data. Hence, the radio network resources are truly shared between several users who can be time-multiplexed so that during silent periods in one channel, the resources are available to other users (see Figure 2). This real-time link adaptation guarantees each user the best available bandwidth matching his handset category and the QoS defined in his mobile-service subscription.
Testing HSDPA
Telecoms carriers and operators are already testing HSDPA solutions in the field, and the first compliant handheld products are expected for 2006 and 2007, most likely data-cards enabling 1.8Mbps of peak data rate (Category 12) and 3.6Mbps of peak data rate (Category 6). In August, Nokia announced an agreement with T-Mobile in Germany, to deliver its HSDPA solution as a software upgrade to the WCDMA network, initially offering data speeds up to 1 or 2Mbps. Earlier, Lucent Technologies tested its HSDPA solution with Japanese ADSL service provider eAccess, and the two companies are planning field trials in commercial and residential areas of Tokyo. Ericsson demonstrated 9Mbps data downloads, and streaming applications over the air.
On the simulation side, Anritsu was one of the first test instrumentation vendors to supports HSDPA at 14Mbps. Its base station simulator MD8480C tests WCDMA, GSM, GPRS and wireless and protocol layers of mobile phone HSDPA channels (Figure 3) in all 12 categories.
Aeroflex submitted an HSDPA conformance test case for approval to the 3GPP RAN5 Working Group. This marks the formal commencement of the verification procedure for HSDPA test cases, an industry-wide and open-review process designed to highlight any problems prior to formal certification. The conformance test case checks the ability of a WCDMA handset to support Release 5 HSPDA functionality, including inter-system handover to GPRS (2.5G) networks. The test runs on the existing Aeroflex 6401 AIME/CT ISHO test system.
Tektronix added an HSDPA testing capability to its battery-powered NetTek wireless RF field tester. The software option enables network providers to diagnose HSDPA Node-B transmitter problems. Added capabilities include demodulation measurements such as code domain power, pilot and sync power, scrambling code and EVM. On-screen notification is provided when 16QAM is detected and the corresponding channels are represented in a colour-coded foformat.
Agilent Technologies also added HSDPA testing capability to its E1963A WCDMA mobile test application. Option 403 for frequency division duplex (FDD) and radio bearer (RB) test mode offers support for the latest HSDPA manufacturing and device verification (Figure 4).
Rohde & Schwarz is following the trend by providing the majority of the validated 3G protocol test cases for HSDPA in accordance with the 3GPP TS 34.123 specification. The company offers six validated test cases for the FDD V frequency band and more than nine validated test cases for the FDD II frequency band. The new protocol test cases run on the protocol tester R&S CRTU-W, as software options R&S CRTU-WA02 and R&S CRTU-WC51.
Handset requirements
While implementing HSDPA at the base station only requires software upgrade (with proprietary scheduling algorithms being mostly the only differentiator among telecoms carriers), from a mobile terminal perspective, the higher data rates call for increased processing power and faster data throughputs. This translates into HSDPA co-processors and new data bus architectures.
In the first quarter of this year, Qualcomm was announcing the Mobile Station Modem (MSM) chipset and system software solution for WCDMA (UMTS)/HSDPA and GSM/GPRS/EDGE (EGPRS). The MSM6260 multimedia platform chipset supports peak data rates of 3.6Mbps. Samples are expected before the end of 2005.
InterDigital Communications demonstrated products for UMTS FDD HSDPA and adaptive interference management (AIM), whereby streaming video was transmitted to an HSDPA-enabled PC card and software was dynamically adapting the radio link on changing channel conditions. The solution is designed to integrate with existing FDD physical layer chips. InterDigital's coprocessor architecture supports peak data rates up to 14Mbps. The ASIC (Figure 5) will scale to all HSDPA data rates and is upgradeable to 3GPP Release 6 HSUPA (high-speed uplink packet access). Philips Semiconductor announced it will be integrating InterDigital's solution into its family of Nexperia cellular system solutions.
Measuring 51x30x4.5mm, the MC8755 and the MC8765 PCI Express mini card modules from Sierra Wireless are aimed at embedded applications and laptops. The cards are built using the commercially available MSM6275 mobile station modem chipset from Qualcomm and offer peak download speeds of 1.8Mbps. The MC8765 utilises the 850/1900MHz HSDPA UMTS frequency bands, while the MC8755 operates on the 2100MHz frequency band and is aimed at Europe and Asia. The modules illustrated in Figure 6 are also compatible with EDGE and GSM/GPRS networks on all four GSM frequency bands.
Icera has licensed TTPCom's ReRelease 5 multimode wireless protocol stack, which supports EDGE, WCDMA and HSDPA standards for mobile terminals. The company will be integrating its baseband processor technology with TTPCom's multimode protocol stack (Figure 7) to deliver an advanced modem platform for 3G terminals. Capable of delivering 3.6Mbps data throughput to cellular users, the flexible chips will be running entirely in software.
Xilinx has produced three HSDPA reference design solutions; an HS-DSCH co-processing engine, an HS-SCCH symbol rate processor, and a complete HSDPA solution, with both chip-rate and symbol-rate processing of both downlink channels being performed inside an FPGA. The latter can also form the basis of processing required for future developments such as HSUPA in 3GPP Release 6 and Release 7.
Freescale's i.300-30 and i.300-33 convergence platforms are expected to support data rates of 3.6Mbps (Category 6). By combining the i.300 platform and its Mobile Extreme Convergence (MXC) platform, the company aims at reducing component count without sacrificing speed or power. The i.300 platform is a dual-mode EDGE Class 12 capable, tri-band WCDMA/HSDPA, quadband GSM 3G platform, optimised for open operating systems.
HSDPA's first roll out is expected by mid 2006, with advanced data capabilities supported in 2007. By providing truly mobile broadband data access to end users, HSDPA may eventually blend the boundary between their fixed broadband access and their mobile services.
mschere: I believe the Kyocera revenue is included in Ron's numbers as part of the company's revenue guidance. I think Ron is expecting to recognize about $12.5 million in Kyocera revenue.
Dave
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=7667138
Jim, re: our investment.
Hang in there, Jim. There seems to be quite a bit of buzz about a settlement with Lucent this week.
I, for one, am encouraged about the Tantivy filings, even though they are sealed. I like the fact that Lucent's filings seem to refute the idea of 'willful' infringement, which I infer means they did in fact infringe.
Also, there have been a lot of unopposed motions, etc. that make me think that there is more of a cooperative and business-only relationship between the parties; unlike the relationship with Nokia.
I think both parties have an interest in keeping all their trade secrets out of public view. My guess is that the parties are probably having settlement discussions this weekend, and that their discussions will narrow down to a few issues, one of which will likely include the royalty rate. I expect that they will need help from the judge in resolving the remaining few issues, and that will likely occur in the pre-trial conference on Tuesday.
Dave
Hey, Leon. How's the mayor?
IMHO, for anyone planning on showing up in the Texas courthouse at 1:00 pm for the pre-trial conference, it might be a good idea to bring a book to read while they wait.
Just a thought.
Oso (or Ghors): At the New York hearing, I assume that the judge will have already read all the briefs, and be up to speed on the issue at hand.
In your opinion (or that of your dinner partner's), at the hearing, will the judge:
(a)passively listen to each side re-hash their respective arguement, and listen for anything new that has not been included in the briefs, or listen for something of which he has not yet considered, or,
(b) actively engage the attornies in an attempt to analyze the issues, and perhaps explore new angles on the issues.
Thanks, mschere:
This seems to answer my question:
4IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OFNEW JERSEYCAMDEN VICINAGEHONORABLE ____________________(Plaintiffs)::Civil No. ____________v.::(Indicate Jury or Non-Jury)(Defendants):JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL ORDERThe following shall constitute the Final Pretrial Order pursuant to Rule 16, Federal Rulesof Civil Procedure. This Final Pretrial Order shall govern the conduct of the trial of this case. Amendments to this Order will be allowed only in exceptional circumstances to prevent manifestinjustice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e). Counsel are urged to move to amend in a timely fashion anyportion of the Order that must be changed or modified between the filing of the Order and thetrial date.APPEARANCES:PART I.JURISDICTION and BRIEFSUMMARY OF THE CASE:Counsel shall specifically set forth the jurisdictional basis of this action as well asa brief summaryof the claims and defenses.PART II.STIPULATED FACTS:Stipulated facts shall be set forth in numbered paragraphs.
Ghors: One more thing on the Joint Final Pre-trial Order.
In the context of the title of this filing, does the word 'Order' mean:
(a) a command or directive for someone to do something,
or,
(b) the proposed sequence of activities in the trial. I.e., 'first we are going to look at this, then this, etc....
Floridian: No change on oral hearing date in arb confirmation. Hearing is set for December 2nd at 2:30 p. m.
I'm guessing we will have a 'New York' cabal in attendance.
Ghors: Any idea what this 'Joint Final Pre-trial Order' is?
What is the relevance of the word 'Joint' in the title?
Is it:
(a) A document that the parties jointly prepared.
(b) An order prepared by the judge which applies jointly to the parties.
(c) A document prepared by someone who was smoking something.
(d) None of the above.
http://wirelessledger.com/200_Joint_Final_Pre-trial_Order.pdf
Data, Does this mean that Tantivy had a non-assertion agreement with Qualcomm, where Qualcomm agreed to not assert that Tantivy's IPR infringed on Qualcomm's IPR?
Am I reading this correctly?
Also, I can't find the defined term 'Acquisition Proposal' anywhere else in the Tantivy purchase agreement other than in the Definitions section. Any idea of the relevance of all this?
Data: Searched all my Tantivy stuff for the relevant words e.g., Roberson, system, assets, etc.). I don't think I have this letter, and I don't recall seeing it.
I don't know who Roberson might be.
So., please accept this next suggestion in the sincere and constructive spirit in which I offer it, but....
perhaps mschere can shed some light on this.....
More questions. Although their respective 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' documents would likely contradict each other, would they be 'harmonized' (i.e., would Fact #1 on Tantivy's document correspond to Fact #1 on Lucent's document, etc.?
Also, is it reasonable to assume that these documents might serve as the basis of settlement negotiations?
Given all the sealed documents in this case, how likely is it that these would not be filed under seal (not likely, in my estimation).
Thanks, Ghors.
IMO, a win/settlement in Lucent case means about $0.70 revenue per share
Here's why.
1)Lucent seems to have about 42% - 46% of the CDMA2000 infrastructure market.
http://www.umtsworld.com/industry/infrastructure.htm#cdma
http://www.byteandswitch.com/insider/document.asp?doc_id=60843&site=unstrung
2)This site seems to indicate that total CDMA infrastructure spending is about $8 billion per year.
http://www.delloro.com/news/2004/Mob051704.shtml
3)Lucent's mobility revenues for the third quarter of fiscal 2005 were $1.17 billion. However, I believe this includes other than CDMA infrastructure.
http://www.lucent.com/press/0705/050719.coa.html
Based on #1 and #2 above, my guess is that Lucent's CDMA infrastructure revenues are on the order of magnitude of $3.5 billion per year.
I seem to recall one of our analysts stating that infrastructure royalty rates ranged from 1 - 3%.
If Tantivy/InterDigital can extract a royalty rate of 1%, then the amount at stake in the Tantivy v. Lucent lawsuit might be on the order of magnitude of $35 million per year.
$35 million equates to about $0.70 in revenue per share, much of which will fall to the bottom line.
Dave
Ghors: How was the dentist?
I recommended IDCC to my dentist about 5 years ago, and I'm afraid to go back.
Also, did you hear from the court about whether the trial will be open to the public?
Dave
Question for Board Attornies:
1. What is a 'Joint Final Pre-trial Order?'
2. What is a 'Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law?'
3. How, if at all, would these documents play into a settlement agreement?
http://wirelessledger.com/190-1_Agreed_Motion.pdf
Coolest Communication Devices Of The Future
Some perspective outside the daily ups and downs:
http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/20/future-communications-gadgets-cx_gd_1024feat_comm05_ls.html
Coolest Communication Devices Of The Future
Some perspective outside the daily ups and downs:
http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/20/future-communications-gadgets-cx_gd_1024feat_comm05_ls.html
Triple damages for willful infringement.
Desert, the part that caught my attention on this was the triple damages for willful infringement.
Alviso, Calif.-based TiVo is seeking lost royalties and triple damages on the charge that Englewood, Colo.-based EchoStar willfully stole its technology.
At what point does the infringement we are suffering from all the unlicenced OEMs become 'wilfull'?
Perhaps this is why the Delaware case is so important.
Data, mschere: You guys might as well be 'IM'ing each other. Have you considered setting up your own board? lol.
I am going to send JK an e-mail and see if he is available to help, if needed on the UK stuff.
Olddog: This is very interesting to me.
I assume that InterDigital has sent notification letters to all the wireless OEMs that are now infringing on our IPR. Does this treble damages notion mean that if those OEMs do not sign a license with us, and we have to sue them for infringement, that they risk paying treble damages?
If it's the case, it seems rather huge to me.
I don't recall this ever having been discussed.
I called the Delaware court about a month or so ago. Of course they would not tell me anything. She would not tell me where they were in the que, or whether the delay was requested by the parties. She did say that the judge can have up to 600 cases before him. She did indicate that there was a que, and that we were on it. I have also heard that the judge has a reputation for slowness.
I think its just a case of the wheels of justice moving at a slow grind.
Regarding Tantivy, I was encouraged to see the use of the term 'non-willful infringement.' Makes me think there was infringement. It just was not 'on purpose,' as if it matters.
Is it still raining back there?
Ghors,
I think that JK gets into London from time to time. I think laranger has been in contact with the court over there (e.g., the woman Sam Stevens).
It would be nice if we could get some of the filings from that case. It's supposed to start within 15 days of October 31.
Maybe laranger can arrange to have some documnents left at 'will call' for JK.
In the Lucent trial; How do you know the trial will be open to the public, given all the sealed documents, etc.?
Leon,
Just checked Pacer. Nothing since what Jim posted today. I've been checking that dang Delaware court every day since June, and nothing. It's frustrating
I wish JK were around so we could get some of the filings from the UK case.
Regarding the Tantivy case; my guess is that, you are right, we will see a bunch of filings up until the trial starts. I don't know whether stuff will get filed during the trial. I kind of doubt it.
However, I assume we will get info from the notetaker-attendees from the Texas cabal.
Unless, of course, we get some kind of PACER files that says, "Case Dismissed: Parties Settle," or something like that.
Olddog: Patent Map
Here's something that may be related to the Korean 'Patent Map':
See the first session of trac 1
http://boraenc.com/mobilephone/mpc2005/english/08-review/review.html
Spoke to Janet re: the Korean Times article. She said that, if they had signed deals with Nokia and Samsung, the comnpany would be obligated to disclose that information.
She could not comment on any negotiations they may or may not be having with any company.
Even using all my charm, that is all I could get out of her.
Oh, well. Back to waiting.
Dave
I am encouraged by the title text from document #176.
It seems to imply that Lucent has damaged Tantivy and wants to limit those damages.
Also seems to imply that there was infringement, just not 'willful' infringement.