is... buying more shares
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.
Respondent ZTE Corporation, ZTE (USA) Inc., Nokia Inc., and Microsoft Mobile Oy's Response to Complainants' Petition for Review of Final Initial Determination and Summary Thereof
Public Version of Summary - Respondent's Response to IDC's Petition (PDF file, 11 pages)
Public Version of Respondent's Response to IDC's Petition (PDF file, 83 pages)
Doc Title: Office of Unfair Import Investigation's Response to Petitions for Review of Initial Determination on Violation and Summary of Same
OUII Response to Petitions for Review - Summary (PDF file, 12 pages)
OUII Response to Petitions for Review (PDF file, 69 pages)
Here it is:
Doc Title: Complainants' Rule 210.50(a)(4) Submission on the Public Interest (PDF file, 9 pages)
October 3, 2012 is the date the original lawsuit was filed.
Yesterday -- July 16, 2014 -- was the filing date of the joint motion.
You need to read more carefully.
October 3, 2012
A joint motion for a status conference was filed for by DSS/FB/LNKD.
Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Regarding Substitution of Respondents
Notice of Commission Determination Not to Review an Initial Determination Regarding Substitution of Respondents (PDF file)
here is a direct link for those not wanting to submit their personal info:
http://pages.lexmachina.com/rs/lexmachina/images/LexMachina-2013 Patent Litigation Year in Review.pdf
Here is the public version of IDCC's appeal:
Complainant InterDigital's Petition for Review of the Final Initial Determination (PDF file, 58 pages)
Inv Title: Certain Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components Thereof; Inv. No. 337-TA-868
Received: 07/11/2014 04:15 PM
Filed by: Bert C. Reiser
Firm/Org: Latham & Watkins LLP
On Behalf of: InterDigital Communications, Inc., InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc. and InterDigital Holdings, Inc.
There are infinitely better ways to generate investor interest and encourage institutional awareness. Posting an article that contains incorrect analysis, that steals other people's work without assigning them credit, and generally spreads misinformation about the investment is not beneficial.
One of the biggest issues with VRNG since its merger with IPE has been the general lack of understanding by investors. This type of promotional piece does far more harm than it does good. IMHO
There is a simple reason that the images in the article display a 3.5% royalty rate for GOOG infringement, doesn't mention the ADT/TYCO settlements, and uses a calculation that emplys a 7% discount rate:
It's not the author's work. He stole the information from lake Street Capital Market's initiation coverage analyst report and doesn't even give them credit, despite the source tag in each image. And that report was published on March 13, 2013.
The author almost certainly doesn't even have access to the full report. Hhe just borrowed the images I photoshopped last year to share with the community. The yellow highlighting and blue borders were my edits to the material. Take a look at my post #29373 on 3-23-2013 and compare the images to those used in the article.
bottomline: it's a worthless blog article from someone who doesn't understand the investment.
Cmon, nfp. The article mentions a possible injunction against Google. LOL!!!!!!
That alone should discredit the entire piece.
I hope the author appreciated using my images.
Also, I find it funny he mentions two of the "lesser" analysts (Dawson James, Maxim) while using Lake Street Capital's numbers (the images I cropped from the actual report)...
...yet no mention of Argento or Lake Street, even though the images clearly show they are from Lake Street. Not to mention the Lake Street report was dated March 13, 2013 which was a long time ago considering that the GOOG litigation has progressed significantly since then and the numbers are now completely dated.
Comedy.
Even though DSS only has a small minority stake in Virtual Agility, I find it amusing that the stock is trading up currently.
The market really struggles assigning value to early stage IP monetization companies.
Yes. The Federal Circuit (CAFC) has reversed the stay order in the VirtualAgility vs CRM case. Judge Newman, as always, dissented with strong language. Basically it means more delays for the VA case.
A good read, but a bad precedential opinion for patent owners as it strengthens the CBM program created by the AIA and provides another hurdle for patent enforcement entities.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1232.Opinion.7-8-2014.1.PDF
SD of NY issues Temporary Restraining Order against ZTE
http://wirelessledger.com/14-cv-04988_Doc_13.pdf
Dalton is the name of the judge from the District Court of Florida who ruled Qualcomm did not infringe on PRKR's patents.
Who is Dalton?
He also has a nasty habit of making predictions that don't even come close. As well as flip-flopping and reversing his positions/recommendations from one week to the next on specific stocks.
Of all the professional patent attorneys I have met or followed, he is the only one who tries to repeatedly "guess" at litigation and how it will resolve. Which is odd, considering patent litigation is inherently unpredictable.
Looks like this played out as expected.
Owning shares should not blind you to the facts. That's called confirmation bias and it can lead to financial distress.
We just have to be cognizant that many (as in MOST) of these heated disputes eventually get settled. They all appear stalled. They all appear to have ceased "ongoing communications". They all appear to have crossed that invisible line in the sand where it looks like no party will ever come back to the negotiation table.
Yet, eventually most of these costly multi-jurisdictional cases do get settled.
Which means nobody can read the leaves because there's no way to guess when and how there will be a resolution. So it's a waste of time for retail investors with no experience analyzing mobile telecom disputes to try and "guess" what's going on behind closed doors. It helps nobody.
All settlement talks between parties in any dispute are "stalled" when there isn't an agreement.
There's either a settlement or there isn't. IMHO, it's pointless to grade the progress of any discussions. Until there is a settlement, there is no settlement. It's really that simple.
By the way, I find it somewhat amusing that ZTE is using IDCC and its licenses as bellwether benchmarks for "fair" mobile licensing rates when ZTE is still evading IDCC's patents!
The IDCC/ZTE litigation has been going on for nearly three years as lawsuits are still pending in various venues (e.g., the USITC, Delaware District Court, etc.).
Classic.
It's misleading. IDCC's deal with Apple is an outlier. First, it was signed in 2007 and was a fixed fee contract (not a per-unit license). At the time (2007) it was hard to expect the entire amount of sales volumes Apple was able to grow year after year between then and 2014. And when you reverse engineer a per phone royalty from that 2007 flat fee (per qtr) you get skewed results.
Second, IDCC also got compensated from Apple products from various ODMs (contract manufacturers) and chip designs. So for example, Infineon paid IDCC per iPhone for using certain protocol stacks in their chips that were inside iPhones. And Pegatron also has a license with IDCC, whereby IDCC makes significantly more from that license than it does with the Apple license.
But in general, ZTE is arguing something I have been saying from the start. The published rates in the now infamous VRNG term sheet are not market rates and investors should never be expecting those kind of rates. They are starting point for VRNG to begin negotiations.
But it's hard to negotiate with a patent evader like ZTE who published confidential documents and breaks NDAs.
Breach of contract was when ZTE took Vringo's confidential settlement offer and submitted it in its entirey to the People's Court in China along with the anti-monopoly complaint.
Clear breach of the NDA signed by ZTE and Vringo.
My law school days r well behind me, but isn't there only a contract when an offer is accepted? So my question is where is the breach of contract?
For those who can't open ZIP files, here are the docs individually:
http://wirelessledger.com/2014cv04988/2-main.pdf
http://wirelessledger.com/2014cv04988/2-1.pdf
http://wirelessledger.com/2014cv04988/2-2.pdf
http://wirelessledger.com/2014cv04988/2-3.pdf
http://wirelessledger.com/2014cv04988/2-4.pdf
http://wirelessledger.com/2014cv04988/2-5.pdf
VRNG sues ZTE for breach of contract (violating NDA of settlement offer presented to ZTE in December).
All the documents for the complaint in one Zip file:
http://wirelessledger.com/oh_snap.zip
Public responses to the Commission's request for written submissions in ITC Investigation 337-TA-868:
Innovation Alliance's Response
U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey, Jr.'s Response
From IP Hawk on Twitter:
VRNG updates the CAFC with the reexamination certificate http://www.scribd.com/doc/233053509/CAFC-13-1307-Document-105
You are probably right!
Might be time for a sticky on the subject.
Why is it so hard to believe? They are required to do so.
Under the RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT -INCORPORATED TERMS AND CONDITIONS for VRNG, it reads:
8. Tax Liability of the Participant and Payment of Taxes... the Participant agrees that if under applicable law the Participant will owe taxes at each vesting date on the portion of the Award then vested the Company shall be entitled to immediate payment from the Participant of the amount of any tax required to be withheld by the Company. Any taxes or other amounts required to be withheld by the Company by applicable law or regulation shall be paid, at the option of the Company as follows:
(a) through reducing the number of shares of Common Stock entitled to be issued to the Participant on the applicable vesting date in an amount equal to the statutory minimum of the Participant’s total tax and other withholding obligations due and payable by the Company...
(b) requiring the Participant to deposit with the Company an amount of cash equal to the amount determined by the Company to be required to be withheld with respect to the statutory minimum amount of the Participant’s total tax and other withholding obligations due and payable by the Company or otherwise withholding from the Participant’s paycheck an amount equal to such amounts due and payable by the Company...
So they either have to sell off enough in their plans to cover the tax liability or come up with cash to cover the taxes. Pretty much a no-brainer that they will sell an appropriate number of holdings to pay taxes on the total number of holdings being received.
Hasn't this been covered a dozen times now?
InterDigital’s User-Aware Video Solutions
Someone sent this to JimLur to share with the board.
This came out in April as the file was created by IDCC on April 1, 2014. I believe Revlis posted something on his board back in May, but there was no working download link. So here it is.
Download PDF: http://wirelessledger.com/User-Aware_Video_Solutions-3.pdf
Lot's of nonsense and make-believe mixed up in that blog post.
Companies can't just agree to stay a CAFC case at their whimsy. LOL ! besides, it is ridiculous to suggest some rumor that can be easily shot down by looking at the docket.
Then to lump in ZTE and Google together and say GOOG is paying for some of the damages... that's pure fiction written by someone who doesn't have a clue.
"...could be worth an addition 7 billion dollars over the life of the patents to Vringo"
If I didn't know where this material came from, I would have assumed it was from yahoo message board.
Overall very sad commentary. Even sadder is that people "like" this kind of writing because it makes them "feel better".
You are exactly right. IDCC did not have injunctions. They were trying to secure one via the USITC but the initial determination/s was/were not favorable. (The U.S. ITC has become a weak venue for NPEs as it takes a long time and is seemingly unwilling to issue injunctions for NPEs... not to mention seems to be inept at evaluating technology patents and is fond of kicking the can down the road for other courts to deal with disputes.) IMHO, IDCC's leverage vs. Huawei had more to do with their strong patent portfolio (size & scope) than it was with their legal enforcement activities.
VRNG having injunctions in hand gives them super strong leverage. How long ZTE can hold out before settlign with VRNG is unknown, but the pressure has been building for quite awhile now.
Forgive my mistakes in the timeline. Typing too fast, I accidentally substituted ZTE for Huawei a couple of times.
Arper,
The actions ZTE is taking are not unique to this dispute with VRNG. Huawei pretty much did the same thing in its recent dispute against IDCC.
This is how the Chinese OEMs are fighting to gain leverage and/or avoid paying (the maximum). ZTE has multiple goals. It is trying to delay payment. It is trying to minimize payment. It is trying to send the message to other patent owners (and small NPEs, in particular) it will not roll over.
<< would you be willing to infer that, given the actions of VRNG and ZTE, seemingly ZTE has conceded that the patents are valid, as they have already been upheld in various countries and injunctions are in place, but that the price deemed FRAND by VRNG and ZTE is where there is obviously a dispute? How else could ZTE file an antitrust suit, unless it is an acknowledgement that the patents are valid? >>
ZTE will most likely never take a public/official position that it is infringing VRNG's patents. Even if and when it takes a convenience license with VRNG it will not be an admission that it is using VRNG's patents. It is commonly understood a convenience license provides the licensee an official denial of infringement while simultaneously denying the patent owner any rights to tear down the licensee's products. So it is not an admission of infringement, it's a convenient way to resolve the dispute. Since most convenience licenses expire before the patents do, it would not be smart for any licensee to ever admit to infringement/usage of specific intellectual property in its agreements. Because the license will need to be renewed at some point.
I think deep down the whole world (including ZTE) knows VRNG's patents are valid because they come from Nokia, one of the leading mobile telecom R&D houses of the last few decades. Filing patent challenges and antitrust complaints are just some of the ways ZTE can slow down the train and (at worst) obtain a bit of leverage in negotiating with VRNG.
If you have followed the IDCC/Huawei dispute, you will see that is playing out very similar to the ZTE/VRNG dispute. A brief (and certainly not all-inclusive) timeline of events in that dispute:
1) July 26, 2011: IDCC filed a lawsuit against in Huawei, ZTE, and Nokia in Delaware District Court. At the same time, they filed parallel complaints with the U.S. ITC against the same parties.
2) May 24, 2012: Huawei filed a European Commission antitrust complaint against IDCC.
3) In December 2011: Huawei accused InterDigital in Chinese court that it was unlawfully bundling patents together and using excessive pricing in violation of Chinese competition law. ZTE also accused IDCC of not fulfilling its FRAND-based obligations.
4) February 4, 2013: ZTE's complaint was ruled on by the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court. the court said a FRANDly royalty would be a maximum of 0.019% per product. That's the equivalent of a royalty of two cents ($0.02 US Dollars) for a $100 phone!!!!! Additionally, the Court fined IDCC HK$25.4 million (or about $3.25 million US Dollars).
5) October 31, 2013: China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) began investigating IDCC for violating Chinese anti-monopoly law. IDCC execs said it would not be attending Chinese antitrust hearings due to fear of being arrested in China.
6) December 23, 2013: IDCC and Huawei settled by agreeing to enter binding arbitration. This closed all the open cases (ITC, district court, China, EU, etc.)
So it took about 2.5 years. Both companies fought tooth and nail all the way til the end, using local politics and spending millions of dollars. IMHO, Huawei and IDCC both eventually got what they wanted. Which was:
IDCC - they wanted to license Huawei's mobile products globally, and they are certainly going to get a rate much higher than the paltry 0.019% proposed by the Chinese court.
Huawei - they wanted to only license certain patents that intersected IDCC's patent portfolio, and not bundle the entire portfolio together. They also got to delay payment for 2.5 years, and send a message to the world that they are not a pushover when it NPEs assert patent infringement rights.
So back to ZTE/VRNG...
Anyone who thinks this case is unique is ignorant. This crap has been happening for decades as there have been hundreds and hundreds of mobile patent disputes. And all sides use every weapon at their disposal, including antitrust complaints, lawsuits around the world in multiple jurisdictions, etc.
Just because both sides are still fighting as hard as they can doesn't mean they won't settle, or don't plan on settling, or that settlement negotiations are not progressing. That's the silly kind of rookie mistake retail investors make. They see everything in black & white and think that Action "A" proves Theory "B". It doesn't work that way. These disputes are advanced, strategic, and nobody knows all of the details of what is really happening.
In the high stakes world of multi-million dollar patent litigation: the litigation arm keeps punching even if the licensing arm is progressing with settlement negotiations. The global legal firms VRNG has partnered with are doing the jobs they are being paid to do. Nobody calls for recess halfway through because this isn't an elementary school fight. The fighting continues until it stops. And it doesn't stop until the deal is signed, sealed, and delivered.
I think ZTE is a bit crazy going this far in the face of multiple injunctions already granted (and probably more that will be granted by other jurisdictions in the future). But it's their fight and their business and they obviously have decided it's too early to say "chicken".
Part of the above is just IMHO, but most of it is just reality.
Nobody knows what ZTE's inclinations are. They will act & behave defiantly up until the moment of any potential settlement.
The aggressive defense doesn't stop until the matter is resolved. Same story with the plaintiff (VRNG). They will keep the pressure on all the way until the end, even if they are willing to settle at any moment.
There are no tea leaves to read. Trying to guess what each company is thinking is a fruitless endeavor. There is no end to the litigation until it's over, whether by settlement or by a multitude of court decisions around the world over the course of many many years.
We won't know how this ends until it ends. Period.
The wheels of justice turn slowly.
I don't know if the Bascom attorneys have to file anything because the case(s) were stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l.
So it makes sense the court needs some time to evaluate the decision and address the stay. Like you, I expected a filing from DSS on this, but since nothing has yet hit PACER it would seem the procedure is to wait for Judge Illston to make the next move.
Worth a read:
Alice, the Illusory Death of Software Patents
"...the intent and the scope of the Court’s decision is clear. The Justices were looking for a way to invalidate Alice’s patents without ruling that software is per se ineligible. They did not accept that Alice’s patents were complex, inherently computer-implemented methods. Instead, they accepted CLS’s framing of the Alice patents—that these were not really software patents at all, since a real software patent describes how to configure a computer to do something, not merely saying use a computer to do something..."
In context of DSS and the Bascom patents, the SCOTUS ruling does nothing to hurt DSS' position.
I follow most every patent monetization company in the sector. As most DSS investors/followers obviously know, when it comes to patent litigation -- NPEs and other small-to-medium sized technology patent owners exist in a world much different from big pharma and giant mega corporations.
This year alone (and we aren't even halfway through 2014) I lost count of how many settlements there have been in this niche of the market.
IDCC licensed Samsung.
ACTG has dozens of licensing/settlement agreements.
MARA has dozens of licensing/settlement agreements thiss year, including 27 the second quarter alone.
TSRA settled with Renesas as well as PTI.
COPY settled with Logitech.
VRNG settled with Tyco.
These are just the ones off the top of my head. If I wanted to waste my time I could dig up dozens more, but since we all know there are many, many, many settlements in this sector -- many of them very favorable to NPEs -- it would just be an exercise in spinning my wheels.
No thanks.
<< ...Will take your word for it. Though I wasn't aware VRNG was actually in any of the Russell indexes? >>
Vringo is in the Russell 2000: http://www.russell.com/documents/indexes/membership/membership-russell-2000.pdf
Also was added in 2012 to the Microcap index:
Vringo Added to Russell Microcap Index
June 25, 2012 08:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120625005922/en/Vringo-Added-Russell-Microcap-Index
NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The Russell Global Index added Vringo, Inc. (NYSE MKT: VRNG) to the Russell Microcap Index® after the equity markets closed on June 22, as part of Russell's reconstitution of its global indexes.
Clifford J. Weinstein, Executive Vice President of Vringo commented, "We are pleased to be integrated into the Russell Indexes. This accomplishment is an important milestone in the continued execution of our corporate strategy. We believe our inclusion in the Russell Index will expand Vringo's visibility to a broader range of institutional investors. We look forward to closing our proposed merger with Innovate/Protect, Inc., and continuing to execute on our core strengths in innovation, licensing and protection."
Investment managers and institutional investors use the Russell indexes as benchmarks for both passive and active investment strategies. Membership in the Russell Microcap Index remains in place for one year. Annual reconstitution of the Russell Indexes captures the 4,000 largest U.S. stocks as of the end of May, ranking them by total market capitalization to create the Russell 3000 Index and Russell Microcap Index.
It's been stated a dozen times, but here it is once more:
If an AH trade does not end with just two digits after the decimal (i.e. $17.24 or $100.99)...
-OR-
an AH trade is not a round lot number of shares (i.e. 100 shares or 345,900 shares)...
It is not a retail trade occurring on the AH trading platform. It is a print from some other trade at some other time, such as an algo print from the regular session or a VWAP or a large computer batch trade.
Take a look at today's VRNG trades AH and look at the size and prices of the highlighted items. This isn't rocket science. There is no news. There is nothing that has changed with VRNG to warrant million+ AH sessions. It's index rebalancing.
And yes, even large algo trade or VWAPs can end in only 2 digits after the decimal (instead of 4). Might be a coincidence, or just the price that was settled.