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.
You don't seem to understand. This is not VRNG specific.
It is happening to hundreds of different stocks as this is the week of Russell rebalancing after the reconstitution of various indicies.
There is nothing earth shattering happening with VRNG related to these trades no matter how much you want to believe. It happens every year with many stocks. It is happening right now with many stocks. Go take a look around at other stocks and it will become beyond obvious.
Also, welcome to iHub and congrats on your first post here.
Nope. It's just index rebalancing. Most of these reported trades are 4 places to the right of the decimal, meaning they aren't retail AH trades.
These are VWAPs, swaps, and other trades that are being printed AH but were negotiated long before.
From DSS' filing opposing the MSJ:
"DSS Is Seeking Lost Profits Damages, Not 'Reasonable Royalty' Damages"
http://wirelessledger.com/DSS_opposition_MSJ.pdf
Until I can see what the potential "lost profits" in this case are, it's hard to believe it is a massive opportunity as others have assumed it was. I would love to be wrong, but need the testimony of the expert witness to support the notions.
As for the stock price drop, I have no idea if it is related to this case, the Bascom case(s), or something else. As EMI24 just posted, "The markets are simply not rational in the IP space."
No, it has already been determined. The Alice case didn't kill software patents.
That doesn't mean DSS is going to win. That doesn't mean the Bascom patents will be confirmed by Judge Illston. That doesn't mean Bascom will receive a favorable Markman opinion.
It just means that SCOTUS' ruling did not kill the Bascom patents and software patents in general. It's a factual statement.
Disagreeing with facts is illogical, even on a penny stock board.
Just like I said.
___________________________________________________________
USPTO Preliminary Examination Instructions for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility in view of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/interim_alice_guidance.jsp
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf
It depends on the amount.
VRNG paid NOK $22 million upfront for the patents. VRNG agreed to pay NOK 35% of all future revenues after the initial $22 million is recovered.
We don't know how much VRNG has already recovered from ADT/Tyco, but it's probably not much. So depending on the terms of any potential ZTE settlement (i.e. one-time payment for past usage, fixed fee royalty vs per-unit royalty, etc.) we can determine how much NOK will receive on the back-end and when.
Once $22 million has been recovered from all licensing/settlements related to the NOK patent portfolio, Nokia begins to receive payments of 35%. Until then, NOK gets nothing.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1121.Opinion.6-18-2014.1.PDF
Federal Circuit affirms Dist. Court ruling of summary judgement, affirms determination of invalidity for the '691 patent, and so on and so forth...
Everyone has an opinion. Even those who don't really understand intellectual property.
Here's an opinion published in USA Today:
"Defenders of software patents breathed easier once the narrow ruling was released. "This decision is a victory for innovation," said Victoria Espinel, CEO of The Software Alliance. "The opinion makes clear that real software inventions are patentable under U.S. law."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/06/19/supreme-court-computer-patent/9190199/
1) the link has never changed: www.diversifiedip.com
2) the Bascom patents are novel, not obvious, and completely inventive of brand NEW technology that never existed before
3) they were invented by Thomas Bascom for WorldCom and Homeland security to take clustered, distributed data and make contextual relationships out of it
4) from the paper: "The USPTO, after reviewing prior art concluded that Mr. Bascom’s invention of methods and systems for the creation, storage and access of link relationships with attributes between document objects stored on a network were ideas that were novel, useful, and not obvious."
As I posted hours earlier: the SCOTUS decision does not limit or pose an invalidation threat to Bascom/DSS inventions
I agree. Impact to IDCC should be negligible to zero... although might affect the wording of newer filings, in particular those that are less about wireless protocol and more about networking/OS/etc.
IMHO, the ones that will be hurt most by the SCOTUS decision are those big companies (Google, Amazon, etc.) that were supporting CLS Bank Int'l and writing amicus curiae briefs saying that the Court should affirm the CAFC decision.
Well they got what they wanted and SCOTUS affirmed. And that decision might royally screw them.
FYI, SCOTUS' Alice decision has been published.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf
From the decision: "...the relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer...."
So for DSS, I believe the patents are much more advanced and the inventions are not limited to an abstract idea that can simply be implemented via computer. The patents are specific to computer objects and the linking/connecting of such objects. These concepts do not exist in the non-computer world. As such, the SCOTUS decision does not limit or pose an invalidation threat to Bascom/DSS inventions.
But still waiting for a market reaction.
I am not sure how the market is going to react to this. I trust these guys' analysis:
"So the Supreme Court leaves room for software patents, just not those that take an abstract idea and provide for a computer to implement it."
by tgoldstein 7:16 AM
"In Alice, the Court doesn't go much beyond saying that elaborating (some) on what is an abstract idea and saying that you can't get a patent for implementing that on a computer. When an invention is not abstract, and when it is sufficient to use a computer, are left for another day. So the case is more of a stepping stone than pathbreaking."
by tgoldstein 7:23 AM
Comments from live.scotusblog.com
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf
there's the opinion
It looks like SCOTUS allows software patents as long as it is not an abstract idea being patented for a computer to implement it
Opinions begin being released in 30 minutes. You might want to check out scotusblog: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_19_2014
Markman Hearing for CLGL vs. GOOG scheduled for April 21, 2015.
United States District Court Middle District of Florida Jacksonville Division
Case # 3:14-cv-00274-TJC-JRK
Here are the transcripts from March 12:
U.S. District Court - For the District of Delaware
Case 1:13-cv-00009-RGA
Doc 225: Transcript of Markman Hearing 3-12-2014 (PDF file, 169 pages)
Doc 226: Transcript of Discovery Dispute 3-12-2014 (PDF file, 24 pages)
la-idcc-fan,
Which petition exactly are you looking for? Nokia's motion in March for recall/rehearing that was denied from CAFC case #2010-1093 ?
Cases filed before March 2012 are on an older system that only has downloads available for certain items (official caption, entry of appearance, certificate of interest, etc.). Newer cases filed March 2012 or later are all available for download, except those documents that are marked confidential.
_____________________________
Case Details
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS V ITC
2010-1093
The following documents, filed after 8/13/07, are available for download:
official caption, entry of appearance, certificate of interest.
No other case documents are available electronically.
Date History
--- .
7/13/2010 Appellant Principal Brief Filing Date
1/26/2011 Appellee or Cross Appellant Principal Brief Filing Date
8/30/2010 Appellant Reply Brief Filing Date
/ / Cross Appellant Reply Brief Filing Date
9/7/2010 Appendix Filing Date
1/13/2011 Oral Argument Date / Calendared
8/1/2012 Disposition: Reversed and Remanded ; by Panel
1/17/2013 Mandated on
>> Please Note: The briefs above are only the most current. <<
MOTIONS AND OTHER ENTRIES
>> Please Note: Motions are listed first. Entries are listed last.<<
3/27/2013 MOTION: Entry 84 :by Intervenors - Motion of Intervenors Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corporation to Recall the Mandate and File Renewed Petition for Panel Rehearing in Light of En Banc Rehearing SERVICE : by Not on 3/27/2013
ACTION: Entry 85 :The motion is denied. Filed: 3/28/2013
10/1/2012 MOTION: Entry 74 :by Other - Motion of Hewlett-Packard Co., Amazon.com, Inc., Chrysler Group LLC, Dell Inc., Ford Motor Company, and Red Hat, Inc. for Leave to File a Brief as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners SERVICE : by Mail on 10/1/2012
ACTION: Entry 75 :The motion is granted. The amici curiae brief is accepted for filing. Filed: 10/4/2012
10/28/2010 MOTION: Entry 56 :by Intervenors - Intervenors Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corporation's Motion to Postpone oral Argument SERVICE : by Mail on 10/28/2010
. REPLY 1: 10/29/2010 , Entry # 57
ACTION: Entry 59 :Granted. Filed: 11/2/2010
7/16/2010 MOTION: Entry 47 :by Appellants - Unopposed motion for an extension of time, of 30 days, within which to file reply brief. SERVICE : by Mail on 7/15/2010
ACTION: Entry 48 :Granted. Reply brief is due on or before 8/30/10. Filed: 7/16/2010
5/11/2010 MOTION: Entry 43 :by Intervenors - Unopposed motion for an extension of time, of 13 days, within which to file brief. SERVICE : by Mail on 5/11/2010
ACTION: Entry 44 :Granted. Brief is due on or before 7/13/10. Filed: 5/11/2010
5/5/2010 MOTION: Entry 40 :by Appellee - Unopposed Motion of Appellee U.S. International Trade Commission for an Extension of Time to File its Brief SERVICE : by Mail on 5/5/2010
ACTION: Entry 41 :Granted. The brief is due on or before 7/13/2010. Filed: 5/6/2010
4/29/2010 MOTION: Entry 38 :by Intervenor - Unopposed Motion for a thirty-seven day extension of time to file their principal brief. SERVICE : by Hand on 4/29/2010
ACTION: Entry 39 :Granted. Brief is due June 30, 2010. Filed: 4/29/2010
4/27/2010 MOTION: Entry 36 :by Appellee - Unopposed motion for an extension of time to file brief. SERVICE : by Mail on 4/27/2010
ACTION: Entry 37 :Granted. Brief is due on June 30, 2010. Filed: 4/28/2010
3/5/2010 MOTION: Entry 29 :by Appellants - Unopposed Motion for a thirty-day enlargement of time to file its principal brief. SERVICE : by Mail on 3/5/2010
ACTION: Entry 30 :Granted. Brief is due April 12, 2010. Filed: 3/5/2010
12/17/2009 MOTION: Entry 16 :by Other - Unopposed Motion for leave to Intervene. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/17/2009
ACTION: Entry 18 :Motion granted. Revised official caption is reflected in the order. Filed: 1/4/2010
>> Entries for Case Number: 2010-1093 <<
Entry 88 : Received : 5/14/2013, Notice from the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States that a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on May 10, 2013 and placed on the docket as No. 12-1352, Nokia Inc., et al. v. International Trade Commission, et al.
Entry 87 : Received : 4/1/2013, Notice from the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States of an extension of time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to and including May 10, 2013
Entry 86 : Received : 3/28/2013, Letter from D. Dunner notifying court that InterDigital plans to oppose Nokia's motion to recall mandate
. SERVICE : by Mail on 3/28/2013
Entry 83 : Entered : 1/10/2013, Precedential Opinion for the court by: J. Bryson. Dissenting Opinion By: J. Newman (accompanying the order denying petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc)
. SERVICE : by Court on 1/10/2013
Entry 81 : Filed : 10/9/2012, James M. Lyons withdrawn from case; he is no longer serving as general counsel for the ITC.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 10/9/2012
Entry 80 : Filed : 10/4/2012, Certificate of Interest for amici curiae Hewlett Packard Co., et al.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 10/1/2012
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (10.4.12 COI HEWLETT-PACKARD CO., ET AL.).PDF
Entry 79 : Filed : 10/4/2012, Entry of Appearance for Jeffrey M. Telep as of counsel on behalf of amici curiae Hewlett-Packard Co., et al.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 10/1/2012
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (10.1.12 EOA TELEP).PDF
Entry 78 : Filed : 10/4/2012, Entry of Appearance for Adam M. Conrad as of counsel on behalf of amici curiae Hewlett-Packard Co., et al.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 10/1/2012
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (10.1.12 EOA CONRAD).PDF
Entry 77 : Filed : 10/4/2012, Entry of Appearance for Daryl L. Joseffer as principal attorney on behalf of amici curiae Hewlett-Packard Co., et al.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 10/1/2012
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (10.1.12 EOA JOSEFFER).PDF
Entry 76 : Filed : 10/4/2012, Brief of Amici Curiae Hewlett-Packard Co., Amazon.com, Inc., Chrysler Group LLC, Dell Inc., Ford Motor Company, and Red Hat, Inc. In Support of Petitioners
. SERVICE : by Mail on 10/1/2012
Entry 73 : Filed : 9/12/2012, Entry of appearance for Paul D. Clement as counsel on behalf of Intervenors Nokia Corporation, et al.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 9/12/2012
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (9.12.12 EOA CLEMENT).PDF
Entry 70 : Received : 6/22/2012, Appellant InterDigital's letter to Court requesting confirmation of the Status of the appeal. (sent to panel)
. SERVICE : by Hand on 6/22/2012
Entry 65 : Entered : 1/13/2011, Note to file: At oral argument the Panel told Counsel to make a determination whether new briefs should be filed, and so advise the court.
Entry 64 : Entered : 1/13/2011, Submitted after ORAL ARGUMENT by Donald R. Dunner and Patrick J. Flinn, Megan M. Valentine. Panel: Newman, Mayer and Bryson.
Entry 63 : Received : 12/3/2010, Response to oral argument order from the appellee, International Trade Commission stating that Megan M. Valentine will argue.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/3/2010
Entry 62 : Received : 12/2/2010, Response to oral argument order from the appellant, InterDigital Communications, LLC et al. stating that Donald R. Dunner will argue.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/2/2010
Entry 61 : Received : 11/30/2010, Response to oral argument order from the intervenor, Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. stating that Patrick J. Flinn will argue.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 11/30/2010
Entry 60 : Entered : 11/23/2010, NOTICE OF CALENDARING issued. Panel: 1101J on January 13, 2011.
Entry 58 : Received : 10/29/2010, Response to oral argument order from the appellant, InterDigital Communications, LLC et al. stating that Donald Dunner will argue.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 10/29/2010
Entry 54 : Entered : 10/22/2010, NOTICE OF CALENDARING issued. Panel: 1012K on December 9, 2010.
Entry 55 : Received : 10/20/2010, Letter of counsel for Intervenors Nokia Corporation, et al. advising of a scheduling conflict for oral argument for 11/29 to 12/9/10. (Clerk noted)
. SERVICE : by Hand on 10/20/2010
Entry 53 : Received : 10/12/2010, Letter of counsel for appellants Interdigital Communications, LLC requesting that if this appeal and 2009-5135, Zolteck Corporation v. US v. Lockheed Martin Corporation are scheduled for the December 2010 calendar that they be scheduled far apart.
. SERVICE : by Hand on 10/12/2010
Entry 52 : Received : 9/9/2010, Letter of counsel for appellee U.S. International Trade Commission requesting that oral argument not be set for the November calendar due to conflicts of schedule. (Senior Deputy Clerk noted)
. SERVICE : by Hand on 9/9/2010
Entry 51 : Filed : 9/7/2010, Joint Statement of Compliance with Fed Cir Rule 33(a).
. SERVICE : by Mail on 9/7/2010
Entry 42 : Received : 5/6/2010, Corrected Unopposed Motion of Appellee U.S. International Trade Commission for an Extension of Time to File its Brief.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 5/6/2010
Entry 35 : Filed : 4/21/2010, Entry of Appearance for Ross Ritter Barton as counsel on behalf of the intervenors, Nokia Corporation, et al.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 4/21/2010
. DOC : : Interdigital Comm 2010-1093 (4.22.10 EOA BARTON).PDF
Entry 34 : Filed : 4/6/2010, Entry of Appearance for Houtan Khalili-Esfahani as counsel on behalf of the appellants, InterDigital Communications, LLC, et al.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 4/6/2010
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (4.06.10 EOA KHALILI-ESFAHANI).PDF
Entry 32 : Filed : 3/5/2010, Entry of Appearance for Smith R. Brittingham IV as counsel on behalf of the appellants, InterDigital Communications, LLC, et al.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 3/5/2010
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (3.5.10 EOA BRITTINGHAM).PDF
Entry 31 : Filed : 3/5/2010, Entry of Appearance for Don O. Burley as counsel on behalf of the appellants, InterDigital Communications, LLC, et al.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 3/5/2010
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (3.5.10 EOA BURLEY).PDF
Entry 28 : Filed : 1/22/2010, Docketing Statement for the intervenor, Nokia Corporation, et al.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 1/22/2010
Entry 27 : Filed : 1/22/2010, Entry of Appearance for John D. Haynes as counsel on behalf of the intervenor, Nokia Corporation, et al.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 1/22/2010
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (1.22.10 EOA HAYNES).PDF
Entry 25 : Mailed : 1/15/2010, Notice to intervenor: The docketing statement for the intervenor, Nokia Corporation et al. is overdue. The docketing statement shall be filed no later than 01/25/2010.
. SERVICE : by Court on 1/15/2010
Entry 24 : Filed : 1/11/2010, Certified List from ITC.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 1/11/2010
Entry 23 : Filed : 1/7/2010, Entry of Appearance for Madison C. Jellins as counsel on behalf of intervenors, Nokia Inc. and Nokia Corporation.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 1/7/2010
. DOC : : Interdigital Comm 2010-1093 (1.8.10 EOA JELLINS).PDF
Entry 22 : Filed : 1/7/2010, Entry of Appearance for James M. Lyons as counsel on behalf of appellee, International Trade Commission.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 1/7/2010
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (1.7.10 EOA LYONS).PDF
Entry 26 : Filed : 1/4/2010, Certificate of Interest for the intervenors, Nokia Inc. and Noka Corporation.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/17/2009
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (1.04.10 COI NOKIA).PDF
Entry 21 : Filed : 1/4/2010, Entry of Appearance for Paul F. Brinkman as of counsel on behalf of Intervenors Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/22/2009
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (1.4.10 EOA BRINKMAN).PDF
Entry 20 : Filed : 1/4/2010, Entry of Appearance for Patrick J. Flinn as principal counsel on behalf of Intervenors Nokia Corporation and Nokia, Inc.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/22/2009
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (1.4.10 EOA FLINN).PDF
Entry 19 : Filed : 1/4/2010, Official caption revised pursuant to this court's order dated January 4, 2010.
. SERVICE : by Court on 1/4/2010
. DOC : : Interdigital Communications 2010-1093 (1.4.10 CAPTION).pdf
Entry 9 : Filed : 12/15/2009, Entry of Appearance for Mark C. Fleming as of counsel on behalf of the appellants, InterDigitial Communications, LLC, and InterDigital Technology Corporation.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/15/2009
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (12.15.09 EOA FLEMING).PDF
Entry 8 : Filed : 12/15/2009, Entry of Appearance for Lauren B. Fletcher as of counsel on behalf of the appellants, InterDigitial Communications, LLC, and InterDigital Technology Corporation.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/15/2009
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (12.15.09 EOA FLETCHER).PDF
Entry 7 : Filed : 12/15/2009, Entry of Appearance for Donald R. Dunner as principal counsel on behalf of the appellants, InterDigitial Communications, LLC, and InterDigital Technology Corporation.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/15/2009
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (12.15.09 EOA DUNNER).PDF
Entry 17 : Filed : 12/15/2009, Entry of Appearance for William G. McElwain as counsel on behalf of appellants, InterDigital Communications, LLC et al.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/15/2009
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (12.15.09 EOA MCELWAIN).PDF
Entry 15 : Filed : 12/15/2009, Docketing Statement for the appellants, InterDigitial Communications, LLC, and InterDigital Technology Corporation.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/15/2009
Entry 14 : Filed : 12/15/2009, Certificate of Interest the appellants, InterDigitial Communications, LLC, and InterDigital Technology Corporation.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/15/2009
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (12.15.09 COI INTERDIGITAL).PDF
Entry 13 : Filed : 12/15/2009, Entry of Appearance for Allen M. Sokal as of counsel on behalf of the appellants, InterDigitial Communications, LLC, and InterDigital Technology Corporation.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/15/2009
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (12.15.09 EOA SOKAL).PDF
Entry 12 : Filed : 12/15/2009, Entry of Appearance for Christopher P. Isaac as of counsel on behalf of the appellants, InterDigitial Communications, LLC, and InterDigital Technology Corporation.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/15/2009
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (12.15.09 EOA ISAAC).PDF
Entry 11 : Filed : 12/15/2009, Entry of Appearance for Kara Stoll as of counsel on behalf of the appellants, InterDigitial Communications, LLC, and InterDigital Technology Corporation.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/15/2009
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (12.15.09 EOA STOLL).PDF
Entry 10 : Filed : 12/15/2009, Entry of Appearance for Seth P. Waxman as of counsel on behalf of the appellants, InterDigitial Communications, LLC, and InterDigital Technology Corporation.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/15/2009
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (12.15.09 EOA WAXMAN).PDF
Entry 6 : Filed : 12/8/2009, Docketing Statement from the Appellee, International Trade Commission.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/8/2009
Entry 5 : Filed : 12/8/2009, Entry of Appearance for Andrea C. Casson, as counsel on behalf of the Appellee, International Trade Commission.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/8/2009
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (12.8.09 EOA CASSON).PDF
Entry 4 : Filed : 12/8/2009, Entry of Appearance for Megan M. Valentine, as principal counsel on behalf of the Appellee, International Trade Commission.
. SERVICE : by Mail on 12/8/2009
. DOC : : Interdigital 2010-1093 (12.8.09 EOA VALENTINE).PDF
Entry 3 : Entered : 12/1/2009, Note to file: Certified List ordered from ITC 12/1/09. Due 1/11/10.
Entry 2 : Filed : 12/1/2009, Official Caption.
. SERVICE : by Court on 12/1/2009
. DOC : : InterDigital 2010-1093 (12.1.09 CAPTION).pdf
public comments re: 337-868
Notice of Request for Statements on the Public Interest (Investigation #: 337-TA-868) (PDF file)
Jeppy,
These questions have been asked and answered a few times already on this board, so that's probably why no response.
You wrote:
Yes, six years at most for recovery of past damages. Engagement might help to counter any equitable defense (such as laches or estoppel), but I've never seen anyone ever get around the six years for past recovery.
Yay! Stereo !!
yup same here. Only the left speaker has audio. No Stereo for us!!
BM telegraphed this one on his CNBC interview. Nice to see the qtr div doubled.
RE: INTERDIGITAL’S OPPOSITION TO NOKIA CORPORATION, NOKIA INC., AND MICROSOFT MOBILE OY’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY REGARDING THEIR MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE PARTIES AND AMEND THE NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION [MOT. NO. 868-118]
VIEW/DOWNLOAD PDF FILE
updated link to PTAB decision: http://wirelessledger.com/228328886-Institution-Decisionvhcrpx.pdf
RE: Apple, RPX, Virnetx, and IPR petitions
The America Invents Act and its inter partes reviews have really generated some nasty behavior. Today's decision is a timely and important read for all patent investors. This is who IDCC is dealing with (Apple, RPX) directly and indirectly as it tries to license its patents and what kind of action is taking place to thwart licensing efforts.
Document: http://wirelessledger.com/228328886-Institution-Decisionvhcrpx.pdf
RPX petitions for inter partes review of VHC Patents DENIED.
What a dirty game being played here by New Bay, RPX, and other participants. Crazy details inside.
Link to document: http://t.co/quQbKJ2kby
Very interesting perspective, OD. It certainly is a complex manufacturing business and as it continues to evolve, the waters seem to get muddier and muddier.
I'd rather have honhai at a good variable rate
I was just explaining basic concepts and posting the reality of licensing terms. Don't read more into it than that.
Apple was the '290 and '357 patents. Lenovo is just the '290.
Peripheal devices related to the Apple lawsuit include Macs, iPhones, iPads, iPods, etc. whereas the Lenovo products (mice & keyboards) represent a much smaller royalty base. IMHO
IDCC uses the phrase royalty-bearing for both fixed-fee licenses and variable licenses.
The accused products are bluetooth keyboard and mouse connections. From my vantage point, it's not the biggest opportunity out there and they probably aren't looking for a home run out of it.
So maybe not that strange.
"June 1, 2014
EXECUTION COPY
PATENT LICENSE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT IS A PATENT LICENSE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”), effective retroactively as of January 1, 2013 (the “Effective Date”) upon full execution by all Parties to this Agreement, by and among Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea and having its principal office at (Maetan-dong),129 Samsung-ro, Yeongtong-gu Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, 443-742, Korea (“Samsung”), and InterDigital Technology Corporation, IPR Licensing, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., PCMS Holdings, Inc., DRNC Holdings, Inc., IDLR Holdings, Inc., IDPA Holdings, Inc. and VIDSCALE, Inc. each Delaware corporations having a mailing address of 200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300, Wilmington, Delaware 19809 (individually and together, “InterDigital Group”), InterDigital Holdings, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and having its principal office at 200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300, Wilmington, DE 19809 (“IHI”) and InterDigital Communications, Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and having its principal office at 781 Third Avenue, King of Prussia, PA 19406 (“ICI”) (IHI, ICI and InterDigital Group are referred to herein individually and collectively as “InterDigital”). Samsung and InterDigital are herein individually referenced as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”
WHEREAS, as of the date the Agreement was executed by all Parties, InterDigital, Samsung, and certain of their Related Parties, were parties to a number of legal proceedings concerning, among other things, the alleged infringement of certain of the Licensed Patents by Samsung’s sales of Licensed Products, as well as claims and defenses relating to InterDigital’s licensing and standards-related conduct, including but not limited to allegations of anticompetitive conduct, violations of obligations to Standard Setting Organizations (“SSOs”) including IPR Policies of SSOs, claims of breach of contract, waiver, estoppel, patent misuse and implied license, among others;
WHEREAS, InterDigital owns or has the right to license the Licensed Patents (as defined herein) and is willing to grant a worldwide, non-exclusive license under the Licensed Patents on and subject to the terms set forth below; and
WHEREAS, Samsung desires to obtain such a license.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the Parties hereby agree as follows..." (the rest of the agreement is pretty much redacted)
Click HERE for a PDF version of the document (2.22 MB, 49 pages)
MARA new presentation
PDF link: MARA Investor Presentation - June 2014
New SPEX Investor presentation released for June. Shows there are now approx 35 million shares outstanding on a fully diluted basis.
Watching the CNBC video I noticed it cut off before WM's comments on capital allocation. Good thing I TIVO'ed it so I could rewind enough times to transcribe the comments.
Jim, Here is the video:
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000280863