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.
Actually there are many reasons.
ZTE owns thousands of patents, but it doesn't matter because ZTE is not suing VRNG and VRNG is not a manufacturer. I don't think there is any connection between ACTG's lawsuit and VRNG. ZTE is sued by many patent owners on a recurring basis.
With the CAFC orals this week, and macro market environment, and the general beat down of IP stocks as a sector -- I would say there have been a few more likely reasons VRNG has sold off. (Not to mention VRNG historically rises on good news and then later sells off with no real news, time and time again.)
I think the VRNG lawsuit is really adding pressure on ZTE now, especially with the news from Brazil. Hopefully ZTE will submit in the near future and sign a decent license.
That's ACTG's lawsuit. Not VRNG's.
I can just imagine Cliff now. Going to Brazil this summer to check in on the legal stuff as he watches Neymar, the USMNT, and the rest of the World Cup action... not to mention the nonstop Car-neeee-val atmosphere.
What a strategic enforcement decision by VRNG to go after Brazil!
I'm watching Kuchar right now in the Players, so that makes me a stay at home golf watcher.
As for the alleged jury error, I specifically responded to you on this issue on March 21st:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=99219551
"Yes. The appeal deals with the court's ruling to disallow VRNG's motion for a new trial on damages.
I know it is 127 pages, but you really should read VRNG's reply brief to the CAFC. The part covering jury error/new trial begins on page 91 of the PDF document."
That above quote highlights the fact that VRNG is appealing the jury error by way of appealing Judge Jackson's decision to DENY a new one day trial on damages that sought to correct the jury's alleged mistake.
I know I told you that you should read the brief(s), but I assume you did not. For the benefit of everyone, here is a screenshot so there is no more prolonged confusion on the matter:
Not you. See the five posts preceding your msg #3165.
Patent litigation does't take an avg. of 5-7 years. Most cases don't go all the way til the end.
One example of a stock that is going all the way through the legal system is VirnetX (VHC) vs. Apple (AAPL). VHC filed against Apple in 2010. VHC received a favorable jury verdict of $368.2 million approx two years later. The stock nearly tripled in July 2011, which was only 7 months after the patent infringement was filed.
Many patent infringement lawsuits are settled in weeks or months. Very few cases "go the distance" where it takes two years from docket to trial, another 6 months for post-verdict rulings, another year for CAFC appeals, etc. And those that do usually will oscillate wildly in the interim giving investors and traders plenty of opportunity to realize gains.
So while I realize SPEX stock is broken, and the vultures are circling what looks to be a wounded beast, the company isn't dead. Things will turn around at some point. And keyboard jockeys with little to zero knowledge of the patent sector will have to do a lot better than ALL CAPS one-liners to influence anyone.
I'll be back to check in on this one later.
Of all the stocks I am tracking in one account (and there a lot of them), DSS is the only green one and it's been up over 3-4% all day.
Go figure.
05/01/2014
Document #27
ANSWER and affirmative defenses to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Google Inc. (Coll, Patrick) (Modified on 5/2/2014 to edit text) (DSY). (Entered: 05/01/2014)
DEFENDANT GOOGLE INC.’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO VISUAL REAL ESTATE, INC.’S COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT (PDF file, 16 pages)
Haha. If you want good tips you need to give good service!
The appeals process has been outlined for awhile. Today's oral hearing is just the second step. The three main steps to a CAFC appeal are:
1) submit all written briefs
2) oral hearings where judges can interact with attorneys
3) wait weeks or months (or years depending on case) for the decision called a "disposition" which will be made available HERE
With VRNG vs GOOG, there are two appeals. The second appeal (which is actually the 2nd and 3rd that have been consolidated) is now in step one where they are submitting briefs. Oral hearings for that appeal will be in the fall, most likely (probably September). And then weeks or months for that disposition to come out on the second appeal.
Just hope that neither appeal is granted an en banc review, because that will tack on a lot of time. As would getting appealed to the Supreme Court, but both of these are unlikely. And the SCOTUS petition being granted is extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely.
Oral recording is up:
http://1.usa.gov/1huYfAZ
Yes, it was smart. Just puzzling because of your prior posts.
I have been warning people for awhile now about the dangers of CAFC oral hearings and the resulting negative FUD that can dominate the trading.
This negative turn in VRNG stock was not surprising.
So let me get this straight. You were promoting VRNG's Orals as an exciting catalyst the days leading up to the hearing.
And then you sold before the event?
That's classic.
I tried to warn people today's CAFC oral hearing event was not a catalyst and that it was ripe for FUD slinging.
Seems to be playing out that way as trading has been wildly violent over the last several minutes.
just to clarify, the word "argued" does not mean past tense, as in the hearing is already over
It just means that the case is being argued orally as opposed to there be no oral arguments and only filed briefs are used for the disposition.
Two of them are relatively "newbies" as they were appointed by the current POTUS.
The other, Judge Mayer, has senior status. He was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit from 1997–2004. But not the most popular for patent owners. See: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/tag/judge-mayer/
You can hear everything in a day or two from the recording that will be available here: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/search/audio.html
We now know who the judges are: Evan J. Wallach, Haldane Robert Mayer, & Raymond T. Chen
And I also think there is some cautious optimism. By now we should all know that patent litigation is unpredictable and we all know that there is just as likely a chance that tomorrow's hearing will be perceived negatively as it will be perceived to be a positive.
We don't know who will make up the three person panel. We don't know which questions the panel will ask. We don't know if the judges will ask questions that (1) will serve to defend the way they are going to rule or (2) serve to play devil's advocate to the way they are actually leaning. We also don't know how well VRNG's lawyer will perform, nor do we know how GOOG's lawyer will perform. We don't know whether FUD will be spread or whether the majority of post-hearing chatter will be bullish.
We don't know what to expect. So why should there be endless discussion here about that which we have no idea?
I applaud the board for reserving comment until comment is warranted. And that will start sometime tomorrow.
Regards
Appears like you posted that you got in Monday April 29th, 2013. Still a nice gain from the $5 range to the $8 range (split adjusted) in a year's time. MARA and VRNG have both been very profitable and both still young. More to come.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=87513861
And BTW, the cost is getting higher. MARA well above $8 as I type this.
onewhoknows2much,
Based on the RPXC model, which serves to protect its customers any way it can against patent assertions, it makes sense. I agree with you there. That would be a lot of "guns off the street" if they were successful.
Personally, I think the RPXC strategy is somewhat similar to chopping off the Hydra's head, but that's another issue for discussion on another day.
When it comes to patent monetization, I have always believed the core value of these companies is rooted in the personnel. For example, with VRNG we have David Cohen - formally of Nokia where he defeated Apple and was an all-star. Does anyone really want to buy VRNG for half a billion or greater with no assurances that the key players (like Cohen) won't just walk away? It's one thing to buy the rights to music, but it's another entirely to possess the band to play the hits live in front of the world.
So with MARA/IPNav, I wonder just what type of premium valuation would be given by an entity like RPXC - who probably would be buying the assets to decommission them.
Not sure why we are discussing the hypothetical of a company like MARA with a $50-$60 mm early stage valuation (and only approx. $6 mm in cash) buying companies like VRNG with valuations greater than $400 million. It's beyond silly.
These kind of topics put off a lot of seasoned investors who come to these boards to discuss logical topics and progress everyone's understanding of the fundamentals. Let's leave the nonsense for the other boards and stick to reality.
As was already posted, this was big news today. As onewhoknows2much posted re: Dynamic, it's nice to see Apple's IPR request get shut down. It makes me chuckle because this happened to them already in other litigation. They don't seem to think the one-year requirement applies to them. Maybe now they will figure it out.
Also, in regards to the rumor "that some others were interested in these portfolios" -- I think that's a big deal. Those who were looking at the potential acquisition of these assets know there is great value. And since those assets are now with MARA, it's opened some eyes and turned some heads. The future looks good.
We've known about and been discussing this patent for almost a year now. Flyersdh scooped it in June when researching the MSFT assignment of patents to VRNG.
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
SPEX new lawsuit vs Juniper (JNPR)
Download the complaint here: SPHERIX INCORPORATED Plaintiff vs. JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. Defendant. (Case: 1:14-cv-00578)
Rockstar patents looking strong here. Below is a quick snippet from the complaint:
22. On information and belief, for Juniper’s fiscal year ending December 31, 2013, Juniper had revenues of over $2.24 billion for routers and $638 million for switches and an additional over $790 million for services. Similar revenues were reported for Juniper’s 2011 and 2012 fiscal years. Juniper’s routing and switching products and services represent a substantial majority of Junipers’ total revenue for each of those years.
23. On information and belief, Juniper manufactures many of its products at facilities in China, Malaysia, Mexico and Taiwan, and then imports those products into the United States for sale and/or distribution.
24. The scope of Juniper’s infringement of the Asserted Patents has been and continues to be substantial. The majority of Juniper’s revenue from at least January 1, 2011 until the present is and has been generated by products and services implementing technology that infringes the Asserted Patents. The most recently issued Asserted Patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,607,323, does not expire until August of 2023.
25. Juniper manufactured, sold, offered for sale and/or imported the infringing technology with knowledge of at least some of the Asserted Patents and the relevance of those patents to Juniper’s products and services, including Juniper’s infringement thereof.
Yes, there are so many unknown potential variables, provisions, etc. it's simply wiser to have tempered expectations and see what happens.
The reality is that most IP settlements that occur pre-trial usually involve a lot of concessions. And those concessions usually start with past usage.
Most, if any, up front payments are used to offset future royalties and not past usage. I would advise investors to expect little in terms of payment and to be pleasantly surprised if there is something of significance. That's just how these things usually play out.
VRNG announced the sale of its legacy business in January. The sale to Infomedia was expected to close before 3-31-2014, per reports. So the numbers should only be for a partial quarter of the legacy business.
Are those two replies to me written in secret code?
There's no guarantee money changed hands with either ADT or TYCO. VRNG could have structured a deal that included no upfront payments for past usage but was very favorable in terms of future royalties. We simply don't know anything, and that includes when any future payments will be received.
These are mutual agreements. There are no rules or "normal due dates" that are in play. The deals are confidential. So we should be open-minded about what to expect, and that includes an earnings report that doesn't provide much color in terms of the settlement details.
I'm hoping we get answers, and soon, by way of the company's accounting. But I'm not going to be surprised if we don't.
Could be anything. We don't know if there is a recurring royalty or not. While some are obsessed with recurring payments, the truth is it really doesn't matter if there is a fixed one-time payment or if there are several monthly or quarterly payments.
This team is smart enough to generate agreements of all shapes and sizes, whether variable or fixed, whether per-unit or per-subscriber or just a flat fee, or whether the payment is a lump sum at the beginning or even possibly the end of the agreement.
Why doesn't it matter? Because they will include provisions to account for just about anything. Fixed (flat fee) licenses should be nearly equivalent to variable (per-unit) licenses for patent owners. If the parties agree to a set of variables and assumptions at the time of the license - such as price, volume, etc. - and agree to provisions for future adjustments up or down (if the realized sales are out of whack with projected levels).
In fact, Fixed licenses are often preferred by both parties so that inflows/outflows are more manageable and less swings will be experienced. It's generally considered better for the stock as well, as any covering analysts (as well as all investors) will have an easier time projecting revenues and cash flow. But of course, there will always be a peanut gallery filled with people screaming for recurring payments. Such is life.
LOL
Well it's starting to look like that $22 million payment to NOK was the bargain of the century in the patent sector. Two settlements already and ZTE on the ropes with multiple injunctions in multiple countries.
I wonder who is the next target. I'm still betting on Huawei, but VRNG likes to zag when I think it's going to zig.
Perhaps you need a better reminder.
Ahhh gotcha. I certainly read the sarcasm now.
Truth is, if the goal is to not disappoint some of the shareholders, they can't PR an amount less than $1 Billion. LOL
I can almost promise you anything in the world it is less than $100 million.
They bought all 500+ Nokia patents for $22 million. You think just one of those 500 is worth $100 million being asserted against one company?
Really?!?!?!?
Clearly this settlement is good news for VRNG. A positive development and more proof VRNG is executing its plan.
As for confidentiality, that's not something dependent on ADT. That's the reality of patent licensing. Companies want the terms of these deals kept confidential for a number of reasons. Please do some DD on any other successful patent licensing company of the last few years. Just any one. And you will be enlightened as to how this sector actually operates.
While we won't see the terms, we may eventually learn the value of these deals by looking at financial reports and other filings in the future. It probably will not be as amazingly bullish as you believe because VRNG is not going to receive a flat percentage of these companies' revenues. They will, at best, be able to generate a decent income stream off the proportional revenues generated from the agreed upon value that covers the enhancements allowed for by VRNG's intellectual property.
That is assuming it is a variable agreement based on specific units. It could be a fixed license. We don't know the terms.
He is no specialist. LOL.
He is just an opinionated blogger who has made more incorrect predictions than winning predictions. Including his missed VRNG forecasts.
Of all the patent attorneys I have ever met or followed online, he is the only one to try to predict that which is unpredictable (litigation). And the results (terrible misses) speak for themselves.
It is a proposed order. It even says so in the title of the document:
STIPULATION AND {PROPOSED} ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE FOR COUPONS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Additionally, there is nothing signed by the judge. Judge's usually write their own orders and don't necessarily sign an order proposed by one of the parties.
That being said, it looks like this is a joint motion to postpone the hearing so it most likely will be granted. PACER is not real time, and seeing that this was filed on the 23rd and it's almost a week later, it probably has already been granted we just haven't seen it yet.
Now, this isn't some hearing with gigantic market moving implications. These are oral arguments in a District Court as it relates to the defendant's MSJ. In fact, I would say the only potential it has to move DSS is downward. Because it's a defense MSJ. It's not an event that can be considered a catalyst unless by some amazing stroke of bizarro-world luck the Rochester court says the MSJ is denied immediately during or after the orals. Which is very unlikely.
So I don't know why everyone even gives a crap about this. A total waste of time and effort if you ask me.
I don't think it will "force" Apple to settle.
But who knows what will happen.